Post-Class Week of 2/22: Memento

After watching Memento for the second time, I could not help but relate my own experience of interpreting the movie this time much differently from the prior time, to a declaration by Barthes stating: “From one reading to the next, we never skip the same passage”. In this quotation, Barthes explores the idea of how the individual will never reread a text in an identical manner, no matter how many times the text has been analyzed, because every time one reads a text, new things will appear that he/she did not recognize in prior occasions. Every time one explores an open text, whether it be a book, a film, etc., he/she will inevitably fill in that “gap” differently because there is endless room for individual interpretation and the possibility for multiple perspectives to form. I think Memento perfectly exemplifies the idea of an open text that encourages active audience participation because it challenges conventional story-telling and forces the audience to question what is reality and what is simply imagination. There is never a time where the audience is secure in their prediction of where the film is headed, leaving them in a constant state of confusion and uncertainty. Its non-linear narration splits from the status quo, ultimately creating an enormous “gap,” because Memento does not allow for a “surface” reading but instead delves into the audience’s consciousness by forcing him/her to discern between the “real” and the “fake”. And, in the end, I do not think it is clear which moments of the film are of either sort. Fortunately, because I had already seen in the movie, I was better prepared for what to expect and knew not to look at the film with a predisposed idea of what was going to be occurring. Unlike most films where one can take for granted that what is being shown is fact, this film makes you constantly question all that is… and because of this, it seems Memento stands as a mediated representation of a variety of postmodern themes: the antiform, the absent, and the deconstruction.

Post Class, 2/28 Ann

I enjoyed our class discussion on Tuesday about simacular and the fantasies of Disney World and Las Vegas.  In CMC 200 we have talked a little bit about how Disney portrays history as well as the rest of the world.  It is just as important to critique the things that Disney leaves out as well as the things that they include.  This relates to Pierre Machery’s theories of studying the rupture, or what is left out of a text.  If we look at Epcot and the “around the world” attraction it is interesting to see what countries are represented.   The attraction features representations of eleven countries: Mexico, Norway, China, Germany, Italy, the United States, Japan, Morocco, France, the United Kingdom and Canada.  Nearly half of these countries are countries in Europe, and three of them are in North America creating an emphasis on western culture.  China and Japan are the only Asian countries represented and Morocco is the only African country represented.  There is no representation of any country from South America.  By choosing the countries that they did to represent the world they put an emphasis on white, western culture.  One country whose representation interests me the most is the representation of Morocco.  First of all I found it interesting that they would have chose one of the only African countries that is predominantly white as the only African country represented.  Morocco is also the only predominantly Muslim country that they chose to represent.  The way the represent Morocco is very inaccurate.  The architectural representation is pretty accurate but culturally a lot of things are inaccurate.  The fact that they have belly dancers goes along with the stereotypical sensationalized image of the Muslim woman.  Having just been in Morocco I witnessed how women are treated and how women must be fully covered in public in all times.  Muslim women have a stereotype of being sexual figures that live in harems and are there to sexually please there husbands.  In reality this is not true and Moroccan women must dress conservatively and do not dress in belly dancing costumes. 

Post Class 2/28

Well I don’t have much to respond to considering we had an exam and Tuesday is a bit of a blur now. I wish we had been able to get into a deeper discussion of Memento on Tuesday. I was extremely surprised by that movie. Going in I had very low expectations and was not planning on being the least bit entertained.  However, when I left I was very pleased with what I saw. The underlying theories on reality versus actuality were astounding. I did not expect it to be presented in such a way. The acting was nothing brilliant, but it didn’t allow me to disengage with the film either. As soon as it was over I instantly realized just how interested I am in this sort of theory. When it is presented in this way I find it so much easier to engage in. My mind was racing with questions and ideas the entire time. If this were presented to us as a thirty-page article filled with fluff and redundancy and references we don’t know, I would be much less excited about it. This is why I posted about writing last week. I felt compelled to do so after reading Habermas. I particularly enjoyed Habermas’ notion of the public sphere, as we discussed in CMC 100, but going through that article was torture.

"Real" Post Class 2/28/10

We haven't talked about Baudrillard's essay on simulacra since Tuesday, due to our test on Thursday, but it has given me plenty of time to gather my thoughts. In particular, there is one quote that jumped off the page for me: "Transgression and violence are less serious because they only contest the distribution of the real. Simulation is infinitely more dangerous because it always leaves open to supposition that... law and order themselves might be nothing but simulation" (466).

As a lacrosse player, I will try to explain that quote in words I can understand. In practices, our team prepares by watching film, reading scouting reports and simulating our opponent's offense, defense, clearing attack, etc. We will run repetition after repetition of our opponent's strategy and we will put ourselves in every "realistic" situation we can in practice, so that we will be able to execute OUR defensive and offensive strategies against our opponent in the game. Any way you slice it, there is no "realistic" scenario you can create in a practice - only simulations. No matter how we prepare our simulated situations in practice, there is absolutely no guarantee our opponent's will perform the same way they have against other teams when they play us.

That's why simulation is "dangerous." IT'S NOT REAL. Simulation and "hyperreal" events merely scratch the surface in comparison to reality. And, to jump away from the lacrosse analogy, I kinda understand the point Baudrillard is making about Disney a little better. Even though we have been discussing all the political problems with Disney since CMC 100, I "get it" a little more every time I read an essay on Disney.

Also, a special thanks to Louisa Gibbs for the study session on Monday night - really helped.

Post Class 2/28

During class this week we talked about the fantasies of Disney world and such amusement destinations. I have actually never been to Disney or Vegas so I do not fully understand what it is. In the absence of this experience I can only imagine what it is like at these resorts.

The movie 'Memento' was quite a mind trip. It is a nonlinear narrative and was one of the first of its kind. It narrates everything backwards in clips. This, for me, made it very confusing on the first watch. The whole movie makes the viewer question what is real and truthful. Leonard has to trust all the notes he writes to himself and all of the tattoos. The phone also comes into question because he never knows who he is talking to because he can't remember. The whole story focuses on who you can trust and who you cannot trust. It also looks at what is real and what is not.

post classs 2/23

This week in class we had an interesting discussion about the idea of fantasies and how we create these fantasies. I like how we discussed Las Vegas and Disney. We create I liked how someone brought up Epcot in particular and how it draws a fantasy of all the other countries, people go there and believe because they need to. I think even when we research Disney and some of its background in cmc 200 it still allows Disney to be enjoyed and Disney was created to be peoples fantasy of what they would want. We need that escape and fantasy ideas such as Las Vegas and Disney creates a new reality for people. These places people want to go to and want to experience. Throughout time we have been drawn into ideas of fantasy and as technology has expanded our ways of creating different fantasies from places, rides, and movies have expanded.

VAGABOND post-class 2/25

The fantasy world we know as Las Vegas and Disneyland poses a threat to our culture because of how predominantly people fail to realize the way it alters the way we think and perceive the world.

America and other Euro-centric countries always believed they're "better," hence they usually do not bother to learn a second language and expect other to conform to their social norms (as proven by many communication scholarly - I'm not hating. And it is also shown through centuries of assimilating others to be like "us.") Maybe this kind of psychological approach works because according to de Saussure, your value is determined by what others deem fit. Therefore when you're charging hundreds of dollars per ticket, you're putting a price on what is considered "privileged" hence people around the world think of "Disney" as "American" and if you've been to Disney, you've seen America whereas if you go to Yellowstone National Park, you might not even make a mere impression during your story telling.

In Disney and Vegas, this is one of the places where customer service is priority because people shed big bucks just to enjoy a time in the happiest place on Earth - where as K.Kriggle puts it, you forget about poverty, hunger, and war. Similar to fine dining, you expect everything done and prepared to a t because of the price tag.

I agree with Clem because those who are not privileged enough to even leave their hometown/state, will never get to experience "life" as we know it. We know know the "Paris" in Vegas and Epcot are not essentially Paris. But the replica of it makes us think we know when we don't. The replica doesn't have the essence of the authentic - it is no where same in actual size or function and it clearly does not "represent" the French culture. Yet we are able to see Harajuku girls and think of Japan when Japan clearly has different "culture" various across cities - similar to America and the difference from coast to coast.

What I'm trying to say is: I see the threat as Clem pointed out. I believe that those who may never have the opportunity to see the world would ultimately make the claim, "uh, well yes, I love Chinese food and the oriental atmosphere" when they barely understand the culture and believe that ethnic Chinese cuisine gives out fortune cookies when, in fact, they don't. At least not in Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong, or Taiwan. Similar to what we said in class, people think of Italy and their mind conjures up the image of Venice. However, the problem is essentially how Rome is different from Venice, Florence, Naples, Tuscany, and Milan...

Shutter Island.

I just watched Shutter Island and I just have to say I definitely agree with Scott and how it relates to so many theorists - especially Benjamin- whose work we've studied.

To start with, there is the notion of realism. How do we know authenticity when we can no longer distinguish one from another?
I also thought about the Iron Cage and how those that "know" are the ones that are "damned."
Then there is the concern with truth. How do we know we're not insane?

Post Class for 2/23

In class on Tuesday we had an interesting discussion about “Simulacra.” Places like Las Vegas and Disney World imitate the real in order to create a fantasy world in order for people to feel like they can escape from the pessimism and exist in the optimism even if it is imitating the real. We all have our own personal reality and the fact that many people grew up with Disney makes it a touchy subject to analyze but in my opinion you can still enjoy Disney even if you know the history behind it. This is only because of the feeling we attach with it that are hard to detach, the feelings of childhood or sharing memories with family and friends that you went with. It symbolizes a place that exists only in the movie that people love to escape to when the world gets too “real” and we realize the Terror of it all. I looked up more on Simularca and found this quote, by Anthropologist Eric Higgs who expressed worry that “the boundary between artificiality and reality will become so thin that the artificial will become the centre of moral value.” This quote connects to Baudrillard and or look on how replicas like the ones in Disney and Las Vegas are more convenient for people than them actually visiting the real thing, therefore when more people are seeing the artificial copy it becomes their idea of what the real looks like because they might not have access to go to Paris for example and see the real Eiffel tour. The hyper-real is something important to think about because when we see something and don’t know how to describe what it is like sometimes we can only make connections to it from relating it to movies that we have seen that have been that visually amazing because that is what we know to compare it to.

When we mentioned the new Movie Avatar it relates to this need to escape from reality because in the movie it has this amazing world called Pandora that is so pure and untouched by technology or any ounce of war until our planet goes there and sets up camp in order to drill for an expensive rock. It shows how our most of our world has become taken over by technology and the need to always have the new and upcoming thing, like the rock they are trying to get their hands on. This is why so many people got depressed after this movie more than others because not only was it almost three hours, but when you saw it in IMAX 3-D it was like a ride you were in and experiencing the visually stimulating world of Pandora and some people felt like it was sad how far our world has come from being so in touch with nature instead of being in front of our computer screens and the tranquility that the native people of their world experienced. Here is the link that involves the description of the after-effect of the film. http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/11/avatar.movie.blues/index.html

king kriggle post class for 2/23

Well today after another awesome class I keep coming back to the idea that “does reality outstrip fiction” and the ideas that the only way we have to compare things sometimes is by relating them to a movie or a video game. Thinking about whether reality outstrips fiction one could easily say that fiction is often what we want it to be. Taking Disney as a primary example it is something that we would want to see. There is no sadness, no mention of the depressions or anything of the such. It merely glamorizes the history of the US and other things and bundles it up into a neatly bound package, a package that can easily be sold and reproduced. This goes back to the ideas of reproduction of an original. So in essence Yes, I do believe that fiction can outstrip reality, but often our realities outstrip the fictions that we have been made to believe and have been conditioned to respond to. When thinking about comparison and our hyperreal world that we live in I keep coming back ot the ideas put forth by Doc Cummings about her first view on Las Vegas. I know I have fallen victim to the very same thing when I would encounter something in life that seemed so surreal it almost looked or felt like a movie. I think that we often make this comparison because movies and games we know to be fake, so when something is so unreal and magnificent that it could only be seen in a movie or a game to be believed it is very easy to draw this conclusion and make the comparison. I don’t think this is going overboard or anything of the such, but think about the first time you ever laid eyes on the grand canyon or any other natural wonder that seemed so surreal it almost made you disassociate from the entire thing altogether. Well it definitely is an interesting theory, but at the same time I have to wonder what people would do in the same situation before movies or games or even books were around, what did they use as their comparisons? What did they feel like, was it the same or different?

post class

“What's it gonna be? Are you real to me? Or are you non-dairy... creamer?” Listening to this Third eye blind song trough mw back right into CMC 100 and Rolland Barthes text “Operation Margarine” came back to my mind right away. This added to the Baudrillard and Zizek reading I knew that we were going to start talking about the cool stuff that makes me so exited and so depressed at the same time to be aware of it. When Baudrillard introduces the idea of simulacra, he speaks first of simulation: “To simulate is to feign to have what one doesn’t have. It implies absence”. Reading this is not scary yet, BUT it’s realizing as we read further and as we discuss in class that much of everything around us now is a simulacra. We live in a “non-dairy creamer world” where all that is handed to us, shown to us, around us is not real anymore but just a representation of it. This is getting so bad that we no longer seem to know the difference between real and simulation. What saddens me is as we in Baudrillard’s text, simulation implies an absence, that means that because we don’t have “the real thing” we replace them with something “fake”, But I don’t want margarine on my toast! I want butter, and I don’t want advertisements’ telling me margarine is just like butter, it’s not!

This brings me to our discussion on Disney and Epcot. I have been to both and enjoyed those places as a child but I can’t say that now I do not see an issue with those theme parks. Someone in class today said that a place like Epcot is great because it can to a certain extent educate kids on the world, as they’re not going to open an atlas. Well for me that’s a huge problem. Because if a kid has no clue about it (which I think that’s what school is for, educating us) well, going to Epcot will probably make him or her think that that is the real thing or at least close to it when it is not at all but just a doll world of fantasies. We as CMC majors may go there for fun and entertainment realizing that it is a simulacrum, but what about other people who are not aware of this? They take in all the information but not realize there is, as R.Barthes would put it a huge privation of history. I don’t want people to see the pavilion of France next to the one of England and Germany and not realize that not everything was always at peace in lalaland like this. Another issue that it touches is metonymy. Since when does Venice engulf all of Italy, or the Eiffel tower all of France? We need to be more aware of what is around us and question if we believe things because we think the source is valid or because we thought about it.

Pre-Class Dorfman 2/22

“Disney is the great supranational bridge across which all human beings may communicate with each others. And amidst so much sweetness and light, the registered trademark becomes invisible… and above all there is the implication that politics cannot enter into areas of ‘pure entertainment,’ especially those designed for children of tender years” (Dorfman, 124).

I think this quote hits on exactly what I have always found wrong with Disney and is a fact that should be recognized in public discourse and critique rather than ignored as something that is “reading in too deeply”. To begin, I think there exists a common belief that Disney should simply be appreciated for its fantastical beauty and the happiness (although quite temporary) it brings its audience, and that if one is to critique Disney, he is the “bad guy,”attempting to destroy this unadulterated joy and ruin it for everyone else by bringing to light what is merely fact. The fact of the matter is, that in reality, Disney is not what it tries to publically positions itself as to the masses: it is not reflection of a glorious American past, rather is a generated imitation of an “imagined” past that, for the most part, never actually took place. Almost all of Disney’s spectacles, from the rides to the street décor to the fantastic architectural structures, are historically incorrect. The history Disney recreates is the history made by the “Great Men” (them being the white, affluent men in power) and by only simulating their stories, Disney erases many of the great political and social movements made by those who were not in a position of privilege (them being the African Americans, the women, the impoverished). We, as visitors to this hyper-realistic imitation, are only warrant to the history that corporate Disney decided what was important and what was worth viewing, and because of this limited corporate view of history, what actually happened in America’s past is privatized as non-essential to our understanding if our nation’s historical narrative. A theme we discussed heavily in CMC100, through the privation of an object/commodity’s history, its audience (consumer!) is denied the realities of the situation and only sees the finished product rather than all that went into creating it, which is almost always not as refined, not as pretty, and not as politically corrected. Because of the difference that exists between historical realities and imagined fantasies, Disney functions to dull historical sensibility, and instead of enlightening an actual past, recreates an “improved” past that stops us from learning from mistakes made.

This is especially significant when speaking of children as Disney’s main consumers, for they are experiencing a Utopian view of the past and are learning from a very young age an American past that never actually existed or a past that has been so extremely rehashed that it only reflects generalizations and stereotypes that leave out much of the story. This is not only true of Disney’s theme parks but is overwhelmingly obvious in its movies, movies like Pocahontas that cast Adam Smith as the victim and Native Americans as savages, movies like Tarzan that equate African Americans with monkeys, movies like Aladdin that viciously minimalize the Islamic religion. These movies, just like the parks, are mere caricatures and need to be seen as such, not as factual truth, if we are to be what we should be: mindful consumers. And in the end, we must also remember that we are just that, consumers, and that corporate Disney’s sole objective is to make money, not treat our children to a lesson in history.

Pre-class, Dorfman and Mattelart 2/22

"...We children and grownups will have to get used to reading about our own society, which, to judge from the way it is painted by the writers and panegyrists of our age, is rough, bitter, cruel and hateful. It was Disney's magic to be able to stress the happy side of life, and there are always, in human society, characters who resemble those of Disney comics."(123)

This quote was in response to Mickey Mouse being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. I think the author is trying to show that no matter where you are form you know of Disney and its 'magic.' The magic to bring people together and reminisce about childhood and youth. The ability to escape the horrible tragedies or wars going on. This promotes the idea of the happy ending, where everything is peaceable. People want to believe that there is good and peace because it is comforting. They do not want to believe there will never be world peace. This is why Disney's characters are so comforting for them. They believe in the escape of the world of Disney. They can even go live in Disney's world and get away from the troubles of real life. We have one in our area that is a huge attraction, especially for families to shield their children from reality. It gives people the ability to get away, widening the gap.

Ariel Dorfman and Armand Merrelart reading, Andrew Wells

Let me first off and begin that I was very intrigued about this article. One reason why is because as a kid I remember looking up to the characters and images of Disney. My family and I would go to Disney world at least once or twice, every year till I turned 17. Every time I either watched a disney movie, I would always see the protagonist of the film as a person that set the image that I needed to follow. If the character was bold and strong, I made it my job to learn to be bold and strong until a new protagonist arrived on the screen.

Every Time I watched or visited anything that was Disney related, I got a sense of calm and peace. It was almost like all the characters were apart of my family. In the article, Ariel Dorfman and Armand Merrelart, there was a story about how Disney sent comics and sweets to the children of San Antonio, Chile. The act of kindness was so great that many were wanting to give Walt Disney the Noble Peace Prize. As a result to this Chile decided to ban the ideas and viewings of Disney. The response was that they did not see the use of talking animals as a means to teach children. As the reader continues he/she will come up to this quote: "Thus to attack Disney is to reject the unquestioned stereotype of the child, sanctified ad the law in the name of the immutable human condition (AD, AM 124)."

Furthermore I found out some interesting facts that i would have never thought of as a child. "It is the adult who produces the comics, and the child who consumes them (AD, AM, 126)." As an adult, he/she tends to input ideas and statements learned from their past and they insert them in to the comic creation meant for children. These adults, in connection with Disney, may have learned and bought into the "ideas" of Walt Disney and as a result ignore anything going against Disney. "Thus, the imagination of the child is conceived as the past and future Utopia of the adult... Child fantasy, although created by adults, becomes the exclusive reserve of children (AD, AM,127)."

I don't know if this ties with our reading but i though this to be a bit weird yet funny. Talking animals teaching us... ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZcs1SHVbz0

ANICO - POST-CLASS REPLY TO POST-CLASS POST

I am replying to a post by Ann, because I’m lazy and incapable formulating my own crap. I’m trying to answer her question “why is everybody so obsessed with becoming more modern? “ In the terms of how I’m understanding modernity, metanarratives, and neoconservatives. The post can be found HERE.

~@~@~@~@~@~

If you go back to the very first definition of Modernity that was presented to us from the Oxford Art Online sheet, the very first sentence states it is “the cultural condition in which the seemingly absolute necessity of innovation becomes a primary fact of life, work, and thought.”

Being modern is about being forward-thinking and always looking for the knowledge to make something better. I don’t think that is ever going to end. Human curiosity and innovation is always going to look for something to fix or discover. Although how the general populace reacts to the condition of modernity (your example of people sitting staring at a screen all day) I feel is a different matter. Hell, maybe sometime in the future, people are going to think that going outside to play in the sun rather than playing video games is a postmodern idea. Postmodernism loves irony. I’ve come to understand the relationship of modern and postmodern as some strange cycle, but I’m not 100% on that (I figure I will be by the end of the class.)

But if you like the free market, you have to like modernism. You just stated that “I think their needs to be a free market in order to motivate people to create new things and ideas“. The free market is a manifestation of modernity. It says everyone is free, intelligent, and innovative enough to be entitled to control their own economy without regulation. Obviously, in the light of recent economic mess, that’s not true. I like that you recognize that there is still a need for regulation to protect the poor, but I personally feel that acknowledging that is itself undermining the metanarrative of a free market. Which is good, because we’re here to criticize metanarrative, but the way you formulate it could be taken as being an absolute believer in it, please clarify if you can.

Neoconservatives are also a metanarrative and also fundamentalists, so I say be careful about agreeing with them. They may say they are for helping other countries with political and financial issues, but they also believe in manifest destiny. It swings to both extremes. We said were told we were helping Iraq by invading it. How does that kind of hypocrisy work? Neoconservatives are rational and technical maybe about their own agenda, but they don’t acknowledge the balance necessary (as do many fundamentalists) nor do they try to find the cause of things, just to name an entire polar opposition and blame everybody’s problems on that.

In a sentence or two, I guess what I’m trying to say is that you can’t have a free market without modernity and fundamentalists ruin everything.

Pre-class post for Dorfman and Mattelart

The first thing I asked myself after reading this piece was what would the authors say about the presence of a father-figure, yet absence of a mother in many of the Disney “princess” movies? Granted these authors are responding to the comics specifically, and some of the original characters of Disney that existed before Walt died. They seemed to attack Walt personally rather than Disney as a company. This is understandable on some level, but what would they say now that he is gone and there is more than one person in charge of writing and creating Disney fiction? How much, if any, does the parent-child relationship change when there is a physical parent present? In the text they claim “physical presence would be superfluous, even counterproductive” (127). Why then, would the creators of Disney today offer cartoons and films with parents present? Granted there is a huge gap in time and a huge change between a few guys in a small studio and the corporate conglomerate that Disney is today. I would say there has to be at least a slight change in the vision of the company from Walt writing as the father these authors discuss and the staff in charge now (which may be a collection of “Walts” or maybe an entirely different generation of creators). Of course, you could argue that this staff is of a generation raised on the very comics that these authors are critiquing. Which, if they are correct, would mean these individuals were once the “pure child” who “will replace the corrupt father, preserving the latter’s values” (126).

Post Class, 2/21 Ann

I did a little bit more research on neoconservatism since it was a phrase that I had not really heard of before.  Based on what I understood from the reading as well as our class discussion I understood them as being rational and believing in technical capital.  From the brief research I did I was able to learn a little bit more about how neoconservatives issues in America.  I learned that they are supportive of aiding other countries with financial and political means.  They believe in welfare unlike most conservatives although they are still supportive of the idea of having a free market.  I think I agree with this idea.  I think their needs to be a free market in order to motivate people to create new things and ideas.  The free market definitely causes problems though because it leads to exploitation and often times poverty for the lowest class in society.  I think Habermas is trying to argue that it is okay not to have an obsession with creating new things and new ideas.  We have already created functional ways to survive and have more technology than we really need so why is everybody so obsessed with becoming more modern?  We have already gone past being modern and we are now in a stage of post-modernity.  Personally I think that too much progress and technology is not good. People need to take time to appreciate the world that we live in instead of always striving to find something new and different.  I think technology has changed people into robots that just stare at screens all day and live their lives on the internet, or watching TV or playing video games.  I would be content with living in the modern world and do not see the necessity in entering post-modern times. 

Jean: post class, Habermas

Habermas discusses how when we discuss the modern we are really discussing our inner consciousness and what fits into what we consider the scheme. The post modern we said in class he discusses as a split between the old and the new making us to look for stable. This relates well to the idea of the Media. We turn to the media for stability. If the media shows us something we are transformed to believe that is what we should be doing weather its buying a product or what we should look like. We fall to the reality Media creates. But is that really reality. We become obsessed with watching TV and products we always talk about are normally what we see on television in-between our favorite television shows. We are condition to want and need they things to survive creating a reality of human needs. This relates back to Capitalism creating the need to make profit. And constantly creating new ways of technology in order to make products the fastest to make a profit. Habermas and the idea of the unstable and being easily influenced by new ways and things transfers very well to the role the media plays in our lives today.

Habermas, meg143 post blog, 2/21

Habermas gives his take on all of the themes and ideas that are creating and represent our contemporary media culture. He feels that, “the project of modernity has not yet been fulfilled” and that there has been a shift in our consciousness. Modernity is the act of understanding new advancements by looking at the past and our place in the world. “The idea of being modern changed with belief, inspired by modern science in the infinite progress of knowledge” (99). Media today has evolved into pessimism, a cult of fear and how news is broadcasted. Habermas also discusses the different conservatives of modern culture. The three types are young, old, and neoconservatives, the young conservatives, who are anti-modern, the old conservatives, who yearn for renaissance and the neoconservatives who are technical and rational.

Post-Class 2/21, on academic writing, i'm asking questions

 I get the gist of this week’s material, so I’d like to take this opportunity to comment on writing. Why is that we have to read 10, 20, and 30 page articles that can always be summed up into a half-dozen quotes and concepts that could have been explained in 5 pages? Why in academia do authors write so redundantly? When will they stop beating around the bush and just say what they need to say? Its as if they are trying to reach some kind of benchmark in order to establish credibility. But why? How did this start? In CMC 200 we read two articles (unfortunately I cannot find them, or recall the author), one on simplicity and the other on a similar topic. Both were only a few pages and discussed how and why to make your writing more to-the-point. We were then asked to take our favorite blackboard post and shorten it from 300 words to 150 or less. Why are we not asked to do this all the time? I understand there is a line to be drawn in order to make sure students actually read the material and are making critical, useful contributions, but when we are asked to meet a minimum requirement for length, our focus is taken off of our critique and put onto how much white space we can cover. Instead of trying to write a clear and concise paper that makes the best point possible, we are forced to start packing in redundant and often unneeded information; I would think this would make the piece less valid, but in academia this does not appear to be the case. And now I have to “bs” seventeen more words in order to meet our minimum three-hundred word requirement. And now I have 300.

VAGABOND, Baudrillard

In today's readings, I think it is interesting how Baudrillard speaks about terrorism and how images conveyed by mass media contribute to the fear in the excerpt from The Spirit of Terrorism. In this piece of writing, Baudrillard argues that we are confused by the reality and the fiction - tying into Bejamin's theory regarding authenticity.

One interesting quote regarding mass media is: "The image consumes the event, in the sense that it absorbs it and offers it for consumption" (228). This is very true and understandable because popular culture has conditioned us in only believing those we see with our eyes (this is changing due to the rise of photoshop etc.) hence news reporters always provide coverage that are loaded with images. Mass media always throws in words like "newest update" or "breaking news" to capture audience's attention and to compete with other companies for viewers.

In "The Precision of Simulacra," Baudrillard compares the real and the imaginary using "masks." He argues that we "pretend" and it is merely never a constant state because we switch back and forth. I suppose in relation to the previous essay, it could be said that images from September 11 will always be remembered but it is amplified because of the "fiction" that was infused in making the shrouds of dust resemble the face of a devil or how some people believe that September 11 was a plotted demise or it could've been prevented from "prophecies" such as folding a dollar bill a certain way. I think all of these are "fictions" that intertwine with the "truth" in order to provoke a certain emotion such as nationalism within us.

Baudrillard, Pre - Class 2/17

One thing I found very interesting was Baudrillard’s comparison between Disneyland and Watergate.  Baudrillard makes this comparison on page 462 saying, “Watergate. The same scenario as in Disneyland (effect of the imaginary concealing that reality no more exists outside that inside the limits of the artificial perimeter): here the scandal effect hiding that there is no difference between the facts ad their denunciation …”  I think I clearly understood what Baudrillard was saying about Disneyland but was a little bit more confused about what she was saying about Watergate.  I see how it can be viewed that by having theme parks outside of  LA such as Disneyland society then is able to categorize the theme parks as “imaginary” since and the city where people actually live their lives as “real.” I thought this was a very interesting way of thinking about this. Just because people live in LA does it make it real?  It surely strays far from the model capitalist city where commodities are produced in the forms of goods and sold based on the cost of the labor power and cost of raw materials used to produce them.  In LA it can be argued that art is the main commodity that drives their economy.  There is no scientific or mathematical way to figure out how much one’s talent is worth or the value of a film.  This causes LA to stray from capitalism and what some may think to be “real.”

            Bringing this back to the original quote, how does this correlate to Watergate?  It is my understanding that Baudrillard is arguing that The Washington Post used Watergate to try and prove they were socially and politically moral.  By reporting inside information they had against the president to the rest of America they wanted American’s to believe that they were truly looking out for the rest of society. Baudrillard went on to say that this was not necessarily true but they were trying to use this one news story to prove their integrity. By them saying that Watergate was a scandal they wanted readers to believe that they would always tell the truth and in the future they would be able to cover up scandals and no one would realize just as LA can use Disneyland to give visitors an idea or what is real and what is imaginary.  I believe, and I think Baudrillard would agree, that as long as there is capitalism the media and the government will be controlled those who have the financial power to control them.

            Baudrillard goes on to say that, “Capital was never linked by a contract to the society that it dominates.”  She is saying that leftists keep blaming capitalism for causing immoral issues in society but that capitalism just emerged out of necessity and rules did not immerge with it at the beginning.  After just finishing studying Marx’s theory on capitalism in Dr. Royce’s Sociological Theory class I have been thinking a lot about capitalism and it’s relation to society. Baudrillard talks a lot about capital but I’m not sure I am clear on her view.  At some points I saw her as a Marxist but sometimes not.  Hopefully after class I will have a clearer view of her standpoint.  

 

Pre-class 2/18

The following is my reaction to the short excerpt from Baudrillard’s The Spirit of Terrorism. This piece did not grab my attention until about halfway through, but when it did it took hold. He states:
    “We would forgive them of any massacre if it had a meaning, if it could be interpreted as historical violence – this is the moral axiom of good violence. We would pardon them any violence if it were not given media exposure (‘terrorism would be nothing without the media’).” (229)
    First of all, he makes the point that if these attacks were grounded in some kind of historical reasoning, they would have been forgiven (for lack of a better term). I believe this is true to some extent. We would be saying “ok, we had that coming” as oppose to “wtf?” The next point he makes is what caught my attention immediately and is partly the reason I am so interested in CMC. He states that the media gives terrorism its power. This is absolutely the case. If the media had not exploited the attacks on the WTC towers – if they had not even covered it – then would we still be “at war with terror” and would the nationwide uproar have occured? My answer is no. The attack took approximately 3,000 lives. Not to say this is not a serious tragedy, but that is a very small number in the broad scheme of things. If there was no coverage, the families of those involved would have been devastated, the city of the New York would have wept, and the powers at be would have been debating on how to handle it. We could have just said “Fuck you too!” and been done with it or quietly retaliate. Zizek stated in his piece that “the terrorists themselves did not do it primarily to provoke real material damage, but for the spectacular effect of it” (231). If they wanted to create great physical damage they would have had a much different plan. 3,000 people out of over 300,000,000 is nothing when you look at it from a distance. However, our country’s mass media exploited the event, playing videos and showing photos nonstop to everyone in the country. Now 300,000,000 people were experiencing this event virtually at home. People who otherwise would not have heard about it and would probably not care very much were being told over and over that this was a catastrophe and that something had to be done. And as we all know when you say something is true enough times it eventually becomes true. Baudrillard goes on to point out that the terrorists’ victory was visible in the shift of our country’s value system and the “ideology of freedom… on which [America] prided itself, and on which it drew to exert its hold over the rest of the world” (229). Terrorism is powerless without the effects of mass media. They wanted to send a message, which our media allowed them to do. Without such exploitation, families grieve and the rest of the country goes on functioning as it would. 

The Matrix. Andrew Wells

After talking about The Matrix in class and how it has so many symbols and hidden theories there were within the movie, it got me wanting to watch the movie. So I did.

The Movie is full of philosophical links and ideological reference as every thinker is able to create. At this point even this savoir itself is enough to be a pattern and content for the art of post-modern era. The entire production and design of the movie is meant to be from a post-modern cinema.

THE BEST SITE TO UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING ABOUT THEORIES AND SUCH ON THE MOVIE: THE MATRIX, IS:http://www.alanistanbul.com/4b.pdf

Pre-Class Zizek

After reading Baudrillard and Zizek’s theoretical take on 9/11, I could not help but evaluate my own initial experience with this event nearly ten years ago and how what I was feeling was an actual real-life application of these authors’ suggestions concerning fantasy versus reality. The notion of a “mediated spectacle” most effectively sums up what occurred during the WTC attack and the ensuing hysteria that took place among a public that had never- before-hand been witness to such a grand, Hollywood-like catastrophe that was only fantasized about through film and television. Zizek states, “It was before the WTC collapse that we lived in our reality, perceived Third World horrors as something which was not actually part of our social reality as something which existed as a spectral apparition on the TV screen and what happened on September 11 was this fantasmic screen apparition entered our reality” (234). The images we have always been an audience to, yet at a distance and not as active participants, had finally taken form and shattered our own reality, a reality that we had previously only been a part of through the “virtual life”. It was as if our fantasies were translating into realities, and an event that what we had only before imagined in our minds and in our fiction materialized into an authentic actuality.

We, as Americans at least, experience life through sort of a staged performance, sheltered from truths that are taking place outside of our borders and living in this notion of a “sphere” where we are held in isolation. I think the notion of the “Other” also plays a large part in explaining our position as mere spectators to a show that we can distance ourselves and separate from as “us” versus “them”. It seems as if the WTC event destroyed this distance, serving as the connecting force that brought our digitally-refined and special-effect generated images from television and film out of the big screen and into our “real” lives, morphing our virtual reality into a “real” reality. I can attest to the fact that what I was witnessing on screen that day as the towers collapsed, to be cliché, was something “out of the movies” that was so out of my own realm of thought that it did not seem to be “real”. It was a “spectacle” that elicited massive panic across the nation that had much larger consequences beyond the material damage (not to downplay the many lives lost) and it is this notion of the “spectacle” that the terrorists were looking to accomplish. We were placed in the position of “spectators” yet again, seeing the videos and images from this event replay time after time, all the while feeling all too familiar with this scene, for it was a scene reminiscent of the horror and thrill we have been an audience to in Hollywood blockbusters.

And yet, still, the way in which I perceived 9/11, from my living room through news broadcasts and media-generated images, did not tell the whole story or report the carnage in its totality. It was only those individuals who experienced the events as first-hand witnesses and first-hand participants who knew the actual “reality” of what took place; they were the only ones who could define what was “real” for they had broken free (although by means of unfortunate circumstances) from that bubble we all live (are imprisoned?) in.

King Kriggle Pre class for 2/18/10

well here we go again...another crazy french dude...there is one thing that got my mind going a couple of times. When the man talks about the "hyper real" and how it "was produced from a radiating synthesis of combinatory models in a hyperspace without atmosphere"(Baudrillard pg 454). This got me thinking about the matrix and movies like that such as a scanner darkly. Movies where people had alternative realities or situations in which they werent really what they felt they were. it makes you think about Descartes and how what if we were just a brain in a tank somewhere and this is our reality. The frenchman then goes on to talk more about how it could be a "perfect descriptive machine that offers everything of the real". I thought about all of this and how everything around us is continually seeming to tell us what is real and what isnt. we almost are not allowed to make up our own minds about it anymore. this was a little in the discussion we had toward the end of class last time. When someone or some company tells us what our reality is and what we should believe then is it really reality? where do tv and video games overlap in this depiction of reality, but at the same time how is it that people can play a video game and understand that it is not real, even though it portrays a sense of reality no matter what type. Whereas if people watch a "reality" tv show they are sometimes forced to believe that this is reality. where is the line drawn because with the advent of better technology games have become more and more realistic and it will one day get to a point where they seem even more realistic than they are now and perhaps will take the place of reality tv, much was the case in the movie surrogates. well it certainly is an interesting topic to think about because it is so weird. It is just a really interesting distinction. I would really like to do a little research into what makes the differences to the people. when does a simulation become a reality for people. i admit i have lost myself in video games a lot easier than i do in movies, but it never does seem to be real to me. I think even when the models are exactly the same as in a movie it will still not be the same.

Jean, Pre-Class Baudrillard

I found it interesting in the Baudrillard reading how they were discussing the reality verse the unreal or in Hollywood terms fantasy. When discussing this topic the reading mentioned the movie The Truman Show. I really liked how they use this as an example of the topic of reality. I remember when I saw this movie a while ago the main characters life throughout the movie seemed so real and normal. Slowly you find out that in the end his whole life was being controlled by people behind the scenes and was in fact a television show. He had no idea his life was not real. He thought he was living a normal life when in reality his life was a television set. The audience when discovering this is just as surprised as the character because of how they presented his life so real. To the eye the image seemed like reality but then the truth was discovered that it was unreal. Jim Carrey’s character in the Truman show was living in a Virtual Reality. People were consistently watching his television show and every action he did the life he lived on this television set that was created for him. When in reality that was not his life it was all made up it was a virtual reality that he never knew he was living in.

Another topic discussed in this article was about the World Trade Towers attacks. The article discusses how many people saw the attacks repeated on screen they saw a virtual reality of the horror of the attacks. The camera was able to create frames and even though life still adjust to a virtual “real” attacks. I find this aspect interesting because I do live so close to the city most people I know saw the attacks in NYC and were there including my father and many family friends. They after witnessing the attacks in reality had trouble watching the repeated “virtual Reality” shown consistently on the News.

VAGABOND [rambles]

The following is something I have posted on my Xanga, Myspace, Facebook note, as well as my own personal blog because it is so phenomenal and is exactly what a lot of our theorists that question popular media, mass production, and mindless behavior talk about:

The paradox of our time in history is that we have taller buildings but
shorter tempers, wider freeways, but narrower viewpoints. We spend more,
but have less; we buy more, but enjoy less. We have bigger houses and
smaller families, more conveniences, but less time. We have more degrees
but less sense, more knowledge, but less judgment, more experts, yet more
problems, more medicine, but less wellness.

We drink too much, smoke too much, spend too recklessly, laugh too little,
drive too fast, get too angry, stay up too late, get up too tired, read too
little, watch TV too much, and pray too seldom. We have multiplied our
possessions, but reduced our values. We talk too much, love too seldom, and
hate too often.

We've learned how to make a living, but not a life. We've added years to
life not life to years. We've been all the way to the moon and back, but
have trouble crossing the street to meet a new neighbor. We conquered outer
space but not inner space.

We've done larger things, but not better things. We've cleaned up the air,
but polluted the soul. We've conquered the atom, but not our prejudice.

We write more, but learn less. We plan more, but accomplish less.

We've learned to rush, but not to wait. We build more computers to hold
more information, to produce more copies than ever, but we communicate less
and less.

These are the times of fast foods and slow digestion, big men and small
character, steep profits and shallow relationships. These are the days of
two incomes but more divorce, fancier houses, but broken homes.

These are days of quick trips, disposable diapers, throwaway morality, one
night stands, overweight bodies, and pills that do everything from cheer,
to quiet, to kill.

It is a time when there is much in the showroom window and nothing in the
stockroom. A time when technology can bring this letter to you, and a time
when you can choose either to share this insight, or to just hit delete.

-George Carlin

King Kriggle Post Class for 2/16/10

Well today was another interesting day as far as readings were considered, we got into a huge discussion about contradictions and Lyotard. I think the one thing that I keep coming back to again and again from this day of learning is the fact that one of the main things Lyotard seemed to be doing was distinguishing the post-modern from the modern and classicism stages. I think he was doing this because he wanted to get a running definition of what he was talking about. This has been the case with a lot of the theorists that we have worked with, but at the end of the day I still have to ask why things such as this must be defined in a manner that they cannot be thought about in an abstract way anymore. I mean it was definitely at least nice to see the french opening up their boundaries with the architecture that was shown to us by Dr. Casey in the post-modern sense. That seemed to be an example of people trying to look outside the box. It was just very hard to focus on all of the different things that Lyotard was trying to say, in fact it has really changed my mind about CMC as a whole, i cant say in a completely good way, but i am enlightened to say the least. I understand what he was trying to say about basically needing to keep some form of a public sphere or discourse about art, but it really did not require that many odd ways and different odd expressions in it. I really do believe that there should be a gap in media such as movies and art and drama and television shows. Yet at the same time i still do believe there just needs to be mindless entertainment like COPS where we can just sit down and laugh and not have to be involved. I mean yes, i do understand Habermas and this french dude, but at the same time i dont think they had must see tv!

Pre Class, Lyotard continued 2/16, meg143

The first time I read the Lyotard article I had a very difficult time understanding what Lyotard’s general message was and how it related to the other theorists. Today’s class gave me a much better idea of Lyotard’s beliefs. Lyotard was a strong believer in realism much like Habermas. Lyotard also felt in this postmodern era it was extremely important to establish a space, or a “gap” as Habermas would put it, between the art and the reader known as the critical. This is known as the “V Effect” and highlights the importance of the critic. “Let us wage war on totality” (46) is a quote by Lyotard in regards to the enlightenment and where our society stands today. The enlightenment created multiple disciplines to study the world and gave a diversified and well-represented view of different opinions in the global media. While this was great progress for our society Lyotard feared that this closes off the possibility for other innovative thought. Lyotard stresses that we still need to insert the critic between the art and the reader. Our media has become, the art, the critic, and even tries to become the reader. Our global media has become the truth, and we need to make sure that we remain critical. “Artists who question the rules are destined to have little credibility and they have no guarantee of an audience” (41). Lyotard explains that it is much more difficult to break from the norms of society and challenge the ideals but in the end it is the critical questioning that has the greatest impact. Today we are used to relying on the media and the idea of the available critics as our source of information and as our grand meta-narrative. Now we have to make a conscious effort and realize the global media should not become our new reality and we as consumers and citizens need to always remain critical.

VAGABOND, Habermas

In Habermas' text, I thought about fashion and how the styles keep coming back. What is vintage now was "hip" back then, yet we are all about dressing vintage because it is in style. Isn't it interesting?
To start with, I thought it was interesting how many theorists try to define “modernity” and its relationship and importance with the traditional and the present. I suppose I still believe that something that is modern is more or less sophisticated and tasteful (white, ivory, dark brown decor). I also suppose it could imply that - after reading Habermas - something modern is something classic because “a modern work becomes a classic because it has once been authentically modern” (99).

When I think of modern, I think of contemporary, something that is a break from the traditional. Perhaps classicism has been around for so long that we have grown accustomed and bored that we need something more eye-catching because it is refreshing. If I were to think of a modernity, I would think of technology. Why? I suppose it is because of how the simple idea of a phone can be transformed into something like the BlackBerry or the iPhone. Just the concept these gadgets try to sell as are ridiculous a decade ago. Seriously, "there's an app for everything" would not be comprehended by the population back then. Also, the QWERTY pad function would probably only confuse people because we would just think it is unnecessary and too unnecessarily complex.

“Modernity revolts against the normalizing functions of tradition; modernity lives on the experience of rebelling against all that is normative” (100). This quote reminds me of historical movements where every idea is eventually replaced by another. For example, as I've responded to Jackson's response to my post, racism and sexism were so "normal" that no one gave it much thought. Eventually though, it was protested against and now it is "wrong" to do so.

Ultimately, what I derived from the Habermas reading is how intertextuality plays a role between him, Macherey, and Benjamin regarding the notion of mass reproduction, modernity, and fashion.

Habermas, Andrew Wells

After reading the article "Modernity- An Incomplete Project" I found some interesting quotes. First i think it's crucial to define Habermas himself. He is a German think and is said to be the most compelling and interesting critic of postmodernism. He begins the article talking about aesthetic modernity.

- "The word 'modern' in its Latin form 'modernus' was used for the first time in the late fifth century in order to distinguish the present, which had become officially Christian, from the Roman and pagan past. (JH, 98)"

I think its important to have this quote because it gives an idea of what Habermas understands as to the word "modern." Habermas appears to be the only contemporary theorist willing to defend the tradition of modernity.

-"The romantic modernist sought to oppose the antique ideals of the classicists.(JH, 99)"

I dont know if there is a meaning behind this quote but i feel that it is necessary to state the facts.

-"Our sense of modernity creates its own self-enclosed canons of being classic.(JH, 99)"

By this quote, Habbermas means that we speak in the view of the history of modern art. The words "modern" and "classic" have lost their connection in a historical sense.

-"Modernity revolts against the normalizing functions of tradition; modernity lives on the experience of rebelling against all that is normative.(JH, 100)"

Modernism is not something viewed as the common norm but somthing that fights the norm into almost a shock value.

-"Modernist culture has come to penetrate the values of everyday life; the life-word is infected by modernism. (JH, 100)"

Because modernism is forced the idea of authenticity is in a high demand.

Other Quotes:

-"Culture in its modern form stirs up hatred against the conventions and virtues of everyday life, which has become rationalized under the pressures of economic and administrative imperatives. (JH, 101)"

-"Under the pressures of the dynamics of economic growth and the organizational accomplishment of the state, this social modernization penetrates deeper and deeper into previous forms of human existence. (JH, 102)"

Any Ideas? I had problems with understanding this reading even though i've reread it three times.

Benjamin Post-Class

I think the notion of “aura” is an extremely important indicator of the individual and if absent, through such mediums as film/photography as suggested by Benjamin, results in a serious loss of connection between the actor and his individual ultimately detracting from the power of the storyline. I also think Benjamin is correct in his suggestion that the actor’s “aura” has died out since the invention of film, for no longer does there exist that sense of relationship between actor and audience as was present during stage performance. With the proliferation of the camera, there now is the possibility for the director to dictate exactly how the actors’ performance will be perceived, for he can edit and cut scenes to reunify them in a sequence that does not reflect how the story line was initially acted out, and he can also choose from a multitude of different angles of the actors to put it together in a scene that he may have imagined but not how the actors themselves may have originally imagined. The audience, as was possible in stage performance, is only given the chance to look at what the film crew decided was necessary or what was fit, not the entire scene as a collaborative whole. Because the audience is limited to what will be presented and the actor is limited to how he will be viewed, there no longer remains a feeling of authenticity. The final film the audience views in the theaters is not an actual first-hand performance based on individual actor’s personal choices and spontaneous human-based action but is rather the result of a long crafting process that involves months of editing and months of reconfiguring to masterfully assemble a work that can be mass produced to be viewed by audiences across the country. It is available to all to be uncritically critiqued, and, as proposed by Joe, loses any sense of “cult value”. Film, at least in my opinion, strips away a variety of possibilities from the actor that he should automatically be provided, and because of this, the film loses much of this genuineness. However, it is obvious that film is here and film is here to stay in the postmodern world, so perhaps we can brainstorm ways that this “aura” an actor should possess can be recreated or reestablished as a means of bettering this medium of art and entertainment.

Post Class

In Benjamin's notes for the article The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction he states "The definition of the aura as a 'unique phenomenon of a distance however close it may be' represents nothing but the formulation of the cult value of the work of art in categories of space and time perception. Distance is the opposite of closeness. The essentially distant object is the unapproachable one. Unapproachability is indeed a major quality of the cult image. True to its nature, it remains 'distant, however close it may be.' The closeness which one may gain from its subject matter does not impair the distance which it retains in its appearance." (35)

I understood aura as the feeling a work of art can give off. It could make you feel happy or sad or any other emotion. There is a different aura for every work of art. The aura can change depending on where this art is located. For example if you stand in front of Degas "Petite Danseuse de Quatorze Ans" you get a different feeling than if you just see it in a picture. This is just like de Saussure's theory of the signified and the signifier. There are different meaning for each version of something. See the real thing can be anti-climatic if you have seen it plastered in media your whole life like the Mona Lisa. The aura of a work of art is different depending on how close you are to the painting, the subject and your outside surroundings.

In response to Vagabond, Post-Class (2-14-10)

Vagabond expressed in one of his posts on Wednesday that (s)he is somewhat confused on the proposed question in Lyotard's article: "What is postmodernism." What I respect is that Vagabond still attempted to find a definition for postmodernism; to borrow a line from your post: "I personally think postmodernism is so whimsical because of we can only define it by comparing it to modernism." That's absolutely right. Modernism is the closest we know to postmodernism and its so difficult to explain postmodernism because we are living in it as I type out this post on a completely digital blog. Just as a hypothetical analogy, Guiglielmo Marconi, inventor of the first wireless communication device (essentially the earliest radio known to humankind), probably had only a small grasp on the significance of his invention during his lifetime. Little did he know his wireless communicator would pave the road for radio, television, and cellular phone communication in the next century. And that's my point. Living in a postmodern society, we have a fairly small grasp on what postmodernism has to offer. We seem to understand modernism a little better (I say this because, just like Vagabond mentioned in their post, we are constantly using modernism to compare with postmodernism). I personally believe we understand modernism better because we have moved past the modernist era and have had time to analyze modernism. While we are still living in the postmodern, it surely will be somewhat difficult to understand, because we have not had as much time to critically examine what is most familiar to us (such as the internet, worldwide communication and other instantaneous entertainment). So yes, I agree with Vagabond. Lyotard is fairly difficult to understand, but I think this subject of postmodernism is itself pretty difficult to understand, considering we live it and take it for granted everyday

Post Class

This post is in response to the prompt on Benjamin’s note on the term “aura.” In his notes he states: “The definition of the aura as a ‘unique phenomenon of a distance, however close it may be’ represents nothing but the formulation of the cult value of the work of art in categories of space and time perception. Distance is the opposite of closeness. The essentially distant object is the unapproachable one. Unapproachability is indeed a major quality of the cult image. True to its nature, it remains ‘distant, however close it may be.’ The closeness which one may gain from its subject matter does not impair the distance which it retains in its appearance” (DK 35).
    Reading this, I immediately referred back to my notes. I was unable to find the exact quote, nor the author of the piece. I just remember discussing that the reader and writer (audience and author or what have you) of a text are equally distant from the work. This distance is the same as the distance that Benjamin is referring to. No matter how close one may get to the work’s subject matter, this distance still remains. There is only so much we can understand about a work of art. We will all have our own interpretations of a work, but we are distanced by the aura of the work, the cult value of it. I would argue then that the author is equally distanced by this aura. Without cult value, what value would the work have left? There is still a loose connection I am trying to make here. If anyone else can see that and would like to respond feel free. I am going to keep working on it for Tuesday.

VAGABOND post-class 2/11

In class the other day, we discussed Walter Benjamin’s writing on the concept of value in terms of mass production. We used a lot of art works as examples because we recognize the "authentic" prior to actually seeing it as a result of mass production. Textbooks, among other forms of media, has made it possible for one to understand the importance of the original work. Benjamin states “The presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity.” This quote seems to be questioning whether or not all the products in mass production have the same value as the authentic. I do not think replicas are of the same value as the authentic because there is the existence of copyright laws is made to protect those who come up with original ideas, without it no one would ever want or bother to create otherwise. Does something need to be a commodity and "worth" buying in another person's eyes for it to be of value? I don't really know but I suppose it's just rubbish if no one sees it "worthwhile." So what makes something original? Perhaps only the figment of your imagination is and once you put add reality into the equation, there has to be changes in order to make the idea constructable.

clem post class

Ok, so first of all I thought it would be a good idea to look up the Thesaurus definition of aura. “The distinctive atmosphere or quality that seems to surround and be generated by a person, thing or place”. This is the idea I had in mind to describe this word but in the note 7 of Benjamin’s text, he speaks of aura as “a unique phenomenon of a distance however close it may be” and relates it to the cult value of the work of art, to its ritual function. I thought I would also look up the definition of cult in the Thesaurus “A system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object”. Adding all of these word explanations together, I think that we can say that the sense of something’s “aura” is a feeling of inapproachability due to its holy values. No matter how close we may be from that object physically we may not intellectually or mentally be close to it as it remains above us. Benjamin says that this feeling comes from our veneration for a particular object of art that originated with its service of ritual (might that be of the magical or religious kind). But these rituals are part of our past or present traditions, which give to the object its uniqueness. This uniqueness also comes from the objects location in space and time.

So the aura we might feel emanating from something is the distance we feel because of its “religious” value, or its aesthetic value or its famous value (like the Mona Lisa for instance). The fact that something is grand and might we be close to it in a museum for example does not mean we will feel close to it in understanding it emotionally.

Jean Post Class 2/14

I watched the YouTube video 4:33 John Cage. I didn’t really understand the point of the silent orchestra. It was interesting and different how the conductor stood up in front of the orchestra with his conducting stick and they all sat in silence not playing. Then the video would show a time and they would flip the page of the sheet music. The audience applauded when done but the orchestra did not do anything they just started at the conductor in silence for 4 mins and 33seconds. It was interesting how they talked about the tension and how all you heard was every cough. It was very extraordinary how the audience and orchestra were able to be silent for that long it’s rare we ever take moments of silence and it’s very rare to have so many people stay silent for so long. It’s interesting how they were able to call that music even though it was silence. It goes back to language being what we make of it and how we interpret it. Its own art form. Music is what we want it to be weather it’s a hip-hop song or a moment of silence with orchestra instruments in front of you and a conductor conducting. Even though there was no sound in people’s eyes it was still considered a performance and piece because of the situation it was put into.

Benjamin, Post Class 2/11, meg143

In our reading by Benjamin, “The Work of Art in the Art of Mechanical Reproduction” there were a lot of very interesting quotes and ideas that became much more clear to me after discussing them in class. After reading this for the first time I felt that Benjamin was trying to say that we live in a society were there are reproductions of everything, leaving the original and authentic pieces with less value and importance. However, listening to the concepts again and trying to understand the deeper meaning behind it, I feel he is now discussing how this mass reproduction may have also just made society better at spotting an original versus a reproduction and also taking great appreciation in authenticity. “The presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity” (20). For something to have true authenticity the original needs to be there for the real legitimate appreciation. My first example I used in class when discussing this was the difference between reading about and seeing reproductions of the Mona Lisa painting in history class and then finally being able to see the original painting in the Louvre museum in Paris. This is an example of an original being a bit of a let down after hearing so much about it, to see that it is a very small painting that is behind thick glass and doesn’t seem to be as unique as I had always heard. However, that didn’t stop me from appreciating the authenticity and the legitimacy of the painting. And while studying in Europe I had many more awe struck moments of seeing historical art and buildings that I had only seen pictures of and learned about in school. Even if something in it’s original form turns out to look or feel different than you might have imagined it is always appreciated for it’s inspiration and authenticity.

VAGABOND, Lyotard

Can this be anymore difficult to comprehend? :(

I personally think postmodernism is so whimsical because of we can only define it by comparing it to modernism. I understand the binary opposition concept, yet it only makes me feel like I am thinking on terms of "good v bad" "light v dark" etc.

The most painful part of this reading was how I felt like I understood what he was saying in one sentence and in the next, he's lost me.

To be honest, the first thing that came into my mind was the game called "Marco Polo." In my opinion, this is a game - an action and reaction. You don't see it but you ultimately "catch" someone because you understand the concept after focusing.

If this article was to answer the proposed question: What is postmodernism? I would say it is the molding and transformation process that is capable of evoking,

Another idea which caught my attention was the notion of reality...

Pre-Class with a splash of Post Class

In Jean-Francois Lyotard’s writing “Answering the Question: What is Postmodernism?” He attempts to answer the question that is the title, however the only question that is answered is what postmodernism is not. Lyotard say’s “postmodernity imposes on the thought of the Enlightenment, on the idea of a unitary end of history and of a subject.” After this statement I think there is a gap missing where he should explain what postmodernity does do. The writing was overall very confusing, and hard to follow Lyotard’s overall hypothesis that should be as simple as what is postmodernism? One quote I thought was interesting was from the end of the writing. Lyotard says, “Finally, it must be clear that it is our business not to supply reality but to invent allusions to the conceivable which cannot be presented” (46). What I took away from this is that he is trying to say that anyone who is writing for the postmodern, is not writing what they think is the truth, rather write alternatively about something that is not possible but seems to be true in their eyes. (Even trying to explain this quote confuses me). I think the reading needs to be explained further in class tomorrow…

As far as what we spoke about on Tuesday, I thought that the quote “In principal, a work of art has always been reproductable” (19) was interesting because even though we have artists who make original pieces, there are also thousands of artists who emulate those who make what we consider “high art”. I don’t think that the artists who try to emulate other artists should be in anyway discredited, even though sometimes we call these people copycats. The other way to look at this quote is saying that we have always had some way of reproducing pieces of art, even in the time before the printing press.

Lyotard/Habermas, Paige Ehart

“Bourgeois art had two expectations at once from its audiences. On the one hand, the layman who enjoyed art should educate himself to become an expert. On the other hand, he should also behave as a competent consumer who uses art and relates aesthetic experiences to his own life problems. This second, and seemingly harmless, manner of experiencing art has lost its radical implications exactly because it had a confused relation to the attitude of being expert and professional”(106).

This really struck me because I can relate this notion to Marx and his ideas of commodification. Marx says that all things are in this world for the purpose of being bought and sold. I feel that nowadays art has taken this turn towards making a profit as opposed to the idea that people want to do it to simply express themselves or ideas of cultures around them. A long time ago art was a cherished possession and in a sense priceless because of the heart and soul that went into each piece of artwork. Artists such as Monet, Van Gogh, Picasso, etc have works displayed in museums all over the world and they are observed and admired by millions of people every year. These pieces of art work have been appreciated over the years.

Art should be something that a person takes pride in and pours emotions into. And while art is subjective to each person, art should still be special to the person who is creating it. I agree that art should be something from the heart and it is a way to express yourself but one should also gain the knowledge and expertise of the style of art to create something masterful and inspiring. Bourgeois puts thinks about it in the best way possible. He wants to be the greatest artist that he can be while also maintaining the skills and thoughtfulness he always had. He doesn’t want to get too caught up in the consumer and the idea that art can be sold for profit. I feel that the term “art” has been taken advantage of and instead people are turning towards the mass production of art for the sole purpose of profit.

Pre-class, Lyotard

I have to agree with the last post; this piece by Lyotard was extremely difficult to understand. I am still not sure what his overall objective was in writing this. Skimming back through it, I can’t even pick out a thesis or any kind of structure at all. He poses the question, simply: what is postmodernism? However, he never gets around to out-rightly answering this question. Lyotard states: “A work can be modern only if it is first postmodern. Postmodernism thus understood is not modernism at its end but in the nascent state, and that state is constant” (44). I also saw this in the previous post from meg143. What I took from this statement was that modernism and postmodernism are not set eras, but auras, as we have discussed in class. They are not time periods set in stone, but ways of doing things. This is why postmodernism does not refer to the end of modernism. I have to disagree with the previous post and say that it most definitely does come after modernism; it is a response to modern thinking and process. However, modernism as a way of thinking and doing is still in the “nascent state,” that is, it still has a future. Now when he says that a work can only be modern if it is first postmodern, I have had difficulty unpacking that statement. Postmodernism is a response to modernism, so I do not believe he is saying anything as arbitrary as postmodernism came first. Perhaps he is saying that because of postmodernism, it is no longer possible to create a work that is strictly modern. This of course goes back to Jencks and the concept of concept of borrowing from the past and from other styles, themes, and thought structures.

clem Lyotard

In this text, Lyotard, like Barthes and Macherey speaks of the gap in art and refers to Habermas's non-understanding of it. "What Habermas requires from the arts and the experience they provide is, in short to bridge the gap between cognitive, ethical and political discourses, thus opening the way to a unity of experience" (39) The issue is we are at a time where not everything can be and needs to be said. Some things in the art realm, and just in general cannot be represented such as "the infinitely great", " the infinitely powerful". These are concepts which are unrepresentable. It is what Kant calls the Sublime. He refers to "abstraction" saying it is "like a presentation of the infinite, its negative presentation". I think this is again the gap we have been speaking of in class. The absence of certain things say more than if one intends to present them. This is how Lyotard defines aesthetics.

Lyotard comments on Habermases' confusing of beauty and aesthetics which is why he want those gaps to be filled in art. I think the best way to think of the difference between beauty and aesthetics is by using Lyotards example and quote referring to Marcel Duchamp "Duchamp's "ready-made" does nothing but actively and parodistically signify this constant process of dispossession of the craft of painting or even of being artist. As Thierry de Duve penetratingly observes, the modern aesthetic question is not "What is beautiful?" but "What can be said to be art?".

Jean-Francois Lyotard, Andrew Wells

To start, I have to be honest. I Just picked up the packet for tomorrows class. I am writing what I understand as I read. Feel free to comment on any differences you have against my ideas.

Beginning off the reading, "What Is Postmodernism," I can see that I'm not alone when say that it is not easy to understand the point of view. He begins by talking about realism; "Realism, whose only definition is that it intends to avoid the question of reality implicated in that of art, always stands somewhere between academicism ad kitsch" (JFL, 41). Reading this line is a bit difficult for me to try to get an understanding on what it means. First what exactly is Lyotard saying that "...the art always stands somewhere between academicism and kitsch"? To break it down I first had to look up the definition to kitsch. It is defined as: excessively garish or sentimental art; usually considered in bad taste (wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn). The way I interpret this is that art can be viewed as a catch between academically or in bad taste. We are the true decider of what we like and don't like. There is no set standard to art.

Further more as I kept reading a certain reading popped up in my head. "Modern aesthetic of the sublime, though a nostalgic one." This struck me as another tricky quote that i found hard to understand. Once again i think it's important to break it done by defining some terms. Sublime to my understanding means something that is awe inspiring and worth noting adoration. Nostalgic means being unhappy because you are missing your surroundings. This could mean that the beauty of art is created to send a certain awe inspiration feeling but at the same time have a longing of being original... Any thoughts??

I'm going to continue reading the other article to better understand Lyotards meaning.

Lyotard, Pre Class 2/10, meg143

Lyotard’s reading on the question of “What is Postmodernism” was pretty difficult to understand. He begins by discussing Realism and how it’s “only definition is that it intends to avoid the question of reality implicated in that of art, always stands somewhere between academicism and kitsch” (41). Lyotard describes how Realism does not look to define what is real and what is not, that there is no correct form of art or narrative. Realism is an important part of postmodernism. In the next section Lyotad describes his definition of what postmodern means and how it relates to realism. “It is clear that it is not our business to supply reality but to invent allusions to the conceivable which can be presented.” (46). This explains that reality is not a very important or necessary aspect to postmodernism. Lyotard also continues to explain how postmodern architecture is much like a bricolage of ideas where rational and reality do not come into play. This definitely rings true postmodern architecture has such a different style and tone without nearly as many rules as other styles. Postmodern architecture represents more of a feeling of innovation and creativity than a set of rigid rules and tradition. I also found it very interesting how Lyotard chose to describe the difference and similarity between the postmodern and the modern. “A work can become modern only if it is first postmodern. Postmodernism thus understood is not modernism at its end but in the nascent state, and this is constant” (44). I felt this was a very good description and recognizes that the word “post” modern doesn’t necessarily fit the term or era because modern work did not necessarily come before postmodern work; they have an interconnected relationship, where technically postmodern work comes first.