Lyotard said some interesting things. After going over his article in class, I understand him a lot better now. His use of language is very particular, as when he is talking about about waging a war on totality. He is really serious about getting rid of that notion, because totalities lead to generalizations, and stereotypes, living little or no room for interpretation. He needed to use a harsh adjective to describe how he felt about totality and what we should do.
Also, the fact was pointed out that capitalism derealizes or desensitizes familiar objects. In a capitalistic country, money comes first no matter what. It's always a race to the top, a strive to do better than the next guy. It may cause some detachment, but it leaves opportunity always available, and makes people try to be the best that they can be at what they do.
However, his quote about pornography not being challenged, was challenged in class. We agreed that that medium of mass media had been challenged due to the fact that some people accept it and others reject it. It pushed the envelope and got a mixed reaction from critics. It is definitely not a general model for visual narratives. Even though some art can be considered offensive to some people, where do you draw the line on what's appropriate and what's not? And who is the one that gets to draw that line?
Further, I'm not quite sure I understand his view on classicism and what we spoke about in class in terms of American Idol. Classics remain classics if they withstand time, and different trends. Therefore, it is rarely possible if a "classic" is overused - as in American Idol tryouts. In an audition, you're going to probably pick a classic because you can assume it is generally well known and well liked, and you can then try to put your own talent into that song.
Friday, February 15, 2008
boo boo bear 2-15
Last class there were a lot of quotes that we covered that brought some intriguing thoughts and ideas to my head. Especially this one:
“Culture, in its modern form, stirs up hatred against the conventions and virtues of everyday life.”
Some would say that our culture, this modern culture, is one of sex, drugs and lack of hard work. I think with this quote, it is referring culture such as tv, music and movies. In this context, I would have to agree with this quote because as I watch tv at night I notice that almost every show questions and abandons what we would consider traditional values, specifically monogamy. 75 years ago, the majority of people would say that they believe you should have one sexual partner you whole life. Now a days, the majority has flipped, saying its ok to have sex with more than one person. I would guess that this changed is directly related to the values connected to some of our tv, music and movies we watch and listen to everyday. Just look at some of the most watched shows on television. Two of my personal favorites are Nip/Tuck and Two and a Half Men. Nip/Tuck has a soft core porn scene every episode while Two and a Half Men insinuates one of the men having sex every episode, most of the time more than once. Our music these days even has become very sexualized. Of course the first songs that come to mind are the rap songs materializing women every line, but it goes even further than that. Some of the most romantic songs of our generation are much more sexual than generations past, example: “Ill make love to you” Boys 2 Men, or “Let’s Make Love” Faith Hill and Tim McGraw (I know they are married but still).
“Culture, in its modern form, stirs up hatred against the conventions and virtues of everyday life.”
Some would say that our culture, this modern culture, is one of sex, drugs and lack of hard work. I think with this quote, it is referring culture such as tv, music and movies. In this context, I would have to agree with this quote because as I watch tv at night I notice that almost every show questions and abandons what we would consider traditional values, specifically monogamy. 75 years ago, the majority of people would say that they believe you should have one sexual partner you whole life. Now a days, the majority has flipped, saying its ok to have sex with more than one person. I would guess that this changed is directly related to the values connected to some of our tv, music and movies we watch and listen to everyday. Just look at some of the most watched shows on television. Two of my personal favorites are Nip/Tuck and Two and a Half Men. Nip/Tuck has a soft core porn scene every episode while Two and a Half Men insinuates one of the men having sex every episode, most of the time more than once. Our music these days even has become very sexualized. Of course the first songs that come to mind are the rap songs materializing women every line, but it goes even further than that. Some of the most romantic songs of our generation are much more sexual than generations past, example: “Ill make love to you” Boys 2 Men, or “Let’s Make Love” Faith Hill and Tim McGraw (I know they are married but still).
Thursday, February 14, 2008
sawsaw 2/14
I found today's class discussion to be very interesting and insightful. There were many quotes I enjoyed, but I found two of them very true and evident in my everyday life. The first quote is, “the relation between ‘modern’ and ‘classical’ has definitely lost a fixed historical reference.” I am reminded of a discussion I had in high school with a teacher in one of my classes. He kept trying to define the postmodern era and put it into a certain timeline. I was always taught that postmodernism is a period of time we are experiencing in history. I found this concept to be very confusing. After reading this quote by Habermas it is very easy to see that modern and classic are a way of thinking and are concepts to be analyzed, not a specific period of time in history. When something is said to be modern people assume it is the most recent or cutting edge thing. You can never quite define something that is modern because things change all the time. What was modern fifty years ago is very different from what is modern today. The same thing is to be said of the word classic. Classic means old or something in the past. It is very difficult to describe something that is classic because something in the past can still be popular today. An example of this is classic rock. Classic rock is something in the past yet is very popular in today’s contemporary society. The second quote I found to be interesting is, “the cult of the new.” This is so true in today’s society. Everyone wants the newest invention and latest styles. This is why corporations such as Mac, Proctor and Gamble, Toyota and Cannon are so successful. People are constantly upgrading to the newest products and are always trying to keep up with the latest inventions. After discussing Habermas’ concepts in class, it is evident to me how much our society has changed in the past twenty years. If these ideas were evident in society during the 1980’s how much more are they evident in our society today. It really makes me wonder how much things will change in the next twenty years!
kaymac 2.14.08
Oh Habermas, how you make me swoon. No, seriously, he does. The concept of postmodernism being anti-modernity just blows my mind. It's like avant-gardism: screwing up what we traditionally think is beautiful on purpose, just for the sake of being different.
"Culture in its modern form stirs up hatred against the conventions and virtues of everyday life." (101)
So in this Habermas is calling out today's society. Everything we do goes against the so-called "great" and "acceptable" morales that the "country was founded on." You know, that usual religious/righteous bullcrap that they shove down your throats from the time you're born until the time you die: family, friends, and god are all you need in life; money is the root of all evil(however, ironically enough, I'd like to point out that the subtle undertone of all of our morals is that you need money in order to be happy, because even if you do have friends, family, and god and you're living under a bridge, you're still not going to be too happy),do unto others as you would have others do unto you, etc. etc..
So, according to Habermas, we are creating resistance to our morals in an effort to pull away from modernity/traditional values and be "avant-garde" just for the sake of doing that. Maybe it makes life interesting. Maybe we're all just sick of neo-conservatives running the country/world and feel like it's time to step up.
Yet we've developed into this culture where we need instant gratification and so when we protest the war or gay marriage or anything at all, we expect to see instant results and if we don't, we automatically give up and maybe that is what Habermas is saying as well. We are losing our will to be democratic citizens who take action and stick with something we started.
But honestly, I think we're all just chickens. We want to stay rooted in our traditions so that we will have our "clearly defined identities and existential security" and that way we won't have to know what life is like without money, friends, family, or a roof over our heads. We don't want any extremist viewpoints in either direction. We just want this comfortable middle and so when somebody comes to shake it up, we ignore it or find some way to make it acceptable. But I think that this just a ticking time bomb and sooner or later, it's all going to blow up in our faces.
"Culture in its modern form stirs up hatred against the conventions and virtues of everyday life." (101)
So in this Habermas is calling out today's society. Everything we do goes against the so-called "great" and "acceptable" morales that the "country was founded on." You know, that usual religious/righteous bullcrap that they shove down your throats from the time you're born until the time you die: family, friends, and god are all you need in life; money is the root of all evil(however, ironically enough, I'd like to point out that the subtle undertone of all of our morals is that you need money in order to be happy, because even if you do have friends, family, and god and you're living under a bridge, you're still not going to be too happy),do unto others as you would have others do unto you, etc. etc..
So, according to Habermas, we are creating resistance to our morals in an effort to pull away from modernity/traditional values and be "avant-garde" just for the sake of doing that. Maybe it makes life interesting. Maybe we're all just sick of neo-conservatives running the country/world and feel like it's time to step up.
Yet we've developed into this culture where we need instant gratification and so when we protest the war or gay marriage or anything at all, we expect to see instant results and if we don't, we automatically give up and maybe that is what Habermas is saying as well. We are losing our will to be democratic citizens who take action and stick with something we started.
But honestly, I think we're all just chickens. We want to stay rooted in our traditions so that we will have our "clearly defined identities and existential security" and that way we won't have to know what life is like without money, friends, family, or a roof over our heads. We don't want any extremist viewpoints in either direction. We just want this comfortable middle and so when somebody comes to shake it up, we ignore it or find some way to make it acceptable. But I think that this just a ticking time bomb and sooner or later, it's all going to blow up in our faces.
Sgt. Pepper, Habermas
What is modernism?
"The most recent modernism simply makes an abstract opposition between tradition and the present; and we are, in a way, still the contemporaries of that kind of aesthetic modernity which first appeared in the midst of the nineteenth century." (99).
From what I could decipher of Habermas's idea of modernism and modernity, it is on the way out. Or rather, a better way to explain that is to look at his quote above. What he seems to be trying to say in his article is that modernism, in a sense, always reflects what is classical. So, then is it modern at all? He says that once something is considered modern it is "secretly" classical as well.
I'm not sure if this directly relates, but this general type of thinking did cross my mind when I went to NYC's Museum of Modern Art in November. Having been to many art museums, I anticipated mostly what is considered "modern" art, or what's been made in the past century, at least. However, the famous "Starry Night" by Van Gogh is at MOMA, Monet's "Water Lilies," and many other pieces that were made about a century ago which, to me, are not modern art. So are they there because in their day and age they were considered modern? And since they have been dubbed classic, thus still holding on to some kind of modernity? I'm reaching for answers, but is the term "modern" no longer modern?
One thing that frustrated me from the article was Habermas's explanation of the reception of art and modernism and how practically the minute the "everyday expert" receives art or culture in a modern way, it is no longer modern.
So, is it impossible for me to think modernly? Am I really that old fashioned?
"The most recent modernism simply makes an abstract opposition between tradition and the present; and we are, in a way, still the contemporaries of that kind of aesthetic modernity which first appeared in the midst of the nineteenth century." (99).
From what I could decipher of Habermas's idea of modernism and modernity, it is on the way out. Or rather, a better way to explain that is to look at his quote above. What he seems to be trying to say in his article is that modernism, in a sense, always reflects what is classical. So, then is it modern at all? He says that once something is considered modern it is "secretly" classical as well.
I'm not sure if this directly relates, but this general type of thinking did cross my mind when I went to NYC's Museum of Modern Art in November. Having been to many art museums, I anticipated mostly what is considered "modern" art, or what's been made in the past century, at least. However, the famous "Starry Night" by Van Gogh is at MOMA, Monet's "Water Lilies," and many other pieces that were made about a century ago which, to me, are not modern art. So are they there because in their day and age they were considered modern? And since they have been dubbed classic, thus still holding on to some kind of modernity? I'm reaching for answers, but is the term "modern" no longer modern?
One thing that frustrated me from the article was Habermas's explanation of the reception of art and modernism and how practically the minute the "everyday expert" receives art or culture in a modern way, it is no longer modern.
So, is it impossible for me to think modernly? Am I really that old fashioned?
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
ChittyChittyBangBang Habermas
warning: Just a heads up-I've been insanely sick for the past 5 days so the things I'm writing could potentially make no sense whatsoever, and for that, I apologize...
The article, Modernity - An incomplete Project, by Habermas was a little difficult to follow. First of all, what is modern?
"The word 'modern' in its Latin form 'modernus' was used for the first time in the late fifteenth century in order to distinguish the present, which had become officially Christian, and from the Roman and pagan past. With varying content, the term 'modern' again and again expresses the consciousness of an epoch that relates itself to the past of antiquity, in order to view itself as the result of a transition from the old to new." (98)
So the term modern has been repeatedly used over time, modern represents the new and latest. Our technology is constantly evolving and what once was 'modern' to us is now old. What will be modern to us tomorrow?
"...whenever, moreover, antiquity was considered a model to be recovered through some kind of imitation." (98)
The term verisimilitude comes to mind when I read these quotes. Saying art is actually a potential copy. Modernity is directly tied to European art, though I think it is even more than just art. It is morality, science, religion, human traditions...
Perhaps we are constantly imitating the past and making copies of the old and transitioning to the new.
Modern is constantly evolving? So, what is postmodern?
The article, Modernity - An incomplete Project, by Habermas was a little difficult to follow. First of all, what is modern?
"The word 'modern' in its Latin form 'modernus' was used for the first time in the late fifteenth century in order to distinguish the present, which had become officially Christian, and from the Roman and pagan past. With varying content, the term 'modern' again and again expresses the consciousness of an epoch that relates itself to the past of antiquity, in order to view itself as the result of a transition from the old to new." (98)
So the term modern has been repeatedly used over time, modern represents the new and latest. Our technology is constantly evolving and what once was 'modern' to us is now old. What will be modern to us tomorrow?
"...whenever, moreover, antiquity was considered a model to be recovered through some kind of imitation." (98)
The term verisimilitude comes to mind when I read these quotes. Saying art is actually a potential copy. Modernity is directly tied to European art, though I think it is even more than just art. It is morality, science, religion, human traditions...
Perhaps we are constantly imitating the past and making copies of the old and transitioning to the new.
Modern is constantly evolving? So, what is postmodern?
ChittyChittyBangBang 2/13
I am still trying to process some of the quotes we went over in class on Tuesday. Lyotard has some very intriguing points of views that I hope we go back over at some point. One quote I would like to focus on is:
Artists who question the rules "are destined to have little credibility"; they have no guarantee of an audience. (41)
This quote reminds me of previous class discussions we have had. Such as one's focusing on, the artist and the ordinary critic can't really have the same appreciation of their work. It reminds me of Lyotards quote because I think he is trying to say that the artist can't predict the effect it could have on another viewer. The artist doesn’t know all of its meanings. If the artist analyzes his work too much it even looses its meaning. I don’t know if this is at all the way I should be reading the quote because I feel like this quote is even deeper than I can see right now.
I also liked during class when we studied the pictures of Katie Couric. The way that technology can enhance and change appearances is scary, because how do we know what is real and what isn't. I like that Katie Couric was upset at the change in her appearance. Trying to portray her as thinner, with a bigger smile, etc etc... trying to make her fit into this insane standard we have built for appearances in our society is wrong. It isn't real and to be respected I think you need to be honest about everything that you are.
It's true that as critics we need to interject ourselves in the middle, into the gap! We need to be aware!!!
Artists who question the rules "are destined to have little credibility"; they have no guarantee of an audience. (41)
This quote reminds me of previous class discussions we have had. Such as one's focusing on, the artist and the ordinary critic can't really have the same appreciation of their work. It reminds me of Lyotards quote because I think he is trying to say that the artist can't predict the effect it could have on another viewer. The artist doesn’t know all of its meanings. If the artist analyzes his work too much it even looses its meaning. I don’t know if this is at all the way I should be reading the quote because I feel like this quote is even deeper than I can see right now.
I also liked during class when we studied the pictures of Katie Couric. The way that technology can enhance and change appearances is scary, because how do we know what is real and what isn't. I like that Katie Couric was upset at the change in her appearance. Trying to portray her as thinner, with a bigger smile, etc etc... trying to make her fit into this insane standard we have built for appearances in our society is wrong. It isn't real and to be respected I think you need to be honest about everything that you are.
It's true that as critics we need to interject ourselves in the middle, into the gap! We need to be aware!!!
nichole habermas
I have to start by writing that this class is, or should I now say WAS (hear me out on this one), on a topic of great interest to me. The reason I say was, is because of reading this article. Habermas poses a strong argument against surrealist art. My favorite favorite favorite artist is Salvatore Dali (remember the second day of class when we were shown a slideshow of things that are considered postmodern, the painting was by Dali). Habermas writes that "modernity revolts against the normalizing functions of tradition" (100). This isnt what turned me away from Dali, I actually agree with this statement. Anything modern is something that has broken the rules which hegemony dictates as the social norm. Thus, surreal artists were, at the time, ultra modern. There was nothing like surrealist paintings before and it was taken first as a shock at what some people were calling art but later accepted as being avant garde and simply ahead of the times. HOWEVER, He also continues on to say that, "although avant-garde is still considered to be expanding, it is supposedly no longer creative." In essence what he is telling us is that this notion of what once was so creative and off the wall, is now old news. I sort if get the sense through Habermas' diction that he accuses those artists that were once ahead of their time as only becoming famous and notable because they followed the trend of doing something that has never been done before which is, when it comes down to it, hypocritical. He finishes the section by saying, "Modenism is dominant but dead."
So for now my opinion stands the same, my favorite artist is Dali. I suppose I dont necessarily agree with Habermas in the sense that once famous avant-garde artists are on the outs, but perhaps I see where he is coming from in saying that nobody can make modern art anymore because that name was dedicated to a period that has now passed.
So for now my opinion stands the same, my favorite artist is Dali. I suppose I dont necessarily agree with Habermas in the sense that once famous avant-garde artists are on the outs, but perhaps I see where he is coming from in saying that nobody can make modern art anymore because that name was dedicated to a period that has now passed.
Cuckoo Habermas
This was a hard reading for me to grasp, I find myself questioning different aspect of the reading rather than drawing conclusions. The idea that “we are experience the end of the idea of modern art” (100) makes me wonder. How are experiencing the end of ‘modern art’? In a sense isn’t something that is thought to be modern the change from the old to the new? In the past when there has been a change in art it usually was a further development of the past in one-way or another. This draws on the concept that nothing is never new, only a newer version of something that already exist. So, are we experiencing the end? Rather we are the start of something new that is being developed from past ideas.
We are always living in a time that we believe to be the most advanced. Then something new is developed. The new development is seen as being modern, yet we use to think the what it was developed from was modern. Society is always going to be improving, which results in society being more modern that then past.
We are always living in a time that we believe to be the most advanced. Then something new is developed. The new development is seen as being modern, yet we use to think the what it was developed from was modern. Society is always going to be improving, which results in society being more modern that then past.
romulus Habermas
"The struggle takes the form of exposing every manifestation of what could be considered an oppositionist mentality and tracing its 'logic' so as to link it to various forms of extremism: drawing the connection between modernism and nihilism... between government regulation and totalitarianism, between criticism of arms expenditures and subservience to communism, between Women's liberation or homosexual rights and the destruction of the family... between the Left generally and terrorism, anti-semitism, and fascism.."
Habermas is dead on with the dramatic shift in western culture's shared conceptualizations. People have been calling themselves modern and there is truth behind the reason why they thought so. We are at a radical point in civilization, where the freedom and speech with our sprint towards complete globalization, has allowed for a re-evaluation of the complicated systems of ideologies we have in place today. If the United Nations actually served its function, there would be cooperation and harmony.
Technology has been our golden ticket to advance. Shiga who we have to have read for CMC 200, talks about the mash-up phenomena. As I read through Habermas, two images stick in my head. One of the Berlin wall being patrolled by communist Russian guards, and one of an American suburb cut off from what is taking place with humanity. The Cold War Era was a battle between a numbers of competing schools of thought. Socialism and Communism/Democracy and Capitalism; good and bad, black and white.
Its just so hard for me to image a world like that. As we try to label where we are at an exact moment in history, we are taking snapshots of our achievement. As we constantly redefine how modern we are as we reach major milestones, it is interesting to think how those snapshots have significantly increased.
It took thousands of years after farming began in Egypt become the rise of a centralized government of control.
How were the lives of those individuals during that time period. Without big brother hegemon controlling the contractions and constrictions of society, were they free to live?
I read of an Ancient Roman politician who traveled to Egypt and was amazed by the Pyramids builds thousands of years before them pondering how 'modern' the ancients must of been in their contemporary modern lives.
Habermas is dead on with the dramatic shift in western culture's shared conceptualizations. People have been calling themselves modern and there is truth behind the reason why they thought so. We are at a radical point in civilization, where the freedom and speech with our sprint towards complete globalization, has allowed for a re-evaluation of the complicated systems of ideologies we have in place today. If the United Nations actually served its function, there would be cooperation and harmony.
Technology has been our golden ticket to advance. Shiga who we have to have read for CMC 200, talks about the mash-up phenomena. As I read through Habermas, two images stick in my head. One of the Berlin wall being patrolled by communist Russian guards, and one of an American suburb cut off from what is taking place with humanity. The Cold War Era was a battle between a numbers of competing schools of thought. Socialism and Communism/Democracy and Capitalism; good and bad, black and white.
Its just so hard for me to image a world like that. As we try to label where we are at an exact moment in history, we are taking snapshots of our achievement. As we constantly redefine how modern we are as we reach major milestones, it is interesting to think how those snapshots have significantly increased.
It took thousands of years after farming began in Egypt become the rise of a centralized government of control.
How were the lives of those individuals during that time period. Without big brother hegemon controlling the contractions and constrictions of society, were they free to live?
I read of an Ancient Roman politician who traveled to Egypt and was amazed by the Pyramids builds thousands of years before them pondering how 'modern' the ancients must of been in their contemporary modern lives.
Starfish Habermas
Habermas’s article Modernity-An Incomplete Project was tough for me to grasp. I did get a few things out of his writing though. One of the things I found to be interesting was the quote” the term ‘modern’ again and again expresses the consciousness of an epoch that relates itself to the past of antiquity, in order to view itself as the result of a transition from the old to new” (98). This got me thinking about the whole idea of modernity. What is considered modern is always changing. Something cannot be modern forever. Back in the day, electricity was considered modern but now it is a thing of the past. What we consider to be modern today will not be considered modern in a few years. The article uses art as a primary example and it made me wonder about so called “modern art.” The works of Andy Warhol and artists today are considered to be modern art. Modern art is avant-garde. The artists of the art movement push the limits and create new ideas that have never even been heard of. One day, these ideas won’t be so new anymore and will seem outdated. Will modern art then be labeled something different when that time comes? Will it be considered classic or will there be a new name made to label it?
One concept out of many that I didn’t understand was the idea that modernity is “dominant but dead.” This idea seems to contradict itself. How can something be outstanding but dead at the same time? Also, doesn’t Habermas talk about how modernity is always changing? If it is dead, how could it possibly do that? This is something I hope we discuss in great detail in class. I look foward to discussing the article because I need some light to be shed on Habermas's theories and ideas.
One concept out of many that I didn’t understand was the idea that modernity is “dominant but dead.” This idea seems to contradict itself. How can something be outstanding but dead at the same time? Also, doesn’t Habermas talk about how modernity is always changing? If it is dead, how could it possibly do that? This is something I hope we discuss in great detail in class. I look foward to discussing the article because I need some light to be shed on Habermas's theories and ideas.
DetectiveDanny, Habermas
Jurgen Habermas’ Modernity-An Incomplete Project offered some interesting arguments on the subject of art and culture, but sometimes I felt like it was an argument over semantics and argued itself into a circle in my mind.
One of the things I love most about the critical media program is the study of the relationship between art and culture. Can the two phrases be used interchangeably? Does one have more effect on the other? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? These seemingly unanswerable questions are what fascinate me most and Jurgen Habermas explores these relationships.
Habermas draws an interesting relationship between bourgeois art and neoconservatism. The emphasis on intelligence and expertise in bourgeois art te directly to neoconservative ideals of maintaining status quo. I have always thought the idea of the neoconservative is kind of silly, how can one be new and still uphold old ideals that conserve the old ways? Also, because Habermas suggests that modernity is still a work in progress and is difficult to achieve, doe that mean that conservative ideals have successfully impeded our quest to be modern?
Because modernity is a work in progress, postmodernity seems somewhat unachievable also. As the flow of time moves history forward, how are we to achieve postmodernism? To me, once something is established as postmodern and becomes accepted as postmodern, it has trouble maintaining the sense of postmodernism. I have no idea how I would even rate the success of a postmodern movement, because if it becomes accepted, it becomes modern.
My favorite quote from this piece is “I fear that the ideas of antimodernity together with an additional touch of premodernity, are becoming popular in the circles of alternative culture”. Because there are so many alternative cultures, defining them as a mix of antimodernity and premodernity seems somewhat difficult to grasp.
One of the things I love most about the critical media program is the study of the relationship between art and culture. Can the two phrases be used interchangeably? Does one have more effect on the other? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? These seemingly unanswerable questions are what fascinate me most and Jurgen Habermas explores these relationships.
Habermas draws an interesting relationship between bourgeois art and neoconservatism. The emphasis on intelligence and expertise in bourgeois art te directly to neoconservative ideals of maintaining status quo. I have always thought the idea of the neoconservative is kind of silly, how can one be new and still uphold old ideals that conserve the old ways? Also, because Habermas suggests that modernity is still a work in progress and is difficult to achieve, doe that mean that conservative ideals have successfully impeded our quest to be modern?
Because modernity is a work in progress, postmodernity seems somewhat unachievable also. As the flow of time moves history forward, how are we to achieve postmodernism? To me, once something is established as postmodern and becomes accepted as postmodern, it has trouble maintaining the sense of postmodernism. I have no idea how I would even rate the success of a postmodern movement, because if it becomes accepted, it becomes modern.
My favorite quote from this piece is “I fear that the ideas of antimodernity together with an additional touch of premodernity, are becoming popular in the circles of alternative culture”. Because there are so many alternative cultures, defining them as a mix of antimodernity and premodernity seems somewhat difficult to grasp.
NewYorker - Habermas
From what I think I understood of Habermas, I don't think I agree with him on all his views.
He says, "Some writers restrict this concept of modernity to the Renaissance, but this is historically too narrow. People considered themselves modern during the period of Charles the Great in the twelfth century, as well as in France of the late seventeen century..." (98). I do agree with him here, that we must look at history before the Renaissance in terms of modernity. During any time period, someone is more than likely going to think of themselves as modern. I think of myself as being modern right now - but I also thought I was modern in middle school, and looking back at pictures, I look rediculuous. Since times and styles change, looking back, anything that is "out" is going to look funny to us at the present moment when we reflect back. Further, "...whatever can survive time has always been considered to be a classic" (99) whether that be a painting, photograph, a car, or an article of clothing.
I'm not quite sure though if I agree when he says, "Modernity revolts against the normalizing functions of tradition; modernity lives on the experience of rebelling against all that is normative," (100). Even though modern means being present, and up-to-date, I don't think anyone can easily dismiss tradition and the past. Traditions last so long because there's something they do that works, that fits, or makes sense. I think revolt is too much of a strong word. I would maybe say that modernity thrives (strives?) off of tradition, and history because you have to know the past to move to the future and look ahead. Of course there are parts that do get left behind, thus emerging something new - which would then be considered modern.
He says, "Some writers restrict this concept of modernity to the Renaissance, but this is historically too narrow. People considered themselves modern during the period of Charles the Great in the twelfth century, as well as in France of the late seventeen century..." (98). I do agree with him here, that we must look at history before the Renaissance in terms of modernity. During any time period, someone is more than likely going to think of themselves as modern. I think of myself as being modern right now - but I also thought I was modern in middle school, and looking back at pictures, I look rediculuous. Since times and styles change, looking back, anything that is "out" is going to look funny to us at the present moment when we reflect back. Further, "...whatever can survive time has always been considered to be a classic" (99) whether that be a painting, photograph, a car, or an article of clothing.
I'm not quite sure though if I agree when he says, "Modernity revolts against the normalizing functions of tradition; modernity lives on the experience of rebelling against all that is normative," (100). Even though modern means being present, and up-to-date, I don't think anyone can easily dismiss tradition and the past. Traditions last so long because there's something they do that works, that fits, or makes sense. I think revolt is too much of a strong word. I would maybe say that modernity thrives (strives?) off of tradition, and history because you have to know the past to move to the future and look ahead. Of course there are parts that do get left behind, thus emerging something new - which would then be considered modern.
kMO Habermas
There is a common theme explored throughout Habermas', Modernity – An Incomplete Project. Habermas is a scholar that I have studied for a few semesters now and I find him to be extremely intelligent, yet very repetitive by nature. Right away he states, “They sacrificed the tradition of modernity in order to make room for a new historicism.” He also quotes a critic from a German newspaper who said, “Postmodernity definitely presents itself as antimodernity.” These statements lead the reader to believe that the avant-garde disposition of a human being is strictly a trait of modernism, and has no existence in postmodern culture…
He then goes on to say, “Modernity revolts against the normalizing functions of tradition; modernity lives on the experience of rebelling against all that is normative. This revolt is the one way to neutralize the standards of both morality
and utility…” The example that followed this statement was perfect. Habermas suggests that our society walks the thin line of secrecy and scandal. We thrive off off of the mistakes of others yet flee the other direction when the aesthetic appeal wears away. In my opinion, the pushing of boundaries is considered to be the social norm in our society TODAY. One need not look far to see this idea in action. For example, just look around at the expressionists located within our own campus boandaries.
In more works than one Habermas cites that modernity is “prominent but dead.” How can this be possible considering the notion that we base our future off of what we have learned and obtained in the past. How can we claim to not repeat history if we don’t embrace what it has to offer? This reading was difficult to swallow but definitely provides insight into a lot of theories and ideas that have appeared in our previous readings.
He then goes on to say, “Modernity revolts against the normalizing functions of tradition; modernity lives on the experience of rebelling against all that is normative. This revolt is the one way to neutralize the standards of both morality
and utility…” The example that followed this statement was perfect. Habermas suggests that our society walks the thin line of secrecy and scandal. We thrive off off of the mistakes of others yet flee the other direction when the aesthetic appeal wears away. In my opinion, the pushing of boundaries is considered to be the social norm in our society TODAY. One need not look far to see this idea in action. For example, just look around at the expressionists located within our own campus boandaries.
In more works than one Habermas cites that modernity is “prominent but dead.” How can this be possible considering the notion that we base our future off of what we have learned and obtained in the past. How can we claim to not repeat history if we don’t embrace what it has to offer? This reading was difficult to swallow but definitely provides insight into a lot of theories and ideas that have appeared in our previous readings.
Jiggy Habermas
Jugen Habermas may be one of the most challenging peices we have read this year. The term modernity and its relitive concept is being challenged by Habermas as he argues that it is continuously beging shaped and improved. Human civilizations always feel as if they are at the center of the known universe, baring the most knowledge and information. This fact is echoed by Habermas who states that "people considered themselves modern during the period of Charles the Great in the twelfth century" (Habermas 98). Truly our perspective on the future is of optimism but we understand that most of current state by the time period we live in. Every society believes that are at the forfront of all that is known, but in truth all the information that is to be known is impossible to consume. Classical and modern are two vastly differnt concepts that swell their own opinions of the present. Habermas makes referance to the classic in history of modern art and how it is preceived. Enlightenment has mixed these two concepts together as the now classic age is reflected as using modern theory and thought. I would assume that modernity is constantly changing and adapting, never will be know enough or stop our pursuit for knowing all. Habermas, though challenging, shows the changes in thought and differences in current opinion.
BubbaNub Habermas
I'm struggling to wrap my head around the concept that modernity is "dominant but dead" (101). Is that to say there is nothing new to develop, no new concepts or unique perspectives? Every modern revolution in itself has drawn on elements from the past. If you look at rock N roll, none of these artists were original they all took various things from past greats. As Habermas points out the French Revolution was based heavily on the ideals of Ancient Rome. So could it not be said the modernity in itself is merely an evolution of the old, the recycling of history into something unique itself. I do not understand how modernity can ever be dead, let alone understand how postmodernity is not a hypocritical statement in itself. But is it meant to be? After all, the architecture we viewed as being postmodern was hypocritical and ironic in nature (disharmonious harmony and the like). But how can the modern cease to exist? As time goes on we will always refer to new ideals and concepts as being modern, even if we are taking from things in the past.
Hasn't history taught us anything? The most important thing about history is to learn from our mistakes, to evolve and adapt the very ideals and characteristics that may have led to a past societies downfall. For every step we take back, we always attempt to take two steps forward. I feel as though something is missing from my ability to analyze or swallow this reading. If all this is not confusing enough, Habermas brings forth an idea of that which we consider classical in its ability to transcend time. Would we then consider classical to be persisting modernity? I realize that this post may be mainly questions/reflections on the reading, however rather than spout off some B.S. and pretend anyone knows whats goin on here, I feel as though we have too many questions for these concepts and not enough tools to properly analyze or accept the ideas that Habermas is throwing around in this reading.
Hasn't history taught us anything? The most important thing about history is to learn from our mistakes, to evolve and adapt the very ideals and characteristics that may have led to a past societies downfall. For every step we take back, we always attempt to take two steps forward. I feel as though something is missing from my ability to analyze or swallow this reading. If all this is not confusing enough, Habermas brings forth an idea of that which we consider classical in its ability to transcend time. Would we then consider classical to be persisting modernity? I realize that this post may be mainly questions/reflections on the reading, however rather than spout off some B.S. and pretend anyone knows whats goin on here, I feel as though we have too many questions for these concepts and not enough tools to properly analyze or accept the ideas that Habermas is throwing around in this reading.
BubbaNub 2/12
Am I the only one disturbed by the notion and examples shown of eclecticism in class on Tuesday. I believe Bella said in his/her post that it is a "perfect example of how cultures can fuse together to create a text" and that "it is fascinating that two drastically different cultures can come together". I would have to say I disagree, I find it to be a horrible exercise in America's global takeover. The video's shown, primarily the music video on Al Jazeera, is not a fuzing of cultures. It is our culture, it is the American stereotyped perspective that is attempting to change and modify their culture into the same mindless crap we put on our TV. The music video is like any other piece of MTV trash (not just in the way it objectifies women--also note all of the women were from other countries) that serves as political and cultural propaghanda that advocates consumerism. They place the singer with a black rapper so it seems as though, "Hey, they are cool with us over there, everything is just dandy". I repeat, we are not fusing together cultures by doing this, we are destroying a culture into the melting pot mindframe of America.
It scares me that anyone could view these video's as good things. Both in the Kanye West video and the Gorilla's video they attempt to reach the Japanese audience by showing Japanese characters and futuristic signs. However, this is superficial at best. I took Japanese for four years and lived in Japan and none of the Japanese shown in the videos was significant culturally at all. In fact most of it was written in Katakana (which is the form of writing they use for Americanized words, such as pizza and hamburger). If we embraced cultures instead of destroying them, eclecticism would not be as scary of a concept. However, all we are serving to do is transport MTV over to Al Jazeera and rot another civilizations brain since we have already done it to ourselves.
It scares me that anyone could view these video's as good things. Both in the Kanye West video and the Gorilla's video they attempt to reach the Japanese audience by showing Japanese characters and futuristic signs. However, this is superficial at best. I took Japanese for four years and lived in Japan and none of the Japanese shown in the videos was significant culturally at all. In fact most of it was written in Katakana (which is the form of writing they use for Americanized words, such as pizza and hamburger). If we embraced cultures instead of destroying them, eclecticism would not be as scary of a concept. However, all we are serving to do is transport MTV over to Al Jazeera and rot another civilizations brain since we have already done it to ourselves.
WouldntULike2Know 2/12
"Capitalism derealizes familiar objects."
Mass production paired with the ever evolving world of technology aids in derealizing what was once so commonplace and simplistic. Take for instance the iPhone. Is it a phone? An iPod? A camera? A laptop? A social indicator of personal wealth and social status? I believe it is D, All of the Above. On the brink of this technical revolution, a cell phone can no longer be just a cell phone. Cars, phones, homes, clothing, computers, etc. are continuing to evolve so much so that thier resemblance to their original "self" is far from what it used to be. And then, since everyone wants everything to be "newer/faster/better" there will always be something "better than the original"
The original cell phone, whose structure and weight is similar to that of a cement block (so I've heard,) is the "real" cell phone. The original computer, which took up an entire room, is now being replaced by the MacBook Air, which is thin enough to fit inside a manilla envelope. However, as generations pass, children of this decade will only acknowledge the three pound computer with as their "reality." But the mass production of this object will continue to deplete its individual authenticity, making it "less real."
Mass production paired with the ever evolving world of technology aids in derealizing what was once so commonplace and simplistic. Take for instance the iPhone. Is it a phone? An iPod? A camera? A laptop? A social indicator of personal wealth and social status? I believe it is D, All of the Above. On the brink of this technical revolution, a cell phone can no longer be just a cell phone. Cars, phones, homes, clothing, computers, etc. are continuing to evolve so much so that thier resemblance to their original "self" is far from what it used to be. And then, since everyone wants everything to be "newer/faster/better" there will always be something "better than the original"
The original cell phone, whose structure and weight is similar to that of a cement block (so I've heard,) is the "real" cell phone. The original computer, which took up an entire room, is now being replaced by the MacBook Air, which is thin enough to fit inside a manilla envelope. However, as generations pass, children of this decade will only acknowledge the three pound computer with as their "reality." But the mass production of this object will continue to deplete its individual authenticity, making it "less real."
Bumble: Post class 2/ 12
Group or no group… that is the question.
Is our society in danger because we have a community identity, and not enough individualistic perspective? Our discussion about Lyotard’s desire for artists and writers to “heal” the community with a breath of fresh individualism. He undoubtedly hates cultural stereotypes because of how it may stifle individual perspective. I am not sure that we should actually send our troops into battle to, “wage a war on totality” (46).
While it is bizarre coming from a New Yorker (very autonomous and independent culture), in many ways, Human beings only chance of survival is through group identity. Numbers have power, when people group together it builds strength, and raw ability to survive.
If you watch animals on the discovery channel or right around you, it is clear that for animals group and communal cohesiveness is the key to getting food, procreating, and protecting against predators. Humans need the cohesiveness for emotional comfort and language development along with all of these other factors.
Think about ants for example, they function as a group community identity, and they survive and these puny things can accomplish so much and survive, despite their tiny place in the larger universe. They are able to even create remarkable architecture!
Humans are dependent on one another, our very identities are shaped by our perception of how others and our reference groups interact with us; this is why strong communal bonds are so important. It is nice to belong to a team of people with similar ideas, because being accepted by a group makes interacting comforting. Humans are most definitely creatures of habit, and when people stray from the routine or offer new ideas, they often feel “off.”
While I believe that we need means of common grounds for communication, I value my independence and individuality more than I can even imagine. This is why it is so puzzling. I think that at a micro level we truly need unique, interesting, stimulating, challenging perspectives. This comes from a personal sense of self esteem and voice which everyone hopefully can find and express it without fear.
We discussed in class the notion that mass production, and communal ideas tend to be de-emphasized, which is so true. First, let’s think about the ants again. When you see ant, there are very few people who will be very upset when a single ant dies. Most people’s reactions are, well there are many more. This idea of what is real or not real relates to the identity of well if someone has an idea about something, is it truly their idea or is it this mass produced idea that has been circulating over and over again!?
Is our society in danger because we have a community identity, and not enough individualistic perspective? Our discussion about Lyotard’s desire for artists and writers to “heal” the community with a breath of fresh individualism. He undoubtedly hates cultural stereotypes because of how it may stifle individual perspective. I am not sure that we should actually send our troops into battle to, “wage a war on totality” (46).
While it is bizarre coming from a New Yorker (very autonomous and independent culture), in many ways, Human beings only chance of survival is through group identity. Numbers have power, when people group together it builds strength, and raw ability to survive.
If you watch animals on the discovery channel or right around you, it is clear that for animals group and communal cohesiveness is the key to getting food, procreating, and protecting against predators. Humans need the cohesiveness for emotional comfort and language development along with all of these other factors.
Think about ants for example, they function as a group community identity, and they survive and these puny things can accomplish so much and survive, despite their tiny place in the larger universe. They are able to even create remarkable architecture!
Humans are dependent on one another, our very identities are shaped by our perception of how others and our reference groups interact with us; this is why strong communal bonds are so important. It is nice to belong to a team of people with similar ideas, because being accepted by a group makes interacting comforting. Humans are most definitely creatures of habit, and when people stray from the routine or offer new ideas, they often feel “off.”
While I believe that we need means of common grounds for communication, I value my independence and individuality more than I can even imagine. This is why it is so puzzling. I think that at a micro level we truly need unique, interesting, stimulating, challenging perspectives. This comes from a personal sense of self esteem and voice which everyone hopefully can find and express it without fear.
We discussed in class the notion that mass production, and communal ideas tend to be de-emphasized, which is so true. First, let’s think about the ants again. When you see ant, there are very few people who will be very upset when a single ant dies. Most people’s reactions are, well there are many more. This idea of what is real or not real relates to the identity of well if someone has an idea about something, is it truly their idea or is it this mass produced idea that has been circulating over and over again!?
Bumble: Post class 2/ 12
DANGER DANGER DANGER of photographs!
Is there such thing as reality? Our class discussion regarding the truth in photography made me think a lot about what sort of problems we all can get in by simply acknowledging photographs as true. Our minds are incapable of distinguishing between reality and fiction, that is why if our minds truly believe something about ourselves, it translates into the self fulfilling prophecy.
People tend to assume that truth lies in a photograph and that it is seen as concrete evidence and therefore must be true. Once upon a time this could have been true, but times are changing!
What is scary to think about is how easily photos can be manipulated. There are programs by the dozen which enable the user to change colors, textures, tones, and the content of photographs. Should this be allowed? These programs allow for people to develop their individualistic perspectives and create artwork. What if it is used deliberately to change the perception of the truth, is it considered lying?
I always wondered the most about photos while used in forensics. People use images and evidence in court cases to reveal the truth and help the jury make an honest decision. Photographs of crime scenes are often powerful tools to show concrete evidence to the court. In today’s world are photographs still allowed? Are digital pictures allowed? Anyone could plant evidence in a photo using these newly developed programs. You could put in a fingerprint, a bloody footprint, a dead man.
Who is to say what pictures have not been digitally altered. No one can tell by the naked eye. Is that photo of a Photoshop dead man fake?
Even with digital video editing, what is real and fake? Someone had showed me on YOU TUBE. This was a video of President Bush talking, but the person had altered the speed and pitch of the recording so he sounded severely intoxicated. The title of this video was called “Bush is Drunk.” While I might enjoy watching a video like this, is it real? This could have been one person’s perception of reality.
There was an article in the New York Times which I found fascinating called: “Proving That Seeing Shouldn’t Always Be Believing.” This article talked about the fact that due to the increase in digital manipulation (particularly in magazines like national inquirer and in journalism or criminal cases) they have a new field of study called digital forensics. Digital forensics is the study that examines photos and tries to determine whether or not they have been slightly altered. The details are so minute, but on a computer if any pixels at all were altered, then they change the number codes in the system. They then have to go through all of the numbers for any slight shifts. It takes a trained eye, but it is very important to do this.
We all need to be a part of the photo and determine for ourselves what is real and what we want to see as false. If we are in the process then we will not have an issue with trying to define everything we see. Give up on categorizing, because if I want to believe that a model has flawless skin and a size zero I can believe it. Someone else might choose to throw themselves into the photo and see that the model’s body was airbrushed to be about 3 sizes smaller, and that she actually has pimples.
IT IS ALL ABOUT PERSPECTIVE!
Is there such thing as reality? Our class discussion regarding the truth in photography made me think a lot about what sort of problems we all can get in by simply acknowledging photographs as true. Our minds are incapable of distinguishing between reality and fiction, that is why if our minds truly believe something about ourselves, it translates into the self fulfilling prophecy.
People tend to assume that truth lies in a photograph and that it is seen as concrete evidence and therefore must be true. Once upon a time this could have been true, but times are changing!
What is scary to think about is how easily photos can be manipulated. There are programs by the dozen which enable the user to change colors, textures, tones, and the content of photographs. Should this be allowed? These programs allow for people to develop their individualistic perspectives and create artwork. What if it is used deliberately to change the perception of the truth, is it considered lying?
I always wondered the most about photos while used in forensics. People use images and evidence in court cases to reveal the truth and help the jury make an honest decision. Photographs of crime scenes are often powerful tools to show concrete evidence to the court. In today’s world are photographs still allowed? Are digital pictures allowed? Anyone could plant evidence in a photo using these newly developed programs. You could put in a fingerprint, a bloody footprint, a dead man.
Who is to say what pictures have not been digitally altered. No one can tell by the naked eye. Is that photo of a Photoshop dead man fake?
Even with digital video editing, what is real and fake? Someone had showed me on YOU TUBE. This was a video of President Bush talking, but the person had altered the speed and pitch of the recording so he sounded severely intoxicated. The title of this video was called “Bush is Drunk.” While I might enjoy watching a video like this, is it real? This could have been one person’s perception of reality.
There was an article in the New York Times which I found fascinating called: “Proving That Seeing Shouldn’t Always Be Believing.” This article talked about the fact that due to the increase in digital manipulation (particularly in magazines like national inquirer and in journalism or criminal cases) they have a new field of study called digital forensics. Digital forensics is the study that examines photos and tries to determine whether or not they have been slightly altered. The details are so minute, but on a computer if any pixels at all were altered, then they change the number codes in the system. They then have to go through all of the numbers for any slight shifts. It takes a trained eye, but it is very important to do this.
We all need to be a part of the photo and determine for ourselves what is real and what we want to see as false. If we are in the process then we will not have an issue with trying to define everything we see. Give up on categorizing, because if I want to believe that a model has flawless skin and a size zero I can believe it. Someone else might choose to throw themselves into the photo and see that the model’s body was airbrushed to be about 3 sizes smaller, and that she actually has pimples.
IT IS ALL ABOUT PERSPECTIVE!
WouldntULike2Know Habermas
"Of course, whatever can survive time has always been considered to be a classic. But the emphatically modern document no longer borrows this power of being a classic from the authority of past epoch: instead, a modern work becomes a classic because it has once been authentically modern." (99)
After reading this I began to relate this notion to music. The genre of "Classic Rock" was given that name for a reason. My mother tells the story of her freshman year of college at the University of Tennessee. As she was walking through the quad, surrounded on all four sides by dormitorys, she vividly remembers blaring out every open window REO Speedwagons "Keep On Lovin You." Since its release in March of 1981 and considered then, a modern song, "Keep on Lovin you" remains popular, a classic. I have to question if songs like Britney Spears' "Gimme More" or Akon's "Smack That" will be just as popular 28 years from now. Yesterday in class we discussed that in order to make popular art that will be well received by the public, you have to produce what they want at that time. Perhaps being appreciated in your time will do just that and only that. I question the length of these current artists careers who sing about smacking asses and supermanning hoes. Whats sad is that this modern music is reflective of the time period in which it was created. Sadly, this speaks volumes about our current culture values. But artists like Zepplin, REO, and The Eagles have accomplished being well received well beyond their time and proves that this pop music may just be a fad, one that I hope ends soon.
After reading this I began to relate this notion to music. The genre of "Classic Rock" was given that name for a reason. My mother tells the story of her freshman year of college at the University of Tennessee. As she was walking through the quad, surrounded on all four sides by dormitorys, she vividly remembers blaring out every open window REO Speedwagons "Keep On Lovin You." Since its release in March of 1981 and considered then, a modern song, "Keep on Lovin you" remains popular, a classic. I have to question if songs like Britney Spears' "Gimme More" or Akon's "Smack That" will be just as popular 28 years from now. Yesterday in class we discussed that in order to make popular art that will be well received by the public, you have to produce what they want at that time. Perhaps being appreciated in your time will do just that and only that. I question the length of these current artists careers who sing about smacking asses and supermanning hoes. Whats sad is that this modern music is reflective of the time period in which it was created. Sadly, this speaks volumes about our current culture values. But artists like Zepplin, REO, and The Eagles have accomplished being well received well beyond their time and proves that this pop music may just be a fad, one that I hope ends soon.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Bella 2/12 Post Class
“Eclecticism is the degree zero of contemporary general culture” (Lyotard 42). Before class, I was extremely confused as to what eclecticism looked like. I understood what it meant, but could not grasp the cultural references. When Dr. Rog played the Gorillaz and Kanye’s Stronger video, I realized what eclecticism looks like. The music video seen on Al Jazeera seems like the perfect example of “globalization”. The women in the video are, as Dr. Rog said, are like the United Colors of Benetton ladies…white, Asian, blonde, black, etc. They are a drastically different representation of women than I would have expected coming from a middle-eastern music video. Mute the sound, and it appears identical to any other hip-hop music video in America. To top it all off, another dude pops in there and starts rapping…in English! I found myself bobbing my head and tapping my foot under the desk by the end of the song–it was catchy. It is the perfect example of eclecticism, and how cultures can fuse together to create a text. The song can be played in the Middle East as well as in other western cultures. How much more eclectic could a culture get? I find it absolutely fascinating that two drastically different cultures can come together to create something as beautiful as a song (even if it is a cheesy rap song that exploits women). The idea of Bricolage–the blending of several images and texts of various styles–may lead to a “disharmonious harmony” which is exactly what we saw in that music video. The images were shocking and provoking, especially with the women of different races and the English speaking rapper, and definitely could be considered disharmonious, but in some bizarre way, it actually works. It creates a beautiful, eclectic harmony that perfectly represents the blending of cultures we are seeing more and more often as an effect of globalization.
Monday, February 11, 2008
sawsaw Lyotard
I found Lyotards, "Answering the Question: What is Postmodernism?" to be a very difficult read. I found his points to be very scattered and hard to follow. The quote I found to be very interesting was on page 43 where he writes, "Modernity, in whatever age it appears, cannot exist without a shattering of belief and without discovery of the "lack of reality" of reality, together with the invention of other realities." This quote means to me that reality doesn't exist without beliefs being shattered and modernity being questioned. We must discover that reality doesn't exist and that the lack of reality together with the invention of other realities is what makes modernity. Another quote that stood out to me was on page 42, "The objects and the thoughts which originate in scientific knowledge and the capitalist economy convey with them one of the rules which supports their possibility: the rule that there is no reality unless testified by a consensus between partners over a certain knowledge and certain commitments." This idea of reality is one that not very many thinkers identify with. It is very difficult to define reality by a consensus between partners of knowledge and commitments. Reality should be evident to all people and not confined to a certain group or a mutual understanding of knowledge. Reality is a universal truth that everyone should have an understanding of and something that is evident to all. This capitalistic idea of reality proves that there is no reality unless commonly agreed upon by partners. Lyotards points on reality forced me to question the line between what is real and reality. His idea of no reality or lack of reality shows me that our modern views have led us to believe that reality, the now or present, doesn't exist the future and "modern" ideas are what we strive on and base our knowledge of today on.
kaymac Lyotard
I have to admit, I felt like an idiot reading this. I understood each word individually, but when those words were strung together I was completely lost. But the overall feeling I got from this reading was that avant gardism is why the novel and painting were lost. In our efforts to simplify and/or tear apart what has been perceived as beautiful for the past six hundred years or so the actual art/technique of painting/writing a novel has been lost. But then with this, is it time to change?
So here's the interesting quote that I found in this reading, which helped me understand the piece. "Here, then, lies the difference: modern aesthetics is an aesthetic of the sublime, though a nostalgic one. It allows the unpresentable to be put forward only as the missing contents; but the form, because of its recognizable consistency,continues to offer the reader or viewer matter for solace and pleasure. Yet these sentiments do not constitute the real sublime sentiment, which is an intrinsic combination of pleasure and pain: the pleasure that reason should exceed all presentation, the pain that imagination or sensibility should not be equal to the concept (46)."
What is the sublime? In this, I believe that the sublime is the beautiful, and when he says nostalgic, I think he means traditional, i.e. Renaissance-like painting and art, naturalistic. When he talks about the unpresentable, I think he means the art that has been "ruined" by avant gardism. So because modern aesthetics are nostalgic, it's calling for something new, and therefore avant gardism has been brought into the picture in order to fill that gap. And with the rest of what he says, because we accept this art form to fill the gap we call this art beautiful but instead it's more of an empty hole that we are trying to fill with sawdust. I think he's saying that we're losing our minds, which I beg to differ.
So here's the interesting quote that I found in this reading, which helped me understand the piece. "Here, then, lies the difference: modern aesthetics is an aesthetic of the sublime, though a nostalgic one. It allows the unpresentable to be put forward only as the missing contents; but the form, because of its recognizable consistency,continues to offer the reader or viewer matter for solace and pleasure. Yet these sentiments do not constitute the real sublime sentiment, which is an intrinsic combination of pleasure and pain: the pleasure that reason should exceed all presentation, the pain that imagination or sensibility should not be equal to the concept (46)."
What is the sublime? In this, I believe that the sublime is the beautiful, and when he says nostalgic, I think he means traditional, i.e. Renaissance-like painting and art, naturalistic. When he talks about the unpresentable, I think he means the art that has been "ruined" by avant gardism. So because modern aesthetics are nostalgic, it's calling for something new, and therefore avant gardism has been brought into the picture in order to fill that gap. And with the rest of what he says, because we accept this art form to fill the gap we call this art beautiful but instead it's more of an empty hole that we are trying to fill with sawdust. I think he's saying that we're losing our minds, which I beg to differ.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Bella Lyotard
Jean Francois Lyotard desbribed postmodernism as a period of “slackening”, and “the end of experimentation”(Lyotard 38). He says that artists and critics alike are being urged to smother their work, repackage it in new, less creative, machine-made, mass produced form. He described the “Splintering of culture and its separation from life”, and strives to unity in our culture. He is a complicated, confusing theorist, and takes much of his argument from the other authors we have read this semester. He says that most art is guided by rules and systems which “appear to them as a means to deceive, to seduce, and to reassure, which makes it impossible for them to be ‘true’” (Lyotard 41).
If being guided by rules makes something false, then wouldn’t our entire world collapse? (I think) Lyotard says that there is no such thing as true reality, and that “realism, whose only definition is that it intends to avoid the question of reality implicated in that of art, always stands somewhere between academicism and kitsch” (Lyotard 41
“Eclecticism is the degree zero of contemporary general culture: one listens to reggae, watches a western, eats McDonald’s food for lunch and local cuisine for dinner, wears Paris perfume in Tokyo and ‘retro’ clothes in Hong Kong; knowledge is a matter for TV games” (Lyotard, 42). To me, this seems like a mixture of globalism and eclecticism. Our culture disperses itself throughout the world, melding and transforming cross-culturally to create a new reality. I really feel like my analysis makes no sense, but I feel like further discussion in class will help to break down this text. Lyotard later wrote, “The sublime is a different sentiment. It takes place, on the contrary, when the imagination fails to present an object which might, if only in principle, come to match a concept. We have the Idea of the world (the totality of what is), but we do not have the capacity to show an example of it. We have the Idea of the simple (that which cannot be broken down, decomposed), but we cannot illustrate it with a sensible object which would be a ‘case’ of it. We can conceive the infinitely great, the infinitely powerful, but every presentation of an object destined to ‘make visible’ this absolute greatness or power appears to us painfully inadequate” (Lyotard 43). Hopefully we will be able to discuss and elaborate on the “Idea” of greatness further in class.
If being guided by rules makes something false, then wouldn’t our entire world collapse? (I think) Lyotard says that there is no such thing as true reality, and that “realism, whose only definition is that it intends to avoid the question of reality implicated in that of art, always stands somewhere between academicism and kitsch” (Lyotard 41
“Eclecticism is the degree zero of contemporary general culture: one listens to reggae, watches a western, eats McDonald’s food for lunch and local cuisine for dinner, wears Paris perfume in Tokyo and ‘retro’ clothes in Hong Kong; knowledge is a matter for TV games” (Lyotard, 42). To me, this seems like a mixture of globalism and eclecticism. Our culture disperses itself throughout the world, melding and transforming cross-culturally to create a new reality. I really feel like my analysis makes no sense, but I feel like further discussion in class will help to break down this text. Lyotard later wrote, “The sublime is a different sentiment. It takes place, on the contrary, when the imagination fails to present an object which might, if only in principle, come to match a concept. We have the Idea of the world (the totality of what is), but we do not have the capacity to show an example of it. We have the Idea of the simple (that which cannot be broken down, decomposed), but we cannot illustrate it with a sensible object which would be a ‘case’ of it. We can conceive the infinitely great, the infinitely powerful, but every presentation of an object destined to ‘make visible’ this absolute greatness or power appears to us painfully inadequate” (Lyotard 43). Hopefully we will be able to discuss and elaborate on the “Idea” of greatness further in class.
romulus 2/7
The buildings in Orlando, just like any other city, are the representation of the culture, history, wealth, power etc., of itself. The ten concepts studied in class became apparent on the field trip.
I have have been following the growth and development of the greater Orlando area. orlandoskyscapers.com is a great observational tool. The Bank of America building was completed in 1988 whilst the Orange County Courthouse was in 1997.
This means that the green granite base and the untreated limestone used in the courthouse was borrowed from a bank. This shows the influence of banks on a local area's economy. Today corporations that cater to living in the center of commerce and activity use urbane urbanism to build varying degrees of self sustaining buildings that appeal to consumers. Orlando is going through a renaissance, and development is rampant throughout the city. New Urbanism not discussed has Celebration and Baldwin Park as models of that design concept. This wave of investment is bringing about the newest and trendiest of what's hot in architecture. This is exciting to watch.
But to sincerely find big and bold designs one should look at the tallest structures racing to be completed throughout the world. As our ambitions literally shove us to new heights, concentration is reaching a new age. Our technological powers increase our capabilities to build our dreams. We can play with buildings so much more now than we ever did. As my eyes begin to see our reality in a lets rigid way, disharmonious harmony, radical eclecticism and all of the other add fun to our lives. Variety and diversity is a treat that I like.
ChittyChittyBangBang 2/10
Class on Thursday was a really cool experience. I haven't gone on a class field trip in forever, so it was interesting to mix it up and actually go look at what we've been discussing and reading about. I am a visual learner so forcing myself to analyze this postmodern architecture in person really helped me grasp the concepts we have been learning about. The Bank of America provided several examples such as anamnesis. We discussed the heights of the building reminding us of cingular or steps. One of the other buildings we studied looked like a cruise ship.
I also found the new rhetorical figures of the Bank of America the most intriguing part. Looking at the building and seeing the rosery windows with the brass knobs in the middle and how that is repeated all throughout the building. The windows that had the cross near the bottom instead of in the middle also become the norm to us because it is repeated throughout the building. If a standard window appears it looks out of place.
I am also beginning to see faces in everything, before i never would have noticed anthropomorphism in the Bank of America building. Although now I see the double doors creating a mouth. Apparently at nightime this is even more obvious and it appears as if the mouth is breathing fire.
What we see and expect in architecture also has a lot to do with what type of building it is. We expect the courthouse that we visited to be more of a "jail cell", "cold" type of building. Therefore we associated the doors etc...to be bars to a cell. Although the courthouse tried to make the building a welcoming place with the large courtyard, fountain, and cafe. Not to mention the family taking photographs that had just adopted a baby. It was a very welcoming day at the orlando courthouse...
Basically, I am never going to be able to look at architecture the same! I am continually looking at what could be considered disharmonious harmoney or radical eclecticism! gah!! : )
I also found the new rhetorical figures of the Bank of America the most intriguing part. Looking at the building and seeing the rosery windows with the brass knobs in the middle and how that is repeated all throughout the building. The windows that had the cross near the bottom instead of in the middle also become the norm to us because it is repeated throughout the building. If a standard window appears it looks out of place.
I am also beginning to see faces in everything, before i never would have noticed anthropomorphism in the Bank of America building. Although now I see the double doors creating a mouth. Apparently at nightime this is even more obvious and it appears as if the mouth is breathing fire.
What we see and expect in architecture also has a lot to do with what type of building it is. We expect the courthouse that we visited to be more of a "jail cell", "cold" type of building. Therefore we associated the doors etc...to be bars to a cell. Although the courthouse tried to make the building a welcoming place with the large courtyard, fountain, and cafe. Not to mention the family taking photographs that had just adopted a baby. It was a very welcoming day at the orlando courthouse...
Basically, I am never going to be able to look at architecture the same! I am continually looking at what could be considered disharmonious harmoney or radical eclecticism! gah!! : )
kMO Post Class 2/7
The term postmodern refers to many developments in different areas, but in relation to what we are studying this week architecture is the most prominent expansion of modernism. The problem with a class such as Critical Media and Culture is that there are rarely opportunities for a hands-on experience. This is unfortunate, especially since many other majors at Rollins require a “lab” as part of the curriculum. Therefore, taking a trip downtown to physically see the relevance between what we are reading and what we are seeing was a great idea. Through the process of picking out buildings we were able to instill these new concepts into our heads. For example, Bank of America provided us with a perfect example of disharmonious harmony. All of the small specific details were both beautiful and architecturally intricate.
WouldntULike2Know 2/7
While studying and observing postmodern architecture downtown last Thursday, many people gave us a prime example of a framework of postmodernism. During our time there, as this relatively small group of well-dressed, inconspicious young people were analyzing the different features of the buildings, others around suspected that we were up to no good. In a city with one of the highest murder rates in the nation, college students studying architecture were causing concern.
This experience has revealed to me that the initial statement made by Dr. Rog is true. We will never be able to look at things or experience things in the same way ever again... and I kind of like that fact.
This experience has revealed to me that the initial statement made by Dr. Rog is true. We will never be able to look at things or experience things in the same way ever again... and I kind of like that fact.
Bumble: Lyotard
Post Modern, Oh my goodness what is it!?
Jean-Francois Lyotard is one confusing man,
It seems to be that there is no reality, there is no set meaning to anything, and so does it make life better or worse? In many ways it seems a given that there is no way to categorize everything, and that there is no such thing as reality. In another way, as humans we are inclined to want to categorize things and place things into their proper places. What I understood about the meaning of postmodernism is that there is this phenomenon that every thing created can be considered legitimately literature or art or a rule. However, instead of trying to place the works or texts into established rules, you make the rules revolve around the work. If there are no set rules that you need to try to squeeze your life into, then what happens to the meaning of AUTHORITY? We are constantly in the process of inventing and reinventing rules so what is the meaning of the old ones. In many ways we live dual lives in which some aspects are modern and others are postmodern. In the discipline of art, creativity, and leisure most definitely we are living a postmodern life, practically everything can be accepted into a proper form of work. “the work he produces are not in principle governed by pre-established rules, and they cannot be judged according to a determining judgment…” (Lyotard 46). It is beautiful that suddenly everything under the sun or within the scope of an individual’s creativity or imagination can be credible. On the other hand, I often look at texts and say, “who decided that the work is art or talent?” There is no authority or comparable standards anymore. We live a more modern approach to government though. If everything were postmodern than we would all be running around like wild apes.
I hope to clarify this topic more in class!
Jean-Francois Lyotard is one confusing man,
It seems to be that there is no reality, there is no set meaning to anything, and so does it make life better or worse? In many ways it seems a given that there is no way to categorize everything, and that there is no such thing as reality. In another way, as humans we are inclined to want to categorize things and place things into their proper places. What I understood about the meaning of postmodernism is that there is this phenomenon that every thing created can be considered legitimately literature or art or a rule. However, instead of trying to place the works or texts into established rules, you make the rules revolve around the work. If there are no set rules that you need to try to squeeze your life into, then what happens to the meaning of AUTHORITY? We are constantly in the process of inventing and reinventing rules so what is the meaning of the old ones. In many ways we live dual lives in which some aspects are modern and others are postmodern. In the discipline of art, creativity, and leisure most definitely we are living a postmodern life, practically everything can be accepted into a proper form of work. “the work he produces are not in principle governed by pre-established rules, and they cannot be judged according to a determining judgment…” (Lyotard 46). It is beautiful that suddenly everything under the sun or within the scope of an individual’s creativity or imagination can be credible. On the other hand, I often look at texts and say, “who decided that the work is art or talent?” There is no authority or comparable standards anymore. We live a more modern approach to government though. If everything were postmodern than we would all be running around like wild apes.
I hope to clarify this topic more in class!
July 2-6-08
Exploring the downtown Orlando area was a learning experience for my colleagues and me. Although we looked like tourist we accomplished learning the different post modern architectures. I’m more of a visual learner and I needed that hand on experience, which was provided thoroughly. The most diverse structure was the Bank of America building because it was bigger and more creative. That is enough talking about our field trip on Thursday and more about our class discussion on Tuesday.
Our society has shaped our minds to believe the unbelievable. For instance, Dr. Rog gave the example about being blind folded and being asked to identify the flavor of grape juice. One may guess the product as being “grape juice,” but in reality grapes do not share the same taste as the artificial fruit juices. The mind does reflect upon these actions because it is done consciously. Also, the way our society perceives different groups or cultures tend to rub off when comparing one person to another. For example, I go to the mall and see a lady walking and immediately I say to me “She looks like a model.” What do these words mean? As an individual critic I am entitled to announce my opinions, but who form these ideas in my head? I have not been around modeling nor have I pursued a career in this field, but the media has brought all the knowledge I need to know about modeling to me. General media creates stereotypes about groups that determine their basic qualities. These qualities of those groups as a whole can’t always be true because everyone in that group is not exactly a like. Let’s continue to use the modeling example; all models are skinny, brunette or blonde, tall, bulimic, and dumb. There are some, who have these characteristics, but everyone who is a model does not have all of these traits, but we as the society generalize groups based on the media’s perception.
Our society has shaped our minds to believe the unbelievable. For instance, Dr. Rog gave the example about being blind folded and being asked to identify the flavor of grape juice. One may guess the product as being “grape juice,” but in reality grapes do not share the same taste as the artificial fruit juices. The mind does reflect upon these actions because it is done consciously. Also, the way our society perceives different groups or cultures tend to rub off when comparing one person to another. For example, I go to the mall and see a lady walking and immediately I say to me “She looks like a model.” What do these words mean? As an individual critic I am entitled to announce my opinions, but who form these ideas in my head? I have not been around modeling nor have I pursued a career in this field, but the media has brought all the knowledge I need to know about modeling to me. General media creates stereotypes about groups that determine their basic qualities. These qualities of those groups as a whole can’t always be true because everyone in that group is not exactly a like. Let’s continue to use the modeling example; all models are skinny, brunette or blonde, tall, bulimic, and dumb. There are some, who have these characteristics, but everyone who is a model does not have all of these traits, but we as the society generalize groups based on the media’s perception.
Bumble: Post class downtown!! 2/7
We’re going downtown!
After this trip downtown, I felt enlightened. I felt as though I had a great insight that other people who have not been exposed to this knowledge of post modern architecture had. In fact, I went downtown on Friday night to the Magic game and on my way there I passed by the bus station. I guess I never could have gotten the full effect of amnesis until the night time journey. The waves, which are very randomly eclectic next to the building itself, are BLUE! I felt as though they were waves of the ocean. Talk about irony as well… what are waves doing in the middle of downtown Orlando? I was compelled to point out the buildings we visited to all of my friends. I got a bunch of stares but was proud that I could point out the phallic symbol of the courthouse. Also in the courthouse I was able to see the crown. The peaks were lit up like jewels shimmering. The building holds a lot of power in this hegemonically dominantly male society. It could be even borderline symbolic of a king, or tyrannical kingdom. It most definitely holds double meaning which is supposed to infuse a certain feeling when being in the presence of the building.
After pleading with my friends to stop at the Bank of America, I saw the face, the anthropomorphism is very clear in the dark. In fact it reminded me of when I was a little girl and used to look for faces in everything. The most prominent place of finding these scary faces were in cars. The face at Bank of America very much reminded me of the headlights and evil smiles on the grills of the cars. Once you are aware of these anthropomorphic images in buildings, you can not help but to see them everywhere!
I found myself every thinking about post modern architecture in the middle of lacrosse practice. During a lap around the gym I see that the Alfond Sports Center has reoccurring patterns which are reflected and reused all over. If you look at the window panes, you find that they are placed everywhere on the building! Again, I felt compelled to tell my friends, look at how the Alfond Sports Center is postmodern. Hopefully by pointing these out to my friends we can continue spreading the wealth of understanding architecture as more than just buildings.
So thank you for this trip… Also, it was important to take this trip because I did not realize until being in their presence that these buildings can have multiple styles applied.
After this trip downtown, I felt enlightened. I felt as though I had a great insight that other people who have not been exposed to this knowledge of post modern architecture had. In fact, I went downtown on Friday night to the Magic game and on my way there I passed by the bus station. I guess I never could have gotten the full effect of amnesis until the night time journey. The waves, which are very randomly eclectic next to the building itself, are BLUE! I felt as though they were waves of the ocean. Talk about irony as well… what are waves doing in the middle of downtown Orlando? I was compelled to point out the buildings we visited to all of my friends. I got a bunch of stares but was proud that I could point out the phallic symbol of the courthouse. Also in the courthouse I was able to see the crown. The peaks were lit up like jewels shimmering. The building holds a lot of power in this hegemonically dominantly male society. It could be even borderline symbolic of a king, or tyrannical kingdom. It most definitely holds double meaning which is supposed to infuse a certain feeling when being in the presence of the building.
After pleading with my friends to stop at the Bank of America, I saw the face, the anthropomorphism is very clear in the dark. In fact it reminded me of when I was a little girl and used to look for faces in everything. The most prominent place of finding these scary faces were in cars. The face at Bank of America very much reminded me of the headlights and evil smiles on the grills of the cars. Once you are aware of these anthropomorphic images in buildings, you can not help but to see them everywhere!
I found myself every thinking about post modern architecture in the middle of lacrosse practice. During a lap around the gym I see that the Alfond Sports Center has reoccurring patterns which are reflected and reused all over. If you look at the window panes, you find that they are placed everywhere on the building! Again, I felt compelled to tell my friends, look at how the Alfond Sports Center is postmodern. Hopefully by pointing these out to my friends we can continue spreading the wealth of understanding architecture as more than just buildings.
So thank you for this trip… Also, it was important to take this trip because I did not realize until being in their presence that these buildings can have multiple styles applied.
Cuckoo 2/7
I really enjoyed Thursday’s class for a couple of reasons. I have never gone downtown to look at the architecture. It really helped me grasp the understanding of postmodern architecture by having the chance to actually look at the buildings rather than images. In class we have been looking at pictures of different buildings but being able to see the buildings up close and talk about the different elements of postmodern architecture really furthered my understanding. I never realized how many buildings where postmodern, but as we were driving downtown we looked out the windows and named some of the different types of building, many which seemed to be urban urbanism. It is not until you sit back and look at the buildings that, at least for myself, you realize how many different styles have been compressed into one building. I don’t think I am going to be able to look at a building again without thinking about disharmonious harmony, anamnesis, radical eclecticism, or any of the other concepts of postmodern architecture.
While we were looking at Bank of America Building the idea of an open text was brought up again. The building is composed of a couple of buildings at different levels and it looks like the Cingular symbol. When the architect was designing the building Cingular was not around, therefore, he did not intentionally incorporate the symbol. It is something that we saw in the building. This also goes into the idea of how we are able to look at a companies symbol and know what it is without having any word associated with it. When someone pointed out it looking like the Cingular bars we all were able to see what they were talking about. It did not have to be clearly pointed out and shown, we all were familiar with the image.
While we were looking at Bank of America Building the idea of an open text was brought up again. The building is composed of a couple of buildings at different levels and it looks like the Cingular symbol. When the architect was designing the building Cingular was not around, therefore, he did not intentionally incorporate the symbol. It is something that we saw in the building. This also goes into the idea of how we are able to look at a companies symbol and know what it is without having any word associated with it. When someone pointed out it looking like the Cingular bars we all were able to see what they were talking about. It did not have to be clearly pointed out and shown, we all were familiar with the image.
boo boo bear 2-7
Over the last couple of weeks I have grown a whole new appreciation for postmodern architecture and postmodern art. I have always thought that many forms of architecture are ridiculous and were something that anyone could do. I always felt like I could just draw up some building that was randomly put together but I now can see the true meaning of disharmonious harmony. These types of building aren’t just thrown together. They are fully thought through works of art. It amazes me how these buildings can flow and balance while looking like someone just threw a couple buildings together.
The field trip the other day (my first field trip since high school by the way) was great for me because I could see perfect examples of all the different forms of postmodern architecture in person. I thought it was interesting how the group would see five or six different forms of postmodern architecture in one building alone. The Bank of America building gave me visual examples of multiple forms postmodern architecture. I think that was when this quote really clicked and made sense to me, “The author and the critic are equally remote from a true appreciation of the work.” (I think that’s how it goes?) I find it hard to believe that when the architect was designing the Bank of America building he was trying to fit all of our forms of postmodern architecture into one building. But we, as the critics, could see many of the examples. Someone even brought up anthropomorphism somewhere around the lobby entrance. There was nothing close to anthropomorphism as far as I could see but that didn’t matter. Anyone with a strong enough imagination could find a facial resemblance on the building. And I could guarantee the architect wasn’t trying to make that building have a giant face on it.
The field trip the other day (my first field trip since high school by the way) was great for me because I could see perfect examples of all the different forms of postmodern architecture in person. I thought it was interesting how the group would see five or six different forms of postmodern architecture in one building alone. The Bank of America building gave me visual examples of multiple forms postmodern architecture. I think that was when this quote really clicked and made sense to me, “The author and the critic are equally remote from a true appreciation of the work.” (I think that’s how it goes?) I find it hard to believe that when the architect was designing the Bank of America building he was trying to fit all of our forms of postmodern architecture into one building. But we, as the critics, could see many of the examples. Someone even brought up anthropomorphism somewhere around the lobby entrance. There was nothing close to anthropomorphism as far as I could see but that didn’t matter. Anyone with a strong enough imagination could find a facial resemblance on the building. And I could guarantee the architect wasn’t trying to make that building have a giant face on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)