Mike of Modernity (or post?)

"What is unnameable is the play that brings about the nominal effects, the relatively unitary or atomic structures we call names, or chains of substitutions for those names" Differance - Jacques Derrida

"'Discipline'...A technology" - Michel Foucault.

It is interesting when reading Derrida and Foucault in concert, for what appears is one man emobodying (Foucault) what the other is referring to. Derrida's ideas of "differance" as it differs from "difference" are an amazing and frustrating web of philosophy, carefully worded politics, and collapsing and contradictory theory. What appears from this web however is a keen observation of the massive complexity of language, their subtleties and paradoxes. When referring to the conception of naming, assigning a signifier to a signified, he speaks about the "chain of substitutions" that become attached to a particular signified object, or sign. Example: What was once simply called "jewelery" is now called "bling" in almost everyday parlance. It will doubtless evolve again, our signifier for precious metals and gems worn on the body to decorate it. (Bling sounds better.) He examines them as "atomic structures" as well, and this idea becomes translated into Foucault's work in "Discipline and Punish". Quite fond of lists, Mr Foucault is (a man after my own heart) as he shows how a single concept like "discipline" can be deconstructed. After an eerie and somewhat anti-establishment explanation of the plague era version of discipline, he shows has discipline and punishment have evolved into a more subtle art of the "Panopticon". At the end we see that Foucault sees discipline and it's underpinnings "Maybe identified neither with an institution nor with an apparatus; it is a type of power, a modality for exercise, comprising a whole set of instruments, techniques, procedures, levels of application, targets; it is a 'physics',or 'anatomy' of power, a technology. " Discipline, the one word, has a great many levels of meaning and interpretation. Even more so because as Derrida and Foucault know, there are as many ways to legitimize concepts like 'discipline', as there are ways to interpret it's meaning and effects. "Censorship" may mean safety for one person, and fascism to another. "Freindship", "love", "fate", the list could go on, but what unravels here in deconstruction is ther very idea that our constructs really "mean" anything; except what we assign to it.

GeekinthePink

"Why bother with a writer such as Derrida, who appears unable or unwilling to give a straight answer, to begin at the beginning, go on to the middle and end with the conclusion, explaining what he really means?" I disagree with this assertion of Derrida. I think he explains in detail what he really means. He is merely redefining the terms middle and end. He is deconstructing them and showing the "differance" between them. "Differance" is a combination of Sassure's and Macherey's ideas. He talks about the signifier and signified, and things outside of the text that give it meaning.

Sassure's ideas seem to match up with his. He goes into great detail about Sassure's "Course in General Linguistics" Derrida points out that words and signs cannot mean anything without other words. This goes directly with Sassure's idea that without knowing the dissimilar words for things, we could not know the meaning of any word. Sassure says "In language, there are only differences." Derrida takes this idea to a new level by applying it to all of writing and semiology. First, words are given meaning through differences, not through definition. Words exist through the existence of its opposites, and synonyms and words that mean slightly different things.

"For us, differance remains a metaphysical name; and all the names that it receives from our language are still, so far as they are names, metaphysical." Unlike Sassure, Derrida feels meaning, or "differance" comes not from words, but from more actual things--the unnamable, that which is not simply provisional. "What is unnamable is the play that brings about the nominal effects, the relatively unitary or atomic structures we call names, or chains of substitutions for names." In other words, our being puts this meaning into names and through this only are names given. But, since names are through being, they cannot be physical or named, but rather metaphysical and unnamed. Derrida uses Sassure's idea but puts the being into language. Sassure gives too much meaning to words, in Derrida's opinion, the question is in "...the marriage between speech and Being in the unique word, in the finally proper name."

Mike of Modernity (or post?)

To be entertained means to be in agreement." {Horkheimer and Adorno)

With the wealth of observations and Nostradamus-like predictions about the acceleration of postmodern culture by these two, this phrase seemed particularly interesting. It imparts some of the lessons of Saussure and the "unspoken contract" of language, The study of textual timesis by Barthes, the study of the cultural effects of simulation echoed by Baudrillard and Eco, and the Althusserian principles of ideology. Entertainment can be a powerful conduit to pass through whatever one chooses. As success is measured in mass, the most "successful" works of entertainment reach a large number of people. A blockbuster film can have a huge impact on its audience. Fashion and buying trends swing by the fulcrum of the next big marketing blitz. When we watch a film and "agree" that we are entertained, what is it exactly we agree on? Just enough explosions, laughs and sexual content to satisfy our thirst for it, or do we seek something more "sublime"? I enjoy the bubblegum fare like "Transformers" which taps into an icon of my childhood. I'm equally moved by films that entertain and provoke like "American Beauty". How can one discern the "quality" of one over another, as both are designed for a specific purpose. Ultimately, both provide us with the obligatory intrigue, drama and sexual imagery. But while the childhhod toy inspired "Transformers" provides a triumph for the audience to be a part of, American Beauty leaves its audience shocked and introspective. It would be difficult to accomplish the saem ends in on film.

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.

Mike of Modernity (or post?)

Eco's ideas concerning Disneyland and its procession of "perfect imitation" brought back strange memories from my childhood. Once while on "Pirates of the Caribbean", I believe i was about twelve or thirteen, the ride broke down, repeatedly. It was then I realized how amazing and creepy the Audioanimatronics really are. They do imitate live people so well that when they repeat the same thing over and over it becomes almost torturous. You want to talk back to them, which I am sure I did at the time, simply because they keep talking to you. You begin to memorize every movement, and the illusion is completely stripped from the experience. While it is still a convincing fake, its utter absurdity becomes apparent. It is part of a larger skein of marketing and economics. A piece of fascinating entertainment used to create an illusion that what you are seeing is indeed so real that reality pales in comparison. Here before you is a singular thing, A pirate, who will be a pirate now and the next time you visit the attraction. He is a perfect employee, never forgets his lines, and doesn't even take a coffee break. He may breakdown once in a while, but he is certainly more efficient than flesh and bone. He knows nothing else but to be a pirate, and only a pirate in that frozen moment where he is put. No more idyllic a life seems possible. No more idyllic life is possible than here in this happy, clean and well-ordered little world. Or so the illusion tells us. And what could be more wonderful than to take a piece of this perfection home with you? An irrestible urge for a kid in the grips of a fantasy rush. An urge that our friends at Disney are all too good at exploiting. "That will $75.00 Please! Welcome to the Happiest Place on Earth!"

Mike of Moderninty(or post?) - Benjamin.

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