Macharey, post class

In our classroom discussion of Macharey, I thought that his suggestion that there is always something more to say than what is initially presented helps to demonstrate the ambiguity of language. With this ambiguity, there is also the possibility of multiple interpretations from multiple perspectives in which the individual has the ability to make his own choices and create his own meaning from the language in what is presented as well as what is not presented. However, what really caught my attention in this discussion was the topic of the camera, in which the plotline is put in the hands of the director and the camera allows for only one interpretation for the audience to follow. With one shot comes one perspective, and no longer is the choice left to the writer, but instead, the choice is made by what shots are presented, from what angles, and in what context. In the end, the camera chooses for you. This idea immediately reminded me of Laura Mulvey’s “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” and her notion of the “male gaze”. The camera supports the “male gaze” and the concept of “voyeurism” in which film is catered to the male gender and is based on the assumption that the audience is a heterosexual male. The audience member has no choice but to take on this assumption, assuming a role of the voyeuristic male who is “doing” the looking. On the other hand, the female is put on display for the male spectator and is set up as a passive object to be admired and to be manipulated in a role of inferiority. Unlike an open literary text that allows for playful interpretation based on the individual reader, the advent of the camera and film initially supported only one main perspective that played on stereotypical gender hierarchies and gender relationships to be read from a mainstream position. Fortunately, with such things as feminist theory there allows for the possibility of an oppositional read that could open the doors for multiple interpretations.

ANiCO -- Reply to Jackson Ryland's "The Unconsciousness of the Work" (After-Class 1/28)

I figured I'd make my reply an actual post, if that can count for anything. Here is my reply back on the actual post.

I try to answer Jackson's questions on the originality of ideas, the originality of the Bible, and ideas in the mind vs ideas on paper (if I'm interpreting his question correctly).

________

I personally believe that originality stems from the interpretation of another idea--specifically, another text--and the combination of other ideas. Maybe there have been other people before you who made the same combination of ideas. Maybe not.

But the concept of something original supposedly having to be something to have no origin other than itself is ludicrous and an unhealthy ideal. Everything is intertextual, it's just how people work: we are social and learn and create more by communicating and merging our ideas. Even our brains work as a network of memories, where we combine old experiences with new ones and create ideas that way. We take other things and distort it--either through time or by combining it with other ideas--and create something "new".

The Bible is just another example of this. For a long time these stories were told orally, before the technological advancement of writing. Maybe there were many versions of the same stories that we see now in the Bible before they were written. I wouldn’t want to offend anyone or belittle a religion, so I’ll just say we can’t tell if these stories were divinely given to one person, the originator, or were just distortions of stories from other people’s lives. In either case, intertextual distortion had to have happened as they were orally handed down through the years before it was finally written. And even after The Bible was finally written, the time from then till now, plenty must have been distorted through translation and reprints.

Separate from that, the concept of “an idea isn’t an idea until it’s written down” is more difficult for me. I want to say that any idea that passes through a mind exists, no matter how fleeting, in time and space. It WAS there, even if for not very long, and even if no one (even the person who’s thought it belonged to) remembers it.

I think when you write down an idea, it belongs more to everyone else than yourself, because it’s out there for interpretation. I think of crazy things all the time, but whenever I write them down to remind myself later, I always get this sinking feeling about it when I look at it again. When put in writing, it changes. It’s not so much reminding me but making me reevaluate it. Was this a good idea? Does it sound too much like something else? Why did it sound so much better in my head?

If anybody remembers Lacan’s mirror theory in CMC100, this is what this thought process reminds me of. Your own idea becomes an objectified image more at the mercy of the “eyes” than your own original thought.

Ann Ganotis, 1/31

After our class on Tuesday I much better understand what the French men were talking about that in the reading we had to read for class.  At first I was very confused to how everything all depends on what is not seen, what is referred to as the “gap.” I felt like the point that the theorists were trying to get across was clearly stated many times but never actually fully explained. The examples that were given in class made me understand what was being said a lot more clearly. What I think they are trying to say is that what is not said or scene, it is more important than the information that is not provided.  People have files in their brains that they store based on acquired knowledge through out their lives. People often times subconsciously tap into these files and used this knowledge to make decisions as they go about their lives. A good example of this is signs and symbols. From, even before we learn to speaks, at a young age we are taught to associate things with what they mean.  Male and female signs often times don’t actually look anything like a man or a woman.  People still understand what they mean even though they are usually really simple symbols. It is what is not said that is in the meaning.  What background knowledge that we use we use in making an interpretation is what the gap really is according to my understanding. We use the gap in making sense of the language and being in our world. It truly is really used in everything in our language. Other examples that I can think of at the time are logos and symbols.  Really simple symbols that are used on handbags and other accessories is a good example. Just by a small symbol many people are able to figure out who makes the bag and around how much it cost.

"The Unconsciousness of the Work"

Macherey discusses the concept of the "Unconscious of the Work" on the middle of page 21 of his essay. My initial interpretation of this idea was quite literal and written in the margin as "Unconscious work: the silence in a work or writing is 'unconscious' because it is undiscovered and waiting to develop as a thought.' " Macherey explains in the same paragraph that the work itself is unconscious, rather than the mind of the author. Essentially, this is a "chicken and the egg" debate; in other words, Macherey is arguing the thought or concept in one's work is simply waiting to be discovered and formulated into words by the author. Does it mean that all thoughts or ideas are out there waiting for us to write them on paper? Does this mean that the author has no original thoughts?

This is a difficult and abstract question. With Macherey proposing that all ideas simply wait to be discovered, is anything original? Was the Bible an genuinely original work or has the concept of Christianity existed since the beginning of time and been discovered by humans when the Bible was first written? Like my last post, I do not know the answers to these questions, but I would love to hear what my classmates have to think about Macherey's proposition. Who knows? I may be completely off topic.

VAGABOND, post-class 1/28

After our class discussion this week about intertexuality, I started to think about the epic movie that made IMDB.com's top 250 movies-of-all-time list after the 3rd day it was released - Avatar.

It was absolutely amazing and I definitely would have camped out at the theatre just so I can relive in that 3D experience over and over again. However, looking back, I admit that the story line was far from original. It is true that it was great and entertaining but it really was nothing new. In fact, rumors had it that the script for Avatar was basically Pocahontas' original screenplay with the names alternated. There are also several movies where the plot line intertwine with Dancing with Wolves and Matrix...etc.

I was disappointed and being the rebel that I am, I definitely refused to just believe that "all ideas that can be think of have been thought through." Creativity is still present in Avatar, is it not? Did James Cameron not come up with the mind blowing visuals? The idea of representing it through a different media has certainly proved to be successful.

Alison, Post class 1/31

Intertexuality plays a huge role in all texts and media. Many articles, books, TV shows, movies and other media platforms reference other media to make connections and support an idea. For example all of movie spoofs would not exist without the original film. An example would be the Scary Movie set or the movie Airplane. Both these movies make satire of serious films. There is intertextuality all around, in every piece of media. It is near impossible to find media without intertextuality unless it is a fact or set of directions. So aren't all texts and media intertextual? Every theory and media has sprouted from media or text making it intertextual.

King Kriggle , Jencks for 2/2

Since we didnt have any new readings for tuesday I decided to go back and examine some of the older ones and see if i could draw any new conclusions or have any new experiences when reading it. I came back to Jencks and the different principles of postmodernism. Specifically i continued to come back to #4 again and again, this was the postmodern trope of anthropomorphism. It is in the sense of architecture and art, as defined here, as the usage of human characteristics on buildings and sculptures and other things of the like. For example making an arch very closely resemble the curve of a woman’s hip or something that “echoed the body’s muscles and transcribed its favorable states” (Jencks 285). This can be seen all around town if you know where to look, one such example would be the sculpture outside of the building on marks and orange, at least i think it is marks and orange, it might be highland and orange haha, but anyway I think it is the Wachovia building, but there is a sculpture out there that very closely represents the legs of a human being. In the sociological sense anthropomorphism is one of the greatest mistakes that a field researcher can make. it is the act of attributing human characteristics such as emotions, thoughts, or actions to an animal. When researchers do this it completely negates any facts they have found and their research is usually dismissed as anecdotal. A good example would be to say that “the dog was feeling useless because the relationship with its master was less jovial and this caused the dog to want to learn another way to communicate with the owner.” It is interesting how it is not well received in the scientific sense, but is very well respected in the architecture and art sense as far as the postmodern aspect was considered. overall i find the idea of anthropomorphism to be quite interesting because so much of the technology, ideas, fashion, and everything else comes from our interpretations of nature. After all it you can’t beat it, might as well join.

King Kriggle , post class 1/28

After the absolutely awesome class periods that were had this week I really got to thinking more and more about how these interesting frenchmen could and would sit down and look at the meaning of words and try to get to the bottom of it. It was interesting looking back at the aspect of the “Gap” as discussed in class and how people will naturally fill things in based on their interpretations and experiences, but at the end of the day it seems to me that the overall purpose of a language is a mutual understanding. I think this understanding is dealt with in great deal with the experiences that we have in life. I related this to the idea first brought about by Watson (from furman where i used to go to school) in psychology. He came up with the idea of behavioralism, which in my opinion is most likely the best idea out there. Before him a lot of people were concerned with the structure, function, and overall systems of the mind. So naturally their theories followed suit with structuralism, functionalism, and other forms that looked at the mind and body as a sort of machine. Well my boy Watson, like these fine frenchmen, had a different idea whereas his idea of behavioralism (behavioralist psychology) states that we all start out roughly the same, not too far off from the tabula rasa (blank slate) idea in philosophy, and that our experiences govern the way that we interpret, react, and carry out the basic functions that we will encounter in our lives. Looking at language it is interesting to me how this idea seems so profound because to be honest with you I can’t think of one word without attaching a picture, a smell, a memory, a sound, or something to it in my head. An experience could be attached to a word as simple as “tea”, i might think of something my grandmother makes or something of the such and with this craft a meaning behind it. That is after all how people communicate in different languages, to understand one word in a different language we must see a picture of it or compare it to something in our native tongue. well anyway it kinda sparked some interest with me.

1/31 Intertextuality

This week in class we discussed a lot about intertextuality and Macherey and Barthes' theories. Intertextuality is the shaping of texts' meanings by other texts or the relationship between texts. We also talked about the "gap" between us and texts. When we see text, whether it is written, electronic, or spoken we "fill in the gap" to get a sense of meaning from what the text is trying to say. You put words on the board and asked us what we thought when we saw these certain words. It was interesting to see that everyone had a different idea of what the words meant to them. This is because we all "fill in the gap" differently. We each have a unique way of thinking and therefore get different meanings from the same word. We each create our individual meanings from past memories or past texts we have experienced.

meg143, post class 1/31

Our class discussion last week on Macherey and Barthes theory was very interesting and got me thinking a lot about where the meaning of words and symbols really come from. And how the meaning of anything and everything comes from personal interpretation.

“So the real trap of language is its tacit positiveness which makes it into a truly active insistence: the error belongs as much with the one who reveals it as it does with the one who asks the first questions, the critic” (19 Macherey).

This quote represents the idea that all meaning comes from the critic and not necessarily the author. This same idea of active interpretation can be found in language as well. We were asked what the word “gap” represented and the Gap clothing store, a gap in communication, and the phrase “mind the gap” commonly said in London all came up. Words and symbols are inactive however we, the critics are the ones who make the words come to life, and our interpretation creates the meaning.

While I was studying abroad in London, I found myself constantly surprised at how different the same language could be in two separate countries. The same words and phrases were meant to represent a very different meaning. It was somewhat difficult to adjust to this at first but I began to have an open mind to British English and was able to adapt to it well. My favorite example was “Are you okay?” a phrase that is said out of concern and hope that you are not feeling down or hurt in American English. However, in British English this phrase is said constantly every day and is just another way of saying hello and casually asking how your day is going. The meaning to everything truly does lie in the gap of the language or in the hands of the critic.

Jean, Post Class 1/30

This week in class we talked about how there are always differences in language. We discussed how we fill in the gaps to make something seem like what it is in our mind. I liked how you put up the words “A Short Story” and asked us what we thought. Everyone came up with different ideas of what came to there mind when they saw those words. Then you added more words to that set. When “Baby Shoes” and “Never Worn” were added we tried to connect them in our mind. We tried to fill in the gap of the message that was trying to get across when in reality they did not have to be related at all. We filled in the Gaps of the hidden meaning due to our experiences we have had and exposure to the media to shape our way of thinking. I never thought of how we really due fill in many things in everyday life with language. When we read headlines and campaigns we interpret them in different ways. We “fill in the gap” in our mind on what they are trying to sell us. It makes you think of what makes us think outside of what is written on everything we see. We tend to take things to the next level when we see them not just reading what they say on paper but over analyzing things to tell us more. This is especially done in novels interpretations causing language to mean different things to everyone. Everyone was brought up differently and has seen and been different things. This reflects how we think and interoperate different messages we see everyday. It makes you think why we fill in the gaps of things the way we do.

clem, Macherey and intertextuality

In class, on Tuesday, we unpacked Macherey's text which was to my mind quite a complex read. But what I found the most interesting about the text was when he refers to intertextuality, which is the shaping of a text's meaning by the influence the writer has had from other texts while writing but also the influence the reader has had from other texts while reading, analyzing and interpreting it. Macherey says that everything that has ever been written comes from something else. When you stop and think about this for a second it is true! I tried to think of certain things such as the Bible that could potentially stand on its own but it does not as it comes previously from an oral tradition therefore it IS intertextual. Also thought a book such as Finigan's wake by the author James Joyce might seem like something that can stand on its own, but in reality it does not. It has references to other novels, places, people. Everything is intertextual because we cannot write something, make a movie, a piece of art anything really with out putting into account everything we know and have learned in our lives. We cannot forget what we know and it obviously has an influence on what me do. A French Physicist André Lavoisier once said "nothing disappears, nothing is created, everything is transformed" I really like this quote because I think it describes intertextuality well. We cannot lose what we know, or create something completely new with all we know but we can take something that exists and transform it, make some changes inspire ourselves from it in order to make it new. Intertextuality tells us that nothing is original and nothing is unique. It all comes from something else pre-existing that is hidden in our sub-conscience.

Joe, pre-class, Jencks

I found the eleven canons easy to understand individually, but I do not understand how they all tie together as values of postmodern art and architecture. Also, given the quality of the photos, I found it difficult to understand the application of these canons. But what stuck out to me the most, was the second paragraph of this piece. “The only escape from rule-governed art is to suppress from consciousness the canons behind one’s creativity (281).” Obviously as an artist (let’s assume at least a moderately successful one), one is at the mercy of their audience when it comes to the interpretation of their work. Even when you detail your intentions behind the work, someone will always have a different interpretation. And they own that, you cannot take that away from them. Nonetheless, as an artist, how can you let audience interpretations tell you what you should or should not create? How can there be “preconditions for creativity” (281)? Does that not stifle the creativity of a work of art? If I were going to sit down and compose a photograph, I wouldn’t be worried about how someone else may interpret my work (other than a client of course) or be conscious of these rules and conventions. So why do these canons matter? What does anyone gain from having these rules and following them?

I found the article by Jencks very interesting and a new way to look at Postmodernism. While I was abroad last semester I took an Art and Architecture class and studied a lot of Roman and Greek architecture. The different styles and techniques are all so unique and beautiful and are a good representation of what life was like during those eras. The 11 different cannons of postmodern architecture had a lot of quotes that caught my attention. “Instead of a perfectly finished totality ‘where no part can be added or subtracted except for the worse’ we find the ‘difficult whole’ or the ‘fragmented unity” (Jencks 281). This movement involved the mixing of different ideas and styles and creating something new and more beautiful. This is a very postmodern idea and is much like bricolage, mashing up different genres or themes to create something completely different and unique. Another example of this was represented in the section on radical eclecticism describing James Stirling’s addition to the Tate Gallery. Stirling used so many different mediums to create his masterpiece, from stone, to brick, to glass. The “disharmonious harmony” makes the building so much more special than if it were just to follow one specific style. Radical eclectism is defined as “the mixing of different languages to engage different taste cultures and define different functions according to their appropriate mood” (Jencks 283). The mixing of different ideas and cultures is so much more appealing to others and has much more meaning and power behind it. While abroad I was able to spend a lot of time in the Tate Gallery and it really is an amazing place, it was my favorite museum in London.

Ann Ganotis, Jencks

            A point that Jencks made that interested me was a quote on page 289. It read, “Double-coding can, of course, be used in an opposite way to emphasize the disjunctions, as for instance Stirling and Salle employ it; but however the method is articulated it acknowledges the simultaneous validity of opposite approaches and different tastes.” I think this quote means a couple of different things. First I think it means that by giving art or architecture two meanings it allows the viewer to make his or her own interpretation of what the meaning is behind the piece. Since the piece has two different meanings it will probably be easier for viewers to at least be able to identify with one of the views.  When pieces have double meanings it is more likely that they will appeal to a broader audience. People that have very different tastes could still both like something that has a double meaning because one party may identify with one of the meanings and the other party may identify with the other meaning. This allows things with double meaning to become more popular than things that have one very concrete way of viewing them. In the passage before this quote it is discussed how double-coding can allow viewers to read the past in the present as well as the present in the past.  When it is used in an opposite way as stated in this quote, double-coding uses irony, ambiguity and contradiction in order to validate the differences and make double-coding work. By using opposites double coding can show the differences between two things and how they compare and contrast with each other. By showing two opposites side by side, the polarization of two different things comes out more blatantly than if each was shown on it’s own.  This is how double coding works to emphasize disjunctions. 

Alison, Macherey

“Theory begins from that incompleteness which is so radical that is cannot be located.” (page 16) Macherey is trying to make sense by theorizing about theory. He completely gets how people feel lost without answers. Nowadays people rely more on facts and real answers than religion or a higher power. They want to have concise solution to their problems to which technology and science are the answer. In todays world religion is loosing followers and technology is gaining. The rate that technology is increasing has had a vast affect. The ideas that people have can be shown to millions in a matter of hours or days. The internet is a platform in which the everyday person can broadcast their theory, however radical, and receive feed back and support.

The idea of the gap is a part of what Macherey focuses on in his article. People will take what they see and fill in the missing details. “There remains a possibility of saying something else” (page 5) This quotation perfect describes how no one will see the same thing in a piece of media. Many artists want the viewer to make opinions and film makers now purposely leave out details. This is because we think in a post modern way, always jumping to conclusions and trying to fill in the gap. An example is the movie series Saw. The audience will try to draw conclusions and figure out what is to come even before it happens. They believe that what they know will come true, but the movie has so many little twists and turns the theories are thrown off. The way media is viewed is all through filling gaps. The post modernity of having the need to fill the gap is the way we live our lives now.

Devon McGowan, Jenks

One quote that particularly stuck out to me that I believe epitomizes much of our previous classroom discussion, reads as follows:

“The great advantage and delight of multivalence is the continual reinterpretation it prompts, a result of the multiple links between the work and its settings. This unlimited semiosis (the continual discovery of new meaning in works that are rich in external and internal associations) is characteristic of both postmodernism and inclusive art in general.” (290)
In the ever changing postmodern world we are experiencing today, it has shown to be true that no longer, like in previous times, is there an ultimate, absolute central meaning or universal truth, but rather meanings are created based off a system of connections and making references that are fluid and, likewise, have the ability to change. There is not a single approach or method of interpretation that is believed by all, but there is a plurality of methods and interpretations that can be employed and stand as true, simultaneously. Absolutism no longer exists in the interpretation of such things as art and architecture in which both the author and audience have the ability to assign multiple meanings to the same piece, depending on their own individual experience and the connections they each have personally made. The author or artist is force to make choices and lends faith to his/her audience, knowing that the initial choices he/she had made are no longer within and are out in the open to be reevaluated and reassigned. Context also plays a key role in how the piece can be interpreted and reinterpreted, and it appears as if this room for multiplicity in interpretation forces the audience to unify the text as a whole on his/her own. We all play active, participatory roles in this process of interpreting and lending meaning, and it is through this process that connections are generated, borrowed, and reproduced. And although this process may provide for some instability for it is not certain nor predictable by any means, it does support the notion of being able to experiment and create something that is all together new.

Andrew Wells, Charles Jencks

In comparison to the first few readings given in class, I found this one to be the easiest and most interesting. There were several quote that caught my attention. The first one is: "The only escape from rule governed art is to suppress from consciousness the canons behind one's creativity" (Cj, 281). What got me thinking was the way the author, Jencks, was able to bring a nice vivd image through his word choice. I envision a military personnel hiding behind a wall while it was being attack from the other side by heavy artillery. What I feel that Jencks is saying, is if you want to be a independent thinker and you want to free yourself from any form of hierarchy, you must defend your self by not paying attention and standing by what you believe in. Even if the wall falls apart, start over again but stronger.

Another quote that stood out clearly to me is: "The ambivalence accurately reflects this double state of transition, where activity moves away from a well-known point, acknowledges the move and yet keeps a view, or trace, or love of that past location" (Cj, 293). After reading this quote i did not see much into it the first time but after reading the packet again it stood out to me. The quote is referring to the architecture building of a place's ideal center but not knowing how to begin. I guess what i get from the quote is that to have a center for a plan, the architect must think of how to relate his art of a building in to something of his liking yet with the over-structure of something acceptable by the public.

VAGABOND, Jencks

In the reading, Jencks discussed oxymoron and juxtapositions: unwholesome whole, disharmonious harmony...etc

I remember in John Berger's "Ways of Seeing," he talked about how some advertising companies incorporate renaissance/romantic art and add the postmodern ingredients to it, causing confusion and unexplainable "desire" in consumers. This seems to be the notion of juxtaposing world views and other tastes that make it more realistic.

What is also notable is, those advertisements are basically the paintings that mix classical and modern styles that is open to discussion and and interpretation. (Although I think most advertisers wishes viewers to accept the hegemonic reading and buy whatever product they are trying to sell...)

In the reading, Jencks coins the term "anthropomorphism" to describe a theme in postmodern architecture. This is an interesting name because I know the root word is anthro - which means man/men - and pomo just sounds like "post modern" shortened. Jencks explains the meaning of the phenomena of this word as buildings which are designed to suggest certain the human body's form. This reminds me of a rather famous restaurant building:

Jencks

At the end of the Jencks article the idea of post Marxist views are brought in as a related theme of post modernism. The theme of return can be related to what we have been discussing of Marx in my Sociology Theory class. We looked at how Marx Materialism perspective looks at how in history we have always in some way relied on the same ideas. How in tribal times we relied on fishing and food. In feudalism we had power in landownership. In capitalism we expanded to power of factory owners vs. labor workers. This shows how we have changed and expanded over time but have always returned to the original idea of needing material items to survive. In the article when discussing Marx, Jencks uses the term “preexisiting patterns as the transcendence of them. We see this through history and society how ideas stay the same but change and expand for the times. This can relate back to language and how language has changed over time to fit society, but there has always been language and writing. This continues to relate and support the quote“ A post industrial society for instance still depends fundamentally on industry matter how much its power structure and economy have moved on to the next level of organization”. We see this supported in Marx theory and through that we can relate it to post modernism and how we continue to relate to the past in art and language, but just make small changes to fit the newer times and adjust to the culture.

ANiCO - Macherey (B4 Class)

I understood the reading more in the beginning towards the end. I couldn’t tell you anything about the “two questions.”

The only part I feel I can make a comment on is his definition(s) of criticism. I understand the concept and how he relates it to support his own argument—criticism to be there to seek out what is implied by media, and what is the relationship between the implicit and explicit—but I don’t know if his description of criticism is the end-all-be-all, an ideal, or a small aspect of itself?

He describes the point of criticism “is to speak the truth, a truth not unrelated to the book, but not as the content of its expression” and “to give it different status, or even a different appearance” (15) and how critical discourse “is in some way the property of the book, constantly alluded to, though never announced openly.” (16)

These I do not understand. How is criticism truth if it’s explicating (or implying) what was said and omitted in the text? If you can take what is not said down many different roads, how can any of it be truthful if it’s all different views on the same thing? Are all criticism truthful? Am I being truthful right now when I question Macherey’s definition of criticism? Are the people who say Obama wants to make death panels being truthful (because that’s still a form of criticism!)

Whether critiquing a movie, a book, a politician, or an idea, I feel that criticism is just another form of an opinion. A different point of view, but not something you should necessarily trust as truth.

The second quote on the property of criticism being that to what is being criticized irks me. One must always allude to something else to be able criticize it, but must an object be the owner of critical analysis over who is actually making the criticism? Is my thinking not my own, but belongs to this particular piece of text because I’m reacting to it? I don’t think so. Am I misinterpreting it? Am I still right to criticize even if I’m misinterpreting it because it’s still a form of interpretation?

Andrew Wells, Macherey

In beginning the reading I was in utter confusion. I had to reread it the following day to understand what I have read. In Pierre Macherey's chapter: From a Theory of Literary Production, he begins by explaining the idea of criticism and it being divided in to the two forms: implicit and explicit. "Explicit is to implicit as explanation is to implication" (C, 15). I hate to piggy back on what Pagie said before but the explicit is described as a message that is deliberately sent through the explanation of a critique. Implicit is the exact opposite from explicit because its the way a message is sent through a critique with no intention to do so. In agreeing with Paige, the first thing that came to mind was Stuart Hall's structure of encoding and decoding of media.

Further down the chapter we are explained the idea and use of spoken and unspoken word. "...silence becomes the centre and principle of expression, its vanishing point" (C, 17). After reading that it got me thinking about how we use everyday communication. Even though we use words to describe expressions, I feel that the use of silence is sometimes used stronger. We can understand if the speaker is happy, sad, confused or even shocked. With both the expression of spoken/unspoken word and implicit/explicit we as a whole can understand how to interpret criticism the way it is presented.

VAGABOND, Macherey

I remember back in school, those times when I am doing something I am not supposed to be doing in class - texting, facebooking, chatting with the other person, flipping through magazine...I have always been jerked back to the humdrum class lecture by silence. It's interesting but I always tense up and cautiously note what is happening to my surroundings as soon as the teacher stops talking.

"Silence is golden."

Well, that's nothing new. Coming from a family where the loudest wins...I certainly know the power of silence. I know that a mother who refuses to speak a word is worse than one that is raising her voice.

However, regardless of speech. The International Baccalaureate and CMC certainly does an excellent job on nurturing us to become wonderful critics. Aside from speeches from communication courses, I also know about the silence in writing.

What is not being said here? What is left out in this argument?

Macherey sums it up in the end, "It is this rupture which must be studied" (23). Indeed, from everyday magazine articles that persuade you to invest in another piece of pop culture to the everyday lectures on "going green," I think it is important to question what is being said through what is not being said.

More importantly, I was struck in awe by Descartes' quote: "I ought to take cognisance of what they practised rather than of what they said" (15). I definitely agree with the point being made here. After all, is it not our nonverbals that is more convincing than what is actually being said? Our actions speak louder than words, and if we don't practice what we preach, who is to believe our argument?

Paige Ehart, Macherey

The first couple paragraphs of the Macherey article are focused on the concept of criticism by ways of implicit and explicit forms. While much of the article made sense there was a sentence that just baffled me. "It might be said that the aim of criticism is to speak the truth, a truth not unrelated to the book, but not as the content of its expression" (C, 15). Whenever I see a criticism or a review of a book, movie, etc. I read it with the hopes that the critique will help me decide whether or not I want to watch the movie or read the book. I rely on these criticisms because in a sense, they represent the truth that I want to know. In CMC 100 we talked about the concept of implicit and explicit forms and in terms of content. The implicit form of critique is the way something can be criticized without directly reflecting the content of the thing being critiqued. The explicit can be viewed as a way of sending a message directly through the content of the thing being critiqued. I feel that this can be related to Stuart Hall’s structure of encoding and decoding media. Encoding is to convert a message into code, which I think is how many of the critiques are viewed. Decoding is the translation of data or a message from a code back to the original languages or forms. This relates back to the sentence from the Macherey reading that I did not understand at first glance because encoding and decoding are ways of getting around the message but by also using the truth to describe it. One must look into criticisms of works as a representation of the truth whether it is or isn’t in the context of the message that was initially laid out.

King Kriggle on Macherey

After reading Macherey there are a lot of questions and applications that come up. To me the most interesting part of his entire piece comes in the form of his ideas about criticism. To begin the work must be incomplete and there must be something else to be said after another fashion (pg 15). This is very interesting to me because in my experience it didn’t always seem to be the case, but when looked upon further it seems that a perfect work, or one that had no margins or void would be nothing to talk about because there was nothing about said work to discuss. Take for example a “perfect movie”, now if the movie was so wonderful that there was nothing wrong with it, all you could discuss would be the form, there would be no reason to hypothesize about what was being said or trying to be said in something because it was complete and everything was explained and said that needed to be. Thankfully we do not live in a world that is that blatant because if we did it would surely be a boring one and there would be no room for interpretation, and interpretation to me is the beauty behind works, as this was the center for Habermas and the public sphere. Room for discourse, debate, and criticism is what invokes new ideas, new thoughts, and keeps the wheels of society and knowledge turning. Looking now at another point made by Macherey would be “the aim of criticism is to speak the truth, a truth not unrelated to the book, but not as the content to the book” (pg 15). Now as mentioned earlier I do believe this to be a noble cause and a good idea, but in relation to the real world one could very easily get criticism and interpretation mixed up really easily and some serious problems would come along with assumptions like that or interpretations. One only need look at the Bible and what different interpretations of that have caused. Not only a few wars, but also the deaths of a good deal of people and several schisms within the religion itself. I don’t know about anyone else, but i would be hard pressed to name even 10 denominations and branches within the Christian belief. I once had someone tell me they were a “reformed protestant with calvinistic beliefs”...what the hell is this? Seriously??? When too much criticism or interpretation gets involved you end up with something so convoluted and confusing that the person saying it probably doesn’t even have a full grasp of what they are trying to say....well it definitely makes for a good debate haha.........

Language plays a very important role in todays society. Each word's meaning can provoke thoughts or feelings. De Saussure delves into the semiotics of language and sound because "there are no pre-existing ideas, and nothing is distinct before the appearance of language." (pg 5) Word and symbols coupled with sounds make advertising effective. Jingles and symbols are recognized at the drop of a hat. here is an example of symbol recognition in advertising (http://www.sporcle.com/games/corplogos2.php) It has become a game to recognize certain brands and logos because they have been ingrained in our mind through the thousands of advertisements we see daily. This recognition is the signifier according to de Saussure.

This week I tried to define modernity for myself. From what I gather it is a changed way of thinking about the world. It is influenced by science and technology and drifting further away from religion. The beliefs now are more on facts rather than left up to a higher god-like power. Science challenged religion making it hard to have faith. Postmodernism is more of a questioning of "what is real?" This video also helped me to understand more about what post modernism is (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oL8MhYq9owo&feature=related)

We also talked this week about the aesthetic of speed. In today's world everything must be fast. We have fast food, instant messaging, text messaging, faster cars, everything evolves around instant gratification. We want things and we want them at that instant. For example if you have a question and need an answer then you can go on your phone (most have internet now) and google it to get the answer. If you are hungry then screw making food just go to a drive through and in 5 minutes you have a hot meal for about $3. Our world is obsessed with fast everything. I think this is because we think we can do so much more if we make simple tasks quicker. Now people need to have things the moment they need them or the world will end. If you asked students what would happen if they didn't have a cell phone most would tell you it would be impossible. It has become a necessity to always be able to be contacted.

Modernity

We had been discussing modernity this week in class and, while trying to grapple with exactly what modernity and postmodernity mean, I found myself returning back to the list of "schematic differences between modernism and postmodernism" as a reference point. Honestly, these two terms are fairly broad and I am sure this list of characteristics does not even sum up the whole description. One distinction on this list I would like to highlight is the word "design" being associated with modernism, while "chance" is associated with the postmodernism. Could we ballpark a time in our history when we collectively started taking more chances and acting with greater risk in our lives? I feel the word "chance" is not the best way to describe our planning process in a postmodern world. To use a contemporary example, President Obama's widely popularized campaign slogan in 2008 was "Change." Citizens voted for Barack Obama, some of them not even knowing what his political plans were. As a reference, I am posting this video on youtube (pardon the language, its a clip from the Howard Stern Show): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqAiarOhC2U . This situation only focuses on a few African-American citizens in Harlem, but if we had to generalize planning in the postmodern era, "chance" would not accurately describe our decision making. Instead, I would say we have a more apathetic approach towards decision making in our postmodern world. Truth be told, I am not sure and I would love to hear what other people have to say about this.

As a little bonus here, I am posting a stand-up bit performed by George Carlin a few years ago titled "The Modern Man." If you can keep up with his satirical fast-talk, you will hear some adjectives that describe the contradictions of our postmodern society. Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkCR-w3AYOE&feature=related

One of the things that interested me this week in class, specifically on Thursday was when we discussed how we associate different products with signs. One example of this is how we associate the golden arches with McDonalds. It is in our sub-conscious that we associate different signs with products because they are imbedded in our minds through the media. I’ve always found it interesting how we attach ourselves to signs, and hold onto our relationship as tightly as possible. For example we no longer say tissues, we say Kleenex, even though that is a brand of tissue. The way we attach ourselves to certain products seems a bit ridiculous, but most of the time we are not even aware of what we are doing. We have associated ourselves so much with one brand, that we give the product the brand name. It was also interesting to discuss how different signs can mean different things to people. We discussed the Exxon sign, and how even though we all associate that sign with gas, people also see gas station (Exxon) as directions, food, or beer. Even though different people have different ideas on what Exxon means to them, the primary idea is that it’s a gas station. I thought the quote “Without language, thought is vague, unchartered rebla” was an interesting idea to think about, because although there is a good point being made in saying without a way of expressing yourself, thought is irrelevant anyway. However, without thought, language would not exist. I also took this quote as saying that language is more important than thought because it is our primary way of communicating with each other. I disagree with this idea, I believe that thought in itself is in no way vague, and through thought we can communicate by means other than language. Those were my highlights from class on Thursday.

Joe, Post-Class, 1/24

So I am going through some old notes and new ones trying to make sense of our discussion this week, so I may end up answering my own questions here. Coming out of CMC 100 I thought I had a pretty clear idea of what modernism and postmodernism are and how they contrast with each other. However, after this past week, I am beginning to question how much I understand about the two. Hassan said that postmodernism (and I would say modernism as well) “suffers from semantic instability. “ Meaning that the “language and ideals are unstable.” In 100 we were given what seemed to me a pretty clear-cut definition of these two ideas. Modernism, we learned, asks what is essential and believes there are universal truths; there is still a real, or a set of values. Postmodernism, on the other hand, is the idea that everything is relative. Everything is constructed and there are no absolute reals. In discussing the public sphere we noted that it is modern; democracy is also modern. Propaganda, however, is postmodern. These binary oppositions make more sense to me, but perhaps I am missing something. I understand a few of the binaries we were given in class: Reading vs. Misreading, Form vs. Antiform, Purpose vs. Play. However, then there is the quote from Kant that throws me off once again: modernity is “humankind’s emergence from its own minority.” Does this refer to the pursuit of knowledge and purpose? If so, and if postmodernism hails technology and the aesthetic of speed, then modernism would by human nature lead directly to postmodernism; which it did. So where do we draw the line? I understand there will be shades of grey. I understand the idea of aura vs. era. Since these are ideologies and ways of thinking, there is obviously no way to tell concretely when one started and one ended. Regardless, why is there not at least a more clear definition, or set of ideals for these systems? These concepts just seem very broad to me, to the point that they don’t really mean anything at all.

VAGABOND, post class 1/21

As mind-boggling as semiotics are, it is far more applicable than I had ever imagined it to be.

Looking back at Winter 2009, Tiger Woods' sex scandal has certainly caused a riot in the world. The golfer is said to be having an affair and then details on his other mistresses became publicized. Companies such as Gatorade, Gillette, and Accenture are said to terminate his contract in December, ending his sponsorship deals.

In class today, we distinguished logos from bp petroleum and exxon mobil in a powerpoint slideshow. It was interesting to see how we can spew out the company's name in a heartbeat. We also talked about the first thing that comes to our mind when we see these logos. This demonstrates the importance of semiotics and how it has manipulated our thinking. For example, gas stations also represent places that we can buy beer, make phone calls, use restrooms etc.

This ties in to why companies such as Accenture ended the contract with Tiger Woods: consumers associate Woods' image with their company.

Unfortunately, Woods' image as a hardworking athlete is not what matters right now, but human frailties are tied in because Accenture's primary ad campaign lies in Tiger Woods' image. This can result in loss of future clienteles because they will associate Woods' personal life with the company's brand.

clem 1/22

In De Saussure's text on semiotics, he discusses the fact that language= thought+sound. By working hand in hand the combination of our thoughts/ ideas and of sound creates and makes possible language. It also means that before we had language, before signs defined things, we were not able to "think"really! I do not know about you but I find that puzzling! It is very difficult for me to imagine Men not able to think but as De Saussure puts it, "without language, thought is a vague uncharted nebula". What is also interesting is that as language puts names on things, objects, its also does on feelings. And if a word for a feeling does not exist, does that mean we are not able to have that emotion? As words vary from one language to an other, some words also do not exist in certain language. For example, Portuguese language is the only one to possess the word "saudade" which approximately means a feeling of nostalgic longing for something or someone that one was fond of and which is lost. But no other language possesses that specific word to describe that feeling and as well as we try to translate it it is still an approximation. Therefore because we do not have that word for that feeling we will never be able to exactly understand that particular feeling.

Jean 1/21

Today in class we discussed semiotics the study of language. I found it interesting in this discussion when we were shown symbols in the PowerPoint presentation such as the Exxon sign. Right away most of us thought gas because that was what we were taught in society that Exxon represents a gas station. We then went on to say that this symbol could also represent beer, directions, car trouble etc. It is interesting in this example to think how everything is related in some way in society to language. This idea of how we interpret different signs and symbols due to the way society has taught us to. When we show someone a sign we assume they are thinking the same thing as us when in reality that symbol may mean something different to them then you. In our society we learned that particular Exxon sign represents gas but when you showed us the original sign Exxon made before our generation we were all confused. This idea shows how language is always changing as time goes on. This shows how things progress and change over time. It also is interesting how one sign can mean many different things depending on the person who is looking at it showing how language is different to everyone. It shows us how our interpretation of language has a lot to do with how and when we grew up. After this class discussion on sign and signifiers it really made me look at how different things are represented and how content in language has a different impact person to person.

King Kriggle 1/21/10

Of the myriad of different topics discovered and spoken about this week in class the one that came to mind with relation to outside topics for me was Modernism and the ideas of Modernity. I was especially interested at the way it came to be so popular and the impact it had. Modernity, as explained in class, is the preoccupation with technology and the need and desire to share this with other cultures in an effort to unify the entire world and make one giant interconnected network. The people under this belief looked at their pasts, often coming out of traditional societies and economies, as worthless and nothing more than nostalgia. I found a very interesting correlation between this and a show that I currently watch called Generation Kill. This show follows a platoon of highly trained young marines as they invaded Iraq in 2003. In one scene a marine is talking about how he and his friends gave a bunch of young Iraqi boys a bunch of pornography magazines to “show them what they were fighting for” and shortly later their father came out in protest to this. In Muslim culture such things are forbidden and seen as defiling their culture, disrespectful to women, and against their religion. Whereas here in America an adult magazine is seen by some as entertainment. Well anyway it just so happens that the father came out with an RPG under his arm (which once again is not uncommon in Arab countries where a man without a gun is not seen as a man, it is nothing violent, it is just a culture difference and should be respected). Well the Americans, seeing this and thinking aggression from this more traditional society, lit him up with a Mark-19 (a 40mm automatic grenade launcher) and obviously killed the man. Later in the show one marine said to another “We will put a McDonald’s on every street corner in this country because it is good for them, even if we have to blow up the street corner and the one next to it first”. I found this to be in correlation with the Golden Arches Theory of Neutrality in economics (it has since been proven incorrect, but is still a good theory). This theory suggests that no country with a McDonalds ever attacked another country with a McDonalds in it. It was simply bad for business. Taking these two ideas to modernism you can see that it is a fight to modernize, and sometimes cultures and other peoples don’t want to be modernized but it is done “for their own good”. This is a sad fact, but a part of modernism. It seeks to root out and assimilate these otherwise traditional economies and societies and replace them with democracies that are technologically advanced and a lot of the time it simply doesn’t work. So much violence is used to accomplish these goals that the actual goal is often out of sight by the time the dust settles from the actual fight. Well, I thought it was an interesting correlation anyway and how modernism and modernity have tried to proliferate every aspect of the world thus far by any means possible.

Welcome!

Welcome to the blog of the students of CMC 300 and D.C. at Rollins College, our space for theorizing postmodernism and contemporary culture.