"...the basis on which technology is gaining power over society is the power of those whose economic position in society is strongest. Technical rationality today is the rationality of domination."
Horkheimer and Adorno
And I used to laugh at the conspiracy theorists who believed that "they" were out to control and enslave "us". I don't laugh so much anymore. What Horkheimer and Adorno state is a much more rational and fact supported idea. That the "technical rationality" ;or use of ever increasingly more powerful, destructive, and invasive technologies is what feeds the great machine of modern society. But this technical blitz has less to do with the actual purposes the technology is put to as it does with the way it influences consumerism. To maintain a capitalist society, its members must be convinced that goods MUST be purchased. A common motivator is fear. Take the emergency parachute designed for building evacuation that pooped up post 9-11. Who the hell needs an emergency parachute to jump off a building? Well, apparently we did. The news covered the story, so it must have been important right?
Technological corporations use a more subtle and psychoanalytic apporach borne from demographic studies. Apple Computers uses it's subculture popularity to sell the iPod, Iphone, iNauseaum, but does it by selling an attitude, a way of life, an acceptance into a group of "happening" people who can only be "happening" if they own An iAppliance. As if this is something that comes in the box like a power charger or warranty. The iPod is a perfect example of technical consumerism because it is a pure luxury item. In todays "virtual" world, many people must own a computer for work or to simply keep up with the blistering pace the world moves at. But portable music is not a necessity. But you won't see Apple agreeing with this, and though they may know their product is a "luxury" they must drill into the consumers heads that it is indeed a "necessary" item - at least if you want to be hip. So are all corporations tied into a global conspiracy to pull every dollar out of our pockets? Will they go to any means to extract it? I think it would be hard to answer no. Do they all get together and drink champagne and caviar and discuss the profitable little puppets they have in their grasp and how they will juice them next? Probably not. Well at least they may not all be in one room. But they all benefit from Joe Q. Consumer believing that he must buy in order to survive and thrive. Never mind that all this time our technology grows stronger and more complex, almost out of reach of any comprehension by all but it's creators. This is exactly what it's creators want. Conspiracy? Maybe not. Postmodern - definitely.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Justin, Jameson
I think Jameson's discussion of Van Gogh's shoes versus Warhol's can be somewhat paralleled to the development of rock music, especially when it comes to lyrics. I won't try to say that all old rock and roll had profoundly poetic lyrics, but it's certainly interesting to grow up listening to songs like "White Room" or a bucket full of Beatles songs and then realize what they're actually talking about when you're grown. Even songs that didn't necessarily make a habit of making metaphors at least thought of unique and interesting ways to say things. I don't know that the popular rock songs of this generation are going to do it. Not to see that there aren't good lyricists out there. But music as a whole isn't about introspection at all anymore. Who actually sits down in the dark and listens to a full album? Music is for giving you a pick-me-up in your car, or for helping you forgot you're working out when you're at the gym. Nobody wants to think about the music, they want the music to aesthetically influence their mood when they find it's convenient to listen. Who even buys albums anymore? Are there such things as concepts now? There's no room to even be poetic, because people want a single that they can sing along to after hearing it once. It's not to say the music is bad, and part of music is to just be able to listen to something and let it make you smile, or cry, whatever you're into. But it's a common movement of things that I certainly think makes art less meaningful.
Post-Class, 10/23
In class we discussed Hebdige's Ideas on the taming of subcultures. I would like to expand upon that conversation and examine a few distinct examples herein.
Punk - a word deriving from the act of sexual penetration referring to a prostitute or the submissive male in a homosexual relationship. This word was somehow co-opted by a musical movement determined to seem dangerous and outsider; to be the antithisis of everything they didn't like about the 'mainstream' popular music of the time.
With the passage of time punk grew more and more popular and found it's way to the radio in diluted form. Stores like Hot Topic decided that there was a lot of money to be made in the hawking of an outsider look to dissaffected teenagers unable to grasp the inherent irony of wearing a mass-produced shirt with the words 'you laugh at me because I"m different, I laugh at you because you're all the same' on it. Punk subgenres like Hardcore and Emo have been mainstreamed into barely connected shiny shit biscut radio fare. Bands like Panic! at the disco have very little to do bands like Rites of Spring, just as bands like Atreyu have very little to do with Black Flag.
Furries - Furries are people who, excuse my bluntness, enjoy wildly fornicating with each other while dressed in animal suits or find the sight of artificial animal features on a person sexually arousing. Before the advent of the internet age, Furries may not have even existed. Now, however, they are starting to come out of the proverbial woodwork. There has been a CSI episode dedicated to the subculture. Some sportscasters ran into them at a hotel and were so disturbed they discussed them during the game they were narrating that day. The true horror of the web age is that it has given the depraved a place to congregate, mutate, and multiply. This horror has acheived physical manifestation in the form of the internet program SecondLife; where one may proudly walk around with a gorgan-esque mane of phalluses, be an anthropromorphic sheep (with a huge pulsating phallus, of course), or a terror so unspeakible it would drive you to madness.
Punk - a word deriving from the act of sexual penetration referring to a prostitute or the submissive male in a homosexual relationship. This word was somehow co-opted by a musical movement determined to seem dangerous and outsider; to be the antithisis of everything they didn't like about the 'mainstream' popular music of the time.
With the passage of time punk grew more and more popular and found it's way to the radio in diluted form. Stores like Hot Topic decided that there was a lot of money to be made in the hawking of an outsider look to dissaffected teenagers unable to grasp the inherent irony of wearing a mass-produced shirt with the words 'you laugh at me because I"m different, I laugh at you because you're all the same' on it. Punk subgenres like Hardcore and Emo have been mainstreamed into barely connected shiny shit biscut radio fare. Bands like Panic! at the disco have very little to do bands like Rites of Spring, just as bands like Atreyu have very little to do with Black Flag.
Furries - Furries are people who, excuse my bluntness, enjoy wildly fornicating with each other while dressed in animal suits or find the sight of artificial animal features on a person sexually arousing. Before the advent of the internet age, Furries may not have even existed. Now, however, they are starting to come out of the proverbial woodwork. There has been a CSI episode dedicated to the subculture. Some sportscasters ran into them at a hotel and were so disturbed they discussed them during the game they were narrating that day. The true horror of the web age is that it has given the depraved a place to congregate, mutate, and multiply. This horror has acheived physical manifestation in the form of the internet program SecondLife; where one may proudly walk around with a gorgan-esque mane of phalluses, be an anthropromorphic sheep (with a huge pulsating phallus, of course), or a terror so unspeakible it would drive you to madness.
Justin, 10/23
Our discussion on ideology got me thinking about the way that many Christians I talk to approach their faith. I grew uo going to Catholic church, and though I still attend occasionally, I am not a practicing Catholic. Similar to what many people seem to consider themselves these day, I would say I'm spiritual but not religious. A discussion I had with a close friend of mine who would consider herself a strong Catholic dealt with the way she feels about her faith. She studies the Bible daily, and she feels like she's developed a strong connection with God that inspires her every day. But she's also knowledgable enough to provide convincing answers when asked about her beliefs. In other words, she has a strong, well-developed belief in her religion.
My question to her was, with a belief like hers, where is the line drawn when it comes to material things. I was trying to be critical when I asked, because you can't blame someone for living a comfortable life. I just wanted to know, when it comes to religion, where she thinks the border is to how much of yourself you can afford not to give to helping others. Is not the ultimate ideal to take what you need and share the rest? If people were helping each other instead of competing for more, wouldn't everyone be able to survive? I'm not saying this as my firm belief, just contemplating it. It seems to me that most ideology we live by seems focused toward good, but not that good. She told me that when God shows her what she should be doing, she will be ready. And she expects to get involved helping people at some point. I think that it's great, because she'll help people more than most will, more than I'm doing just typing at a computer. But her relationship with God mainly seems to affect only her and, as she hopes, the people she has contact with. Are ideals shaped most by what suits us as individuals, even the ones we consider most important?
My question to her was, with a belief like hers, where is the line drawn when it comes to material things. I was trying to be critical when I asked, because you can't blame someone for living a comfortable life. I just wanted to know, when it comes to religion, where she thinks the border is to how much of yourself you can afford not to give to helping others. Is not the ultimate ideal to take what you need and share the rest? If people were helping each other instead of competing for more, wouldn't everyone be able to survive? I'm not saying this as my firm belief, just contemplating it. It seems to me that most ideology we live by seems focused toward good, but not that good. She told me that when God shows her what she should be doing, she will be ready. And she expects to get involved helping people at some point. I think that it's great, because she'll help people more than most will, more than I'm doing just typing at a computer. But her relationship with God mainly seems to affect only her and, as she hopes, the people she has contact with. Are ideals shaped most by what suits us as individuals, even the ones we consider most important?
Eric, Pre-Class, Marx
In the excerpt we read from A contribution to the critique of Political Economy Marx said that "It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness."
This is a nice little idea and it is easy to imagine how Marx used this idea to develop his other ideas. As a tool to examine society, this idea seems to be correct: a person's worldview is determined by their place in society, their wealth, and their experiences.
However, this idea seems to forbid the phenomenon of rapid social change without some hypothetical 'blank-slate.' . This is something Marxist revolutionaries have discovered, much to their dismay. One cannot simply take a dissatisfied proletariat and change them overnight into a utopian society with no rulers. The idea of subjugation is so ingrained into their beings that, as soon as an oppressor is removed, they ache for a new one. They are so used to being told what to do, they are lost without someone to do that.
The presence of any significant number of persons socially conditioned to a certain idea, prevents the formation of a new incarnation of society free of that idea.
This is a nice little idea and it is easy to imagine how Marx used this idea to develop his other ideas. As a tool to examine society, this idea seems to be correct: a person's worldview is determined by their place in society, their wealth, and their experiences.
However, this idea seems to forbid the phenomenon of rapid social change without some hypothetical 'blank-slate.' . This is something Marxist revolutionaries have discovered, much to their dismay. One cannot simply take a dissatisfied proletariat and change them overnight into a utopian society with no rulers. The idea of subjugation is so ingrained into their beings that, as soon as an oppressor is removed, they ache for a new one. They are so used to being told what to do, they are lost without someone to do that.
The presence of any significant number of persons socially conditioned to a certain idea, prevents the formation of a new incarnation of society free of that idea.
GM, pre-30 October class
I was watching a documentary the other day on cable Shakespeare in Prison and you probably couldn’t have gotten further away from Shakespeare’s original work then if you traveled to the Moon. The plays producer/director stated that it was a “new interpretation” of Hamlet.
In response to the Geek in the Pink’s post, wherein she states that Marx and Benjamin were against capitalism because of its negative effect on works of art, I agree with her position. In the case of Shakespeare, it’s always a new interpretation but it’s an interpretation that’s being played to the public where it may have not been otherwise.
Mass production in the land of the big PX works; just take a look at Wal-Mart. Maybe we are all becoming unified and totalized as I think Lyotard would put it and just maybe we as a societal whole have become so steeped in ideology that we no longer recognize it. It’s that mythology/normalization thing.
I don’t think anyone admits shopping at Wal-Mart, but the other evening I was in my local Super-duper Wal-Mart and the store was absolutely packed with British tourists. This was at 11:00 p m, and they were buying any and everything. Now, I know the pound is at a 26-year high against the dollar, it’s been high against the dollar for years now, but the Brits were having a field day, and it made me think. I’ve been to the UK several times now, and, although it’s relatively easy to travel there, I think, it’s more of an ordeal to travel to the US from the UK, I’ve been on their Tube system and it’s not for the faint-hearted, especially if you’re not use to it. So, why in the world would; say your typical family of four Brits, travel by train for five, six, or eight hours to Heathrow or Gatwick and then fly across the Atlantic for another 9 hours, go through all the routine of entering the US, rent a car, check–in to their hotel, or rental home, then all drive down to the closest Wal-Mart they can find?
Well, maybe this is not the best example of consumers buying dumbed-down, mass-produced art, but I’m sure if there were a blue-light special that night in Wal-Mart; perhaps a mark-down on the collected works of Shakespeare, I’m sure that, at least, some of the British tourists shopping that evening would have been exposed to Shakespeare for the very first time.
In response to the Geek in the Pink’s post, wherein she states that Marx and Benjamin were against capitalism because of its negative effect on works of art, I agree with her position. In the case of Shakespeare, it’s always a new interpretation but it’s an interpretation that’s being played to the public where it may have not been otherwise.
Mass production in the land of the big PX works; just take a look at Wal-Mart. Maybe we are all becoming unified and totalized as I think Lyotard would put it and just maybe we as a societal whole have become so steeped in ideology that we no longer recognize it. It’s that mythology/normalization thing.
I don’t think anyone admits shopping at Wal-Mart, but the other evening I was in my local Super-duper Wal-Mart and the store was absolutely packed with British tourists. This was at 11:00 p m, and they were buying any and everything. Now, I know the pound is at a 26-year high against the dollar, it’s been high against the dollar for years now, but the Brits were having a field day, and it made me think. I’ve been to the UK several times now, and, although it’s relatively easy to travel there, I think, it’s more of an ordeal to travel to the US from the UK, I’ve been on their Tube system and it’s not for the faint-hearted, especially if you’re not use to it. So, why in the world would; say your typical family of four Brits, travel by train for five, six, or eight hours to Heathrow or Gatwick and then fly across the Atlantic for another 9 hours, go through all the routine of entering the US, rent a car, check–in to their hotel, or rental home, then all drive down to the closest Wal-Mart they can find?
Well, maybe this is not the best example of consumers buying dumbed-down, mass-produced art, but I’m sure if there were a blue-light special that night in Wal-Mart; perhaps a mark-down on the collected works of Shakespeare, I’m sure that, at least, some of the British tourists shopping that evening would have been exposed to Shakespeare for the very first time.
Anamnesis _Jameson
Jameson is aware that postmodernism has been conceived stylistically and historically, and he feels it is important to capture it instead as a 'cultural dominant.' Under such a heading the eclecticism characteristic of postmodernism can be more objectively taken in to account without tending to "obliterate difference." Jameson doesn't base his distinction of postmodernism around its constitutive features, but charges late capitalism with its periodization versus modernism. Echoing Benjamin, Jameson says that "Aesthetic production has become integrated into commodity production generally." The cult of the new revels in this collaboration and pervades all modes of production. In the arts, architecture bears this relationship most succinctly, being necessarily dependent on market forces in its very act. Jameson then points out the features: a new depthlessness in theory and in culture, a weakening of historicity, and a new emotional ground tone.
This last description of postmodernism is a relief. I like Jameson's careful approach rather than Lyotard's indictments and vindications, and the assertion that postmodernism is marked by a disregard for grand narratives. How, for instance, is the grand narrative of Christianity in any way threatened by postmodernism? Isn't it instead enhanced by media relations and and the privatization so inherent in captitalism? In what other time could evangelical companies set up shop in Africa and convert millions? A weakening of historicity-that sounds more reasonable. An decentering of the artist's psyche-yes, much more reasonable.
In his tracking of the points of dissolution in modernism, Jameson launches into a brilliant discussion of Van Gogh's painting "Peasant Shoes." I think it is appropriate and poignant that he reminds us to try to mentally restore the historical conditions of the painting (this is again an echo of Benjamin's "Work of Art..."). This is so we may have an idea of the symbolic nature of the shoes, and to set us up for understanding the Heideggerian "gap" from which such a painting must have emergerged. The heading of this section "The Deconstruction of Expression" then becomes evident--"Diamond Dust Shoes" leaves no avenue for the viewer or the artist to wedge themselves in between the "Earth" and the "World."
Munch's "The Scream" is also taken into account. Another highly expressionist work, Jameson points out that its very composition precludes its expression. The scream "subtly but elaborately deconstructs its own aesthetic of expression, all the while remaining imprisoned within it. It reminds me of the post-structuralist concept "Sous Rature," a term which Derrida will apply to all signifiers but which was in a different context used by Heidegger in regard to "dasein" or being. That is, being is that which no signifier can encompass and which we cannot comprehend, and yet we cannot exist without it. Therefore the word "being" is X'd out, and in effect put under erasure, because it is both indefinable and necessary.
This last description of postmodernism is a relief. I like Jameson's careful approach rather than Lyotard's indictments and vindications, and the assertion that postmodernism is marked by a disregard for grand narratives. How, for instance, is the grand narrative of Christianity in any way threatened by postmodernism? Isn't it instead enhanced by media relations and and the privatization so inherent in captitalism? In what other time could evangelical companies set up shop in Africa and convert millions? A weakening of historicity-that sounds more reasonable. An decentering of the artist's psyche-yes, much more reasonable.
In his tracking of the points of dissolution in modernism, Jameson launches into a brilliant discussion of Van Gogh's painting "Peasant Shoes." I think it is appropriate and poignant that he reminds us to try to mentally restore the historical conditions of the painting (this is again an echo of Benjamin's "Work of Art..."). This is so we may have an idea of the symbolic nature of the shoes, and to set us up for understanding the Heideggerian "gap" from which such a painting must have emergerged. The heading of this section "The Deconstruction of Expression" then becomes evident--"Diamond Dust Shoes" leaves no avenue for the viewer or the artist to wedge themselves in between the "Earth" and the "World."
Munch's "The Scream" is also taken into account. Another highly expressionist work, Jameson points out that its very composition precludes its expression. The scream "subtly but elaborately deconstructs its own aesthetic of expression, all the while remaining imprisoned within it. It reminds me of the post-structuralist concept "Sous Rature," a term which Derrida will apply to all signifiers but which was in a different context used by Heidegger in regard to "dasein" or being. That is, being is that which no signifier can encompass and which we cannot comprehend, and yet we cannot exist without it. Therefore the word "being" is X'd out, and in effect put under erasure, because it is both indefinable and necessary.
GeekinthePink
The rise of aesthetic populism. More postmodernism rhetoric. Capitalism is getting such a beatdown from these theorists. Marx wanted to get rid of it all together, Benjamin frowned on capitalism's ability to mass produce, and now Jameson says that the rise of aesthetic populism and its degraded "landscape of schlock and kitsch" is the consequence of a post-capitalist society.
According to Jameson, we are either in the third or fourth machine age. "Is is at this point that we must reintroduce the problem of aesthetic representation already explicity developed in Kant's earlier analysis of the sublime--since it would seem only logical that the relationship to, and representation of, the machine could be expected to shift dialectically with each of these qualitatively different stages of technological development." To this idea, Jameson says the technology we possess can no longer have the same representation--we have computers and televisions that show us new technology with a "flattened image surface within itself." Subsequently, these machines are machines of reproduction.
I stand with what I said about Marx and Benjamin. While I see their viewpoints on capitalism ensuring mass reproduction and the destruction of art through that route, I also see capitalism as an enabler. It is a double-edged sword that must be used for good and bad. It is human nature to use it for both; the fact that people exploit it will always happen. But you have to ask yourself a question: If you make a horrible rendition of "Romeo and Juliet" and make it sell to millions of people, dumbing it down for average audiences and for the maximum dollar value, yet someone sees it, becomes interested in the original story and pursues it for themselves, isn't this spreading true culture? So, out of the depths of some evil capitalist plot there lies benefit for those willing to seek it. And in the end, are not the only ones willing to seek original, cognitive thinking for themselves and appreciate it the only ones that are going to in the first place? Thus, the only fault in capitalism is in people--and you will have that factor in any political system you conjure up.
According to Jameson, we are either in the third or fourth machine age. "Is is at this point that we must reintroduce the problem of aesthetic representation already explicity developed in Kant's earlier analysis of the sublime--since it would seem only logical that the relationship to, and representation of, the machine could be expected to shift dialectically with each of these qualitatively different stages of technological development." To this idea, Jameson says the technology we possess can no longer have the same representation--we have computers and televisions that show us new technology with a "flattened image surface within itself." Subsequently, these machines are machines of reproduction.
I stand with what I said about Marx and Benjamin. While I see their viewpoints on capitalism ensuring mass reproduction and the destruction of art through that route, I also see capitalism as an enabler. It is a double-edged sword that must be used for good and bad. It is human nature to use it for both; the fact that people exploit it will always happen. But you have to ask yourself a question: If you make a horrible rendition of "Romeo and Juliet" and make it sell to millions of people, dumbing it down for average audiences and for the maximum dollar value, yet someone sees it, becomes interested in the original story and pursues it for themselves, isn't this spreading true culture? So, out of the depths of some evil capitalist plot there lies benefit for those willing to seek it. And in the end, are not the only ones willing to seek original, cognitive thinking for themselves and appreciate it the only ones that are going to in the first place? Thus, the only fault in capitalism is in people--and you will have that factor in any political system you conjure up.
GeekinthePink
"The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, consequently also controls the means of mental production." Ah, we are still debating control over society socially and economically (as we still are today, read GM's post). Is this not the same thing as Poster? Who controls the switches? Except, in this case, Marx has an answer--the ruling class. In Poster ideology, we have the decentralized second age media with an absent center and with Marx we have a tangible hand draped in gold poised over the controls. After all,he who "has the gold, rules!"
I know I commented on Marx in my pre-class blog, but I have such a fascination with him that I had to comment on him in my post. Marx doesn't strike me as post modern. I know the term post modern entails many different ideas (just try to look the definition up on the internet, you cannot even get a comprehensive one), but Marx overwhelmingly pushes a more political agenda--to overcome this class struggle and eliminate capitalism. In many ways, I can understand this viewpoint as it does appear capitalism makes up our social and intellectual DNA and overrrides individuality with the ideas of the masses. However, capitalism also allows individuality to be possible. It is also the framework of our society; without our fundamental values, we would be sitting ducks for communism and socialism. Ahem. I don't want to make anyone angry, but haven't we witnessed this with extreme liberals? I'm thinking something as simple as smoking. I heard one liberal talking about trying to make it illegal to smoke and drive (tobacco...obviously). Now, I actually don't smoke, but I am appalled. How dare they take personal liberties away from us because it has been "researched" that it could "hinder" driving techniques; well, so could stupidity, but you don't see people being tested for that. Also, there was a woman trying to ban trans-fat in California from restaurants. Why? To make people healthier. Well, in a capitalist society, we have to take care of ourselves. If we are fat and unhealthy, that's our own damn fault. This is the whole point of capitalism--there is the popular choice, but it is possible to go with your own ideas. There may be a mainstream, but we are still allowed to live within our personal choices. At least for now.
I know I commented on Marx in my pre-class blog, but I have such a fascination with him that I had to comment on him in my post. Marx doesn't strike me as post modern. I know the term post modern entails many different ideas (just try to look the definition up on the internet, you cannot even get a comprehensive one), but Marx overwhelmingly pushes a more political agenda--to overcome this class struggle and eliminate capitalism. In many ways, I can understand this viewpoint as it does appear capitalism makes up our social and intellectual DNA and overrrides individuality with the ideas of the masses. However, capitalism also allows individuality to be possible. It is also the framework of our society; without our fundamental values, we would be sitting ducks for communism and socialism. Ahem. I don't want to make anyone angry, but haven't we witnessed this with extreme liberals? I'm thinking something as simple as smoking. I heard one liberal talking about trying to make it illegal to smoke and drive (tobacco...obviously). Now, I actually don't smoke, but I am appalled. How dare they take personal liberties away from us because it has been "researched" that it could "hinder" driving techniques; well, so could stupidity, but you don't see people being tested for that. Also, there was a woman trying to ban trans-fat in California from restaurants. Why? To make people healthier. Well, in a capitalist society, we have to take care of ourselves. If we are fat and unhealthy, that's our own damn fault. This is the whole point of capitalism--there is the popular choice, but it is possible to go with your own ideas. There may be a mainstream, but we are still allowed to live within our personal choices. At least for now.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Eddie, Jameson
Jameson discusses the presence of distinct “periods” in our culture, each marked by the ‘death’ of the previous and the succession of the new. What is intriguing is how this model of death and succession permeates from the broad scope of culture into details of our modern consumerism-driven capitalist life. This, in turn, hints to us exactly why we prefer revolution to continual growth.
Succeeding periods exists among us as the more familiar term: generations. It is the natural mode of operation in nature. We see generations through our children. They grow and replace their parents. Grandchildren replace the children and that generational cycle has brought us through all of time until today. But more interesting is how the generational cycling of products keeps companies competitive in the capitalist world today. iPods are the staple of “success through succession.” The device, first marketed back in 2001, is now in its sixth ‘generation,’ though far past the sixth production model. The notion of a new generation is one of intentional design by Apple – restricting one generation to receive only correctional hardware revision or cost-cutting alterations but not substantially updating functionality until corporate tactics dictate that it is time to ‘replace’ the current generation. They would then announce a new generation of iPods and declare the current one to be obsolete. This choreographed succession has recently taken a step up, with the arrival of the new iPod Touch, which is apparently supposed to be the current, de facto, iPod. Apple now labels the previously-modern iPods with the suffix “classic” – a move that would bring a smirk to Jameson’s face, no doubt.
Generations serve the interest of companies because it defines (for consumers) what is new, what is current and what is old. It directs consumers when to buy and when a replacement is needed. In the context of cultural trends, succession allows us to know when to celebrate the new and embrace the arrival of a “better” culture which realizes what the previous has failed to address. It is like buying a new touch screen iPod on the basis that we never realized we wanted a touch screen before. But, of course, things are never so simple. Naturally, there are disputes over whether the old was truly so severely lacking and whether the new functions are really that important, or just serve to break what was not broken. Such are what fuel the different forms of conservatives and their conflicts. What I wish to bring to our attention here is not that conflict or the better choice (if there can be such a definitive answer at all), but rather the idea that succession serves to satisfy our basic need for improvement. That is, while the process of succession may not guarantee actual improvement per se, but it does give the impression that we are progressing. Keep in mind that forward progression here is not restricted to a linear progression, where further is always good. We, as a society, move in a non-distinct direction among any of the 360 degree of choices and push on forward in what we feel, as of today, to be the ‘right way.’ Should the mode of culture be a single gradient with constant changes rather than large steps of revolution, then there would be much less of a sense of improvement and achievement (even though neither may have been actually attained). Then we would recognize nothing but the constant process of change and the resulting perception would be that nothing ever changes, which is true, because that mode of continuous change is indeed not ever changing. People may, then, come to the conclusion that either there is no need to change, or the alternative, more horrific theory that there is no more room to change – and the idea of inaction and stagnation bothers us.
Succeeding periods exists among us as the more familiar term: generations. It is the natural mode of operation in nature. We see generations through our children. They grow and replace their parents. Grandchildren replace the children and that generational cycle has brought us through all of time until today. But more interesting is how the generational cycling of products keeps companies competitive in the capitalist world today. iPods are the staple of “success through succession.” The device, first marketed back in 2001, is now in its sixth ‘generation,’ though far past the sixth production model. The notion of a new generation is one of intentional design by Apple – restricting one generation to receive only correctional hardware revision or cost-cutting alterations but not substantially updating functionality until corporate tactics dictate that it is time to ‘replace’ the current generation. They would then announce a new generation of iPods and declare the current one to be obsolete. This choreographed succession has recently taken a step up, with the arrival of the new iPod Touch, which is apparently supposed to be the current, de facto, iPod. Apple now labels the previously-modern iPods with the suffix “classic” – a move that would bring a smirk to Jameson’s face, no doubt.
Generations serve the interest of companies because it defines (for consumers) what is new, what is current and what is old. It directs consumers when to buy and when a replacement is needed. In the context of cultural trends, succession allows us to know when to celebrate the new and embrace the arrival of a “better” culture which realizes what the previous has failed to address. It is like buying a new touch screen iPod on the basis that we never realized we wanted a touch screen before. But, of course, things are never so simple. Naturally, there are disputes over whether the old was truly so severely lacking and whether the new functions are really that important, or just serve to break what was not broken. Such are what fuel the different forms of conservatives and their conflicts. What I wish to bring to our attention here is not that conflict or the better choice (if there can be such a definitive answer at all), but rather the idea that succession serves to satisfy our basic need for improvement. That is, while the process of succession may not guarantee actual improvement per se, but it does give the impression that we are progressing. Keep in mind that forward progression here is not restricted to a linear progression, where further is always good. We, as a society, move in a non-distinct direction among any of the 360 degree of choices and push on forward in what we feel, as of today, to be the ‘right way.’ Should the mode of culture be a single gradient with constant changes rather than large steps of revolution, then there would be much less of a sense of improvement and achievement (even though neither may have been actually attained). Then we would recognize nothing but the constant process of change and the resulting perception would be that nothing ever changes, which is true, because that mode of continuous change is indeed not ever changing. People may, then, come to the conclusion that either there is no need to change, or the alternative, more horrific theory that there is no more room to change – and the idea of inaction and stagnation bothers us.
Mike of Modernit y(or post?)
The point of difference, or sameness, between Althusser's Repressive State Apparati and Ideological Apparati is (for me) difficulty to discern. While Althusser's distinction is that one employs violence the other thought, their methods of control and influence still often bear a striking resemblance to one another. My experiences in elementary school show a prime example of this. The most feared punishment one could reap for stepping outside the rules was a paddling. Paddling as punishment would never happen nowadays ,and if it did would be quickly met with litigation and a media frenzy calling for something to be done. Rightly so, I believe, as using violence in education only seems to breed violence; or so I could argue. Here is an "ideological" apparatus using force to gain control, and what seems more insidious is that it is committed under the veil of "proper education" and "order". Conversely, having a gun held to our head by a police officer is a far more literal and life threatening use of violence as control, but in the case of a law enforcement agency - one expects that violence will be used. They are armed, wear identifying costume, and are subject to a littany of procedures to protect themselves legally. Yet in grade school, this was only 1981 mind you, I moved to Florida to find that my new school used corporal punishment as a deterrent to misbehaving. Keeping in perspective the numerous incidents of violence that are playing out in our educational system over the last several decades, this school had no particular conduct problem. Perhaps the threat of violence kept it this way? I would hope that it was a natural state of order, nonetheless I was shocked and terrified to find out the fact that if i got in trouble, I could be paddled. This was unheard of in the part of the Northeast where i grew up. It seemed Barbaric to me, that a public institution that was charged with the safety of so many kids could use such backwards method of persuasion and control. But, it becomes apparent as I grow wiser, that in every institution, or apparati, there must be some sense of order. The apparati seeks to provide this, by hook or by crook. While the ideological seeks to influence us through ideas, the repressive do so by bodily threat. Which is more powerful? Which holds the greater sway over the illusion of control they both support? This depends entirely on the parties that fall under their respective domains. Us.
Sally, Jameson - Postmodernism & the City
Jameson used The Bonaventura Hotel in LA as an example of "Postmodernism and the City." As I read through his impressions, I felt I was there...and, in a sense, I was - at least, experientially. I have never been to LA, but I grew up in Atlanta and we had our own "Bonaventura" illuminate the skyline in the early 70's. Illuminate, it did (the bright blue orb housing the revolving restaurant was a destination and subject of conversation among Atlantians throughout the 70's.) According to Jameson, the same architect and developer - John Portman - is responsible for multiple Hyatt Regency hotels reflecting his design philosophy in various major cities throughout the U.S. However, Portman at least gave the Atlanta Hyatt Regency a "normal" entrance, I believe. Makes me curious if I missed some other entrances! As a kid we used to joke that the Regency was like a space-age hotel straight out of the "Jetsons" cartoon. After this essay, I'll look at this type of architecture quite differently!
As Jameson took the reader through his description of the Bonaventura, I was intrigued by the effect of the three entrances into the hotel. Each required effort by the hotel guest to find his way to the check-in desk: the street level entrance on Figueroa admits the guest to a 2nd story shopping balcony, 1 level above the front lobby; the two remaining entrances (at least 6 levels above the front lobby) are situated in elevated garden areas accessible from the side of Beacon Hill. "The entryways of the Bonaventura as it were lateral and rather backdoor affairs." Jameson comments that the unmarked entryways "seem to have been imposed by some new category of closure governing the inner space of the hotel itself." (509) To be sure, why would an architect design the entryways to be so difficult to navigate unless he was making a statement. Jameson believes a work such as this "aspires to be a total space, a complete world, a kind of miniature city." (509) He goes on to say that "in this sense, the Bonaventura ought not to have entrances at all, since the entryway is always the seam that links the building to the rest of the city that surrounds it...it does not wish to be part of the city..." (509) Wow, I'm starting to think Portman is a genius! I can see what Jameson is saying. The entire topic is quite interesting regarding the escalators and elevators, the glass, and the innanely huge open areas allowing the guest to "experience space." (510) How appropriate - what else can you call it? Now, when I visit my friends and relatives in Atlanta, I'll suggest that we go "experience space" at the Hyatt downtown. Certainly, now, it is dwarfed in the skyline of Atlanta, but back in the 70's it was THE place to go. I'm excited that I can now label what will be happening if I ever stand in the lobby of the Bonaventura in LA. - I will be having a "spatial" moment in the lobby of a postmodernistic structure. Pretty cool!
As Jameson took the reader through his description of the Bonaventura, I was intrigued by the effect of the three entrances into the hotel. Each required effort by the hotel guest to find his way to the check-in desk: the street level entrance on Figueroa admits the guest to a 2nd story shopping balcony, 1 level above the front lobby; the two remaining entrances (at least 6 levels above the front lobby) are situated in elevated garden areas accessible from the side of Beacon Hill. "The entryways of the Bonaventura as it were lateral and rather backdoor affairs." Jameson comments that the unmarked entryways "seem to have been imposed by some new category of closure governing the inner space of the hotel itself." (509) To be sure, why would an architect design the entryways to be so difficult to navigate unless he was making a statement. Jameson believes a work such as this "aspires to be a total space, a complete world, a kind of miniature city." (509) He goes on to say that "in this sense, the Bonaventura ought not to have entrances at all, since the entryway is always the seam that links the building to the rest of the city that surrounds it...it does not wish to be part of the city..." (509) Wow, I'm starting to think Portman is a genius! I can see what Jameson is saying. The entire topic is quite interesting regarding the escalators and elevators, the glass, and the innanely huge open areas allowing the guest to "experience space." (510) How appropriate - what else can you call it? Now, when I visit my friends and relatives in Atlanta, I'll suggest that we go "experience space" at the Hyatt downtown. Certainly, now, it is dwarfed in the skyline of Atlanta, but back in the 70's it was THE place to go. I'm excited that I can now label what will be happening if I ever stand in the lobby of the Bonaventura in LA. - I will be having a "spatial" moment in the lobby of a postmodernistic structure. Pretty cool!
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Eddie, 10/23
Does writing have to be popular with consumers to be considered writing? This was the question given in class and one I would like to discuss. Below I will include writing with other forms of art – such as painting and drama – as their collective whole: art.
I recall previously mentioning that equating economic performance with excellence in any form of art imposes a sense of functionality onto the work in which it must fulfill. Such is not unlike the iPhone, which has a list of functions it must do well for the consumer. Critique is given to the device based on satisfaction of the promised functions. While the iPhone, more or less, made many of its consumers happy and, more importantly, made many people its consumer, most people would find the notion of the iPhone as a piece of art to be at least a little silly (though the pseudo-religious status of the iPhone among consumers is somewhat of an artistic spectacle). Art is simply not a Swiss army knife that does everything, and neither is it the kitchen cleaner that promises to remove even the most stubborn of stains. Worth is neither tied to the array of its function nor the magnitude of any of those abilities.
However, some may immediately raise the question that we are speaking of art that is popular and not debating how popularity does or does not elevate objects into art. But what my previous discussion does not elaborate is that which I wish to express: consumer popularity is separate and irrelevant to artistic worth. Consider, first, that art never fulfills material needs. A faucet brings us water – a very basic need for the modern life. Microwaves heat food for the lazy, which is a step up from satisfying the bare minimums of daily tasks. Yet art never aims to provide nor improve basic provisions essential to our physical being. Rather, art is a proof of higher intellectual needs when the element of warding off immediate death has been removed from our minds. Extending this idea further, art is thus not the means to keep an artist or a company alive. True art that happens to be marketable would merely be a happy coincidence rather than an intended outcome. So best-seller art can be worthless art, bargain-bin art can be a masterpiece of talent and any combination of economic worth with artistic worth is just as valid, because there is no logical connection between the combinations.
Think about it: should art need to sell before it is great, then no piece of work is ever finished at the hands of the artist: he or she must surrender the work to the shapeless and looming will of the mass. Through the process of consumption, which adds neither inspiration nor insight to the work, it is “finished” and prescribed a judgment of worth. Consider how strange a notion it is where an artist may personally find his or her work of great artistic significance, yet that significance can be retroactively striped when the people find the work to not be massively consumable.
Economics hint that artwork must fulfill the needs of many, regardless of medium, inspiration and intent. Such logical rebuttal against tying art to profit is nothing new, but we should explore this hypothetical world where best-selling art is good art to appreciate the logic headaches which we can well live without. Artwork in this world is in a bizarre state of flux in its excellence. One week it may sell feverously well, but come next week it may have lost that momentum and thus has fallen in its artistic value. Strangely, artistic value is affected by the inevitable waning of interest and the simple fact of market saturation. And while we are on the topic of market saturation, if a printed poster sells to every home in a village of a hundred households, does that make it an equal, better or inferior piece of work than the same poster selling to a hundred households in New York? Here, artwork is at the mercy of marketing and population size.
The problem with profits making good art is that, with art, there is a lack of an objective restraint from reality to govern demands that art strives to quench. We cannot decide that we do not like to be hungry, and there is certainly nobody who gets thirsty, rather than sleepy, at night. While there are patterns in the preference, style and taste of art, there is no unified form of demand for it. Thus, how can we hope to skewer the arbitrary and infinitely diverse nature of art with a lazy scale such as sales figures to make them easier to comprehend? Art is worth as much as each individual makes it. It is worth different to the artist, consumers and institutions, and there is no escaping the effort it takes to find out for ourselves if that toilet seat on the wall is art or nonsense.
I recall previously mentioning that equating economic performance with excellence in any form of art imposes a sense of functionality onto the work in which it must fulfill. Such is not unlike the iPhone, which has a list of functions it must do well for the consumer. Critique is given to the device based on satisfaction of the promised functions. While the iPhone, more or less, made many of its consumers happy and, more importantly, made many people its consumer, most people would find the notion of the iPhone as a piece of art to be at least a little silly (though the pseudo-religious status of the iPhone among consumers is somewhat of an artistic spectacle). Art is simply not a Swiss army knife that does everything, and neither is it the kitchen cleaner that promises to remove even the most stubborn of stains. Worth is neither tied to the array of its function nor the magnitude of any of those abilities.
However, some may immediately raise the question that we are speaking of art that is popular and not debating how popularity does or does not elevate objects into art. But what my previous discussion does not elaborate is that which I wish to express: consumer popularity is separate and irrelevant to artistic worth. Consider, first, that art never fulfills material needs. A faucet brings us water – a very basic need for the modern life. Microwaves heat food for the lazy, which is a step up from satisfying the bare minimums of daily tasks. Yet art never aims to provide nor improve basic provisions essential to our physical being. Rather, art is a proof of higher intellectual needs when the element of warding off immediate death has been removed from our minds. Extending this idea further, art is thus not the means to keep an artist or a company alive. True art that happens to be marketable would merely be a happy coincidence rather than an intended outcome. So best-seller art can be worthless art, bargain-bin art can be a masterpiece of talent and any combination of economic worth with artistic worth is just as valid, because there is no logical connection between the combinations.
Think about it: should art need to sell before it is great, then no piece of work is ever finished at the hands of the artist: he or she must surrender the work to the shapeless and looming will of the mass. Through the process of consumption, which adds neither inspiration nor insight to the work, it is “finished” and prescribed a judgment of worth. Consider how strange a notion it is where an artist may personally find his or her work of great artistic significance, yet that significance can be retroactively striped when the people find the work to not be massively consumable.
Economics hint that artwork must fulfill the needs of many, regardless of medium, inspiration and intent. Such logical rebuttal against tying art to profit is nothing new, but we should explore this hypothetical world where best-selling art is good art to appreciate the logic headaches which we can well live without. Artwork in this world is in a bizarre state of flux in its excellence. One week it may sell feverously well, but come next week it may have lost that momentum and thus has fallen in its artistic value. Strangely, artistic value is affected by the inevitable waning of interest and the simple fact of market saturation. And while we are on the topic of market saturation, if a printed poster sells to every home in a village of a hundred households, does that make it an equal, better or inferior piece of work than the same poster selling to a hundred households in New York? Here, artwork is at the mercy of marketing and population size.
The problem with profits making good art is that, with art, there is a lack of an objective restraint from reality to govern demands that art strives to quench. We cannot decide that we do not like to be hungry, and there is certainly nobody who gets thirsty, rather than sleepy, at night. While there are patterns in the preference, style and taste of art, there is no unified form of demand for it. Thus, how can we hope to skewer the arbitrary and infinitely diverse nature of art with a lazy scale such as sales figures to make them easier to comprehend? Art is worth as much as each individual makes it. It is worth different to the artist, consumers and institutions, and there is no escaping the effort it takes to find out for ourselves if that toilet seat on the wall is art or nonsense.
Gm-post 23 Oct class: response to Sally’s 10/23 post.
In response to your post, I basically agree with most of your comments. Marx seems to be a “lynch-pin,” of sorts, the bedrock whose theories have been built upon by countless other philosophers, theorist, and Marxist.
Your first case in point, I concur with in part, comparing the expansion and domination by and of the British Empire as an example of Marx’s statement: “…each new class which puts it self in the place of one ruling before it is compelled, merely in order to carry through its aim, to present its interest as the common interest of all the members of society, that it, expressed in ideal form: it has to give its idea the form of universality, and present them as the only rational, universally valid one” (40). Expansion of the British Empire is a perfect example of Marx’s theory. In India for example, the ideology of the British ruling class was put forward as the law of land and carried out by British military authority. Other examples of this can be seen by other western-European powers in Africa, particularly by the ruling classes of Belgian, France, and Germany as they engrossed themselves over the African Congo. They (the ruling class), it seems, were all in competition for a piece of the African pie.
However, comparing contemporary America with the expansion of the British Empire, I must take exception with. We are not in Iraq to further Democratic ideology. The United States doesn’t care what type of political institution is in place in Iraq just as long as it’s a stable and reliable institution. Don’t forget that we gladly dealt with Saddam for years before we seized power, selling him weapons, chemicals, technology, etc. It wasn’t until he threatened stability in the area, threatening the disruption of oil at free market prices, with his invasion of Kuwait, and subsequent refuses to withdrawal during the first gulf war, that we became righteous.
It’s only because of Saddam instability, his refusal to play ball that he’s out of power. No, the real reason that the United States is in Iraq today and will remain for the foreseeable future is to keep oil flowing at free market prices, which leads to another interesting point. If we woke up in the morning to learn there was a new and miraculous replacement for oil, that oil was now completely obsolete, I’m sure we would be out of Iraq by tomorrow night. Then, the Iraqi people, could discover democracy by themselves, if that’s what they want.
Your first case in point, I concur with in part, comparing the expansion and domination by and of the British Empire as an example of Marx’s statement: “…each new class which puts it self in the place of one ruling before it is compelled, merely in order to carry through its aim, to present its interest as the common interest of all the members of society, that it, expressed in ideal form: it has to give its idea the form of universality, and present them as the only rational, universally valid one” (40). Expansion of the British Empire is a perfect example of Marx’s theory. In India for example, the ideology of the British ruling class was put forward as the law of land and carried out by British military authority. Other examples of this can be seen by other western-European powers in Africa, particularly by the ruling classes of Belgian, France, and Germany as they engrossed themselves over the African Congo. They (the ruling class), it seems, were all in competition for a piece of the African pie.
However, comparing contemporary America with the expansion of the British Empire, I must take exception with. We are not in Iraq to further Democratic ideology. The United States doesn’t care what type of political institution is in place in Iraq just as long as it’s a stable and reliable institution. Don’t forget that we gladly dealt with Saddam for years before we seized power, selling him weapons, chemicals, technology, etc. It wasn’t until he threatened stability in the area, threatening the disruption of oil at free market prices, with his invasion of Kuwait, and subsequent refuses to withdrawal during the first gulf war, that we became righteous.
It’s only because of Saddam instability, his refusal to play ball that he’s out of power. No, the real reason that the United States is in Iraq today and will remain for the foreseeable future is to keep oil flowing at free market prices, which leads to another interesting point. If we woke up in the morning to learn there was a new and miraculous replacement for oil, that oil was now completely obsolete, I’m sure we would be out of Iraq by tomorrow night. Then, the Iraqi people, could discover democracy by themselves, if that’s what they want.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Francesca, 10/23
I feel that Karl Marx’s ideology concerning human consciousness holds valid applicability to the various aspects of one’s identity. The components of one’s self-image are shaped primarily by environmental influences. The concept of humans being a tabula rasa upon entering this world can be corroborated by such issues as sex and gender. As there are biological factors that distinguish one as uniquely male or female, a culture’s perception of masculine and feminine traits determine the manner in which one sees his or her self. This is the difference between sex and gender. Sex implies universality whereas gender suggests subjectivity. The subjectivity of gender is dependent upon the culture one is conditioned within. This concept is essentially a social construct composed of environmental influences. As Marx stated, “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but on the contrary, their social being which determines their consciousness.” (37) Our gender is a reflection of this idea. When a child is born, we assess it’s sex, and proceed to condition that child in terms of normative classifications of masculinity or femininity. These classifications are those that a given society maintains to be acceptable standards of looking, feeling, or acting as a man or woman. Yet, the normality of such standards is derived from ritualistic tradition. The social construction of gender identity is comprised of fluctuating determinants such as religious beliefs and political stability. Men and women define their roles in accordance to the values held by their particular culture. Thus, their gender identity is a reflection of these societal roles. It is this interplay of cultural values and gender roles that can either foster or discourage inequalities between men and women. In summation, Marx’s ideology provides the framework for an analysis of society’s influence upon an individual in various respects.
Sally, 10/23
This class was, perhaps, the most relevant topic to date. I found the lecture, the examples, and discussion to be timely and illuminating of the society in which we live. I share a fellow classmate's sentiment: I never thought I'd be studying Marx and coming to the conclusion that, so far, his critique/views make a great deal of sense. I know that we are "brushing the surface" in a sense and there is much more should we delve into his essays that we, as Americans, may not agree with...but, so far, so good.
Case in point: "...each new class which puts itself in the place of one ruling before it is compelled, merely in order to carry through its aim, to present its interest as the common interest of all the members of society, that is, expressed in ideal form: it has to give its idea the form of universality, and present them as the only rational, universally valid one."(40) I thought the frank discussion regarding the British Empire and colonization illuminated the essence of this ideology. Of course, any "conquering" nation will believe that it is "in the right" and that those subject to the new rule will be better off because they will now have a better system of education, of religion, and of society, in general. I could not help but reflect upon our "occupation" of Iraq. Yes, we are occupying their land (has anyone seen photos of the new embassy compound that has been built to oversee Iraqi affairs - it's HUGE!) It makes a bold and threatening statement: America is here.
In my opinion, we have so blended nation-building with the "war on terror", that the "real" purpose of the "war on terror" has been diluted. If we were that serious about this "war," our borders would not be so porous. There are so many smoke and mirrors that a description of exactly what we're doing in Iraq is obscured. However, we are "doing the right thing" and we are told repeatedly by those in charge that it expresses "the common interest of all the members of society." (Marx, 40) The ideology of our own national security justifies our occupation of another nation - a country that vacilates on whether they need our assistance or not as they deal with their own civil unrest. In the meantime, we've moved in and have set up shop! As an American, I am disappointed and disillusioned in the politics of our great country. We find ourselves in a distressing situation as we "soldier" on in Iraq. I believed our president when, in the first rounds of the presidential debates, he answered the question of whether or not he supported nation-building with a resounding "No, I do not." That answer, and our current ideology keeping us in Iraq, don’t jive. Am I naive to think our president should be a man of his word, or worse, did he not understand the question? I wonder what I’m missing in the big picture - I know I'm not alone.
Case in point: "...each new class which puts itself in the place of one ruling before it is compelled, merely in order to carry through its aim, to present its interest as the common interest of all the members of society, that is, expressed in ideal form: it has to give its idea the form of universality, and present them as the only rational, universally valid one."(40) I thought the frank discussion regarding the British Empire and colonization illuminated the essence of this ideology. Of course, any "conquering" nation will believe that it is "in the right" and that those subject to the new rule will be better off because they will now have a better system of education, of religion, and of society, in general. I could not help but reflect upon our "occupation" of Iraq. Yes, we are occupying their land (has anyone seen photos of the new embassy compound that has been built to oversee Iraqi affairs - it's HUGE!) It makes a bold and threatening statement: America is here.
In my opinion, we have so blended nation-building with the "war on terror", that the "real" purpose of the "war on terror" has been diluted. If we were that serious about this "war," our borders would not be so porous. There are so many smoke and mirrors that a description of exactly what we're doing in Iraq is obscured. However, we are "doing the right thing" and we are told repeatedly by those in charge that it expresses "the common interest of all the members of society." (Marx, 40) The ideology of our own national security justifies our occupation of another nation - a country that vacilates on whether they need our assistance or not as they deal with their own civil unrest. In the meantime, we've moved in and have set up shop! As an American, I am disappointed and disillusioned in the politics of our great country. We find ourselves in a distressing situation as we "soldier" on in Iraq. I believed our president when, in the first rounds of the presidential debates, he answered the question of whether or not he supported nation-building with a resounding "No, I do not." That answer, and our current ideology keeping us in Iraq, don’t jive. Am I naive to think our president should be a man of his word, or worse, did he not understand the question? I wonder what I’m missing in the big picture - I know I'm not alone.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
GM 23 October, Marx & Engels
It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being which determines their consciousness. Marx, (37)
You know, the more I read Marx, the more I’m learning to like him. Although he’s not telling us anything we don’t already know, they above quote is kind of like saying we are what we eat; or, maybe we are all led by our wallets and checkbooks in the final analysis. This leads me to another Marx/Engels quote that I like:
The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas: i.e., the class which is the ruling material force of society is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, consequently also controls the means of mental production. (39)
Again, this isn’t telling us anything we don’t already know. Marx is saying that he, who has the money, has the power, has the rule. A good example and interesting parallel of this in American history would be the American Civil War. In the south, the elite planters held a majority ownership of the south in vast plantations, producing all of the United States’ cotton at the time, in addition to peanuts and tobacco. These elite planters held dominion over the working class in the south which, of course, included a vast slave population. However, in the north power was held by elite industrialists, whom could produce the materials needed by the north to outlast the south in a protracted war, which, was exactly what took place.
The south was forced to capitulate to the north because it could not sustain a protracted war where industrialization was needed. The north had the means of a massive industrial production at its disposal. In addition, the north maintained a large naval force which was capable of maintaining a sustained blockage of southern ports. Therefore, the north ultimately controlled the “means of production” in the form of “Reconstruction” of the south and we all know how well that turned out.
You know, the more I read Marx, the more I’m learning to like him. Although he’s not telling us anything we don’t already know, they above quote is kind of like saying we are what we eat; or, maybe we are all led by our wallets and checkbooks in the final analysis. This leads me to another Marx/Engels quote that I like:
The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas: i.e., the class which is the ruling material force of society is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, consequently also controls the means of mental production. (39)
Again, this isn’t telling us anything we don’t already know. Marx is saying that he, who has the money, has the power, has the rule. A good example and interesting parallel of this in American history would be the American Civil War. In the south, the elite planters held a majority ownership of the south in vast plantations, producing all of the United States’ cotton at the time, in addition to peanuts and tobacco. These elite planters held dominion over the working class in the south which, of course, included a vast slave population. However, in the north power was held by elite industrialists, whom could produce the materials needed by the north to outlast the south in a protracted war, which, was exactly what took place.
The south was forced to capitulate to the north because it could not sustain a protracted war where industrialization was needed. The north had the means of a massive industrial production at its disposal. In addition, the north maintained a large naval force which was capable of maintaining a sustained blockage of southern ports. Therefore, the north ultimately controlled the “means of production” in the form of “Reconstruction” of the south and we all know how well that turned out.
Justin, Hebdige
It's interesting to find parallels between Hebdige's discussion of subculture and the theories we've already studied. Ideas like the architecture of schools as implicit ideological assumptions is obviously relatable to Jenck's essay on the new rules of postmodernism. The three readings we had for ideology seemed to build upon the basic idea of semiotics and structuralism that came from de Saussure. They took the essential parts of communication, and then built up the ideas of context and subject. Hebdige's discussion of the subculture's style as part of this context may have broadened exponentially since this was written. He focuses mainly on the punk and hippie subcultures here. By now, those cultures have their own subcultures. Culture as a whole appears to be breaking down into more and more subcultures, and at times mixing two seemingly opposite cultures to form new ones. The language of youth develops as terms are borrowed that express different ideologies. A mainstream style of the youth today is can be seen as a mixture of the revolutionary culture of the last 5 decades. Kids will wear long hair, seemingly borrowed from hippie culture, as well skater clothes and shoes developed over a long period of time from surf and punk culture and their subcultures including skating and hard rock. You'll find them wearing big headphones and sagging their pants, which is borrowed from a part of black culture that signifies something more than just style.
Ultimately, the overall style of youth today (and the discussion has to be about youth, as these styles can only be expressed during times of leisure, as Hebdige says) is borrowed from everywhere in order to adjust to the mainstream. If you aren't everything all at one time, you are something else; unique maybe. I guess it goes along well with Jencks' disharmonius harmony. Things don't necessarily go together, but now, in a way, they fit.
Ultimately, the overall style of youth today (and the discussion has to be about youth, as these styles can only be expressed during times of leisure, as Hebdige says) is borrowed from everywhere in order to adjust to the mainstream. If you aren't everything all at one time, you are something else; unique maybe. I guess it goes along well with Jencks' disharmonius harmony. Things don't necessarily go together, but now, in a way, they fit.
Anamnesis marx
When A dictator such as Ahmadinejad removes a political obstacle such as the Head of the Supreme National Security council, it is so that he can secure his ideology more firmly and go ahead with an agenda. In this sense the ruling class dispenses ideas by force instead of by example. Are the ideas of Ahmadinejad the ideas of Iran? Only insofar as they are threatening. There are many within Iran, especially students, who are at odds with his ideology. In Dubai there is "benevolent dictator," Al Maktoum, who's ideology (bound up, of course in Islam) is made palpable to his people by sheer scale of progress. The ideas of that ruling class are rarely questioned because (well first it is essentially against the law to question it) because the rate of progress is so astounding that it diverts attention elswhere, like away from the fact that Al Maktoum uses the equivalent of slave labor (immigrants from south asia who make more than they would at home, yet whose living conditions are abhorrent) to contruct buildings such as the Burj Dubai. Even the university professors will tout Al Maktoum as a good leader. After all, American companies such as Microsoft and Dell have set up cam there with total confidence. Maktoum, knowing that his ideas will be rebuked if he is too restrictive (like Ahmadinejad) has made social concessions, ie giving women more participatory roles in society.
When workers riot like they did at the new airport, the situation is swiftly dealt with from above by creating some diversion... building new living quarters (that resemble jails) for the 250,000 workers. When 8 year old Camel Jockeys are cited by humanitarian agencies as cruelty, robotic camel jockeys replace them! Yet through all this the ruling ideology rests soundly, because who doesn't want to see a modern marvel rise out of the ground in the most strategically placed city in the world. Answer: almost nobody.
In a capitalist society the upper class generates ideas largely about tastes. That is, what happens to lower class thinking as a result of upper class taste is an aspiration to be like the upper class. But this isn't always true. The means of production Marx Speaks about, I can't figure out where it happens in the United States. It can't be said exactly that the The "Ruling Class" controls the means of production. I think it is more accurate to say that the media generates an awareness of product, and product is dispersed according to incomes and demand. In our country the dialect of the ghetto is exploited by mega producers through hip hop. Many of the attitudes in Gangster rap are not the ideas of the producers, they are in fact ideas emanating from the ghetto. Yet the producers would be considered the "ruling class" here. If a rapper gains status that surpasses the producer, s/he becomes symbolic and iconic.
When workers riot like they did at the new airport, the situation is swiftly dealt with from above by creating some diversion... building new living quarters (that resemble jails) for the 250,000 workers. When 8 year old Camel Jockeys are cited by humanitarian agencies as cruelty, robotic camel jockeys replace them! Yet through all this the ruling ideology rests soundly, because who doesn't want to see a modern marvel rise out of the ground in the most strategically placed city in the world. Answer: almost nobody.
In a capitalist society the upper class generates ideas largely about tastes. That is, what happens to lower class thinking as a result of upper class taste is an aspiration to be like the upper class. But this isn't always true. The means of production Marx Speaks about, I can't figure out where it happens in the United States. It can't be said exactly that the The "Ruling Class" controls the means of production. I think it is more accurate to say that the media generates an awareness of product, and product is dispersed according to incomes and demand. In our country the dialect of the ghetto is exploited by mega producers through hip hop. Many of the attitudes in Gangster rap are not the ideas of the producers, they are in fact ideas emanating from the ghetto. Yet the producers would be considered the "ruling class" here. If a rapper gains status that surpasses the producer, s/he becomes symbolic and iconic.
Eddie, Marx
Marx states that the ruling class of any society owns the means of production, and thus controls the synthesis of ideas as well. He writes that those of intellectual power establish the model of ideological control while those of productive power employ the resources needed to realize the framework to guide the beliefs of the masses. The layman then believes in high and mighty goals which, in their splendor, hide the function of helping those in power stay in power. Here, Marx’s theory explains to us a lot, but yet there is a matter it fails to explain.
The control of ideas is the control over aspirations. The American mass still believe in the American Dream – one that ultimately, and quietly, supports those at the top of the capitalism pyramid. Ideals, hopes and beliefs make up the “ideas” that Marx writes of. The American Dream is the self-sufficient middle class family that has risen above social welfare but is beneath, and bound to, the rigorous ties of employment or a limited capitalist venture. The family nurtures a healthy second generation who are “lucky” to be born into this privileged dream class, who maintain and propagate the machine of capitalism. The American Dream, we must not forget, is a well-furnished one, armed to the teeth by Best Buy, Haverty’s and Hummers, yet this all is nothing that has escaped what Marx has already described. What exactly is the problem here?
While economical affluence and material wealth are the most common measures of social standings, it does not, however, make up the whole of what we consider to be the perfect modern family. What about aesthetics? How about tastes? Or manners and morals? A well-to-do family not only has a lot of stuff, but they also show an air of refinement. They show good choice and high expectations in their spending. Next to that, they show self-restraint, consideration, generosity and other displays of voluntary behavior that serve no apparent purpose to the immediate gain of the ruling class. Those beneath the top have a collective social concept as to what is acceptable and desirable behavior. They rationalize and support what they come to recognize as their ideology, because goals are meaningless if the mass do not think it is “right.”
Morals play an important role in shaping ideals. Marxists may argue that moral is a part of the collective scheme: a component that ensures that the machine of capitalism runs smoothly. It is not unlike how vitamins provide no power, so are not considered nutrients to our body but are essential to proper and healthy functioning. So morals are definitely not beyond the concern of the ruling class in that it helps the mass make sense of their subjectivity. It is conceivable how morals are essential to establishing whatever social framework we have, be it of an intentional design or not. Yet as important as morals are, not all countries share the same quality of morality as the general population of America. China has people pushing their children into cars to collect compensation, families that salvage medical waste to stuff mattresses, and factories that use lead paint to ride each order to the limits of their profit. They above harm the country with no end, and persist due to the general absence of morals to stabilize the growing society. Why does China not instill morality then? If Marx’s model of the means of production granting the control of ideas is true, then morals – an ideal – should be a mere matter of manipulating the people into being good citizens, because they will believe they want to, eventually. China even has a considerably more powerful sway over the means of (and even the most basic access to) production than here in the US, so why do they not have the ideological muscles to match? This is because moral (and the other previously mentioned facets of aesthetics) are of a form of ideals apart from ideology. They are, thus, completely beyond the control of the ruling class, regardless of the control they may have over ideological concerns. If this was not the case, then Mattel and Fisher Price would have a lot less toys to recall.
Marx presents sound logic in his proposed model of ideology, but there is at least one more component essential to the equation that he fails to account for and address. That factor of society is important to a stable capitalist society which, in Marxist terms, serves to support the few by exploiting the many. If Marxism is all about the struggle of power, then who dictates the path of morals and aesthetics? Not the rulers, that is for sure.
The control of ideas is the control over aspirations. The American mass still believe in the American Dream – one that ultimately, and quietly, supports those at the top of the capitalism pyramid. Ideals, hopes and beliefs make up the “ideas” that Marx writes of. The American Dream is the self-sufficient middle class family that has risen above social welfare but is beneath, and bound to, the rigorous ties of employment or a limited capitalist venture. The family nurtures a healthy second generation who are “lucky” to be born into this privileged dream class, who maintain and propagate the machine of capitalism. The American Dream, we must not forget, is a well-furnished one, armed to the teeth by Best Buy, Haverty’s and Hummers, yet this all is nothing that has escaped what Marx has already described. What exactly is the problem here?
While economical affluence and material wealth are the most common measures of social standings, it does not, however, make up the whole of what we consider to be the perfect modern family. What about aesthetics? How about tastes? Or manners and morals? A well-to-do family not only has a lot of stuff, but they also show an air of refinement. They show good choice and high expectations in their spending. Next to that, they show self-restraint, consideration, generosity and other displays of voluntary behavior that serve no apparent purpose to the immediate gain of the ruling class. Those beneath the top have a collective social concept as to what is acceptable and desirable behavior. They rationalize and support what they come to recognize as their ideology, because goals are meaningless if the mass do not think it is “right.”
Morals play an important role in shaping ideals. Marxists may argue that moral is a part of the collective scheme: a component that ensures that the machine of capitalism runs smoothly. It is not unlike how vitamins provide no power, so are not considered nutrients to our body but are essential to proper and healthy functioning. So morals are definitely not beyond the concern of the ruling class in that it helps the mass make sense of their subjectivity. It is conceivable how morals are essential to establishing whatever social framework we have, be it of an intentional design or not. Yet as important as morals are, not all countries share the same quality of morality as the general population of America. China has people pushing their children into cars to collect compensation, families that salvage medical waste to stuff mattresses, and factories that use lead paint to ride each order to the limits of their profit. They above harm the country with no end, and persist due to the general absence of morals to stabilize the growing society. Why does China not instill morality then? If Marx’s model of the means of production granting the control of ideas is true, then morals – an ideal – should be a mere matter of manipulating the people into being good citizens, because they will believe they want to, eventually. China even has a considerably more powerful sway over the means of (and even the most basic access to) production than here in the US, so why do they not have the ideological muscles to match? This is because moral (and the other previously mentioned facets of aesthetics) are of a form of ideals apart from ideology. They are, thus, completely beyond the control of the ruling class, regardless of the control they may have over ideological concerns. If this was not the case, then Mattel and Fisher Price would have a lot less toys to recall.
Marx presents sound logic in his proposed model of ideology, but there is at least one more component essential to the equation that he fails to account for and address. That factor of society is important to a stable capitalist society which, in Marxist terms, serves to support the few by exploiting the many. If Marxism is all about the struggle of power, then who dictates the path of morals and aesthetics? Not the rulers, that is for sure.
Monday, October 22, 2007
GeekinthePink
Since we read Walter Benjamin before Karl Marx, I am reminded strongly of Benjamin as I'm reading Marx. But one of the fascinating things is that Marx doesn't sound evil or extreme; he sounds like he is genuinely trying to improve the class of society. Ideology, he says, makes up the central backbone of society. "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas: i.e., the class which is the ruling material force of society is at the same time its ruling intellectual force." (Engels, Marx, 39) Of course, as long as the "ruling class" remains in place, hegemony cannot be avoided; and even within the class of passivity and receptiveness, the rift that develops between those who are passive and those who lean toward the side of opposition, these vanish with the appearance of the popular ideals, because the ruling class' power is so dominant over the power of this minute, insignificant subgroup of ideas.
I like his general principle--it is not to make everyone the same, but to decimate the dominating power of the universal idea accepted by the masses (which is put in place by the dominating, ruling class but does not represent all of its constituents).
However, he does go wrong with his methods. In his ideology, he empowers the differing class to rise to the position of the ruling class. “Its victory, therefore, benefits also many individuals of other classes which are not winning a dominant position, but only insofar as it now enables these individuals to raise themselves into the ruling class.” (Marx, 40) Now, this advantage puts everyone at a disadvantage; now, we still have one dominant class with mass reproduced ideas and a universal ideology. True, there is not more than one class of people, but neither is there power for the dominant class. The dominant class must be dumbed down for both the original dominating class and the “new ruling class.” Marx argues that as soon as class and distinctions no longer exist, and essentially capitalism is no longer in place, that general interest need not be represented as “ruling,” then the ruling of the class can be disintegrated. I would imagine he would support Lyotard, in theory, with his ideas of metanarratives, and decentralicized society, but in practicality, he is not postmodern; post-modern exists in difference and history and in the fact that there should be plenty of roles in one hand. Although Marx talks a good game about letting everyone possess consciousness and the “doctrine of the separation of powers,” what he really describes is getting rid of the individual stories and force-feeding law down people’s throats—at gun point.
I like his general principle--it is not to make everyone the same, but to decimate the dominating power of the universal idea accepted by the masses (which is put in place by the dominating, ruling class but does not represent all of its constituents).
However, he does go wrong with his methods. In his ideology, he empowers the differing class to rise to the position of the ruling class. “Its victory, therefore, benefits also many individuals of other classes which are not winning a dominant position, but only insofar as it now enables these individuals to raise themselves into the ruling class.” (Marx, 40) Now, this advantage puts everyone at a disadvantage; now, we still have one dominant class with mass reproduced ideas and a universal ideology. True, there is not more than one class of people, but neither is there power for the dominant class. The dominant class must be dumbed down for both the original dominating class and the “new ruling class.” Marx argues that as soon as class and distinctions no longer exist, and essentially capitalism is no longer in place, that general interest need not be represented as “ruling,” then the ruling of the class can be disintegrated. I would imagine he would support Lyotard, in theory, with his ideas of metanarratives, and decentralicized society, but in practicality, he is not postmodern; post-modern exists in difference and history and in the fact that there should be plenty of roles in one hand. Although Marx talks a good game about letting everyone possess consciousness and the “doctrine of the separation of powers,” what he really describes is getting rid of the individual stories and force-feeding law down people’s throats—at gun point.
Mike of Modernity (or post?)
Althusser, Marx and Hebdige all tackle the very heady concept of defining "ideology". A cursory definition might seem to suffice for such a seemingly innocuous word that is a general term for a body of beliefs and ideas of a certain group or class. But defining what group adheres to what ideology, and how said ideology influences and impacts history, culture (as nebulous a term as ideology) and society at large is a much more difficult matter all together. This becomes strikingly clear when you read Dick Hebdige and his thoughts on the subconcious vs concious nature of ideology. Does a society know that its ideological values influence and shape its future? Are our "moral values" or beliefs that we adhere to intrinsic to our geograghical and metaphysical place in the world? What's more, is one's conscious choice to resist prevailing ideologies a matter of will, or simply a part of the cycle in which the dominant class subjugates and consumes any "otherness" that may appear. The hegemonic nature of the traditional Marxist "ruling class" is in a "continual process of recuperation... the subculture incorporated as a diverting spectacle within the dominant mythology from which it in part emanates"(Hebdige 155). This incorporation is something I saw with my own eyes as a teenager growing up in the "punk era, just as Hebdige is describing. I remember the shock and disgust that punk music elicited, especially among older more conservative people, but also among younger people already well interred into the prevailing ideology of "normality" and "order" that the Punk scene was rebelling against. As a pragmatist, I know the punk movement was for many simply an excuse to be irresponsible, party, and destroy things. At the heart of it though, there was a real seed of discontent with the "ruling class", in this case British government, that drove so many to this subculture. Most were poor or uneducated, and it allowed a kind of expression that was original, shocking and creative. But as soon as it hit, it was packaged and sold as a lifestyle by anyone who wished to co-opt it. Soon it was influencing mainstream fashion and any creedence it had as anarchist or revolutionary was destroyed. Perhaps just as well for a rather chaotic "ideology", but it is the same for any threat to the unspoken "hegemony" that raises its head. War protestors were labelled as "unpatriotic" after we invaded Iraq, but now the overwhelming opinion seems to be that they were right. Perhaps there is some empowerment in the way our societal structure swallows the subculture's that it breeds. Maybe if we could give it bad indigestion for few days while it tries to process the idea of true diversity and freedom, we will all be a little better off.
Sally, Althusser
I was trying to get into our reading assignments and was having little success until I reached page 46. Finally, I could relate! To be true to the essay written by Althusser, I had a moment of "obviousness-ness." He writes that the ideological recognition function is one of the two functions of ideology. As I read further, his examples were clear and concise - more descriptions of moments we all have experienced but probably have never analyzed in the manner in which he does. I loved the person who hears the knock on the door and asks, "Who is there?" The answer comes "It's me" and the person opens the door and it is he or she that corresponds to the "me" - what a great example! "Me" represents an entity - a person of familiarity and personality that is so much more than the 2 letters of the alphabet used as its signifier, "me". The person hearing the knocker identify his/herself as "me" was in the obviousness moment - the "of course!" moment of which Althusser speaks.
It was interesting how Althusser peruses this notion of obviousness to the extent that he does. It is ideological in nature and can certainly be political, as well. I then had an Aha! moment whereby I pictured an old commercial that was a big hit. There was a group of children holding hands on a mountain top singing, "I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony..." ... the ad was promoting Coke and appealed to the humanism in us all - drink coke, sing, and the world will be at peace! It became well-known and probably gave most people a warm, familiar feeling - at least initially. I realized this was an example of "obviousness" followed by another view also described by Althusser whereby he states, "Ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individiduals to their real conditions of existence." (44) Is that all it would take to achieve world peace? Ok, everyone hold hands, sing on a mountain top, and drink coke and the world will tranform into one gigantic peace symbol. Obviously, that's not gonna happen! So, here we had ideology representing an imaginary relationship that would be nice, but has no relation to real life.
The second thought I had is one that has resided in the recesses of my mind and heart for some time. The scenario goes like this: if you gathered individuals from all walks of life, cultural backgrounds, and ages into an assembly hall or stadium, could you find common areas of interest? In other words, are there viewpoints that are inherently consistent among individuals no matter what their background or culture may be? For example, a difference would be that most cultures honor their elders, but some cultures (native Eskimos) allow and encourage their elders to drift off into the great beyond in a small boat to die when they reach a certain age. Hmmmmm, truly self-disposal, I guess. Each culture has its norms and believe strongly in their positions. Infants are viewed differently around the world, work ethics differ, relationships differ, and the list goes on. But, surely there must be "obviousness" to be discovered; I wonder what it would be? In a sense, it would be pure universal truth -a purity that embodies the essence of who we truly are as human beings bridging that gap between the imaginary and the real. If that ever happens, I'll bring the coke and we'll all head for the mountain top....
It was interesting how Althusser peruses this notion of obviousness to the extent that he does. It is ideological in nature and can certainly be political, as well. I then had an Aha! moment whereby I pictured an old commercial that was a big hit. There was a group of children holding hands on a mountain top singing, "I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony..." ... the ad was promoting Coke and appealed to the humanism in us all - drink coke, sing, and the world will be at peace! It became well-known and probably gave most people a warm, familiar feeling - at least initially. I realized this was an example of "obviousness" followed by another view also described by Althusser whereby he states, "Ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individiduals to their real conditions of existence." (44) Is that all it would take to achieve world peace? Ok, everyone hold hands, sing on a mountain top, and drink coke and the world will tranform into one gigantic peace symbol. Obviously, that's not gonna happen! So, here we had ideology representing an imaginary relationship that would be nice, but has no relation to real life.
The second thought I had is one that has resided in the recesses of my mind and heart for some time. The scenario goes like this: if you gathered individuals from all walks of life, cultural backgrounds, and ages into an assembly hall or stadium, could you find common areas of interest? In other words, are there viewpoints that are inherently consistent among individuals no matter what their background or culture may be? For example, a difference would be that most cultures honor their elders, but some cultures (native Eskimos) allow and encourage their elders to drift off into the great beyond in a small boat to die when they reach a certain age. Hmmmmm, truly self-disposal, I guess. Each culture has its norms and believe strongly in their positions. Infants are viewed differently around the world, work ethics differ, relationships differ, and the list goes on. But, surely there must be "obviousness" to be discovered; I wonder what it would be? In a sense, it would be pure universal truth -a purity that embodies the essence of who we truly are as human beings bridging that gap between the imaginary and the real. If that ever happens, I'll bring the coke and we'll all head for the mountain top....
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Justin/ 10/02
The idea that technology can give us more reality than reality can is really interesting when applied to sports. It's not rare for me to here someone say that they'd rather watch a baseball game on television than actually be at the game. If you're not interested in the atmosphere, the thought makes sense. Why use one pair of eyes from a crappy seat in left field when you could have a thousand eyes set up in perfect spots all around the field. They can slow things down, and with live recording you can watch the same play as many times as you want. Technology allows you to see things better than anyone. It allows you to make calls better than the umpires can. I went to a Mets game about a month ago. I had a seat behind the left field foul pole. When a right-handed hitter was at the plate, I never saw where the pitch ended up. On tv I can see every 90 mph pitch in slow motion. I can analyze the game and say exactly what went wrong before the coaches know. What do coaches say half the time they are asked what went wrong in a game? "We'll have to go back and watch the tape." I've already seen the tape, coach. I know what went wrong.
In the beginning, tv cameras covered sports so it could re-create for us the experience we might get being at the game. We get to see our favorite teams play live even if we can't be there. Now things have turned around. There are gigantic screens at all major stadiums that the crowd can look at to get a better view of the game. The rules have changed so that referees at a football game can watch the play in slow motion on a television screen to make sure they got the call right. It just makes sense. Technology is more capable of giving us an accurate reality than reality is. People have limited vision and memory. Even people with the best seats in the house don't get as good a view as somebody with a big screen HDTV. Not even close, really. What do you miss out on? Well, it's true that you can't yell anything at the players in hope of some sort of interaction. But on that note, you don't have to worry about an athlete jumping into the stands and hitting you in the face.
In the beginning, tv cameras covered sports so it could re-create for us the experience we might get being at the game. We get to see our favorite teams play live even if we can't be there. Now things have turned around. There are gigantic screens at all major stadiums that the crowd can look at to get a better view of the game. The rules have changed so that referees at a football game can watch the play in slow motion on a television screen to make sure they got the call right. It just makes sense. Technology is more capable of giving us an accurate reality than reality is. People have limited vision and memory. Even people with the best seats in the house don't get as good a view as somebody with a big screen HDTV. Not even close, really. What do you miss out on? Well, it's true that you can't yell anything at the players in hope of some sort of interaction. But on that note, you don't have to worry about an athlete jumping into the stands and hitting you in the face.
Justin/ Baudrillard
Illusion is no longer possible because reality is no longer possible. A simple but very profound sentence. It didn't take me long to find evidence of this working in the "real world." I was checking my mail on aol.com and, as I know I shouldn't do by now, I was glancing over the headlines on the aol home page. They really get more and more meaningless every day, but I guess that's sort of the sick joy people get out of it. What caught my eye was a headline about Filipinos reacting to something said on the tv show "Desperate Housewives." My mom is half Filipino, and it's not really that often you hear much about the Philippines. I guess I have been fortunate that it is one of the least joked about East Asian countries here. I've heard a couple of jokes here and there, but it's nothing I'm sensitive about. Anyway, it was unusual so I looked at the article. Apparently Teri Hatcher's character questions a doctor's opinion on the show and asks to check his diplomas to make sure they're not from a med school in the Philippines.
I didn't have any problem with the joke, really. Even though the joke means more to me than it ever could to Teri Hatcher or most of the people watching it, it's not a big deal. I visit my cousins there, most of whom will live poorly throughout their lives and never have the opportunity to see anything outside of their town. But I do have a cousin who does nothing but study, and it's really a dream for him to come here to practice medicine. His work ethic and intelligence are extraordinary, because they have to be in order for him to give himself a chance.
Still, it's just a joke on a fictional television show. The fact that it's on tv says that I shouldn't trust it. The fact that the line comes from a character who, even were she a real person, I wouldn't trust lets me know that it doesn't matter. But the people who blog about it make it matter. I scrolled down to the bottom of the article out of curiosity. I knew what I'd find, but I had to see it for myself. Sure enough, there were pages full of comments about Filipinos that were absurd. People struggled to grasp any stereotype that might fit.
Blogging allows idiots to publish words that they don't even think about to a page that thousands will see. And even worse, they aren't held responsible. You might as well say, "Here, right something controversial on the third page of the New York Times, and don't worry because nobody has to take responsibility for it."
The point is that blogs, though they are messages from real people, aren't real either. They are products of a new persona created by the internet. A group of people that will read an article and write the most obtuse, hostile response to it they can think of in a few seconds. Their thoughts will be published before they can even doubt themselves. It encourages the spread of thoughtlessness.
I didn't have any problem with the joke, really. Even though the joke means more to me than it ever could to Teri Hatcher or most of the people watching it, it's not a big deal. I visit my cousins there, most of whom will live poorly throughout their lives and never have the opportunity to see anything outside of their town. But I do have a cousin who does nothing but study, and it's really a dream for him to come here to practice medicine. His work ethic and intelligence are extraordinary, because they have to be in order for him to give himself a chance.
Still, it's just a joke on a fictional television show. The fact that it's on tv says that I shouldn't trust it. The fact that the line comes from a character who, even were she a real person, I wouldn't trust lets me know that it doesn't matter. But the people who blog about it make it matter. I scrolled down to the bottom of the article out of curiosity. I knew what I'd find, but I had to see it for myself. Sure enough, there were pages full of comments about Filipinos that were absurd. People struggled to grasp any stereotype that might fit.
Blogging allows idiots to publish words that they don't even think about to a page that thousands will see. And even worse, they aren't held responsible. You might as well say, "Here, right something controversial on the third page of the New York Times, and don't worry because nobody has to take responsibility for it."
The point is that blogs, though they are messages from real people, aren't real either. They are products of a new persona created by the internet. A group of people that will read an article and write the most obtuse, hostile response to it they can think of in a few seconds. Their thoughts will be published before they can even doubt themselves. It encourages the spread of thoughtlessness.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Mike of Modernity(or post?) Post Class :Jenkins
Jenkins thoughts about the relevancy of Fan Fiction, co-opting characters from mainstream works and redefining them, are intriguing and bring up an interesting argument about the efficacy of Intellectual Property Rights. But, his thoughts that these new fan-driven inspirations will eventually grow to fill an ever more demanding consumer market is frankly scary. Jenkins seemed to feel that this might equalize the extreme imbalance of power among the creators of film,television and internet media. A field that is dominated by muti-national corporations that have their fingers in nearly every pie imaginable, leaving little room for the "little guy". To my way of thinking recycling somebody else's old ideas stultifies the very essence that spawns creativity. Certainly nothing is new "under the sun", as originality - whatever that is - grows more difficult to achieve. But straight ripping off characters and mixing them together in new ways shows the very corproartions that produce these franchises that we are in thrall to them for our artistic, communicative and entertainment needs. Hollywood already has a name for these works: "spin-offs" and "sequels". Fan fiction that breaks copyright, if popular, soon gets quashed, and not for profit parody is simply free marketing for the company. George Lucas figured this out long ago, and soon will the slow-to-catch-on executives at Time Warner, Universal, ad infinitum. Once fan fiction becomes popular enough to market, it will be immediatley swallowed in the system. Entropic isn't it? Isn't energy better spent producing independent, daring and fresh ideas that could possibly attract a new audience rather than glomming on to pre-built characters and stories that will only ever be THAT character or story. Some authors creations can stand to be redone, though even Shakespeare wears thin when exploited too much. Are we all so enmeshed in the Mega Media Monster that we can't see past it's constructs? Am i the only one who feels insulted sometimes when a pay good money for a movie only to be served stale dialogue and stock characters? When one's creativity is placed inside another's, a dangerous game begins. Not only of property but of the very energy that feeds art.
Eddie, 10/02
In our world of participatory culture, there is a divide. The longstanding virtue of Wikipedia – its democracy – is also its Achilles Heel: there is no authority in something where everyone is the authority. So exactly where does perfection and authority fit into our participation?
A quick glimpse at YouTube reveals the fact that user-created content is currently held at rather abysmal expectations. They are viewed without any hope for excellence or perfection, and are never considered deeply as anything of substance. They sit at one side of a wide river that separates them, the media boys, from the media men. Apparently, newfound abilities for the consumer do not automatically mean them being employed in a fashion as deep as they are wide. As we know by now, the longevity of the image has diminished as the number of producers has increased. When products of art appear en masse, each piece has a smaller share of attention. Even if the attention is sometimes of enormous intensity, it is that short lifespan which has locked the malnourished layman art into under-development. What purpose is there to produce art that is insightful if it will only be a temporary matter? If all that can be accomplished by participant art is that brief sprint of popularity, there is, indeed, no real incentive to create with depth. What takes the place of depth, instead, is gimmick. If anything is unusual enough, it garners attention and then spreads like wildfire. If gimmicks are the clever play of wit, it also means that they do not involve a great deal of skill, so the result is a situation where the most popular creators are of part luck and part situation with just a pinch of skill. People who take their art seriously will undoubtedly be quite unhappy with an audience that does not appraise work seriously.
This method of operation would be just fine, some would argue, since the majority of us are not experts in art. But should we not consider what possibilities our powers offer us? That we, as free and able artists and creative producers, should explore our productive powers and consider our responsibility to create something worthwhile to inspire and intrigue? Here we are, with the magic tool which grants people the power of the artistic elite and yet all we have gained in our culture is girth. We have already briefly seen YouTube, but there are countless other examples, such as the endless message boards dedicated to self-proclaimed novelists and scores of self-maintained websites showing off amateur painting or photography. On the Internet, anyone can be a creator of any medium they wish, yet that has yet to endow us with anything more than a flood of hobbyists. Statistically, the increase in participants should have brought an influx of talent, and should have brought even more people into a better understanding of what is good and what is excellent, but what has grown here is merely recreational pleasure without permanent and substantial maturity.
Of course, we need to bear in mind that culture can only build itself as tall and sophisticated as it is wide, so an ever expanding base of primary creators and viewers is natural and lays the essential groundwork for future growth. The matter I am calling to attention here is the subsequent need for people to ask for more and to seek out excellence on their own levels. We have the tools to build a bridge and transverse that river of divide, so now is the time to cross over and to stop making sand castles at the shore.
A quick glimpse at YouTube reveals the fact that user-created content is currently held at rather abysmal expectations. They are viewed without any hope for excellence or perfection, and are never considered deeply as anything of substance. They sit at one side of a wide river that separates them, the media boys, from the media men. Apparently, newfound abilities for the consumer do not automatically mean them being employed in a fashion as deep as they are wide. As we know by now, the longevity of the image has diminished as the number of producers has increased. When products of art appear en masse, each piece has a smaller share of attention. Even if the attention is sometimes of enormous intensity, it is that short lifespan which has locked the malnourished layman art into under-development. What purpose is there to produce art that is insightful if it will only be a temporary matter? If all that can be accomplished by participant art is that brief sprint of popularity, there is, indeed, no real incentive to create with depth. What takes the place of depth, instead, is gimmick. If anything is unusual enough, it garners attention and then spreads like wildfire. If gimmicks are the clever play of wit, it also means that they do not involve a great deal of skill, so the result is a situation where the most popular creators are of part luck and part situation with just a pinch of skill. People who take their art seriously will undoubtedly be quite unhappy with an audience that does not appraise work seriously.
This method of operation would be just fine, some would argue, since the majority of us are not experts in art. But should we not consider what possibilities our powers offer us? That we, as free and able artists and creative producers, should explore our productive powers and consider our responsibility to create something worthwhile to inspire and intrigue? Here we are, with the magic tool which grants people the power of the artistic elite and yet all we have gained in our culture is girth. We have already briefly seen YouTube, but there are countless other examples, such as the endless message boards dedicated to self-proclaimed novelists and scores of self-maintained websites showing off amateur painting or photography. On the Internet, anyone can be a creator of any medium they wish, yet that has yet to endow us with anything more than a flood of hobbyists. Statistically, the increase in participants should have brought an influx of talent, and should have brought even more people into a better understanding of what is good and what is excellent, but what has grown here is merely recreational pleasure without permanent and substantial maturity.
Of course, we need to bear in mind that culture can only build itself as tall and sophisticated as it is wide, so an ever expanding base of primary creators and viewers is natural and lays the essential groundwork for future growth. The matter I am calling to attention here is the subsequent need for people to ask for more and to seek out excellence on their own levels. We have the tools to build a bridge and transverse that river of divide, so now is the time to cross over and to stop making sand castles at the shore.
GeekinthePink
The whole participatory culture idea concerned me. The idea that anybody and everybody can actively sway culture to his or her agenda--well, to say the least, it is disturbing. I saw a Dr. Phil show on the guys who were involved in the "Jena 6" and of course, Dr. Phil found the most extreme guests to juxtapose eachother. He had a member from an African American right group (which, in this case, was more of an anti-white group than an African American right organization) and he had a member of a white supremacist group. So he had conflict about how the boys were treated between two minority opinions in the culture. He didn't have your average citizens on the show. Of course not. Now, this is an example of participatory culture. Dr. Phil (sorry I think he is an exploiter anyway, I don't like him)found two sides that were sure to vehemently oppose one another. He utilized his own power of creating conflict to flame the fire of racism behind this small-town controversy.
Further discussing this idea, I can't help but think the average person being able to participate in culture is going to lead to the breakdown of society. A couple of steps past post-modernism. Yeats' "The Second Coming" keeps coming to my head--"The best lack all conviction, while the worst/are full of passionate intensity." In this postmodern society, every voice can be prominent--including the voice of ignorance. If the ignorant are given a voice, and people regurgitate these ideas, culture would continually take a beating. Thus, the sane voice would be drowned out. Can you argue with a fool? Well, you can, but I don't think you want to because most of the time, you can't change the mind of a fool. (what are you thinking? They are a fool! Reason is not their tool! It's their emotion thy use!) Ooh. This really reminds me of Ayn Rand but I won't go there. I'm not trying to sound all didactic like her. The whole idea of average joe shmoe billy bob hilly billy (phew what a name) taking pictures with his camera phone from nowhere, Alabama and putting them on CNN just really bothers me for some reason. Go figure.
Further discussing this idea, I can't help but think the average person being able to participate in culture is going to lead to the breakdown of society. A couple of steps past post-modernism. Yeats' "The Second Coming" keeps coming to my head--"The best lack all conviction, while the worst/are full of passionate intensity." In this postmodern society, every voice can be prominent--including the voice of ignorance. If the ignorant are given a voice, and people regurgitate these ideas, culture would continually take a beating. Thus, the sane voice would be drowned out. Can you argue with a fool? Well, you can, but I don't think you want to because most of the time, you can't change the mind of a fool. (what are you thinking? They are a fool! Reason is not their tool! It's their emotion thy use!) Ooh. This really reminds me of Ayn Rand but I won't go there. I'm not trying to sound all didactic like her. The whole idea of average joe shmoe billy bob hilly billy (phew what a name) taking pictures with his camera phone from nowhere, Alabama and putting them on CNN just really bothers me for some reason. Go figure.
Eddie, Poster
Mark Poster tells us that virtual reality provides us with new modes of communication, where we are greeted to a super-physical world that changes and reacts according to our stimulation. There, we are free of our physical constrains, which brings about this question: in a world where identity is fluid, is gender, race and belief still relevant?
Yes, I say, because in our strange modern world there exists a tension. The lure of the virtual freedom is constantly pulling and yanking on the chains of our physical being. The simple fact is that no matter how thoroughly and wholly we can be represented in a virtual environment, we cannot exist solely as that virtual entity. Every single thought, idea and expression translated and transmitted through a digital world is still from a mind that is housed in flesh and bones. Virtual reality can emulate, substitute and replace, but it cannot eliminate the physical as a part of its being.
Also, consider our drive to engage in virtual interactions. We communicate and traverse on the Internet ultimately to obtain information. What we seek to learn through the exchange is always of interest to our dominant physical life. The news we view online tells us about the war in Iraq or other events corresponding to our tangible world. Online stock prices translate into real world earnings or losses. What we do not usually care for is information that pertains only to the virtual world, like finding out what ChickMachine117 said on a discussion board last night. We understand that change and temporality is the dominant mode of the virtual world. We know that existence in that virtual world is fickle and never long-lasting. Most importantly, we realize the more basic and more permanent existence that we all have to ultimately face once the leash of the physical world pulls hard enough to tear us away from virtual reality. Thus, insult on the internet is often something to the tune of “you are still a loser living in the basement of your parents’ house.” Reality matters.
So gender, race and belief matter, even in the virtual world. Even in a simulated world, we want to reenact, as closely as we can, the types of interaction and human exchange we recognize in our real life: we want the interactions to carry forth to our physical world as much as possible. People constantly measure the worth and purpose of virtual interactions by how much they affect the material world, since it is only there that effects are permanent, long-lasting and significant. The reliance on reality dictates that the virtual simply cannot form its own mode of existence totally separate and unique from the physical. The virtual life will always be an extension of the real.
No matter how much we yearn for the freedom of the virtual, our link to the real is also our umbilical cord. The wish to be wholly separate and to break free from our flesh is an ever growing tension to that link. Virtual worlds now have the “immense potential for fantasy, self-discovery and self-construction” as Poster predicted and have demonstrated the draw to strain the link with reality to the point of breaking. It has pulled people down the hierarchy of needs: sedating aspirations, surrendering relations and then forgoing basic human needs like food and sleep, and it has shown us terrifying instances of people finally breaking free of their fleshly bounds. The immediate destruction of both worlds, both real and virtual is all that follows. Such is the sad end witnessed from reports of people indulging in games until their bitter deaths. Until we learn to survive our journey to the virtual world, everything that is real is relevant to the virtual.
Yes, I say, because in our strange modern world there exists a tension. The lure of the virtual freedom is constantly pulling and yanking on the chains of our physical being. The simple fact is that no matter how thoroughly and wholly we can be represented in a virtual environment, we cannot exist solely as that virtual entity. Every single thought, idea and expression translated and transmitted through a digital world is still from a mind that is housed in flesh and bones. Virtual reality can emulate, substitute and replace, but it cannot eliminate the physical as a part of its being.
Also, consider our drive to engage in virtual interactions. We communicate and traverse on the Internet ultimately to obtain information. What we seek to learn through the exchange is always of interest to our dominant physical life. The news we view online tells us about the war in Iraq or other events corresponding to our tangible world. Online stock prices translate into real world earnings or losses. What we do not usually care for is information that pertains only to the virtual world, like finding out what ChickMachine117 said on a discussion board last night. We understand that change and temporality is the dominant mode of the virtual world. We know that existence in that virtual world is fickle and never long-lasting. Most importantly, we realize the more basic and more permanent existence that we all have to ultimately face once the leash of the physical world pulls hard enough to tear us away from virtual reality. Thus, insult on the internet is often something to the tune of “you are still a loser living in the basement of your parents’ house.” Reality matters.
So gender, race and belief matter, even in the virtual world. Even in a simulated world, we want to reenact, as closely as we can, the types of interaction and human exchange we recognize in our real life: we want the interactions to carry forth to our physical world as much as possible. People constantly measure the worth and purpose of virtual interactions by how much they affect the material world, since it is only there that effects are permanent, long-lasting and significant. The reliance on reality dictates that the virtual simply cannot form its own mode of existence totally separate and unique from the physical. The virtual life will always be an extension of the real.
No matter how much we yearn for the freedom of the virtual, our link to the real is also our umbilical cord. The wish to be wholly separate and to break free from our flesh is an ever growing tension to that link. Virtual worlds now have the “immense potential for fantasy, self-discovery and self-construction” as Poster predicted and have demonstrated the draw to strain the link with reality to the point of breaking. It has pulled people down the hierarchy of needs: sedating aspirations, surrendering relations and then forgoing basic human needs like food and sleep, and it has shown us terrifying instances of people finally breaking free of their fleshly bounds. The immediate destruction of both worlds, both real and virtual is all that follows. Such is the sad end witnessed from reports of people indulging in games until their bitter deaths. Until we learn to survive our journey to the virtual world, everything that is real is relevant to the virtual.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Eddie, 9/25
If simulacra is yearning for something lost which never was, then our whole world is basically built on simulacra.
The idea of consumerism is built on the idea that we can all be persuaded or educated into wanting something enough to pay for it. For years, Sony has been a master of sowing the seed of simulacra into our minds. Pick up any Sony catalogue and you can be sure to find at least one shot of their product deployed into a clean, well-lit and professionally coordinated room which simulates that of a living environment. They are simple, easy to study and beautifully minimal to a point of being sterile, but more importantly, they makes us ferociously want that portrait of the “stylish modern life” to be our own. We want it and Sony shows us the yellow brick road. The room is mostly empty to begin with, so to the average person, the Sony product in question is apparently the holy grail which binds the bland and ordinary and transforms them into envy-inducing paradise. So we are told that there exists a home of perfectly coordinated shapes and color with just the right kinds of furniture and just the right products to deliver us into bliss. We are told that regardless of our background or social status or family structure, we are all forgiven if we repent our sin of ignorance and buy our path into modern heaven. Even more important is that we are told that what we see in the catalogue is real beyond reality- that while we do not see it in any part of our lives, it is only because we have not bought enough stuff to fix our under-modernized reality. Never mind any consideration as to how the product meets our needs, or whether or not we even have those needs. We want it.
So what we have here is actually the makings of a religion. It may not be the cult of the new, but it sure is the cult of the modern, with companies asking us to be their loyal worshippers. Those who submit the most and deepest are granted the pride to hold their chests high before all the primitive brutes left behind in the arms race of the modern. Even the music industry baits us with simulacra. Apparently, music is no longer about the quality of the composition, the display of musical excellence or lyrical insight, but rather about brand loyalty and pride. We get faction wars like that of Kanye West versus 50 Cent, where they called upon their fans to take up their arms and win “those on the other side.” We get endless fights amongst teens, mocking how they picked the wrong side to follow and are now with the inferior pack. Here, being a loyal subject is to be a dedicated consumer. You are not a true fan if you selectively buy. The glory of the top dog (or top bitch, to be sexually fair) only belongs to those who follow him (or her) without question and without sinful idolatry for other false talents. And we all know that religious bonds are beyond strong, but something has gone wrong along the way.
I mention music because it presents us with an instance of simulacra shooting the music industry in the foot. The above mode of "baiting --> buying --> boasting" works because we all want to be the committed worshipper, and are willing to bend and submit our riches to attain that glory. Yet we, as consumers, have mutated. We have gained more power than ever before at the individual level which began from the cassette tape and then grew into the modern digitalized music. Somewhere along the road, the step of “--> buying” forked into “--> getting.” We have been so revved up - so focused on the goal and prize - that the step in the middle becomes relevant only in that it should be the most efficient.
Simulacra presents merely a hypothetical model of idealism. Yet models are simply a shell, without internal structure or machinery. So the bizarre outcome of simulacra-driven consumerism is that consumers care only to arrive at the end and receive their promised bliss. It does not matter if it takes a bit of stealing and plundering to get there.
The idea of consumerism is built on the idea that we can all be persuaded or educated into wanting something enough to pay for it. For years, Sony has been a master of sowing the seed of simulacra into our minds. Pick up any Sony catalogue and you can be sure to find at least one shot of their product deployed into a clean, well-lit and professionally coordinated room which simulates that of a living environment. They are simple, easy to study and beautifully minimal to a point of being sterile, but more importantly, they makes us ferociously want that portrait of the “stylish modern life” to be our own. We want it and Sony shows us the yellow brick road. The room is mostly empty to begin with, so to the average person, the Sony product in question is apparently the holy grail which binds the bland and ordinary and transforms them into envy-inducing paradise. So we are told that there exists a home of perfectly coordinated shapes and color with just the right kinds of furniture and just the right products to deliver us into bliss. We are told that regardless of our background or social status or family structure, we are all forgiven if we repent our sin of ignorance and buy our path into modern heaven. Even more important is that we are told that what we see in the catalogue is real beyond reality- that while we do not see it in any part of our lives, it is only because we have not bought enough stuff to fix our under-modernized reality. Never mind any consideration as to how the product meets our needs, or whether or not we even have those needs. We want it.
So what we have here is actually the makings of a religion. It may not be the cult of the new, but it sure is the cult of the modern, with companies asking us to be their loyal worshippers. Those who submit the most and deepest are granted the pride to hold their chests high before all the primitive brutes left behind in the arms race of the modern. Even the music industry baits us with simulacra. Apparently, music is no longer about the quality of the composition, the display of musical excellence or lyrical insight, but rather about brand loyalty and pride. We get faction wars like that of Kanye West versus 50 Cent, where they called upon their fans to take up their arms and win “those on the other side.” We get endless fights amongst teens, mocking how they picked the wrong side to follow and are now with the inferior pack. Here, being a loyal subject is to be a dedicated consumer. You are not a true fan if you selectively buy. The glory of the top dog (or top bitch, to be sexually fair) only belongs to those who follow him (or her) without question and without sinful idolatry for other false talents. And we all know that religious bonds are beyond strong, but something has gone wrong along the way.
I mention music because it presents us with an instance of simulacra shooting the music industry in the foot. The above mode of "baiting --> buying --> boasting" works because we all want to be the committed worshipper, and are willing to bend and submit our riches to attain that glory. Yet we, as consumers, have mutated. We have gained more power than ever before at the individual level which began from the cassette tape and then grew into the modern digitalized music. Somewhere along the road, the step of “--> buying” forked into “--> getting.” We have been so revved up - so focused on the goal and prize - that the step in the middle becomes relevant only in that it should be the most efficient.
Simulacra presents merely a hypothetical model of idealism. Yet models are simply a shell, without internal structure or machinery. So the bizarre outcome of simulacra-driven consumerism is that consumers care only to arrive at the end and receive their promised bliss. It does not matter if it takes a bit of stealing and plundering to get there.
Francesca, 10/2
In discussing Jenkin’s idea of a participatory culture, I began to think of the role such a culture plays in the shaping of one’s identity. Judging from my own experience within the context of American culture, pop culture icons have an undoubtedly profound influence upon western civilization. As gossip magazines allegedly report various celebrities’ escapades, our generation shares a common interest in the failures of the rich and famous. I emphasize the universal concern with superstar foundering in an attempt to make sense of our culture’s pervasive schadenfreude. In our post-MTV age where coverage of Britney Spears’ mental instability takes precedence to substantial musical newcomers, the majority of Generation Y-er’s find themselves basing casual conversation on the latest celebrity screw-up. As we are incessantly inundated with images of perfection daily, to see the ideal entities we are deceived into admiring makes us feel slightly better about our own flaws. This is the bond shared by a participatory culture. There are anxieties of communication between the human species that are both perpetuated and alleviated by the models for existence within popular culture. We are made to feel as though we are inadequate in comparison to celebrities and develop a plethora of insecurities due to our bombardment with unrealistic images. These anxieties affect our interpersonal relationships by placing us in perpetual competition. Thus, when the event arises where the source of our self-doubt trips and shaves her blond hair, we find comfort in Miss Perfect’s misery. Moreover, the forum for discussion created by this dynamic defines the essence of Jenkins’s participatory culture. As it is the quintessence of superficial beauty that pits us against one another, it is the same plastic paradigm that resonates in conversations at Starbucks. Thus, so long as Nicole Ritchie stays under 80 pounds and Britney’s neurotransmitters remain unbalanced, our participatory culture shall dysfunctionally thrive.
BLOG REMINDER FROM DR. ROG
Just a reminder that everyone needs to do a post-class blog from last Tuesday's class (10/2). You do not need to do a blog for this week or next week (presentations and exam). Next blog entry will be the pre-class for 10/23.
I am grading blogs to date, so please get caught up if you are behind and would like to get any credit for your entries.
I am grading blogs to date, so please get caught up if you are behind and would like to get any credit for your entries.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
GM post 02 October. Is a Mini-Microcosm an Imitation?
Thinking about Eco’s comment, “The fact is that the United States is filled with cities that imitate a city,” makes me think of Thornton Park, the Lake Eola Fountain, the Panera Bread on the corner of Eola Drive and Robinson Avenue, and the lakeshore area of St. Cloud. After attending a couple of poetry readings at Urban Think and having dinner a few times in the Thornton Park area, I began to realize how unique this particular area is, at least when I compare it to my own particular life experiences—I suppose.
Take any morning, tenish on any Sunday morning will do, and take a few moments to observe while you’re enjoying an egg soufflé and a low-fat latté. Over the sound of a piped-in string quartet, you’ll hear sounds of tapping laptops as students and business people quietly “do their thing,” interrupted only by an occasional free-sample being offered to them by a Panera employee. While outside, just across a beautiful, oak-lined brick street and the occasional panhandler, prostitute, and hustler, you’ll find mothers with young children, lovers, and joggers making their way around the Lake Eola Fountain. All of which blends together into mini-microcosm that works. Similar, but not really, things are happening in St. Cloud, Florida.
In St. Cloud, there is an older, residential area that’s located on East Lake Tohopekliga and, like all water front areas; the geographic area is limited creating a demand and waiting list for available properties. But what has happened there over the past several years is that a younger crowd has discovered this area and you’ll now find major renovations of older structures. Oddly though, must all renovations have been along the same theme without being required to do so by any regulation, government or private. People just want to be there and other than that there’s nothing really unique about the area just nice, older homes and quiet, oak-lined streets which, on any given evening, you can see mother’s, father’s, couples, and families simply walking and enjoying their environment.
I’m sure that these mini-microcosms are not unique to the areas that I describe above and I’m quit sure that there are several, similar situations throughout Orlando and Winter Park, let alone the rest of the country and the world. But I have to ask, how would Eco classify these mini-microcosms, how would they fit into his idea of imitation?
Take any morning, tenish on any Sunday morning will do, and take a few moments to observe while you’re enjoying an egg soufflé and a low-fat latté. Over the sound of a piped-in string quartet, you’ll hear sounds of tapping laptops as students and business people quietly “do their thing,” interrupted only by an occasional free-sample being offered to them by a Panera employee. While outside, just across a beautiful, oak-lined brick street and the occasional panhandler, prostitute, and hustler, you’ll find mothers with young children, lovers, and joggers making their way around the Lake Eola Fountain. All of which blends together into mini-microcosm that works. Similar, but not really, things are happening in St. Cloud, Florida.
In St. Cloud, there is an older, residential area that’s located on East Lake Tohopekliga and, like all water front areas; the geographic area is limited creating a demand and waiting list for available properties. But what has happened there over the past several years is that a younger crowd has discovered this area and you’ll now find major renovations of older structures. Oddly though, must all renovations have been along the same theme without being required to do so by any regulation, government or private. People just want to be there and other than that there’s nothing really unique about the area just nice, older homes and quiet, oak-lined streets which, on any given evening, you can see mother’s, father’s, couples, and families simply walking and enjoying their environment.
I’m sure that these mini-microcosms are not unique to the areas that I describe above and I’m quit sure that there are several, similar situations throughout Orlando and Winter Park, let alone the rest of the country and the world. But I have to ask, how would Eco classify these mini-microcosms, how would they fit into his idea of imitation?
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Sally, 10/02
The discussion Tuesday night got me thinking. Issues that, previously, were unknown to me were now out in the open. The declaration that we are an open-source culture is such an issue. Specifically, Wikipedia is an example of this new trend toward our becoming a participatory society. Dr. Rog gave an example of a fellow professor's continuous revisions on Wikipedia so that the information would be accurate. Dr. Rog's comment, "it's the story [on Wikipedia], we're interested in - not the truth." As a newcomer to our cultural shift, I am at first puzzled, then concerned that a site such as Wikipedia is so easily accessed by the person in search of valid information. Of course, part of my concern is that I recently Googled "anxiety and test performance" to identify the law associated with that particular correlation (an assignment in Research & Methods), and Wikipedia was one of the first sources listed. I clicked on it, and found what I was looking for: Yerkes-Dodson Law of Motivation. Now, in lecture, I discover that information may have been inaccurate! In my case, it was correct according to the concensus in the class, but what if it had not been!? And what if the other students relied on Wikipedia, as well? I know, I know - I should have known that Wikipedia is there just for the story - not the truth.
So, what purpose does a site like that really serve? Have I been living in a cave - no. But, I have been a little behind the curve regarding some of the changes in popular culture and now I see it's time to get informed about what's been happenin' "out" there! Logic should have told me that if the entry on Wikipedia can be edited, then the information may not be accurate. Well, I guess that is so foreign to me, that when google returned Wikipedia as a source, I went for it. Now, I know better. However, the other side to this issue is the fact that anyone can share their information regarding a particular topic on Wikipedia, and that could be quite interesting and illuminating. I'll give it that place of significance in our society.
Wikipedia is just one of many examples of our "participatory culture." Since accessibility is not limited to the US but is worldwide, Wikepedia could be the site that globally connects thought among the citizens of the world. That is an awesome thought (pun intended)! May we each have the intellect to decipher story from truth and this new participatory culture might work out ok. I really don't think we have a choice, so I'm jumping on the new popculture bandwagon. At 50, I've seen some changes along the way in media and technology; the "jury is still out on this one" for me, but I admit this open-source culture - with its far-reaching implications - is quite profound, indeed! It is definitely affecting our lives as we witness the convergence of truth and the story.
So, what purpose does a site like that really serve? Have I been living in a cave - no. But, I have been a little behind the curve regarding some of the changes in popular culture and now I see it's time to get informed about what's been happenin' "out" there! Logic should have told me that if the entry on Wikipedia can be edited, then the information may not be accurate. Well, I guess that is so foreign to me, that when google returned Wikipedia as a source, I went for it. Now, I know better. However, the other side to this issue is the fact that anyone can share their information regarding a particular topic on Wikipedia, and that could be quite interesting and illuminating. I'll give it that place of significance in our society.
Wikipedia is just one of many examples of our "participatory culture." Since accessibility is not limited to the US but is worldwide, Wikepedia could be the site that globally connects thought among the citizens of the world. That is an awesome thought (pun intended)! May we each have the intellect to decipher story from truth and this new participatory culture might work out ok. I really don't think we have a choice, so I'm jumping on the new popculture bandwagon. At 50, I've seen some changes along the way in media and technology; the "jury is still out on this one" for me, but I admit this open-source culture - with its far-reaching implications - is quite profound, indeed! It is definitely affecting our lives as we witness the convergence of truth and the story.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Justin/ Poster
I thought Poster's discussion of virtual communitites was really interesting, especially because of its age. He talks about it at the dawn of its expansion, but still has the foresight to talk about the effect the Internet will have on the individual. It's funny to think about the way you are part of an online community. I wouldn't consider myself an obsessive Internet user. I visit maybe the same 4 or 5 sites every day at some point, whether to check my mail or to see what's going on with constantly updated sites that I'm interested in. But I do have a Facebook account, and it's really something to think about what that entails. In my case, I have a picture and a detailed profile. I also have 84 pictures of myself that any of my "friends" can look at. I didn't create my profile-- my friend made it for me. It was funny and completely fictional, so I have never thought to change it. I've also never put up a single picture of myself. All the pictures of me on the site were taken by other people at different times and I was "tagged" as being in them. So my account is linked to these pictures. I don't take it very seriously, and I don't feel that I have much to hide. I know who I am. But I also have several "friends" on the site that I've never even held a conversation with before. The site promotes a process of making friends that is sort of like collecting. Some people have thousands of friends that they've never even met. Anyway, the people that I'm friends with can look at my profile and my pictures, and it would probably seem like enough evidence to make a judgment on what kind of person I am. But that view is probably 10 times different than the view of me they'd get in a personal encounter.
There is an illusion of everybody getting to know everybody without ever really getting to know anybody. People can be as bold as or timid as they want to be on the Internet. I think it's an interesting dynamic because there is a potential for people to change who they are based on the relationship they've developed with their computer. It will be interesting to see more of the long term societal effects of Internet relationships and personas.
There is an illusion of everybody getting to know everybody without ever really getting to know anybody. People can be as bold as or timid as they want to be on the Internet. I think it's an interesting dynamic because there is a potential for people to change who they are based on the relationship they've developed with their computer. It will be interesting to see more of the long term societal effects of Internet relationships and personas.
Eric, Jenkins-Poster
In his tract Poster declares that the advent of mass communication means that we have entered in age in which we are learning new ways in which to speak. Henry Jenkins disscusses how new tools encourage 'grassroots' interpretation of franchises.
It goes deeper than this though. Indeed, there have been instances in which a net-born meme makes it into the plot of a movie. Samuel L. Jackson's signature "I'm tired of these motherf***ing snakes on this motherf***ing plane" line was not in the original script of the movie. In fact, they didn't even shoot it until the end of the filming. The line came from some internet forum who decided it would be excellent if that line was said in the film.
In another example, in the third iteration of the x-men films, the character 'juggernaut' intones that he is "the juggernaut, bitch." This line comes from a fan overdubbed episode of the animated tv series x-men, in which a filthy mouthed juggernaut declares constantly that he is the juggernaut, bitch.
It goes deeper than this though. Indeed, there have been instances in which a net-born meme makes it into the plot of a movie. Samuel L. Jackson's signature "I'm tired of these motherf***ing snakes on this motherf***ing plane" line was not in the original script of the movie. In fact, they didn't even shoot it until the end of the filming. The line came from some internet forum who decided it would be excellent if that line was said in the film.
In another example, in the third iteration of the x-men films, the character 'juggernaut' intones that he is "the juggernaut, bitch." This line comes from a fan overdubbed episode of the animated tv series x-men, in which a filthy mouthed juggernaut declares constantly that he is the juggernaut, bitch.
Justin, 9/25
I had a really long, interesting debate with my girlfriend last night that I actually used a lot of points from class in to defend my argument. The debate started because she said something to which I replied, "Oh, shut up," in the way you would say "Oh, give me a break," to one of your friends. There was no hostility behind it-- it was just a comfortable reaction that is natural for me to use around my friends. The point is that she took offense to me telling her to shut up. Now I can definitely understand why it would seem disrespectful to tell somebody to shut up, just in the same way that it would be to tell someone, completely out of context, to kiss your ass. But I don't think it's unfair to say that our society has gotten to a point where there are phrases that can easily be used between friends without causing offense. If my friend sees me slip and fall, and then laughs at me about it, I would probably say something like "Kiss my ass." It's a way for me to, as I like to call it, "keep my gloves up", like a boxer. But she argued that telling someone to shutup is disrespectful, no matter the context. She even went so far as to say that it was even worse with her being a woman, pointing out that our society still hadn't reached a level of equality. Therefore she felt belittled by a man exercising power over her.
It really blew my mind. I won't get much into the feminist angle because it's a whole different argument, although I will say that I believe it's an example of simulacra in that she relates it to something that, though I'm not trying to trivialize her opinions and experiences, I don't really believe she's felt to a great extent. She was relating our conversation to an idea which was completely absent between us, and for me to take into account that she was a woman would be, in my opinion, a step backward. I was talking to her the same way I would talk to any friend, not as a superior nor an inferior.
What I felt the argument related to most was our previous discussion of logocentrism and the importance of context. She felt that the phrase "shut up" carried a message that was associated with disrespect. I tried to point out that, in this context, there wasn't any disrespect because I hadn't intended any in my message.
It really amazed me how long the debate took, because to me it was perfectly clear. I understood where she was coming from and I didn't want to hurt feelings. I also understand that there are certain words that can't help but carry a certain weight with them no matter what the context. But I realized just how difficult clear communication is to achieve. If I can't speak to someone as close and understanding as my girlfriend without getting into a debate over the language I use, what about everybody else I talk to? How often do I say something that carries a whole different signal to the person receiving it?
In the end, I tried to convince her that between separate interactions you have to go through a process of leaving your baggage at the door. Generally, words without context have no meaning. But it was as hard for her to accept as it would have been for me to tell her she practiced the wrong religion. People develop relationships with certain words, and the words become a part of them. It was really very interesting to see how important and difficult clear, unbiased communication is to achieve.
It really blew my mind. I won't get much into the feminist angle because it's a whole different argument, although I will say that I believe it's an example of simulacra in that she relates it to something that, though I'm not trying to trivialize her opinions and experiences, I don't really believe she's felt to a great extent. She was relating our conversation to an idea which was completely absent between us, and for me to take into account that she was a woman would be, in my opinion, a step backward. I was talking to her the same way I would talk to any friend, not as a superior nor an inferior.
What I felt the argument related to most was our previous discussion of logocentrism and the importance of context. She felt that the phrase "shut up" carried a message that was associated with disrespect. I tried to point out that, in this context, there wasn't any disrespect because I hadn't intended any in my message.
It really amazed me how long the debate took, because to me it was perfectly clear. I understood where she was coming from and I didn't want to hurt feelings. I also understand that there are certain words that can't help but carry a certain weight with them no matter what the context. But I realized just how difficult clear communication is to achieve. If I can't speak to someone as close and understanding as my girlfriend without getting into a debate over the language I use, what about everybody else I talk to? How often do I say something that carries a whole different signal to the person receiving it?
In the end, I tried to convince her that between separate interactions you have to go through a process of leaving your baggage at the door. Generally, words without context have no meaning. But it was as hard for her to accept as it would have been for me to tell her she practiced the wrong religion. People develop relationships with certain words, and the words become a part of them. It was really very interesting to see how important and difficult clear, unbiased communication is to achieve.
GM, pre 02 October. It Ain’t My Grand Daddy’s Mobile Telephone Anymore.
If modern society may be said to foster an individual who is rational, autonomous, centered and stable…then perhaps a postmodern society is emerging which nurtures forms of identity different from, even opposite to those of modernity. And electronic communications technologies significantly enhance these postmodern possibilities. Poster 534
Somehow, reading Poster’s quote, I’m reminded of when I was a child in the mid to late 60’s, my grand daddy always drove a new Cadillac and he always had installed in his Cadillac’s a mobile telephone. It was an actual telephone, with a cord and rotary dial. If I recall, in order for him to place a call he had to first connect with a “ship to shore’ operator who would take the number, place his call, then ring him back when connected. But what sticks mostly in my mind was the part in the trunk.
In the Cadillac trunk was this contraption, which, in looking back most have been the telephone battery system. It took up half the available space in the trunk of my grand father’s car. The engine had to be running when he talked on the telephone, and, as he spoke, the engine would surge and race. What would my, old grand daddy; or, my father for that matter, think about today’s basic, everyday cell phone?
Recently, I traveled by plane down to Bonaire in the Netherlands Antilles with a lay-over in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The travel time from Orlando to San Juan was approximately 2.5 hours during which time you were prohibited from operating most electronic devices on the plane, including cell phones and computers. It was funny, if not pitiful; to see half the passengers deplaning in San Juan, myself included, immediately rush to turn their cell phones back on as soon as the plane landed. Then, once inside the airport terminal, the reception became weak if almost non-existent, forcing hordes to pace up and down the hallways and people movers, looking for just that little, extra antenna bar. Kind of reminded me of my grand father’s Cadillac engine reviving up when spoke over his “ship to shore.”
Somehow, reading Poster’s quote, I’m reminded of when I was a child in the mid to late 60’s, my grand daddy always drove a new Cadillac and he always had installed in his Cadillac’s a mobile telephone. It was an actual telephone, with a cord and rotary dial. If I recall, in order for him to place a call he had to first connect with a “ship to shore’ operator who would take the number, place his call, then ring him back when connected. But what sticks mostly in my mind was the part in the trunk.
In the Cadillac trunk was this contraption, which, in looking back most have been the telephone battery system. It took up half the available space in the trunk of my grand father’s car. The engine had to be running when he talked on the telephone, and, as he spoke, the engine would surge and race. What would my, old grand daddy; or, my father for that matter, think about today’s basic, everyday cell phone?
Recently, I traveled by plane down to Bonaire in the Netherlands Antilles with a lay-over in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The travel time from Orlando to San Juan was approximately 2.5 hours during which time you were prohibited from operating most electronic devices on the plane, including cell phones and computers. It was funny, if not pitiful; to see half the passengers deplaning in San Juan, myself included, immediately rush to turn their cell phones back on as soon as the plane landed. Then, once inside the airport terminal, the reception became weak if almost non-existent, forcing hordes to pace up and down the hallways and people movers, looking for just that little, extra antenna bar. Kind of reminded me of my grand father’s Cadillac engine reviving up when spoke over his “ship to shore.”
GeekinthePink
Poster illustrates the idea of the "cult of the new." He keeps speaking of information superhighways that are being created to significantly increase the flow of communication. And then he raises the question: "will this technological change provide the stimulus for the installation of new media different enough from what we now have to warrant the periodizing judgment of a second electronic media age?" My question is, why do we have to? Why do we need to justify a second electronic media age? And to whom? And who ultimately decides that yes, we are now in a second electronic media age? Can't we just call it being wedged in a perpetual electronic media age?
Am example in Poster is the violent "rapes" one virtual reality character committed. Interesting how so many people were upset and talked about punishing him. On one hand, he didn't actually do anything; and yet, the fact that virtual reality is a "simulational practice" suggests it is the nature in which people simulate the things they wish to do. Is having an avenue for this type of behavior contributing to make it more of a reality than if we were not able to walk along the informational superhighway? Because Poster says that the effects of virtual reality and the internet is to multiply the kinds of realities, it also multiplies the means in which someone can achieve them. By actively engaging in these virtual realities,and having them multiply, people may be able to blur what are their virtual desires and actual desires (if they are dissimilar in the first place) are. There's an example of this on the season premiere of Law and Order SVU tonight: an internet rape becomes real and they have to figure out how it happened. I know it's only fictional, but it is still a good illustration of the blurred lines of virtual and actual reality.
I
Am example in Poster is the violent "rapes" one virtual reality character committed. Interesting how so many people were upset and talked about punishing him. On one hand, he didn't actually do anything; and yet, the fact that virtual reality is a "simulational practice" suggests it is the nature in which people simulate the things they wish to do. Is having an avenue for this type of behavior contributing to make it more of a reality than if we were not able to walk along the informational superhighway? Because Poster says that the effects of virtual reality and the internet is to multiply the kinds of realities, it also multiplies the means in which someone can achieve them. By actively engaging in these virtual realities,and having them multiply, people may be able to blur what are their virtual desires and actual desires (if they are dissimilar in the first place) are. There's an example of this on the season premiere of Law and Order SVU tonight: an internet rape becomes real and they have to figure out how it happened. I know it's only fictional, but it is still a good illustration of the blurred lines of virtual and actual reality.
I
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)