Eric, Post class

Real Heroes of Freedom

Kermit sniffed at the dank air of the primitive sewer system and almost immediatly felt vomit at the back of his throat. Stifling back the vile tide, he reached down to his combat vest and thumbed the talk button on his navy SEAL-issue sub vocal microphone.

"This place is making me turn green."

"You're already green, you stupid git," rumbled Ron through his own radio

"Hey, It's not easy being green," whined Dermit, as much as one can whine through a sub vocal radio.

"Even though though you're green Kermit, you're still beautif-"

"James Blunt, if I 'ave to 'ear zat horreebull sooong one more time, I will kick you in your rrrotton mash-eating protestant teeth and castrate you before you can say tea time," interupted Luminaire in his comical french accent.

"But it's true," Mouthed Blunt; his thoughts drifting back to the night he and Kermit had consumated their forbidden love.

Spock, in his understated logical way, motioned for them to keep quiet and move on.
They then arrived at the manhole that would take them into the heart of the secret fortress of the devious organization known only as the Alliance Against Freedom. No freedom loving man or woman would ever forget the day Phill Collins, Voldemort, Sean Hannity, and the animated remains of Saddam Hussein simultaneously detonated an m-80 in every single toilet in the greater Cleveland area. The city once called the Jewel of the Midwest now lay a ruin of sewage of and flame. It was because of this, that this elite team had been assembled.

They emerged from the sewer and checked their weapons. Ron pulled out his wand and gave it a diagnostic swish and flick. Kermit pulled the slide on his TMP, chambering a round and thumbed the safety off. James Blunt loaded a fresh magazine into his enfeild and adjusted his stylish beret. Luminaire checked the propellant tanks on his back and shouldered his FAMAS. Spock set his phaser to atomize and calmly lit a black and mild.

They split up then, James Blunt and Ron Weasly taking one corridor. Luminaire, Kermit, and spock taking the other.

(an hour later...)
It felt to Kermit like they had been crawling through these air shafts forever and in these confined spaces Luminaires' flames were getting a bit too close for comfort. In front of him Spock inhaled sharply and and pointed at the nearby grate.

Visible through the vent were James Blunt and Ron were being held at gunpoint by Phil Collins.
"Maybe I could just turn and walk away...but I don't think I will," Said Phill Collins.
"You're a has-been, Collins," Yelled Blunt. He's so Brave, thought Kermit.
"Oh and what are you? I think I should do the world a favor," said Collins before planting a bullet in James Blunt's throat.
Before his eyes could close for the final time james mouthed, "I love you Kermit."

"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO," Screamed Kermit leaping through the Grate, guns blazing.
Phil Collins jerked his head towards kermit and began firing and shouted, "I can feel it calling in the air tonight... It's your time to die! Get the frog!"

"EXCUS E MOI! WHO ARE YOU CALLING A FROG!?!??!!?" yelled Luminaire, following Kermit out of the grate. He opened up on Collin's nameless minions with his FAMAS yelling, "TASTE FRENCH STEEL!"

Spock sighed and dropped his black and mild. If this had been a movie, there would have been a slow-motion shot of the cigarello falling and Spock extinguishing it with his federation issue boots. "Earthlings," he muttered, "So illogical." when Saddam's shambling horde and the death eaters arrived, Spock knew this was place for a phaser and he drew his engraved match set of General Electric gatling guns.
"It's party-time ," he said quietly.

to be continued....

Sally, Post class 9/25

No longer do we have to travel to DisneyWorld to frolic with this mega-industry's favorite characters.....the Mouse has come to our house! Recently, I read an advertising blurb in the local newspaper about a developer who is offering a hook - literally, a pirate's hook as in Pirates of the Caribbean. The article reads, as follows:

KB Homes sells Disney-Inspired Homes
Posted at September 28th, 2007 4:28 pm by Eric Hochberger
Filed under: Home Builders
KB Homes, the fifth largest U.S. home builder, announced that it would offer homes customized with Disney characters.

Starting next year, buyers will be able to specify flooring, window coverings, and light inspired by Disney characters such as Mickey Mouse, Cinderella, and characters from Pirates of the Caribbean.

“Almost 60% of KB Home home buyers are families with children,” said Wendy Marlett, senior vice president of sales and marketing at KB Home, in a statement.

Our class discussion illuminated Disney as having become a metanarrative for our society, in a sense. “Fiction reinforces in a circular fashion” (Dorfman, 128) resulting in stagnation in our lives because it is a closed system. So, now we have a home builder (5th largest in the U.S.) who is incorporating Disney in its product - a house. I can understand that some parents choose to (mis)decorate with Disney characters, but to incorporate Disney in the foundational aspects of your home (flooring) raises a big issue for me. On the surface, it seems harmless....but, what happens when the kiddies grow up? I would think(hope) that the flooring will have to be replaced. So, right from the start, new home buyers are making poor judgments and are wasting their money. I say "buy an area rug" if you have a need to walk on Goofy! What's more disturbing is the possibility the kiddies, grown into their teens, may resist changing the flooring from a Disney theme to something more aesthetically pleasing. Their interior design sense/appreciation/progress may have been stymied by the all-American Disney machine. Some "adult" was responsible for choosing the flooring.... but, maybe that "adult" will pass it off as succumbing to the "child" within him/her. Is the intent to keep us all in a state of childhood and make-believe?

We each have our own preferences in decorating as it should be. Some folks choose concrete as their flooring, so why is a Disney character so appalling to me? Maybe because Disney is make-believe; concrete is real. To literally make Disney part of your home is making Disney real. Now, that's a scary thought! I want to know that El Ratone is safe inside the Kingdom and the minds of us all….I don’t want Disney characters to invade my living space in a permanent, or semi-permanent, manner; for that matter, I don’t want my neighbors to be such Disney fanatics that the foundation of their home is Donald Duck….and now, thanks to KB Homes, they have that choice. I can hear it now: "Mommy, Daddy, the Jones’ have the BEST floor ever – it’s MICKEY!! Why can’t WE get one!!! Well, Johnny, we already have a floor." "Wahhhhhhhh!" Absurdity to the highest degree...

Anamnesis post class habermas/lyotard

After discussing Lyotard and Habermas, I found Habermas' interpretation of postmodernism to be more sober and realistic. Lyotard wants to embrace postmodernism and treat it as an entity, associating all kind of terms with it. Habermas treats it as if it never happened and it is rather something that is imagined.

One common thread in all the definitions of postmodernism is conflict: design is conflicting, language is conflicting, governments are conflicting. That this conflict is more prevalent and varied today doesn't say much to me. Like a river, history flows into it's natural eddies and rapids and creates its own tributaries. eventually the river will dry up, go into the ocean, or join other rivers. There's nothing so different about the time in which we live other than technology. Humans remain fundamentally the same throughout time, whether they are on earth or on mars. In 2001: A
Space Odyssey, primates gather around a mysterious monolith, perplexed and exited by its simplicity and sudden arrival. Later in the film, when the monolith reappears and humans have developed spaceships, they gather around it in the very same manner, totally vexed by it's bleak simplicity.

Anamnesis pre class 9/25

Baudrillard's 'Simulations' makes me think of the cave paintings in Lascaux. These are representations of horses and buffalo that show an ability to portray themes and how perspective. Here we have a community participating in a kind of simulation where the "real" object is symbolized with pigment. Is this society replacing reality with signs. No.

The idea that we have replaced reality with signs is ridiculous. Just because the signs become more diluted and less meaningful has no bearing on the presence of reality itself. With or without consciousness, nature goes on. If I make an absurd claim and hold it up as art, then that's all I'm doing. I'm not distorting reality, taking others away from reality, or taking myself away from reality.

Baudrillard's blurb on Disneyland reminds me of a writer named Jerry Mander, who was actually cited in bibliography of the Charles Jencks Handout. He wrote a book called "In the absence of the Sacred" in which he is highly critical of Epcot. His argument goes beyond Baudrillard to say that Epcot (and major shopping malls for that matter) are essentially training grounds for humans to live in modular devises in space. The Shopping mall encapsulates a world where everything is inclusive and preordained. Sustenance and safety are a given.

I think Baudrillard is right in his paradox of the parking lot-"a veritable concentration camp"- in that he contrast the many gadgets with the one gadget--the automobile. But this is also where I think that postmodernism gets it chasm of definition. That is, I think that "the many as opposed to the few" or variety in excess is really what people mean when they say the word 'postmodern.'

Anamnesis post class for last week

Architecture now seems to be in a freefall like painting…whatever can happen will. The cube homes in Rotterdam are not impressive to me. What is impressive to me is that building which answers to the past and necessarily incorporates the “urbane urbanism” that we expect to find in the small structures surrounding buildings. Infrastructure is a refection of society, not an outward effort, but an investigation of what is relevant and vital. Thoughtful design allows society to breathe more freely, to feel interconnected and to have a sense of purpose. Louis Khans National Parliament Building of Bangladesh is a meaningful building to me because it is poetic and it is not about the architect, but about light and feeling the history of architecture in Bangladesh.

It struck me during out trip downtown that thoughtful design is a responsibility in communities. Aesthetic, as I mentioned above is not an outward thing. Like food, nourishes a community or leaves it malnourished. To illustrate this we can take the most extreme examples. Collective well being is presumably more challenged in a ghetto, for instance, with factory like projects and filthy streets.


I wonder if there is really such thing as "postmodern" architecture. If it means integrating the past while acknowledging the present, then even rococo did that. If it means creating new spatial experiences, then the Greeks did that. and if it means looking futuristic, well the Egyptians did that.

Eddie, Zizek

Slavoj Zizek talks of “the thrill of the real.” He states that images have exposed us to ever more realistic fears and pain, buying our attention with shock of horror while we, in our haze, are ever more removed from the fact of horror. An excellent illustration of his idea would be in television.

Traditional fiction on TV is, well, fiction. Fiction is reality made dramatic, and consists of what we recognize from life but are distorted to unfamiliar extremes. It is either too good to be true or too bad to be plausible. Fiction in this form is engaging, but never stresses to be real. “It’s just TV, dear, don’t be silly” we have all been told. When we are done watching TV, we cross that boarder at the edge of the screen and return to our own world. Everything that happens on the screen stays on the screen and we are allowed to put down those events until we choose to return at a future day.

Now, with TV that mimics reality, things are no longer simple and tame. When viewers could choose to never return to the world of the television or even forget about it completely, television found realism. When things are real, they matter, and people’s attention returned once again. Yet something is now different. Because shows are “real,” the outcomes hold consequences beyond a storyline. The TV is no longer a simple container of self-contained worlds, but is now a window for a glimpse of real people put into situations of humanistic and moralistic conflict. Sure, we have had similar struggles all along on TV, but now, when we turn off the TV, the show lives on as an ominous truth somewhere beyond the four walls of our homes. Suddenly, the show is never over.

Realistic television exploits the limited reach of our perceptions in the world so that fiction can no longer be disapproved and separated from real life. TV seeks to persuade us that the shocking events must exist somewhere out there, so we are now always engaged in the show. Over time, we become weary of TV’s endless turmoil and constant intensity.

Intense and extreme experiences in life are supposed to be of the minority. We are supposed to recognize their rarity as being unusual and realize the need for our concern or action. Yet with the current feed of mock battles and staged disasters at such scale and frequency, we are exhausted. We have not been made into heartless demons by TV, but rather run to the ground and tired to the point of indifference.

The meteor in Deep Impact, nuclear threats in 24 and phantom diseases in House are all shocking, but are all ultimately inconsequential. We are ruffled, unsettled and deeply disturbed, but at the same time, any alarm awaken within ourselves is false and temporary. It will then take a bigger bomb or a deeper mutilation to call our alert the next time, and even then we will have already learnt to fall back into normality in moments. If Zizek is right, that is what we need to fear – a pacified, or even crippled, sense of danger in real life.

Eric, Baudrillard

In the second paragraph of page 465, Baudrillard states that "one can say that the icon worshipers were the most modern minds, the most adventurous, because, in the guise of having God become apparent in the mirror of images, the were already enacting his death...." this to me seems to carry a false tone. I cannot imagine the world-view which imagines ignorance as analogous to adventurous progressiveness.
He then discusses an issue that I have long been fascinated with: The murderousness of science.
The character of science which Baudrillard proposes is that of a rapist who violates women in order to describe their nature to society or a murderer who kills his victims in order to prove that they were alive. It is a blind leviathan, constantly lumbering forward and slipping its member into every crevice that presents itself.
Science is obsessed with preservation and it quickly becomes clear that in order to preserve something, it must be killed. It is also possessed of an "Irreparible violence towards all secrets...." Science itself is blithely unapolegetic of its character. 'Are not secrets an affront to existence? Is not the universe only rendered manifest as it is splayed out on an examining table, tissue flensed from bone?' These are the kind of questions science demands of humanity. It remembers when it was young and the older religions hunted for it. And now, as it rises up, it will see its hunters pinned up in display cases in museums. Whether it kills them by making them real or makes them real by killing them makes no difference, for both purposes serve the altar of science. Like no other ideology before it, science is a ravenous dreadnought.
However though, through its works, its towering corpse-built monuments to truth, science has perhaps engendered its own destruction. At the very least it has birthed its own true adversary. As Samael once questioned, so now do those that feel the pang of death question the good of science. Artists build simulations from the scattered offal of science's crusade which grasp at life and thrust their way into minds. The weapons which science built to kill the gods now birth droves of half-truths which strike and gnaw at precious truth.

Post-Class, Eric

"and thus did Andrew continue to berate the oligarch, for the fury of the lord was within him and it was as righteous light before the crowd gathered there. Prefects of the apostate nation drew their heretical weapons and advanced upon the prophet ordering him to desist or face their false justice. But such was the might of the lord within the prophet Andrew that their frail pleas availed them not. The corrupt officers of the law then attempted to restrain the prophet but he thrashed about in resistance as though pregnant with the very hosts of heaven. The sons of the second sodom trembled in fear , for such was the majesty of the prophet Andrew. As the cowards brandished their weapons at the prophet, he stood steadfast; proclaiming, "don't taze me bro." And before these holy words the heretics rightly shook and pissed themselves, big time. In their fear they pumped the great Andrew with demonic lightning.
Just then a host of seraphim tore through the crowd of non-believers. However, Andrew was a most merciful prophet and beseached the angels to have mercy on the crowd. For it would be most terrible in the eyes of god if so many of his flock, lost though they were, were to join the dragon in the lake of fire. So the great prophet endured the torments of the blasphemers weapons and the jeering of the fornicators, smiling in his heart knowing that they would live on and perhaps in time come to see the light of the lord.
Later that evening he logged on to youtube and popped open a natty ice."-Book of Bros


I don't think the totalized metanarritive is dead. Rather that it has multiplied and mutated. After all it is not what is in the text that is important, but what is not in the text.

Francesca, Baudrillard/Zizek

In reading Jean Baudrillard’s The Spirit of Terrorism and Slavoj Zizek’s The Desert of the Real, I recognized the vast applicability of their theories. In the context of their argument, the authenticity of terrorist events is called into question. Judging catastrophes such as the World Trade Center, we see the spectacle of an event take precedence over its reality. Baudrillard writes, “The collapse of the World Trade Center towers is unimaginable, but that is not enough to make it a real event. An excess of violence is not enough to open on to reality. For reality is a principle, and it is this principle that is lost. Reality and fiction are inextricable, and the fascination with the attack is primarily a fascination with the image.”(228 C) This is the product of sensationalized media and a consumerist society. These two counterparts work in a vicious cycle perpetuating an elusive concept of reality. However, the quest to fathom this concept removes us increasingly farther from the authenticity of the actual event.

This dynamic within our culture is relevant to other aspects as well. For instance, the ideal concept of feminine beauty has been so far removed from the reality of a woman’s appearance that the spectacle of attaining such a concept has supplanted what is real. With the proliferation of plastic surgery and celebrity infatuation, women are inundated with a barrage of unrealistic images parading as the standard of appearance. In turn, women seek to conform to an ideal notion of beauty considered desirable within a patriarchal society. In accordance with a vicious cycle, the sensationalized media provides such absurd images of attractiveness and female consumers purchase beauty products and contrived body parts in acceptance of the spectacle they stomach as reality. In summation, the theories of Baudrillard and Zizek explicate a dynamic of postmodern culture that has pervaded a number of realms.

GeekinthePink

“But does reality actually outstrip fiction? If it seems to do so, this is because it ahs absorbed fiction’s energy, and has itself become fiction.” Baudrillard’s description of reality as jealous of fiction is post modernity at it’s best. Think about it—we have so greatly utilized the power of creating thoughts, feelings, music, and silence to images that we have redefined reality. And redefining and breaking things down and getting new meaning from them—anamnesis at work. How many times have we viewed the World Trade Centers blunder toward the ground, not only killing innocent people, but also our feeling of being immortal, of being comfortable with our security?

I don’t know if I agree with Baudrillard’s assertion that even while we try to give some new meaning to reality, we fail. “We try retrospectively to impose some kind of meaning to it, to find some kind on interpretation. But there is none.” I think by seeing it in slow motion, and with music, that we do have a new sense of meaning. Think about those critics that say 9/11 was an inside job. I’m sure some people tap into this idea, and for them, when they view the footage, they may watch it with more scorn and contempt. Haven’t those conspiracy theorists succeeded in giving new meaning to the event? I suppose it is still the same feeling however; but it is redirected.

In “The Precession of Simulacra” Baudrillard says that the “the balance of terror is the terror of balance.” I think this goes along with the other article well. In other words, threat is actually more effective than action. The threat keeps the action from happening. Certainly, it preserves the equity of war and peace. In order to create an effective terrorism scheme, the media is a perfect medium. By giving him media, we have let Bin Laden cross from the lines of Afghanistan into every home and have let him terrorize us better than he could have ever done by himself. Baudrillard says war is not a solution, yet he doesn’t seem to offer a solution. I have one however. If every time Bin Ladin makes a new video, every extremist makes a new threat, we didn’t plaster it all over our screens and have myriad analyists tell us what it means, we wouldn’t be aiding a murderer. If we stopped giving him a medium, he would be that much less effective.

Mike of Modernity(or post?)

The realization that the media coverage surrounding the events of the World Trade Center disaster were instrumental in helping Osama Bin Laden accomplish his goal, became apparent to me a mere few months later when the call for retaliation came from the Bush White House. His goal was to disorganize, overwhelm and scatter our resolve. As well, it was to encourage a brash, poorly planned and executed retaliation, in order to cast the United States in the role of an incompetent bully, one who had just gotten his comeuppance. Unfortunately, we fell into the role like a natural, and began swinging in every direction but where the ball was. Jean Baudrilliard's words are cuttingly accurate when he said that the terrorist's were victorious because they affected "the whole ideology of freedom, of free circulation." Certainly anyone who flies on an airplane these days feels as if a part of their freedom has been taken, anyone who happens to be of Near Asian or Middle Eastern descent, almost anyone who is even brown is treated with some level of mistrust or outright prejudice. In the years following the "end" of the Cold War, America was without its "other". A common evil to organize against. And Bin Laden conveniently stepped into our sights. (I am no conspiracy theorist, but occasionally they almost sound too right not to have a kernel of truth.)
The media covered every detail, except for those that they did not wish us to see. It became a ratings bonanza. By bombarding the public with these images, carefully edited with moving background music in dramatic montage, the press began to effect the public's take on the disaster. The wholesale destruction we witness in films had prepared us for the "Real thing". Then when the real thing occurrede, it appeared as distant and unreeal as any Hollywood production. In their attempts to report the news they actually began to deconstruct and altogether diminish the "true" horror and place it in a stasis of sorts - a fantasy. As Baudrilliard says "There is no good use of the media", and they managed to match the description to a tee.

GeekinthePink

I think the whole debate we had between Habermas and Lyotard further confuses the subject. It's as if both sides are not thoroughly defined. Habermas is so busy saying modernism is not thoroughly finished that I feel like he doesn't see that he is going beyond the definition of modernity. And the fact that he doesn't believe anyone is not conservative; that's interesting. I implore some attention toward the media.
See what I was thinking about Habermas is that he refuses to accept things as they are--meaning, if our society is viewed as postmodern, he seems to want to twist the meaning of modern so that it fits the description rather than admit that it's something else. He does that with neoconservativism as well. By saying that everyone is a conservative, what is he changing? Is he changing that big groups of people have very different politics? No--he's just changing the definition to suit his purpose, in my opinion.
Don’t get me wrong—I actually like Habermas and his ideas—but I feel like he’s too stubborn to accept that modernism has changed; and by changed, I mean to a whole different concept. Habermas seems less comfortable with the idea that sometimes you cannot define things. Lyotard describes postmodern as letting us be philosophers and as “presenting the unpresentable”—Lyotard, even though he seems to employ lots of rules and regulations in his writings (which reminds me more of a modernist than a postmodernist) at least is accepting that we cannot put a definable meaning on everything.
Oooh. You know one of the things I was thinking during class? Someone tell Hilary Clinton that Habermas says everyone is a conservative. I would really love to see her face. What would she say? Ooh. And Obama. Yea. That would be too fun.

Sally, Zizek (Welcome to the Desert of the Real)

Does Slavoj Zizek give too much credit to the terrorists when he says, "the 'terrorists' themselves did not do it [planes hitting the WTC towers on September 11, 2001] primarily to provoke real material damage, but for the spectacular effect of it."? (231) I want to believe that it was coincidence that network cameras captured the 2nd plane flying into the tower as it did - providing the world with "the spectacular effect" of America under attack in real time - resulting in the jouissance that we Americans so unabashadly live for. To believe otherwise means that the timing of the impacts were so perfectly coordinated and immune to human factors that could cause delay that the "perfect" attack had been planned to be captured on camera LIVE! Certainly, Bin Laden knew the aftermath would be filmed and broadcast ad nauseum, but COULD he have known that CNN and FOX would have their cameras in place to film the 2nd plane as it approached and crashed into the 2nd WTC tower? I'll never forget a particular news anchor, Shepherd Smith, atop the studio's building trying to gather his thoughts and do his reporting as the wind blew his hair and he buttoned his shirt, etc. Cameramen ran about in a frantic rush and had to be admired for their "pulling it all together" so quickly, but then, the 2nd plane came into view as a black dot....and the "rest is history." Were they capturing a news story for ratings? Or, were they capturing the "real horror" happening here, rather than there" (paraphrase, 2323) to show that America is not immune to tragedy? The raw images of that day are indeed a "primal scene"(borrowing from Baudrillard, 228.) In that brief moment, the media was one of us - we were all primal in our fascination/horror with the destruction.

In my own home, I rationalized viewing the coverage as "this is history in the making". In fact, the later realization that I was so detached from the reality of what was truly occurring was stunning and shaming to me. I admit, I tried hard to see if I could spot anyone jumping from the buildings as the news was reporting. The most disturbing aspect of the possibility that Bin Laden really did intend for the networks to capture the plane(s) hitting the buildings in real time, is to accept that this leader of terrorists got the final "f@#% you" on the American society he so detests by using the American media to his own advantage. Also, with the likelihood of the human factor affecting his plan (delays on the runways, screeners holding up the line at Logan airport) logic says it's pure coincidence that his plan unfolded as it did. Perhaps, if I'm honest with myself, my argument is driven by this: I simply don't want to give him (them) credit for their success. It would be unamerican to do so....but, the truth of what really happened that day tugs at me; I have always wrestled with admitting the genius/reason behind the attacks and giving "credit" where credit is due. To ignore the reality is equally un-American. Now, back to Hollywood for further insight to 9/11....

Most profoundly, Zizek likens the 2nd airplane to a scene from Alfred Hitchcock's movie, The Birds. Wow. Let's just say if we ever discover that Bin Laden is a fan of Hitchcock, I'll readily concede that he orchestrated the whole attack perfectly despite any unexpected interruptions that may have impeded the synchronicity of the attack(s)! (Do I dare say that I can understand why the fundamentalist Islamist terrorists believe their God, Allah, "blessed" this effort.) Furthermore, did Bin Laden KNOW the steel would collapse as it did in BOTH towers? (I have to be careful here because this guy may get way-too-much credit as a "director".) We had a prelude of such attacks, but a parking garage bombing by "the blind sheik" near the UN building in NYC ('93) just didn't have the same impact as the WTC towers falling - it was still Hollywood, but not a summer blockbuster like WTC was. It was just a bombing as was The USS Cole. We, the general public, tend to recover from those events by the next day or so.

The image of the 2nd plane is the one that haunts my thoughts....as when the indistinguishable black dot appears in the upper right hand corner of the screen in the The Birds, so did the 2nd plane appear on our tv screens. The bird eventually zeroed in on, and hit, the character on the head as she waved to her lover. "Was not the plane which hit the WTC tower literally the ultimate Hitchcockian blot, the anamorphic stain which denaturalized the idyllic well-known New York landscape?" (233) ) Until I read Zizek's analogy, I only knew that particular “scene” to be chilling. It's difficult to express why, though; that scene led to the survivors walk/running from the destruction, covered in white ash, who were like zombies - dazed and surreal. They were truly denaturalized on American soil. Increasingly, I'm starting to accept that it's not such a stretch that Bin Laden is a fan of Hitchcock - he "directed" a masterpiece of horror for the American public's viewing "pleasure;" in effect, Bin Laden is making us deal with "the Desert of the Real."

Francesca 9/18

While discussing the aspect of Habermas’ theory concerning neoconservatives, I recalled my experience in debate. This recollection was triggered by Habermas’ emphasis on the fallacious misconceptions neoconservatives have of cultural affairs. Habermas writes, “Neo-conservative doctrines win our attention precisely away from such societal processes, they project the causes, which they do not bring to light, onto the plane of subversive culture and its advocates.” This statement can be applicable to a number of fallacies in the art of argumentation. Yet, one fallacy in particular seems pertinent to this statement. Circulus in demonstrado, or circular argument, occurs when one contends that something is true without explicating why it is true. Moreover, in examining Habermas’ characteristics of a neo-conservative, certain attributes resonate the use of additional fallacies. For instance, the desire for a religious revival sets the precedent for the fallacy of argumentum ad populum, the appeal to popularity. By means of appealing to an alleged popular opinion, politicians seek to coerce people to jump on a supposed bandwagon. This is demonstrated through incessant appeals to waning morality and the “overwhelming majority” that feel a religious revival will rectify such a problem. Furthermore, as these characteristics of neo-conservative ideology lack sufficient corroboration, we see Habermas’ view of postmodern reality substantiated. This criterion for a neoconservative has negative implications being that it signifies a shift towards a unilateralist mentality with potentially negative ramifications. These consequences include imperialistic and ethnocentric political decisions that contradict the universally applicable law Habermas contends in his work. In summation, Habermas presents the postmodern ideologies of neoconservatives with an ominous tone. As the prevalence of overriding themes in politics was made increasingly evident, an evaluation of such consistencies was in order. Habermas presents his theory as political commentary with a call to action for a new prioritization.

Sally, 9/18

The reality of metanarratives is one of those simple concepts that has far-reaching implications - especially when we are told that the metanarrative is "no more - it is dead" as proclaimed by Lyotard. That makes me a bit sad because I think he may be on to something very profound and, if he's correct in that observation, then these next few decades are going to be quite a trip as we, as a culture, adjust to the death of "our" metanarrative. Additonally, Lyotard's view that life in this decade and culture is comprised of little pieces that have been assembled together (bricolage) makes a lot of sense to me and is part of the conflict some may be experiencing - they are waiting for society to be "whole" again (i.e., the good ol' days)! Sorry, folks - that's not going to happen. We are increasingly becoming reflective shards of the whole.

The metanarrative is a "set of narratives that a culture uses as an over-arching framework to make meaning." (Dr. Rog, class lecture) Since a total metanarrative is said to provide you with the way to live your life, does that mean that each of us is living a life of chaos? If you remain secluded from society with your only source of information being the media, then you are probably feeling confused, alarmed, and stressed. The reason is pretty simple: Walter Cronkite retired years ago (he told us "like it was" reflecting the metanarrative of our nation.) Now, it's a free-for-all: watching "the experts" battle it out in their 10 second sound bites is too much for any human being to process or embrace! Shockingly, there are those who are glued to that media for their information and opinions; pretty much they all have the deer-in-the-headlight look about them or are mean-spirited and rude. The political, the scientific, and the religious communities are in a constant state of tension (an understatement, to be sure)and now, to find out, that our framework has died, what ARE we to do?! (sarcasm) So what is this metanarrative that has died in our society?

I believe there is one metanarrative, in particular, that is waiting for its headstone and memorial service: the Judeo-Christian framework. The majority of our society embraced, and promoted, Judeo-Christian values from the early years of our country through the early-to-mid 1900's, or so. That value system is still there superficially, but it no longer represents our core "national/societal" values; furthermore, it increasingly is having to share the stage with other world religions, such as Islam and Hinduism. A judgment as to whether this is positive or negative is not the point - I wish to focus on the reality shift that we're all having to deal with in these times. However, anyone who has studied that faith knows that it is a personal faith - not one of institutions and political systems! So, what have we lost? In a sense, it's possible those who truly share that faith will have more clarity in the coming decades than ever before. As for our society, the death of that metanarrative will (has) created a vaccuum that will eventually be filled by another metanarrative - even if it is the metanarrative of non-conformity and individualism. Interestingly, it's been said that it's the "disunity that unifies us" and that very well may be the new course for our society. Will it become a metanarrative? In the strict definition, no. Will it give us a framework from which we can draw to live our lives? Very possibly, yes. In some respects, that's been the American spirit/way all along if not by the majority, then by those behind the scenes. Quite frankly, those in the majority have been grossly opportunistic (again, an understatement) and have made a mockery of the metanarrative under which this country has lived for centuries. Maybe it is indeed time to give disunity a chance. I'd throw in one qualifier, though - respect. There. I think respecting the disunity (individualism) of each one of us may work!

GM 18 September, Life in a Bricolage Collage.

“Bricolage: Little pieces, together, in an assemblage. Bric-a-brac” (Prof. Casey, class lecture 9/18/07). Doesn’t this term, bricolage, define our culture, our way of life, in Orlando, Central Florida, and most of Florida as a whole? Notwithstanding the institutions of tourism, Walt Disney World, Epcot, and the other attractions, just go out for dinner in any one of our local eating establishments and you’ll witness bricolage in action. A small, family owned Mexican restaurant that my wife and I frequent often is a good example.
Off the proverbial “beaten path,” the restaurant, on any given Friday or Saturday night, reminds me of a scene from the movie Casablanca starring Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, Peter Lorrie, Sidney Greenstreet, and Claude Raines. I don’t mean just the customers either. The employees represent the gambit of the United Nations. Young men and women mainly, twenty to thirty years old, these young people originally came from countries all over South and Central America and from Eastern Europe to Central America. Even the five piece mariachi band, which includes one woman, represents three countries in Central America and two in South America. The restaurant’s clientele is any more diverse, representing countries from all over the world and parts of Alabama. This probably doesn’t sound all that amazing to you, but keep in mind that this is just one little, locally owned Mexican restaurant, located in a local neighborhood, in Kissimmee, Florida. But this, a diverse work force and clientele base, of course, isn’t limited to just Florida.
This past March, I had the opportunity to travel to Paris and London, and, without going into a great deal of detail, since, both of these cities represent hundreds and even thousands of years of international diversity and commerce, I would like to mention just one or two items that add credence to the definition of bricolage. While in Paris, I strongly doubt that I met anyone who I would consider to be a stereotypical Parisian (the definition of a stereotypical Parisian I’ll save for a future writing; although, I will state it’s a very good thing). Rather, most Parisians I interacted with were all of recent, foreign descent. And, while walking up and down the Champs-Elysées on a beautiful Saturday evening, I had the pleasure of doing so with at least, in my estimation, one hundred thousand, plus, Japanese tourists. All of whom, who were spending more euros than me I might add. In London, the scene was similar but different at the same time.
Assembled together at the hotel I was staying at in Westminster, the hotel staff literally represented every country in Eastern Europe and the Balkans. Owned and operated by an Italian firm, the hotel seemingly employed college age men and women who all seemed very happy to be there. One very small, but equally important observation that I would like to point out and one which, I think, helps to bring the definition of bricolage “full circle” involves a young, polish bar tender. It seemed that he specialized in creating one hell of a mojito. He would create a work of art with every mojito, so mush so, that local Londoner’s (the hotel is located very close to The New Scotland Yard station), would flock in every afternoon for a little, Latin toddy. Cheers!

Eddie, 9/18

We have now heard of Lyotard’s idea that everyone should strive to be free from the old and the stagnant. In the perfect world, we would all be as we see fit and not have some “-ism” tell us what to do. It is from a world where we are all comfortably different, he says, that conflict will cease. Though for people who have signed up for Lyotard’s hypothetical utopia of the artists, there are strange surprises waiting for them around the corner.

But first, we must put down our own mindset of” samism,” and picture this world where difference, rather than the same, is the equilibrium. Picture it in the form of two magnets. Now that we have flipped one around, the polarities push one another until they are a happy distance apart. Here, we learn not from our predecessors’ experience but from contemplating what they had failed to realize. There is always a better way in Lyotardian-America. Thus, contentment breeds stagnation, so people who just follow the ways of another and transcribe ideals are incapable of growing and flourishing. Even people who trust their own routines are part of this group of lazy, worthless and incompetent outliers (or inliers?). They are people who come short in their contribution to society and spend their days on flaccid labors. It is not too far from our own definition of a social deviant, really. This schism is a form of conflict.

Yet, it can be argued that such a social divide is of a world not yet made perfect. Should everyone embrace the idea of questioning and evolution, there would be no need for such exclusion. Truth be told, it would solve conflict, albeit that of a very specific flavor: the conflict of difference. That is, there would be no call to arms against “those freedom-hating Muslims” or “those decadent western infidels.” But in their place, we will experience a new kind of war: between countries similar to one another. What if, by chance, the proud course of revolution, evolution and innovation of two countries happen to be alike one another? Could it be that the other is leeching on the efforts and accomplishments of their neighbor? How could anyone stand by such an insult on their heritage of unique being? In a world of difference, we fight to eradicate the same.

Conservatives conserve, we were told. Thus, the world of the different is filled with conservatives who conserve individuality. And when there are things to conserve, there are threats to be fought, and we end up being no better off in terms of conflict in Lyotard’s world.

Francesca, Benjamin

Technological advancements and political processes have had an undeniable impact on the evolution of artistic expression. In his essay, “Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, Walter Benjamin focuses on the predominant ramifications and potential consequences such influences have had and may render on art. With the genesis of film production and photography, the question of authenticity became paramount. In an age of increasing consumerism, the integrity of expression seems to have taken a backseat to marketability. As Benjamin wrote this essay prior to the overwhelming proliferation of reality television and post-MTV age, his theory now serves as the stop sign our Hollywood-obsessed culture rolled through nonchalantly. Yet, as hindsight bias is 20/20, the increasingly indecipherable line between the genuine and the imitation of 1936 is now starkly evident in 2007. Capitalism is the hamster wheel society is spinning to the dismay of the American Heart Association. Thus, Benjamin’s nightmare has been manifested into a humdrum reality.

Furthermore, rendering this irrevocable damage was achieved subtly. The brilliance of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction lied in its perceptive recognition of a warning sign within an unpredictable realm. The art of film production possesses the ability to manipulate a mass audience. Benjamin writes, “The instant the criterion of authenticity ceases to be applicable to artistic production; the total function of art is reversed. Instead of being based on ritual, it begins to be based on another practice-politics.”(23) As there is no paradigm for a film to be based upon, the practice of its production is a novel circumstance. Benjamin foresaw this lack of authenticity to pose a threat to discernable lines between that which is real and mimesis. As this means of expression has evolved, the marketability for fantasy has supplanted a need for reality. If you don’t believe me, just watch VH-1.

Eddie, Lyotard

Jean-Francois Lyotard shares with us the idea of art being incompatible with our modern scientific approach towards the world. He states that art functions because it “enables us to see only by making it impossible to see” and logical studies of art would limit the creative mind.

That is, with his idea of “negative presentation,” nothing shown on the paper or canvas itself is capable of being beautiful in a true artistic sense. He also believes that artistic beauty itself should not be broken down into smaller logical components which are then studied and described in a scholarly, disciplined sense. If we think about it, is it not conceivable that the rigid, objective theories of art still require a degree of human interpretation and subjectivity? If art could be understood in truly objective elements, one could theoretically make computer software that rates the beauty of art on a numeric scale, but such a notion is obviously ridiculous. It hints that structure, system and scientific objectivity is being fitted onto something that is (at least partly) subjective by nature.
Mathematics is an example of a perfectly objective discipline. All questions give definite answers and results can be replicated regardless of mood, sex or cultural background. What the person feels is irrelevant to the computation, and it is with such removal from human subjectivity that orderly progress and the build-up of experience can be allowed the field.

But is it, thus, true that the subjective art must be removed from similar methods of study, dissection and classification? The artistic scholar disassembles a piece of work by looking for patterns and clues which agree with artistic theories, and while this may seem like superimposing order onto unique products of unique minds and social backgrounds, we must keep in mind the purposes of such explorations and the extent in which such efforts define a piece of work. Artistic scholars and aspiring artists need to learn how to see art in a non-arbitrary sense which can be communicated through peers. If such a structured study of art is labeled a hindrance and its authority is denied, what we are left with is a pool of arbitrary values and views concerning art. We are left with self-proclaimed artists and with no way of agreeing on who is the truly talented and who is the Billy Bob Joe that has no idea what he is doing. When no one is an expert, everyone is an expert. My opinions are just as valid as yours or any predecessors, and there can be no hope of any useful precipitation of knowledge and experience.

Sure, it is stated above that art holds with it a level of subjectivity, but it also defines that there is also a degree of objectivity too. If art is the specific set of decisions based on style by an artist in face of a multitude of options, then there must be some rhyme or reason governing how the art comes to be. Theories provide us with a useful approach to art and allow us to get closer to the work. Yet science does not penetrate art as thoroughly as it does with math. There will always be a fair amount of artistic subjectivity that is untamable and keeps each great artwork unique. Radical beliefs such as to remove art completely from disciplined studies simply will not free art, but would rather bring about the destruction of the “artist,” granting the same level of prestige and authority to every man woman and child, which may very well be against Lyotard’s wishes.

Eric, Habermas

In habermas's essay, he quoted Adorno: saying, "It is now taken for grandted that nothing which concerns art can be taken for granted anymore: neither art itself, nor art in its relationship to the whole, nor even the right of art to exist.'
This phrase and Habermas's following meditation on fiction and praxis triggered an arc of thought within my own mind.

Habermas discusses undertakings which attempted to destroy all the rules. stick it to the man. He declares them "nonsense experiments." But in my mind, they seem to be more than nonsense. They seem to be so pregnant with hypocracy that they should explode.

Surrealists and Marxists sought to disolve structures, bring about some form of equality. This, however, required them to build their own structures. Structures of any kind negate true equality: which is, the absence of differences. we would be unjust, if we begrudged these groups for their persecutions. the very nature of our existence is dictated by the restrictions of our senses, persecuted by the way we experience it. Objective equality is an aspect that, like perfection, can only be attained in truely acthonic entities, those unbound by the natural restrictions of reality.

Justin, Benjamin

"Let us assume that an actor is supposed to be startled by a knock at the door. If his reaction is not satisfactory, the director can resort to an expedient: when the actor happens to be at the studio again he has a shot fired behind him without his being forewarned of it. The frightened reaction can be shot now and be cut into the screen version. Nothing more strikingly shows that art has left the real of the "beautiful semblance" which, so far, had been taken to be the only sphere where art could thrive." (Benjamin, p. 27)

This passage made me think of the only picture I've ever drawn and been proud of. I found a photograph on the internet of a man during the civil rights movement standing in a crowd of people. His hand covered his face and he was very visibly distraught. I felt really compelled to try and draw him, and with no training or natural talent, I found it very difficult to capture the subject's emotion. But I stayed determined, and after a very long time, I had a respectable, small-scale, pencil-drawn copy of this photograph. The only way I was able to do it was to go very slowly and to draw what I saw, not what I thought I saw.I think the process relates to what Benjamin was talking about in this passage, because it's the attempt to translate a visible emotion into an act of art. However, it is done by fooling the artist. In a way, I was fooling myself into drawing a bigger picture by focusing on each small line. If I'd tried to draw the lines in a continuous motion, like an actor on stage, I would have fouled up over and over. Was my creation art? Or can an artist only be seen as someone who is a master of a craft.
In a way, I think that the art comes from the intention. Although perhaps the actor doesn't have the ability to create the emotion himself, the director finds a way to create something beautiful by his own techniques. In this instance, he alone is the artist. In my case, though there may be a slight difference, I think that my mind was the director, and my hand the actor. My mind fooled my hand into creating something beautiful, despite my hand's incapabilities. Art in the age of mechanical reproduction is at a high, because those who aren't masters of a craft have a chance to display their perspectives through a medium that is arguably the most significant in history.

GeekinthePink

I think there is a real need for an answer to postmodernity. In Lyotard's opening paragraph, he mentions the call from a critic to "thow out the baby of experimentaion with the bathwater of fuctionalism." This makes the whole thought of postmodern anihilation sound violent and as if it is still in its infancy (which I would venture to say it is at least in its teenage years). I see Lyotard takes a jab at Habermas for his view on neoconservatives and their plea to "get rid of the uncompleted project of modernism."

But I think it's more than just him making fun of him. These two have very different viewpoints; yet each has validity. Habermas says "modernism is dominant but dead." But, he proposes that a religious revival can sort this out. "Religious faith tied to a fatih in tradition will provide individuals with clearly defined identities and existential society." Now, if we are to believe that "postmodernity definitely presents itself as Antimodernity," and yet modernism needs to be united to preserve the norms of tradition, why does he push so hard that modernity is an incomplete project? Should he not see it as a failed project? And further, the regulations he wishes to place on modernity seems like they would stifle any progress, e.g., "the neoconservatives welcome the development of modern science, as long as this only goes beyond its spereer to carry forward technical progress, capitalistic growth, and taional administration." This goes against the very idea of modernism.

Now with Lyotard, he has an excellent definition of postmoderism--"the postmodern would be that which, in the modern, puts forward the unpresentable in presentation itself; that which denies itself the solace of good forms, the consensus of a taste which would make it possible to share collectively the nostalgia for the unattainable..." Now this is a defintion that needs to be read with great care, but it's brilliant. He puts postmodernism as the "position of the philosopher" instead of in the position to be judged as Habermas does. Lyotard desires art as something that has to be worked on "without rules in order to formulate the rules of what will have been done." Lyotard and Habermas obviously have very different views of art. For the record, I agree with both of them. (isn't that a little postmodern?)

Mike of Modernity(or post?)

Though Jurgen Habermas' "Modernity-an Incomplete Project" was not able to successfully simplify the chaotic,fractal nature of post-modern ideology into easy-to-comprehend bite size pieces for my addled consciousness to digest, I found his thoughts on the changing values and conceptions of art veracious and almost pithy. He speaks of a period in the nineteenth century when an "aesthetic conception of art emerged, which encouraged the artist to produce his work according to the distinct consciousness of art for art's sake". After that moment nothing would ever be the same in the human conception of art. It freed its followers to create art in order to reify the very concept of art itself, to explore the landscape of the mind while "detached from the constraints of routinized cognition and everyday action". This paradigm shift in thought has spawned all of these seemingly separate ideologies. Postmodernism was created as a reaction to modernism, yet they seem share the same core idea about the very personal and intransitive nature of art. Though both Habermas and his foil Lyotard seem diametrically opposed to each other - one can't really tell what school of thought they really ascribe to. So much of postmodernism borrows from modernity, and both seem to share the idea that defining art as "beautiful" is a chaotic task. But I feel that perhaps these feuding schools of thought are what contribute to the chaos, a self-assurance of survival in a tempestuous world. It is the freeing of the artist to create without boundaries (at least hypothetically) that "modern" or "post-modern" thinking has borne. Whether these creations be hideous or radiant to behold will always be a matter for those who chose to experience it to decide for themselves. For the truly free artist to exist in this time seems regrettably unlikely. Influence is impossible to deny or dodge, be it economic, political or familial. It is the spirit of a free artist that must be maintained, that must be fruitlessly divined to inspire us to create something truly sublime.

Mike of of Modernity (or post?)

The whirlwind tour which enumerated the postmodern architectural highlights of Downtown Orlando for this class has left an indelible mark. Every building and outbuilding, every facade and courtyard seem to speak now, in a hitherto unheard tongue. Though every readers translation of the text in buildings will vary, certain signals can be heard loud and clear; whether or not that was the intention of their creators. A building has been slowly growing in Altamonte Springs, one can in fact see it from our beloved I-4. Merely a skeleton not just a year ago, this building was recently given the beginnings of a mirrored facade, a construct that we know from our friend Mr. Jencks is often used to quote other buildings around it, adding multi-valence to its structure. I have attempted to find out who exactly it is that owns this building, but I do know it belongs to a rather wealthy and influential Christian Ministry group. The construction on this building has been over three years in the making, possibly more. For economic reasons, the buildings progress has been halted, with piecemeal construction ensuing as money permits. While nearly perfectly horizontal in all other aspects of its shape, the buildings glass facade is rounded at the top on one side. It, in fact, looks like a not so subtle penis-in-metamorphosis. Something akin to the original cover of "The Little Mermaid" (The Castle was a giant phallic symbol - and not subtle either). This sort of phallocentric symbolism can be seen everywhere, so it is not this element that is truly intriguing about. It is the fact that it is the tallest building for miles, and has remained unfinished for so long. One can see inside the building where the unfinished mirroring ends. A gigantic absent center. Not only is there nothing in the building, but it has no covering to define what it's center might be. The costly reflective glass coverings, do not quote anything, because there is nothing left to reflect. It might have been an impressive piece of architecture one day, a source of pride for it's designer, and a coup for its investors. At least this is what the building says to me. That it shall always remain a half-baked attempt at egotism, that just couldn't get it up.

GM 17 September: Lyotard vs. Maya Angelou.

Realism…when it is launched by the political apparatus, the attack on artistic experimentation is specifically reactionary: aesthetic judgment would only be required to decide whether such or such work is in conformity with the established rules of the beautiful. Instead of the work of art having to investigate what makes it an art object and whether it will be able to find an audience, political academicism possesses and imposes a priori criteria of the beautiful, which designate some works and a public at a stroke and forever. (Lyotard: What Is Postmodernism? 41)

What Lyotard is saying is that, hey, this whole control thing is going to bleed over into our everyday thought, control the way we think, for the good of us all: unity. The “mind” police at work.
There are so many examples of the “mind” or “thought” police in our everyday society; we don’t even notice them anymore. It’s called “PC” or “politically correct!” Some have their good points, maybe. Look at smoking. I don’t smoke, never have, but I couldn’t give a care if you smoke or not, just don’t blow it in my face. I don’t care what you do to your body as long as the state doesn’t have to pay for your health related smoking problems; or, have to pay for your funeral. But I don’t see why we have to take anti-smoking laws to such extremes.
Another “PC” issue which, for the most part, is very positive, but has its extremes is environmental laws. There are some real nuts out there and if you don’t believe try walking along Melbourne Beach some evening during turtle nesting season with a flashlight and you’ll have the SWAT team down on you. These two items may seem trivial now and, if you’re an anti-smoker or pro-environmental that’s okay too. I’m with you, it’s just that I don’t like militant anything. But, it’s really the “mind” or “thought” police that bothers me and I’ve seen examples of it even at Rollins.
This past spring, the well known American poet, Maya Angelou was a speaker at Rollins. I admire, respect, and love Ms. Angelou’s work. She’s a power presence and her performance, her voice, that evening was magnificent. I was in awe of her until: she made the statement, which I’ll paraphrase here, that if, for example, she’s in a room where the “N” word is being used; she would get up and leave. Well, I don’t blame her, so would I. But, then she went on to say that the “N” word should never be used again, especially by authors, writers, poets, speakers, etc., anywhere, at anytime, and, that we as a society should not allow it to be used. Well, at that point I wanted to get up and leave. I was in shock that such a great and, I thought, open-minded person would make such a statement, a statement, right out of the “thought” police hand book. Ms. Angelou was applauded by her Rollins audience that night, she had unity. Taken to the extreme, Ms. Angelou had a dangerous unity that evening, which is Lyotard’s point, falling within the “established rules of the beautiful.”

Sally, Habermas

A single word caught my attention while reading the essay by Habermas. The evolution of the word "modern" is a simple concept on the surface that is more complex than originally thought. Interestingly, the word originated in the late fifth century. The word "modern" was used to establish the present - to distinguish the Roman era/culture from the pagan past. So, did that mean "modern" still means the present? No, it seems that in the mid-1800's, the meaning of the word changed again whereby "Modernity ... freed itself from all specific historical ties. ...modern is "the new" which will be overcome and made obsolete through the novelty of the next style." (99) This made sense to me as I reflected upon what I had often heard described as "modern" architecture from the 60's. Those split-level houses that had the slanted roofs at non-symetrical angles, had skinny metal "columns" near the front door, and vaulted ceilings inside (I call them "Barbie & Ken" houses: plastic-like) are good examples of this "modern" referred to by Habermas. That architecture is predominant in the residential areas of Jekyll Island, as I recently observed. Apparently, zoning allowed, in this State Park, the construction of these homes in the 60's; developers went wild building on most all of the available lots. It contrasted greatly (horribly, in my opinion) with the stately historical structures on the island; in architecture alone, this island is marked by two distinct periods of time.

To me, the point that Habermas makes is this: Would that style of home be built today - anywhere, much less Jekyll Island? I feel safe to say no. Again, Habermas expresses it well: "...while that which is merely "stylish" will soon become outmoded, that which is modern preserves a secret tie to the classical....whatever can survive time has always been considered to be a classic."(99) The best example I can think of to illustrate his point in the realm of architecture are the houses designed by architect, Frank Lloyd Wright. Strikingly modern, they have become classics. Habermas writes, "a modern work becomes a classic because it has once been authentically modern." (99) Wow! We're back to authenticity as an important criterion for art....very interesting! The cookie-cutter homes of the 60's were not authentic - the "author's" signature was not to be found in their reproduction. They were simply trendy, or stylish, and, as such, have been replaced. Frank Lloyd Wright's architecture (exhibiting the same features - slant roof, split-level, vauted ceilings) has survived for this reason: his signature is to be found in his modern, but classic, work created decades ago.

GeekinthePink

The postmodern tour of downtown was interesting. And in a way, I thought it was fascinating how architecture had a lot of similarities with literature; namely, that there is more than meets the eye. If you read a Hemingway book you encounter pieces of his iceberg theory and you have to be vigilant for meaning—same thing for these buildings, although I don't agree with the consensus that the spike on top of the Bank of America building seemed like that of a church. To me, it was a little phallic and sadistic. But maybe that’s just me and maybe I’m just a little sick and then again, maybe I just have issues with money. Hm.

Anthropomorphism has interesting implications. By personifying a building, in theory, anamnesis is supposed to effect the obsever. Because giving an inanimate object humanistic qualities should incur feeling of some sort. But this is my dilemma—do we really see it if it is not pointed out to us? I probably would not have noticed it had Dr. Rog not mentioned it. So if we don’t notice it, is there really a point in putting it into the building? Does it do its job if we don’t notice it? Or maybe it’s like literature—not everyone notices metaphors and similes and allegory, but people who study it do. But really. In a postmodern society, does anyone even notice things are broken down into meaning for them? Or do they just accept the spoon-fed feelings with a hungry stomach and empty eyes and greedy palms?

Usually when I hear people mention downtown, it is the clubs. The dancing. The drinking. The hedonistic aspect of life. I don’t hear much about the important buildings or the libraries or the courthouse. I hear about what a great time they had or how they got wasted or who they met. This, in itself, makes me ponder what it means to live in post modernity. To pay to be in crowded buildings and to pour mind-numbing liquid down our throats and to have lights pulsating and making us feel things we normally wouldn’t feel if all these qualities were not combined. Everything is supposed to be easy, but I think it makes it harder. Harder to gauge meaning from something already deconstructed for us. Do we need a building to make us feel things or should we feel them for ourselves? I think some aptitude to derive meaning for oneself would be nice.

Francesca 9/11

Our discussion of prevalent themes in postmodern architecture called to mind a renowned architect whom I greatly admire. Perhaps one of the greatest voices in such architecture is Frank Gehry. His various works, including the famed Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, serve as explications for predominant postmodern themes. For instance, the notion of “disharmonious harmony” is evident in the Guggenheim’s construction. The building appears as though it is a sea of steel curves, evoking a feeling of freedom in its structure. As the height of the undulating metal alternates sporadically, one finds them self wondering how this architectural feat appears to be a cohesive unit. This describes the essence of postmodernism’s emphasis upon an ideal of fragmented unity. The curves are not characterized by a consistent pattern, yet the incorporation of plurality elsewhere in design draws the eye to synergistic elements. Such plurality occurs on the surface of the structure, in the uniformity of window shapes. Moreover, the appearance of the Guggenheim suggests characteristics of the human body. As the resonating feature of curves signifies freedom of expression in design, it subtly implies the human form as well. This feature of the building serves as the demonstration of an anthropomorphism, another theme in postmodern architecture. Anthropomorphisms are defined by their attribution of human characteristics to a non-human object. Thus, the Guggenheim conveys this idea in an understated manner. In addition, we see the modernist convention of form to follow function, by employing an evident lack of abstraction, abandoned. The Guggenheim, as well as all of Gehry’s designs, is characterized by an intricate design that lacked postmodern intentions. Although Frank Gehry wished to not be affiliated with a specific architectural movement, his work inadvertently fell into a genre of architecture with analogous aims to his own.

Eddie, 9/11

Commentary, today, is important. It is given much attention from the production side, which used to be the artist but are now often big companies. Commentary is important to the producers because it provides valuable strategic information. Knowing the comments of consumers help formulate future plans that would better promise revenue.

Revenue is actually the key word here, because all art now exist both in a commercial form and a traditional art form. Summer blockbusters existing side-by-side with art house films, and this would be otherwise fine if the bigger, more prominent commercial brother did not eclipse its art brethren to become the representative of the entire medium.

With profit as a goal, the commentary is given an all-important role. It is the holy beacon for what will sell and what will not. The resulting dependence on commentary then gives the layman a powerful hand to sway the direction of future products. Movie studios will not follow-up with a sequel to a commercial bomb, and the choice of director for a new film is not the most artistically accomplished, but the most publically acclaimed. But should the director dare defy the gospel of public commentary with high artistic ideals in mind, the studios may well hire a different person into the directing chair. Artsy aesthetics are allowed only as a luxury. What this demonstrates is the commentary’s modern reign over authority. Authority is now subordinate to market reactions and commercial art is selectively bred to yield the greatest amount of praise from the people.

So how, then, does this affect the art-oriented half of the equation? If commercial films have ascended to the default form of film in people’s minds, so too would the people judge films with commercial standards. That is, films that yield a hearty profit are honored as a success, whereas those that do not earn astronomical sums are shunned as failures. Art films are not predominantly concerned with profit, and are thus stamped with a badge of incompetence. The often-heard sentiment towards art films is that they are obscure, dense, pretentious and hold style over substance, since no one understands them or watches them, so the director must not know any better. Substance here is measured by money-generating potential. In the example of films, mass-produced art, made to serve the mass audience, has realized Benjamin’s great fear: the worth of traditional art is diminished and the art forced into morbid obscurity.

GM 9/11

GM 9/11

The trip down town was insightful, helping me to further understand Jencks The Emergent Rules. Particularly; I felt that the Bank of America building tour showed excellent examples of disharmonious harmony. Just a couple of some of others of the many examples in the design of the building are double-coding, tradition reinterpreted, new rhetorical figures, and multivalence.
The Bank of America building appears to be designed completely around disharmonious harmony; which introduces the other rules used as listed above, opens the door if you will, for their use. The use of the pyramid design, topped-off by a pseudo church steeple, set off from the main building by the partially enclosed courtyard, on Orange Avenue is the first indication of disharmonious harmony. Examples of tradition reinterpreted can be seen, again, from the use of the pyramid and church steeple symbolizing wisdom, goodness, strength, longevity, and might. Things you might associate with churches and banks. Examples of double-coding can be seen with the use of security cameras, placed inconspicuously where you might not expect to see a security camera; for example, expecting to see a light fixture in a series of light fixtures, you instead realize you’re looking at a camera leaving you to rethink the use of the light fixture and camera in those uses and in those locations. Very similar to tradition reinterpreted, examples of the use of new rhetorical figures can also be seen in the design of the building.
New rhetorical figures such as lamps used in the bank lobby can be seen used again in other areas of the building, in different ways. Their shade shapes are repeated in the lighting design in a series of lights used in a hallway for example. Multivalence is most prevalent in the over-all design of the building. The exterior of the building is busy, in other words, there is a lot going on with the design, few smooth surfaces, and if the surface is smooth, it’s designed to reflect other surfaces, giving it potentially new and multiple interpretations.

Sally, 9/11

Again, I find lecture in this class to be thought-provoking and timely. Disussion of the "democratization of the obscure critic" took center stage for me Tuesday night. Along with commentary by the critical theorist of the week, Walter Benjamin, Dr. Casey's comments laid an important foundation for the topic at hand. The topic was primarily the mechanization of art, its resulting impact on society, and the designation of the public as critics of art/film. He relayed his experience of subscribing to a popular DVD rental service; upon return of a movie rental, he received an email inviting him to review the movie just viewed. This rating system is used to provide ratings for other viewers in search of a movie. On the surface, we can assume the company has good intentions in utilizing this system/service, but how useful is this, really? When you consider that the viewing public is diverse in their interests and are at a variety of educational levels, what is the chance a review will be helpful to YOU? Now, that's a broad question with a seemingly irrelevant answer - yes, no, maybe.

The "critic" was perhaps limited in evaluating the movie by his vocabulary, life experience, or mood. Or maybe he is overqualified and writes a review that is uniquely his (i.e., you can't decipher what the review has to do with the movie!) On what criteria was the movie evaluated? Was it historically accurate? Was it an emotional roller coaster for one person due to their experiences and heartache, or simply boring to another because they lacked that particular emotional thread? Was one "critic" able to articulate the social significance of the film while another was at a loss as to whether this was satire or just a "horribly violent film." (Natural Born Killers comes to mind, as does American History X - both very powerful, and important, commentaries on media/gratuitous murder and racism.) Benjamin writes, "the greater the decrease in the social significance of an art form, the sharper the distinction between criticism and enjoyment by the public. (29) In other words, the more popular something is, the less the critics think it has value. Benjamin must be referring to intellectual critics - not the public - for in another another comment, he states: "The public is an examiner, but an absent-minded one." (33) In the essay by Benjamin, he does make the distinction that the public referred to is the proletariat (the working class) and they are the most subject to exploitation. I would agree and the rise of the obscure critic strengthens that view. I would imagine that Benjamin would think the rating system implemented by the popular DVD rental service is an exercise in vanity by the "absent-minded" public in general. Certainly, there may be on-point reviews to be found, but, I find the voice of the obscure critic to be in its very essence self-centered and vain, although perhaps well-intentioned (as in, I-thought-this-movie-was-great-and-you-should-see-it!) Overall, our culture promotes these transient and time-wasting activities - where are our priorities?!

Justin, 9/11

I'm grateful for the up-close lesson on the new rules of architecture in Orlando. Although I've meant to appreciate the architecture in different cities I visit, I've been limited in what I see. As any light audience would be for any of the arts, I usually saw structures for what they were as a whole. Though I would still consider myself very much uninformed, at least I have things to look for.
One aspect of the building process that I started thinking about was the approachability of the structure. Standing out in front of the courthouse, we obviously didn't feel welcome. It's a long lonely walk from the street, through the courtyard, up the stairs and into the intimidating doors. They're certainly not inviting people in off the street just to take a look around. The same was true for the Bank of America building. Although it wasn't as ominous as the courthouse, it was guarded by the "pillars" that surrounded the courthouse, which also separated the building from the street. I wouldn't call the building intimidating, but I felt a sense of "if you don't have business here, don't come around." The distance from the street to the door is definitely a sign as to whether you feel welcome or not. You can see it at the apartment complexes also. Some of my friends live at The Grande, which is a little further south of where we were. The entrance to the complex is pushed well back off of the street, but the office for prospective tenants is right on the sidewalk. The obvious function is to invite people in that weren't necessarily headed there, as well as make it comfortable for the people that were. Simple things like that made the architectural process seem overwhelming in trying to reach a balance between fashion and function.

Justin, Habermas

I was sick while reading each of these essays, so very little hit home. But luckily there was a passage in Habermas that at least struck meas honest and sensible. It is under the Alternatives heading, when he says that rather than giving up modernity, there is a way to receive art that at least "indicates the direction of a way out." He discusses the Bourgeois expectation of art, which was to educate yourself enough to become an expert on it, but also to receive it and apply its aesthetic to your own life and problems. It seems that a central idea of these essays is the inability to stray away from modernity without becoming too eclectic or extravagant, and therefore insignificant. The classical values and aesthetics that last are the ones that people can relate to, but also that seem smart and "well made." This goes back to his point that the things that are classic now were once authentically modern.
I thought it was interesting to read someone else's blog that talked about selling out as an issue for artists today. The idea alone of selling out seems so new and strange. Perhaps it stems from another period that seeks the unique, another revolt from modernity. However, unlike in the past, this era allows an accessibility to the artist which makes the audience connected personally to them. Not only do we respect an aritst for their work, but we approve of the way they live their life. When they change, as anyone does, their art changes too. Often times the audience relates that change to what they know about the artist- how much money they make for example. Work doesn't stand alone anymore. But the work that becomes classic doesn't come from being unique, it comes from being uniquely well done. Fashions allow work at times to be appreciated for a while, but eventually they are forgotten. I guess all that sat with me after reading these texts was the inability to completely leave classic values and ideas that we are able to relate to our life, and how it isn't necessarily something that we should fight. Rather, we should appreciate that it's what connects us.

Eric, Pre-Class, Benjamin

In his tract, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, Benjamin states that, "the audience's identification with the [film]actor is really an identification with the camera." This is an interesting idea, but it seems to me that there is a bit more to it than that.

Firstly, one wishing to examine the relationship of audience to camera must understand exactly what the camera is, for the entity we are referring to here as the camera is not merely a single device; but a representation of the entity of recorded perspective. This perspective is made up of interplay between the captured image, its operator(s), and a myriad of wills.

These wills can be seperated into three different castes: Producers(referring not to the job title but to the people who are creating the film), Format(referring to the distortion of the machines that process and display the film), and Personal(referring to the state of mind, sensorial fitness, and the previous experiences{be they works of art or memories} of the viewer).

In the universe of the film perspective, unlike that of the material universe, physics are not newtonian. That is to say that, though the different wills do act upon others, they react neither equally nor oppisitely. The wills of the Personal, in fact, act only upon themselves. The wills of the Producer react only to restrictions enacted upon them by the Format caste. The Format reacts to the ideas, performances, and skills of the Producers by creating mechanical reproduction. Through this mechanical reproduction, the producers also act upon the wills of the Personal. The format also acts upon the personal limitations such screen size, resolution, and audio quality.

GeekinthePink

Walter Benjamin’s “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” describes an art slowly losing its artistic value. “To pry an object from its shell, to destroy its aura, is the mark of a perception whose ‘sense of the universal equality of things’ has increased to such a degree that it extracts it even from a unique object by means of reproduction.” I was thinking of all art in general—paintings, sculpting, music, etc. I used to really love Van Gogh paintings—really, any of them. Considered one of the founders of expressionism—his incorporation of neo-impressionism and recognizable style was something that for me, set him apart. But, after I repainted my room and looked around for Van Gogh paintings, I realized that everyone had them. A replication of Van Gogh’s “The Starry Night” was on sale at Wal-Mart for $2.99 (small version however). The consequence of this? I decided against the whole idea. Even now, although I know it is not the fault of Van Gogh, I don’t really appreciate his work like I used to. Can we really appreciate a work if it is reproduced for the masses? Or should we simply be able to view it from afar? I think it is not made for everyone to put in their little pocket and look at whenever they feel the urge. Instead, as Benjamin says, it exists on the plane of the “exhibition value of the work.” Furthermore, that the importance of art lies in the fact that it simply exists, therefore, the value remains intact and not watered down for mass society. That such great art exists is a credit to that art work, and the mass reproduction is a disservice of technology (alas, I both hate and love you technology).
I was just thinking about Britney Spears, queen of pop (a gruesome title to hold, sure). Everybody was abuzz about her “comeback” performance on the VMA’s Sunday night. So what were people expecting her to do? Come out, with a rock-hard body and dance around in a skimpy outfit, offering some type of come-and-get-it lyrics. But apparently, she disappointed. Why? Because there was a cookie-cutter form into which music is supposed to fit. This type of music, made to please the popular crowd, has been watered down in the same way Van Gogh has—it has been put into a form that is easier for everyone to handle. The musical quality of popular music is not the same—its lyrics are sparse and are mostly in the form of trying to get someone’s attention sexually (wow…I’ve just described the top 20 of the week in one sentence…scary). I think with the invention of technology in music and the fact that we can turn on MTV and see music videos (can’t we imagine music for ourselves instead of having some director program a mood for us with images? Another product of technology interacting with fine art) greatly diminish art. “In all the arts there is a physical component which can no longer be considered or treated as it used to be, which cannot remain unaffected by our modern knowledge and power.”
Whether in music or painting, the age of mechanical reproduction has greatly hindered art. Oh yeah. And Britney. Please. Go home.

Francesca, Habermas

Is the postmodern era a historical replication of the late Roman empire? Recent events regarding organized religion seem to corroborate this suspicion. The late Roman empire bears an indelible significance to the postmodern era when comparing the two period from a general perspective. For instance, throughout the course of history there have been certain canons that constitute what is regarded to be modern, Likewise, specific attributes are classified in the realm of antiquity. The intersection between such novel and classical ideals is an essential prerequisite for the comprehension of an era’s cultural genesis. Furthermore, there are several aspects of the Late Roman culture that bear pertinent similarities to postmodernism. The Late Roman period was a time of progressive gravitation towards religious conformity. The years that preceded the Middle Ages set the tone for historical events such as the Crusades. This preface was signified by pervasive urbanization and the proliferation of the Catholic Church’s influence. It seems as though our present day culture is searching for an analogous unifying force under similar pretenses. Judging from presidential addresses, we look to the exemplar of modern politics to explicate predominant similarities. The overwhelming utilization of messianic language employed as a tactic for societal unification under a uniform religion is an evident parallel to the Late Roman period. As opposed to the scholarly purposes Catholic scribes served in this period, the prevalence of Judeo-Christian beliefs in today’s society is utilized primarily for political headway. Nevertheless, both era’s have employed organized religion in an attempt to deter an overriding element of hedonism within each culture. In conclusion, the point at which modernity seeks to evolve from antiquity typically involved a desire for unification. As history undoubtedly repeats itself, the Late Roman era set a precedent for the postmodern period to utilize organized religion as a means for such amalgamation.

Mike of Moderninty(or post?) - Benjamin.

Walter Benjamin's words struck a several strong chords with me as I pored over "The work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction". It was his words concerning the reproduction of a work of art, how its duplicate lacks the original's "unique existence at the time and place it happens to be." He goes on to state that said reproductions can be placed in situations and places that "may not touch the actual work of art, yet the quality of its presence is always depreciated". This depreciation is perfectly illustrated with a work of art such as Edward Munch's "The Scream". Endlessly printed and packaged, slapped on bumper stickers, lunchboxes, Frisbees and punching bags; they were everywhere. Before the marketing blitz it had somewhere in the late 80’s early 90’s I had found the painting haunting and disturbing, and understood why it had been considered great. Now it just haunts and disturbs me because the screamer reminds of an old, bald version of that kid in "Home Alone". The mass production of this iconic figure began to erode the very meaning and context of the piece away.
I had nearly this exact dialogue with a dear friend who is a multi-media artist, not by trade but by passion. She takes her art quite seriously, and has expressed to me that the idea of mass marketing and selling millions of copies of her work would cheapen her own effort at creating something original. She felt, as Benjamin did, that the duplication weakened the authentic article. I mentioned to her our reading assignment and read her a line I found quite observant and disturbing. “That which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art." That "aura", that power of originality and oneness that a singular creation has can only exist in one state; on its own. How then does the artist feed themselves? Well, certainly we all must make a living, but shouldn't some sense of constraint and reverence for you own creation exist? The double-edged sword of commerce versus art can be quite sharp on both ends. Sign a marketing deal and you’re a sell-out and critically lambasted. Maintain you integrity and you could very well starve to death if you don’t have alternate sources of income. For some it seems that reproduction is celebration, homage of sorts. Others feel that the “aura” of art is its greatest asset and must be maintained. It is reminiscent of Benjamin’s words about how art is received on “two different planes. With one the accent is on cult value” those who prefer to keep there art amongst an inside group to preserve its uniqueness. The other group places emphasis on “the exhibition value of the work”, either for economic or social reasons – to share it with the world, in a manner of words. It is the absolute extreme of both these ideas that creates pop fads on one hand, and effete snobbery and disclusive practices on the other. Perhaps one day we will learn to find the middle ground.

Anamnesis

in 1924 dziga vertov made man with a movie camera, a visceral account of the "age of mechanical reproduction," created in a medium to which benjamin often refers in his essay. benjamin says that the desire for replication is "namely, the desire of contemporary masses to bring things 'closer' spatially and humanly." in this film, instead of trying to bring the original image of any given subject closer to humanity, the insides of the medium (the reel, the tripod, and most importantly they eye "kino" or lens) to consciousness. we get a film without a plot, a montage of images- some repeated, some not- exposing the inner workings of the mechanical age. with film, benjamin argues, replication has surpassed photography and lithograph in that it now replicates life at the speed we experience it everyday. instead of the aura of a single object being diminished, the aura of life is in a way diminished more generally. as for plot driven films, the actor is now "subjected to a series of optical tests." various angles and visages interpret the actor in a way that the stage actor had not been subjected to. this is a new "mode" of experience for humans in 20's. "During long periods of history, the mode of human sense perception changes with humanity's entire mode of existence. The manner in which human sense perception is organized, the medium in which it is accomplished, is determined not only by nature but by historical circumstances as well." film has been a major turning point in the perception of history as a whole, and the nostalgia with which collectively we interpret life.

GM,11 September response: Duh!

GM, 11 September response: Duh!
According to Paul Valéry, “We must expect great innovations to transform the entire technique of the arts, thereby affecting artistic invention itself and perhaps even bringing about an amazing change in our very notion of art” (18). Well, duh!
These days, anyone with a cell phone camera is a photo artist, me included. Is this a form of mechanical art? This puts a new spin on artist’s renderings. Somehow, I’m reminded of the artists Christo and Jeanne-Clause who do strange things like surround islands with pink fabric; which and I agree, is called art. But this is minor compared to Valéry’s implication.
With the advent of today’s technology, digital technology for example, the ability for the artist to not only reproduce, create a perfect replica, but to go beyond reproduction, to alter, breakdown a work of art or even words, language, sound, to fragmentize anything that has been digitally produced then digitally recreate it is, I believe, the new frontier and something that has just begun to be explored.
This past March, I had the opportunity to attend a half dozen plays while on spring break with Rollins in London. It was interesting to see the development of different types of plays from Renaissance, Shakespearean, Restoration, and Fringe. It seemed that each theatre company had its own interpretation from the other for plays that had been produced, in some cases, for several hundred years. In the extreme, the Fringe Theater, the actors on stage held hand-held cameras and filmed each other as they acted, and, in turn, we the viewer watched the live play on movie screens projected out into the audience. So, even with the basic’s, if you consider stagecraft to be sort of basic, one could argue that Valéry’s statement would apply if you compare.

Sally, Benjamin

The subject of mechanical reproduction of art is thought-provoking on many levels. My inclination was to expound on: "The uniqueness of a work of art is inseparable from its being imbedded in the fabric of tradition."(22) Also, the clear contrasts between the stage actor and screen actor as reactions to a live audience or the camera inspired me to blog so I will take a moment and do so now. I couldn't help but reflect on the movie directed by John Malkovich, The Dancer Upstairs , as being a good example of an actor and director creating a work of art through "many separate performances." (26) A profoundly disturbing and very human film that delves into mindless allegiance and politics, love of a father for his daughter and a stranger, the grace and lightness of ballet, and the militaristic and barbaric aspect of society, this film lingers and haunts in its beauty and its horror.

But alas, I choose to blog about the Chinese painter who, as legend tells it, "enters into his work of art." (32) As a personal example of the power and convenience of mechanically reproduced art, I brought into my home an Andrew Wyeth print titled The Master's Bedroom. It is inviting, personal, soothing, warm, mysterious, and humorous. My first exposure to it was years ago as I was walking in a crowded mall. At the most unexpected moments, I am still mesmerized by the subject of the painting - in a very real sense, I enter into the painting, as did the Chinese painter Benjamin references, and it refreshs my soul, brings a smile to my face, and makes me wonder. I describe this simple and “quiet” painting as being humorous for this reason. When I first saw it from afar, I had no idea that anything rested upon the bed. Once I discovered that a rather large dog, perhaps a yellow Labrador, was sound asleep, curled up on the bedspread, his black nose suddenly becoming very prominent, I truly laughed out loud. My reaction was, “Of course!” How many times has my own dog stolen a moment such as this...on his Master’s bed. But then, the questions started. Was this a stolen moment while the Master was away? Or was it simply a common occurrence? The subject (the dog), so artfully blended with the crocheted bedspread, didn’t yield a clue. But I can wonder and that alone is a sign of good art to me. Does it take me to a place beyond the painting?

The painting is one of simple lines, yet great in its detail. A crocheted bedspread on the bed depicts an intricate pattern giving texture that one “feels”. The walls are cool, probably intended to be plaster, with shadows that give depth to the painting. And the window has to be mentioned. What’s outside? For the viewer of this painting, we see nothing of any description outside the window. But, that’s part of the mystery. Perhaps the Master stands below, talking to a neighbor, a friend, or looking towards the pond or over the expanse of land, whatever his eye rests upon, for his beloved dog who sleeps soundly in the room above. Therein, lies the warmth.

So much was contained in Benjamin's essay, that it's difficult to remain silent on many topics raised in his essay. I will end with this: the camera's ability to enlarge and accentuate views and actions that previously were observable only by the naked eye. The use of a camera indeed transforms the "canvas" of the artist. Again, a film, The Jacket, illustrates this point. The close-up views of the actor's blood-shot and teary eyes (Adrien Brody)as he was contained in a metal drawer reserved for dead bodies in a mental institution, was beyond intense. It was uncomfortable, yet fascinating and served such a purpose in that film. As he dealt with his own claustrophobia and terror, the viewer was swept right along. The use of the camera in that film served to enlarge the image of the eye so far beyond what the naked eye could see (or imagine) that it became a story in itself. Walter Benjamin gave understandable explanations of art through the ages, spoke convincingly on the impact of the reproduction of art and the masses, and had concrete examples of the tools used in affecting the masses, i.e., the camera. His was a bold look at how the masses, and individuals, are affected by art - positively, negatively, and politically.

Eddie, Benjamin

Walter Benjamin states that “the technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition.” To better picture his concern, imagine if we bought a DVD print of Spiderman 3 from Walmart. That mass-produced incident of a film – an artwork – finds its way into our homes to meet our eyes without us ever seeing the film in its raw form during its conception into reality, as it does with live drama. Yet Benjamin makes the bold assumption that reproducible art is an extension of traditional art, where the two share a common set of values which define their artistic values. But is that the case?

Consider a painting at a museum. To see the painting face-to-face is to engage the artist and his work in its rawest form with the essence and mechanics intact. Seeing how the oil paint comes together and work with our minds is the “tradition” that Benjamin speaks of. If we like that painting and buy a printed poster of it in the souvenir shop, the true form – the essence – of the oil painting is naturally lost because it is no longer an oil painting but rather a layer of dye on a shiny piece of paper sans the contour, texture and smell of the original. Understandably, “tradition” has left this replication. But is the poster ever seen in the same regards as the original? Do we not understand the poster to be a replication, a simulation, and expect the poster to be no more than a decorative item? Any modern iteration of a classic art, whether it be translated into a digital form or photographic form, should be seen as a completely different entity with different purposes and functions as well as a different identity.

Also, let’s say Spiderman 3 becomes a legend among films. Where does the original art lie? If we have a DVD print at home, do we then regard the DVD to be the definitive copy? Not likely. In such a case, not even a “master copy” (if there is such a thing) of the film would be considered the piece of art itself. Instead, with art like film that was born from the techniques of mass-distribution, the artwork is super-physical. It exists as the film itself and not as any particular copy. It exists as the collective experience of all those who have engaged it and lives solely in the minds among the audience. It has no physical form as does an oil painting, and the film reels and discs are better described as the physical window that links them to the material world. Unlike the poster from the souvenir shop, we never regard the films we see to be an emulation or shadow of a single far-off, ominous piece of great art. The message and ideas are intact and so are the intended functions.

To phrase my point in one sentence, traditional art cannot be translated into reproducible art and reproducible art exists independently and has its own “traditions” that survive reproduction.