sawsaw 2/9

Taking the trip downtown on Thursday helped to make Jencks' concepts more clear. The fact that we could clearly identify examples of his concepts in today's architecture made me realize how relevant these concepts really are. The first building we looked at, Bank of America was a perfect example of disharmonious harmony. The different shapes of the windows, different shades of color and different size buildings made the building different yet harmonious. Even though there were many different elements to the building it all flowed and seemed to work. The Bank of America was also a good example of double-coding. It had many similarities to a church with a steple and also shadowed a Roman courtyard. After analyzing these concepts, I realized how much time and preparation went into designing this building. The architect specifically came up with those ideas to make this buildiing stand out and trigger a visual appeal in the viewer. Although the Bank of America, Orange County Courthouse, and other office buildings in the area are all able to stand by themselves, they share some harmonious design elements. They have similiar shades of color, similiar materials were used and they seem to flow visually in that space. I found the concepts by Jencks to be very helpful in analysizing these buildings. Now that I have an understanding of these ideas I will better be able to view architecture wherever I go.

Jiggy 2/8

Our trip to downtown Orlando yesterday really illustrated alot of the concepts in class more clearly. It was interesting to have a first hand look at the techneques used in postmodern architechure to show creativity. I had never took a close look at the Orange County court house, never had to go in it yet, and was surprized at the varying styles used. I was perticualy interested in the shapes and design of the windows in the tower portion of the building. As Walt Disney did with his cindalella castle the designers made more windows then floors to show height. This illusion makes the building seem twice as tall and more grand. The Bank of America building showed alot of other concepts that were clear and some disguised. Clearly the building was multivalenced with its intented outside frame, but other concepts such as Urbane urbanism were more discrete and harder to find. I saw the outside patio section as urbane urbanism with its resturant and stores, this was also seen at the court house buildings. Overall the trip downtown greatly improved my sence of the concepts that we were learning in class. Now I will able to more clearly observe postmodern architechture and analyse its importance to the surroundings.

NewYorker 2/7

Today's class was so usefull in terms of applying the vocabulary we learned in class to real architecture (not to mention local). At first, I didn't know what to make of the Bank of America Building. Overall, it had a nice visual appeal, but I couldn't think of any terms that described it. After listening to the class speak about it, I began to see what they would point out - the glass window panes, the brass in the center of the circle windows, the "Cingular Wireless ad with the four bars" etc. Even when someone pointed out how the building next to it mirrored that building, it was so cool to look at - it looked so morphed, as if it were melting. I think I liked the courthouse the most though. It was not a typical looking courthouse as one might expect. However, when we looked closely, some elements reflected the law/power - the crown, the metal, the steel jail cell looking doors, etc... I also liked the fact that it was new, clean, and just overall had visual appeal. And if you think about it, it's not just a place where criminals and low-lives go. Lawyers and Police officers have to go there everyday, ordinary people with parking tickets go there, couples getting divorces or adopting a baby go there - it is truly a public place, so why not make it look nice? Why not have a cafe on the outside where people can eat and mingle in the courtyard - I think that was a very good idea, and a place to make money and give someone a job (For the people who work in the cafe). Also, I think that it is great of the city of Orlando to try to update and give a "facelift" to downtown, and make it look nice.

Starfish 2/7

I highly enjoyed today’s class for several reasons. First of all, although I have been a student at Rollins for a while now, I have never walked around downtown Orlando before. Therefore, I have never had the time to view the sights and admire the architecture. The second reason I enjoyed today’s trip was because it made the whole idea of postmodern architecture come alive. We viewed many different pictures of examples in class the other day, but to truly grasp the whole concept you need to see it with your own eyes. I was surprised at how many buildings were postmodern and how they all seemed to be in the same vicinity. The building I found to be most the interesting was the courthouse. I immediately noticed anamnesis and tradition reinterpreted because of the stairway leading to the columned entrance. The columns instantly reminded me of Greek and Roman architecture, which is fitting because it is the courthouse and reverting to classical architecture gives it a dictatorial feel. I also was quick to notice that the taller part of the building gave off a phallic vibe, which was very interesting. The phalace shape represents power and masculinity, therefore very becoming for a building of law and order. I also found the whole concept of the building to be contradicting. The absent center that we stood in reminded me of a forum. This was meant to be a place for people to congregate and socialize. The landscaping was inviting, and all around the center were places to eat and relax. This sent out the message “Come here. Have a nice time at the courthouse. Don’t be afraid.” Then, the building itself that surrounds the center is cold and uninviting. The colors are a dark grey and the front doors looked barred like a prison door. The courthouse is definitely sending it’s visitors mixed messages!

Elizabeth byrne benjamin / post modern

Today, I went to the Rollins Museum with my Religion and the Body class. Through out the presentation of the various pieces of art I kept the idea of authenticity in my head. As I was walking through, I found myself still having trouble in finding the difference between authentic and original. There were new pieces of art that challenged religion and pieces that re created those of Adam and Eve along with images of Christ. The way I saw these images that seemed as though they were very old (yet only a few years old) were original, but not authentic. I have come to think of it as knowing the background of such pieces of art in order to tell if it is "real" or not. However, when I though back to the Cartier watch that Doc Rog bought in China it is neither original nor authentic.

Another piece of work that provoked a lot of thought and disscusion was a video that was made by a contemporary artist who makes videos of her work. Throughout her career she has had her friends or volunteers go out in the nude for various exhibitions around the world. In the particular video that was showing the women were only wearing panty hoes standing for three hours. They were aloud to sit and lay down but they had to stay stationary. They ranged from 18-60, different weights and heights, with only red, blonde, and black hair. (this particular show was in Berlin , the colors representing Germany's flag) The video was controversial because some critics saw it as worthless and demeaning to women and others saw it as empowering and liberating to women. This brought me to the idea of post modern art and how people see it. With in our culture we are some what used to seeing nude bodies in art, however is it still an art with nude bodies if people are paying to go see it? Fifty years ago this type of art may have been shunned as looked at as pornography, but in contemporary society is it really any different?

kaymac 2.5.08

In my art history class we are smack dab in the middle of the Renaissance. In this, we started talking about neo-platonism. In this theory, everything we create is based off of the ideal yet we cannot make perfect copies of it, so therefore everything we create is an imperfect copy of the ideal. This really made Benjamin's reading clear to me.

I always think it is difficult to define art and so when somebody asks you to explain why a rock with red paint on it is art compared to a rock with white paint splattered over it, you can never give a full answer. Art is always in the context that it is seen in. Like the example Dr. Rog gave us with the woman putting her drink on the sculpture and a bum telling her it was art versus the VP of the college. If you take art out of it's context, like the cave painting, it grows into something else. The cave painting is no longer part of the cave. When you look at it, you are no longer standing in the spot that Uga Uga stood in while s/he painted it and therefore it has a different feeling and context.

Finally, "everybody who witnesses its [a film's] accomplishments is somewhat of an expert...At any moment, the reader is ready to turn into a writer (27)." What gets me the most is the first part of this quote. How many times have you heard, after somebody sees the original of a Monet or Picasso or even a Pollock, somebody say that they could have created that work if they tried. This goes for all art. People find it to be trivial, I think, and that is why they believe they can be experts on it, because if it is not important, then anybody can say whatever they want of it as long as they have seen the original because they are close to what "experts" would have done, which is looked at the original.

nichole benjamin

Section six says, "The cult of remembrance of loved ones, absent or dead, offers a last refuge for the cult value of the picture." (24).
I stopped to think about this quote after I first read it because, as a student of photography myself, I never really thought about finding refuge in a picture. I have recently become opposed to photography because I had a revelation on day that picture taking impairs our own imagination. As we also discussed in class, a film director impairs our imagination of a book it is based upon. I personally would LIKE to remember a vacation or family member as I do in my mind which is more often than not a positive representation. I also think that Americans feel so pressed to work more to spend more, also known as Marx's "new consumerism", that when Americans travel, they are SO uncomfortable relaxing for once in their lives that they feel as though they have to work on vacation. Often times photography can fill that void on a vacation.
Section six also brings this up: "The meaning of each single picture appears to be prescribed by the sequence of all preceding ones" (24) I have had this discussion with professor Tillmann in CMC 100 last semester but find it appropriate to bring up here too. So, as in a film, each picture you see processes in your mind with reference to previous pictures or slides (this also reminds me of the exercise we performed in class with the directors story), but the same holds true with advertisements. Think of the 5000 advertisements we see daily. If we were to take each ad as if we have never seen one before... we would be ASTOUNDED! "Worlds best cup of coffee!" wow what a feat thats amazing congratulations (this is what I would think). Whereas instead, we know that the last coffee shop had the same sign and award on the wall. Everything we see and think of is relevant to the things we have seen in our lives. That really ads up I guess, maybe old people really are wiser... or maybe they just have learned to not take anything too literally. peace.

Elizabeth Byrne -2/5

Ever since Doc Rog first brought up the quote "antiques made to order", I have been thinking about antiques and my experience. While I was in boarding school my mom would always love driving me from my home in Long Island up to Connecticut because she could stop and look at all the antique shops on the way to school. I would go in with her and look around and some things were obviously not "antique", and looked as if they were from Ikea or Pottery Barn. Along with this seemingly contemporary items there were chests, chairs, lamps etc. with dust all of them leaving the barn type store with a musty smell. I could never understand the exact antique "look" that my mom was going for or how she knew what "antiques" were authentic or not.
I found William Benjamin's essay easier to understand than some of our other readings, however today's class got me thinking and a bit confused on how and what we classify as authentic or original. My mom recently moved to Florida, and completely re-decorated our new house with various new and old pieces of furniture. She had many bureau's and chairs passed down from her mother that were apparently very nice and good quality. My mom had the chairs recovered with a new fabric to change if from the previously New England look to the more Floridan and "beachy" look. Everything of the chair was the same except for the fabric except my mom still classifies it as an antique passed down from her mother. But the fabric is not the same so would it not be considered the original anymore? With the same chairs our dogs chewed one leg of the chair and my mom almost started crying because the chairs were so old, antique, and had sentimental value to her. I suggested that she should take it somewhere to get the chair fixed, and she didn't want to because she didn't want someone to change the way the wood was and it would take away from the authentic look. But so then why didn't the change of fabric take away from that "look"? (As I continue to write I have found myself again at a state of confusing.) I suppose I am trying to figure out why she would change the fabric and not get the wood fixed? (or is her logic off as to what is authentic or original) Yes, she kept the original chair but changed the fabric- does the fabric change take away from the authenticity of the chair?

Bella 2/5

“Reproduction differs from the image seen by the unarmed eye” (Benjamin 22). I found this quote in Dr. Rog’s PowerPoint to be one of the most important quotes we discussed in class today. The concept of an “armed eye” is a perfect explanation for the way critical media teaches us to view the world, and it’s an explanation I had never encountered. We are taught concepts, beliefs, and ideas throughout our lives, creating a cultural lens, a trained cultural lens that distorts everything we see. Without an understanding of name, authenticity, importance, value, etc, how do we know what’s real and what’s not, what’s good and what’s bad, what’s authentic and what’s fake? The ability to judge a piece of work does not come from our eyes it comes from our knowledge. We know that certain qualities about a text make it good–music and lighting make a film good, unique, modern designs make architecture good, well-formed ideas and thoughts on paper make a book good. Without those cultural understandings, perception wouldn’t exist. We make arguments based on what we already know and accept as art, but are easily convinced by new arguments. Our ideas of beauty, style, structure, etc. are all drastically different than what they were sixty years ago. Our perceptions are easily molded and changed to fit the fluid nature of the world. It is ever changing, evolving each day, and we, as humans, go right along with the movement, constantly adapting. Our eyes are armed with knowledge that we have collected through our lives and the lives of those before us. Critical Media studies has helped to build up this barrier even more, adding knowledge of the unseen and to create a body of people who do not readily accept everything that is put in front of them. We have become an army of eyes, constantly scanning, judging, deciphering, and interpreting to our hearts’ content. I think that Benjamin would argue that we should break away from this and appreciate the raw, unprotected, naked concept of a new piece of work. He would argue that reproduction of such a piece takes away from its immediate value, its immediate seduction. In order to fully appreciate an original, authentic piece of work, the critic must be turned off, the machines shut down, and we must simply observe and appreciate each text as it is in its most vulnerable state.

Bumble: 2/5 post class

Authenticity… WHAT IS IT!?

I was thinking about how we define something that is authentic? For the most part we assume something is authentic based on the setting or environment of the object.

Take art for example, none of us with our untrained and armed eye would be able to look at a piece of art and say, “that is the original.” If we see a poster with a Monet painting on it, sure we assume that it is a “fake.” We would define it by what it is not, that it is NOT an original.

Setting absolutely effects our perception of the quality of the work. Last year we had Matisse paintings in the Cornell Fine Arts Museum. I was not inclined to believe that they were the originals simply because they were in this museum. However, I was not entirely sure. I remember staring at them for what seemed like an eternity. Sometimes I thought they were prints, other times I felt certain that they were original. That skeptisicm I had was because of the setting. If those paintings were placed in the Metroplotian Museum of Art, or the MOMA, they 150% hands down would be “real, authentic” Matisse artwork. If there were a so to speak “knock-off” Van Gogh in the Met, would any patron visiting go up to the painting and say, “hey that’s not authentic!” No, because we make assumptions based on our location. Just as we were talking about the Izod shirt being bought in Macys, or on the street, we are quick to assume people are telling the truth or that it is authentic, but WHO ACTUALLY KNOWS!? Credibility comes from a perceived notion that someone has authority and greater understanding of a situation than others.

Another interesting point in class was expanding my vision that food is a form of art. How often do we opt for the mass produced, large bulk quantity of food at a super center like COSCO? COSCO is the master of mass production; it is a place that takes away from the authenticity or the aura of the original. A good way of looking at the mass production of food, restaurants, or take out; is by seeing that the aura of the authentic would be the home cooked meal. The sensation of the smells wafting through the kitchen, the cookies… We do not get that with microwave meals; we do not get our hands dirty and create authentic food. Microwave food is full of things to make it almost “fake.” They can last forever without spoiling, is this real?

I am torn in this because while living in a society and culture that values time efficiency, I feel like I need to stay speedy, eat hastily, nuke my food in the microwave. At the same time, I have a profound love of the cooking channel, to take my time, appreciate the art of cooking and the authentic aura or “AROMA” of the food. There is NOTHING that can replace that essence of good cuisine!

Nichole 2-1

Baldwin Park: We all know of these complexes in and around our own towns and we all know what these communities are attempting to do but who REALLY likes them.

When I interned at Naples Illustrated, a fashion and society magazine, this summer I was sent out to write my first article on Ave Maria, a new town built by Tom Monahan, the inventor of Dominos Pizza. The concept is similar to that of Baldwin Park with a town center, a retail and grocery section, and a place where residents are encouraged to walk everywhere. There is also a new college currently being built called Ave Maria University. The only difference is that this town is based around the Catholic church. The center of the town has an oratory and the convenience stores aren’t allowed to sell contraception or pornography magazines or films. I find this all moderately creepy but what I have an even bigger problem with is that someone can step into any town and shoot up an entire town.

Aren’t these neighborhoods a sad attempt at re-creating the Italian Piazza, which includes small streets and open air cafes and the true sense of the meaning know thy neighbor actually stands true.

AND SO, the reason I bring all this up isn’t to express my strong opinion on this topic, but rather to explore the new concept of double coding: two signifiers working at the same time that represents one thing but is another. So can an entire town be double coded? I ask because the Baldwin Parks and Ave Maria’s of the world are trying to encode this sense of community by shooting up town centers and different styles of living based upon family income. In reality, to me at least, these towns represent a fake re-incarnation of European towns that will never succeed in the sense of community because it is all too forced. So I pose this to the rest of the class: can an entire town be double coded??

kMO Benjamin

In theory art has always been a piece of work that could be reproduced. In earlier times, master artisans would reproduce a product for a profit and pupils would reproduce that same product for learning purposes. However, in present times when a mechanical aspect is thrown in the mix, it appears that the original work loses its appeal and originality.

Benjamin states, “Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: it’s presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be.” As soon as I read this, the first word that popped into my mind is, Photoshop. With this program it is possible to take an original and implant or remove anything you want. Is it possible that the unique existence of any body of work is solely determined by its UNALTERED history? If so, we are screwed....

It is my opinion that the mass production of art has resulted in a deapreciation of the arts. As art progresses in a technological aspect we risk losing the “aura” of art that Benjamin discusses throughout this section. The idea of quantity over quality is flourishing and creating a mass marketing industry out of a tradition-based trade.

“All efforts to render politics aesthetic culminate in one thing: war.” (34) Benjamin claims that there are numerous ways that war embodies beauty and “mass produces” art. I enjoy art and hate war so initially that statement infuriated me and I almost put the book down – good thing I didn’t. After reading the next few lines I disovered that this manifesto is one of most intelligent ideas I have read this year.

War is beautiful because it initiates the dreamt – of metallization of the human body
Ware is beautiful because it enriches a flowering meadow with the fiery orchids of machine guns.
War is beautiful because it combines the gunfire, the cannonades, the cease-fire, the cents and the stench of putrefaction into a symphony.
War is beautiful because it creates new architecture like that of the big tanks, the geometrical formation flights, the smoke spirals from burning villages and many more.

When broken down, every one of these feelings can be applied to what is represented in beautiful artwork. The emotions, the human desires, the smells, and the aura of life are what artists spend a lifetime trying to capture.

Benjamin, Detective Danny

First off, I would like to thank Walter Benjamin for being so nice as to break this piece into nice little sections. It makes the seemingly undigestable easier to swallow. As an artist, these critiques on the implications of art and their relationship with time are interesting.
The arts of photography and film are obviously the easiest to discuss in terms of reproduction and its effects. It was interesting in the discussion of the film, how Benjamin was almost questioning whether acting on film was as legitimate as acting for the stage.
One thing I have a hard time grasping is the relationship between mechanical reproduction of art and fascism. When politics and art become intertwined, is the outcome always war as Benjamin suggests? When politics and art are assimilated, I find that it often encourages discussion. Division can arise from it, but it can also encourage people to view a certain issue or political topic from another angle.
Being an actor for the stage and a lover of theater, I had a fun time contemplating the “aura” of certain works of art. For example, when you go to a museum, you can feel a communion with the art that cannot be translated when looking at a picture of it on the internet. This same thing can be felt in the theatre, as there is only an invisible wall separating you from the manifestation of the art. This will be interesting as we go on our architecture field trip, as when you are standing in a building or viewing it, you are enveloped by the aura of the art behind the building. As I have no real experience in viewing architecture as art for pleasure, I am excited to hopefully discover something new, and hopefully it wont lead to me becoming a fascist.

NewYorker - benjamin

The idea of replicating art is very interesting. After so many established artists, I think it can be very difficult to be original anymore. At least for me I think it would be hard. I'm sure for a true artist they would still have their creativitiy and therefore originality. I agreed with Benjamin when he spoke about replicating art versus replicating photography, and that it is easier to replicate photography because of the speed. " And photographic reproduction, with the aid of certain processes, such as enlargement or slow motion, can capture images which escape natural vision." (20). This quote I find very interesting, and true. Not only can a photographer replicate another photographer's style, or vision, but can do it in their own way with their own twist. They can change certain elements of the picture, such as keeping the image the same but enlarging it. Or keeping the subject the same but smudged, through slow-motion lenses/ISO. I have taken many photography classes and have replicated some artists works. I have tried to put my own style on my own pictures, but some times are easier than others. Also, in an art class I took in high school, we had to replicate a peice from an artist. I chose to do a flower piece by Georgia O'Keefe. I tried my best to make it exactly the same, but since I lack the artists exact skill and hand movements, it obviously came out differently, and not to scale. But replicating work goes over many genres - art, photography, clothing/fashion, architecture, food, etc. But where do we make the line of originality vs replicating vs plagerizing? Some things can be excactly the same, but if you put a different logo or brand on it, it is considered totally different. I am thinking specifically clothing - white t-shirts are massly reproduced, but with different labels - so it is okay and legitimate to do. But pieces of art or writing, I think is a little different in terms of copying, because of the issue of an original idea - but everything has to start at an original idea somewhere, at sometime.

July-->Walter Benjamin

The reading about “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” was cumbersome. I understand they were trying to express the evolution of art, but it could have been shorter and more detailed by using more examples. Hopefully in class I will get a comprehensible understanding of the entire reading. I know Dr. Rog said that most of the texts will make you feel “Dumb,” but this makes me feel “lost.” I guess that is enough babbling about the negatives.

Art as a whole has generated from one specific source, before being converted into one’s individual creation. When the Greeks created art amongst themselves they knew that there were two technical reproducing procedures, which were founding and stamping. Eventually another generation blossomed and lithography took over, which is the “Tracing of the design on a stone rather than its incision on a block of wood or its etching on a copperplate and permitted graphic art for the first time to put it products on the market…” Shortly after lithography there was photography. The persistence of art will always develop over time. One of the terms from previous readings that relates to this notion is intertextuality, but instead of referring to text it is used for the historic advancement of art.

Another fraction of the reading that I understood was when they were explaining the different reproductions. For example, process reproduction brings out aspects of the original creation that are unattainable to the naked eye and technical reproduction is when the copy of the original piece of art is completely abolished from the final creation. Process reproduction is like cult value because it relies on the quantity of the art and it is based on its history. While, technical reproduction is compared with exhibition value because it relies on its quality and new functions.

Jiggy Benjamin

What is art in the modern age? Today we can find art in a google search or in a fine art muesuem, but as Benjamin illustrates, the aura is being lost. Standing in front of the Mona Lisa generates a feeling and sensation that cannot be duplicated in a reproduction or a simple JPEG image. In accient cultures all art was unique with no possible means of duplication, meaning if you were seeing it with your own eyes it was the real deal. Today art has hit the mass market with paintings being sold at Wal-Mart for $9.99 and artists being pressured to produce quanity instead of quality. This digital age is not a market for painters and creators of art. Image if Michaelangelo lived in 2008, would he be able to create the works he did 500 years ago? Seems unlikely considering the state of our global digital community. Appreciation for art has decreased with its insurtion into our everyday life. It wasnt long ago that people would travel to art muesuems to see unique peices of art, today there is a decrease in awareness. The aura is lost because of its flushing in the mass market and mass production. Artists are not only creating art for the public but more than ever for corporations advertisments and billboards. The artist has become apart of the corprate world, a tool for sales instead of skilled public figure.

boo boo bear benjamin

On page 25 in section VIII, Walter Benjamin states:

"the artistic performance of a stage actor is definitely present to the public by the actor in person; that of the screen actor, however, is presented by a camera, with a twofold consequence."

As I read this I began to think about the differences between stage actors in plays and screen actors we see in multi million dollar major motion pictures. If a screen actor can mess up a scene 20 times but still be able to make a masterpiece and a stage actor has to get it right the first time, does this make stage actors better actors than screen actors. I don’t know much about acting but I wouldn’t be surprised if some people who are into drama and theatre would agree with me. A screen actor can perform one scene 20 different ways and the directors and editors can just pick the scene they like best. A stage actor has one opportunity to get a scene right; they also have to do this for hours at a time without mistakes. That is amazing to me. Now that I think about it, screen acting probably isn’t that hard. Professional athletes (Shaq), musicians (take your pick) and even stupid multimillionaires who inherit their daddy’s money become famous actors all the time (Paris Hilton, Does “One night in Paris count”?). I think it probably would be that hard because if Paris Hilton or Shaquille O’Neal could do it, I like to think I could do it as well.

With all that being said, I realize directors and casters for major motion pictures are looking for much more than acting talent. They have to ask the question, “Will somebody pay to see this person act?” That is why people paid to see Shaq play an oversized genie in Kazaam.

Bumble: Walter Benjamin

“A relentless destruction of the aura of their creations, which they branded as reproductions with the very means of production” (Benjamin 31).

Aura of art. I love how Walter Benjamin spoke about the presence, the aura, the uniqueness of artwork and how it is diminishing as mass production rises.

Everything has an essence and a feeling to it, is it possible that we are weeding out the true feeling of art by mass producing it?

When art is duplicated, it is never able to exude the feelings of authenticity. What I am curious about is how is music pirating and replicating such a serious concern, when art seems to not hit on that radar screen. Art is thought up and created using a lot of time and discipline, it is taking advantage of the artist by trying to recreate it so cheaply.

While it is understandable in a commercial consumer obsessed nation that we would replicate for cheap a piece of artwork, it is simply killing the meaning of the art. When the artists create work are they intending it to be seen in a way without the truth presence? It would entirely shift the meaning and dimension of the work.

Even though I have appreciation for artwork, it is easy for me to take for granted the artistry and expertise in the creations because of the ability to mass produce it. Even from when I was a little girl and strategically taking a photograph using film, there was a different sort of concentration needed to take the photos, where now with digital photography, you can snap 1000 photos and then completely digitally alter them. The ability to do this changes the meaning of taking a picture. Once upon a time the photograph was used to represent and freeze a moment in time, now though it can be so shifted that it has a different meaning entirely. You can put someone into a photo who wasn’t there, or make it appear like I am in the South Pole when I am actually at Rollins College.
The photographic era and replication of art has led to a confusion of what reality actually is. What is real artwork, are real replicas of art, real? Maybe we should all try to appreciate art more and try to truly soak in the essence of it

WouldntULike2Know Benjamin

“All efforts to render politics aesthetic culminate in one thing: war.” (34)

Walter Benjamin’s, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” speaks for pages and pages about the significance of the different mediums of art. His grand finale after his long and in depth tirade focuses on the fact that “art for arts sake” does not exist purely and his highly influenced towards political motives.

As such, the most prominent example that I can think of is Leni Reifenstahl’s, Triumph of the Will. In the film, Hitler and Riefehstahl worked to create a mindblowing work of art (or propaganda) that was used to gain public support for Hitler’s movement. This film was released on the brink of the film era and all who watched it were absolutely amazed by the technology. Moving images cropped together show the Fuhrer being adored and cheered by tens of thousands of people. Such spread allowed many people to see the award winning film, a phenomenon that had yet to be experienced in that time period on such a grand level. The result of this technological breakthrough was devastating. The blind acceptance of this film allowed Hitler virtually no disruption to his goal and so began the slaughter of thousands.

To quote a very frustrated Duhamel, “I can no longer think what I want to think. My thoughts have been replaced by moving images.” (32) This distraction, while prominent decades ago, is still prominent today. Mass media reflect this distraction technique and get away with it without being questioned. Major news organizations and other media outlets blare what most trusting viewers assume to be “truth” and accept it as such and therefore behave according to its proclamations. The politicization of art, a cultural pastime, is why we are blindly accepting all that we see without batting an eyelash.

July 1-29

After we went over the readings from Barthes and Macherey it opened up my mind to see their point of view of how discourse is interpreted. Barthes believes that readers should read text intensively and Macherey compliments Barthes but he thinks readers use previous knowledge to interpret text. Barthes states that “From one reading to the next, we never skip the same passage,” which suggest readers will fill in the gaps of the unknown every time they read discourse over and over. For example, most people are familiar with the bible, but there are so many ways it can be interpret by different religions or people. There was one common belief before numerous were formed, which shows the steps of understanding and misunderstanding discourse. The question that needs to be asked is, “Which version is the truth, since one’s truth is another’s belief?” Macherey ideology starts to come into play once we make it to this stage because one of his definitions is intertextuality. Intertextuality means all or some text are related in some way or prior knowledge is used to read a text. The difference in one religions interpretation of the bible defines their religion, while these religion’s beliefs have derived from the same source. There is a quote from Macherey that supports this notion, “Are there books which say what they mean… without depending directly on the other books?” Although this quote is a question it obviously states that there is a reliance on prior knowledge, whether it is the media, books, or an experience. Readers normally use “filling in the gaps” when the discourse is not understood correctly, but readers will never know the actual ideas behind discourse unless they ask the writer. There isn’t a definite way to measure ones comprehension, so how do we figure out the gaps that we as readers are filling in?

Bumble 1/31

Saadiyat Island!
I never realized that architecture is SO much more than a bunch of buildings, it has a personality to create a space and an emotion for someone. Someone decided that they wanted to create an entire experience for someone. Your surroundings can severely impact how you feel and what you feel or think. Architecture is powerful and I never was able to see the essence and creative thoughts that are going on in the architects’ minds.

Honestly, this class on Thursday sparked my interest in architecture and building design which I had never before in my life felt any desire to learn about. I started doing research of projects and ideas that are formulated to build certain structures and found the most incredible project plan on Saadiyat Island off the coast of Abu Dhabi. What is so remarkable about these buildings are that the Louvre and the Guggenheim are going to be built in an entirely different region of the world then from where they were orgininally created. All of these building remind me of Radical Eclectisism. This is because they are situated on an island in the desert and these are completely random.

The Gugnheim could even be disharmonious harmony because there is no sense of symmetry or coordination, just throwing together different types of styles and pieces to create a unified piece that works. It is also an example of amnesis because it strangely reminds me of a heart!

It is supposed to look like this:




And the Louvre is supposed to look like:





The other building on the island is created by Tadao Ando. It is a museum called the Maritime museum. The building design is the concept of Divergent Signification and also Anamnesis. This is because the design of the building is, “supposed to represent the sails of It has a reflective surface visually merging sea and land. Its ship-like interior has floating decks which guide visitors through the exhibition space.” “Dhows, Arab sailing vessels with triangular or lateen sails, float over the voids of the interior space and help create an intense visual experience by relating objects to one another and to the museum architecture as a whole.” – Tadao Andois
Here is an image of the museum:







These buildings are amazing, and I want to continue tolearn about design of buildings. How do these Authors come up with these incredible ideas!?

BubbaNub 1/30

It is a surprising concept to realize that a societies architecture can reflect an era of thinking. Postmodernism is shown, through this, to be a concept as abstract as the structures themselves. In the slide show shown to us in class on Thursday, we were given numerous examples of the varying degrees existing in postmodern architecture.

One of the more interesting examples of this was the new rhetorical figures. Imagining new ways of representing traditional concepts is a popular but not ultimately foreign concept. From time I spent living in Japan, the idea of rebuilding upon a structure similarly to the Taipei 101 building could be seen in all the temples around Japan in structures known as pagodas. When we were shown the image of Taipei I could only think of how closely it resembled Kinkakuji, the golden pagoda in Kyoto, Japan. 

These re-imagined buildings show our postmodern trend of incorporating the new with the old, the emergence of the technologically present and the obsolete as one. Although different names, all of the different building structures we looked at share the same principles. Disharmonious harmony takes a classical approach but with a modern twist. Double coding shows us the common signifier while containing discernable elements of what is signified. To think that architecture could be so representative of the times of cultural thinking is something we tend to overlook in our daily lives.

Bumble 1/29

Can there ever be an absolute truth? We never know the author’s intent, and the meaning shifts among different perspectives. We had spent the class on Tuesday picking apart a quote about stepping outside the quote and the author and “ordinary critic” having entirely different perspectives on the understanding and appreciation of the work. The best example I can think of with this is when I re-watched a movie that I used to watch as a younger girl. I pulled out the movie Clueless and realized what I had thought the movie was about, what the movie meant to me in 5th grade, was extraordinarily different from what I watched as a 19 year old. Among the differences are words that I did not understand, the values and things that I found important were different, and of course my intertexuality was entirely different. Without any control I found myself thinking about all different things that this movie related too, personal experiences in my life that I had not experienced at that younger age. So, clearly while the text was essentially the same I read te text differently. I looked at what wasn’t said differently, I filled in the gaps as a 19 year old and it was a different experience then as a 10 year old. Also, when I take my baby sisters to the movie theatre I always like to see how they laugh at certain things that I would never assume are funny. We will never know the level of understanding that they have of a film, and they clearly don’t understand the “adult humor” which is inevitably infused into films. The person who wrote down the script and filmed it might see it even differently from how I do, so there can be no definite meaning!