Friday, February 1, 2008
sawsaw Benjamin
In Benjamin's writing I found his comparisons between different centuries value of art and how "mechanical" our art has become in today's society to be interesting. The quote on page 29 really stood out to me, "Mechanical reproduction of art changes the reaction of the masses toward art." This quote is talking about the different affect mechanical reproduction has on people who are opposed to the more traditional production of art. I think this quote is talking about how art is affected by technology and how a mass of people view mechanical art different from ancient art forms. Most people define art as painting, drawing, sculpting or photography. We think of art in its traditional forms and compare it to works by Picasso or Monte. What Benjamin is trying to convey in his writing is that art comes in many forms and we as a society must consider film, television, graphics and many more modern technologies as being art. We must critically analyze film and television as art forms and determine the purpose and point for their existence.
sawsaw 2/1
I found today's class discussion on postmodern architecture to be very insightful. The fact that buildings and architecture have a significant role in a countries culture, forces people to analyze exactly what the building portrays and what impact that building has in that society. When I nanny in neighborhoods like Baldwin Park and Heathrow I really get a good sense of what the architect was trying to create. These neighborhoods represent an idealistic community where the architecture is so similar all the house look the same. It is very difficult to define people’s own personal styles and tastes when your house looks exactly like your neighbors. I personally am not a fan of utopian communities like Baldwin Park because I feel they neglect creativity and expression. Every building should be designed with a purpose and a specific style that makes it unique from others. It is through these differences that people can really appreciate the personal ideas and open-mindedness of the designers.
Jiggy 2/1
This week we moved into postmodern archetecture, an interesting and ever changing feild. We are offered many styles that convey the ideals and mindset of postmodern thinking. This was conveyed by the eleven styles outlined by Jencks in his peice. Our classroom talks cleared up these styles and provided examples to go along with them. I found that many of the styles think outside the box, radical designs that push us to think and wonder. This is much inline with many of the philosophys of our postmodern world. Authors push us to think outside the regular and everyday to expand our knowledge and worldlyness. Buildings are one way to express yourself, as writers do in essays and papers. Archetects are not often credited for provoking thought as a philosopher would do but in many cases in fact do so. I found many of the building inspiring and uplifting, all crafted to serve a certain purpose and make us think. If you take this concept and apply it to your everyday life many thinks can change. Its the approach that you can make a difference in every little thing you do. I am excited to go downtown next week and start to see the city of Orlando alittle differently. It will be hard to see a city skyline and not think about postmodern archetecture and postmodern ideas.
boo boo bear 1-31
I have a couple different thoughts to add about last class, the 31st. First of all when we first got to class Dr. Rog gave us this quote,
“The ordinary critic… And the author are equally remote from a true appreciation of the work.”
I believe our instructions were to write down what we this quote meant to each one of us personally. As I stared at the quote awkwardly for a couple minutes, my sheet of paper remained blank. I couldn’t really get a grasp of the quote and what it meant. As everyone started to give their ideas on the quote it became a little clearer to me as to what the quote was saying. However, one small thing bothered me about this conversation. When Dr. Rog started to break down some of the words that make this quote hard to grasp, such as ordinary critic or true appreciation, he said that some people would say “EVERYONE IS A CRITIC”. As he said this I noticed around the room many people were nodding their heads in agreement. I don’t because in this case, if everyone were a critic, this quote would really be saying that NO ONE could truly appreciate the work. This quote could be read as,
“Everyone is remote from a true appreciation of the work.”
My second thought goes back to last semester during CMC 100, as I was growing as a student I would struggle to ever look at advertisements, television, and commercials the same as I did before taking the course. I was always being critical of these forms of media noticing things such as the objectification of women or hegemonic ideas, ect. (I know most of you felt the same way). After learning about the different types of postmodern architecture I noticed myself seeing a building and trying to figure out whether or not it falls into what we have talked about. The time that sticks out to me the most was when I saw that weird metallic art statue/sculpture thing close to the soccer field right in the middle of our beautiful old Spanish Mediterranean campus I couldn’t help but laugh and think of the Louve’ (spelling?) and that huge glass pyramid in front of it. I know its art but both just seem totally out of place to me.
“The ordinary critic… And the author are equally remote from a true appreciation of the work.”
I believe our instructions were to write down what we this quote meant to each one of us personally. As I stared at the quote awkwardly for a couple minutes, my sheet of paper remained blank. I couldn’t really get a grasp of the quote and what it meant. As everyone started to give their ideas on the quote it became a little clearer to me as to what the quote was saying. However, one small thing bothered me about this conversation. When Dr. Rog started to break down some of the words that make this quote hard to grasp, such as ordinary critic or true appreciation, he said that some people would say “EVERYONE IS A CRITIC”. As he said this I noticed around the room many people were nodding their heads in agreement. I don’t because in this case, if everyone were a critic, this quote would really be saying that NO ONE could truly appreciate the work. This quote could be read as,
“Everyone is remote from a true appreciation of the work.”
My second thought goes back to last semester during CMC 100, as I was growing as a student I would struggle to ever look at advertisements, television, and commercials the same as I did before taking the course. I was always being critical of these forms of media noticing things such as the objectification of women or hegemonic ideas, ect. (I know most of you felt the same way). After learning about the different types of postmodern architecture I noticed myself seeing a building and trying to figure out whether or not it falls into what we have talked about. The time that sticks out to me the most was when I saw that weird metallic art statue/sculpture thing close to the soccer field right in the middle of our beautiful old Spanish Mediterranean campus I couldn’t help but laugh and think of the Louve’ (spelling?) and that huge glass pyramid in front of it. I know its art but both just seem totally out of place to me.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
sawsaw 1/29
The thing I found most interesting about Jencks writing was how he described the different types of architecture evident in postmodernism. I have always loved architecture and am fascinated by different countries building ideas. After reading Jencks article I feel much more informed and have a new appreciation for postmodern architecture. The quote on page 294 really stood out to me, "Even more than in the nineteenth century, the age of eclecticism, we have the freedom to choose and perfect our conventions, and this choice forces us to look both inward and outwards to culture as a whole." In today's world we have much more freedom to explore and develop new ideas and conventions. I think this quote is saying that we must examine culture as a whole and really decide exactly how we want our culture to be. Even more than the past century of eclecticism, we are free to decide what we want our culture to be and explore open ideas of creativity and imagination. The buildings and designs people come up with today are so extreme that it is challenging society as a whole to examine what are culture really is. Architecture is an aquired taste. It is something that grows and develops over time through experience and observation. Without designers pushing the limits and challenging our eyes we would never have reached the level of achievment we have now. It is through the different forms of architecture Jencks describes that we can really define the progressive and liberation we have made as a culture.
Nichole Jencks
“Artists such as Eduardo Paolazzi and Robert Graham have sought a deeper collaboration that starts near the beginning of design, so that their work can be modified as it progresses.”
Im going to have to admit, I didnt quite understand the reading so in this blog, Im giong to examine a few quotes and something I do know, which is fashion. I wrote a 20 page senior seminar paper in boarding school about the various aspects of our culture which influence fashion trends. For example before the car was invented, women were expected to wear tight floor length skirts, but when they attempted to step into cars, the skirt was too constraining and made it extreamly difficult to enter. Thus, the side slit trend of 1910s began. So in actuality, I guess I was really writing about postmodernism all along, I just never realized it until now.
When students of fashion, or fashion designers, study their field, they look into the past to unterstand, much in the same way the quote above says, so the work can be modified from the source and progress. Because with each passing second there is more history behind us, finding new places for inspiration is progressively more available but I think what Jencks is saying in this quote is that nothing is truer than the originator and what better place to begin inspiration than from the root itself.
I also wanted to note the opening paragraph quote that says, "previous rules of decorum and composition are not as much disregarded as extended and distorted." This once again is reiterating the idea that new designs, be it in fashion or the art Jencks describes, are merely re-incarnations of ideas influencing the artist at present. That is unless its a truly innovative idea which could be deemed an invention? (If im terribly wrong please correct that statement!!). Kate Moss, London's most stylish woman says that the people that follow the rules of fashion get by fine, but the women that break the rules but still live within the boundaries get credit for being the style icons. I think she has the same idea as Jencks here (althouguh Im sure she has no idea that she does) in that she takes inspiration from the root, she wears 20$ vintage pieces together with a new $600 Chanel blouse that is re-invented from the same era as the jewelry and looks awesome. Who knew I could enjoy postmodernism so much!!??
Im going to have to admit, I didnt quite understand the reading so in this blog, Im giong to examine a few quotes and something I do know, which is fashion. I wrote a 20 page senior seminar paper in boarding school about the various aspects of our culture which influence fashion trends. For example before the car was invented, women were expected to wear tight floor length skirts, but when they attempted to step into cars, the skirt was too constraining and made it extreamly difficult to enter. Thus, the side slit trend of 1910s began. So in actuality, I guess I was really writing about postmodernism all along, I just never realized it until now.
When students of fashion, or fashion designers, study their field, they look into the past to unterstand, much in the same way the quote above says, so the work can be modified from the source and progress. Because with each passing second there is more history behind us, finding new places for inspiration is progressively more available but I think what Jencks is saying in this quote is that nothing is truer than the originator and what better place to begin inspiration than from the root itself.
I also wanted to note the opening paragraph quote that says, "previous rules of decorum and composition are not as much disregarded as extended and distorted." This once again is reiterating the idea that new designs, be it in fashion or the art Jencks describes, are merely re-incarnations of ideas influencing the artist at present. That is unless its a truly innovative idea which could be deemed an invention? (If im terribly wrong please correct that statement!!). Kate Moss, London's most stylish woman says that the people that follow the rules of fashion get by fine, but the women that break the rules but still live within the boundaries get credit for being the style icons. I think she has the same idea as Jencks here (althouguh Im sure she has no idea that she does) in that she takes inspiration from the root, she wears 20$ vintage pieces together with a new $600 Chanel blouse that is re-invented from the same era as the jewelry and looks awesome. Who knew I could enjoy postmodernism so much!!??
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Cuckoo Jencks
I found this article very insightful. We have been asking the question what is postmodernism, yet never came to a clear understanding and this reading at least made the concept a little more clearly.
The idea of radical eclecticism “the mixing of different languages to engage different taste cultures and define different functions according to their appropriate mood” (283). Jencks shows how a building was created with a mixture of renaissance harmony and Modernist collage to create a heterogeneous characteristic. It was able to speak to a variety of people. This goes along with what talked about at the end of class and open text. It is up to the reader to pick out what is important to them and it matters how they interpret the reading not the author. This goes along with the building and Jencks ends the section talking about how because of the ambiguity it is up the reader to decide what the meaning is to them. While frustrating at times because there may be question left un-answered it allows the reader the freedom to choose their direction. Isn’t it up to how the reader responds to the text, than what the author intended? Authors usually create for the reader so there response is right for at least them.
Another rule that caught my attention because of the school I went to is the idea of multivalnce and how it reaches out to the rest of the environment really caught my attention. While this idea of an “organic unity” is rare, it is interesting to see how buildings have blended into their environments. The last couple of years in high school we were undergoing a huge renovations and one of the main concerns was that we were going to hurt the environment. One of their goals was to preserve as much as they can by finding other solutions. One of the concerns was that the school was going to have to destroy some trees because the parking lot needed to be expanded, after a year or so of going over solutions they found a middle ground. I have also gone on school trips where we went to look at buildings that had been “molded” to their environment. I was on a school trip in seventh grade and we went to this building that prided itself on the fact that they blended in so well with its surroundings. Through the use of color, and natural materials around the building they were able to construct so that it blended in so well that we drove by it without really noticing anything. A few years later I was on a tour through a building that had decided to move the building plan back in order to preserve the trees because they were so old. They also used materials that helped it blend in with the trees so that it was not just another obnoxious building. Now days we will destroy entire areas so that we can get what we desire.
The idea of radical eclecticism “the mixing of different languages to engage different taste cultures and define different functions according to their appropriate mood” (283). Jencks shows how a building was created with a mixture of renaissance harmony and Modernist collage to create a heterogeneous characteristic. It was able to speak to a variety of people. This goes along with what talked about at the end of class and open text. It is up to the reader to pick out what is important to them and it matters how they interpret the reading not the author. This goes along with the building and Jencks ends the section talking about how because of the ambiguity it is up the reader to decide what the meaning is to them. While frustrating at times because there may be question left un-answered it allows the reader the freedom to choose their direction. Isn’t it up to how the reader responds to the text, than what the author intended? Authors usually create for the reader so there response is right for at least them.
Another rule that caught my attention because of the school I went to is the idea of multivalnce and how it reaches out to the rest of the environment really caught my attention. While this idea of an “organic unity” is rare, it is interesting to see how buildings have blended into their environments. The last couple of years in high school we were undergoing a huge renovations and one of the main concerns was that we were going to hurt the environment. One of their goals was to preserve as much as they can by finding other solutions. One of the concerns was that the school was going to have to destroy some trees because the parking lot needed to be expanded, after a year or so of going over solutions they found a middle ground. I have also gone on school trips where we went to look at buildings that had been “molded” to their environment. I was on a school trip in seventh grade and we went to this building that prided itself on the fact that they blended in so well with its surroundings. Through the use of color, and natural materials around the building they were able to construct so that it blended in so well that we drove by it without really noticing anything. A few years later I was on a tour through a building that had decided to move the building plan back in order to preserve the trees because they were so old. They also used materials that helped it blend in with the trees so that it was not just another obnoxious building. Now days we will destroy entire areas so that we can get what we desire.
Starfish 1/29
Once again in class today, all questions about the reading were answered and everything became a little bit clearer. There was, however, one concept that was hard to grasp. This idea also made me feel a bit uncomfortable at first. This is the concept of JOUISSANCE, which is a pleasure that is derived from text. Barthe’s believed that a body of text could excite or stimulate you. At first I must admit I took it a bit literally in a sexual sense and could not relate to having such a strong emotion towards text. Then as class continued, I began to understand this concept more and relate it to my life. The whole “Gap” concept made jouissance relatable. Barthes said, “Is not the most erotic portion of the body where the garment gapes.” I then realized what he means is the best part of a text is when it leaves you hanging in anticipation. You are not being all the information. Therefore you are curious and excited to see what the missing part could be. I have a deep passion for movies and to me; the best movies are the ones that have you sitting on the edge of your seat. These movies consume you because you are so eager to see what is going to happen next. It is the same thing with many forms of text. Thinking about this makes me agree with the idea that “it is the Gap that holds the true meaning or substance. Taking Barthes idea and relating it to my passion for film, I suddenly saw j how a text could be viewed exciting and thrilling.
On a side note, I was very excited to discuss the quote; “The pleasure of the text is that moment when my body pursues its own ideas for my body does not have the same ideas I do.” The idea of there being a duality or your body and your mind having two different pursuits was extremely relatable. I often find myself reading a text and my eyes will be scanning each word of each sentence, but my mind begins to wander on other subjects other than what I am reading. It becomes very frustrating at times to the point where I have to read everything over. I understand now that this is part of the idea of two pursuits occurring during an active reading of a text.
On a side note, I was very excited to discuss the quote; “The pleasure of the text is that moment when my body pursues its own ideas for my body does not have the same ideas I do.” The idea of there being a duality or your body and your mind having two different pursuits was extremely relatable. I often find myself reading a text and my eyes will be scanning each word of each sentence, but my mind begins to wander on other subjects other than what I am reading. It becomes very frustrating at times to the point where I have to read everything over. I understand now that this is part of the idea of two pursuits occurring during an active reading of a text.
KMO Jencks Pre-Class
Wikipedia defines anthropomorphism as “the attribution of uniquely human characteristics and qualities to non-human beings, inanimate objects, or natural or supernatural phenomena.” In her post, Bella discussed how she saw many examples of anthropomorphisms in Barcelona, Spain. This immediately reminded me of when I traveled to Italy and saw many similar forms of architecture.
On page 290 Jencks states, “Artists such as Eduardo Paolazzi and Robert Graham have sought a deeper collaboration that starts near the beginning of design, so that their work can be modified as it progresses.” He later goes on to discuss that only if the initial kinks are worked out of the original form, will the architecture ever grow to be meaningful to society. As soon as I read this I immediately thought back to our first day of class. In the agricultural age we simply had the coffee bean. As time progressed we eventually found ourselves in the post-modern era with options such as coffee makers, Maxwell coffee and Starbucks. Every great idea begins with a foundation, just as all architecture begins with an idea.
Jencks also states, “The great advantage and delight of multivalence in the continual reinterpretation it prompts, a result of the multiple links between the work and its setting. This unlimited semiosis (the continual discovery of new meaning in works that are rich in external and internal associations) is characteristic of both postmodernism and inclusive art in general.” As intricate a design in architecture may be, the original form remain simple. It is possible that the combination of old and new mixing together to create a post-modern revolution, is our door to new possibilities.
In connection to previous readings I found something Macherey said very applicable to this situation. He states, “Are there books which say what they mean without depending directly on other books.” In my opinion, the future of all technology and knowledge depends on what the past has taught us. Therefore implying that previous architecture and ideas are what give present and future designs meaning.
On page 290 Jencks states, “Artists such as Eduardo Paolazzi and Robert Graham have sought a deeper collaboration that starts near the beginning of design, so that their work can be modified as it progresses.” He later goes on to discuss that only if the initial kinks are worked out of the original form, will the architecture ever grow to be meaningful to society. As soon as I read this I immediately thought back to our first day of class. In the agricultural age we simply had the coffee bean. As time progressed we eventually found ourselves in the post-modern era with options such as coffee makers, Maxwell coffee and Starbucks. Every great idea begins with a foundation, just as all architecture begins with an idea.
Jencks also states, “The great advantage and delight of multivalence in the continual reinterpretation it prompts, a result of the multiple links between the work and its setting. This unlimited semiosis (the continual discovery of new meaning in works that are rich in external and internal associations) is characteristic of both postmodernism and inclusive art in general.” As intricate a design in architecture may be, the original form remain simple. It is possible that the combination of old and new mixing together to create a post-modern revolution, is our door to new possibilities.
In connection to previous readings I found something Macherey said very applicable to this situation. He states, “Are there books which say what they mean without depending directly on other books.” In my opinion, the future of all technology and knowledge depends on what the past has taught us. Therefore implying that previous architecture and ideas are what give present and future designs meaning.
Starfish Charles Jencks
Being a person who is passionate for art and architecture, I found this article very interesting and very relevant to our study on the first day of class about postmodernism. What really grabbed me was cannon number 5, which discussed the relation between the past and the present. “This has led to an outbreak of parody, nostalgia and pastiche-the lesser genres with which postmodernism is equated by…” (286). Like Dr. Rog said on the first day, we are a culture obsessed with “retro.” Just look around you and you can see it everywhere. Walk around Rollins College campus and you can see that most of our campus’s architecture is inspired by the Greek and Roman classics. In the entertainment world, we see remakes of old movies and television knock offs. We are a culture obsessed with reinvention. In CMC 200, we read an article about the History of Disney World and while reading we learned that Walt Disney was obsessed with bringing history or the past to life through his theme parks. Parts of the Disney parks reinvent the past with a modern twist, almost to make the past flawless and seem perfect. This whole idea leads me to canon number 7, which talks about another aspect of postmodernism. “…It’s double-coding, use of irony, ambiguity and contradiction” (288). Jencks says that this notion has been extended to art and architecture, and when I read this I immediately thought of Disney World once again. If you walk into Magic Kingdom, you enter the section of the park called Main Street. You are immediately thrusted back into time, because Main Street is inspired by Walt Disney’s hometown of Marceline, Missouri. Main Street looks perfect, with happy vendors selling candy and ice cream and everyone with a smile on their face. The buildings look pristine and clean, and there is not a flaw to be seen anywhere, making it seem like the world is perfect. This reminded me of the 7th canon because of how ironical it all is. The Disney article tells us that Marceline, Missouri was not like this at all for Walt Disney. In fact, it was quite the opposite. He took the past and perfected it to his own liking. I see the dualism or double-coding is this architecture example and I believe after reading the Jencks article I will be more open and aware of other things that surround me that have this aspect of postmodernism as well.
kaymac Jencks
When reading this article I couldn't help but think about Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead and the protagonist Howard Roark. Was this the type of style Roark was building in? Reports have said that she had based him off of architect Frank Lloyd Wright. That was just one of my observations.
However, what I'm really interested in is what the reading calls "the postmodern trope of anthrompomorphism" which are "ornament and moldings suggestive of the human body (285)." So we're putting more of man in our architecture, literally? Because I know in my art history class we're talking about the Renaissance and how that movement really was all about how man was almost as good as God and how he was capable of fantastic things, which in an essence what Ayn Ran was talking about in her novels.
But with this we're actually incorporating man into buildings. Man is a very graceful figure and is very strong, so it makes sense. So now I've started trying to notice the influence of man's body on our buildings.
Another thing that interested me in this article was about the idea of urban development. But everybody wants a utopian community and the perfect urban area, but that's not possible. Maybe postmodern architecture wants perfection and that's why they want to base some buildings on the human form. Because the ideal human form=perfection.
Finally, I liked the first point this reading made about "disharmonious harmony" and I started thinking about our generation, the "MTV generation" and how we have influenced this style of building. We can't sit still, we need constant camera angles and changes in music or else we get bored with TVs and movies, I know it happens to me. What we're doing is breaking it apart and putting it back together with other pieces and somehow we're creating this harmonious building and object. That doesn't make any sense.
However, what I'm really interested in is what the reading calls "the postmodern trope of anthrompomorphism" which are "ornament and moldings suggestive of the human body (285)." So we're putting more of man in our architecture, literally? Because I know in my art history class we're talking about the Renaissance and how that movement really was all about how man was almost as good as God and how he was capable of fantastic things, which in an essence what Ayn Ran was talking about in her novels.
But with this we're actually incorporating man into buildings. Man is a very graceful figure and is very strong, so it makes sense. So now I've started trying to notice the influence of man's body on our buildings.
Another thing that interested me in this article was about the idea of urban development. But everybody wants a utopian community and the perfect urban area, but that's not possible. Maybe postmodern architecture wants perfection and that's why they want to base some buildings on the human form. Because the ideal human form=perfection.
Finally, I liked the first point this reading made about "disharmonious harmony" and I started thinking about our generation, the "MTV generation" and how we have influenced this style of building. We can't sit still, we need constant camera angles and changes in music or else we get bored with TVs and movies, I know it happens to me. What we're doing is breaking it apart and putting it back together with other pieces and somehow we're creating this harmonious building and object. That doesn't make any sense.
Jiggy Jencks
The world around us is growing ever faster then in any other human generation. Rapid expansion in population is spurring a equal growth in construction of cities and towns. Our own backyard of Orlando can be seen as an example of this phenomenon. Central Florida is one of the most rapidly expanding areas in the country the city planners are developing ways to grow and preserve. Building is an interesting dynamic but important for the well being of future human civilizations. As Jencks focuses on the styles of postmodern architects there is a clear focus on not just the buildings themselves. As stated, architecture should "fit into and extend the urban context" (Jencks 285). In today's modern world building need to fit into the context of the environment around them. Winter Park could be used as an example, showing the strict guidelines that architects most follow while constructing in the "historic district". Technology now must mix with to create a balance in the community, you cant have to much of one thing. This issue doesn't transfer over into other parts of our lives, however. When a new technology or edgy looking device comes out the other is faded and never looked back. This can be seen for the CD player, Ipod, Tape Deck ect, but in architecture there is more of a focus on preservation. The landmarks of the past are the blueprints for the cities of tomorrow, making development very interesting and historic. Jencks gives insight to the postmodern relationship that carries in the creation of buildings across the world.
Bella, Jencks
In his piece, “The Emergent Rules”, Jencks discusses the idea of anthromorphism. Anthromorphism is used to refer to architecture that is humanistic in its physical form. I found this idea to be the most interesting aspect of his piece, because I have seen this type of architecture before. When I visited Barcelona, Spain I noticed that many of the buildings were designed by the artists to look like animals. I distinctly remember one specific building that had the trunk of an elephant as the front steps, leading into a door right in the middle of the elephant head, with two large elephant ear, pod like extensions that appeared to be bedrooms. I’m not sure if Jencks’ description of anthromorphism directly applies, but it seems to be extremely similar. The buildings were not “suggestive of the human body”, rather they were direct replicas of animals’ bodies.
Post modern architecture is not something I have studied before, and I am not quite sure how it will apply to our class other than understanding the full range of the PoMo culture. In his article, Jencks states, “This idea–and old one stemming from the notion of ‘organic unity’–is relatively rare in our culture, where art and architecture tend to have gone their separate ways” Jencks 289. I think that this is a perfect explanation for postmodernism–a combination of art, culture and experiment. They take old and blend with new, mixing unlikely text combinations, pushing the boundaries of reader and writer to pave a new road.
Post modern architecture is not something I have studied before, and I am not quite sure how it will apply to our class other than understanding the full range of the PoMo culture. In his article, Jencks states, “This idea–and old one stemming from the notion of ‘organic unity’–is relatively rare in our culture, where art and architecture tend to have gone their separate ways” Jencks 289. I think that this is a perfect explanation for postmodernism–a combination of art, culture and experiment. They take old and blend with new, mixing unlikely text combinations, pushing the boundaries of reader and writer to pave a new road.
NewYorker 1/29
This class offered up a lot of clarity for the reading about silence. What I got out of the class at the end, was that basically all texts (whether it be actualy words, or pictures) are based on prior knowledge and cultural influences. The pictures of Marilyn Monroe and Richard Geere were both examples of what we think "sexy" can mean. We all agreed on this because of prior knowledge of the word sex/sexy, other pictures we have seen in the past, etc. We then got to talking about intertextuality, that all texts are related or connected in some way, and I believe this to be true because previous knowledge about certain things helps lead you to conclusions/explainations/understandings about future/other things. For example, the class's previous knowledge from CMC 100 (about thinking critically) helped us draw conclusions about the photos presented in class. However, the "ghoti" example lead many of us to believe the wrong pronounciaton based on our prior knowledge of the English language. So when do we know to follow the rules, and when do we know to break them, or to think outside the box? I don't believe this question can simply ever be answered. I think that sometimes we have to learn based on life's experiences, either positive or negative, or whether we make a mistake or do something right.
Further, Macherey's reading about silence in writing was very interesting. It's always easier to tell silence through speech and body language, but I never thought there could be silence in writing. But now that I think about it, it makes perfect sense because obviously when writing something, elements are going to be omited, and certain words are going to be chosen over others. It is thus our job as readers to interperet what is being written, and to read between the lines. Sometimes you can't take writings at face value, you really have to dig deep and interperet. But reading can be very difficult sometimes, because there is no tone of voice, so you cannot tell if something written is sarcastic or sincere. Also, usually the reader does not know the writer so you are unaware of their past experiences, or may be uncomfortable with their writing style (i.e. vocabulary, punctuation, viewpoint, etc).
Further, Macherey's reading about silence in writing was very interesting. It's always easier to tell silence through speech and body language, but I never thought there could be silence in writing. But now that I think about it, it makes perfect sense because obviously when writing something, elements are going to be omited, and certain words are going to be chosen over others. It is thus our job as readers to interperet what is being written, and to read between the lines. Sometimes you can't take writings at face value, you really have to dig deep and interperet. But reading can be very difficult sometimes, because there is no tone of voice, so you cannot tell if something written is sarcastic or sincere. Also, usually the reader does not know the writer so you are unaware of their past experiences, or may be uncomfortable with their writing style (i.e. vocabulary, punctuation, viewpoint, etc).
romulus Jencks
"Urban contextualism gains near universal assent". Cities are the foundation of society. Cities are the heart and soul of the modern world. As we evolve so do our cities, and like snowflakes no two are alike. Orlando and much of Florida is an infant to other cities in other states. New York is the one of the capitals of the world, whereas Rome is a deity among all of them. Paris by completely redesigned by Napoleon, and is not one of the most beautiful cities on earth. Cities offer much to revel in. Art and architecture has always been intertwined. City planning is a deep interest to me for a number of reasons. Driven for perfection, the Ancient Greek man strived for a flawless physique and a legacy that will make his ancestors proud. Cities must be both aesthetically pleasing and able to stand the test of time. Saudi Arabia is currently building cities from scratch throughout its country. Cities that will fuel its economy beyond anything they would of imagined at the middle of the 20th century. Whilst we are recovering from suburban sprawl and a decaying infrastructure, where are we now compared to the rest of the world. Jencks stats that after once society moved into the modern era, their cities developed differently. There is a universality among cities, including being laid out in a grid, and providing to a place to work and play. A perfect balance. Capitalism is needed. Wealth, knowledge and culture must be generated. There must be that central focus, that one dominating structure at the core of a cities downtown that pierces the eyes of the viewer beyond the horizon. Cities play a great role in our own development, and we should not take that for granted. Who we are is defined by our creations.
NewYorker - Jencks
There's one part of Jencks when he talks about oxymorons. "Disharmonious harmony also finds validity in the present consensus among scientist that the universe is dynamic and evolving." (282). This proves to be true for many reasons, and architecture proves to be changing. Throughout the decades, one can tell that style evolves. Think about the house on the show, the Brady Bunch, or That '70s Show, or from the movie Anchorman. All of these settings had a strong sense of the time period it represented. Now think of your own home, or a recent TV show such as Will and Grace, Friends, or Big Shots - much more modern (or postmodern?). Each era had its own style, and if one really pays attention to the detail, one can tell the time period. The paragraph on 282 continued on to mention the Renaissance, "with its well proportioned buildings and sculpture...". Some architecture follows the Renaissance time period, or even Gothic or Boroque - each has its own feel.
What I like about architecture is when you see a building, and you think, oo what is that? Like you can't tell what the building is supposed to be or represent. For example, there's a public library where I live that is very modern, and one side of it is all glass windows - something one wouldn't expect a library to look like, and I think that is so innovative, because it's thinking outside the box, and trying something different and new. Or how someone spoke about Wonder Works, the upside down house, in their post - you look at it and think, wow what is that? How cool! Because it's unexpected, and you become curious, and it draws you in.
Unfortunately, architecture is limited by gravity, practicality, and safety. An architect can dream up something wonderful on paper, but must make sure it actually can work in real life. But despite these obstacles, there have been a ton of innovations and ideas that are constantly being presented in the architecture world, and some were presented to us through the photos in the article. I used to think that artchitecture was boring and very simple, but now that I've thought about it it can be very challenging, creative, and innovative.
What I like about architecture is when you see a building, and you think, oo what is that? Like you can't tell what the building is supposed to be or represent. For example, there's a public library where I live that is very modern, and one side of it is all glass windows - something one wouldn't expect a library to look like, and I think that is so innovative, because it's thinking outside the box, and trying something different and new. Or how someone spoke about Wonder Works, the upside down house, in their post - you look at it and think, wow what is that? How cool! Because it's unexpected, and you become curious, and it draws you in.
Unfortunately, architecture is limited by gravity, practicality, and safety. An architect can dream up something wonderful on paper, but must make sure it actually can work in real life. But despite these obstacles, there have been a ton of innovations and ideas that are constantly being presented in the architecture world, and some were presented to us through the photos in the article. I used to think that artchitecture was boring and very simple, but now that I've thought about it it can be very challenging, creative, and innovative.
WouldntULike2Know - Jencks
Oddly enough, my last post was centered around the discussion of the controversial, postmodern artist, Robert Mapplethorpe. After reading Jencks article on Postmodern Poetics and the New Rules, I shall readdress Mapplethorpe through Jencks point of view. "Now, rules or cannons for production are seen as preconditions for creativity..." (Jencks, 281). Mapplethorpe received quite a large outcry, primarily from conservatives, when the public had learned that the NEA was using tax dollars to fund Mapplethorpe's disagreeable artwork.
"Inevitably art and architecture must represent this paradoxical view, the oxymoron of disharmonious harmony..." (282). In my last post, I discussed the conflict I observed in two of his questionable pieces involving children. Perhaps now, we could translate his "crude" artwork (as many would consider it to be so) as an oxymoron speaking against itself.
Which leads us to our final analysis of his works. Is this a photograph of a fist in a mans rectum? Or does it represent something more-- if we are able to get beyond its initial shock-- that which with we may not be familiar? "When several possible readings are presented simultaneously, it is left to the reader to supply the unifying text. This also entails frustration--the postmodern counterpart to the classical cannon of 'withheld gratification'. Both Stirling's, Salle's [and Mapplethorpe's] work is frustrating in the sense that it avoids a hierarchy of meanings. One has to look elsewhere to find a clearer expression of a unified view." (285).
"Inevitably art and architecture must represent this paradoxical view, the oxymoron of disharmonious harmony..." (282). In my last post, I discussed the conflict I observed in two of his questionable pieces involving children. Perhaps now, we could translate his "crude" artwork (as many would consider it to be so) as an oxymoron speaking against itself.
Which leads us to our final analysis of his works. Is this a photograph of a fist in a mans rectum? Or does it represent something more-- if we are able to get beyond its initial shock-- that which with we may not be familiar? "When several possible readings are presented simultaneously, it is left to the reader to supply the unifying text. This also entails frustration--the postmodern counterpart to the classical cannon of 'withheld gratification'. Both Stirling's, Salle's [and Mapplethorpe's] work is frustrating in the sense that it avoids a hierarchy of meanings. One has to look elsewhere to find a clearer expression of a unified view." (285).
ChittyChittyBangBang Jencks
This article gave a very unique perspective than what we have seen so far this term on postmodernism. I am currently in an Art History class and this article reminded me a lot of the terms and ideas that we have discussed in there.
Such as, today in art history we discussed Vitruvian Man by Leonardo Da Vinci.
"Vitruvius equated the 'perfect' human body with the celestial order and then justified the perfected order of the temple on these assumptions." (Jencks, 282)
This Greek perspective of what the ideal form of a man is was used for measurements. This humanism archetecture style was more in the Renaissance era. Now with our view of a "Newtonian /Einsteinian universe" our theories are much less harmonious. The oxymoron, 'disharmonious harmony' was used frequently throughout this handout.
"...multiple links between the work and its setting. This unlimited semiosis (the continual discovery of new meaning in works that are rich in external and internal associations), is characteristic of both postmodernism nad inclusive in art in general." (Jencks, 290)
We talked of how language and meanings are constantly evolving. How our grandparents talked is overall completely different than how my generation communicates. Some words to some groups of people or other cultures might have a completely differnet meaning than to another group of people, especially determining on the context of the statement. Ferdinand de Saussure's theories of semiotics are always changing and making new discoveries.
I also really likes this quote, I think I understand it but am still decyfering its exact translation...
"The mood on board the ship of postmodernism is that of an Italian and Spanish crew looking for India, which may, if it's lucky, accidently discover America: a crew which necessarily transports its cultural baggage and occasionally gets homesick, but one that is quite excited by the sense of liberation and promise of discoveries."
Such as, today in art history we discussed Vitruvian Man by Leonardo Da Vinci.
"Vitruvius equated the 'perfect' human body with the celestial order and then justified the perfected order of the temple on these assumptions." (Jencks, 282)
This Greek perspective of what the ideal form of a man is was used for measurements. This humanism archetecture style was more in the Renaissance era. Now with our view of a "Newtonian /Einsteinian universe" our theories are much less harmonious. The oxymoron, 'disharmonious harmony' was used frequently throughout this handout.
"...multiple links between the work and its setting. This unlimited semiosis (the continual discovery of new meaning in works that are rich in external and internal associations), is characteristic of both postmodernism nad inclusive in art in general." (Jencks, 290)
We talked of how language and meanings are constantly evolving. How our grandparents talked is overall completely different than how my generation communicates. Some words to some groups of people or other cultures might have a completely differnet meaning than to another group of people, especially determining on the context of the statement. Ferdinand de Saussure's theories of semiotics are always changing and making new discoveries.
I also really likes this quote, I think I understand it but am still decyfering its exact translation...
"The mood on board the ship of postmodernism is that of an Italian and Spanish crew looking for India, which may, if it's lucky, accidently discover America: a crew which necessarily transports its cultural baggage and occasionally gets homesick, but one that is quite excited by the sense of liberation and promise of discoveries."
boo boo bear... venturi reading (handout) 1/30
I am not going to lie; I do not have a clue what I just read. After reading this article for the third time, to keep my sanity I am just going to give my two cents on postmodern architecture and art (I think was the subject of this article).
“Inevitably art and architecture must represent this paradoxical view, the oxymoron of ‘disharmonious harmony’, and it is there for not surprising that we find countless formal paradoxes in postmodern work such as ‘asymmetrical symmetry’, ‘syncopated ‘proportion’, ‘fragmented purity’, ‘unfinished whole’ and ‘dissonant unity’.”
This sentence is full of oxymoronic phrases describing postmodern art and architecture. What I really think this sentence is trying to say is that post modern art and architecture can be described as ugly beauty. I am not even really sure what classifies something as postmodern art or postmodern architecture but I did a google image search of postmodern art and architecture and got a sense of what it is. Some of the pictures and buildings were pretty cool looking but some of them just looked stupid. It looks like to me someone can just arbitrarily place random figures and shapes together and call it art. I am sure somehow it can be considered genius but I do not see it. Another picture from the google search was just a painting of a urinal. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!?!? If someone thinks that is genius there is something wrong with you!
There are some buildings that I saw that were pretty cool though. They don’t really make sense to me but I could look at some of them for hours and still be confused as to how they are even still standing. I wonder if the Leaning Tower of Pisa was discovered today, would we consider that postmodern architecture.
One of my favorite buildings of all time is the Wonder Works building. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think this theme park type fun house could be considered postmodern architecture. Below is the link to a picture of this place. I hope it works .
http://www.floridahome-rental.com/images/wonderworks.jpg
“Inevitably art and architecture must represent this paradoxical view, the oxymoron of ‘disharmonious harmony’, and it is there for not surprising that we find countless formal paradoxes in postmodern work such as ‘asymmetrical symmetry’, ‘syncopated ‘proportion’, ‘fragmented purity’, ‘unfinished whole’ and ‘dissonant unity’.”
This sentence is full of oxymoronic phrases describing postmodern art and architecture. What I really think this sentence is trying to say is that post modern art and architecture can be described as ugly beauty. I am not even really sure what classifies something as postmodern art or postmodern architecture but I did a google image search of postmodern art and architecture and got a sense of what it is. Some of the pictures and buildings were pretty cool looking but some of them just looked stupid. It looks like to me someone can just arbitrarily place random figures and shapes together and call it art. I am sure somehow it can be considered genius but I do not see it. Another picture from the google search was just a painting of a urinal. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!?!? If someone thinks that is genius there is something wrong with you!
There are some buildings that I saw that were pretty cool though. They don’t really make sense to me but I could look at some of them for hours and still be confused as to how they are even still standing. I wonder if the Leaning Tower of Pisa was discovered today, would we consider that postmodern architecture.
One of my favorite buildings of all time is the Wonder Works building. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think this theme park type fun house could be considered postmodern architecture. Below is the link to a picture of this place. I hope it works .
http://www.floridahome-rental.com/images/wonderworks.jpg
ChittyChittyBangBang 1/30
In class on tuesday we explored "the gap". I have never heard the terms, "writerly" and "readerly" texts before. Although writerly texts are more interesting to read in my opinion because they are open to interpretation and allow you to fill in the gap. The same goes for when we read into the photographs of Marilyn Monroe and the man with his shirt open. These pictures are more "pornographic" and exciting because there is a gap to fill in. It is left up to our imagination and we can decide what it means, what is happening in the picture, or what is underneath Marilyn's dress.
I enjoyed the discussion we had on "perversion" as well. When we first began talking about it, I was a little shocked because I, as several other, associate that term with being negative and sexual. I like Barthes use of the term though, encouraging us to be perverts: to question the reading, to read between the lines, to just pull the text inside out and find other meanings it could have. The term is aggressive and says a lot. We dont have to be naive, we dont have to accept what is written on the page. We can explore it and challenge it and I agree with Barthes that that is important. "In difference is where we get pleasure"--Barthes
We also dove into Macherey this past class period. The quote that sticks out in my mind from our class session is: "Are there texts which say what they mean...without depending directly on other texts?" (16)
This quote sums up a lot of what we have been discussing in class this term. We can't help but associate things with prior experiences and knowledge. Texts are usually going off of something else the author has heard. The author might be challenging that, agreeing with it, or exploring it furthur. It reminds me of the ghoti exercise. We have been taught what each letter sounds like and looks like next to other letters and that is how we live our life. Texts are always going to have similar styles as anthother text, using a language or an idea someone else has used.
I enjoyed the discussion we had on "perversion" as well. When we first began talking about it, I was a little shocked because I, as several other, associate that term with being negative and sexual. I like Barthes use of the term though, encouraging us to be perverts: to question the reading, to read between the lines, to just pull the text inside out and find other meanings it could have. The term is aggressive and says a lot. We dont have to be naive, we dont have to accept what is written on the page. We can explore it and challenge it and I agree with Barthes that that is important. "In difference is where we get pleasure"--Barthes
We also dove into Macherey this past class period. The quote that sticks out in my mind from our class session is: "Are there texts which say what they mean...without depending directly on other texts?" (16)
This quote sums up a lot of what we have been discussing in class this term. We can't help but associate things with prior experiences and knowledge. Texts are usually going off of something else the author has heard. The author might be challenging that, agreeing with it, or exploring it furthur. It reminds me of the ghoti exercise. We have been taught what each letter sounds like and looks like next to other letters and that is how we live our life. Texts are always going to have similar styles as anthother text, using a language or an idea someone else has used.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
BubbaNub : Jencks
Up until now, our class speculations on postmodernism have been largely interpretive of what it is not. It is not the signifier or the signified, the implicit or the explicit, but rather the unspoken and unseen. It is this relation shared between them which holds the defining factor. In Jencks article on Postmodern Poetic's we have finally been given a set of new rules that distinguish the era of postmodernism. Taking our previous readings a step further we are lead to examine how everything connects.
The implicit and explicit and our study of semiotics accurately reflect the same relations found in Jenck's new rules. The desire to portray the ironic is an entire statement on the relation/connection between two things. Urbanism is shown as irony in itself in its attempt to meet double standards (Canonic Classicism). However, this is the trend of the world. Ethics and morals modified by Pluralism reinforce Jenck's first rule of disharmonious harmony (282-283). We exist in an era that permits multiple truths, many of which contradict each other. However, it is not the messages and the separate truths that are important. The interpretation of the relation between these truths is the key to hearing the unspoken messages we have been too blind to see. It is this unheralded force that is currently leading us, whether we realize it or not, into another new era.
The implicit and explicit and our study of semiotics accurately reflect the same relations found in Jenck's new rules. The desire to portray the ironic is an entire statement on the relation/connection between two things. Urbanism is shown as irony in itself in its attempt to meet double standards (Canonic Classicism). However, this is the trend of the world. Ethics and morals modified by Pluralism reinforce Jenck's first rule of disharmonious harmony (282-283). We exist in an era that permits multiple truths, many of which contradict each other. However, it is not the messages and the separate truths that are important. The interpretation of the relation between these truths is the key to hearing the unspoken messages we have been too blind to see. It is this unheralded force that is currently leading us, whether we realize it or not, into another new era.
Bella 1/29 Post Class
“Are there [texts] which say what they mean without depending directly on other texts?”- Macherey 16.
At first, I was a little put off by this quote. The concept seemed abstract, and like Macherey argues, could be interpreted in a manner of ways. I sat trying to wrap my head around his meaning of the question, however, and came to a conclusion. If I am following Macherey correctly, he would believe every text is open to interpretation and can’t say what it means because every interpretation will distort it. He likes the idea of open texts, fluid ideas. Each writer, reader, critic, or whoever is able to interpret a text through his/her own lenses. A text’s message is going to be different for each and every person who comes across it, and therefore could never have one solid meaning. A person’s cultural understanding, experiences, beliefs, etc. will drastically change the dynamic and perception of a single message. Text can mean anything, it is fluid, moving, changing. It is simply circumstance that whoever is reading this right now understands the words I am writing. You and I simply have a common understanding for the English language, and therefore are able to communicate. My messages are going to be received and understood by you. A person living in Germany, who does not know English, however, will have no idea of my messages or meanings. The circumstances of our lives are drastically different–we will not be able to communicate our messages to each other. We cannot understand each others’ meaning because we can’t fallback “directly on other texts” as Macherey says.
Does text ever really have its own meaning? Is it even possible? An author has a message, a reader perceives it, and a critic judges it. Does the text itself have a meaning? In class today, we ended class with the quote, “In order to say anything, there are other things which must be left unsaid”-Macherey 17. I am kind of captured by this idea….never before have I focused on the silence of a situation rather than the words, and I can’t even think of an example of something that uses this technique. Dr. Rog said that “the best authors/texts leave parts of their arguments unsaid”. Anyone have any examples of this? I get it….I appreciate it, I understand it, I just can’t think of any examples of when this has happened.
At first, I was a little put off by this quote. The concept seemed abstract, and like Macherey argues, could be interpreted in a manner of ways. I sat trying to wrap my head around his meaning of the question, however, and came to a conclusion. If I am following Macherey correctly, he would believe every text is open to interpretation and can’t say what it means because every interpretation will distort it. He likes the idea of open texts, fluid ideas. Each writer, reader, critic, or whoever is able to interpret a text through his/her own lenses. A text’s message is going to be different for each and every person who comes across it, and therefore could never have one solid meaning. A person’s cultural understanding, experiences, beliefs, etc. will drastically change the dynamic and perception of a single message. Text can mean anything, it is fluid, moving, changing. It is simply circumstance that whoever is reading this right now understands the words I am writing. You and I simply have a common understanding for the English language, and therefore are able to communicate. My messages are going to be received and understood by you. A person living in Germany, who does not know English, however, will have no idea of my messages or meanings. The circumstances of our lives are drastically different–we will not be able to communicate our messages to each other. We cannot understand each others’ meaning because we can’t fallback “directly on other texts” as Macherey says.
Does text ever really have its own meaning? Is it even possible? An author has a message, a reader perceives it, and a critic judges it. Does the text itself have a meaning? In class today, we ended class with the quote, “In order to say anything, there are other things which must be left unsaid”-Macherey 17. I am kind of captured by this idea….never before have I focused on the silence of a situation rather than the words, and I can’t even think of an example of something that uses this technique. Dr. Rog said that “the best authors/texts leave parts of their arguments unsaid”. Anyone have any examples of this? I get it….I appreciate it, I understand it, I just can’t think of any examples of when this has happened.
WouldntULike2Know 1/29
In class today we formulated discussion around our past three readings and tried to connect them in the best way possible. In discussing what is meant by what is left silent, defining what something is by what it is not, and the perverse or alternate way to read a text or image I began to recall on texts and images that I have had difficulty with in the past. This got me thinking.
Last year, I took the class Culture Wars with Dr's Levis, Libby and Musgrave. We read about and were shown a variety of culturally and morally challenging texts and images. The one that seems to stick with me is the work of an artist that is hard to forget. If you are familiar with Robert Mapplethorpe's work then you know what I am talking about. If not, I urge you to google him and I warn you to brace yourself. Mapplethorpe's artistry is photographs of primarily three things: flowers, nudes, and homoerotica. His flowers are lovely, his nudes are (sometimes) rather tasteful and occasionally of famous actors, and being gay himself, his homoerotic art is rather challenging for a more conservative viewer (case in point, his self-portrait of a bull whip inserted into his anus.) There has been, however, a large outcry on at least two of his works involving children (to the best of my knowledge.)
The first I was unfortunately unable to find a link for, entitled "Honey" shows a two year old girl sitting on a stoop and wearing a loose fitting dress. The camera angle is tilted upwards to reveal her genitalia. When he photographed this girl, what were his intentions? Mapplethorpe once said "I went into photography because it seemed like the perfect vehicle for commenting on the madness of today's existence." If thats the case in "Honey" what was he commenting on? In turn, was his "comment" only perpetuating the crudity of child pornography--to which could be considered "madness of today's existence." How else are we to think in perversion of this highly perverted text?
The second, entitled Jesse McBride, shows a young boy completely naked, sitting atop a chaise lounge. http://siteimages.guggenheim.org/gpc_work_midsize_934.jpg The vulnerability of these two children is completely evident and I, as well as many others I'm sure, struggle to find the meaning of this work. Why is it that his photographs of naked children, when displayed on a museum wall, are praised for their contrast, shadows and brilliant camera angles, while the sicko down the street gets arrested for his private collection of similar photos? Macherey would ask, what is not being said in this image. However, given the perverted nature of these works, I find it difficult to be able to think about them in a different way thereby inhibiting me from understanding what it is he really is saying.
Last year, I took the class Culture Wars with Dr's Levis, Libby and Musgrave. We read about and were shown a variety of culturally and morally challenging texts and images. The one that seems to stick with me is the work of an artist that is hard to forget. If you are familiar with Robert Mapplethorpe's work then you know what I am talking about. If not, I urge you to google him and I warn you to brace yourself. Mapplethorpe's artistry is photographs of primarily three things: flowers, nudes, and homoerotica. His flowers are lovely, his nudes are (sometimes) rather tasteful and occasionally of famous actors, and being gay himself, his homoerotic art is rather challenging for a more conservative viewer (case in point, his self-portrait of a bull whip inserted into his anus.) There has been, however, a large outcry on at least two of his works involving children (to the best of my knowledge.)
The first I was unfortunately unable to find a link for, entitled "Honey" shows a two year old girl sitting on a stoop and wearing a loose fitting dress. The camera angle is tilted upwards to reveal her genitalia. When he photographed this girl, what were his intentions? Mapplethorpe once said "I went into photography because it seemed like the perfect vehicle for commenting on the madness of today's existence." If thats the case in "Honey" what was he commenting on? In turn, was his "comment" only perpetuating the crudity of child pornography--to which could be considered "madness of today's existence." How else are we to think in perversion of this highly perverted text?
The second, entitled Jesse McBride, shows a young boy completely naked, sitting atop a chaise lounge. http://siteimages.guggenheim.org/gpc_work_midsize_934.jpg The vulnerability of these two children is completely evident and I, as well as many others I'm sure, struggle to find the meaning of this work. Why is it that his photographs of naked children, when displayed on a museum wall, are praised for their contrast, shadows and brilliant camera angles, while the sicko down the street gets arrested for his private collection of similar photos? Macherey would ask, what is not being said in this image. However, given the perverted nature of these works, I find it difficult to be able to think about them in a different way thereby inhibiting me from understanding what it is he really is saying.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Sgt. Pepper, Macherey
OK, so I think I understood the whole concept Macherey was trying to get across. But then again, I think it seems kind of silly, so maybe I didn't understand it so well. It makes perfect sense that what's written in a piece of writing isn't as it seems. Instead of it being about the words that are written, it is actually about everything which is not written in a writing. That what was, in fact, NOT written gives one more insight as to what it means compared to what is written. Macherey's analogy of explication (a.k.a. criticism) is to implication what explicit is to implicit. He explains that the criticism of a work is the discovered and the implication what is concealed within the work's writing. Another interesting way Macherey explains his theory of Literary Production is by describing that a work is basically all silence. This goes along with the earlier definition that rather than the work being work itself, it is work in the first place because of what it is not. It takes so few words to form a thought, and thoughts are only what they are because of what they're not.
What I thought was silly about his theory is--couldn't you apply that to every single aspect of life? For instance, this sweatshirt I'm wearing is not a sweatshirt because it is a sweatshirt. Rather, it is a sweatshirt because it is none of the elements that does not make up a sweatshirt. Essentially, everything is what it is because it is not what it's not. A more familiar example might be the white. Some debate whether white is really a color at all, and other opinions suggest that white is merely what every color is not. Just thinking more about his theory, I comparing it to example I can try and relate to, but I seem to keep coming up with the same circular reason. Whether we like it or not, I guess, that's how it's going to be.
What I thought was silly about his theory is--couldn't you apply that to every single aspect of life? For instance, this sweatshirt I'm wearing is not a sweatshirt because it is a sweatshirt. Rather, it is a sweatshirt because it is none of the elements that does not make up a sweatshirt. Essentially, everything is what it is because it is not what it's not. A more familiar example might be the white. Some debate whether white is really a color at all, and other opinions suggest that white is merely what every color is not. Just thinking more about his theory, I comparing it to example I can try and relate to, but I seem to keep coming up with the same circular reason. Whether we like it or not, I guess, that's how it's going to be.
ChittyChittyBangBang Macherey
From what I think I got out of the reading, "A Theory of Literary Production" by Pierre Macherey, is quite interesting and something I will need to explore more to really understand. The investigation of what silence is really saying and "something something without saying it"...sounds confusing but makes sense as well. Silence can say a lot, body language and expressions are another form of communication. Deaf people are able to communicate through sign language and expression, which I am currently trying to learn because I find it important and very interesting.
People are normally able to follow silent movies as well, I have even seen some silent films that I have actually kind of enjoyed. You really have to pay attention and concentrate but it's amazing what the human body can portray.
As technology has advanced especially in this postmodern age, people no longer typically desire "black and white films" or "silent films" or even movies with less special effects than we are capable of today. Language is constantly evolving and I suppose body language is too. But the basics I think will always be there, and silence will always speak to us.
Macherey's theories remind me of some statements from De Saussure.
"In language, one can neither divide sound from thought or thought from sound..." (6)---De Saussure
Does this mean that thoughts (language with silence) mean as much as language with sound?
People are normally able to follow silent movies as well, I have even seen some silent films that I have actually kind of enjoyed. You really have to pay attention and concentrate but it's amazing what the human body can portray.
As technology has advanced especially in this postmodern age, people no longer typically desire "black and white films" or "silent films" or even movies with less special effects than we are capable of today. Language is constantly evolving and I suppose body language is too. But the basics I think will always be there, and silence will always speak to us.
Macherey's theories remind me of some statements from De Saussure.
"In language, one can neither divide sound from thought or thought from sound..." (6)---De Saussure
Does this mean that thoughts (language with silence) mean as much as language with sound?
elizabeth byrne Macherey
When reading Macherey’s essay, A Theory of Literary Production, I though of the saying a picture is worth a thousand words. Whether it is a portrait or a landscape pictures are full of expression and emotion where one can interpret the photo on their own. Along with Starfish, I am in the same Russian Film class and watched an extremely old movie called, The Battleship Potemkin. The movie was very boring as it was silent and black and white. I though the movie was boring not only because it is black and white and silent, but also because our society has movies that are far more advance that the movie from the early 1900’s. Going back to our last discussion on how language has changed and we don’t use “boring” or “old” saying and have moved on to such sayings as “sick” and “bling”. This old movie was an break through movie is a good example of how our world has advance and everyday technology and language continue to expand.
Through this essay I found some parts hard to understand and some concepts hard to fully grasp, but in my experience I have found that silence or speaking through writing is be a hard way to communicate. Through text messages and e-emails one can not now the tone of voice or the emotion that the other is feeling. Silence in person is easier as one can smile, laugh, sigh, yawn, cry etc. to show feelings. In writing it leaves room for interpretation, question, and critique.
Through this essay I found some parts hard to understand and some concepts hard to fully grasp, but in my experience I have found that silence or speaking through writing is be a hard way to communicate. Through text messages and e-emails one can not now the tone of voice or the emotion that the other is feeling. Silence in person is easier as one can smile, laugh, sigh, yawn, cry etc. to show feelings. In writing it leaves room for interpretation, question, and critique.
Jiggy, Macherey
Everything around us is a product of humans, from the computer to type this post to the chair that I sit in. Macherey illustrates in his piece on structuralism that humans construct everything and nothing is natural. If you try to understand this theory by taking Winter Park as an example things start to make more sense. The parks that we love and enjoy are often linked to the natural world, filled with trees, grass and life. From another vantage point this same park can be seen as yet another human construction and control of nature. The trees are often placed to create beauty, the grass is cut and the weeds plucked. This park example shows how our natural planet has been suppressed by humans and manipulated to extenuate the needs and desires of humans. Structure is all around us, systems to keep people in line and human life functioning. Our speech, often carelessly taken advantage of, is one of humanities greatest achievements. Millions of people able to understand, communicate and progress the human race is remarkable taking into account that we have only been global for the last three hundred years. Without structure human life would not even be considered advanced, leaving us amongst the apes and other higher mammal life. Its sometimes easy to let the advantages we have to slip our minds but humanity keeps progressing.
romulus Macherey
Is what I am really saying what I am not saying? What an absolutely fantastic summary of the reading. "A Theory of Literary Production" by Pierre Macherey informs the reader to look at a piece of work and carefully examine it. To understand what the author was not necessarily holding back but is implying without it being presented. Written eight years before my existence, it is important that I examine the text within its contemporary history. Macherey recommends that I do so. I have to say that the digital age that we live in now produces images and texts that do not leave anything up to the imagination. An open and progressive society enables the freedom of all forms of expression. In today's world a person can be themselves. Everything about a person, hairstyle, clothing, car etc., says something about that individual. When a person makes a hardcopy of their thoughts, communicating it in a way that at least one other person understands, that is the unconsciousness transcends from an internal source and becomes eternalized.
Is what I am really saying what I am not saying? I completely agree, and society does as well. We not only lie, but we have a special category for lies that don't really cause any harm, which is the white lie. Then there are instances where the truth is just slightly bent. True story, over break I started playing the 'compliment game' at gay clubs, one of my friends instantly wanted in after seeing it for herself. The goal was simple, throughly convince someone that you absolutely adore a aspect(s) of a particular individual, when in reality we were blatantly making fun of him. We we not saying anything negative about these people, just the way in which we said the compliments that revealed the true nature of the context. This game is similar to what Regina George does in Mean Girls to other girls, however, art imitates life.
Is what I am really saying what I am not saying? I completely agree, and society does as well. We not only lie, but we have a special category for lies that don't really cause any harm, which is the white lie. Then there are instances where the truth is just slightly bent. True story, over break I started playing the 'compliment game' at gay clubs, one of my friends instantly wanted in after seeing it for herself. The goal was simple, throughly convince someone that you absolutely adore a aspect(s) of a particular individual, when in reality we were blatantly making fun of him. We we not saying anything negative about these people, just the way in which we said the compliments that revealed the true nature of the context. This game is similar to what Regina George does in Mean Girls to other girls, however, art imitates life.
NewYorker, Macherey
From what I got out of this reading was not much. I kept thinking about the parallels between words/communucation/speaking, and writing. Silence in real life can actually communicate a lot. Giving someone the silent treatment reflects anger, and that you're not talking to that specific person because they wronged you in some way. Facial expressions are also silent and yet communicate a lot, as well as gestures such as a hand wave or a thumbs-up. But when it comes to writing, I never really thought about what isn't being said, or the writers's silence. Now that I think about it though, sometimes it is very hard to put into words what one is thinking - if that occurs, that thought will be left out of the writing, thus leaving the reader to fill in tbe blank/gap (if one is made). Also, in a piece of writing, if absolutely everything is said about that topic, and there is no "silence" then there is nothing to critique on because all the bases have been covered, and thus would not make a compelling piece of writing.
I was also somewhat confused about what Macherey was trying to say about being a critic, or critiquing someone's work. Is he limiting their questions to two? Or saying a bad critique only asks one? I feel to be a good critic, there should be many questions asked. And if a question stumps the writer, the writer should re-visit the piece and figure out the problem. I agree though when he noted that "the aim of criticism is to speak the truth," (15). Critics should dig to the bottom of things, whether it be a peice of writing, or a piece of artwork, or an advertisement.
I was also somewhat confused about what Macherey was trying to say about being a critic, or critiquing someone's work. Is he limiting their questions to two? Or saying a bad critique only asks one? I feel to be a good critic, there should be many questions asked. And if a question stumps the writer, the writer should re-visit the piece and figure out the problem. I agree though when he noted that "the aim of criticism is to speak the truth," (15). Critics should dig to the bottom of things, whether it be a peice of writing, or a piece of artwork, or an advertisement.
WouldntULike2Know Macherey
"Speech eventually has nothing more to tell us: we investigate the silence, for it is the silence that is doing the speaking." (17)
--Pierre Macherey
Well, if thats the case, I wish he would stop talking so that I could understand what it is that he is saying (or not saying). Since it is virtually impossible to say everything in a work, there leaves room for further question and speculation. What the author decides is important to reveal is "the act of literary production" (18). What the author does not decide to be important textually, what is omitted, the silence and implications of the work are linked to what the author is really saying.
Macherey asks whether if something has hidden itself it can be recalled to our presence. Given the nature of an implied statement I would have to say that it could. Experience is what creates meaning. If something were to trigger a thought, even though it is not explicitly stated, the reader has the ability to recall it, thereby creating an interpretation that may or may not be received by all who read the work. This silence creates the unavoidable dilemma that all works across any medium face. Since it is impossible "to ask of every production what it tacitly implies, what it does not say" (17) we can not know the true nature of the creators intent.
--Pierre Macherey
Well, if thats the case, I wish he would stop talking so that I could understand what it is that he is saying (or not saying). Since it is virtually impossible to say everything in a work, there leaves room for further question and speculation. What the author decides is important to reveal is "the act of literary production" (18). What the author does not decide to be important textually, what is omitted, the silence and implications of the work are linked to what the author is really saying.
Macherey asks whether if something has hidden itself it can be recalled to our presence. Given the nature of an implied statement I would have to say that it could. Experience is what creates meaning. If something were to trigger a thought, even though it is not explicitly stated, the reader has the ability to recall it, thereby creating an interpretation that may or may not be received by all who read the work. This silence creates the unavoidable dilemma that all works across any medium face. Since it is impossible "to ask of every production what it tacitly implies, what it does not say" (17) we can not know the true nature of the creators intent.
DetectiveDanny, Macherey
Reading Macherey was like untangling myself from a web of barbed wire. It was not easy, it was not pleasant, and carelessness only made it worse. But, as one would find when they have freed themselves from a web of barbed wire, I was relieved to be free with a basic understanding of what just happened. I might understand what Macherey is saying in A theory of Literary Production, but I cannot help but think that it just leads us down an endless road of questioning.
The concept of what works say versus what they cannot say is very interesting. This can lead to a new way of taking in works of literature that I have spent time on. “In order to say anything, there are other things which must not be said”, so if I interpret a Kurt Vonnegut novel as having an anti war message, then something must not have been said in order for him to convey that message. I guess enough people have not said that “war is bad” so war happens. The silence out of which works of art such as literature emerge seems to be a silence of discontent.
Another concept presented by Macherey is the two questions one must ask to take a full critical approach. The first question is of the use of a theme. The second question is of the meaning of the theme. One thing that I have trouble understanding is how these two questions can aid us in revealing “what is not said”. What if a piece of art is expressing and studying an emotion, or a specific interpretation of an event? Is there a silence that creates art that makes these statements? I am sure that there are other approaches to critical theory, as this seems like it is based to much on assumption.
The concept of what works say versus what they cannot say is very interesting. This can lead to a new way of taking in works of literature that I have spent time on. “In order to say anything, there are other things which must not be said”, so if I interpret a Kurt Vonnegut novel as having an anti war message, then something must not have been said in order for him to convey that message. I guess enough people have not said that “war is bad” so war happens. The silence out of which works of art such as literature emerge seems to be a silence of discontent.
Another concept presented by Macherey is the two questions one must ask to take a full critical approach. The first question is of the use of a theme. The second question is of the meaning of the theme. One thing that I have trouble understanding is how these two questions can aid us in revealing “what is not said”. What if a piece of art is expressing and studying an emotion, or a specific interpretation of an event? Is there a silence that creates art that makes these statements? I am sure that there are other approaches to critical theory, as this seems like it is based to much on assumption.
BubbaNub : Pierre Macherey
This reading provided me with an excellent follow up to my last post on the arbitrary nature of language and sound. The signifiers and signified of semiotics can simply be described as the implicit and explicit meanings. Explicitly what we say has little bearing on the outcome of interpretation. However, implicitly somewhere in the realm of the subconscious and that certain absence of language we pull a more complex narrative aside. "This moment of absence founds the speech of work. Silences shape all speech" (C, 17). The original latent meaning is a mere structure, or framework, from which we derive numerous sights and sounds amidst its absence. It is this search for the implicit, the question we should ask ourselves daily "What is the unspoken saying?" that gives birth to the more critical tools to understand and analyze our culture.
Certainly the explicit plays an integral role in our assessments however. True meaning is derived from not one or the other, but the relation played out between them (C, 18). This is especially shown in insidious or biased questions. In order to understand the questions true nature we must recognize the relationship shared implicit and explicitly. This helps us to critically reveal the intentions behind what we are seeing and, in practice, what it may be meant to "draw our attention away from" (C, 18). For all the superfluous and abstract theorizing Pierre Macherey gives, his concepts are drawn from the very techniques we subconsciously perform everyday.
Certainly the explicit plays an integral role in our assessments however. True meaning is derived from not one or the other, but the relation played out between them (C, 18). This is especially shown in insidious or biased questions. In order to understand the questions true nature we must recognize the relationship shared implicit and explicitly. This helps us to critically reveal the intentions behind what we are seeing and, in practice, what it may be meant to "draw our attention away from" (C, 18). For all the superfluous and abstract theorizing Pierre Macherey gives, his concepts are drawn from the very techniques we subconsciously perform everyday.
Starfish Pierre Macherey
Pieree Macherey’s from A Theory of Literary Production made me think about silence. The first thing that came to my mind was silent movies. In my Russian Film class we are watching The Battleship Potemkin, which is a film from the 1920’s and is a silent picture. While watching the film, I was distracted by the lack of dialogue at first, but then something interesting happened. I began to pay close attention to the actor’s expressions and body language. They were speaking to me without saying a word. You don’t need language or words to express emotion of feeling. Macherey says, “Silence reveals speech…” (17.) “Silence becomes the centre and principle of expression” (17). As strange as it seems sometimes you can say more in silence that you can with verbal communication. It’s just like that country song that says, “You say it best when you say nothing at all,” or that famous phrase “silence is golden.”
Commenting on Bubble’s post about withholding the truth when one speaks; I believe this is something that is unavoidable. It is natural to filter our words when communicating. In some cases if one does not do this, they are considered blunt or rude. Also, In Bubble’s post he or she discusses that when describing our morning to someone, we don’t tell someone every little detail. They asked the question if this was lying. I don’t think this can be considered lying, because again it is just our brains naturally filtering certain information we find to be irrelevant or important enough to reveal. If we told someone every little detail of a story or of your day, the story would become boring and drawn out and our listener would probably lose attention quickly. Therefore with language, it is sometimes necessary to withhold certain things from being spoken.
Commenting on Bubble’s post about withholding the truth when one speaks; I believe this is something that is unavoidable. It is natural to filter our words when communicating. In some cases if one does not do this, they are considered blunt or rude. Also, In Bubble’s post he or she discusses that when describing our morning to someone, we don’t tell someone every little detail. They asked the question if this was lying. I don’t think this can be considered lying, because again it is just our brains naturally filtering certain information we find to be irrelevant or important enough to reveal. If we told someone every little detail of a story or of your day, the story would become boring and drawn out and our listener would probably lose attention quickly. Therefore with language, it is sometimes necessary to withhold certain things from being spoken.
July-->Pierrre Macherey
In the reading “From a Theory of Literacy Production” it elaborates on the hidden messages discourse can create. I am a strong believer in discourse not being “simple” nor “innocent”, simple because encoders can see text in numerous of ways, innocent because the sender has a purpose and messaging is involved. It is not up to the authors to predict what their audience might conclude from their readings, but it is the author’s main focus to get their point across. One’s language tends to cause a major problem when interpreting discourse because of the different meanings and thoughts about one subject that will arise. For example, this text rambles on and on about how one fills in the missing pieces of different readings, but the confusing part of this discourse is the comparisons between different expressions like, “Explicit is to implicit as explication is to implication: these oppositions derive from the distinction between the manifest and the latent, the discovered and the concealed.” Instead of elaborating with full details the author continues on with his argument, which leads an encoder or decoder to fill in the gaps left behind from the author.
The quote “…What the work cannot say is important, because there the elaboration of the utterance is acted out, in sort of a journey to silence” is kind of unique to me because it can go both ways. First, it implies that the ideas convey into one’s mind are superior because it leads them to generate multiple meaning or polysemy. Second, it can also suggest that silence about a reading is an okay thing, in reality it’s not because one needs know the underlying messages that an author may inscribe. For example, if I had a reading due for one of my classes I would not sit in class and not ask questions because eventually a quiz or a test will be given over the that particular text. When analyzing theoretical books I think it is imperative to become familiar with its significance.
The quote “…What the work cannot say is important, because there the elaboration of the utterance is acted out, in sort of a journey to silence” is kind of unique to me because it can go both ways. First, it implies that the ideas convey into one’s mind are superior because it leads them to generate multiple meaning or polysemy. Second, it can also suggest that silence about a reading is an okay thing, in reality it’s not because one needs know the underlying messages that an author may inscribe. For example, if I had a reading due for one of my classes I would not sit in class and not ask questions because eventually a quiz or a test will be given over the that particular text. When analyzing theoretical books I think it is imperative to become familiar with its significance.
Nichole 1/22
Just an aside: did you know that Eskimos have 14 words for the word snow? The language barrier we discussed in class that can essentially lose us in translation, is seen here. We obviously do not have 14 words that equate to snow so the extra words, as the reading for Tuesday noted, are distributed amongst the few words we do have for that particular word but in that translation, much of the meaning in that word is lost. The reason they have so many words for snow is because their culture revolves around snow where as our does not, we dont have the need for such words. I'm sure however, the same is true in reverse for words involving coffee. Think what we have: coffee, cappuccino, latte, mocha, double-tall, half-caf., frappaccino, bold, mild, smooth, two-pump etc.
thats all, just a thought!
thats all, just a thought!
Nichole 1/22
I was getting coffee the other day at Palmanos on Park Avenue (much better than Starbucks, as I am opposed to such globalization in our world today), and saw the grille outside that I said to a friend looks “very masculine”. To which he replied, “Yes, my friend just built a new pool house and another “grille-atorium”, a house for the huge grille. I feel that this is a gross display of wealth, but the real reason I bring this up is because I found it interesting that he made up this word to describe the grille house and I completely understood what he was describing. This relates to my take on Tuesdays class when we discussed the adaptation of language to different people in different times. I sincerely doubt someone of my grandmother’s age would understand what a grille-atorium would come to mean, or because of class I should use the word represent.
Sergeant Pepper said in his blog: “as we learn more about the language, as our vocabulary grows, and as our world experience grows, we adopt our own ways of saying things [and therefore, understand the language of our peers].” The language that we understand, as Doc Rog also brought up texting language that only people of our generation and below would comprehend, is completely dependent upon what we have experienced in life. I think important factors that weigh in on our speech are: age, education, our exposure to other cultures, and socio-economic standing. It is most likely obvious to you all why age, education, and exposure to cultures are tied into our diction but I say economic background because, in the situation of the grille-atorium, someone from inner-city Orlando might not know that people actually build houses, most likely larger than their own homes, for a freaking grille.
I also would like to refer back to my anti-Starbucks aside from above. Usually the things I am opposed to, like this worldly known coffee shoppe, are the ones we can know only by looking at the sign, like the green circle with a woman in the center with long flowing hair, or the EXXON sign discussed in class. That symbol to me, and most others, means coffee but to me it also means a company that is attempting to monopolize the coffee market by placing one every mile in suburbia and two per block in NYC. Sure signs mean different things to different people but the reason that little green woman means globalization to me is because of my environmental history background and education. I am sure that the green woman means something different to a person in economics. Perhaps it means, to that econ man, a successful business and one that he aspires to emulate one day. But seriously, get your drink on at the family run Palmanos, its better, I promise!
Sergeant Pepper said in his blog: “as we learn more about the language, as our vocabulary grows, and as our world experience grows, we adopt our own ways of saying things [and therefore, understand the language of our peers].” The language that we understand, as Doc Rog also brought up texting language that only people of our generation and below would comprehend, is completely dependent upon what we have experienced in life. I think important factors that weigh in on our speech are: age, education, our exposure to other cultures, and socio-economic standing. It is most likely obvious to you all why age, education, and exposure to cultures are tied into our diction but I say economic background because, in the situation of the grille-atorium, someone from inner-city Orlando might not know that people actually build houses, most likely larger than their own homes, for a freaking grille.
I also would like to refer back to my anti-Starbucks aside from above. Usually the things I am opposed to, like this worldly known coffee shoppe, are the ones we can know only by looking at the sign, like the green circle with a woman in the center with long flowing hair, or the EXXON sign discussed in class. That symbol to me, and most others, means coffee but to me it also means a company that is attempting to monopolize the coffee market by placing one every mile in suburbia and two per block in NYC. Sure signs mean different things to different people but the reason that little green woman means globalization to me is because of my environmental history background and education. I am sure that the green woman means something different to a person in economics. Perhaps it means, to that econ man, a successful business and one that he aspires to emulate one day. But seriously, get your drink on at the family run Palmanos, its better, I promise!
Bumble: Pierre Machery: A Theory of Literary Production
People always say use Tact. Using tact is in essence leaving out certain words. Is it lying though?
“If the author does not always say what he states, he does not necessarily state what he says” (Machery 19).
This actually raises a question, what is the truth? Is telling the truth just saying truthful words, or is it revealing all? Wording is everything, a statement can be said with tact and might leave out some of the words. Is this lying or telling the truth? I guess it depends on how you translate it, as everything is open to interpretation. According to Machery, “it is impossible to dissemble the truth of language” (19). For example, lets say you are telling a story to your parents and you tell them what you did in the afternoon… do you tell them everything? If you leave out certain bits and pieces are you therefore lying? It is actually practiced in every day life to leave things out of our stories and recounting of our lives.
When someone asks you, “Oh what did you do this morning?” you don't say "well, I woke up and put one foot on the ground, then the other one, then I stood up, then I walked one foot in front of the other to the bathroom, where I then picked up my toothbrush with my right hand and turned on the faucet…” We would be able to go on forever, we always leave things out of the equation that are clearly decipherable. You can say, “well I got up and went to class,” and people would assume and can piece together for him or herself what happened in between. So, is this hiding of words in essence lying? It can be if it is used for, “diverting attention.” People have motives and will put a positive or negative to the same words, by putting in more words or leaving more out, we can get entirely different meanings.
“If the author does not always say what he states, he does not necessarily state what he says” (Machery 19).
This actually raises a question, what is the truth? Is telling the truth just saying truthful words, or is it revealing all? Wording is everything, a statement can be said with tact and might leave out some of the words. Is this lying or telling the truth? I guess it depends on how you translate it, as everything is open to interpretation. According to Machery, “it is impossible to dissemble the truth of language” (19). For example, lets say you are telling a story to your parents and you tell them what you did in the afternoon… do you tell them everything? If you leave out certain bits and pieces are you therefore lying? It is actually practiced in every day life to leave things out of our stories and recounting of our lives.
When someone asks you, “Oh what did you do this morning?” you don't say "well, I woke up and put one foot on the ground, then the other one, then I stood up, then I walked one foot in front of the other to the bathroom, where I then picked up my toothbrush with my right hand and turned on the faucet…” We would be able to go on forever, we always leave things out of the equation that are clearly decipherable. You can say, “well I got up and went to class,” and people would assume and can piece together for him or herself what happened in between. So, is this hiding of words in essence lying? It can be if it is used for, “diverting attention.” People have motives and will put a positive or negative to the same words, by putting in more words or leaving more out, we can get entirely different meanings.
Bumble: A further note on Jencks
The ideas presented about the empty spaces in post modern architecture makes me think, is post modernism just an American phenomenon? How global is it? I can not seem to think that when traveling to the middle east where the woodwork, the details, the moldings on the buildings are all so intricate and highly elaborate. I happened to think that this attention to details shows a certain level of heart and love behind the work, as opposed to it being a mass produced item.
I get upset in the cookie cutter homes where each house is essentially identical. While these can be convenient, it shows a lack of independent thinking. Another example of this is in Baldwin Park. In this area they have a series of prefab designs to choose from. You can pick New England style or New York, or whatever they offer.
People feel that the beauty of the old details is incredible, yet are torn and mix it with the architecture of a more modern and sparse look. The article says, “Postmodernism is in this sense schizophrenic about the past: equally as determined to retain and preserve aspects of the past as it is to go forward; excited about revival.”
These words also relate to the concept we talked about in class of recreating the past like buy your new pair of 50’s style jeans. It is a replica, a mock, a fake remake of something from the past.
I get upset in the cookie cutter homes where each house is essentially identical. While these can be convenient, it shows a lack of independent thinking. Another example of this is in Baldwin Park. In this area they have a series of prefab designs to choose from. You can pick New England style or New York, or whatever they offer.
People feel that the beauty of the old details is incredible, yet are torn and mix it with the architecture of a more modern and sparse look. The article says, “Postmodernism is in this sense schizophrenic about the past: equally as determined to retain and preserve aspects of the past as it is to go forward; excited about revival.”
These words also relate to the concept we talked about in class of recreating the past like buy your new pair of 50’s style jeans. It is a replica, a mock, a fake remake of something from the past.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Bumble: Charles Jencks
"A Sleazy office floor..." WOW, who ever thought that they would be able to describe a room, a part of a room with the word SLEAZY. This article was fascinating because it is often so overlooked the building structures around us, the space that we conduct our lives. Restaurants, offices, schools, all of these reflect the postmodern world around us. The contrasts in buildings from the symmetrical and classical, to the asymmetrical and "fragmented unity," is extraordinary! Immediately after reading this, I started noticing the contrast between the, "Renaissance harmony and Modernist integration and the "disharmonious harmony" of postmodernism.
But the description words of the architecture was what was the most fascinating for me. Starting with calling a floor sleazy, this essentially gives a non human a human adjective, a description relating to a behavioral pattern of risque and well, "sleazy." Often I find that postmodern words can only be described using other forms of the same word. An example in this article is of the, "Urbane urbanism." The buildings are urban, but like many other things in postmodernism, the word is familiar because of contexts and past experiences and knowledge.
Eclectic, the whole idea of this new trend in style is about the mixing of genres, mixing of styles. This could stem in a macro level to the increase of globalization in the world. But along with buildings having a dab of this and a pinch of that, I notice this mixing with just about EVERYTHING! Food for example, the most famous restaurants in New York City right now are the Asian fusion. My favorite is a sushi bar and Mexican grill. There are no definitive lines anymore, it is all one big jumble of thoughts and foods and people.
The idea Jencks talks about of using anthropomorphism in buildings reminded me of all of the crazy theme restaurants. You have structures that look like characters, things in our world today, or a place in the world. One of the greatest examples of this is a theme restaurant called Mars 2112. This is a huge space designed to look like a spaceship, there is a simulator ride that you have to step into to get to your seats. You are then transported into a galaxy and served by "aliens." Imagine you were transported from the past and saw this restaurant, what would they think about the reenactment of the alien waiters? Theme restaurants are endless, Jeckle and Hyde, Batman, Caves, Castles, Renaissance festivals. The architecture is remarkable and are truly used to step outside of traditional architecture from a long time ago.
But the description words of the architecture was what was the most fascinating for me. Starting with calling a floor sleazy, this essentially gives a non human a human adjective, a description relating to a behavioral pattern of risque and well, "sleazy." Often I find that postmodern words can only be described using other forms of the same word. An example in this article is of the, "Urbane urbanism." The buildings are urban, but like many other things in postmodernism, the word is familiar because of contexts and past experiences and knowledge.
Eclectic, the whole idea of this new trend in style is about the mixing of genres, mixing of styles. This could stem in a macro level to the increase of globalization in the world. But along with buildings having a dab of this and a pinch of that, I notice this mixing with just about EVERYTHING! Food for example, the most famous restaurants in New York City right now are the Asian fusion. My favorite is a sushi bar and Mexican grill. There are no definitive lines anymore, it is all one big jumble of thoughts and foods and people.
The idea Jencks talks about of using anthropomorphism in buildings reminded me of all of the crazy theme restaurants. You have structures that look like characters, things in our world today, or a place in the world. One of the greatest examples of this is a theme restaurant called Mars 2112. This is a huge space designed to look like a spaceship, there is a simulator ride that you have to step into to get to your seats. You are then transported into a galaxy and served by "aliens." Imagine you were transported from the past and saw this restaurant, what would they think about the reenactment of the alien waiters? Theme restaurants are endless, Jeckle and Hyde, Batman, Caves, Castles, Renaissance festivals. The architecture is remarkable and are truly used to step outside of traditional architecture from a long time ago.
ChittyChittyBangBang 1/27
"Without language, thought is a vague, uncharted nebula." (5) --De Saussure
I really enjoyed Tuesday's class discussion. It really gave me a different perspective of perception. Dr. Rog opened up discussion with the question of what came first, ideas or language? The answer seems obvious, ideas. Although whatever thoughts that were had meant nothing until you could communicate them. With no language, would you even be able to have thoughts, would you yourself understand your thoughts without language? I also found it interesting when someone said that it all depends on your religious beliefs. Which led to that "In the beginning was the WORD. And that WORD was GOD."
Language is constantly evolving and it always will be. The ghoti exercise was really interesting. It's crazy to think that we just associate meanings and sounds with prior knowledge and experience. The Exxon excercise proved that theory. A word to us might be something completely different to someone else from a different time period or another culture. Who decides what words means what? Who decided what each letter sounds like and why?
These questions might not have a sensible answer to some but they are what connects us as a society and changes from generation to generation. Coming up with lingo and signs gives us power and the chance to have our own style of communication.
I really enjoyed Tuesday's class discussion. It really gave me a different perspective of perception. Dr. Rog opened up discussion with the question of what came first, ideas or language? The answer seems obvious, ideas. Although whatever thoughts that were had meant nothing until you could communicate them. With no language, would you even be able to have thoughts, would you yourself understand your thoughts without language? I also found it interesting when someone said that it all depends on your religious beliefs. Which led to that "In the beginning was the WORD. And that WORD was GOD."
Language is constantly evolving and it always will be. The ghoti exercise was really interesting. It's crazy to think that we just associate meanings and sounds with prior knowledge and experience. The Exxon excercise proved that theory. A word to us might be something completely different to someone else from a different time period or another culture. Who decides what words means what? Who decided what each letter sounds like and why?
These questions might not have a sensible answer to some but they are what connects us as a society and changes from generation to generation. Coming up with lingo and signs gives us power and the chance to have our own style of communication.
WouldntULike2Know 1/22
When I was ten years old, my parents decided to have another baby, my now nine year old brother, Peyton. Being old enough to watch a child learn and grasp concepts while slowly expanding his vocabulary is an interesting thing. However, I never really thought about how interesting it truly was until last class. What strikes me as so different is in the way my brother and I both acted at nine.
As a nine year old I walked around saying boys had "cooties" and listened to LFO and Backstreet Boys. Peyton, on the other hand, walks around talking about all his "hott" girlfriends and knows the soulja boy dance and lyrics--just not what they mean (dear God I hope). This difference is something that my parents vehemently assign responsibility to having grown up with older siblings. However, I realized just recently at a family wedding this winter that I am not to blame for Peytons knowledge of Hoes being Supermaned.
We have a cousin who is the same age as Peyton. He has slightly older siblings, but not old enough to corrupt him as much as my older brother and I have to peyton. Anyway, this nine year old cousin lives on a farm in east Tennessee and is raised the epitome of a "good old boy" family. He too, knows the dance and lyrics to "Crank That."
DeSaussure said "The community is necessary if values that owe their existence soley to usage and general acceptance are to be set up..." therefore I have found my scapegoat. I am blaming peytons advanced knowledge of worldly topics on Flo Rida, TPain and Lil John.
As a nine year old I walked around saying boys had "cooties" and listened to LFO and Backstreet Boys. Peyton, on the other hand, walks around talking about all his "hott" girlfriends and knows the soulja boy dance and lyrics--just not what they mean (dear God I hope). This difference is something that my parents vehemently assign responsibility to having grown up with older siblings. However, I realized just recently at a family wedding this winter that I am not to blame for Peytons knowledge of Hoes being Supermaned.
We have a cousin who is the same age as Peyton. He has slightly older siblings, but not old enough to corrupt him as much as my older brother and I have to peyton. Anyway, this nine year old cousin lives on a farm in east Tennessee and is raised the epitome of a "good old boy" family. He too, knows the dance and lyrics to "Crank That."
DeSaussure said "The community is necessary if values that owe their existence soley to usage and general acceptance are to be set up..." therefore I have found my scapegoat. I am blaming peytons advanced knowledge of worldly topics on Flo Rida, TPain and Lil John.
Sgt. Pepper, 1/22
"Dictionaries are like watches; the worst is better than none, and the best cannot be expected to go quite true." -Samuel Johnson
I loved the discussion we had on language and symbols last Tuesday. It's crazy to think that our English language was once arbitrarily developed by a group of men with their own ideas, but has come to mean so much, and such different things, to so many people. I was also taken aback thinking about the idea that all symbols are just as arbitrary as words are. And the fact that mankind has the capacity not only to adapt to these meaningless grunts, but to make them their own.
This brings me to the quote I began this blog with by Samuel Johnson. I think what he means by this is that yeah, technically there is a textbook definition to every word in every language, but that words have come to mean so much more than their textbook definition, and have even taken on a different meaning to each person. We are taught how to form sentences in the basic subject and predicate manner, but as we learn more about the language, as our vocabulary grows, and as our world experience grows, we adopt our own ways of saying things, and can use words to describe our own personal feelings.
I also liked the post where someone talked about making up his or her own language as a child. I did the same thing as a child, and to this day, am fascinated by the development of language. As our world evolves with the ideas of postmodernism, so develops our language.
I loved the discussion we had on language and symbols last Tuesday. It's crazy to think that our English language was once arbitrarily developed by a group of men with their own ideas, but has come to mean so much, and such different things, to so many people. I was also taken aback thinking about the idea that all symbols are just as arbitrary as words are. And the fact that mankind has the capacity not only to adapt to these meaningless grunts, but to make them their own.
This brings me to the quote I began this blog with by Samuel Johnson. I think what he means by this is that yeah, technically there is a textbook definition to every word in every language, but that words have come to mean so much more than their textbook definition, and have even taken on a different meaning to each person. We are taught how to form sentences in the basic subject and predicate manner, but as we learn more about the language, as our vocabulary grows, and as our world experience grows, we adopt our own ways of saying things, and can use words to describe our own personal feelings.
I also liked the post where someone talked about making up his or her own language as a child. I did the same thing as a child, and to this day, am fascinated by the development of language. As our world evolves with the ideas of postmodernism, so develops our language.
Starfish 1/22
While reading this week’s assigned material, I found myself drowning in concepts and words I couldn’t grasp. I then remembered that Dr. Rog told us in class not to freak out if the reading was hard to understand, which made me feel a little bit better. In class on Tuesday everything came to light due to our discussion in class. Now I feel I truly understand the idea of semiotics and I feel my view of language in general has changes tremendously. A quote from class that really stuck with me was “Choice of a given slice of sound to name a given idea is completely arbitrary” (6). I completely agree with this statement and have often thought about this in my own way. For example, sometimes when saying a certain word I begin to find that the word sounds funny. Spoon, chair, table. These seem so random. Why were these words chosen to name these items? This reiterates the quote above.
Another thing I found interesting was the whole idea of signs. In CMC 100 we had discussed the signifier and signified in advertisements and things such as that. We also discussed how these two things work together to create a sign but I never really realized how much a sign could change its meaning until the Exxon exercise we did in class. From my perspective, I see a sign and automatically link it with a past experience or a feeling, but a sign can mean something very different to someone else viewing it. This is why media is an open text because different people have different views and perspectives about certain aspects of media. I believe that the study of language and signs is a critical aspect to be studying for this major and a very interesting one as well. We see signs and use words to communicate everyday and think nothing of it. I really do believe that Dr. Rog was right when he said this class would change our thinking and our views forever because after discussing language and signs like we have, it is hard not to look at it all in a different light.
Another thing I found interesting was the whole idea of signs. In CMC 100 we had discussed the signifier and signified in advertisements and things such as that. We also discussed how these two things work together to create a sign but I never really realized how much a sign could change its meaning until the Exxon exercise we did in class. From my perspective, I see a sign and automatically link it with a past experience or a feeling, but a sign can mean something very different to someone else viewing it. This is why media is an open text because different people have different views and perspectives about certain aspects of media. I believe that the study of language and signs is a critical aspect to be studying for this major and a very interesting one as well. We see signs and use words to communicate everyday and think nothing of it. I really do believe that Dr. Rog was right when he said this class would change our thinking and our views forever because after discussing language and signs like we have, it is hard not to look at it all in a different light.
Jiggy 1/27/08
Last weeks class really opened my eyes to the way we perceive and interpret our language. Growing up we are all taught that language is an absolute fact, with rules to follow and ways to say. Through the reading of De Saussure and our class discussion we can see that language is a learned process created by humans. It almost seems as though we believe that words are not created, but given by some higher power. In class when we when over the pronunciation of Ghoti I really opened up to the idea of perception. Language arranges our thoughts and allows us to communicate, the way we arrange can sometimes alter our perceived meaning. The message that Ghoti proved can serve as a micro example of larger issues in our daily lives. This can be seen through the hidden agendas of friends, co-workers and acquaintances who deceive their true intentions. Understanding words and language is natural to all humans, but analysing and dissecting its meaning is how true leaning occurs. Words have the effect to change our mood, character and lives but the effectiveness of putting them together. Just this post alone will be scrutinized by the masterly of verbal skills and coherent thoughts. The importance of language is seen through every ones personal experiences and with it can change the lives of people around us.
Cuckoo 1/22
Tuesday discussion was interesting, it amazes me how much our language has changed. We have gone from using words, to slang, to now signs. Our generations have sayings that our parents wouldn’t even understand. Saying such as I just wrote on your wall, facebooked you, tagged you, or friended you would have no meaning to our parents. Yet, they had sayings that have disappeared. Not only has language changed, but also how we are able to identify so many things by their logo. The idea that such a small sign or symbol can have so much meaning in our society today. One of the examples that Dr. Rog used in class was the gas station Exxon symbol. When we are driving and look up and see the Exxon logo we understand that it is a gas station that is usually attached with a convenient store attached and in some cases a car wash. A simple logo signifies so much. Such larger corporations do not have to give their customers a list of words to tell them what they have to offer; just a simple logo will suffice. Designer jeans show how we are able to look at the pocket of a pair of pants and tell who makes them. Not only are we able to identify a certain products by their logo, but by songs as well.
kaymac 1.22.08
One of my absolute favorite words to use is “absofuckinglutely” because, in my mind, you can’t be any surer than that. So this brings to me to something that I am interested in, which is how the word “fuck” came to be such a bad word. It has so many variations, uses, and definitions. Urbandictionary.com has eight definitions to the word and 66 sounds—meaning close definitions or variations.
So how did one of the “worst” words to say in the English language adapt so many forms and definitions? DeSaussure and Dr. Rog said something along the lines that the community establishes meanings to words, so something must have happened to give “fuck” such a bad rep, considering it wasn’t even in a dictionary until 1972.
So with some research, I found that “fuck’s” origin is Germanic, although that’s up for debate. I also found some reports about Eddy Duchin remaking a Louis Armstrong song in 1938 during The Great Depression and he used the word “fuck” in it. Over 170,000 copies were sold, which was 12 times the average sale back then. Was it because it had the word “fuck” in it and the public wanted something that was taboo? Or take J.D. Salinger’s “The Catcher in the
But through all of this, I haven’t been able to find out why “fuck” is a bad word and I don’t think anybody knows. But then again, how do all words get their meanings and to go further back, how are they even formed? Dr. Rog is right, this naming of things is arbitrary. We as a human race just put sounds that we could make together and slapped them onto things to make us feel more superior, which is a lot like politics. Maybe it isn’t so arbitrary after all.
boo boo bear 1-22
In class this week, we took some time and talked about language and the evolution of language. When Dr. Rog said some phrases in old English I thought for sure he was speaking some other language. When he told us that it was just old English I was shocked. It is amazing to me how language can evolve and change in just a couple hundred years. As a kid I always wondered what it would be like to go back in time but now that I know languages evolve, going back in time would be awful. No one would understand a word I said and I would be able to understand anything anyone else said. Now that I think about it, I can see language evolving right before my eyes every day. There are times I might say a word or a phrase and my mom or grandmother have no idea what I was saying. At the same time they might say a word or phrase that I would never hear one of my friends say. Someone mentioned in class how you never hear anybody say “golly” any more. I head words like “golly”, “gee wiz”, or “over yonder” all the time when I hear my grandparents talk. Since I have heard those words my whole life I know their meanings, but when I am a grandparent, my generation will not use those words. Those words will not exist to my grandkids because they will have never heard them before. As I realized this, it became clear to me how a language can evolve so much that I can not even come close to understanding the English language 1000 years ago. If each generation just changes about 10 words, that would mean after 1000 years there would be thousands of extra words that would cause the language to be completely different.
DetectiveDanny 1/22
During the last class period, we were presented with the “word” ghoti and had to figure out what it meant, we had to decode it. What I found most interesting was the way in which we all approached this. First, we all tried to pronounce the letters in sequence like an English word. Realizing that this was no word we knew, one moves to the conclusion that it must be some word in another language, so we all started pronouncing it differently. In the end, we found out that it was “fish”. It was hard for us to get here because it did not fit within our natural progression of logic. We had to operate outside of and around the signifiers that we know.
I found this exercise most interesting especially in how we can relate this back to media and culture. It is all about what happens when we see certain things and in what context. For example, if we had seen “ghoti” on a sign in a foreign country, we might assume that it is a foreign word. For example, in a media context, when we see something on television, we are trained to go through a certain thought process. When we see a news analyst pontificating on some subject, we have become accustomed to just swallowing the information without chewing. We will associate someone with the way they are portrayed, instead of painting our own image of them based on facts.
Though because of Critical Media 100, it is pretty difficult for me to read a magazine or watch a television show without constantly seeing the individual signs and signifiers. One of the things that this leads me to ask is how many people are viewers that take these signs out of context and actually examine them critically.
I found this exercise most interesting especially in how we can relate this back to media and culture. It is all about what happens when we see certain things and in what context. For example, if we had seen “ghoti” on a sign in a foreign country, we might assume that it is a foreign word. For example, in a media context, when we see something on television, we are trained to go through a certain thought process. When we see a news analyst pontificating on some subject, we have become accustomed to just swallowing the information without chewing. We will associate someone with the way they are portrayed, instead of painting our own image of them based on facts.
Though because of Critical Media 100, it is pretty difficult for me to read a magazine or watch a television show without constantly seeing the individual signs and signifiers. One of the things that this leads me to ask is how many people are viewers that take these signs out of context and actually examine them critically.
BubbaNub 1/22
For countless years we have been trained the rules and exceptions of English. We have accepted in our minds that there exists a solid structure behind language, a rational and complex development of sounds. However, from a critical perspective as de Saussure points out, these associations made between language and sound are ultimately arbitrary. What is it then that distinguishes ourselves, and our linguistics, from other animals? Surely apes, elephants, cats, dogs and tigers communicate to each other through their own signifiers of sound. It could be clarified then, that we humans have the capability of precise language. It is this assertion of both the signifier and signified that develops the more complex narrative of semiotics. "Without the help of signs we would be unable to make a clear-cut consistent distinction between two ideas" (C, 5). The concept of ghoti has made this point all too clear. The inconsistency and arbitrary assertions made within our language alone shows that clearly sounds mean nothing in context, because it is the signs around us that dictate the majority of our readings.
One thing I have learned over the years is that the majority of people are liars. Often we say one thing and do another. In everyday life we are incapable of communicating merely through words devoid of signs. The listener is required to constantly assess expressions, pictures, and even colors before they are capable of truly interpreting what the other is saying. For instance, many of us have said throughout our lives, "I am fine" when our body language clearly says differently. Constantly we are forced to evaluate more than just words to find the real meaning behind the cover. That, in itself, is the study of semiotics. Not just a study of signs, but perhaps one that can lead us into an examination of human nature.
romulus 1/22
"Without language, thought is a vague unchartered nebula". Language is systematic, the flexibility of English has allowed it to evolve along with society. Language has placed us in a network where data that is constantly being transferred. We are unaware of the massive flow of information taking place all around us, if not through us which is more common. The array of communications available today does not cause fear in the hearts of common citizens. Most people understand or are adjusting to communicating today.
The systematic nature of language not only parallels other institutions that we depend on to live civilized lives but it changes my entire freshman year experience. I entered Rollins in the fall of 2004. Traditionally, I knew who my roommate was going to be from a letter from the residential life. All that was provided was a name, address and telephone number. This was a complete reflection of several years ago. I had received a letter from Kent with the exact 3 pieces of information on it about my future roommate. Everyone in my freshman class got the same letter. There were a couple of awkward phones calls that summer and then it was a waiting game. I did not get a cell phone until orientation had begun. I missed an important call that would of changed the beginnings of my first year. I found out that my roommate and I had arrived in town both earlier (technically on-time but hurricane Charlie), and we could of actually gotten to hang out before me moved in together. The introduction of Facebook halfway through the year completely altered the social structure of the college experience forever. The following year, after meeting a bunch of the freshman who lived in Ward with me, I found out that once they found out who their roommate was going to be Facebook was the first place they went. People were hanging out with future classmates, and that is cool.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)