I will be given a brief from this week’s class from my own perspective. First, we ended the readings for exam one and moved on to Baudrillard. He stresses the terms dissimulate, which means to pretend not to have what one has and simulate, to feign to have what one doesn’t have. An example of dissimulate would be a police officer who is at the scene of a bank robbery trying to negotiating with a criminal, but stating “I do not have a weapon, but the gun is sticking out of the back of his pants. This is a more detailed example, but this action implies a presence, while simulate involves an absence. For example, a teacher stating “I have one hundred thousand dollars for the next person who gets a question correct,” but clearly he doesn’t have the money in his hands. Also, Baudrillard believes there are four successive phases of images: Reflection of reality (good), masking and denaturing of reality (evil), masking the absence of reality (sorcery), and no relation to reality (simulacara).
The next theorist of the week was Zizer, who briefly talked about the way humans convert movies into everyday activities and vice versa. One of his quotes that I thought was interesting was, “America got what it fantasized about, and that was the biggest surprise.” This quote is referring to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. It means that America fantasizes or glorify over other countries depression and it was time for America to get a taste of their obsession. I don’t believe he meant it an offensive manner, but he was just stating reality.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Friday, February 22, 2008
NewYorker 2/21
Class discussion was very interesting. It's interesting how one single quote can be interpreted so many different ways, as was exhibited in class. But I really liked talking about Disney, and reality vs fantasy / what is real and what is fake. I always think of theme parks as an escape from reality, even Universal or Six Flags. Everything in that environment, in the park, is man made, and sometimes I feel as though I am walking through a fake town. Especially Main Street in Disney, where everything is perfect. Even when people are walking around in Mickey/Minnie ears, or glow in the dark/light up necklaces and beads, in the parks this is looked at as normal. One can walk around wearing almost anything, and paraphenalia, and henna tattoos or hair wraps, and no one looks at them thinking they are weird - it is accepted at the parks. Even if someone is holding onto a souvenier cup that is gigantic and decorated following some sort of theme, that is perfectly acceptable. However, once you step foot outside of the park with these things, it becomes weird and out of the ordinary - because you are not in fantasy land anymore, you are out in the real world.
.
Also how we spoke about: "Disneyland tells us that technology can give us more reality than nature can (203)." The weird thing is, is that it is so true. On the safari rides you get to see everything. In Animal Kingdom, all of the animals are out for show, and you are guaranteed to see what you came for. Compare this to real nature, the stories you told about Old Faithful, plus many other examples, nature cannot be guaranteed. Even when they say there will be a meteor shower, sometimes it cannot be seen due to cloudy/foggy weather, but go to a planetarium, and see whatever you want. But I don't see anything wrong with creating nature. Why not be able to see what a safari has to offer? Why not see all the stars in the sky? This could make people compare the real and the fake, and to appreciate nature even more. To realize that nature has its own patterns, and works randomly.
.
Also how we spoke about: "Disneyland tells us that technology can give us more reality than nature can (203)." The weird thing is, is that it is so true. On the safari rides you get to see everything. In Animal Kingdom, all of the animals are out for show, and you are guaranteed to see what you came for. Compare this to real nature, the stories you told about Old Faithful, plus many other examples, nature cannot be guaranteed. Even when they say there will be a meteor shower, sometimes it cannot be seen due to cloudy/foggy weather, but go to a planetarium, and see whatever you want. But I don't see anything wrong with creating nature. Why not be able to see what a safari has to offer? Why not see all the stars in the sky? This could make people compare the real and the fake, and to appreciate nature even more. To realize that nature has its own patterns, and works randomly.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Sgt. Pepper, Eco Dorfman and Mattelart
The most fascinating point I thought Eco made was when he talked about the ride at Disneyland where you take a ride down the Mississippi in the historic city of New Orleans. He goes on to explain the things you see on the ride, alligators and other wildlife, and how they're expected to be seen on the ride because that's the stereotypical Mississippi River. He describes how he purposely rode the Mississippi River ride, then rode an actual tour boat down the real Mississippi in New Orleans and how it becomes a disappointment if people don't see that wildlife. Disney offers the utopian, stereotypical reality for which we yearn.
"Disneyland tells us that technology can give us more than nature can." (203).
In a similar fashion, I think a similar mind trick is going on with the Rollins College campus. Someone told me yesterday that the City of Winter Park is putting brick roads in the entire "campus quarter" neighborhood. While Rollins has its brick roads, its cultural Mediterranean architecture and flawless landscaping, I feel that in a sense we live in a hyperreality on this campus. I would assume that most of the buildings on campus are not historical, and that the brick roads weren't here before the college was built. Thinking back, it makes more sense that when I visited Rollins for the first time and fell in love with it corresponds with people's love for Disney World. To live in a place where the temperature rarely drops below 70 and that borders a beautiful lake, Rollins fulfills my stereotypical utopia.
Dorfman and Mattelart focus more on the influence and reactions parents have at a Disney World-type function, and it seems to go right along with how my parents reacted to Rollins. So beautiful and perfect on the outside, there are no problems here! (Boy, were we wrong). Makes me wonder about the truth behind Disneyland's happy-go-lucky characters. That would make for a great E! Hollywood True Story.
"Disneyland tells us that technology can give us more than nature can." (203).
In a similar fashion, I think a similar mind trick is going on with the Rollins College campus. Someone told me yesterday that the City of Winter Park is putting brick roads in the entire "campus quarter" neighborhood. While Rollins has its brick roads, its cultural Mediterranean architecture and flawless landscaping, I feel that in a sense we live in a hyperreality on this campus. I would assume that most of the buildings on campus are not historical, and that the brick roads weren't here before the college was built. Thinking back, it makes more sense that when I visited Rollins for the first time and fell in love with it corresponds with people's love for Disney World. To live in a place where the temperature rarely drops below 70 and that borders a beautiful lake, Rollins fulfills my stereotypical utopia.
Dorfman and Mattelart focus more on the influence and reactions parents have at a Disney World-type function, and it seems to go right along with how my parents reacted to Rollins. So beautiful and perfect on the outside, there are no problems here! (Boy, were we wrong). Makes me wonder about the truth behind Disneyland's happy-go-lucky characters. That would make for a great E! Hollywood True Story.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
ChittyChittyBangBang Eco
A point that I found very interesting in Eco's article, The City of Robots, was the idea of a 'message city', a city entirely made up of signs functioning to communicate such as Las Vegas and Disney. I have never been to Vegas or Disneyland but I have been to Disney World and understand the absolute fake that Eco speaks of. I think this is a very intriguing topic to explore because I don't think many of us realize how many "fake cities" we have here in the U.S. Now I feel silly for never equating ghost towns and and old school western cities with those ideas. I liked Eco's quote: "...and i heard one tourist ask his wife if the children were real or 'fake' (and you could sense his psychological readiness to consider them, at will, extras, dummies, or moving robots of the sort we will see in Disneyland)" 202. These cities atmospheric perspectives are overwhelming and after a while you assume everything is a part of the act. For example; the political economy of cities such as Disney is genius; they use those atmospheric techniques to their economic advantage, "where you buy obsessively, believing you are still playing" 202.
This article reminds me of Habermas's ideas in his article, Modernity - An Incomplete Project. "That is to say, the term 'modern' appeared and reappeared exactly during those periods in Europe when the consciousness of a new epoch formed itself through a renewed relationship to the ancients - whenever, moreover, antiquity was considered a model to be recovered through some kind of imitation" 98. Architecture, art, art styles, and even the term 'modern' itself and what it represents has been reinvented time and time again throughout history. As a culture we constantly imitate the past, what we have seen, and what we know. These robot cities let technology take the place of realism, allow us to leave our humanity behind and enter a fantasy land. "The pleasure of imitation, as the ancients knew, is one of the most innate in the human spirit; but here we not only enjoy a perfect imitation, we also enjoy the conviction that imitation has reached its apex and afterwards reality will always be inferior to it" 204. I think these robot cities are also an 'incomplete project'.
This article reminds me of Habermas's ideas in his article, Modernity - An Incomplete Project. "That is to say, the term 'modern' appeared and reappeared exactly during those periods in Europe when the consciousness of a new epoch formed itself through a renewed relationship to the ancients - whenever, moreover, antiquity was considered a model to be recovered through some kind of imitation" 98. Architecture, art, art styles, and even the term 'modern' itself and what it represents has been reinvented time and time again throughout history. As a culture we constantly imitate the past, what we have seen, and what we know. These robot cities let technology take the place of realism, allow us to leave our humanity behind and enter a fantasy land. "The pleasure of imitation, as the ancients knew, is one of the most innate in the human spirit; but here we not only enjoy a perfect imitation, we also enjoy the conviction that imitation has reached its apex and afterwards reality will always be inferior to it" 204. I think these robot cities are also an 'incomplete project'.
Cuckoo 2/19
What is reality and how can it be defined?
Class on Tuesday really got me thinking about reality and what is real and what is not? I started to think back to a class I had first semester freshman year. One of the things that we discussed was the idea of reality and the real. We watched the Truman Show and read the Allegory of the Cave. All of these are examples of people who have been placed into a false reality; well from our perspective on what is reality. So, what is real and what is not? How can we define reality when everyone has different viewpoints on reality? I think that it is up to each person to decide what is real according to his or her life.
In both previous examples the people believed that their way of life was reality, but to an outsiders perspective they were living with a false perception of reality. If trying to categorize what type of reality these are you could see them in two ways. One argument could be that this is a reflection of reality because it is really happening. But if you were to view the situations from an outside perspective in the belief that you are living in the real you might argue that they are living in a reality that is a mask and denature or reality. It masks reality because society is placing these people into a false world. Especially in the Truman Show, he has been placed there to live in this perfect pristine society for the enjoyment of others. We all know that reality is not perfect. When trying to decide what is real and what is not all depends on the viewer’s perception of what is real.
Through out the semester it seems as if everything is based on the viewer’s perception. Going back to the idea of an open text, when we read something it doesn’t necessarily matter what the writer/artist intended it is what we got out of the text. It is all based on our perception of life and reality and how it has had an affect on us personally.
Going back to reading through my thoughts about these concept in my previous class I start thinking more about reality and what is it. I describe both situations as people being chained down to seeing reality as false, but what if we are chained down as well and our views are considered false if others were to look at how we are living.
Ever since I have come to school I have met people who group up completely different than I did. There are some people who seem to have been sheltered and don’t know what life is really like, they may be seen as having a false sense of reality. This concept could easily be questioned in our own society. We have all come from different areas and have different viewpoints on what is real. So when others look at our lives the may believe that we do not understand what is real.
All of this just furthers the idea on how we view what is real and what is not depending on what we believe. There is not one clear definition of what is real in life and what is not.
I feel like I have just rambled from one point to another and I am sorry for the confusion, yet I continue to come back to the same conclusion. I am sure that I could continue to bring up different aspects of life that could be viewed differently, but I am going to stop so my head doesn’t explode with thinking about what is real and what is not. I just continue to question and wonder how my perception of the real differs from the person next to me. Is my perspective of what is real false in the eyes of someone else? What is real?
Class on Tuesday really got me thinking about reality and what is real and what is not? I started to think back to a class I had first semester freshman year. One of the things that we discussed was the idea of reality and the real. We watched the Truman Show and read the Allegory of the Cave. All of these are examples of people who have been placed into a false reality; well from our perspective on what is reality. So, what is real and what is not? How can we define reality when everyone has different viewpoints on reality? I think that it is up to each person to decide what is real according to his or her life.
In both previous examples the people believed that their way of life was reality, but to an outsiders perspective they were living with a false perception of reality. If trying to categorize what type of reality these are you could see them in two ways. One argument could be that this is a reflection of reality because it is really happening. But if you were to view the situations from an outside perspective in the belief that you are living in the real you might argue that they are living in a reality that is a mask and denature or reality. It masks reality because society is placing these people into a false world. Especially in the Truman Show, he has been placed there to live in this perfect pristine society for the enjoyment of others. We all know that reality is not perfect. When trying to decide what is real and what is not all depends on the viewer’s perception of what is real.
Through out the semester it seems as if everything is based on the viewer’s perception. Going back to the idea of an open text, when we read something it doesn’t necessarily matter what the writer/artist intended it is what we got out of the text. It is all based on our perception of life and reality and how it has had an affect on us personally.
Going back to reading through my thoughts about these concept in my previous class I start thinking more about reality and what is it. I describe both situations as people being chained down to seeing reality as false, but what if we are chained down as well and our views are considered false if others were to look at how we are living.
Ever since I have come to school I have met people who group up completely different than I did. There are some people who seem to have been sheltered and don’t know what life is really like, they may be seen as having a false sense of reality. This concept could easily be questioned in our own society. We have all come from different areas and have different viewpoints on what is real. So when others look at our lives the may believe that we do not understand what is real.
All of this just furthers the idea on how we view what is real and what is not depending on what we believe. There is not one clear definition of what is real in life and what is not.
I feel like I have just rambled from one point to another and I am sorry for the confusion, yet I continue to come back to the same conclusion. I am sure that I could continue to bring up different aspects of life that could be viewed differently, but I am going to stop so my head doesn’t explode with thinking about what is real and what is not. I just continue to question and wonder how my perception of the real differs from the person next to me. Is my perspective of what is real false in the eyes of someone else? What is real?
kMO Eco
I never considered the fact that a city could be an imatation of another city. The more surpising concept was Eco's idea that a "fabricated city" functions in order to communicate whereas a "real city" comminicates to function. The concept of artificial architecture is so simple yet Eco does a great job of representing the complexity. I have been to Las Vegas and Disney many times and like most other people, i subdued to the "fake" world and didnt even realize it.
"The consumer finds himself participating in the fantasy because of his authenticity as a consumer." To be able to change into the role of the character you are looking at is fantastic. These levels of illusion are difficult to understand in realistic terms.
"The consumer finds himself participating in the fantasy because of his authenticity as a consumer." To be able to change into the role of the character you are looking at is fantastic. These levels of illusion are difficult to understand in realistic terms.
july-->Umberto Eco
Disneyland is a warm, entertaining place for the young and older but its notion of reality is to deceive individual’s perception of reality. Disneyland takes historical events and creates them into their own place where people are getting a taste of all worlds. For example Polynesian restaurant will have an authentic menu, Tahitian waitress in costume and rock walls with cascades. This effect will lead subjects to believe they are in Polynesia. These fake ideas of reality produces a pleasure of insurance from Disneyland vistors. This pleasure is known as jouissance which means a pleasure derived from text. There isn’t an inside text taken place during these interactions, but the ideas of being comfortable provides an existing pleasure. Barthes ad Roland stated, “The pleasure of the text is that moment when my body pursues its own ideas I do” (pg 11). Tourist and vacationers know that Disneyland is made through technology and creation of previous ideas, but they can’t distinguish between realism at the present time of undergoing Disneyland’s process of falsification.
Another important comparison to previous readings is by Walter Benjamin. He explains how present architecture comes from the past architectural sites like the Great Pyramid of Giza. These “doubles” are known as technical reproduction and process reproduction. Technical reproduction puts the copy of the original into situations which would be out of reach from the original self. An example would be the animals that are designed in detail to represent “real” life animals that would normally be kept in a zoo.
Disneyland is not studied amongst these ideas or ideologies because it is a warm and fun place for amusement and entertainment. Children are brought to Disneyland for that same reason. So when they become adults they want their children to experience the same feelings and emotions.
Another important comparison to previous readings is by Walter Benjamin. He explains how present architecture comes from the past architectural sites like the Great Pyramid of Giza. These “doubles” are known as technical reproduction and process reproduction. Technical reproduction puts the copy of the original into situations which would be out of reach from the original self. An example would be the animals that are designed in detail to represent “real” life animals that would normally be kept in a zoo.
Disneyland is not studied amongst these ideas or ideologies because it is a warm and fun place for amusement and entertainment. Children are brought to Disneyland for that same reason. So when they become adults they want their children to experience the same feelings and emotions.
Bella Eco
In Umberto Eco’s piece on the ‘fabricated reality’ that Disney creates, I found myself thinking heavily about the idea of reality that we discussed in class. In the Disney world, “Main street…is presented as at once absolutely realistic and absolutely fantastic…their interior is always a disguised supermarket, where you buy obsessively, believing that you are still playing” (Eco 202). The last line of that quote, “believe that you are still playing” resonated heavily with me. The magic of Disneyworld is that you can walk around, feel, touch, and play with things that are not real…they are mimicking reality, they are fabricated, perfected, beautiful representations of life. Eco wrote, “When there is a fake–hippopotamus, dinosaur, sea serpent–it is not so much because it wouldn’t be possible to have the real equivalent but because the public is meant to admire the perfection of the fake and the obedience to the program” (Eco 203). We are presented with spectacle because, as a postmodern society, we thrive off the idea that we can have an ‘unreal reality’. Disneyworld exists, it is a place, but at the same time, it is not real, for it is an imitation of life, a giant board game that people can walk through and touch. Postmodernism has blurred the line between art and reality, between that which is fake and that which is authentic. As Eco describes, we are able to erase the distinction between reality and fantasy, we are no longer in Real Time, we are on Our Time. Visitors of the parks allow themselves to be convinced as soon as they walk through the big iron gates. They know the park is not real, but as Eco says, “Once the ‘total fake’ is admitted, in order to be enjoyed it must seem totally real” (Eco 202). Disney is the perfect example of the postmodern idea of realism–the line is completely blurred between that which is reality, that which is being posed as reality, and that which has no reality at all.
romulus Eco
"The pirates moved, danced, slept, pooped their eyes, sniggered, drank-really. You realize that they are robots, but you remain dumbfounded by their verisimilitude".
Eco briefly summarizes that there is a vast variety of cities, all with unique histories. The Disney cities provide an infinite number of analysis. My initial reaction to reading the title of the piece was that this is focused on science-fiction. The Walt Disney Corporation has the resources and the power to create these 'robot' cities, the pirates cove and the haunted house are the examples used. Both are dominated by artificial intelligence. These machines replicate and distort reality.
"It is our business not to supply reality but to invent illusions to the conceivable cannot be presented". Lyotard falls in line with Disney's business model, of the creation of fantasy. These unreal places are places of commerce etc.
Routine and predictability are not my friends. Living in the world that we live in, it is easy to draw the similarities between those robots and our own selves. We live out of lives accordingly, or challenge it.
"There is a difference between knowing the path, and walking it', or something very similar to it is what Morpheus said to Neo. Being an individual who lives life is what separates people. I'm pretty sure a good amount of people live their lives based on the will of others, including family, religion etc. Experience experiences.
Eco briefly summarizes that there is a vast variety of cities, all with unique histories. The Disney cities provide an infinite number of analysis. My initial reaction to reading the title of the piece was that this is focused on science-fiction. The Walt Disney Corporation has the resources and the power to create these 'robot' cities, the pirates cove and the haunted house are the examples used. Both are dominated by artificial intelligence. These machines replicate and distort reality.
"It is our business not to supply reality but to invent illusions to the conceivable cannot be presented". Lyotard falls in line with Disney's business model, of the creation of fantasy. These unreal places are places of commerce etc.
Routine and predictability are not my friends. Living in the world that we live in, it is easy to draw the similarities between those robots and our own selves. We live out of lives accordingly, or challenge it.
"There is a difference between knowing the path, and walking it', or something very similar to it is what Morpheus said to Neo. Being an individual who lives life is what separates people. I'm pretty sure a good amount of people live their lives based on the will of others, including family, religion etc. Experience experiences.
Starfish 2/19
Tuesday’s class played many different tricks with my head. The whole idea of what is real and what is fake is confusing and thought provoking. What if everything we knew wasn’t real? It’s just like in the Truman Show. Truman lived all his life believing he lived in a real town, his mother was actually his mother and that he controlled his life, not outside forces. Then one day he realizes that everything around him isn’t real. He lives among actors and sets and his life is a television show. There was no way for him to decipher what in his life was reality and what was fake. Another thing that came to my mind was man landing on the moon in 1969. This was a big day for Americans. Millions upon millions watched their televisions to see the action. There is a theory however that states that we did not actually land on the moon in 1969. Those images that were seen were all shoot in a movie studio. I personally don’t believe this theory, but our discussion on Tuesday made me think about it a little deeper. How do we know that those images portray reality? Maybe they were masking reality or masking the absence of reality. We think we know, but maybe we don’t.
Another thing that was interesting was when we were looking at photos. What I considered to be reality, some considered to be a mask of reality. Someone asked the question is there a right or wrong answer? I instantly thought of CMC 200 and the interpretive approach to research. The interpretive approach is all about finding the meaning of something and what it means for different individuals. One important aspect of this approach is the recognition that what is real and true for me overlaps what is real and true for you, but they are not the same thing. I believe this recognition is something to take into consideration when doing excercises like looking at photgraphs in class.
Another thing that was interesting was when we were looking at photos. What I considered to be reality, some considered to be a mask of reality. Someone asked the question is there a right or wrong answer? I instantly thought of CMC 200 and the interpretive approach to research. The interpretive approach is all about finding the meaning of something and what it means for different individuals. One important aspect of this approach is the recognition that what is real and true for me overlaps what is real and true for you, but they are not the same thing. I believe this recognition is something to take into consideration when doing excercises like looking at photgraphs in class.
Nichole 2-20
"Sometimes I wish I could have a day 300 years ago when the image was pure, not a contruction of what I have consumed"
This quote was one that i read of a fellow classmate and asked myself what a pure image would even mean. As we have discussed in prior classes, I have come to agree that everything we have an opinion on is influenced by everything we read (meaning all texts real and virtual). Thus, I dont really think that there exists such a thing as a pure text, our intake of images and the way we deconstruct them begins from the day we are born. Secondly, I wanted to bring up the one reality that we didnt find an example of in the pictures we were shown. That is representing something that doesnt exist. I was wondering if perhpas the image of the American Flags over the american lives lost at war could qualify for this reality. Thinking about it, the symbolism of american flags that we have come to understand death while serving our country also kind of means that they are absent from the war. At the same time, the image is "real" (that is to say that is in actuality an image somewhere on the web) but also that it could be potentially be made up or digitally enhanced so to make it the second reality which is deemed as "evil" in our class (remember the Katie Courek slim down picture, how upset she was, even though she looked objectively better, she thought the act was the same as our classes opinion which is "evil") So does anyone think that the casket image could qualify as our last reality???
This quote was one that i read of a fellow classmate and asked myself what a pure image would even mean. As we have discussed in prior classes, I have come to agree that everything we have an opinion on is influenced by everything we read (meaning all texts real and virtual). Thus, I dont really think that there exists such a thing as a pure text, our intake of images and the way we deconstruct them begins from the day we are born. Secondly, I wanted to bring up the one reality that we didnt find an example of in the pictures we were shown. That is representing something that doesnt exist. I was wondering if perhpas the image of the American Flags over the american lives lost at war could qualify for this reality. Thinking about it, the symbolism of american flags that we have come to understand death while serving our country also kind of means that they are absent from the war. At the same time, the image is "real" (that is to say that is in actuality an image somewhere on the web) but also that it could be potentially be made up or digitally enhanced so to make it the second reality which is deemed as "evil" in our class (remember the Katie Courek slim down picture, how upset she was, even though she looked objectively better, she thought the act was the same as our classes opinion which is "evil") So does anyone think that the casket image could qualify as our last reality???
NewYorker, Eco
This article was really interesting. I liked it. It reminded me of what we spoke about in CMC 200 about the construction of Disney, and how they constructed history throughout the park. This article didn't get that deep, it only mentioned how fake it is. This made me step back and think about reality vs fantasy. In the everyday world, just in life in general, you never think - o this is real - you just accept everything as it is, as being reality. The people around us aren't robots, and the items we use everyday from books to computers to cars are real, and not amuesment-park props. However, there are some circumstances when you question reality, but it is on such a small scale that it doesn't effect my life. For example, when walking into an office, or a waiting room and there is a plant, sometimes you wonder if it is real or fake. Other times, like at someone's home if there is a fruit basket out, you wonder if the fruit is real or fake, just for decoration.
But when you put yourself in a place like Disney or Berry Farms, sometimes you get so caught up in the perfection of the fake-ness that you assume certain things are fake, and barely recognize what is real. Eco spoke about water actually being water, but we know it is a man-made river. He also spoke about getting caught up in a store within Disney, that the consumer buys so much. That happens in Disney a lot, because the people that work there are dressed in costume, and have to conduct themselves in a certain way to keep up with the theme. Even the people working at the kiosks with the light up sticks and all the other crap no one needs, you feel compelled to buy it just because you're there, and it looks "cool." This happens to me all the time, and I have to really control my urge to purchase these random things, because I know that the instant I leave the park, I will regret buying something, because in the real world, it longer "fits" it is no longer a "necessity."
But when you put yourself in a place like Disney or Berry Farms, sometimes you get so caught up in the perfection of the fake-ness that you assume certain things are fake, and barely recognize what is real. Eco spoke about water actually being water, but we know it is a man-made river. He also spoke about getting caught up in a store within Disney, that the consumer buys so much. That happens in Disney a lot, because the people that work there are dressed in costume, and have to conduct themselves in a certain way to keep up with the theme. Even the people working at the kiosks with the light up sticks and all the other crap no one needs, you feel compelled to buy it just because you're there, and it looks "cool." This happens to me all the time, and I have to really control my urge to purchase these random things, because I know that the instant I leave the park, I will regret buying something, because in the real world, it longer "fits" it is no longer a "necessity."
Starfish Eco
After reading The City of Robots by Umberto Eco all I can say is WOW. I thought this article was entertaining, interesting is extremely frightening in many ways. It brings up the whole statement that was mentioned the first class, “reality is not what it used to be” and Baudillard’s desert of the real notion. How do we know what is real and what is fake?
On page 202 Eco discusses how while walking in the village schoolroom of an “absolute fake.” While inside he “…heard one tourist ask his wife if the children were real or ‘fake’. I thought this was interesting because that is the question when you go to places like that or Disneyworld. You need to be able to separate what is real from what is fake. This segment in the article also reminded me of a personal experience. I am a big fan of wax museums. I find them kooky and artistic at the same time. I remember when I was in Paris I went to a wax museum. While walking around the dungeon scene and looking at the figures, one of the prisoner statues that I assumed to be made of wax jumped up and scared me. After reading this article I find what he did to be creative. Not only did it entertain the visitors of the museum, but also he was playing with this whole idea of reality and fantasy that Eco discusses.
I also found the whole part on Disneyland to be incredibly fascinating. Being a huge fan of Disney and going each year to the parks, it made me realize what the underlying reason of my enjoyment might be. At Disney, “ the public is meant to admire the perfection of the fake and its obedience to the program...Disneyland not only produces illusion but in confessing it stimulates this desire for it” (203). This is the whole idea of “the pleasure of imitation.” We have even discussed in class that we are in an age where people are obsessed with the art of imitation. Eco brings up the idea that once we see imitation as being perfect, “reality will always be inferior to it” (204). This quote makes a lot of sense. Many people enjoy going to Disney because it is an escape from reality. It is the place “where dreams come true.” Doesn’t that sound more enticing then the real world?
On page 202 Eco discusses how while walking in the village schoolroom of an “absolute fake.” While inside he “…heard one tourist ask his wife if the children were real or ‘fake’. I thought this was interesting because that is the question when you go to places like that or Disneyworld. You need to be able to separate what is real from what is fake. This segment in the article also reminded me of a personal experience. I am a big fan of wax museums. I find them kooky and artistic at the same time. I remember when I was in Paris I went to a wax museum. While walking around the dungeon scene and looking at the figures, one of the prisoner statues that I assumed to be made of wax jumped up and scared me. After reading this article I find what he did to be creative. Not only did it entertain the visitors of the museum, but also he was playing with this whole idea of reality and fantasy that Eco discusses.
I also found the whole part on Disneyland to be incredibly fascinating. Being a huge fan of Disney and going each year to the parks, it made me realize what the underlying reason of my enjoyment might be. At Disney, “ the public is meant to admire the perfection of the fake and its obedience to the program...Disneyland not only produces illusion but in confessing it stimulates this desire for it” (203). This is the whole idea of “the pleasure of imitation.” We have even discussed in class that we are in an age where people are obsessed with the art of imitation. Eco brings up the idea that once we see imitation as being perfect, “reality will always be inferior to it” (204). This quote makes a lot of sense. Many people enjoy going to Disney because it is an escape from reality. It is the place “where dreams come true.” Doesn’t that sound more enticing then the real world?
Jiggy 2/20
Images flash in front of our eyes, but what is real? How we define and understand reality is more important in our digital age than ever. With thousands of visual images seen daily how do we as humans distingush the fact from fiction. I believe that we have come to a point were images are considered real but association. We associate the news with truth, images seen in newspapers, television or credable online sources are seen and believed. Technology has gotten so good that even those real images could be duplicated and altered to show a masked reality. This can be seen in major motion pictures. As seen in class a snapshot of a movie seen can be captioned as reality and taken out of context. This is a new development in human history. Before the photograph the only reality was seen with the naked eye. Images were personal and contexualized but the background of the individual. Now, images flood our brains through magazines, internet, television, billboards, books and cellphones. To take those images and know what has been constructed and what represents the truth or reality has become nearly impossible. Now more than ever we need trusted sources of images for news. Imagine if all the images taken in one day were just placed on a website and you were forced to arrange them from real to masked. It would be nearly impossible. Somthimes, entertainment is needed and forms of masked reality are used for amusement. This is seen with any cartoon or animation, all the images are constructions of reality but altered to create a new dynamic. Sometimes I wish I could have a day 300 years ago when the image was pure, not a contruction of what I have consumed.
Jiggy Eco
What is a real city? If the criteria for a city to be real has to do with function and population than an argument could be made that Disneyworld and other "fictional" privatly owned amusement parks are cities. The last century has seen a wide expansion in the amusement market, mostly transformed by Walt Disney and his views on the total experiance. His belief was to leave reality at the door and have his guests enjoy a seemless journey to his fantasy lands. Many consider Las Vagas a real city, even as much of its intention and function is as an amusement park. The comparison of Disneyworld to Las Vagas is interesting and could in fact be shown that they are closer in nature than believed. Both are used for the same primary purposes, world class entertainment and experiance. Where do we draw the line to what a "real" city is then? Does it have to have poverty, dirt, smog, traffic and politics to be considered real? If you asked the hundreds of millions that visit Disney parks if they would rather be at Disney World or downtown Detroit what would they say? A picture a city as a gathering of people in one central area, living and working. Disney employs hundreds of thousnads and arguably built the Orlando area from the ground up with tourism and the flooding of new residents. Disney has become Orlando, just as real and with as much politcal power and pull. The city of robots, as said by Eco, is becoming a real force. Las Vegas is not just a playground anymore, it is an international city for business. I believe that the last hundred years has changed the way we contruct and live in cities. Disney has transformed more that just its guests, it changed our social contructions of entertainment.
BubbaNub Eco
So I couldn't help but think while I was reading Eco's "The City of Robots" what I would do differently to enhance the illusion that Disneyworld and all of these fake cities create. Truly they have "absolutely reproduced" something terrifyingly fascinating, a "degenerate utopia" where we are forced to accept the fake as commercial reality (202). "The Main Street facades are presented to us as toy houses and invite us to enter them, but their interior is always a disguised supermarket, where you buy obsessively, believing that you are still playing" (202). This is similarly representative of the Harry Potter consumer driven madness, where it is alright to purchase and spend once you have accepted that you want to take part in his "world".
So what else could further this illusion? What would be the final step, the step that cements a community of people in these "fake cities" to live out the rest of their lives? One thing that came to mind when I asked the question "What is our last remaining link to the real world?" was money, the very thing that drives and builds these falsifications. What if they were to take your money at the door, exchanging it for Disney Dollars or Vegas Virtues (something to that effect)? If this were to happen you would have lost the last thing chaining you to what we have accepted as the "real world" and this construction/falsification would in fact become more real than what lies outside its vast sea of parking lots and gates. As Disneyworld proves we have the power to create worlds, just as it creates robots, robots that serve their purpose better than a human ever could........truly a frightening concept indeed.
So what else could further this illusion? What would be the final step, the step that cements a community of people in these "fake cities" to live out the rest of their lives? One thing that came to mind when I asked the question "What is our last remaining link to the real world?" was money, the very thing that drives and builds these falsifications. What if they were to take your money at the door, exchanging it for Disney Dollars or Vegas Virtues (something to that effect)? If this were to happen you would have lost the last thing chaining you to what we have accepted as the "real world" and this construction/falsification would in fact become more real than what lies outside its vast sea of parking lots and gates. As Disneyworld proves we have the power to create worlds, just as it creates robots, robots that serve their purpose better than a human ever could........truly a frightening concept indeed.
boo boo bear Eco
The City of Robots was a very interesting writing but I not really sure what the point of it was. I enjoyed reading about the different rides and experiences from Disney World, such as Pirates of the Caribbean and the Haunted Mansion. I can see how Pirates of the Caribbean is an example of verisimilitude, as they copy pirates from the 1600 and 1700s. But is the Haunted Mansion an example of verisimilitude? The Haunted Mansion doesn’t have any fake people, they are all fake ghosts. I think most people would agree that ghosts like you see on the ride don’t exist (if you think they do that could bring on a whole new argument that we should avoid). If ghosts aren’t real, then how can that be verisimilitude? Verisimilitude is basically being a copy of reality, so how can a copy of something that isn’t real be Verisimilitude?
Umberto Eco states, “The Main Street facades are presented to us as toy houses and invite us to enter them, but their interior is always a disguised supermarket, where you buy obsessively, believing that you are still playing.”
This makes perfect sense and is actually a genius marketing idea. I wonder if this is why they make all the people on the rides, such as Pirates of the Caribbean or It’s a Small World, fake robots. This probably gives people the sense that they are in a fantasy world, absent of reality. This would give people the sense that all their troubles are gone and nothing else matters. I think this is why people, specifically older people, still enjoy Disney World. The rides aren’t that much fun, if your looking for a great ride you would go to Islands of Adventure. These rides at Disney World give the allusion that your in a different place, free from all the troubles and problems of the real world.
Umberto Eco states, “The Main Street facades are presented to us as toy houses and invite us to enter them, but their interior is always a disguised supermarket, where you buy obsessively, believing that you are still playing.”
This makes perfect sense and is actually a genius marketing idea. I wonder if this is why they make all the people on the rides, such as Pirates of the Caribbean or It’s a Small World, fake robots. This probably gives people the sense that they are in a fantasy world, absent of reality. This would give people the sense that all their troubles are gone and nothing else matters. I think this is why people, specifically older people, still enjoy Disney World. The rides aren’t that much fun, if your looking for a great ride you would go to Islands of Adventure. These rides at Disney World give the allusion that your in a different place, free from all the troubles and problems of the real world.
sawsaw Eco
I really enjoyed reading this essay, "The City of Robots," by Umberto Eco. I found his points on Disneyland to be right on track. Disney creates a utopian society that represents a better reality. He writes on page 203, "Walt Disney, who had finally managed to achieve his own dream and reconstruct a fantasy world more real than reality, breaking down the wall of the second dimension, creating not a movie, which is illusion, but total theatre, and not with anthropomorphized animals, but with human beings." Disney attempts to not only represent reality but to make it better.
Is Disney capable of having real animals and real people? Yes, but it would take away from the “reality” they created. When you’re at Disney you want to pretend like you’re a kid again with super heroes and princesses. "When there is a fake- hippopotamus, dinosaur, sea serpent- it is not so much because it wouldn't be possible to have the real equivalent but because the public meant to admire the perfection of the fake and its obedience to the program." (Page 203) The main reason Disney is so successful among people is because it is an escape from reality and throws people into a perfect world with no hardships. Does Disney have problems underneath the Mickey Mouse costume and the happy sing along tunes you hear? Of course, but the guest never see or hear about it! What's astonishing to be is that people feel safe and happy at Disney yet children are being kidnapped, people are dying on rides and most employees of Disney say that hate going to there job.
Just this past Saturday I went to Epcot with a group of my friends, one friend and I were walking into the bathroom at one of the countries and there was a guy in the bathroom taking pictures of us on his cell phone. Most people think that everyone who goes to Disney is a nice person and is there to watch the character shows. What they don't realize is that it's full of perverts, addicts and crazy people!
Lyotards quote: “It is our business not to supply reality but to invent allusions to the conceivable which cannot be presented,” (Page 46) clearly defines what Disney is doing. It doesn’t represent the “real” world but instead creates an allusion of what we want our reality to be. Eco writes on page 203, “Disneyland tells us that technology can give us more reality that nature can.” This quote connects Lyotard and Eco’s idea of dismissing reality. It shows that even nature which is as close to real as we can get, is not truly real, we are supplied by an allusion of nature by technology.
This essay made me as take a deeper look at Disney. There is no part of Disney that represents reality or the real world. Yet, why is it so successful and iconic. I am forced to believe that it is not the realistic world Disney created that makes people want to go but it is the unrealistic allusion of what our world should be that keeps attracting millions of people. If Disney wasn’t a fantasy land but a reality land would you still want to go?
Is Disney capable of having real animals and real people? Yes, but it would take away from the “reality” they created. When you’re at Disney you want to pretend like you’re a kid again with super heroes and princesses. "When there is a fake- hippopotamus, dinosaur, sea serpent- it is not so much because it wouldn't be possible to have the real equivalent but because the public meant to admire the perfection of the fake and its obedience to the program." (Page 203) The main reason Disney is so successful among people is because it is an escape from reality and throws people into a perfect world with no hardships. Does Disney have problems underneath the Mickey Mouse costume and the happy sing along tunes you hear? Of course, but the guest never see or hear about it! What's astonishing to be is that people feel safe and happy at Disney yet children are being kidnapped, people are dying on rides and most employees of Disney say that hate going to there job.
Just this past Saturday I went to Epcot with a group of my friends, one friend and I were walking into the bathroom at one of the countries and there was a guy in the bathroom taking pictures of us on his cell phone. Most people think that everyone who goes to Disney is a nice person and is there to watch the character shows. What they don't realize is that it's full of perverts, addicts and crazy people!
Lyotards quote: “It is our business not to supply reality but to invent allusions to the conceivable which cannot be presented,” (Page 46) clearly defines what Disney is doing. It doesn’t represent the “real” world but instead creates an allusion of what we want our reality to be. Eco writes on page 203, “Disneyland tells us that technology can give us more reality that nature can.” This quote connects Lyotard and Eco’s idea of dismissing reality. It shows that even nature which is as close to real as we can get, is not truly real, we are supplied by an allusion of nature by technology.
This essay made me as take a deeper look at Disney. There is no part of Disney that represents reality or the real world. Yet, why is it so successful and iconic. I am forced to believe that it is not the realistic world Disney created that makes people want to go but it is the unrealistic allusion of what our world should be that keeps attracting millions of people. If Disney wasn’t a fantasy land but a reality land would you still want to go?
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Sgt. Pepper, 2/19
Like many previous posts have indicated, I think everyone is a little frustrated with the issues of Baudrillard. When I thought I didn't understand his concepts upon first reading them, I figured the class discussion would clear up the confusion. I was wrong. Well, I guess that's not completely true. I definitely understand his concepts better, but considering that I myself am a realist, I hate these open-ended concepts where "there is no wrong answer."
But anyway, one of the obvious connections I made between Baudrillard's text and a previous author's was the text of Habermas. Habermas discusses his ideas of the types of conservatives, and essentially splits people up into categories based on their personalities. I think this might be the answer to Baudrillard's conflicting interpretations of what is reality, masked reality, etc. I think that he might be getting at the fact that while every person has a different personality, it is "virtually" impossible for us all to agree on what is reality and what is not. Each situation or image has a different meaning to everyone, and without this contrast in interpretation, we would be left without any type of diversity or criticism.
Another connection I made was between Badrillard and Macherey. Macherey states, "What is important in the work is what it does not say." (18). And "In order to say anything there must be other things which must not be said." (17). Here Macherey is saying that an image or a text is not the final say, or the ultimate meaning. In fact an image or text is actually defined by everything it's not. In the same way, when interpreting images, Baudrillard seems to emphasize that, in most cases, an image is much more than its tangible self. Like when we talked in class about how a veteran would react to the photo of George Bush and "Mission Accomplished," each image has its own special meaning to every individual. A sense of imagination goes into an interpretation, and I think he would agree that the most rare term of the four we looked at in class today would be reality. I think both authors would agree that things are often not what they seem.
But anyway, one of the obvious connections I made between Baudrillard's text and a previous author's was the text of Habermas. Habermas discusses his ideas of the types of conservatives, and essentially splits people up into categories based on their personalities. I think this might be the answer to Baudrillard's conflicting interpretations of what is reality, masked reality, etc. I think that he might be getting at the fact that while every person has a different personality, it is "virtually" impossible for us all to agree on what is reality and what is not. Each situation or image has a different meaning to everyone, and without this contrast in interpretation, we would be left without any type of diversity or criticism.
Another connection I made was between Badrillard and Macherey. Macherey states, "What is important in the work is what it does not say." (18). And "In order to say anything there must be other things which must not be said." (17). Here Macherey is saying that an image or a text is not the final say, or the ultimate meaning. In fact an image or text is actually defined by everything it's not. In the same way, when interpreting images, Baudrillard seems to emphasize that, in most cases, an image is much more than its tangible self. Like when we talked in class about how a veteran would react to the photo of George Bush and "Mission Accomplished," each image has its own special meaning to every individual. A sense of imagination goes into an interpretation, and I think he would agree that the most rare term of the four we looked at in class today would be reality. I think both authors would agree that things are often not what they seem.
kMO 2/19
The successive phases of images are quite possibly the most contradictory set of ideas that I have ever endured. How can one determine if an image is reality, masks reality, masks the absence of reality or has no relation to reality? I could sit here and argue that everything is reality and that nothing is reality.
What is the difference between real and fake and would we even be able to recognize it if we tried? Reality TV is supposedly based off of reality yet directors are allowed to “re-shoot” a “real” situation. In theory this would make one of the two shots real and one of them fake…so the question becomes which one?
In relation to other theorists we have studied, Baudrillard’s perspective on reality is much more broad. For example, Lyotard states that reality is simply unable to be defined. He feels that people create allusions to reality in order to avoid the consequences that are reality, whereas Baudrillard's beliefs are ever changing...
Baudrilliard states on page 229 that, "There is no good use of the media; the media is part of the event, they are part of the terror, and they work in both directions." As soon as I heard this quote in class today I immediately thought of the 9/11 Conspiracy video, “loose change.” In short this video claims that the media and United States government were behind the September 11th attacks on the twin towers. The controversy created by this video was immense but one fact remained the same. “Loose Change” was based on the impact of media on our society and interestingly enough it was the same media outlets from the video that created a national phenomenom out of the movie…
What is the difference between real and fake and would we even be able to recognize it if we tried? Reality TV is supposedly based off of reality yet directors are allowed to “re-shoot” a “real” situation. In theory this would make one of the two shots real and one of them fake…so the question becomes which one?
In relation to other theorists we have studied, Baudrillard’s perspective on reality is much more broad. For example, Lyotard states that reality is simply unable to be defined. He feels that people create allusions to reality in order to avoid the consequences that are reality, whereas Baudrillard's beliefs are ever changing...
Baudrilliard states on page 229 that, "There is no good use of the media; the media is part of the event, they are part of the terror, and they work in both directions." As soon as I heard this quote in class today I immediately thought of the 9/11 Conspiracy video, “loose change.” In short this video claims that the media and United States government were behind the September 11th attacks on the twin towers. The controversy created by this video was immense but one fact remained the same. “Loose Change” was based on the impact of media on our society and interestingly enough it was the same media outlets from the video that created a national phenomenom out of the movie…
Bella Post Class 2/19
Reality? Masking reality? Masking no reality? No reality? What IS reality? Whose reality are we talking about anyway? “To dissimilate is to pretend not to have what one has. To simulate is to feign to have what one doesn’t have. One implies a presence, the other, an absence” (Baudrillard 54). It reminds me of the term ‘verisimilitude’- art is real because it attempts to imitate reality. If an image or a sign is representative of reality, how can we tell what is real and what is not real? What is simulated, what is not? In class, Dr. Rog asked us to connect this reading with one that we have read previously. I think the quote I can best connect Baudrillard to would be Lyotard. In his piece on Habermas, Lyotard said, “It is our business not to supply reality but to invent allusions to the conceivable which cannot be presented” (Lyotard 46). This reminds me of Baudrillard because he directly talks about the issue of reality: what is reality, how do we define it, can we define it? Lyotard says that reality is not definable, rather, we create allusions to reality so that we don’t have to worry about making them real. Wow. That feels like a mouthful, and I’m not even sure if it makes sense. Lyotard said, “We have the idea of the world, but we do not have the capacity to show an example of it” (Lyotard 43). Baudrillard says something similar about America’s obsession with Disneyland, “Disneyland exists in order to hide the fact that it is the ‘real country’…Disneyland is presented as imaginary in order to make us believe that the rest of the world is real” (Baudrillard 461). We have an idea of our world, but we create fantasies, images, signs, allusions, productions, etc. to explain and imitate it because we do not have the capacity to show an example of something “real”…in order to do so, something ELSE must be presented as fake (like Disneyland).
WouldntULike2Know 2/19
In class today, Dr. Rog instructed us to skim through either Baudrillard passage and select a quote that we felt was important. We selected, as did another group coincidentally, the quote "terrorism would be nothing without the media." (229) from The Spirit of Terrorism (2002). On 9/11, a great deal more was accomplished then the terrorists’ face value objective to crash planes into the World Trade Center. From that very second the first plane hit the tower; there was a climate of fear surrounding everyone. People became increasingly xenophobic and suspicious. This was logarithmically perpetuated by the media. I happened to be watching a stand up routine on Comedy Central this past weekend where the comedian, an African American, commented on how, as a result of the 9/11 attacks, the societal progression towards racism stemming from suspicion and fear has placed him in a better societal situation. He said that "Arabs are the new black. White people aren't so scared of blacks because they will just steal your car radio... But if you get on a plane with an Arab, your worried your plane's going down" (something to that effect).
While this unfortunate reality is something that all Arab Americans must deal with, this very fact over joys the few extremists who are plotting their next attack. If people are afraid, it’s because they have reason to be and the media is the driving force behind that fact.
Baudrilliard then goes on to say that "There is no 'good' use of the media; the media are part of the event, they are part of the terror, and they work in both directions." (229). I am wondering though, how this could be avoided? The media’s purpose is to report the situation. Granted, in the case of 9/11 and other disasters, they focus on the same issue and replay it over and over again. But how else would it be possible to report on a terrifying event without adding to the climate of fear? It seems like the two go hand in hand.
While this unfortunate reality is something that all Arab Americans must deal with, this very fact over joys the few extremists who are plotting their next attack. If people are afraid, it’s because they have reason to be and the media is the driving force behind that fact.
Baudrilliard then goes on to say that "There is no 'good' use of the media; the media are part of the event, they are part of the terror, and they work in both directions." (229). I am wondering though, how this could be avoided? The media’s purpose is to report the situation. Granted, in the case of 9/11 and other disasters, they focus on the same issue and replay it over and over again. But how else would it be possible to report on a terrifying event without adding to the climate of fear? It seems like the two go hand in hand.
Bumble: Post class 2/19 "is the tooth fairy real!?"
Are we real?
Is anything we do real?
Whenever I have a class that discusses reality or “REALITY,” I get sort of all jumbled up in thinking, well reality is all about perspective and who defines reality?
In light of reality shows, and acting verse truly representing real life and real people, what everyone always forgets is we are always all playing roles. According to the theorist Goffman, we all have many faces that we choose to project to the world. We have multiple realities and we present various aspects of ourselves all the time. We might be acting like ourselves, but the ways in which we act like ourselves will 100% be different depending on who you talk to. When writing an e-mail to your mother, you are yourself but inevitably the information you talk about presents only a certain fraction of who you are, it is impossible to always show everything so if it real if you have to be selective?
Is it real if you are asked on your way to class how your morning has been and you say good, and not elaborate?
The images which you showed us today can be real to some people, but to many it is such a stretch of the imagination. Is anything about the army a reality to us? My reality right now is being at Rollins College. This is even different from my sister’s reality which is at University of Chicago. What is so exciting about life is that everyone has different perceptions of reality and so you can feel passionately about different things and challenge each other to learn about each other’s realities.
For example to my little sister who just lost her tooth, the tooth fairy is very much real, and if that is what she wants to believe then it is a reality to her. So an image or photograph of the tooth fairy could be representing reality while to many of us in class it would not even be masking “not reality” it would simply be NO reality.
We can not forget that everyone’s lives have shaped their perception of reality so we can not assume that someone is wrong, but increasing our awareness then we can be less ignorant in the world.
My little sister's strong conviction that this fantasy creature exists proves that we can convince ourselves of anything. Again circling around again to the notion of the self fulfilling prophecy, or the ugly duckling syndrome, people's mental perception shape what they believe. The most basic of all examples is the girl who felt negative self images her whole life and finally develops into a beautiful lady yet her perceptions of herself are from her past and are so strong that, her self image reality is that she is still the "ugly duckling." Then, that reality is projected and other people will respond back to her, and the way that she translates how other perceive her, depends on how she views herself. (Wow very twisted but am I making sense?)
Another example of proof of the ambiguous meaning of reality is, for people who look at images of Roswell, a scientist who has one lens of the world would instantaneously right it off as “fake, not real” but what if you view the lens through a more liberal perspective? Those photographs of UFO’s could be real to them.
PS:
Back to the image of the caskets with the American flags over them, I think that this masks reality. The American flag masks the hardships and struggles behind the deaths and makes them patriotic and fighters. The reality might be very different and the flag represents them creating this notion that the death was credible and was for a good cause.
Is anything we do real?
Whenever I have a class that discusses reality or “REALITY,” I get sort of all jumbled up in thinking, well reality is all about perspective and who defines reality?
In light of reality shows, and acting verse truly representing real life and real people, what everyone always forgets is we are always all playing roles. According to the theorist Goffman, we all have many faces that we choose to project to the world. We have multiple realities and we present various aspects of ourselves all the time. We might be acting like ourselves, but the ways in which we act like ourselves will 100% be different depending on who you talk to. When writing an e-mail to your mother, you are yourself but inevitably the information you talk about presents only a certain fraction of who you are, it is impossible to always show everything so if it real if you have to be selective?
Is it real if you are asked on your way to class how your morning has been and you say good, and not elaborate?
The images which you showed us today can be real to some people, but to many it is such a stretch of the imagination. Is anything about the army a reality to us? My reality right now is being at Rollins College. This is even different from my sister’s reality which is at University of Chicago. What is so exciting about life is that everyone has different perceptions of reality and so you can feel passionately about different things and challenge each other to learn about each other’s realities.
For example to my little sister who just lost her tooth, the tooth fairy is very much real, and if that is what she wants to believe then it is a reality to her. So an image or photograph of the tooth fairy could be representing reality while to many of us in class it would not even be masking “not reality” it would simply be NO reality.
We can not forget that everyone’s lives have shaped their perception of reality so we can not assume that someone is wrong, but increasing our awareness then we can be less ignorant in the world.
My little sister's strong conviction that this fantasy creature exists proves that we can convince ourselves of anything. Again circling around again to the notion of the self fulfilling prophecy, or the ugly duckling syndrome, people's mental perception shape what they believe. The most basic of all examples is the girl who felt negative self images her whole life and finally develops into a beautiful lady yet her perceptions of herself are from her past and are so strong that, her self image reality is that she is still the "ugly duckling." Then, that reality is projected and other people will respond back to her, and the way that she translates how other perceive her, depends on how she views herself. (Wow very twisted but am I making sense?)
Another example of proof of the ambiguous meaning of reality is, for people who look at images of Roswell, a scientist who has one lens of the world would instantaneously right it off as “fake, not real” but what if you view the lens through a more liberal perspective? Those photographs of UFO’s could be real to them.
PS:
Back to the image of the caskets with the American flags over them, I think that this masks reality. The American flag masks the hardships and struggles behind the deaths and makes them patriotic and fighters. The reality might be very different and the flag represents them creating this notion that the death was credible and was for a good cause.
Monday, February 18, 2008
nichole Vday (2-14)
A brief thought that popped into my mind while we were discussing out future 5-7 virtual page paper was what I would use as my text. In my last response, to which Doc Rog told me not to give up my love for Dali based on an article, I wrote about postmodern art and more specifically surrealist art by Salvatore Dali. Im coming to realize that I would love to compare Dali and explore his works through the symbolic lense of Lyotard and Habermas (perhaps one or two others if I see them fit as we digress further into the school year). Firstly, Lyotard seems relevant in my explorations of Dali because of his stance on anti-modernism. Dali was ahead of his time (or what was modern then) in drawing surreal art with personal symbolism (one that pops into mind is the most famous with the melting clocks which to him means that time isnt rigid but instead its flexible from person to person). Thus his movement toward what is anti-modern. Habermas, although I sensed that he was strongly opposed to crediting those who began post modern art, he still related to Dali in that, as we discussed in class, modernity is continual. We would no longer think that surrealist art is modern BUT Im interested in exploring "between the texts" and finding a better understanding of why it would no longer be considered modern and searching for what it means to be avante garde (that is to say if it still exists because some authors would argue differently. I find this to be a decent beginning to my project and something in two areas of study that im passionate about: postmodernism discussion and also Salvatore Dali. Please if anyone has any suggestions for how other authors might play into postmodern artist Dali, let me know it will be much appreciated!!!!!!!!
WouldntULike2Know-Zizek
“It is not that reality entered our image: the image entered and shattered our reailty (i.e. the symbolic coordinates which determine what we experience as reality). (234)
Concerning the attacks on the World Trade Center, this quote speaks towards the process by which we, as Americans, were awakened to "the desert of the real." Comparatively speaking, however, this "desert" was still highly censored to the viewing public. "While the number of victims--3000--is repeated all the itme, it is surprising how little of the actual carnage we see--no dismembered bodies, no blood, no desperate faces of dying people...in clear contrast to reporting on Third World catastrophes, where the whole point is to produce a scoop of gruesome detail... the real horror happens there, not here." (232)
The uninformed public deals daily with this powederpuff reality. The media deliberately produce news segments to distract people from reality. They, similar to Jim Carrey in the Truman Show, seek to create reality for the public which can be described in Toxicology reports and custody hearings. Just as in the Matrix, people plug into this and focus all of their attention to it, without realizing the travesties that are occurring in their own backyard. Perhaps it is because Americans do not want to admit fault or recognize defeat that we seem to ignore reality. We can recognize and seek to help others in their dire situations but we hate to admit that such atrocities happen on our soil.
The media also erases from our memory and removes from our sight the atrocities that others experience as a result of our actions. All footage of wars fought overseas was censored in order to maintain support for the governments cause. Because we do not question what we see, the process of blind acceptance makes media corporations with government involvement able to do virtually anything while gaining our obedient and undoubting support.
Concerning the attacks on the World Trade Center, this quote speaks towards the process by which we, as Americans, were awakened to "the desert of the real." Comparatively speaking, however, this "desert" was still highly censored to the viewing public. "While the number of victims--3000--is repeated all the itme, it is surprising how little of the actual carnage we see--no dismembered bodies, no blood, no desperate faces of dying people...in clear contrast to reporting on Third World catastrophes, where the whole point is to produce a scoop of gruesome detail... the real horror happens there, not here." (232)
The uninformed public deals daily with this powederpuff reality. The media deliberately produce news segments to distract people from reality. They, similar to Jim Carrey in the Truman Show, seek to create reality for the public which can be described in Toxicology reports and custody hearings. Just as in the Matrix, people plug into this and focus all of their attention to it, without realizing the travesties that are occurring in their own backyard. Perhaps it is because Americans do not want to admit fault or recognize defeat that we seem to ignore reality. We can recognize and seek to help others in their dire situations but we hate to admit that such atrocities happen on our soil.
The media also erases from our memory and removes from our sight the atrocities that others experience as a result of our actions. All footage of wars fought overseas was censored in order to maintain support for the governments cause. Because we do not question what we see, the process of blind acceptance makes media corporations with government involvement able to do virtually anything while gaining our obedient and undoubting support.
kaymac baudrillard
Okay, from what I understand, a simularcrum is an image or symbol created by a simulation, which not only hopes to reproduce reality, but hopes to reproduce (although that is a very tricky word with Baudrillard) the human aspect of it, and when I say that, I mean that part of homo sapiens that makes us different from the animals and plants, whatever that may be.
Reading this article, I can't help but make comparisons and connections between what Baudrillard is saying about God and Walt Disney. Especially here in Central Florida, where the world of Disney is at our doorsteps, we have turned Walt Disney into this simulacra. Disney World, and by extension Walt Disney, have become this extension of what American happiness is. The Disney version of our world is now recognized as the real and so when we step outside to our automobile in the parking lot, it is now the hyperreal, something that is so real that it becomes surreal (which is what I got from the reading) and we don't recognize it as the real anymore.
I promise I have a point, somewhere in here.
So by having Walt "create" this "real" world, we've almost made him God, in the essence that he created our world. Yet we are ignoring the forbidden "simulacra in the temples" (455) because the essence of Walt is so likable and commercial. We want to constantly recreate him, and not just in Disneyland/World. We want him everywhere we go. Urbane urbanism is a good example of this. We want an entire world right at our doorstep. We want to walk through the entry gates and have everything needed for a functional community right at our fingertips. But we don't want a run down, ghetto-like version. We want something where there are trash cans every 10 to 17 feet (yes, that's a fact. I learned that when I was going through the "Traditions" class at Walt Disney World) and a Walgreens on every corner, because that is the world Walt created for us.
So what I'm saying is that Walt Disney has turned into a modern-day God because we can create simulacra out of him and make it marketable and commercial where we couldn't with the original God, and in our world of instant media and images, we need something like that, and Walt gave it to us.
p.s. I really hate Disney.
Reading this article, I can't help but make comparisons and connections between what Baudrillard is saying about God and Walt Disney. Especially here in Central Florida, where the world of Disney is at our doorsteps, we have turned Walt Disney into this simulacra. Disney World, and by extension Walt Disney, have become this extension of what American happiness is. The Disney version of our world is now recognized as the real and so when we step outside to our automobile in the parking lot, it is now the hyperreal, something that is so real that it becomes surreal (which is what I got from the reading) and we don't recognize it as the real anymore.
I promise I have a point, somewhere in here.
So by having Walt "create" this "real" world, we've almost made him God, in the essence that he created our world. Yet we are ignoring the forbidden "simulacra in the temples" (455) because the essence of Walt is so likable and commercial. We want to constantly recreate him, and not just in Disneyland/World. We want him everywhere we go. Urbane urbanism is a good example of this. We want an entire world right at our doorstep. We want to walk through the entry gates and have everything needed for a functional community right at our fingertips. But we don't want a run down, ghetto-like version. We want something where there are trash cans every 10 to 17 feet (yes, that's a fact. I learned that when I was going through the "Traditions" class at Walt Disney World) and a Walgreens on every corner, because that is the world Walt created for us.
So what I'm saying is that Walt Disney has turned into a modern-day God because we can create simulacra out of him and make it marketable and commercial where we couldn't with the original God, and in our world of instant media and images, we need something like that, and Walt gave it to us.
p.s. I really hate Disney.
Sgt. Pepper, 2/14
Firstly, I'd like to comment on boo-boo bear's post on Habermas. I think what Habermas was saying by the quote "Culture in its modern form stirs up hatred against the convention and virtues of everyday life" was actually the opposite of how you interpreted it. The quote is confusing, but what I got out of it was that people are more generally against the honesty of our culture. Either way, we're arguing the same point: that our culture is much more honest and open these days, and people are reacting to it.
I was talking to a friend from home on the phone last week, and we were reviewing movies we had seen lately, stating what we liked, didn't like, and why. While we discussed the new Academy Award Best Picture nominee, "Juno," she said something that kind of shocked me. Her reaction to the movie was that, "Yeah, it was funny, but I thought it went a little too far. They made it seem like getting pregnant and dealing with the consequences is so easy. That's not right for teenage girls to see." I argued back, "OK, so what would you suggest? Scaring them from having sex? Making a movie about a teenage girl getting pregnant and having her life ruined over it?" Granted we were both being a little unrealistic, but people are so attached to censorship, so "anti-bad" that no one can do anything without being attacked by some conservative organization.
I think I went off on a tangent, but I guess my point is that I see where Habermas is coming from and I hate it. While I'm not necessarily into offensive, bad tasting culture, I consider myself a realist. People have to understand our nation's concept of free speech and the lengths to which people can take it.
I was talking to a friend from home on the phone last week, and we were reviewing movies we had seen lately, stating what we liked, didn't like, and why. While we discussed the new Academy Award Best Picture nominee, "Juno," she said something that kind of shocked me. Her reaction to the movie was that, "Yeah, it was funny, but I thought it went a little too far. They made it seem like getting pregnant and dealing with the consequences is so easy. That's not right for teenage girls to see." I argued back, "OK, so what would you suggest? Scaring them from having sex? Making a movie about a teenage girl getting pregnant and having her life ruined over it?" Granted we were both being a little unrealistic, but people are so attached to censorship, so "anti-bad" that no one can do anything without being attacked by some conservative organization.
I think I went off on a tangent, but I guess my point is that I see where Habermas is coming from and I hate it. While I'm not necessarily into offensive, bad tasting culture, I consider myself a realist. People have to understand our nation's concept of free speech and the lengths to which people can take it.
Bumble: Jean Baudrillard
Do we let the terrorists actually win?
This text talks about our bizarre pleasure and fascination we get from the disturbing images and idea of Terrorism or catastrophic events. Baudrillard writes, “The terrorist exploited the ‘real time’ of images… at the same time as they exalt the event, they also take it hostage. They serve to multiply it to infinity and, at the same time; they are a diversion and a neutralization” (Baudrillard 228). While this quote very accurately reflects reality, and our obsession and constant fear being injected into our systems on a daily basis, is it really the terrorists who are responsible, or our very own media? Have we turned against ourselves? By replaying a horrifying image of 911, we instill fear into the people and make sure that there is no chance of forgetting it. Every time it is re-enacted on the news with the horrifying images, it re-triggers the fear response. This in turn, leads to a snowball effect where everything appears to relate back to these horrifying events. We are all guilty of thinking back to these images because they have been so infused into our minds. While working in NYC the summer after 911, when there was the national black out, the only thing that raced through people’s minds was WE ARE UNDER ATTACK!! Also, this past summer in NYC when the steam pipe exploded because it was old and rusted, again the initial response was we are under terrorist attack again. It is the adrenaline rush that people actually enjoy, and so I think we stay in our virtual reality to make sure that we stay fearful and exhilarated! Of course by our media instigating this, we are actually the ones who help the terrorists WIN… because as Baudrillard claims, “the terrorists’ victory is that all other forms of violence and the destabilization of order work in its favour. Internet terrorism, biological terrorism, the terrorism of anthrax and rumour—all are ascribed to Bin Laden” (Baudrillard 230). We are the ones who let the terrorists win, we let them get to us. Maybe we actually want them to win, so we have a story to tell… could this be a possibility?
Our media empires, replay these images with a new sense of built up fear and, “fiction” added on top of them to make them even more dramatic and effective. By making them in real time it is as though it is happening right now, even though it was an event with a definitive ending point, the media does not let us believe so. Only when it is redone it is so much more elaborate, because already our imaginations and fiction has grabbed hold. Reality is just not as fascinating as fiction!
An example of the re-enacting of horrifying events is that of Columbine. The website; which is constantly up is continual, implying that it is happening in real time. Not only can someone re-enter this website over and over and over again, you can do walk through tours in an interactive process as though you were there when the shootings happened.
By showing images in the present from events from the past, it blurs the usual concept we have of linear time, that things happened in the past and now we are in the present. There is a new concept of time and space.
All of what Baudrillard talks about leads to his words, “terrorism would be nothing without the media…” (Baudrillard 229). This concept could not be more true. The media harnesses the terrorist attack and exploits the people’s emotions and fear by reliving the experience in an overly dramatic and symbolic sense. It creates a feeling of fear and terror in the world, similar to the concept of the mean world syndrome. The world is constantly out to get us, and for some bizarre reason, as Bhartes says, we gain pleasure from this text. We are fascinated by it and marvel at it, which is why we are constantly glued to our television sets!
This text talks about our bizarre pleasure and fascination we get from the disturbing images and idea of Terrorism or catastrophic events. Baudrillard writes, “The terrorist exploited the ‘real time’ of images… at the same time as they exalt the event, they also take it hostage. They serve to multiply it to infinity and, at the same time; they are a diversion and a neutralization” (Baudrillard 228). While this quote very accurately reflects reality, and our obsession and constant fear being injected into our systems on a daily basis, is it really the terrorists who are responsible, or our very own media? Have we turned against ourselves? By replaying a horrifying image of 911, we instill fear into the people and make sure that there is no chance of forgetting it. Every time it is re-enacted on the news with the horrifying images, it re-triggers the fear response. This in turn, leads to a snowball effect where everything appears to relate back to these horrifying events. We are all guilty of thinking back to these images because they have been so infused into our minds. While working in NYC the summer after 911, when there was the national black out, the only thing that raced through people’s minds was WE ARE UNDER ATTACK!! Also, this past summer in NYC when the steam pipe exploded because it was old and rusted, again the initial response was we are under terrorist attack again. It is the adrenaline rush that people actually enjoy, and so I think we stay in our virtual reality to make sure that we stay fearful and exhilarated! Of course by our media instigating this, we are actually the ones who help the terrorists WIN… because as Baudrillard claims, “the terrorists’ victory is that all other forms of violence and the destabilization of order work in its favour. Internet terrorism, biological terrorism, the terrorism of anthrax and rumour—all are ascribed to Bin Laden” (Baudrillard 230). We are the ones who let the terrorists win, we let them get to us. Maybe we actually want them to win, so we have a story to tell… could this be a possibility?
Our media empires, replay these images with a new sense of built up fear and, “fiction” added on top of them to make them even more dramatic and effective. By making them in real time it is as though it is happening right now, even though it was an event with a definitive ending point, the media does not let us believe so. Only when it is redone it is so much more elaborate, because already our imaginations and fiction has grabbed hold. Reality is just not as fascinating as fiction!
An example of the re-enacting of horrifying events is that of Columbine. The website; which is constantly up is continual, implying that it is happening in real time. Not only can someone re-enter this website over and over and over again, you can do walk through tours in an interactive process as though you were there when the shootings happened.
By showing images in the present from events from the past, it blurs the usual concept we have of linear time, that things happened in the past and now we are in the present. There is a new concept of time and space.
All of what Baudrillard talks about leads to his words, “terrorism would be nothing without the media…” (Baudrillard 229). This concept could not be more true. The media harnesses the terrorist attack and exploits the people’s emotions and fear by reliving the experience in an overly dramatic and symbolic sense. It creates a feeling of fear and terror in the world, similar to the concept of the mean world syndrome. The world is constantly out to get us, and for some bizarre reason, as Bhartes says, we gain pleasure from this text. We are fascinated by it and marvel at it, which is why we are constantly glued to our television sets!
Sunday, February 17, 2008
kMO 2/14
Unfortunately I was unable to attend our last class meeting. Therefore, in order to try and grasp some of these concepts I decided to read everyone else’s posts.
After reading “Cuckoo’s” post regarding the “cult of new” I began to digest the type of concepts being discussed by Habermas. We are indeed a society that is fixated on having the newest, most expensive, top-of-the-line products. We are driven forward by an untouchable force to "out-due" what has already been “done.” In relatin to this topic CMC 100 taught me the impacts image had on the mass media market and potentially more importantly the effect of aesthetic appeal on a single individual. I hate to admit it but I too have fallen victim to this infectious routine and find myself depending on technology to help me survive the day…
The absorption of technological advancements into our culture is becoming alarmingly obvious and dangerously common. “July” touches on Habermas’ concept, “pleasure derives from pain.” To all those out there who don’t know who Perez Hilton is I highly advise you visit his website (www.perezhilton.com). His posts are described as, “being delivered with an irreverent and cruel slant. He often posts tabloid photographs over which he has added his own captions or "doodles." His blog has garnered both positive and negative attention for its brash attitude, its active "outing" of closeted homosexual celebrities and for its role in the increasing coverage of celebrities in all forms of media.” There is no better example of “pleasure derived from pain.” This website receives over 8 million hits a day…
Starfish’s explanation of the controversial quote “modernism is dominant but dead” was fantastic. I struggled to grasp how something can be both active and inactive at the same time. For example, Latin is a dead language because it is no longer spoken. However, it is the basis for a large portion of the English language therefore it is still active.
Thanks to all of you who helped me understand what I missed in class!
After reading “Cuckoo’s” post regarding the “cult of new” I began to digest the type of concepts being discussed by Habermas. We are indeed a society that is fixated on having the newest, most expensive, top-of-the-line products. We are driven forward by an untouchable force to "out-due" what has already been “done.” In relatin to this topic CMC 100 taught me the impacts image had on the mass media market and potentially more importantly the effect of aesthetic appeal on a single individual. I hate to admit it but I too have fallen victim to this infectious routine and find myself depending on technology to help me survive the day…
The absorption of technological advancements into our culture is becoming alarmingly obvious and dangerously common. “July” touches on Habermas’ concept, “pleasure derives from pain.” To all those out there who don’t know who Perez Hilton is I highly advise you visit his website (www.perezhilton.com). His posts are described as, “being delivered with an irreverent and cruel slant. He often posts tabloid photographs over which he has added his own captions or "doodles." His blog has garnered both positive and negative attention for its brash attitude, its active "outing" of closeted homosexual celebrities and for its role in the increasing coverage of celebrities in all forms of media.” There is no better example of “pleasure derived from pain.” This website receives over 8 million hits a day…
Starfish’s explanation of the controversial quote “modernism is dominant but dead” was fantastic. I struggled to grasp how something can be both active and inactive at the same time. For example, Latin is a dead language because it is no longer spoken. However, it is the basis for a large portion of the English language therefore it is still active.
Thanks to all of you who helped me understand what I missed in class!
Cuckoo 2/14
Herbermas ideas became somewhat clearer after Thursday class. On concept that grabbed my attention was the quote “the cult of the new”. This relates to today’s society so well. We are a society so fixated on having what is considered to be the best. No matter how old something is if something better comes out we automatically want it. While newer things are always appealing, this desire to have the new is driven strongly by advertisements. They will spend millions of dollar persuading consumers to buy their new product. They will do so with out fail because we are society always looking for the newest product. Partially due to image, we believe that we will up our image if we have the newest form of technology.
A company that always seems to have new products is Apple. They are constantly having a new product out that is considered the best. As soon as they come up with something they will advertise it as being greater and better, but within a month they will have an updated version out because they figured out all of the little glitches. So why not wait a month to get the version that has had the glitches worked out? Our society is so tied up having the newest and greatest that we are to inpatient too wait. Another great example is cell phones. There are always new phones coming out with better features that draw us towards them and make us want to update what we already have.
A company that always seems to have new products is Apple. They are constantly having a new product out that is considered the best. As soon as they come up with something they will advertise it as being greater and better, but within a month they will have an updated version out because they figured out all of the little glitches. So why not wait a month to get the version that has had the glitches worked out? Our society is so tied up having the newest and greatest that we are to inpatient too wait. Another great example is cell phones. There are always new phones coming out with better features that draw us towards them and make us want to update what we already have.
romulus 2.14
I had forgotten to pay my cable bill in November, and continued to ignore it until it was shut off. On top of the writer's strike that last in excess of 2 months, i had no reason to really tune in. I am ever so grateful that this happened. The number of activities I was able to engage in skyrocketed. I even went on craigslist.com and purchased a Wii from a guy who I totally stereotyped according to the amount of information that he had given me. The Wii is a great example of what is "modern". The ultimate interactive gaming experience is exactly how I describe this piece of technology. After months of pondering, I wanted to opt for a PS3 but it was not as fun. Disney has taken an initiative to update Disney Land. Consumers are no longer interested in a passive experience at the parks.
Modern American politics is struggling with an increase in participation and thus criticism. With popular votes challenging the ancient electoral college votes, times have changed.
I wanted to reflect on what makes us modern. When people are active in their communities and pursue their individual goals, that is a factor. Harvard is now releasing scholarly research papers to the general public, that is a factor. Harvard as well as a number of academic institutions are seeing that knowledge needs to be available to anyone who wants it, not just their own students. Society always benefits when intelligence increases. This in turn allows the learned to challenge aspects of hegemony.
The Wii also connects with the internet providing channels for the news and the weather. There is also a Mii community where those with Wii's cannot connect and communicate much like on the XBOX.The system also eliminates the need for a dvd player and is a better use of time than watching TV, which I love but would rather watch it on my time.
Modern American politics is struggling with an increase in participation and thus criticism. With popular votes challenging the ancient electoral college votes, times have changed.
I wanted to reflect on what makes us modern. When people are active in their communities and pursue their individual goals, that is a factor. Harvard is now releasing scholarly research papers to the general public, that is a factor. Harvard as well as a number of academic institutions are seeing that knowledge needs to be available to anyone who wants it, not just their own students. Society always benefits when intelligence increases. This in turn allows the learned to challenge aspects of hegemony.
The Wii also connects with the internet providing channels for the news and the weather. There is also a Mii community where those with Wii's cannot connect and communicate much like on the XBOX.The system also eliminates the need for a dvd player and is a better use of time than watching TV, which I love but would rather watch it on my time.
Starfish 2/14
After class on Thursday, Habermas’s idea of modernity became clear to me. After having struggled with the concept that Modernism is “dominant but dead,” I finally understood how such a statement could be true. I found myself looking at the study of the Latin language. Latin is considered a dead language. It is no longer spoken prominently in the world, and yet it is studied in classrooms everywhere. Latin, therefore, is dominant and dead at the same time.
Another concept I found interesting was “the cult of the new.” We are a culture obsessed with obtaining the best new thing that’s out there. I look at myself and know I am a victim of the cult of the new. In my lifetime I have had 8 different kinds of cell phones. Just when I think I have purchased the newest form of technology, the best cell phone out there, a new version or better version comes out and I want the upgrade. I feel that advertising has a lot to do with “the cult of the new.” In CMC 100 we studied this in detail. Everyday we get hit with thousands of advertisements. These ads tell us that we are not okay the way we are and we need to do something about this, whether it be buy a certain makeup or get an upgrade on your cell phone. Even though many people think they are unaffected by these messages being sent to them, they are in some shape or form influenced by these ads. I believe that advertisement is an element that has made us into the cult of the new. Like we said in class, putting new improved on a billboard or ad works in our culture. This whole concept is frightening. It is almost as if we have no choice. It is natural for us to be obsessed with the new, because this concept is a part of our culture.
Another concept I found interesting was “the cult of the new.” We are a culture obsessed with obtaining the best new thing that’s out there. I look at myself and know I am a victim of the cult of the new. In my lifetime I have had 8 different kinds of cell phones. Just when I think I have purchased the newest form of technology, the best cell phone out there, a new version or better version comes out and I want the upgrade. I feel that advertising has a lot to do with “the cult of the new.” In CMC 100 we studied this in detail. Everyday we get hit with thousands of advertisements. These ads tell us that we are not okay the way we are and we need to do something about this, whether it be buy a certain makeup or get an upgrade on your cell phone. Even though many people think they are unaffected by these messages being sent to them, they are in some shape or form influenced by these ads. I believe that advertisement is an element that has made us into the cult of the new. Like we said in class, putting new improved on a billboard or ad works in our culture. This whole concept is frightening. It is almost as if we have no choice. It is natural for us to be obsessed with the new, because this concept is a part of our culture.
BubbaNub 2/14
Where is modernity? Likewise, where is post modernity? Do both even really exist. Is it not true that the second after you say now, it becomes then? How can modernity then ever be described in a present state? Is that why/where the idea of postmodernity stems from: "Postmodernity definitely presents itself as Antimodernity" (98). With such difficult concepts swirling around in our heads it is no wonder Doc Rog had a mental breakdown in the shampoo aisle of Walgreens. Any observers would naturally think, ah yes, here is a man who is utterly distraught by the fact that he has all this shampoo but no hair to wash with it. However, maybe just maybe he is overwhelmed by the "hyperstimulated sensitivity" of it all; the fact that he has so many choices and varieties that he can consume in the "modern" age when just a week ago he was in a society whose "modern" concepts reflected something very different. Perhaps he is not upset about his hair, but rather the fact that he has found himself lost in time and place, not sure what is modern anymore and possibly slipping into an era of postmodernity. Then again, maybe the man just wishes he had some hair........and I am here to say it is alright Doc Rog, your teaching is only enhanced by this. For instance, we are able to clearly see the projector displayed on your forehead even if you are in front of the screen. It is a blessing in disguise!
July 2-14-08
In the readings there was an interesting, but true quote that caught Dr. Rog’s eye and mine too. I believe it was covered in the Lyotard readings from Tuesday’s class. The reason why I picked this quote was because it is straightforward and not hard to interpret. Also, it explains the world we live in today and the people who run it.
I would like to start with the quote from page 43, as stated “Pleasure derives from pain.” This quote simply shows how society likes to see individuals suffer, but they do not want to go through hardships of their own. For example, Brittney Spears has been the talk of the town for years now, but it wasn’t for her new album or endorsement deal, it is because she is going through stardom depression. Since she was a big teen idol for most young girls her life has always been shown on cameras, even when her career was at its worst. Brittney may have lost some of her music or idol fans, but she suddenly gained new fans from jumping out of the car with no panties, becoming a party girl, having numerous break-ups, and shaving her hair. These examples are just the minor wrongs that our society has feed off of. It is sad but celebrity obsession has come to its worst in the last decade. Instead of these fans being supportive and trying to help the young star they rather critique, but continue to watch every news line that has her in it. That is kind of ironic! We as a society feed and feed into the wrong of others until it happens to us or someone close to us, then we think we can relate.
This obsession causes the media to perpetuate negative and degrading images of these celebrities. Although I used a celebrity in my example, this doesn’t mean it only pertains to this community because I believe everyone can look back and remember an incident where you were happy to see another individual at their worst or you knew about someone’s problem but didn’t care to help because it might affect you. If you can, then you are a victim of this quote.
I would like to start with the quote from page 43, as stated “Pleasure derives from pain.” This quote simply shows how society likes to see individuals suffer, but they do not want to go through hardships of their own. For example, Brittney Spears has been the talk of the town for years now, but it wasn’t for her new album or endorsement deal, it is because she is going through stardom depression. Since she was a big teen idol for most young girls her life has always been shown on cameras, even when her career was at its worst. Brittney may have lost some of her music or idol fans, but she suddenly gained new fans from jumping out of the car with no panties, becoming a party girl, having numerous break-ups, and shaving her hair. These examples are just the minor wrongs that our society has feed off of. It is sad but celebrity obsession has come to its worst in the last decade. Instead of these fans being supportive and trying to help the young star they rather critique, but continue to watch every news line that has her in it. That is kind of ironic! We as a society feed and feed into the wrong of others until it happens to us or someone close to us, then we think we can relate.
This obsession causes the media to perpetuate negative and degrading images of these celebrities. Although I used a celebrity in my example, this doesn’t mean it only pertains to this community because I believe everyone can look back and remember an incident where you were happy to see another individual at their worst or you knew about someone’s problem but didn’t care to help because it might affect you. If you can, then you are a victim of this quote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)