During class, one point really struck me about Lyotard and his views on humanity and the ways in which the world works. The aspect of totalizing metanarratives was discussed as being the comprehensive views of the world with stories that allow people to make meaning of the world. Then, someone asked the question “is a war waged on totality even a possibility when we are based on metanarratives? If we don’t believe in anything, would we be in chaos or do metanarratives work to divide us anyway?” This was a very interesting question to think about as the world in which we live has forever been based on ideas that we believe help to make sense of the world. We continuously turn to ideologies and organized belief systems to categorize our opinions and thoughts. What if we all turned away from these ideologies and began to fight this sytem? This is when I thought of the song, Imagine, by John Lennon:
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
Before studying Lyotard, I never even thought of the technicalities behind these lyrics, when in reality, there is much to be said about them. This song describes a world without metanarratives and, to Lennon, this world would be peaceful. It seems all too easy and as we listen to the lyrics, we all hope that this song will one day be a possibility. It’s no wonder that it has not, however. If we all waged war on totality and stopped being passive consumers of ideology, would the world be peaceful, or would it be complete chaos? It is evitable that human beings have a need to understand the world in which they live as much as possible, and without comprehensive views of the world, it is difficult to be satisfied. This, in turn would lead to chaos. All human beings, to an extent, have ideas, values, beliefs, and understandings of the world and are programmed to unite with those who share common ideas. In order for metanarratives to diminish, a process must be put in place as an abrupt change would not be satisfactory. Maybe one day we will join Lennon and the world will be as one, but not anytime soon.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Rubber Soul, 2/5/09
Total metanarratives. Lyotard says we should wage war on them and destroy them. According to Lyotard, they are structures that offer certain moral codes to live by and cause people to not think for themselves. I think it's important for everyone to be taught to question everything, but some people just aren't taught that. And these are the people you'd be waging war with. Religious folks don't want to hear that everything they know and devote their lives to is a farce, American Dreamers don't want to believe that merit really doesn't matter in succeeding in life when their nation's political system is designed to benefit the wealthy instead of the majority of the population. I definitely believe that we are evolving. Higher levels of consciousness are reaching further and further in this age of globalization. Eventually more and more people will stop following and start thinking for themselves, but I don't think waging a war with the ones that don't want to believe is the answer. My father is a psychologist and helps people through the use of hypnosis. He says that the hypnosis only works for the people who are willing to believe it's going to help them. We can find better means in getting the word out, but not in a war-like manner. Even though most of our war's are due to total metanarratives, I'm not convinced that waging more is the answer.
Happy Birthday!, 2/5
Today in class was very thought provoking. It really made me understand Lyotard’s writing a lot more. When we connected all the other readers to Lyotard’s idea of, “thinkers…spread a reign of terror in the use of language.”, it really brought everything together for me and put thing into perspective. I never really thought of myself as a terrorist when reading a text, but after learning why Lyotard call’s us this, it makes more sense to me.
I thought the whole notion of realism was really interesting as well. I learned an interesting term called Verisimilitude , that I was never aware existed but I was completely taking part in the act. Verisimilitude is when you know something is not real, but you act as though it is real. I’ve experienced this regularly, when watching television, and I’ll be the first to admit it. Sadly, sometimes I do engage in mindless television like The Hills, and envy the life some of the characters on the show. I know that it is silly and it is probably all fake, but the lives they live are dramatically different than mine and I think of it as kind of a fantasy the way they live (and all celebrities for that matter).
Also, I cannot wait to learn about more of the Avant-Garde style of art. I love Pollack’s and Warhol’s work, it’s amazing and beautiful to study and look at. Also, I would have to agree that nowadays it’s hard to be original with anything because everything is a reproduction of an original or a slightly different version of the original.
Overall, class today was very clarifying and interesting to listen to. I learned a lot of really great things that helped me piece together some other theorists views and relate them to each other.
I thought the whole notion of realism was really interesting as well. I learned an interesting term called Verisimilitude , that I was never aware existed but I was completely taking part in the act. Verisimilitude is when you know something is not real, but you act as though it is real. I’ve experienced this regularly, when watching television, and I’ll be the first to admit it. Sadly, sometimes I do engage in mindless television like The Hills, and envy the life some of the characters on the show. I know that it is silly and it is probably all fake, but the lives they live are dramatically different than mine and I think of it as kind of a fantasy the way they live (and all celebrities for that matter).
Also, I cannot wait to learn about more of the Avant-Garde style of art. I love Pollack’s and Warhol’s work, it’s amazing and beautiful to study and look at. Also, I would have to agree that nowadays it’s hard to be original with anything because everything is a reproduction of an original or a slightly different version of the original.
Overall, class today was very clarifying and interesting to listen to. I learned a lot of really great things that helped me piece together some other theorists views and relate them to each other.
LightningBolt, 2/5
Today in class we discussed Lyotard’s question, what happens when characters on screen start being talked about as real people?
This is an interesting concept because it is something that most of us do without questioning it. Most people have a few TV shows that they like to follow consistently. For me these are Grey’s Anatomy and Gossip Girl. I have been watching these shows for so long now that the characters in them seem like real people to me. I know that they are actors reading from scripts, but when you are so indulged in a show it is hard to keep that in mind. It is not rare that I will have a conversation with my friends and say things such as, “Can you believe Derek is going to ask Meredith to marry him?” Or “I’m so mad at Blaire, she is being so rude right now.” Although Television was before Lytord’s time he predicted that this would happen.
“Classicism seems to be so ruled out in a world in which reality is so destabilized that it offers no occasion for experience but one for ratings and experimentation” (40)
I found this quote from class very interesting because it seems to true and relative to my life. If everyone else tells me a movie is bad, I won’t go see it. It would be rare that I would pick up a book that has never been reviewed highly and read it. I have never considered that I may have wildly different taste than all of the critics in the world and I am limiting myself from discovering that. This may have been easier for Lyotard during his time because there were fewer choices. There are so many movies, books, and TV shows to choose from now that listening to critics and reviews seems to be a logical way or narrowing down the selection. American’s are very busy and don’t believe that they have time to spare testing out new materials when they know they could choose the highly praised one.
This is an interesting concept because it is something that most of us do without questioning it. Most people have a few TV shows that they like to follow consistently. For me these are Grey’s Anatomy and Gossip Girl. I have been watching these shows for so long now that the characters in them seem like real people to me. I know that they are actors reading from scripts, but when you are so indulged in a show it is hard to keep that in mind. It is not rare that I will have a conversation with my friends and say things such as, “Can you believe Derek is going to ask Meredith to marry him?” Or “I’m so mad at Blaire, she is being so rude right now.” Although Television was before Lytord’s time he predicted that this would happen.
“Classicism seems to be so ruled out in a world in which reality is so destabilized that it offers no occasion for experience but one for ratings and experimentation” (40)
I found this quote from class very interesting because it seems to true and relative to my life. If everyone else tells me a movie is bad, I won’t go see it. It would be rare that I would pick up a book that has never been reviewed highly and read it. I have never considered that I may have wildly different taste than all of the critics in the world and I am limiting myself from discovering that. This may have been easier for Lyotard during his time because there were fewer choices. There are so many movies, books, and TV shows to choose from now that listening to critics and reviews seems to be a logical way or narrowing down the selection. American’s are very busy and don’t believe that they have time to spare testing out new materials when they know they could choose the highly praised one.
000ooo000ooo 2/5
One idea from the Lyotard that we discussed in class today that struck me as most prevalent was the idea that the more "real" individual representations become, the less real actual events and our world as a whole becomes. As we see things happen on TV we get used to them and they aren't as "real" feeling when we see them in real life.
I think a good example of this is the reported link between the TV show "24" and people's acceptance of torture tactics being used to interrogate possible terrorists. I would like to think - although I am well aware this may be naive - that Americans would not normally condone torture, especially after we have condemned so many other countries for their use of it. However, when Jack Bauer started showing us on TV how sometimes torture was necessary because other the United States would explode people began to feel that maybe it was not only acceptable, but necessary. When news came out that we had been torturing people in an attempt to overthrow a government we accused of being torturous, half of America said they approved of using torture tactics. People saw torture on TV, even though it was fake, and saw how useful it could be in "real life" so they accepted it when it actually happened in real life.
I think you could look at some of these issues of realism in the context of America's economic crash as well. It was been well-documented that families on TV are usually much wealthier than actual families. Even if the parents don't really have high paying jobs everyone still manages to live in comfortable houses with nice clothes, cars, and stuff in general. This TV model of a "real" family becomes people's own models for what a real family should have and look like. Many people began to buy things they couldn't afford because they wanted their families to be afforded the same opportunities as families on TV, even if these opportunities were unnecessary and unrealistic given their financial means.
Even though everyone knows that "24" is fictional and that TV families aren't actual families, something in their minds has a hard time separating this fiction from the reality it portrays. The fiction permeates their own sense of reality until the line between what is real and what is not seems irrelevant. People assume that "fiction" is based on truth so there's really no difference between the two. This is what makes TV and movies so much fun to watch, and this is what can make them so dangerous.
I think a good example of this is the reported link between the TV show "24" and people's acceptance of torture tactics being used to interrogate possible terrorists. I would like to think - although I am well aware this may be naive - that Americans would not normally condone torture, especially after we have condemned so many other countries for their use of it. However, when Jack Bauer started showing us on TV how sometimes torture was necessary because other the United States would explode people began to feel that maybe it was not only acceptable, but necessary. When news came out that we had been torturing people in an attempt to overthrow a government we accused of being torturous, half of America said they approved of using torture tactics. People saw torture on TV, even though it was fake, and saw how useful it could be in "real life" so they accepted it when it actually happened in real life.
I think you could look at some of these issues of realism in the context of America's economic crash as well. It was been well-documented that families on TV are usually much wealthier than actual families. Even if the parents don't really have high paying jobs everyone still manages to live in comfortable houses with nice clothes, cars, and stuff in general. This TV model of a "real" family becomes people's own models for what a real family should have and look like. Many people began to buy things they couldn't afford because they wanted their families to be afforded the same opportunities as families on TV, even if these opportunities were unnecessary and unrealistic given their financial means.
Even though everyone knows that "24" is fictional and that TV families aren't actual families, something in their minds has a hard time separating this fiction from the reality it portrays. The fiction permeates their own sense of reality until the line between what is real and what is not seems irrelevant. People assume that "fiction" is based on truth so there's really no difference between the two. This is what makes TV and movies so much fun to watch, and this is what can make them so dangerous.
Smiley Face - 2/5
Today's class helped me understand both the readings for this week. With the difference interpretations of the aesthetic and our general development of a postmodernist culture, there is more of a strive to regress to the times of the 'original.' From the classist appreciation for art, the renaissance moved more towards the aestetic being found through the means of science and reason. Today's appreciation of the beautiful is very different to how it was in a way that represents the development of new technologies and opportunities. As much as we live in a culture of commodity and the nee to consume so that we can identify ourselves amongst everyone around us, we still strive to feel unique (for example getting an iPod that lots of other people have, yet getting our name engraved on the back to somewhat distinct ourselves different from the rest and be 'original').
As much as companies contradict themselves by mass-reproducing an original, the art of print-making is in fact reproducing the original. The print comes from the carved piece of linoleum, yet that is not the art work. The art work is the print that results on the piece of paper from transfering the desing onto it. Therefore, the original is being copied over and over while maintaining its oriinality. One could argue that with each print the artist must go through the process of applying the ink and that application can change depending on the amount added, and that could subsequently make differences between each original yet these differences are still original to that piece.
This desire for the original has transcended today as a way of finding what is considered beautiful as well as finding reality. The realism approach to media is making us question our reality as it goes above and beyond what we consider 'reality.' As discusssed in CMC 100, MTV record college students partying and clubbing because it's what assume they do while those students act that way because it's the way they are depicted in media and therefore it is assumed that everyone else acts that way also. The never-ending cycle of expectations, realism, originality and aesteticism are the reasons that I believe propel Lyotard to state that a war should be wages against totality.
As much as companies contradict themselves by mass-reproducing an original, the art of print-making is in fact reproducing the original. The print comes from the carved piece of linoleum, yet that is not the art work. The art work is the print that results on the piece of paper from transfering the desing onto it. Therefore, the original is being copied over and over while maintaining its oriinality. One could argue that with each print the artist must go through the process of applying the ink and that application can change depending on the amount added, and that could subsequently make differences between each original yet these differences are still original to that piece.
This desire for the original has transcended today as a way of finding what is considered beautiful as well as finding reality. The realism approach to media is making us question our reality as it goes above and beyond what we consider 'reality.' As discusssed in CMC 100, MTV record college students partying and clubbing because it's what assume they do while those students act that way because it's the way they are depicted in media and therefore it is assumed that everyone else acts that way also. The never-ending cycle of expectations, realism, originality and aesteticism are the reasons that I believe propel Lyotard to state that a war should be wages against totality.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Trapnest, Lyotard
One of the things that stuck out to me about this article is when Lyotard discussed the notion of taste. It reads, on page 43, “Taste, therefore, testifies that between the capacity to conceive and the capacity to present and object corresponding to the concept, an undetermined agreement, without rules, giving ride to a judgment when Kant calls reflective, may be experienced as pleasure.” This quote stuck out to me in particular, especially when the discussion continued on to illustrate how artists can know something, or have a basic understanding of it, but are unable to illustrate it. Many artists I believe face this dilemma, of knowing what they want to produce, but are unable to do so.
The proposition that modern art as the medium in which artists reach a middle ground of what they wish to produce and what they are able to is interesting. However his later argument of, “The postmodern would be that which, in the modern, puts forward the unpresentable in the presentation itself…” Is this an argument proposing that postmodernism is a further elaboration of modernism in which there is a calm state reached between the “unpresentable” and presentable? It is also a bit confusing how this would apply to actual art, for me personally.
Then there is the notion of nostalgia that is brought up throughout the text. Is this nostalgia something previous artists have been striving for that has been unable to reach? I think it all translates to we are attempting, often times, to describe something that is intangible for us to describe by normal means available to us. Though this it is a sense of nostalgia for previous artwork that achieves this. However, as art has evolved this is becoming, and has become, less possible, therefore postmodernism has stepped in to fill the gap and reconcile the difference.
The proposition that modern art as the medium in which artists reach a middle ground of what they wish to produce and what they are able to is interesting. However his later argument of, “The postmodern would be that which, in the modern, puts forward the unpresentable in the presentation itself…” Is this an argument proposing that postmodernism is a further elaboration of modernism in which there is a calm state reached between the “unpresentable” and presentable? It is also a bit confusing how this would apply to actual art, for me personally.
Then there is the notion of nostalgia that is brought up throughout the text. Is this nostalgia something previous artists have been striving for that has been unable to reach? I think it all translates to we are attempting, often times, to describe something that is intangible for us to describe by normal means available to us. Though this it is a sense of nostalgia for previous artwork that achieves this. However, as art has evolved this is becoming, and has become, less possible, therefore postmodernism has stepped in to fill the gap and reconcile the difference.
000ooo000ooo Lyotard
As I understand it, post-modernism is very closely related to modernism except post-modernism encompasses a wider range of objects and time. While modernism relates only to artwork,architecture and other aesthetic endeavors, just about anything can be interpreted through a post-modern view point. As such, questions one might use to explore modernism will be relevant to post-modernism. Lyotard explains one question which he sees as central to the evaluation of modern art: "As Thierry de Duve penetratingly observes,the modern aesthetic question is not 'What is beautiful?' but 'What can be said to be art (and literature?'"
This question illustrates what can be powerfully progressive about post-modern thought both artistically and politically. While I wouldn't say that art has no importance, I also don't think it really has the power to "change the world" or really change much of anything. It may be part of a movement, or it may help one person see a situation in a new light, but a single piece of art will probably have very little impact on the world - regardless of how "powerful" people who wear beret may claim they are. However, in this question of "What is beautiful?" as opposed to "What is art?" lies a host important cultural realizations and appreciations.
"Beautiful" is subjective. Hence, it is cultural. We think something is beautiful because of how it fits into our worldview and what else we've been told is beautiful and how a specific object fits into everything else that has happened in our lives. As such, people from the same or similar cultures will often have similar tastes for beauty. This can be seen throughout history. For centuries though, people failed to realize that beauty truly is subjective. They thought there could be an absolute beauty by which anything that hoped to be beautiful must ascribe. This type of ethnocentrism was at the heart of British imperialism and the European conquest of the "New World". Ethnocentrism is a disease that has plagued humanity for all of its existence. But now, for post-modernism to bring to realization that "What is art?" is a more important question than "What is beautiful?" is highly significant.
If we accept everything on an equal playing field of being "art", we can begin to appreciate things that originally we may have dismissed because they didn't fit the ideals of beauty. It enables us to look deeper into things and give everything a second look. As the cliche goes, "Beauty is only skin deep" and if we only judge things based on whether they fit our immediate presupposition of beauty, we really aren't allowing beauty to be anything beyond skin-deep.
This question illustrates what can be powerfully progressive about post-modern thought both artistically and politically. While I wouldn't say that art has no importance, I also don't think it really has the power to "change the world" or really change much of anything. It may be part of a movement, or it may help one person see a situation in a new light, but a single piece of art will probably have very little impact on the world - regardless of how "powerful" people who wear beret may claim they are. However, in this question of "What is beautiful?" as opposed to "What is art?" lies a host important cultural realizations and appreciations.
"Beautiful" is subjective. Hence, it is cultural. We think something is beautiful because of how it fits into our worldview and what else we've been told is beautiful and how a specific object fits into everything else that has happened in our lives. As such, people from the same or similar cultures will often have similar tastes for beauty. This can be seen throughout history. For centuries though, people failed to realize that beauty truly is subjective. They thought there could be an absolute beauty by which anything that hoped to be beautiful must ascribe. This type of ethnocentrism was at the heart of British imperialism and the European conquest of the "New World". Ethnocentrism is a disease that has plagued humanity for all of its existence. But now, for post-modernism to bring to realization that "What is art?" is a more important question than "What is beautiful?" is highly significant.
If we accept everything on an equal playing field of being "art", we can begin to appreciate things that originally we may have dismissed because they didn't fit the ideals of beauty. It enables us to look deeper into things and give everything a second look. As the cliche goes, "Beauty is only skin deep" and if we only judge things based on whether they fit our immediate presupposition of beauty, we really aren't allowing beauty to be anything beyond skin-deep.
Spaghetti, Lyotard
Lyotard observes that "the modern aesthetic question is not 'What is beautiful?' but 'What can be said to be art (and literature)?'(41). Immediately I chuckled to myself as I read this quote and looked across my dorm room and up to the wall above my roommate's desk. There is stuck a small orange poster with a black and white picture and an Andy Warhol quote: "art is what you can get away with." I knew exactly what Lyotard is talking about here. He goes on to make an interesting point about the existence of reality, which reminded me of a definition I learned in a linguistic anthropology course a couple of years ago.
The definition was of the term "culture." The concept was something along the lines of a group of people organized with common respect to symbols. The concept of reality is the same as Lyotard reviews it. He states that "there is no reality unless testified by a consensus between partners over a certain knowledge and certain commitments. In other words, everyone has to agree that a particular symbol has a particular definition in order for that meaning to exist. For example, as citizens of the good ole U.S. of A., it is culturally accepted that our national flag, which is really just a piece of cloth, signifies patriotism, pride, and nationalism.
Lyotard goes on to challenge the common idea of beauty and comes to the conclusion that there is no such thing because not everyone can agree on a definition. Its definition is subjective in terms of an individual's taste which is often muddled by eclectic commodities which surround us constantly. So because this ethereal paragon of "beauty" does not exist, Lyotard argues that an "anything goes" attitude is adopted in the art world (42). He further delves into a capitalist critique which explains that the conditions created under a capitalist society enable "the value of works of art [to be critiqued] according to the profits they yeild" (42).
If competition is the driving force of capitalism (as my Sociological Theory Professor Ed Royce said earlier today in class), then Lyotard is right on the money. He sees art as no longer appreciated for its innovation, but rather for its adherence to conventions that are known to draw in revenue. After all, how successful or well-praised is a work of art if it isn't worth/doesn't make any money? So I will finish with some words of wisdom from Kanye West that I think Lyotard would appreciate today, "Do anybody make real shit anymore?"
The definition was of the term "culture." The concept was something along the lines of a group of people organized with common respect to symbols. The concept of reality is the same as Lyotard reviews it. He states that "there is no reality unless testified by a consensus between partners over a certain knowledge and certain commitments. In other words, everyone has to agree that a particular symbol has a particular definition in order for that meaning to exist. For example, as citizens of the good ole U.S. of A., it is culturally accepted that our national flag, which is really just a piece of cloth, signifies patriotism, pride, and nationalism.
Lyotard goes on to challenge the common idea of beauty and comes to the conclusion that there is no such thing because not everyone can agree on a definition. Its definition is subjective in terms of an individual's taste which is often muddled by eclectic commodities which surround us constantly. So because this ethereal paragon of "beauty" does not exist, Lyotard argues that an "anything goes" attitude is adopted in the art world (42). He further delves into a capitalist critique which explains that the conditions created under a capitalist society enable "the value of works of art [to be critiqued] according to the profits they yeild" (42).
If competition is the driving force of capitalism (as my Sociological Theory Professor Ed Royce said earlier today in class), then Lyotard is right on the money. He sees art as no longer appreciated for its innovation, but rather for its adherence to conventions that are known to draw in revenue. After all, how successful or well-praised is a work of art if it isn't worth/doesn't make any money? So I will finish with some words of wisdom from Kanye West that I think Lyotard would appreciate today, "Do anybody make real shit anymore?"
killacam32, lyotard 2/4/09
"Classicism seems to be ruled out in a world which is so destabilized that it offers no occasion for experience but one for ratings and expiriementation"
I was pretty confused with the reading this time around but i did take somethings from it. Witht he quote posted above i did understand the clash between classicism and realism. This quote also made me understand that classicism falls apart when there is no stable world for the classicism to be appreciated in. This reading also taught that realism in the 1960s was veyr different from realism in the 19th century. Lyotard talks about how many of the readers reputed the writers and philosphers of relaism int he 60's and 70's because of there use of language. He also explains the meaning of what postmodern really means. he goes on to explain that postmodern is related to the present and it is defined by a set perspectives.
I was pretty confused with the reading this time around but i did take somethings from it. Witht he quote posted above i did understand the clash between classicism and realism. This quote also made me understand that classicism falls apart when there is no stable world for the classicism to be appreciated in. This reading also taught that realism in the 1960s was veyr different from realism in the 19th century. Lyotard talks about how many of the readers reputed the writers and philosphers of relaism int he 60's and 70's because of there use of language. He also explains the meaning of what postmodern really means. he goes on to explain that postmodern is related to the present and it is defined by a set perspectives.
Super!Geek, 2/4, Lyotard
As the semester progresses, the question of 'what is postmodernism' becomes more and more vexing, even though that is the topic upon which we engage each week. For our upcoming class, we're approaching that question through the mind of Jean-Francios Lyotard. Lyotard seems to present some of the most understandable interpretations of post-modernism and some of the most confusing. The section of the reading that seems to highlight this point comes at the end of page 40 when Lyotard states, "The challenge lay essentially in that photographic and cinematographic processes can accomplish better, faster, and with a circulation a hundred thousand times larger than narrative or pictorial realism, the task which academicism had assigned to realism: to preserve various consciousnesses from doubt." Essentially, this presents a common conflict of understanding and excepting post-modernism. Because images, or media, are now readily accessible, the authority of the academic to determine the value of virtually anything is supplanted by the viewers ability to reason with the text him or herself. Academicism therefore has to re-evaluate its aims in order best preserve realism.
Lyotard transitions from fairly straightforward rhetoric on the topic however in the span of a period with the following:"Industrial photography and cinema will be superior to painting and the novel whenever the objective is to stabilize the referent, to arrange it according to a point of view which endows it with a recognizable meaning, to reproduce the syntax and vocabulary which enable the addressee to decipher images and sequences quickly, and so to arrive easily at the consciousness of his own identity as well as the approval which he thereby receives from others—since such structures of images and sequences constitute a communication code among all of them. This is the way the effects of reality, or if one prefers, the fantasies of realism, multiply." Maybe it is just the language in this paragraph, but it feels as if Lyotard muddles his own point. He speaks on how the addressee is tasked with the role of deciphering and assigning meaning to the images, in terms of realism, but he does not seem to offer a relevant mechanism for this. Then again, post-modernist seem to shy away from telling you how to do something, and focus more on why you should.
Now, this of course comes with my usual disclaimer of I could be very very wrong with my interpretation of the reading, but hopefully, I'm at least treading the line of being sort of right. Oh, and it's kind of cool to read an author and get the references he is making, like his reference earlier in the paper to Walter Benjamin.
Lyotard transitions from fairly straightforward rhetoric on the topic however in the span of a period with the following:"Industrial photography and cinema will be superior to painting and the novel whenever the objective is to stabilize the referent, to arrange it according to a point of view which endows it with a recognizable meaning, to reproduce the syntax and vocabulary which enable the addressee to decipher images and sequences quickly, and so to arrive easily at the consciousness of his own identity as well as the approval which he thereby receives from others—since such structures of images and sequences constitute a communication code among all of them. This is the way the effects of reality, or if one prefers, the fantasies of realism, multiply." Maybe it is just the language in this paragraph, but it feels as if Lyotard muddles his own point. He speaks on how the addressee is tasked with the role of deciphering and assigning meaning to the images, in terms of realism, but he does not seem to offer a relevant mechanism for this. Then again, post-modernist seem to shy away from telling you how to do something, and focus more on why you should.
Now, this of course comes with my usual disclaimer of I could be very very wrong with my interpretation of the reading, but hopefully, I'm at least treading the line of being sort of right. Oh, and it's kind of cool to read an author and get the references he is making, like his reference earlier in the paper to Walter Benjamin.
Savvy, Lyotard, 2.4.09
Several ideas really stood out to me that Lyotard discussed. In this article Lyotard really dwell upon the topic of reality. The first quote would be on page 41, "The demand for reality- that is, for unity, simplicity, communicability, etc". I never really thought about reality in this way. I couldn't help but to ask the question of what reality I was living in. I also found the discussion on industrial photography and cinema to be interesting as well as how politics can come into play in realism. In regard to politics Lyotard writes, "The attack on artistic experimentation's is specifically reactionary: eshetic judgement would only be required to decide whether such or such work is conformity with the established rules of the beautiful" (41). This might be a little far fetched, but when reading this quote I couldn't help to think of all the literature and news broadcasts that occurred leading up to the Presidential election. I remember vividly the image of Obama and his wife on the cover of New York Magazine. It was a a cartoon looking drawing that depicted the Obamas in a very negative light. I thought about how this cartoon image struggled to be within political and societal conformity and norms.
Another quote that I feel like was very relative to our class discussion on Tuesday was on page 42, " But this realism of the 'anything goes' is in fact that of money; in the absence of aesthetic criteria, it remains possible and useful to assess the value of works of art according to the profits they yield." This quote about the worth of pieces of art, reminded me of Dr. Casey's story about his watch that he had bought from the vendor. The watch was only worth as much as he would pay for it, Lyotard was saying the same thing in his quote about the artwork. The value of the artwork did not stem from creativity, but from how much people would pay for it.
Another quote that I feel like was very relative to our class discussion on Tuesday was on page 42, " But this realism of the 'anything goes' is in fact that of money; in the absence of aesthetic criteria, it remains possible and useful to assess the value of works of art according to the profits they yield." This quote about the worth of pieces of art, reminded me of Dr. Casey's story about his watch that he had bought from the vendor. The watch was only worth as much as he would pay for it, Lyotard was saying the same thing in his quote about the artwork. The value of the artwork did not stem from creativity, but from how much people would pay for it.
ashlayla, Lyotard
I will be honest and say that when I began reading Lyotard's piece I struggled with it, so my post might be a little off. Throughout the piece I felt like Lyotard was repeating himself a lot which made it confusing but in the end, it helped me understand what Lyotard was saying. One quote that stood out to me was:
"It allows the unpresentable to be put forward only as the missing contents; but the form, because of its recognizable consistency, continues to offer to the reader or viewer matter for solace and pleasure." (46)
This quote stood out to me because I was able to, in a way, link it with the Benjamin reading. I was able to link it with Benjamin's concept of the camera and how we have moved from needing to see the whole thing to only needing to see a slice of it. If we are presented with a slice of the Mona Lisa, let's say her "smile", we would be able to connect it with the real artwork because we are all so familiar with the Mona Lisa. I linked this with the quote from Lyotard because Mona Lisa's smile is the missing content from the original piece of artwork and is the "unpresentable" being brought forward to be "presentable."
"It allows the unpresentable to be put forward only as the missing contents; but the form, because of its recognizable consistency, continues to offer to the reader or viewer matter for solace and pleasure." (46)
This quote stood out to me because I was able to, in a way, link it with the Benjamin reading. I was able to link it with Benjamin's concept of the camera and how we have moved from needing to see the whole thing to only needing to see a slice of it. If we are presented with a slice of the Mona Lisa, let's say her "smile", we would be able to connect it with the real artwork because we are all so familiar with the Mona Lisa. I linked this with the quote from Lyotard because Mona Lisa's smile is the missing content from the original piece of artwork and is the "unpresentable" being brought forward to be "presentable."
Rico72, Lyotard
"A postmodern artist or writer is in the position of a philosopher: the text he writes, the work he produces are not in principle governed by pre-established rules, and they cannot be judged according to a determining judgment, by applying familiar categories to the text or to the work. Those rules and categories are what the work of art itself is looking for. The artist and the writer, then, are working without rules in order to formulate the rules of what will have been done" (46).
I thought this quote really showed how our culture has really moved into post-modernism. This is a perfect example of the internet in our society. Over the years it has been developed so people could go out and make their mark on the world. When myspace was first introduced people would go crazy on finding new lay outs. People started keeping online journals and blogs that anyone could read and comment on. Then youtube was introduced and this started yet another form of art. People began making home movies and putting them up on the internet for everyone to watch and comment on. Everyone in a post modern society has the potential to be an artist because there are no rules as to what art is. What one person considers to be a waste of film, another could think is a masterpiece. This is why people are so drawn to the internet and these online communities such as facebook, myspace, secondlife, and others. It gives someone the chance to feel connected to someone else through their art and expression.
In the near future there will most likely be some controversy over the internet. Some believe that everything that is posted should have to go through a screening process to make sure it is "appropriate." It will be interesting to see how much support this cause gets and if it even goes anywhere. The internet is going to remain a huge part of our lives. Companies are moving towards online purchasing and buying so you don't even have to leave your home anymore. Our society is going to continue to change and may even be very very different in 50 years.
I thought this quote really showed how our culture has really moved into post-modernism. This is a perfect example of the internet in our society. Over the years it has been developed so people could go out and make their mark on the world. When myspace was first introduced people would go crazy on finding new lay outs. People started keeping online journals and blogs that anyone could read and comment on. Then youtube was introduced and this started yet another form of art. People began making home movies and putting them up on the internet for everyone to watch and comment on. Everyone in a post modern society has the potential to be an artist because there are no rules as to what art is. What one person considers to be a waste of film, another could think is a masterpiece. This is why people are so drawn to the internet and these online communities such as facebook, myspace, secondlife, and others. It gives someone the chance to feel connected to someone else through their art and expression.
In the near future there will most likely be some controversy over the internet. Some believe that everything that is posted should have to go through a screening process to make sure it is "appropriate." It will be interesting to see how much support this cause gets and if it even goes anywhere. The internet is going to remain a huge part of our lives. Companies are moving towards online purchasing and buying so you don't even have to leave your home anymore. Our society is going to continue to change and may even be very very different in 50 years.
WoolyBully7, Lyotard
“The challenge lay essentially in that photographic and cinematographic processes can accomplish better, faster, and with a circulation a hundred thousand times larger than narrative or pictorial realism…”
After sharing my thoughts with a senior art history major, I came to believe that the more recognizable an image is, the more it is worth. By this I mean, the higher the circulation of an image, (i.e. The Mona Lisa), the original will be more famous as well as have a higher demand without sacrificing and significance or meaning of the legitimate original copy. Another example would be if no one had ever seen a Ferrari before, it would mean nothing to people and therefore have no value. But since most of us have seen either a Ferrari in a picture, video or in person, their value is so high. However I still do see the other side of the argument that a painting is a form of expression, and when it is mass circulated, it does lose some of its mystique and uniqueness. The idea behind the image can get a little tired or even changed altogether since there could potentially be millions of people analyzing and critiquing the image.
That was classic and Renaissance art. Modern art does show some similarities to the value and appreciation for the artwork. Modern art, however is expressed in so many more ways, and different ways. Yes we still have theatre, sculptors, artists, writers, musicians but now we have film directors that can technically be anyone with a camera. YouTube, for example, might be the world’s single largest collection of artwork. Some of the videos on the website have millions of hits, or views. I don’t think there is anything else in history than can say they have reached that many people and just devoted to any kind of video. Modern expression is not as concerned with distribution, with the exception of copyright laws and such.
After sharing my thoughts with a senior art history major, I came to believe that the more recognizable an image is, the more it is worth. By this I mean, the higher the circulation of an image, (i.e. The Mona Lisa), the original will be more famous as well as have a higher demand without sacrificing and significance or meaning of the legitimate original copy. Another example would be if no one had ever seen a Ferrari before, it would mean nothing to people and therefore have no value. But since most of us have seen either a Ferrari in a picture, video or in person, their value is so high. However I still do see the other side of the argument that a painting is a form of expression, and when it is mass circulated, it does lose some of its mystique and uniqueness. The idea behind the image can get a little tired or even changed altogether since there could potentially be millions of people analyzing and critiquing the image.
That was classic and Renaissance art. Modern art does show some similarities to the value and appreciation for the artwork. Modern art, however is expressed in so many more ways, and different ways. Yes we still have theatre, sculptors, artists, writers, musicians but now we have film directors that can technically be anyone with a camera. YouTube, for example, might be the world’s single largest collection of artwork. Some of the videos on the website have millions of hits, or views. I don’t think there is anything else in history than can say they have reached that many people and just devoted to any kind of video. Modern expression is not as concerned with distribution, with the exception of copyright laws and such.
Rubber Soul, Lyotard
"...the attack on artistic experimentation is specifically reactionary: aesthetic judgment would only be required to decide whether such or such work is in conformity with the established rule of the beautiful" (41).
Our society puts so much stress on beauty, and it's puzzling to imagine who decides what is beautiful and why. Why is being tall and thin beautiful? Why is using certain schemes of colors, and certain brush strokes, and depicting certain things considered beautiful to us? Art is unique because it is a focus of expression and always evolving, but it is paradoxical if there are rules that should be followed. Political economy plays a major role in deciding beauty in art. It all depends on who will pay how much money for a work of art to be considered valuable. "...in the absence of aesthetic criteria, it remains possible and useful to assess the value of works of art according to the profits they yield" (42). I once read about a 3 year old girl whose paintings sold for thousands of dollars. I've seen a youtube video of an elephant whose trainer taught it to paint and its works went for a lot of money as well. "Beauty exists if a certain "case" (the work of art), given first by the sensibility without any conceptual determination, the sentiment of pleasure independent of any interest the work may elicit, appeals to the principle of a universal consensus (which may never be attained)" (43).
Our society puts so much stress on beauty, and it's puzzling to imagine who decides what is beautiful and why. Why is being tall and thin beautiful? Why is using certain schemes of colors, and certain brush strokes, and depicting certain things considered beautiful to us? Art is unique because it is a focus of expression and always evolving, but it is paradoxical if there are rules that should be followed. Political economy plays a major role in deciding beauty in art. It all depends on who will pay how much money for a work of art to be considered valuable. "...in the absence of aesthetic criteria, it remains possible and useful to assess the value of works of art according to the profits they yield" (42). I once read about a 3 year old girl whose paintings sold for thousands of dollars. I've seen a youtube video of an elephant whose trainer taught it to paint and its works went for a lot of money as well. "Beauty exists if a certain "case" (the work of art), given first by the sensibility without any conceptual determination, the sentiment of pleasure independent of any interest the work may elicit, appeals to the principle of a universal consensus (which may never be attained)" (43).
yellowdaisy4, Lyotard
I found the Lyotard reading to be interesting because he expressed his view on what postmodernism is which helps me figure it out for myself. What I found to be one of the most important concepts in this reading was the concept of the sublime. Lyotard mentioned a few times about ideas like “modernity, in whatever age it appears, cannot exist without a shattering belief and without discovery of the ‘lack of reality’, together with the invention of other realities”. At first, I had a hard time trying to understand what he meant by this explanation but his examples of how you can’t illustrate some ideas like that of the world or of the simple because “ those are ideas of which no presentation is possible”. For something to be modern, like a painting which is the example Lyotard gave, one must make these things visible. I think he was saying what the sublime is, is the relation between what is presentable and what is imaginable.
Another quote that made way more sense to me that Lyotard stated was that of the “realism of the anything goes is in fact that of money; in absence of aesthetic criteria.” What that means is the more money something makes, the more beautiful in is in our society. I find that to be sad but true. An example, in everyday, is how most people take beautiful things like flowers that are all around and free for granted but spend thousands of dollars on expensive things like rings and watches because society tells them that is what is beautiful and build up by making it more unattainable. This also makes me think of what we were talking about in class regarding the Mona Lisa painting. The painting itself is not that unique or beautiful in that it’s just a woman posing but the fact that it’s worth so much money and so famous is why people think it’s so aesthetically pleasing and worth travel around the world for.
Another quote that made way more sense to me that Lyotard stated was that of the “realism of the anything goes is in fact that of money; in absence of aesthetic criteria.” What that means is the more money something makes, the more beautiful in is in our society. I find that to be sad but true. An example, in everyday, is how most people take beautiful things like flowers that are all around and free for granted but spend thousands of dollars on expensive things like rings and watches because society tells them that is what is beautiful and build up by making it more unattainable. This also makes me think of what we were talking about in class regarding the Mona Lisa painting. The painting itself is not that unique or beautiful in that it’s just a woman posing but the fact that it’s worth so much money and so famous is why people think it’s so aesthetically pleasing and worth travel around the world for.
PetiteEtoile, Habermas
From what I understood of the Harbermas reading, there were two thoughts being evaluated. One was the way a society becomes 'modern' or moves forward. In one way, societies completely abandon the past in an attempt to move forward into the new and seemingly better ways of the future and becoming 'modern'. Other societies became modern by taking what had already been discovered or created in the past and reinventing it into a newer better version of the past. And other societies have simply taken the progress of the past and added upon it, creating more and more layers and adding depth. The question that is derived from the first process is if something becomes classic or old, and we simply throw it aside for new ideas, than wont those new ideas some day also be old and thrown aside? So then is there even a point to creating new modern thought? He also discussed the different spheres of science, morality, and art and how they affect society. If they becoming extremely specified, so the experts in these subjects become increasingly more knowledgeable in them, than the gap between that information and the general public becomes greater and greater. But if one tries to disrupt those spheres, for example say that everything and anything can be art and everyone is an artist and everyone is an art expert, than there really is no art or art experts. And if art becomes so abstract and so out there and so undefined, that we are back again to the beginning problem that the general public will not understand it nor see the beauty in it. What I believe his conclusion was to that issue, was that art should reflect some sort of personal experience. Therefore, when even a common person who has no education in art sees an art work, they can understand it and connect with it because they too have had such a personal experience or one close to it or know someone who has. It is a very interesting argument that I had yet to consider personally. That as the experts become better and better in there areas the general public becomes more and more detached, so that we would have two separate worlds of the knowledgeable and the unknowledgeable.
CMC300student, Lyotard
“Capitalism inherently possesses the power to defamiliarize familiar objects, social roles, and institutions to such a degree that the so-called realistic representations can no longer evoke reality except as nostalgia.” When I read this it reminded me of what I learned taking CMC 100, when you erase the history of something and replace it with a myth, that the hegemonic wants you to believe. For example, in class we took a look at an Indian moccasin, capitalism has taken this moccasin and made it unfamiliar in the sense that they are foreign to us. These shoes can be made cheaply in other counties, and are seen the comfortable shoe that can be worn universally. Our nostalgia says that these are the traditional shoes of a far away land, making them rare and unique, thus making Americans want to buy them. In India you may buy the same pair of moccasins for $3, and in the states $80+. Often our nostalgia of things is glorified by the media like as in the moccasin case. We also become defamiliarized with things such as jails, and our knowledge becomes what is presented or mocked on movies like Harold and Kumar: Guantanamo Bay.
In our last reading Benjamin said “the technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition.” This also applies to what I was talking about above. When things become mass produced they loose their uniqueness and historical background. I feel like since most everything in America is mass produced, companies have to come up with myths, because their products really have no tradition except what they make for it. In a capitalistic world, we now have to buy mythological tradition, to create a false uniqueness.
In our last reading Benjamin said “the technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition.” This also applies to what I was talking about above. When things become mass produced they loose their uniqueness and historical background. I feel like since most everything in America is mass produced, companies have to come up with myths, because their products really have no tradition except what they make for it. In a capitalistic world, we now have to buy mythological tradition, to create a false uniqueness.
dmariel, 2/4/09
After our Tuesday class session, Benjamin became much more enticing to me. I didn’t engage as much into the reading as I did with others, possibly because it was much longer and not as dense. I definitely grasped the idea of what Benjamin was getting at, but our lecture in class helped immensely. I found it interesting when we talked about how we are mass producing things that people don’t even know that they want. The Ipod was a great example-before it came out, there was nothing like it. As soon as people got their hands on it, it became the hottest and most wanted item on the market. With the invention of the Ipod, numerous other companies began to recreate it in different forms and styles. I don’t always agree with the fact that a recreation or modification of something takes the authenticity away, but in this case-the Ipod definitely wins for originality, considering they were the first company to produce the initial idea. In this case, the value of the Ipod came from the fact that everyone had one, and if you didn’t you wanted one.
When discussing the idea as humans being passive and absent minded, I began to think about how this is being exacerbated by introductions of new technologies. More and more I feel that people are looking at things mindlessly. Movies, pictures, music, news, different types of media, etc... We take what we are given, most of the time not even questioning it. News, for example, usually goes in one ear and out the other. This can become dangerous--absorbing things like a sponge without critically examining them. For example-Fox news has polluted the minds of many of its viewers on topics of the utmost importance- the war on terrorism. They are educating their viewers with statistics, opinions, and statements that most of the time are completely biased. Their viewers have become filled with misinformation and begin articulating ideas about the war on terrorism with the information that has been absorbed into their mind. This can definitely lead to what Benjamin was talking about when he said “Mankind's self alienation has reached such a degree that it can experience its own destruction as an aesthetic pleasure of the first order” (pg 34). I would have to say that I think human mindlessness is increasing with time and technology and I am skeptical of what the generations to come will be like.
When discussing the idea as humans being passive and absent minded, I began to think about how this is being exacerbated by introductions of new technologies. More and more I feel that people are looking at things mindlessly. Movies, pictures, music, news, different types of media, etc... We take what we are given, most of the time not even questioning it. News, for example, usually goes in one ear and out the other. This can become dangerous--absorbing things like a sponge without critically examining them. For example-Fox news has polluted the minds of many of its viewers on topics of the utmost importance- the war on terrorism. They are educating their viewers with statistics, opinions, and statements that most of the time are completely biased. Their viewers have become filled with misinformation and begin articulating ideas about the war on terrorism with the information that has been absorbed into their mind. This can definitely lead to what Benjamin was talking about when he said “Mankind's self alienation has reached such a degree that it can experience its own destruction as an aesthetic pleasure of the first order” (pg 34). I would have to say that I think human mindlessness is increasing with time and technology and I am skeptical of what the generations to come will be like.
Smiley Face - Lyotard
The reading by Lyotard was a challenging one that required a lot of attention and patience to get through. I found that it was difficult to fully understand, but I came across two quotes that made sense to me and shocked me, though I think I was shocked mostly because I came across something that made sense!
The first one is in the penultimate paragraph of the introduction whereby Lyotard states that society's interpretation of beauty and pleasure will be needed when put with the problems it faces for culture to heal its self (39). I take that to mean that society has evolved over time, and with it our perceptions of life have changed too. The best way of understanding our surroundings is through understanding the way that others see the world.
I like how the article went on to analyze the role of art and literature in society and how their development (film etc) have affected the 'original' (I use parenthesis around that word now as I have yet to figure out its definition). In today's world there is a huge presence of shallowness, and the need to acquire ones opinion before making decisions. Therefore, this element of shallowness acted as a catalyst to the evolution of society's interpretation of beauty, thus the expansion on different forms of art etc.
In conclusion, society has already experienced the different historical movements shaping the postmodernism era yet it is still coming to terms with its presence and the lack of the modernist time. I found the quote "a work can become modern only if it is first postmodern" as it firstly suggests a contradiction when in actual fact it recognizes the neccesity to rely on the past for the future to be shaped.
The first one is in the penultimate paragraph of the introduction whereby Lyotard states that society's interpretation of beauty and pleasure will be needed when put with the problems it faces for culture to heal its self (39). I take that to mean that society has evolved over time, and with it our perceptions of life have changed too. The best way of understanding our surroundings is through understanding the way that others see the world.
I like how the article went on to analyze the role of art and literature in society and how their development (film etc) have affected the 'original' (I use parenthesis around that word now as I have yet to figure out its definition). In today's world there is a huge presence of shallowness, and the need to acquire ones opinion before making decisions. Therefore, this element of shallowness acted as a catalyst to the evolution of society's interpretation of beauty, thus the expansion on different forms of art etc.
In conclusion, society has already experienced the different historical movements shaping the postmodernism era yet it is still coming to terms with its presence and the lack of the modernist time. I found the quote "a work can become modern only if it is first postmodern" as it firstly suggests a contradiction when in actual fact it recognizes the neccesity to rely on the past for the future to be shaped.
dmariel, Lyotard
I found Lyotard to be confusing but at the same time extremely interesting. I had to read over many sentences numerous times to understand them, or at least to believe I understand them. What stood out most to me was Lyotard’s perception of capital power and the idea of ‘kitsch’ as the postmodern style of ‘anything goes’ as long as it yields profit. When he states that “Eclecticism is the degree zero of contemporary general culture: one listens to reggae, watches a Western, eats McDonalds for fun lunch and local cuisine for dinner, wears Paris perfume in Tokyo, and ‘retro’ clothes in Hong Kong, knowledge is a matter for TV games”. I find that in our world today, there is so much available to us as consumers that this aspect of ‘anything goes’ has become a way of life not only for artists, but for any individual. He finishes off this paragraph by defining the very meaning of ‘kitsch’-- “As for taste, there is no need to be delicate when one speculates or entertains oneself”. This reiterated the importance not only of making a profit, but of personal entertainment. The idea of individual and specific taste is becoming less and less prominent with everything that we have easily available in our world. Why not venture out, eat all different types of food, wear all different types of clothes and perfume? Trying new things has led us to venture out in many different directions, definitely entertaining ourselves as there is almost no way to get bored with our consumer culture.
Lyotard describes modernity as the lack of realities with the invention of others. Adding to this is the idea that there is something that can be conceived, or thought of as an idea, but neither be seen nor made visual. By attempting to make these thoughts visible, I believe this is what Lyotard is referring to when he states that within modernity there is the invention of other realities. For example, “we can conceive the infinitely great, the infinitely powerful, but every presentation of an object destined to ‘make visible’ this absolute greatness or power appears to us as painfully inadequate”. These ideas of the absence, or missing contents of realities leads us to the concept of Postmodernism. Unlike modernism, Postmodernism attempts to articulate in art the unpresentable by means of visible presentations. In conclusion, modernism is an aesthetic of the sublime, or the presentation of the unpresentable is missing contents. On the other hand, postmodernism puts forward the unpresentable in the presentation itself.
Lyotard describes modernity as the lack of realities with the invention of others. Adding to this is the idea that there is something that can be conceived, or thought of as an idea, but neither be seen nor made visual. By attempting to make these thoughts visible, I believe this is what Lyotard is referring to when he states that within modernity there is the invention of other realities. For example, “we can conceive the infinitely great, the infinitely powerful, but every presentation of an object destined to ‘make visible’ this absolute greatness or power appears to us as painfully inadequate”. These ideas of the absence, or missing contents of realities leads us to the concept of Postmodernism. Unlike modernism, Postmodernism attempts to articulate in art the unpresentable by means of visible presentations. In conclusion, modernism is an aesthetic of the sublime, or the presentation of the unpresentable is missing contents. On the other hand, postmodernism puts forward the unpresentable in the presentation itself.
Asyouwish/2/4/09-Lyotard
Lyotard’s piece on What is Postmodernism had one specific line in it that was truly appealing to me. “But this realism of the ‘anything goes’ is in fact that of money; in the absence of aesthetic criteria, it remains possible and useful to assess the value of works of art according to the profits they yield. This line was interesting to me because it is so right, almost everything in today’s world is valued by how much money it is worth. A diamond is valued because it is rare and expensive. A pair of Jimmy Choo shoes are valuable because they are nicely made and therefore are expensive because of the labor that has been put into it. This concept of paying for one’s labor is actually a Marxist concept. He believed that when purchasing a commodity you are purchasing hours of labor that went into the production of the product. Yet while most things in today’s world are created by machines those that are not are more expensive because they tend to include more detail and are of better quality. Take a Vera Wang wedding-dress for example; while you would already be paying a hefty amount for the label if you were to have a wedding-dress custom made you would be paying for the extra labor and hand sewing that went into making your dress. The cost of Vera Wang in general is expensive and thus they have become valuable because they unaffordable to the majority of the global population because most cannot afford a Vera Wang price tag. The value of something truly is based on how much money it is worth or costs. One of my friend’s parents has an enormous yacht that he took me out on. A boat like that is about 16 million dollar’s which is why it is so valuable. It is worth an absurd amount of money because it takes a long time to make and thus another example of Marx’s Commodity of Labor. It had crossed my mind that certain things were more expensive because it took more time to make them but I had never truly thought about how things are so much more expensive because of the labor actually put into them or that value was predetermined by how much someone was willing to pay for something.
MerryChristmas, Lyotard
At the end of his piece, Lyotard defines the idea of postmodernity. He says, "The postmodern would be that which puts forward the unpresentable in presentation itself...that which searches for new presentations, not in order to enjoy them but in order to impart a stronger sense of the unpresentable." He then goes on to say that, "The artist and writer are working without rules in order to formulate the rules of what will have been done."
These statements, although hard to grasp, stood out to me. They stood out to me because at one point I watched a youtube video titled "Did You Know 2.0". The video was created by Karl Fisch and Scott McLeod. The thought-provoking video addresses this idea of postmodernity and that we are living in exponential times. It introduces statistics and graphics that help to explain the phenomenon that is going on right in front of our eyes. The video reflects on the impact of technology (specifically the computer) and this notion of globalization from political, educational, and relational standpoints. Perhaps the most interesting statistic in the video is that "predictions are that by the time children born in 2007 are six years old, a supercomputers computation capabilities will exceed that of the human brain".
Now, I know that I have gone off on a tangent, but at the end of the movie, the creators reflect on how all of the information ties together. This is where Lyotard's statements reign true. They say, "We are currently preparing students for jobs and technologies that don't yet exist...in order to solve problems we don't even know are problems yet." That statement represents postmodernity. The classes we are taking currently for our new major (CMC) is an example of postmodernity. Our major is preparing us for a world that we are trying to understand. I thought it was ironic that the video states, "Many of today's college majors didn't exist 10 years ago" and the first major that comes up is "New Media".
By studying what we are studying, we are reinforcing the notion of a postmodern world. We are the postmodern world and Lyotard predicted this before we even began studying his piece. (Here is the link to the video if you want to watch it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMcfrLYDm2U)
These statements, although hard to grasp, stood out to me. They stood out to me because at one point I watched a youtube video titled "Did You Know 2.0". The video was created by Karl Fisch and Scott McLeod. The thought-provoking video addresses this idea of postmodernity and that we are living in exponential times. It introduces statistics and graphics that help to explain the phenomenon that is going on right in front of our eyes. The video reflects on the impact of technology (specifically the computer) and this notion of globalization from political, educational, and relational standpoints. Perhaps the most interesting statistic in the video is that "predictions are that by the time children born in 2007 are six years old, a supercomputers computation capabilities will exceed that of the human brain".
Now, I know that I have gone off on a tangent, but at the end of the movie, the creators reflect on how all of the information ties together. This is where Lyotard's statements reign true. They say, "We are currently preparing students for jobs and technologies that don't yet exist...in order to solve problems we don't even know are problems yet." That statement represents postmodernity. The classes we are taking currently for our new major (CMC) is an example of postmodernity. Our major is preparing us for a world that we are trying to understand. I thought it was ironic that the video states, "Many of today's college majors didn't exist 10 years ago" and the first major that comes up is "New Media".
By studying what we are studying, we are reinforcing the notion of a postmodern world. We are the postmodern world and Lyotard predicted this before we even began studying his piece. (Here is the link to the video if you want to watch it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMcfrLYDm2U)
Juice15, Lyotard
“Since such structures of images and sequences constitutes a communication code among all of them. This is the way effects of reality, or if one prefers, the fantasies of realism, multiply” (Lyotard 41). After reading this part I feel that this quote connects or ties into a few other thoughts that go along with some other author’s thoughts on postmodernism.
These structures and images that Lyotard is talking about ties into postmodernism involving an explosion of media and explosion of texts. Lyotard is talking about photographic and cinematographic processes when he describes images and structures. Media can involve texts or websites and language is becoming intertwined around the world. He also states that these processes “can accomplish better, faster…” which ties into today’s belief that faster is better, especially with any sort of technology.
I also feel that the Lyotard when he says “fantasies of realism, multiply” can be tied into one of Macherey’s ideas. This idea is that you become the author of what you are seeing or reading. As people look at structures they typically make up their own stories, critique it in different ways than the author meant it to be. This is where fantasies of different people’s realism can multiply. When Lyotard mentions communication code it made me think about if it ties into the structures of images having a sign. If there was any sort of signifier tied into these images that bring about a communication code or a symbol of any sort.
Lyotard had some good points with his sublime paragraphs and made some very strong points with strong words like terror, war, slackening and his answer. I have taken a less intense view about postmodernism at this point in time.
These structures and images that Lyotard is talking about ties into postmodernism involving an explosion of media and explosion of texts. Lyotard is talking about photographic and cinematographic processes when he describes images and structures. Media can involve texts or websites and language is becoming intertwined around the world. He also states that these processes “can accomplish better, faster…” which ties into today’s belief that faster is better, especially with any sort of technology.
I also feel that the Lyotard when he says “fantasies of realism, multiply” can be tied into one of Macherey’s ideas. This idea is that you become the author of what you are seeing or reading. As people look at structures they typically make up their own stories, critique it in different ways than the author meant it to be. This is where fantasies of different people’s realism can multiply. When Lyotard mentions communication code it made me think about if it ties into the structures of images having a sign. If there was any sort of signifier tied into these images that bring about a communication code or a symbol of any sort.
Lyotard had some good points with his sublime paragraphs and made some very strong points with strong words like terror, war, slackening and his answer. I have taken a less intense view about postmodernism at this point in time.
Happy Birthday, Lyotard
I found Lyotard's writing to be similar to that of Benjamin's.
Lyotard states, "...capitalism inherently possesses the power to de-realize familiar objects, social roles, and institutions to such a degree that the so-called realistic representations can no longer evoke reality except as nostalgia or mockery, as an occasion for suffering rather than for satisfaction." (40) This reflects what Benjamin is trying to get across to his readers--"The technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition." (20) Both are saying that the mass production of goods make it available to everyone and a huge shift occurs. This shift is what we as society values...originality and tradition vs. reproduction. Also, this idea can be related to when Benjamin states, "The instant the criterion of authority ceases to be applicable to artistic production, the total function of art is reversed. instead of being based on ritual, it begins to be based on another practice-politics." (23).
Another way i found this reading relatable to Benjamin's is when Lyotard mentions the use of photography and the camera. Lyotard states,"photographic and cinematographic processes can accomplish better, faster, and with a circulation a hundred thousand times larger narrative or pictorial realism..."(40) This process speeds up the process of us gaining knowledge over something. Instead of going to Paris to see and witness the Eiffel Tower, photography allows us to gaze into the picture and see it...and imagine being there instead of planning the trip and sending all the time and money to go visit it. This ties into Benjamin's idea that we only need to see a sliver of a photograph to know what the image is. I think it's safe to say the the Eiffel Tower is one of those "iconic" images where we only need to see a tiny bit to know what the image represents.
Both Lyotard and Benjamin make similar points and have good points.
Lyotard states, "...capitalism inherently possesses the power to de-realize familiar objects, social roles, and institutions to such a degree that the so-called realistic representations can no longer evoke reality except as nostalgia or mockery, as an occasion for suffering rather than for satisfaction." (40) This reflects what Benjamin is trying to get across to his readers--"The technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition." (20) Both are saying that the mass production of goods make it available to everyone and a huge shift occurs. This shift is what we as society values...originality and tradition vs. reproduction. Also, this idea can be related to when Benjamin states, "The instant the criterion of authority ceases to be applicable to artistic production, the total function of art is reversed. instead of being based on ritual, it begins to be based on another practice-politics." (23).
Another way i found this reading relatable to Benjamin's is when Lyotard mentions the use of photography and the camera. Lyotard states,"photographic and cinematographic processes can accomplish better, faster, and with a circulation a hundred thousand times larger narrative or pictorial realism..."(40) This process speeds up the process of us gaining knowledge over something. Instead of going to Paris to see and witness the Eiffel Tower, photography allows us to gaze into the picture and see it...and imagine being there instead of planning the trip and sending all the time and money to go visit it. This ties into Benjamin's idea that we only need to see a sliver of a photograph to know what the image is. I think it's safe to say the the Eiffel Tower is one of those "iconic" images where we only need to see a tiny bit to know what the image represents.
Both Lyotard and Benjamin make similar points and have good points.
coolbeans, Lyotard
Similarly to what we discussed in class on Tuesday, Lyotard states that photography and cinematography allow things to be circulated faster and to a wide variety of audiences. It speeds up the way in which people gain access to information. In order to read a play or book we must take the time to read the pages and grasp the meaning of what the words are saying. However, when the book/play is turned into a movie we can absorb the information in a matter or 2-3 hours. The same applies for photography, in order to see a monument or historical site we must take the time to plan a trip to see the monument and learn the history of the place by visiting it, but through photography we can see what the monument/historical site looks like without taking the time to plan a visit. He states, “Industrial photography and cinema will be superior to painting and the novel whenever the objective is to stabilize the referent, to arrange it according to a point of view which endows it with a recognizable meaning, to reproduce the syntax and vocabulary which enable the addressee to decipher images and sequences quickly, and so to arrive easily at the consciousness of his own identity as well as the approval he thereby receives from others” (40). Lyotard is stating that photography and cinematography allow viewers to come to read the meaning of the work in a different manner than the original intent could have been because through the process of reproducing the original work into a film or photograph it can take on a different/new identity. For example, movies such as She’s the Man and 10 Things I Hate About You are reinterpretations of the Shakespearian plays Twelfth Night, and The Taming of the Shrew. The original plays have been reproduced and modernized into 90s teen flicks. A person who watches a performance of the Shakespearian plays will get a completely different reading of the material from a person who watches the movies. The modernized renditions of the plays have taken on a completely new identity.
Weezy27/Benjamin
In class on Tuesday we discussed Walter Benjamin’s writing on the concept of value in terms of mass production. Throughout the discussion we touched on many points regarding mass reproduction. One quote by Walter Benjamin states “The presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity.” Here, Benjamin is saying that in mass production, do all the products have the same authenticity as the original? In my opinion, I think that the original product is usually the most “valuable.” But then again, what is value? We talked about the fact that nothing is really worth any value unless someone is willing to buy it. I agree with this. Also, when we were talking about value and reproduction, the one product that stood out to me was Beanie Babies. The Beanie Baby craze happened a while back and almost every child of any age was dying to get the hands on the newest beanie babies. I remember my mom telling me that one day these beanie babies were going to be worth a bunch of money. Well, obviously they aren’t. How can a product as mass produced be worth anything when almost everyone these days still has a collection of at least 50 of them? Beanie babies are not rare; therefore, they are of no interest or value. The discussion in class Tuesday was really interesting me because it makes you think about how much of the “value” of things we buy into each day. The Mono Lisa is the best example of this concept of originality. This famous painting that everyone wants to see, that hangs in a museum and brings in tons of money, but no one really knows if what they are looking at is original. And what makes something original? If a painting has been refurbished is it still original? Who knows…its just an interesting idea that everyone seems to buy into.
DBA123, Lyotard
"A work can become modern only if it is first postmodern. Postmodernism thus understood is not modernism at its end but in the nascent state, and this state is constant." (p 44)
Although we have been studying postmodernism for a couple weeks, I found Lyotard's definition to actually make it all make sense. We use the word post to describe what we do after something; for example, we have to write a post class response every week. Post in the postmodern definition is stating what happens after now, being the present, modern times. To be postmodern it must be modern, but it is also still foreign, or beyond what we are ready for.
In one of the first classes we talked about when postmodernism actually began. We discussed the atomic bomb being dropped. We discussed the end of the 1960's and all the radical changes taking place. We even discussed the tragedy of 9/11. I'm not saying one of these marks the beginning of the postmodern era; but they all fit with Lyotard's definition. Although some of them had disastrous outcomes, they all were the first of its time (meaning modern) and we still have yet to discover what their occurrences actually meant (the nascent state) for our society. In the world today, there is the technology to blow up entire countries and the power to break barriers that were once in place by law. We have seen it happen, but what does that mean for the future? That question is not answered.
Lyotard states, "post modern would have to understood according to the paradox of the future anterior," (p 46). Maybe in time we will understand what those events have yet to bring to the future, but hopefully not.
Dot, 2/4
Walter Benjamin proclaimed that "the presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity", and although I can see where he was headed with this statement, I do not fully agree with it. In our day and age, how can one know what is truly authentic and what is a copy? With such difficulty actually discerning what is "real" is it almost impossible to know how much of an impact the original has on the reproduction.
Take the movie All The King's Men for instance. The original version of this film was produced in the late 1940's, and a remake was made in 2006. When the newer film version came out, my high school english class just happened to be reading the book version by Robert Penn Warren. As a class, we traveled to the theater to see a showing of the newer film. Having already read the book, we were able to compare it to the film and to recognize several differences between the two. At the time, many of us did not know there had a been a previous version of the film made and therefore were not comparing the new film to the original one, because in our minds the 2006 version was the original film.
My class knew that the book was the original and that the movie was an adaptation of the authentic, but never considered that it was a reproduction of a previously made movie. We had no knowledge that a previous version existed and therefore believed the 2006 film to be the original film. Instances such as these happen in everyday life and it is because of this that I have a hard time fully agreeing with Benjamin. If someone sees something for the first time, say a Gucci bag, how do they know it is not the original? How can we actually know if something is a reproduction or not if we have never seen nor heard about the authentic? Sure we can assume that the bag was probably not the first one made, but without an infinite knowledge it is hard to ever really know.
Sure the original must be around to make a reproduction, but how can we distinguish what is actually the reproduction?
ginger griffin, 2/4
Yesterday in class we talked about the value of art and how the more and more it is reproduced the more and more the value of it goes down. With this we talked about the Mona Lisa and how it has been reproduced and some people thought that might be why it is so popular and others thought that might make its value decrease. The Mona Lisa is a very popular painting, one known quite well across the globe, I personally think that because it is so reproduced, it makes it more valuable.
Then we began to talk about "the original" and what it means to be an original. There was the "original" hamburger add we saw with probably 15 "original's". There can only be one original and from that there can be multiple copies of it from that year. It is kind of confusing but with Dr. Casey's watch he stated that somebody asked him if his watch was an original, meaning was it from the year they began to make it. Of course it wouldn't be the very first watch ever made, but it could be one of the first watched sold from that brand, therefore making it an original. The word original is somewhat loaded because you must be specific when speaking about it.
Finally, the last thing I found interesting in class was the grape example. Of course grape kool-aid and a grape do not taste a like but it is the color that tells us what flavor it is and it is also what we have been told since we were growing up. I wonder what else parents could have their children believe by simply putting it in their heads at a young age?
Then we began to talk about "the original" and what it means to be an original. There was the "original" hamburger add we saw with probably 15 "original's". There can only be one original and from that there can be multiple copies of it from that year. It is kind of confusing but with Dr. Casey's watch he stated that somebody asked him if his watch was an original, meaning was it from the year they began to make it. Of course it wouldn't be the very first watch ever made, but it could be one of the first watched sold from that brand, therefore making it an original. The word original is somewhat loaded because you must be specific when speaking about it.
Finally, the last thing I found interesting in class was the grape example. Of course grape kool-aid and a grape do not taste a like but it is the color that tells us what flavor it is and it is also what we have been told since we were growing up. I wonder what else parents could have their children believe by simply putting it in their heads at a young age?
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
brookes77, 2/3/09
“ Every day the urge grows stronger to get hold of an object at very close range by way of its likeness…(this) differs from the image seen by the unarmed eye” (22). I couldn’t help but relate this to my every day life, what I wear, where I eat, this all reflects on what I see, and if what I see is what I want. Because of this who I am has been determined by this quote. Another quote I was drawn to in class was “The instant the criterion of authenticity ceases to be applicable to artistic production, the total function of art is reversed. Instead of being based on ritual, it begins to be based on another practice-politics. (23)” For Intro to CMC my group made a film based on the value of diamonds today, we studied Kanye West’s song diamonds are forever, we studied commercials for engagement rings, and the movie Blood diamond. When Dr. Casey asked us in class why are engagement rings so crucial in our society, why do women in our society expect a diamond when getting married? Why are people not going crazy over Quartz? The demand for diamonds is so high we found because they are rare, and everyone else wants them, it is very political. It has become a tradition to desire this. People do not want quartz because they are not authentic like diamonds, and diamonds are a legend. What is not authentic in our world is not in demand, although when I thought about this statement more I found that there are replacements of what is not authentic that is not the real thing yet since there is such a high demand people of every class settle for what is within their means. An example of this would be designer clothes and clothes that mimic them that are sold at Kmart. They are desired at another level, where they are authentic. Another key point that was made in class was art vs. film. I thought it was interesting to put into words how different their importance is shown in our society. For film to be a success, it must be liked, owned, and seen by a significant amount of people to mean anything to anyone; yet art on the other hand is more valuable when it is owned by only a few people or even one. If not many people have seen it yet know about it, it is even more valuable. Value is everything in the world of vending and consuming.
DBA123, post class 2/3
Today in class when we discussed Benjamin’s article Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, we discussed how the more and more we reproduce something, the value of it is lost. In class we used Mona Lisa as an example; because everyone has seen a reproduction of it and knows what makes it special, this famous painting has lost value to the viewer. But is this true? I can’t count how many times I have seen I have seen a replica of Vincent van Gogh’s The Starry Night, but when I did see the real version for the first time, I was still in awe and amazed by this work of art. I began to think about this notion and applying it to everyday life. Almost everyday for lunch I have the same thing, a turkey sandwich. Now, because I reproduce the same sandwich on a regular basis, has it lost value to me? Most definitely not. On many school nights, I have a routine of getting into bed and watching T.V. Depending on the hour, I know that Sex and the City or That 70’s Show reruns will be on and will automatically flip to those channels. These shows have continued to be replayed for years and, for me, it doesn’t matter if I have seen the episode already five times, I will watch it.
In class we talked about how the value of something is entirely political. What the highest bidder will pay is what it is worth. We discussed even how becoming engaged in our culture has become somewhat political. A ritual that has been practiced for centuries is now not complete without the purchase of a diamond ring. Although this post is far fetched from what we discussed this morning and the things I mentioned do not fall into the same category as the high valued objects from class, it made me think. If we take a step back and examine our own rituals and objects, how much do we value them? Before I cannot say I put a lot of thought into how much I valued my own objects and rituals but the more and more I continue or “reproduce” my own daily routine I realize that it is priceless.
In class we talked about how the value of something is entirely political. What the highest bidder will pay is what it is worth. We discussed even how becoming engaged in our culture has become somewhat political. A ritual that has been practiced for centuries is now not complete without the purchase of a diamond ring. Although this post is far fetched from what we discussed this morning and the things I mentioned do not fall into the same category as the high valued objects from class, it made me think. If we take a step back and examine our own rituals and objects, how much do we value them? Before I cannot say I put a lot of thought into how much I valued my own objects and rituals but the more and more I continue or “reproduce” my own daily routine I realize that it is priceless.
Monday, February 2, 2009
brookes77- Benjamin, 1/3/09
In Benjamin's reading, it discussed how art changes over time, and can be perceived in many different ways. First there is an "aura" and a "ritual" that art was first made for. Yet over time the meaning of the art and artifacts has changed and or becomes more clear: Benjamin states the "unique value of the authentic work for art has its basis in ritual, the location of its original use value This ritualistic basis, however remote, is still recognizable as secularized ritual even in the most profane forms of the cult of beauty". (22)
Benjamin then further talks about exhibition value of the work and cult value. He uses the example of cave men and how his work in the caves were shown to his men and the spirits, yet now looking back on their work, "cult value" today of his work , seems like it should be sacred. The value changes. Another interesting example Benjamin discussed was about captions; and how " captions given to pictures in illustrated magazines soon become more explicit and more "imperative in the media where the meaning of each single picture appears to be prescribed by the sequence of all preceding ones".I have noticed this more and more, there is less room for interpretation in photographs, for example of facebook. Captions are given leaving no room for confusion or throughout, which in a way, to me ruins art.
When discussing how actors in film represent themselves to the public in front of the camera i thought it was interesting that if an actor does not give the director an okay response/yell/etc. the director can use other resources when not filming to get the reaction out of the actor that he needs and "be cut into the screen version". It was interesting when he states that " art has left the realm of the 'beautiful semblance' which, so far had been taken to be the only sphere where art could thrive". To me this means art can only be shown through honesty, truth and existence, and acting can capture some of what art offers yet it lacks some type of truth that art and photography grasps and catches what the eye needs to understand the 'aura' of art.
The last section of the reading i enjoyed was comparing a painter to a camera man. Benjamin described the painter's work as more natural while a cameraman uses technology, equipment, capturing segments. He talks about how a painters include the ' total picture' while the cameraman 'consists of multiple fragments'. Yet Benjamin discusses how the cameraman's work is closer to reality then painting because of advances in technology, yet they are both artists with different values that tackle art in different ways like the example of the surgeon and the magician.
Benjamin then further talks about exhibition value of the work and cult value. He uses the example of cave men and how his work in the caves were shown to his men and the spirits, yet now looking back on their work, "cult value" today of his work , seems like it should be sacred. The value changes. Another interesting example Benjamin discussed was about captions; and how " captions given to pictures in illustrated magazines soon become more explicit and more "imperative in the media where the meaning of each single picture appears to be prescribed by the sequence of all preceding ones".I have noticed this more and more, there is less room for interpretation in photographs, for example of facebook. Captions are given leaving no room for confusion or throughout, which in a way, to me ruins art.
When discussing how actors in film represent themselves to the public in front of the camera i thought it was interesting that if an actor does not give the director an okay response/yell/etc. the director can use other resources when not filming to get the reaction out of the actor that he needs and "be cut into the screen version". It was interesting when he states that " art has left the realm of the 'beautiful semblance' which, so far had been taken to be the only sphere where art could thrive". To me this means art can only be shown through honesty, truth and existence, and acting can capture some of what art offers yet it lacks some type of truth that art and photography grasps and catches what the eye needs to understand the 'aura' of art.
The last section of the reading i enjoyed was comparing a painter to a camera man. Benjamin described the painter's work as more natural while a cameraman uses technology, equipment, capturing segments. He talks about how a painters include the ' total picture' while the cameraman 'consists of multiple fragments'. Yet Benjamin discusses how the cameraman's work is closer to reality then painting because of advances in technology, yet they are both artists with different values that tackle art in different ways like the example of the surgeon and the magician.
jl0630 - Benjamin
Section V in Benjamin’s “the work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction” talked about cult value and exhibition value. I immediately related this to an art history class I took last semester where we learned about the issues in Ankor Wat, and the relics that are being and have been illegally excavated from their original sites and are being sold on the black market by popular demand. Legislation have been passed, however, to provide repatriation of the stolen works – but curators are more specifically doing their best to locate the relics and return them back to Ankor Wat. Benjamin would support the return of artifacts to Ankor Wat because that is where they were/are recognized for their existence, not their being on view (23).
Benjamin also talks about the transformation of the work of art in prehistoric times as being an instrument of magic, and are now being recognized as being works of art. Museums today are trying hard to stay true to the objects, whether it be returning them back to their natural location if possible, or restoring and preserving them. Either way, being on display to the public eye (exhibition value) has completely created an entirely new function. No matter how well the display is presented, it will never have the ‘aura’ that it would in its natural setting.
Benjamin also talks about the transformation of the work of art in prehistoric times as being an instrument of magic, and are now being recognized as being works of art. Museums today are trying hard to stay true to the objects, whether it be returning them back to their natural location if possible, or restoring and preserving them. Either way, being on display to the public eye (exhibition value) has completely created an entirely new function. No matter how well the display is presented, it will never have the ‘aura’ that it would in its natural setting.
killacam32- Work of Art-2/2
First off the class trip down town was very exciting. I really enjoyed relating the different terms of architecture to the differnt buildings around orlando. I could really get a could picture in my mind and see what the architect was actually accomplish by looking at up close. I could also feel the feeling that it was meant to give me up close, such as the looming, authority of the court house building. It looked majestic like the chair of justice and really gives you that feeling up close. Also the urbane urbanism of the bus stop. It looked like a very old traditional bus stop with no clock and old street lights even tho it was brand new.
The reading for today was very interesting. Walter benjamin really has an opinion on art. Specifically when he talks about uniqueness on page 22. he talks about how mechanical reproduction destroys arts aura and also extracts the uniqueness of an object. I agree wiht him. I think even though alot of people like a piece art, to reproduce only makes it as common as the next piece. I think this is what he is talking about in this passage from hes essay.
The reading for today was very interesting. Walter benjamin really has an opinion on art. Specifically when he talks about uniqueness on page 22. he talks about how mechanical reproduction destroys arts aura and also extracts the uniqueness of an object. I agree wiht him. I think even though alot of people like a piece art, to reproduce only makes it as common as the next piece. I think this is what he is talking about in this passage from hes essay.
PetiteEtoile, 2/1/09
I really enjoyed our class trip downtown. I think the best way to learn things and actually remember them is to have a hands on experience like that. I cant imagine the volumes upon volumes of information that I have memorized, spat out onto a test, and forgotten in my lifetime. But ever since we went I have been noticing the different styles in different buildings whenever I go somewhere. It's really cool to know stuff like that and be able to apply it to daily life. I would have never noticed before that there were actual meanings behind the styles, not just the random whim of an architect. The Bank of America was really pretty and interesting. I thought it was especially intriguing when we mentioned how they had steeples and it was kind of like a church and if it was a church it was a church that worshiped money. I also found it interesting how the bus stop was made to look as if though it had been there for many many years even though it had only been built like three years ago. Which led me to think, what will the archaeologists of the future think? Will they believe it to be much much older than it really is? And what if all the things we look at now and say are so very old are really not that old at all? What if a civilization was as advanced as we are, to the point of purposefully making things look aged for beauty, and then something happened to wipe them out? And we studied their things and believed they lived hundreds of years ago when it was really only a few years ago? Anyway, the courthouse building was beautiful also. It reminded me of the Vatican. Just standing in front of it gives you a sense of awe and respect. I hope we have more hands on experiences like this.
thestig, benjamin
Where is the art in film?
Walter Benjamin compares, in detail, the difference between a stage actor and a movie star; a live performance vs. a feature film: “The artistic performance of a stage actor is definitely presented to the public by the actor in person; that of the screen actor, however, is presented by a camera, with a twofold consequence” (25). This captured my interest because I’m a filmmaker, and am constantly thinking about how lucky I am to have all of the fine editing equipment of this age, which allows me – and other filmmakers alike – to make the final cut to the various scenes we film. On stage, the actor makes the play; on film, the film makes the actor. Just the other day I filmed what came out to be a bunch of 30-second shorts, where I stitched together several takes of the same scene to fulfill the entire 30 seconds. I was able to piece together mistakes to make a clean, smooth flowing short. In creating art, motion picture has the advantage in postproduction, in that the editor can work hard to manipulate a certain response from the audience. Is this an advantage? Is this where we fail to recognize the power of motion picture? Benjamin’s response to this makes me think about the drawbacks to motion picture: “The film actor lacks the opportunity of the stage actor to adjust to the audience during his performance… this permits the audience to take the position of a critic, without experiencing any personal contact with the actor” (25). In essence, the stage actor is able to evoke, through his/her own talents, the message that the audience wants to get – as the audience will be able to critique and get a response directly, whereas the motion picture actor goes through stages and other means of communication (i.e. camera angles, special effects) to evoke a feeling that the director wants the audience to have. How does a filmmaker get the motion picture actor to represent him/herself directly without the critique getting off topic?
Walter Benjamin compares, in detail, the difference between a stage actor and a movie star; a live performance vs. a feature film: “The artistic performance of a stage actor is definitely presented to the public by the actor in person; that of the screen actor, however, is presented by a camera, with a twofold consequence” (25). This captured my interest because I’m a filmmaker, and am constantly thinking about how lucky I am to have all of the fine editing equipment of this age, which allows me – and other filmmakers alike – to make the final cut to the various scenes we film. On stage, the actor makes the play; on film, the film makes the actor. Just the other day I filmed what came out to be a bunch of 30-second shorts, where I stitched together several takes of the same scene to fulfill the entire 30 seconds. I was able to piece together mistakes to make a clean, smooth flowing short. In creating art, motion picture has the advantage in postproduction, in that the editor can work hard to manipulate a certain response from the audience. Is this an advantage? Is this where we fail to recognize the power of motion picture? Benjamin’s response to this makes me think about the drawbacks to motion picture: “The film actor lacks the opportunity of the stage actor to adjust to the audience during his performance… this permits the audience to take the position of a critic, without experiencing any personal contact with the actor” (25). In essence, the stage actor is able to evoke, through his/her own talents, the message that the audience wants to get – as the audience will be able to critique and get a response directly, whereas the motion picture actor goes through stages and other means of communication (i.e. camera angles, special effects) to evoke a feeling that the director wants the audience to have. How does a filmmaker get the motion picture actor to represent him/herself directly without the critique getting off topic?
aro0823, Benjamin
“An actor is supposed to be startled by a knock at the door. If his reaction is not satisfactory, the director can resort to an expedient… have a shot fired behind him… the frightened reaction can be shot and cut into the screen version.”
I had never previously considered the difference between screen acting and stage acting, and how much less talent is required for performance on film. Whereas in theater the actor is the primary focus, left vulnerable to all eyes watching every motion, in film the actor must share the spotlight with the art of film itself. The art of film requires an eye for camera angle and lighting, for post-production cutting and splicing. Film audiences are told what to focus upon, thus becoming distracted, “absent-minded examiners (33).” In contrast, theater audiences have the freedom to pay attention to whatever aspects of the performance interest them the most. They are active critics, choosing to absorb and analyze both the compelling and the non-compelling actions and storylines.
To continue the comparison, I cannot help but associate the above quotation with the hit HBO television show “Entourage.” In one episode, ‘tv star’ Johnny Drama is having trouble making the appropriate facial expression his director wants. The director shoots cut after cut, but is still displeased with the result.s Finally, a stage-hand enters and tells Drama something that embarrass him, thus resulting in the desired facial expression. The director gets the shot he wants and the show continues on accordingly.
What interests me is why the film industry is so substantially more lucrative than the theater industry. Film stars are engrossed in the “cult of personality” and thus have no real aura; merely an aura that publicists feel the audience members will be receptive toward. Actors, on the other hand, must deliver a show perfectly and connect in person with audience members simultaneously. The latter demonstrates real talent. The former demonstrates a pretty face and an absent minded consumer base.
I had never previously considered the difference between screen acting and stage acting, and how much less talent is required for performance on film. Whereas in theater the actor is the primary focus, left vulnerable to all eyes watching every motion, in film the actor must share the spotlight with the art of film itself. The art of film requires an eye for camera angle and lighting, for post-production cutting and splicing. Film audiences are told what to focus upon, thus becoming distracted, “absent-minded examiners (33).” In contrast, theater audiences have the freedom to pay attention to whatever aspects of the performance interest them the most. They are active critics, choosing to absorb and analyze both the compelling and the non-compelling actions and storylines.
To continue the comparison, I cannot help but associate the above quotation with the hit HBO television show “Entourage.” In one episode, ‘tv star’ Johnny Drama is having trouble making the appropriate facial expression his director wants. The director shoots cut after cut, but is still displeased with the result.s Finally, a stage-hand enters and tells Drama something that embarrass him, thus resulting in the desired facial expression. The director gets the shot he wants and the show continues on accordingly.
What interests me is why the film industry is so substantially more lucrative than the theater industry. Film stars are engrossed in the “cult of personality” and thus have no real aura; merely an aura that publicists feel the audience members will be receptive toward. Actors, on the other hand, must deliver a show perfectly and connect in person with audience members simultaneously. The latter demonstrates real talent. The former demonstrates a pretty face and an absent minded consumer base.
Super!Geek, 1/29, Post-Class
I have to admit that I was originally weary about the value of studying post-modern architecture. I just did not understand why it was important. After reading the Jenks article, I definitely gained a greater appreciation for the topic, but I still didn't really understand why it was relevant to the course. But after the tour through downtown Orlando, I am thoroughly sold. It was really interesting, because from the moment we stepped downtown, I found myself trying to anticipate which buildings would be considered post-modern. Quite a bit of the architecture downtown qualified, but one of the most interesting to observe were the medical buildings around the Florida Hospital. There were numerous instances of double-coding, and the hospital itself could qualify as multivalent at parts. Beyond just the hospital district, Orlando itself seems to be composed of much post-modern architecture, which made me wonder if the city itself qualified as urbane urbanism? The city, in its current state is fairly young, which is what brought me to that question.
At the conclusion of our architecture tour, Dr. Rog informed us that we will be using the knowledge gained this past week to apply to post-modern media, which is definitely something that intrigues me. How we can apply something like radical ecclecticism to post-modern media truly seems interesting (I mean could experimental film be considered a representation of this maybe). I am potentially getting ahead of myself, but there is something exciting about post-modern theory because I just do not get it. It is like some puzzle I am trying to solve, or a proof that I know is way beyond me, but the attempt is what makes it great.
At the conclusion of our architecture tour, Dr. Rog informed us that we will be using the knowledge gained this past week to apply to post-modern media, which is definitely something that intrigues me. How we can apply something like radical ecclecticism to post-modern media truly seems interesting (I mean could experimental film be considered a representation of this maybe). I am potentially getting ahead of myself, but there is something exciting about post-modern theory because I just do not get it. It is like some puzzle I am trying to solve, or a proof that I know is way beyond me, but the attempt is what makes it great.
LightningBolt, Benjamin
A word that Walter Benjamin repeatedly links to the concept of reproduction is “tradition.” We now live in a time where things are created, then copied and produced in mass quantities. It is incredible rare now to own something that has never been reproduced. It was not too long ago when things where made by hand and each object was slightly different because it was made by the human hand, which is incapable of perfection. It is now a reasonable thought to assume that if you see an object that someone owns it will be no harder than going to an internet site to purchase it. This increase in mass production has taken away the tradition, uniqueness, and the story in all the goods, art, and clothes that we own.
While traveling in South America I saw this beautiful painting, it was something that I had to have, but I decided I would explore the rest of the day and buy it on my way back so I would not have to carry it the entire day. To my surprise the entire city was covered in little shops selling almost exact replicas of this painting. I felt stupid to think that it was a unique painting and I was finding a treasure. After seeing all of the replicas I had no desire to buy the painting. It had no more meaning to me than a rip off they get all the tourist to buy. It is amazing how something being an original provokes such different feelings than after something is reproduced. Benjamin is right, there was no tradition in the piece for me, there was no mystery in its time of existence, or previous owners.
After reading Benjamin I feel a bit sad that I live in a time of reproductions. I think it would be fascinating and meaningful to live in a time when everything was original and unique.
While traveling in South America I saw this beautiful painting, it was something that I had to have, but I decided I would explore the rest of the day and buy it on my way back so I would not have to carry it the entire day. To my surprise the entire city was covered in little shops selling almost exact replicas of this painting. I felt stupid to think that it was a unique painting and I was finding a treasure. After seeing all of the replicas I had no desire to buy the painting. It had no more meaning to me than a rip off they get all the tourist to buy. It is amazing how something being an original provokes such different feelings than after something is reproduced. Benjamin is right, there was no tradition in the piece for me, there was no mystery in its time of existence, or previous owners.
After reading Benjamin I feel a bit sad that I live in a time of reproductions. I think it would be fascinating and meaningful to live in a time when everything was original and unique.
post-it note, Benjamin
The notion of aura is the most memorable to be from Banjamin’s “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”. To me the word “aura” means a feeling or idea sparked by something else, a symbol to remember something else by. The dictionary says it is “a distinctive atmosphere or quality that seems to surround and be generated by a person, thing or place” (I promise that I looked up the word after I described it myself!). Songs usually have positive or negative auras about them depending on the place that a person first heard it in. If that place holds loving and exciting memories, that song becomes a medium that evokes loving and exciting memories when it is played. But these memories are not the same as the genuine memories that were felt as a result of something else when the song was heard the first time. When art is reproduced, it is recreated, but not by the same hands as the original. If we used Michelangelo as an example, if someone were to paint another ceiling, it would not be with the knowledgeable hands of an artist made famous by painting an amazing ceiling; they would become the person who did what Michelangelo did. All of the time that has passed over the paint laid by Michelangelo’s brush set gives the Sistine Chapel a ceiling that exists in the past among modern time and people. This aura allows the Sistine Chapel to be considered a special place in history that we are able to visit today. The aura of photographs are the reason that I hang them in places that I can see often everyday. They evoke feelings that I had when the pictures were taken. While the picture can be reprinted, the feelings are as close to the real ones that can be “seen” in the pictures, even though people who view the picture could never feel the same way about the image or the people in it or its backdrop as I. Aura is a very dangerous thing, as time passes, the feelings evoked by certain things in the present cause us to reminisce in the past as if time has not boundary.
Marie89, Benjamin
I had never thought of art as dependent upon politics or social movements, but I guess it does have a lot to do with how the world is perceived. On page 21, Benjamin states that the reproduction and permitting of reproduction of artwork leads, “to a tremendous shattering of tradition which is the obverse of the contemporary crisis and renewal of mankind” (21). It is interesting to think that along with capitalism came a new way to create and classify artwork. The ways in which people perceive these things have changed as well as new mediums have become available which suggests a new type of control over the viewer. For example, the camera has full control over the emotion of the viewer of film, museums may control who views artwork and in which way as it may be prefaced for mass viewing, and other new forms have begun to enter the realm of “art.” Going along with this new form as perception brings up another point which is stated on page 21 as well, “The manner in which human sense perception is organized, the medium in which it is accomplished, is determined not only by nature but by historical circumstances as well” (21). In other words, the ways in which we communicate, view artwork, etc, have changed over time as new things that add to our overall existence have emerged. After reading this, I immediately thought about Facebook and the new world in which social networking has evolved. Texting and social networking sites have begun to change the ways in which relationships form and are maintained, just as film, etc. have changed the ways in which the mass media view and think about artwork. With great shifts in the Internet and what has the overwhelming amount of information available, the ways in which people function is forever changed and will continue to change. I do not believe that art has been commodified, but rather modified with changing times. One should not expect that the way art is viewed would be timeless, as people are always gaining more information through a surplus of sources.
ginger griffin, Benjamin
It is very important to note that Paul Valery saw this coming and in the article he states, "Just as water, gas, and electricity are brought into our houses from from far off to satisfy our needs in response to a minimal effort, so we shall be supplied with visual or auditory images , which will appear and disappear at a simple movement of the hand, hardly more than a sign." (20) Though he might have foreseen technology reaching the lengths it has today, he still knew something was going to happen.
This article talks a lot about how far we have come from either the mass reproduction of art to simply how the are being reproduced. It is divided into subsections and each one talks a little bit about different aspects of change. I think there was one quote, other than the one above, that really helped me to understand just how these changes occur and it brought to life the differences in them, "just as lithography virtually implied the illustrated newspaper, so did photography foreshadow the sound film." (20) Its is an analogy, lithography-newspaper and photography-film.
There were a few instances were I was not sure what Walter Benjamin was talking about but for the most part I understood. I am excited to see what Dr. Rogers has to talk about this article and which songs will be playing in the beginning of class. I think a good choice would be "Let's see how far we've come" by Matchbox 20.
This article talks a lot about how far we have come from either the mass reproduction of art to simply how the are being reproduced. It is divided into subsections and each one talks a little bit about different aspects of change. I think there was one quote, other than the one above, that really helped me to understand just how these changes occur and it brought to life the differences in them, "just as lithography virtually implied the illustrated newspaper, so did photography foreshadow the sound film." (20) Its is an analogy, lithography-newspaper and photography-film.
There were a few instances were I was not sure what Walter Benjamin was talking about but for the most part I understood. I am excited to see what Dr. Rogers has to talk about this article and which songs will be playing in the beginning of class. I think a good choice would be "Let's see how far we've come" by Matchbox 20.
Dot, Benjamin
In Walter Benjamin's article on the mechanical reproduction of art he provides many insightful ideas on the ways we understand art and culture in our society today. However, throughout the entire reading I kept thinking about a quote by Paul Valery that was mentioned in the beginning of the article. About one hundred year ago Valery said that "just as water, gas, and electricity are brought into our homes from far off to satisfy our needs in response to minimal effort, so we shall be supplied with visual or auditory images, which will appear and disappear at a simple movement of the hand, hardly more than a sign". Although he predicted this would happen, I can not image that Valery believed that technology would advance so far as it has today.
Visuals and auditory images certainly do flow quickly in and out of our homes in forms of television, computers, the internet, cell phones, i pods and more. We are so used to having all of these things and the images they bring us that their significance is often over looked. We hardly ever realize the significance of having the power to press the power button on our remote controls and instantly get updates and entertainment from around the world. We are constantly viewing such images that they become ordinary and we forget how culturally significant they actually are. Through reading what Benjamin had to say, I was able to regain some perspective on the importance of having such technological and reproduction-style capabilities and was able to see just how big of a role they play in understanding our culture.
As insightful as Valery seems to have been, how could be have possibly predicted such advancement? Did he envision it at the level it is today? If we have come this far in one hundred years, where will our technology take us in another hundred? I can only hope that the people of tomorrow can understand how important the advancements they will enjoy are to their past and that they will continue to develop them for the future.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Trapnest, 1/29
The field trip downtown was most certainly interesting. While I don’t think we had enough time to adequately see enough of a variety of buildings, nor everything our downtown had to offer, I do think it began to put the concepts within our heads just from the small sampler that we did receive. I find myself passing by the buildings that I normally pay little or no attention to and trying to think of the concepts we discussed and apply them. It is both a useful way to study and remember the information, as well as mentally elaborate more on it.
For example, I found myself thinking, “Why do so many buildings relate to the past?” In reflecting on the courthouse, and the bank, both designs drew from classical or even ancient trends in architecture. I feel that for something to be valid it needs to relate to something that has already been established as stable, important, and “beautiful.” It’s almost a sense of anamnesis I feel, while the buildings do not (for the sake of this explanation) look exactly like what they are representing, they do evoke a certain emotion and feeling from within us. Upon looking at someone we may immediately think of “Roman Forum” which has a plethora of associations with it, such as “important” or “long-lasting.”
All of this occurring on the subconscious level I feel is also something very important to note. This is because there are all sorts of discussions on the effects of media upon viewers who are reacting to it on the subconscious level. Buildings have almost become a functional billboard, to continue our subconscious “training” with these companies in what they want us to feel and think when we look at their ads, buildings, and function.
For example, I found myself thinking, “Why do so many buildings relate to the past?” In reflecting on the courthouse, and the bank, both designs drew from classical or even ancient trends in architecture. I feel that for something to be valid it needs to relate to something that has already been established as stable, important, and “beautiful.” It’s almost a sense of anamnesis I feel, while the buildings do not (for the sake of this explanation) look exactly like what they are representing, they do evoke a certain emotion and feeling from within us. Upon looking at someone we may immediately think of “Roman Forum” which has a plethora of associations with it, such as “important” or “long-lasting.”
All of this occurring on the subconscious level I feel is also something very important to note. This is because there are all sorts of discussions on the effects of media upon viewers who are reacting to it on the subconscious level. Buildings have almost become a functional billboard, to continue our subconscious “training” with these companies in what they want us to feel and think when we look at their ads, buildings, and function.
Savvy, 1.29.09
I felt that the field trip dowtown was very beneficial and coencided perfectly with what we were learning in class. Often professors attempts to bring the material being dicsussed into our everyday lives falls short. I have been attending Rollins for three years and have never looked our thought about the buildings and their achitecture in downtown Orlando before. Our field trip has made me look at not only Orlando's building architecture, but buildings everywhere now. I also never really thought about the thought that has gone into designing the buildings and cities before. It was interesting to see how architecture can portray ideas and feelings. I couldn't help but to think of how the Court House downtown reminded me of those seen in Washington. One could tell that it is a court house from it outwards appearance. The Court House also reminded me of older buildings of indoor train stations.
I think that it is important for professors to bring the material being discussed in class out into the real world. It helps students to make a connection about how they can apply what they are learning in class into their everyday lives. By going on the field trip we were able to see how postmodernism can be found in our lives. I think that the field trip was very beneficial and a breathe of fresh air from learning in the classroom.
I think that it is important for professors to bring the material being discussed in class out into the real world. It helps students to make a connection about how they can apply what they are learning in class into their everyday lives. By going on the field trip we were able to see how postmodernism can be found in our lives. I think that the field trip was very beneficial and a breathe of fresh air from learning in the classroom.
spagheti, 2/1
I really enjoyed the class trip to downtown Orlando on Thursday. I too had never really thought of the buildings around us any of the things Jencks talked about. In the powerpoint, Doc Rog used extreme examples in order to illustrate the points, most of which were in foreign countries and obvious. Even on the drive downtown, the other students riding in the car with me started calling out the various buildings we saw on the way and we found examples of everything even before we got downtown.
In re-reading Jencks’ piece after the field trip, I began thinking, isn’t everything technically disharmonious harmony? The paradox says it all. While all the other specific examples such as urbane urbanism, art deco, etc. each identify something very specific, they overlap. And the blending of several of these themes in one building is disharmonious harmony. As Jencks points out, part of the reasons we are able to recognize all of the past influences of these modern day structures is because of the ubiquity of such images. For example, not everyone in our class has been to the Parthenon in Greece, but everyone recognized it in our class. It says something about the age of reproduction in which we live. I remember in CMC100, reading about the notion of “authenticity” and the construction of meaning. The debated question is whether the massive reproduction of such images takes something away from its meaning. Therefore, when disharmonious harmony is so prevalent in everything we do/see (i.e. not only buildings but also music, writing, the amalgamation of cultures especially in the United States…), is some of the original meaning lost?
In re-reading Jencks’ piece after the field trip, I began thinking, isn’t everything technically disharmonious harmony? The paradox says it all. While all the other specific examples such as urbane urbanism, art deco, etc. each identify something very specific, they overlap. And the blending of several of these themes in one building is disharmonious harmony. As Jencks points out, part of the reasons we are able to recognize all of the past influences of these modern day structures is because of the ubiquity of such images. For example, not everyone in our class has been to the Parthenon in Greece, but everyone recognized it in our class. It says something about the age of reproduction in which we live. I remember in CMC100, reading about the notion of “authenticity” and the construction of meaning. The debated question is whether the massive reproduction of such images takes something away from its meaning. Therefore, when disharmonious harmony is so prevalent in everything we do/see (i.e. not only buildings but also music, writing, the amalgamation of cultures especially in the United States…), is some of the original meaning lost?
WoolyBully7, 2/1
It was amazing to see so many distinct differences between the buildings of downtown Orlando, which is not a terribly large city. There are not nearly as many buildings as let’s say New York, London or Tokyo but there was still enough to aid us in learning about Jencks’ Emergent Rules. I think having the powerpoint with some examples prior to going downtown definitely helped me get a feel for the architecture and building styles to then analyze buildings such as the Bank of America (or what’s left) building, the O.C. Courthouse, the Lynx Station and the Wachovia building.
As a New Yorker I feel as though there are not a lot of true “high-rise buildings” in Orlando but I can guarantee that the next time I am home I will be thinking of Jencks, his Rules and how they related to the dozens of skyscrapers that makeup the Manhattan skyline. Not only looking can we see these themes from a city standpoint, but we can also see them within each building. Even some of the smaller buildings in Orlando had multiple demonstrations of the Rules.
It’s fascinating to see how the themes also carry on throughout the world. Europe, the Netherlands especially, contain so many different styles that Jencks’ 11 Rules don’t seem to be able to even come close to describing some of the features of the buildings. I found the most interesting and common themes to be anamnesis, tradition reinterpreted and urbane urbanism. Anamnesis is just a pure reaction to seeing something, whatever pops into your mind first. Tradition reinterpreted and urbane urbanism are almost opposites since one deals with traditional style and the other with modern, contemporary style.
As a New Yorker I feel as though there are not a lot of true “high-rise buildings” in Orlando but I can guarantee that the next time I am home I will be thinking of Jencks, his Rules and how they related to the dozens of skyscrapers that makeup the Manhattan skyline. Not only looking can we see these themes from a city standpoint, but we can also see them within each building. Even some of the smaller buildings in Orlando had multiple demonstrations of the Rules.
It’s fascinating to see how the themes also carry on throughout the world. Europe, the Netherlands especially, contain so many different styles that Jencks’ 11 Rules don’t seem to be able to even come close to describing some of the features of the buildings. I found the most interesting and common themes to be anamnesis, tradition reinterpreted and urbane urbanism. Anamnesis is just a pure reaction to seeing something, whatever pops into your mind first. Tradition reinterpreted and urbane urbanism are almost opposites since one deals with traditional style and the other with modern, contemporary style.
RIco72, 2/1
I was really surprised with our field trip to downtown Orlando. When I heard we were going to be looking at different types of architecture, I assumed we would be looking at several different buildings. It was amazing to see how many different concepts were just in one building! The trip really helped me understand and learn the different concepts and applying them to the real world. I wonder (and I ask myself the same question about books) if the designer (author) meant for all of that to be part of the final design or if we now add meaning too it. Going back again to the idea of tmesis, is it the same for this architecture?
I believe so. When we see something that we recognize or it causes us to think of something, that is our own form of tmesis going into effect. Someone may be drawn to the LYNX station because it makes them think of the Ocean or Beach, and this causes curiosity as to what it is doing in downtown Orlando.
Another question I have is, although some of these designs look cool and are visually appealing, are they efficient? Would it not have been better to have more office space instead of creating a cool design. It just seems like a little bit of a waste to create a building that probably costs more to build but has less space to do work. Although I must say the Death Star was pretty cool looking...
I believe so. When we see something that we recognize or it causes us to think of something, that is our own form of tmesis going into effect. Someone may be drawn to the LYNX station because it makes them think of the Ocean or Beach, and this causes curiosity as to what it is doing in downtown Orlando.
Another question I have is, although some of these designs look cool and are visually appealing, are they efficient? Would it not have been better to have more office space instead of creating a cool design. It just seems like a little bit of a waste to create a building that probably costs more to build but has less space to do work. Although I must say the Death Star was pretty cool looking...
jl0630 - 2/1/09
Going downtown on Thursday was a great way to apply what we learned in Jencks’ work on architecture. The neatest part for me was seeing the wide array of large and important buildings in such close quarters, and then depicting its extreme differences in purpose and design. Typically, when I think of architecture, I think of major monuments such as the White House or the Taj Mahal - not only because they are worldly hotspots, but because their attraction singles them out. In a familiar city, like Orlando, however, I find that we hardly take the time to acknowledge and appreciate the many buildings for their individual look because there are so many of them to the point that they almost seem to blend.
When we were looking at the Bank of America building, we were pointed out urbane urbanism when looking at the trolly stop across the street, which broadened Jencks’ piece on architecture from the building, to what surrounds it. Being from Boston, home of The Big Dig (the most expensive federally-funded highway project in the nation), I have been one to appreciate how landscape compliments a whole. I find that it is more difficult to talk about landscape in reference to cities and highways because there is little vibrancy in skyscrapers and concrete. What hit home about Jencks and our fieldtrip into Orlando is the ability to find beauty in whatever surrounds us. Like we mentioned in our previous classes on Machery, being able to communicate or understand (in this case, Jenck’s ‘disharmonious harmony, pluralism…’ and such terms) it is easier to make references and thus appreciate the things that surround us.
(Picture of The Big Dig, Boston)
When we were looking at the Bank of America building, we were pointed out urbane urbanism when looking at the trolly stop across the street, which broadened Jencks’ piece on architecture from the building, to what surrounds it. Being from Boston, home of The Big Dig (the most expensive federally-funded highway project in the nation), I have been one to appreciate how landscape compliments a whole. I find that it is more difficult to talk about landscape in reference to cities and highways because there is little vibrancy in skyscrapers and concrete. What hit home about Jencks and our fieldtrip into Orlando is the ability to find beauty in whatever surrounds us. Like we mentioned in our previous classes on Machery, being able to communicate or understand (in this case, Jenck’s ‘disharmonious harmony, pluralism…’ and such terms) it is easier to make references and thus appreciate the things that surround us.
(Picture of The Big Dig, Boston)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)