The “cult of the new” stuck with me after this week’s class. I was reminded of it when I went into the CSS café for some lunch and I saw their normal assortment of crackers and cookies. One of them, I don’t remember the brand, your generic cellophane wrapped cookies, had printed on it in a bold yellow star, “NEW LOOK: Same Great Taste!” This leads me to assume that they must have recently revised their marketing and packaging. Long after I had finished my sandwich from the café I was still thinking. How many brands re-invent themselves with a new logo, some brighter coloring, and a new slogan and suddenly they have a new wealth of profit gained. All the while these brands are claiming “Don’t worry! It’s still the same “classic” taste.” These marketers are playing to the cult of the new in that the product must be better because the packaging has been refreshed. But, they’re also playing the field to those who feel they must stick with the classic, in that even though the packaging is different, they promise the product hasn’t really changed.
This also makes me think back to Benjamin’s work, “…the presence of the original is the precursor to the authentic.” Perhaps this is an incorrect analogy but it makes me think about how people feel that they need to create something original, and when enough people put stock in it then it becomes authentic. This relates back to my original example because people want the “classic” they want the “authentic.” But at the same time people also want the “original” or the “new.”
Despite what Habermas argues, I feel that the Cults of the new and old don’t necessary have to be in contrast, but in many was are dependant upon each other for their existence and progress.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Juice15, 2/12
As the readings continue in this class I am starting to notice some of the major problems that have been discussed by Habermas. Many of his quotes are strong and almost deflating at the same time. “The idea of being ‘modern’ changed the belief, inspired by modern science, in the infinite progress of knowledge” (Habermas 99). This is almost looked at as being “God” in sense. While this is not really seen as a bad thing, bad things can occur from having this idea that everything and anything can be understood and accomplished through science and knowledge.
I feel that this ties into another quote by Habermas when he states that “The twentieth century has shattered this optimism” (Habermas 103). I don’t like to admit we are failing, but until a month ago I didn’t see that the problems that were bringing upon ourselves. Whether it is through politics or economics I feel that is where many of the problems have started. Systems fail and we are just looking for analgesia and anesthesia to fix the problems. With the progression of technology and globalization the world has evolved into a much different place, we now have the tools to destroy ourselves. As one example science invented the A-bomb and today’s scientists make it apparent they have found out many more and new ways to destroy the world. While science has done many good things for the world, it still holds the power to destroy it.
“The cult of the new” (Habermas 99). Today we want everything to be new because we believe it is better, just like we believe that faster is better. Phones get updated every few months, new medicines are new and improved and work better than the previous one. There seems to be something about that three letter word that is always in a bigger more colorful font that attracts people right too it. I find it interesting how something can keep getting better and better every so often. What worked a while ago most likely still works today, but with this calling towards infinite progress of knowledge what worked then is not good enough or fast enough for today’s society.
I feel that this ties into another quote by Habermas when he states that “The twentieth century has shattered this optimism” (Habermas 103). I don’t like to admit we are failing, but until a month ago I didn’t see that the problems that were bringing upon ourselves. Whether it is through politics or economics I feel that is where many of the problems have started. Systems fail and we are just looking for analgesia and anesthesia to fix the problems. With the progression of technology and globalization the world has evolved into a much different place, we now have the tools to destroy ourselves. As one example science invented the A-bomb and today’s scientists make it apparent they have found out many more and new ways to destroy the world. While science has done many good things for the world, it still holds the power to destroy it.
“The cult of the new” (Habermas 99). Today we want everything to be new because we believe it is better, just like we believe that faster is better. Phones get updated every few months, new medicines are new and improved and work better than the previous one. There seems to be something about that three letter word that is always in a bigger more colorful font that attracts people right too it. I find it interesting how something can keep getting better and better every so often. What worked a while ago most likely still works today, but with this calling towards infinite progress of knowledge what worked then is not good enough or fast enough for today’s society.
Friday, February 13, 2009
000ooo000ooo 2/13
At the end of last class Dr. Casey posed the question: "If American Idol claims to be seeking 'new' artists, why do they all sing old songs?" I think that Benjamin provides a very satisfactory answer to this question: "The conventional is uncritically enjoyed, and the truly new is criticized with aversion."(29)
In other words, the singers need to sing songs that people have already heard and that have already been approved. If they sing new songs people may reject the song simply because they don't like the song, not because they don't like the singer. Also, if viewers have already heard the song they have a frame of reference by which to judge the song. They need to know how it is "supposed" to sound before they can judge how well the singer executed it.
The irony of this is that when musicians write songs they usually write them to be performed by a specific performer in a specific way. Rarely, if ever, do they write the song envisioning a 16 year old teeny-bopper girl singing it in front of three "judges" and millions of viewers trying to win a prize. This representation takes the song entirely out of its context. This relates back to the first article we read about art in the age of mechanical reproduction. That article argued that taking art out of its original form led to a decrease in its importance so listening to a CD was not the same as listening to the song live. American Idol takes this one step further.When listening to a CD you can at least close your eyes and imagine you're watching the song performed live. When watching American Idol, there's no way to forget this is an entirely made for TV performance that does not take the original intent of the song into consideration at all. When I see Paula dancing and crying and Simon with a smug look on his face, I simply can't bring myself to imagine that I could be experiencing this song in any other context than American Idol.
In other words, the singers need to sing songs that people have already heard and that have already been approved. If they sing new songs people may reject the song simply because they don't like the song, not because they don't like the singer. Also, if viewers have already heard the song they have a frame of reference by which to judge the song. They need to know how it is "supposed" to sound before they can judge how well the singer executed it.
The irony of this is that when musicians write songs they usually write them to be performed by a specific performer in a specific way. Rarely, if ever, do they write the song envisioning a 16 year old teeny-bopper girl singing it in front of three "judges" and millions of viewers trying to win a prize. This representation takes the song entirely out of its context. This relates back to the first article we read about art in the age of mechanical reproduction. That article argued that taking art out of its original form led to a decrease in its importance so listening to a CD was not the same as listening to the song live. American Idol takes this one step further.When listening to a CD you can at least close your eyes and imagine you're watching the song performed live. When watching American Idol, there's no way to forget this is an entirely made for TV performance that does not take the original intent of the song into consideration at all. When I see Paula dancing and crying and Simon with a smug look on his face, I simply can't bring myself to imagine that I could be experiencing this song in any other context than American Idol.
Rubber Soul, 2/13
I've heard Don Henley's song, "End of the Innocence" many times before, but I'm appreciating it in a whole new context now. I recently went to see the Eagles in concert and I was impressed with the visuals they used. They played the song, "Dirty Laundry" and showed images of magazine covers with the latest gossip. The overwhelming barrage of petty stories that our society's media offers was made very apparent in this performance. Countless magazine covers of celebrity breakups, weight issues, and drug abuses flashed across the screens on the stage. It made a statement that this useless garbage is constantly forced in our faces and there is no avoiding it. It's an attempt of questioning authority...Why does our society thrive on these messages? Don Henley sings, "We got the bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who comes on at five. She can tell you bout the plane crash with a gleam in her eye. It's interesting when people die-Give us dirty laundry." These lyrics reminded me of a point by Walter Benjamin, "Mankind's...self-alienation has reached such a degree that it can experience its own destruction as an aesthetic pleasure of the first order" (34).
The Eagles performed another song with interesting visuals, it's called "Long Road Out of Eden." The visuals were somber scenes one might imagine a soldier overseas would experience. He sings about the men risking their lives while those in command are eating lunch at the petroleum club, "Smoking fine cigars and swapping lies. They say, 'Give me 'nother slice of that barbecued brisket. Give me 'nother piece of that pecan pie.'" Here is another fine example of a total metanarrative that Lyotard talks about. This metanarrative Henley sings about is America, and the story of how our forefathers died for the sake of making our country free. But there is suspicion in the lyrics. Why are the leaders commanding the war safe in America and what are the real reasons we've been fighting over there for so long? We talked in class how realism trains us to accept certain realities and keeps us in our place. It's blind belief, we must take it upon ourselves to criticize and destroy the texts. Henley ends his song with the lyrics, "But all the knowledge in the world is of no use to fools"
The Eagles performed another song with interesting visuals, it's called "Long Road Out of Eden." The visuals were somber scenes one might imagine a soldier overseas would experience. He sings about the men risking their lives while those in command are eating lunch at the petroleum club, "Smoking fine cigars and swapping lies. They say, 'Give me 'nother slice of that barbecued brisket. Give me 'nother piece of that pecan pie.'" Here is another fine example of a total metanarrative that Lyotard talks about. This metanarrative Henley sings about is America, and the story of how our forefathers died for the sake of making our country free. But there is suspicion in the lyrics. Why are the leaders commanding the war safe in America and what are the real reasons we've been fighting over there for so long? We talked in class how realism trains us to accept certain realities and keeps us in our place. It's blind belief, we must take it upon ourselves to criticize and destroy the texts. Henley ends his song with the lyrics, "But all the knowledge in the world is of no use to fools"
DBA123, post class 2/12
At the end of class, we focused our discussion on the traditional perspective vs the Anti-modernist view. Both have such extreme outlooks it is hard to decide which to agree with. From one perspective, it is easy to go with the traditional standpoint…”it worked then, it will work now.” But what is out there? What are we ruling out by going with what we already know? Dr. Casey made a statement that summed up the Anti-modernist view really well, “The only thing I know for sure, is that I don’t know anything.” This perspective is also interesting. Do we really know that much? Most of us just regurgitate what we are told and present it like our own ideas. This doesn’t mean we do know what we’re talking about. We haven’t done the research and found out all the background information.
Both are easy to agree with but both are easy to make rebuttals against as well. What is the standpoint in the middle? For those of us who can’t commit to one perspective, what viewpoint is there for those of us who are not extreme to either standpoint? Today’s class provoked many ideas and concepts that can be seen as controversial and it is very hard to rationalize any of them.
Both are easy to agree with but both are easy to make rebuttals against as well. What is the standpoint in the middle? For those of us who can’t commit to one perspective, what viewpoint is there for those of us who are not extreme to either standpoint? Today’s class provoked many ideas and concepts that can be seen as controversial and it is very hard to rationalize any of them.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Smiley Face - 2/12/09
With each class I am becoming more and more confused about the world I live in, or I guess that's what you call seeing the world from a 'critical lens.' It has been fascinating reading Lyotard and Habermas this week due mostly to their diverse interpretations of reality and how both are right. Although there are many ways in which they differ from one another, there are a couple of similarities in their works. Lyotard believes that totalizing metanarratives shape the view of the world and therefore give people the opportunity to make meaning of it, while Habermas demonstrates that there is no reality without a consensus of knowledge and understanding among people. Both theorists believe that there must be a certain level of group belief for there to be reality. At the same time, as much as there is a shared understanding on the formation of reality, Lyotard goes on to recognize how the metanarrative shaping of reality have been commodified and in fact 'reality' is under question. When a need to recreate reality it is often times difficult to make a distinction between the two. For example, why go running outside on paths when you can run indoors on a running machine? In contrast, Habermas's understanding of reality from his belief in the consensus shows that he believes that the classics are most relied upon for what is real regardless of avant-gardism.
From these two perspectives on reality it has make me question what reality is, how it is created and how two different theorists can hold such ultimately diverse views of the world. As much as there is the similarity between their fundamental construction of reality, Lyotard believes in the power of postmodernism and the avant-garde as well as an extreme faith in art to sace us - not science. In vast contrast to this inventive aspect, Habermas remains loyal to the classics and tradition mainly because he does not believe that we have moved into a postmodern era yet. Habermas does hold a valid point, as confirmed in out first CMC 300 class whereby we were given a number of historical events that are thought of as catalysts to the postmodern era, yet there is a clear difference in the way of life and cultural view from now compared to even 10 years ago. I feel that I am struggling in the battle between traditional and avant-garde for understand the fundamentals of both, yet there are still questions to be answered for both.
From these two perspectives on reality it has make me question what reality is, how it is created and how two different theorists can hold such ultimately diverse views of the world. As much as there is the similarity between their fundamental construction of reality, Lyotard believes in the power of postmodernism and the avant-garde as well as an extreme faith in art to sace us - not science. In vast contrast to this inventive aspect, Habermas remains loyal to the classics and tradition mainly because he does not believe that we have moved into a postmodern era yet. Habermas does hold a valid point, as confirmed in out first CMC 300 class whereby we were given a number of historical events that are thought of as catalysts to the postmodern era, yet there is a clear difference in the way of life and cultural view from now compared to even 10 years ago. I feel that I am struggling in the battle between traditional and avant-garde for understand the fundamentals of both, yet there are still questions to be answered for both.
brookes77, 2/12/09
In class today it helped a great deal talking about Habermas versus Lyotard. It was intriguing when we discussed from the Habermas reading, the modernist view versus the anti modernist view. The modernist view is “the idea of modern changing with the belief, inspired by modern science, in the infinite progress of knowledge”. The idea that some day we will have all the answers and science is good and we should keep progressing. The Anti modernist point of view is that “one day we know for sure is that every day we know less then we did yesterday”. Although I believe that modernity necessary in some aspects of life, I really thought hard about the anti modernist point of view. The notion that every day we progress in science, beauty, art, etc, we lose a little bit of what is classic, traditionalism to us makes sense. I believe that this is true, that we are becoming addicted to being in the know about everything and forgetting how we have got where we are and that we have forgotten the simple beautiful parts of life. In a way having more questions to answer, and not knowing all gives us more of a reason to live. My view swings back and forth between these two opinions, yet it is a great controversial thought.
“The cult of the new” versus “The cult of tradition”, was another discussion that stuck out to me in class. When showed a picture of the “on sale NEW pepper spray” I did not even think about why there was new pepper spray, what is wrong with the old one? But I probably would have bought it if I was going to the store for pepper spray, because as we discussed in class, it is new therefore there is more of a demand for it. This is completely unintentional, but I find that I do this a lot, that my mind has been programmed to want the new products rather then the old. Our society believes new equals better. Yesterday I was at CVS buying a razor, they are always coming out with new “Venus” razors and i always buy the new Venus razor. It might not be better, but if I don’t think about it, I automatically follow the notion of “the cult of the new”. I feel that my parents who are in their 60’s are on the other side of extreme, “the cult of tradition”. This means it worked then it will work now. My dad and grandfather always say, “if its not broken why fix it”. This can be said about products, art, laws, anything. It was the way they had grown up. It makes me feel as though they were more satisfied with what they had, the traditions worked for them; yet in my generation I feel as though we are always on the go looking for the next best thing, the newest thing.
“The cult of the new” versus “The cult of tradition”, was another discussion that stuck out to me in class. When showed a picture of the “on sale NEW pepper spray” I did not even think about why there was new pepper spray, what is wrong with the old one? But I probably would have bought it if I was going to the store for pepper spray, because as we discussed in class, it is new therefore there is more of a demand for it. This is completely unintentional, but I find that I do this a lot, that my mind has been programmed to want the new products rather then the old. Our society believes new equals better. Yesterday I was at CVS buying a razor, they are always coming out with new “Venus” razors and i always buy the new Venus razor. It might not be better, but if I don’t think about it, I automatically follow the notion of “the cult of the new”. I feel that my parents who are in their 60’s are on the other side of extreme, “the cult of tradition”. This means it worked then it will work now. My dad and grandfather always say, “if its not broken why fix it”. This can be said about products, art, laws, anything. It was the way they had grown up. It makes me feel as though they were more satisfied with what they had, the traditions worked for them; yet in my generation I feel as though we are always on the go looking for the next best thing, the newest thing.
LightningBolt, 2/12
“The cult of the new”
The concept of “new is better” that we discussed in class today has made me realized that I believe new is better. I don’t think that this is something I consciously choose to believe, it is something that our culture has programmed me to believe. We have been presented with the concept that new means improved, and more efficient to the point where we do not consider the alternative. The traditionalist standpoint where the classic item is a better choice has some valid reasoning. If something worked and accomplished the job, what is the point in improving it?
The first example I would like to present is in agreement with Habermas and the theory of “the cult of the new”
If someone owns a vacuum cleaner that requires the bag to be replaced after five minutes of cleaning the floors, and then the vacuum company releases the same vacuum cleaner but the bag only has to be replaced after an hour of cleaning the floors. This new vacuum will save the cleaner time as well as effort. It seems very sensible to get this new and improved vacuum.
The next example is in agreement with the traditionalist viewpoint:
A person spends two hours cutting their grass once a week. They have a push lawnmower, which they have had for several years. They have never had any problems with the lawnmower; however, they see a new mower in the store that you can sit on while you cut the grass. Not only does this save effort but also it claims to get the job done faster. The person buys this new lawnmower but when they go to use it they realize it has much less accuracy and they mow over their flowers. It ends up taking the person longer to figure out how to maneuver this new machine than it would have been just to use the old lawnmower. The traditionalist would stick with the classic older lawnmower, while Habermas might say it is worth it to take the time to learn how to use the new one.
Although I can see the validity of both sides of this argument, I agree with Habermas that “new is better” will prevail. It is being engrained in our brains through advertisement, product placement, and our cultures lifestyle (the faster the better).
The concept of “new is better” that we discussed in class today has made me realized that I believe new is better. I don’t think that this is something I consciously choose to believe, it is something that our culture has programmed me to believe. We have been presented with the concept that new means improved, and more efficient to the point where we do not consider the alternative. The traditionalist standpoint where the classic item is a better choice has some valid reasoning. If something worked and accomplished the job, what is the point in improving it?
The first example I would like to present is in agreement with Habermas and the theory of “the cult of the new”
If someone owns a vacuum cleaner that requires the bag to be replaced after five minutes of cleaning the floors, and then the vacuum company releases the same vacuum cleaner but the bag only has to be replaced after an hour of cleaning the floors. This new vacuum will save the cleaner time as well as effort. It seems very sensible to get this new and improved vacuum.
The next example is in agreement with the traditionalist viewpoint:
A person spends two hours cutting their grass once a week. They have a push lawnmower, which they have had for several years. They have never had any problems with the lawnmower; however, they see a new mower in the store that you can sit on while you cut the grass. Not only does this save effort but also it claims to get the job done faster. The person buys this new lawnmower but when they go to use it they realize it has much less accuracy and they mow over their flowers. It ends up taking the person longer to figure out how to maneuver this new machine than it would have been just to use the old lawnmower. The traditionalist would stick with the classic older lawnmower, while Habermas might say it is worth it to take the time to learn how to use the new one.
Although I can see the validity of both sides of this argument, I agree with Habermas that “new is better” will prevail. It is being engrained in our brains through advertisement, product placement, and our cultures lifestyle (the faster the better).
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
thestig, habermas
posted this earlier, just realized that I didn't include the title:
How are we defining modernity and post-modernity? Are we living in a modern society, or a post-modern society? Habermas contends “the term ‘modern’ again and again expresses the consciousness of an epoch that relates itself to the past of antiquity, in order to view itself as the result of a transition from the old to the new” (Habermas 98). What is ‘modern’ and what is ‘classic’ have become difficult to distinguish: the “modern work becomes a classic because it has once been authentically modern” (Habermas 99). In other words, for how long is something modern before it is considered classical? Is post-modernity any different from modernity?
If modernity is defined as it is above, as always seeking a “landscape into which no one seems to have yet ventured” (Habemas 99), post-modernity is the notion of modernity in a new era. In this new era, the capitalist is far more ruthless.
The capitalist – whose power ranges from power of ideology, to politics, to the economy – is a trend setting machine. What was modern is now classical, or necessary. Thus the notion of commodification: everyone wants what is trendy, but trendy is expensive – it’s new, it’s not stable, but everyone wants it. The iPod, though not unstable when it first was released, was a completely revolutionary product… now, you’ve got to have it. Have you looked at Apple’s iPod lineup lately? There is a shuffle, nano, touch, and (drum role please) the classic. A few thoughts here: I find it ironic that the iPod classic has its name because while it is classic in the sense that to Apple, it is the eight year ‘old’ classic design, but there is still no other product that matches its performance on the market today, and I'm still amazed how far we've come in so little time. The same will be true for the iPhone, too. It’s amazing how time sells.
How are we defining modernity and post-modernity? Are we living in a modern society, or a post-modern society? Habermas contends “the term ‘modern’ again and again expresses the consciousness of an epoch that relates itself to the past of antiquity, in order to view itself as the result of a transition from the old to the new” (Habermas 98). What is ‘modern’ and what is ‘classic’ have become difficult to distinguish: the “modern work becomes a classic because it has once been authentically modern” (Habermas 99). In other words, for how long is something modern before it is considered classical? Is post-modernity any different from modernity?
If modernity is defined as it is above, as always seeking a “landscape into which no one seems to have yet ventured” (Habemas 99), post-modernity is the notion of modernity in a new era. In this new era, the capitalist is far more ruthless.
The capitalist – whose power ranges from power of ideology, to politics, to the economy – is a trend setting machine. What was modern is now classical, or necessary. Thus the notion of commodification: everyone wants what is trendy, but trendy is expensive – it’s new, it’s not stable, but everyone wants it. The iPod, though not unstable when it first was released, was a completely revolutionary product… now, you’ve got to have it. Have you looked at Apple’s iPod lineup lately? There is a shuffle, nano, touch, and (drum role please) the classic. A few thoughts here: I find it ironic that the iPod classic has its name because while it is classic in the sense that to Apple, it is the eight year ‘old’ classic design, but there is still no other product that matches its performance on the market today, and I'm still amazed how far we've come in so little time. The same will be true for the iPhone, too. It’s amazing how time sells.
brookes77, Habermas
The Habermas reading was a little hard to understand, yet interesting because it has to do with our every day life. What is modernity? I thought a good example of a definition was “ Looking back to the ancients changed with the belief, inspired by modern science, in the infinite progress of knowledge and the infinite advance towards social and moral betterment”. (99) To me was a clear statement of what modernity is, it explains that at different periods in time different styles, genres, or art, beauty, science are modern, new, and different. As we advance as a whole, our theory of modernity advances. In reading some of the other posts on the reading, I made the same connection as “cmcstudent” made when thinking about modern fashion and how it directly relates to the word “avant-garde”. Modern fashion along with art has a avant-garde aura, that is shocking to some, risky, new and different, yet when it is exposed to the public sphere it just needs to be accepted by few leaders who are thought of to be “experts” in their fields.
When Habermas explains how “ instead of giving up modernity and its project as a lost cause we should learn from the mistakes of those extravagant programs which have tried to negate modernity.” I strongly agree with him here, I believe we can still support a modernized cultural, yet not go over board and become too trendy, forgetting our classy/classical roots. In all aspects of life, modern to us has become something ostentatious and as said before “avant garde”. Our culture has molded modernity into everything at the extreme, an example of this would be art and how everyone is an expert at art and how anyone can paint or draw anything (like throwing paint on a wall) and it can be thought of as art because of the fact that everyone is an expert. To me this notion is ridiculous and this modern aspect of art has gone too far and taken away the significance, classy parts of modernity that cause modernity to be remembered. It has become too generalized. I am sure there are many other themes in the reading but this discussion stuck out the most to me, but I look forward to further discussing the more unclear points of the reading in class.
When Habermas explains how “ instead of giving up modernity and its project as a lost cause we should learn from the mistakes of those extravagant programs which have tried to negate modernity.” I strongly agree with him here, I believe we can still support a modernized cultural, yet not go over board and become too trendy, forgetting our classy/classical roots. In all aspects of life, modern to us has become something ostentatious and as said before “avant garde”. Our culture has molded modernity into everything at the extreme, an example of this would be art and how everyone is an expert at art and how anyone can paint or draw anything (like throwing paint on a wall) and it can be thought of as art because of the fact that everyone is an expert. To me this notion is ridiculous and this modern aspect of art has gone too far and taken away the significance, classy parts of modernity that cause modernity to be remembered. It has become too generalized. I am sure there are many other themes in the reading but this discussion stuck out the most to me, but I look forward to further discussing the more unclear points of the reading in class.
jl0630 - Habermas
Habermas prefaced his way into his segment on terrorism with, “A refied everyday praxis can be cured only by creating unconstrained interaction of the cognitive with the moral-practical and the aesthetic-expressive elements” (105). I must have read this sentence and its paragraph a dozen times to understand it, but what I got from it is that the development of art from its religious and scientific roots to a laissez-faire ‘everything is art and everyone is an artist’ has suppressed people from analyzing its existence and its meaning. It is simplistic and has transformed our consumption of media from, like we talked a few classes ago, “how was is it” to “did you like it?” Propaganda can be alarmingly easy to attempt with such simple mindedness, which ties into the terroristic notions of art that Habermas explains. He mentions specifically about tendencies to aestheticize politics and we can see that example almost every day in the comic section of the newspaper. These cartoons negate to the enormity of real life situations at hand and can be shown over and again in examples like – how do we know what a model looks like? How do we know what a Jew looks like? You see Iranians with large beards and a goofy smile and making puns on war, and you see Jewish men who are short and have enormous noses. It’s dehumanizing, and to an extent even, it allows people like Hitler to get away with things like genocide. It’s unconscious and like professor Casey said, we can’t all be psychics – it’s in our mind for a reason. So what Habermas is saying is that we need to start being cognitive about “the moral-practical and the aesthetic-expressive elements” because to athseticize without consciousness is dangerous and potentially terroristic.
MerryChristmas!, Habermas
Habermas was certainly an easier read than Lyotard. His blatant use of language and explanations of how culture during the Enlightenment were simple. Habermas states, "Each domain of culture could be made to correspond to cultural professions in which problems could be dealt with as the concern of special experts. This professionalized treatment of the cultural tradition brings to the fore the intrinsic structures of each of the three dimensions of culture." (103). Habermas examines the roles within what makes up a culture and says that it is divided by professions. He then states that there is a gap between the professionals (who are experts in one of the three fields of a culture) and the larger public (those who do not have expertise in any of the fields). This made me think of the media and how experts within the field of entertainment use entertainment to spread their ideologies through advertisements. They do this by exposing these ideologies to the larger public, who are unaware of the lasting effects that advertisements may have on them. Habermas ties the Enlightenment to this idea by saying that, "The Enlightenment philosophers wanted to utilize this accumulation of specialized culture for the enrichment of everyday life- that is to say for the rational organization of everyday social life." (103) In other words, there are people and meanings behind why we behave socially the way we do. These people (aka philosophers) construct this idea of how we are supposed act in the culture that they run.
CMCstudent, Habermas
The word “modern” was first “used in order to distinguish the present (98)”. “Modernus” was originally used to distinguish the new Christian present from the old Pagan past. One must know the past in order to know the present. This reminds me of when we talked about “authenticity” and that one must know the original to know the duplicate. “Postmodernity presents itself as Antimodernity (98)”. One must also know modernism before they can truly have an understanding of post-modernism. If you don’t know what modernity is, than how can you be against it, or antimodern? Therefore, one must know what is old in order to know what is new, or “modern”.
“Avant-garde” is understood as “invading unknown territory, exposing itself to the dangers of sudden, shocking encounters, conquering an as yet unoccupied future (99).”
As soon as I read that definition I thought of avant-garde fashion. It is always clothing that is totally out there, inspired by crazy new ideas, and is always about getting ahead of the curve [in fashion]. The reading says it needs to venture into uncharted areas and this is what avant-garde clothing seeks to do. Even though designers seek to do this we cannot help but remember things from the past, and therefore bring that knowledge into what we are doing, or recognize a piece of something that reminds us of a thing once there.
“Avant-garde” is understood as “invading unknown territory, exposing itself to the dangers of sudden, shocking encounters, conquering an as yet unoccupied future (99).”
As soon as I read that definition I thought of avant-garde fashion. It is always clothing that is totally out there, inspired by crazy new ideas, and is always about getting ahead of the curve [in fashion]. The reading says it needs to venture into uncharted areas and this is what avant-garde clothing seeks to do. Even though designers seek to do this we cannot help but remember things from the past, and therefore bring that knowledge into what we are doing, or recognize a piece of something that reminds us of a thing once there.
Juice15, Habermas
“… we must admit to ourselves that this modernism arouses a much fainter response today than it did fifteen years ago”( Habermas 100).
This quote by Habermas made me wonder what reasons could be the cause of this faint response. The first idea I could think of is we are experiencing the end of one aura and starting to begin another one. I feel that people today are starting a new kind of instability and the explosion of media and language is contributing to that kind of instability and results in the faintness in response to modernism. This media and language explosion is causing a lot of system failures in today’s world and we are just trying to either relieve the pain or forget about it completely. “Although avant-garde is still considered to be expanding, it is supposedly no longer creative” (Habermas 101). This can tie into how we are just re inventing things and not following other ideas set out by other theorists. Ideas that have been thrown out there to fix some of this one by Bell. He states that a religious revival is the only solution to the problem. “Religious faith tied to a faith in tradition will provide individuals with clearly defined identities and existential security.” Another idea is to let the avant-garde venture into unknown territory. I feel the best way to liven up the response today is to learn and educate people about what is really going on and how it impacts the society and culture today, because I sure had no idea about any ideas about post modernism or modernism before a month ago.
This quote by Habermas made me wonder what reasons could be the cause of this faint response. The first idea I could think of is we are experiencing the end of one aura and starting to begin another one. I feel that people today are starting a new kind of instability and the explosion of media and language is contributing to that kind of instability and results in the faintness in response to modernism. This media and language explosion is causing a lot of system failures in today’s world and we are just trying to either relieve the pain or forget about it completely. “Although avant-garde is still considered to be expanding, it is supposedly no longer creative” (Habermas 101). This can tie into how we are just re inventing things and not following other ideas set out by other theorists. Ideas that have been thrown out there to fix some of this one by Bell. He states that a religious revival is the only solution to the problem. “Religious faith tied to a faith in tradition will provide individuals with clearly defined identities and existential security.” Another idea is to let the avant-garde venture into unknown territory. I feel the best way to liven up the response today is to learn and educate people about what is really going on and how it impacts the society and culture today, because I sure had no idea about any ideas about post modernism or modernism before a month ago.
Savvy, Habermas 2.11.09
Before even reading this article I knew of theorist Habermas. Last year in my Communication Theory class we briefly touched upon Habermas and his idea of the "public sphere." Even when I read Habermas in the Theory class, I was still unsure of what Habermas was trying to exactly say to his readers. What I can remember from that class was how public sphere was referring to how the public sphere mediates between the "private sphere" and the "public authority". Habermas said the disappearance of the public sphere resulted from the influences of commercial mass media. As a result the people stopped questioning and thinking for themselves and turned into mass consumers.
Though I have read Habermas before, I still found this article to be a little hard to grasp. I felt that Habermas's thought process was scattered in this article. He gave many definitions for Modernism, yet I feel like he beat around the bush in defining the term. However, two quotes did stand out to me. The first would be the quote on page 98 that states the definition of modern as being, " a transition from the old to the new." I though that this was a very simplistic way of defining the term. In other reading that we have read in class the authors gave these complicated definitions that we would have to break down in order to see what the meaning was. I thought that Habermas did a great job in simplifying the term for his readers. From this quote I constantly thought about how our society transitions from the old to the new daily. Let's take a look back at something like the computer. Now it seems that everyone has a computer. Back when our parents were children it was rare to have a computer in the household, but now computers are a staple. Also lets take a look at how computers and the telephone has merged into one. Now you can call someone and access the web on your cell phone. Back when I was in middle school this was not a norm, but has become in today's society. Another quote that stuck out to me was on page 99, " Of course, whatever can survive time has always been considered to be a class." This made me think of songs, movies, and television series which our culture deems as classics. For example I Love Lucy is considered to be a classics, but when my grandparents were children it was a brand new series. I can remember watching the television series Saved By The Bell when I was in grammar school. Today's grammar school children consider it to be a classic. These are just examples of how we are constantly living in a modern society. It is what is considered to be modern that is what is changing.
Though I have read Habermas before, I still found this article to be a little hard to grasp. I felt that Habermas's thought process was scattered in this article. He gave many definitions for Modernism, yet I feel like he beat around the bush in defining the term. However, two quotes did stand out to me. The first would be the quote on page 98 that states the definition of modern as being, " a transition from the old to the new." I though that this was a very simplistic way of defining the term. In other reading that we have read in class the authors gave these complicated definitions that we would have to break down in order to see what the meaning was. I thought that Habermas did a great job in simplifying the term for his readers. From this quote I constantly thought about how our society transitions from the old to the new daily. Let's take a look back at something like the computer. Now it seems that everyone has a computer. Back when our parents were children it was rare to have a computer in the household, but now computers are a staple. Also lets take a look at how computers and the telephone has merged into one. Now you can call someone and access the web on your cell phone. Back when I was in middle school this was not a norm, but has become in today's society. Another quote that stuck out to me was on page 99, " Of course, whatever can survive time has always been considered to be a class." This made me think of songs, movies, and television series which our culture deems as classics. For example I Love Lucy is considered to be a classics, but when my grandparents were children it was a brand new series. I can remember watching the television series Saved By The Bell when I was in grammar school. Today's grammar school children consider it to be a classic. These are just examples of how we are constantly living in a modern society. It is what is considered to be modern that is what is changing.
Marie89, Habermas
After reading Habermas, I was perplexed as to how to how many definitions of modernism there were. For example, is may be known as “the infinite progress of knowledge and in the infinite advance towards social and moral betterment” (99). Or it may be known to “make an abstract opposition between tradition and the present” (99). It is maybe even “characterized by attitudes which find a common focus in a changed consciousness of time” (99). Another excerpt from Habermas claims that “Modernity revolts against the normalizing functions of tradition; modernity lives on the experience of rebelling against all that is normative” (Habermas 100). The many definitions did, however, get me thinking about how I define the term modern and the idea of modernism. In reality, doesn’t reality rely on past experience? Although modernity generally known to connote newness and uniqueness, I would think that it builds upon previous knowledge and tradition. It is not a new entity at all, but rather a new way of interpreting what has already been founded. And how, then, does one define postmodernity? If modern is new, then what is postmodern? Postmodernity and modernity both utilize previously founded knowledge in order to base new ideas upon. In no way are they completely new ideas, but rather ideas that have built upon and modified over the years. If this is the case then, isn’t everything both modern and postmodern? I find it interesting that both of these terms seem so basic to the English language yet they connote different things to different time periods as well as people of the same time period. They are obviously more complex than many may think as they are the basis of many theoretical works. These ideas are obviously not set in stone either, as there are many interpretations of these words and phrases that would suggest they are ambiguous ideas in our culture.
Super!Geek, 2/11, Habermas
According to Habermas, “The most recent modernism simply makes an abstract opposition between tradition and the present.” The very classification of modernity comes into question with Habermas because every era post-Renaissance acts under the impression of being 'modern'. In Habermas's terms, modernity is a set of problems related to a concept of subjectivity. Under this subjectivity, anything that seeks to reform or transform traditional conceptions of thought qualifies as a modern perspective. Further, the practice of creating new thought is a modern quality, meaning that new ideas and philosophies qualifies an era as modern.
“Of course, what can survive time has always been considered classic. But the emphatically modern document no longer borrows this power of being a classic from the authority of a past epoch; instead, a modern work becomes a classic because it has been authentically modern.” By this credo, even our own ideas surrounding post-modernity could and likely will one day seem traditional. The concepts of traditionalism and modernism are almost solely confined to the time in which they are imposed. If that thought or philosophy can weather the shift in ideals and values that occurs with each era and epoch, it is inevitable that it will still end up a relic of the past. It is only through the pursuit of new thought that modernity can evolve and remain relevant… but it still seems so confusing because how post-modernity fit into an era like modernity that doesn’t even seem to exist in a salient manner. Is post-modernity in itself just a flashy version of modernity, in that it is our foundation for our current, or modern, conception of the world? According to Habermas, “Modernity revolts against the normalizing functions of tradition; modernity lives on the experience of rebelling against all that is normative.” This definition in itself sounds like the common conception of post-modernity. Which is to say, that Habermas, as much as I like him, has answered one question only to fuel twenty more, and just a little more confused.
“Of course, what can survive time has always been considered classic. But the emphatically modern document no longer borrows this power of being a classic from the authority of a past epoch; instead, a modern work becomes a classic because it has been authentically modern.” By this credo, even our own ideas surrounding post-modernity could and likely will one day seem traditional. The concepts of traditionalism and modernism are almost solely confined to the time in which they are imposed. If that thought or philosophy can weather the shift in ideals and values that occurs with each era and epoch, it is inevitable that it will still end up a relic of the past. It is only through the pursuit of new thought that modernity can evolve and remain relevant… but it still seems so confusing because how post-modernity fit into an era like modernity that doesn’t even seem to exist in a salient manner. Is post-modernity in itself just a flashy version of modernity, in that it is our foundation for our current, or modern, conception of the world? According to Habermas, “Modernity revolts against the normalizing functions of tradition; modernity lives on the experience of rebelling against all that is normative.” This definition in itself sounds like the common conception of post-modernity. Which is to say, that Habermas, as much as I like him, has answered one question only to fuel twenty more, and just a little more confused.
ashlayla, Habermas
Habermas was a little easier to read than Lyotard, but I still had a hard time understanding what he was saying. I feel like after having the class discussion on Lyotard I was able to understand him better and, in a way, I was able to understand Habermas a little more because Lyotard references him. Because I’ve had a harder time understanding some of the authors we’ve read, I’ve had a harder time understanding and defining postmodernism.
In his article, Habermas referenced art a lot to prove his point, although, I'm still having a hard time figuring out what his point is. However, while I was reading, one quote (from the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung) brought a question to mind: "Postmodernity definitely presents itself as Antimodernity." (98) Did Habermas use this quote in his article to say that postmodernism is against everything modern? To me, postmodernism pulls a lot from modernism and even classical movements. To me, postmodernists learn and put into their work what modernists and classicists used in their work and taught to others. I feel like the following quote from Habermas’ article supports what I think postmodernity is:
“…the term ‘modern’ again and again expresses the consciousness of an epoch that relates itself to the past of antiquity, in order to view itself as the result of a transition from the old to the new.” (98) Habermas went on to say that each time a new era arose in Europe, the word modern would show up. This makes me think that whenever something enters the stage of either being classical like music, or modern like clothing trends, then postmodernists will borrow what made these classical and modern things popular to make something new. That being said, I think I have finally figured out what postmodernism is (and I hope it's right). An example that I can think of that supports what I think postmodernism is can be found in architecture. Blending structures that are classical and modern gives us something completely new and different, like urbane urbanism or anthropomorphism. Postmodernism, in my opinion, is a blend of the classics and moderns made into something completely new and different.
In his article, Habermas referenced art a lot to prove his point, although, I'm still having a hard time figuring out what his point is. However, while I was reading, one quote (from the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung) brought a question to mind: "Postmodernity definitely presents itself as Antimodernity." (98) Did Habermas use this quote in his article to say that postmodernism is against everything modern? To me, postmodernism pulls a lot from modernism and even classical movements. To me, postmodernists learn and put into their work what modernists and classicists used in their work and taught to others. I feel like the following quote from Habermas’ article supports what I think postmodernity is:
“…the term ‘modern’ again and again expresses the consciousness of an epoch that relates itself to the past of antiquity, in order to view itself as the result of a transition from the old to the new.” (98) Habermas went on to say that each time a new era arose in Europe, the word modern would show up. This makes me think that whenever something enters the stage of either being classical like music, or modern like clothing trends, then postmodernists will borrow what made these classical and modern things popular to make something new. That being said, I think I have finally figured out what postmodernism is (and I hope it's right). An example that I can think of that supports what I think postmodernism is can be found in architecture. Blending structures that are classical and modern gives us something completely new and different, like urbane urbanism or anthropomorphism. Postmodernism, in my opinion, is a blend of the classics and moderns made into something completely new and different.
How are we defining modernity and post-modernity? Are we living in a modern society, or a post-modern society? Habermas contends “the term ‘modern’ again and again expresses the consciousness of an epoch that relates itself to the past of antiquity, in order to view itself as the result of a transition from the old to the new” (Habermas 98). What is ‘modern’ and what is ‘classic’ have become difficult to distinguish: the “modern work becomes a classic because it has once been authentically modern” (Habermas 99). In other words, for how long is something modern before it is considered classical? Is post-modernity any different from modernity?
If modernity is defined as it is above, as always seeking a “landscape into which no one seems to have yet ventured” (Habemas 99), post-modernity is the notion of modernity in a new era. In this new era, the capitalist is far more ruthless.
The capitalist – whose power ranges from power of ideology, to politics, to the economy – is a trend setting machine. What was modern is now classical, or necessary. Thus the notion of commodification: everyone wants what is trendy, but trendy is expensive – it’s new, it’s not stable, but everyone wants it. The iPod, though not unstable when it first was released, was a completely revolutionary product… now, you’ve got to have it. Have you looked at Apple’s iPod lineup lately? There is a shuffle, nano, touch, and (drum role please) the classic. A few thoughts here: I find it ironic that the iPod classic has its name because while it is classic in the sense that to Apple, it is the eight year ‘old’ classic design, but there is still no other product that matches its performance on the market today, and I'm still amazed how far we've come in so little time. The same will be true for the iPhone, too. It’s amazing how time sells.
If modernity is defined as it is above, as always seeking a “landscape into which no one seems to have yet ventured” (Habemas 99), post-modernity is the notion of modernity in a new era. In this new era, the capitalist is far more ruthless.
The capitalist – whose power ranges from power of ideology, to politics, to the economy – is a trend setting machine. What was modern is now classical, or necessary. Thus the notion of commodification: everyone wants what is trendy, but trendy is expensive – it’s new, it’s not stable, but everyone wants it. The iPod, though not unstable when it first was released, was a completely revolutionary product… now, you’ve got to have it. Have you looked at Apple’s iPod lineup lately? There is a shuffle, nano, touch, and (drum role please) the classic. A few thoughts here: I find it ironic that the iPod classic has its name because while it is classic in the sense that to Apple, it is the eight year ‘old’ classic design, but there is still no other product that matches its performance on the market today, and I'm still amazed how far we've come in so little time. The same will be true for the iPhone, too. It’s amazing how time sells.
aro0823, Habermas
"Modernity revolts against the normalizing functions of tradition; modernity lives on the experience of rebelling against all that is normative... This aesthetic consciousness continuously stages a dialectical play between secrecy and public scandal; it is addicted to a fascination with the horror which accompanies the act of profaning, and yet is always in flight from the trivial results of profanation."
Modernity is inherently immensely hypocritical. Modernists claim that there are absolutes; things can only be done a certain way. With my limited understanding definition of modernity, I am perplexed yet fascinated with the above quotation. I had always interpreted modernity to be tradition, not revolt against it. In contrast to postmodernists, modernists believe in order, objectiveness, and formality, whereas postmodernists embrace chaos, subjectivity, and loosened regulations. However, it is entirely possible that Habermas is making the comparison between pre-modern and modern times and, in this specific argument, discounting postmodernism from the equation.
In some respects, what is tradition if not modern? Though tradition insinuates the past being involved, we embrace tradition and incorporate it into our everyday lives in the present. As the second part of the quotation enumerates, like profanity, we scoff at tradition, yet continue to be fascinated by it. In the world we live in today, no one wants the ultimate insult of being considered “behind the times,” yet so much about our present lives is firmly rooted in those good ol’ times. This dialectical play draws a thin line on which to navigate from past to future. If this consciousness of time is illustrated on a continuum, it easy to imagine premodernity, modernity, and postmodernity in terms of Habermas’ ideas. However, as Dr. Rog taught, the unfortunate thing about postmodernity is the lack of clear destination. So, the avant garde artists will continue pushing the envelope further and further, and we will eventually have to choose whether to latch onto tradition or throw caution to the wind and being the downward spiral into chaos and disorder.
Modernity is inherently immensely hypocritical. Modernists claim that there are absolutes; things can only be done a certain way. With my limited understanding definition of modernity, I am perplexed yet fascinated with the above quotation. I had always interpreted modernity to be tradition, not revolt against it. In contrast to postmodernists, modernists believe in order, objectiveness, and formality, whereas postmodernists embrace chaos, subjectivity, and loosened regulations. However, it is entirely possible that Habermas is making the comparison between pre-modern and modern times and, in this specific argument, discounting postmodernism from the equation.
In some respects, what is tradition if not modern? Though tradition insinuates the past being involved, we embrace tradition and incorporate it into our everyday lives in the present. As the second part of the quotation enumerates, like profanity, we scoff at tradition, yet continue to be fascinated by it. In the world we live in today, no one wants the ultimate insult of being considered “behind the times,” yet so much about our present lives is firmly rooted in those good ol’ times. This dialectical play draws a thin line on which to navigate from past to future. If this consciousness of time is illustrated on a continuum, it easy to imagine premodernity, modernity, and postmodernity in terms of Habermas’ ideas. However, as Dr. Rog taught, the unfortunate thing about postmodernity is the lack of clear destination. So, the avant garde artists will continue pushing the envelope further and further, and we will eventually have to choose whether to latch onto tradition or throw caution to the wind and being the downward spiral into chaos and disorder.
Rubber Soul, Habermas
"A parallel to the surrealist mistakes becomes visible in these programs when one observes the consequences of dogmatism and of moral rigorism." (105)
I think Habermas adds to the point I was making in my last blog, about these societal ideologies that are limiting individuals and perceived as the only way of thinking. Lyotard says we need to wage a war on them, but Habermas says that there are consequences in social movements that negate philosophy based on the modes of dogmatism and moral rigorism. He goes on to say, "Reification cannot be overcome by forcing just one of those highly stylized cultural spheres to open up and become more accessible." (105) Habermas thinks that the reception of art might offer an alternative for a way out of the "administrative terror" and "coercive means of modern bureaucracies." Our society is so concerned with specialists in the cultural spheres of science, morality, and art. Validity is determined by these special experts and the public is left far from the culture that should be available to everyone. Habermas says "With cultural rationalization of this sort, the threat increases that the life-world, whose traditional substance has already been devalued, will become more and more impoverished." (103)
I think Habermas adds to the point I was making in my last blog, about these societal ideologies that are limiting individuals and perceived as the only way of thinking. Lyotard says we need to wage a war on them, but Habermas says that there are consequences in social movements that negate philosophy based on the modes of dogmatism and moral rigorism. He goes on to say, "Reification cannot be overcome by forcing just one of those highly stylized cultural spheres to open up and become more accessible." (105) Habermas thinks that the reception of art might offer an alternative for a way out of the "administrative terror" and "coercive means of modern bureaucracies." Our society is so concerned with specialists in the cultural spheres of science, morality, and art. Validity is determined by these special experts and the public is left far from the culture that should be available to everyone. Habermas says "With cultural rationalization of this sort, the threat increases that the life-world, whose traditional substance has already been devalued, will become more and more impoverished." (103)
Happy Birthday!, Habermas
“…whatever can survive time has always been considered to be a classic. But the emphatically modern document no longer borrows this power of being a classic from the authority of a past…a modern work becomes a classic because it has once been authentically modern” (99)
I think this is Habermas overall point he is trying to convey in his writing. He is pretty much saying that nothing can ever really and truly be modern, because pretty soon what is considered modern will be “old” in a couple of months. A great example of this that first came to my mind were the classic Ray-Ban Wayfarer’s. These sunglasses are really old….by really old I mean my grandfather still wears his! I never thought in a million years I would be caught in anything my grandfather is wearing and now not only do I own and love these sunglasses, but a large majority of kids attending Rollins have (I dare ay collect) these sunglasses. They are a timeless piece and have always been popular. I think Habermas would agree with me that these have survived time, and are still extremely popular today with our youth and in the Hollywood social scene.
This also relates back to what we discussed last Thursday in class about Lyotard. Lyotard suggests that nothing can be postmodern because something else will be commodified to beat it. I think we related this concept to the iPod. I mean…come one here…how many times is there going to be a smaller or bigger and newer iPod?
I think this is Habermas overall point he is trying to convey in his writing. He is pretty much saying that nothing can ever really and truly be modern, because pretty soon what is considered modern will be “old” in a couple of months. A great example of this that first came to my mind were the classic Ray-Ban Wayfarer’s. These sunglasses are really old….by really old I mean my grandfather still wears his! I never thought in a million years I would be caught in anything my grandfather is wearing and now not only do I own and love these sunglasses, but a large majority of kids attending Rollins have (I dare ay collect) these sunglasses. They are a timeless piece and have always been popular. I think Habermas would agree with me that these have survived time, and are still extremely popular today with our youth and in the Hollywood social scene.
This also relates back to what we discussed last Thursday in class about Lyotard. Lyotard suggests that nothing can be postmodern because something else will be commodified to beat it. I think we related this concept to the iPod. I mean…come one here…how many times is there going to be a smaller or bigger and newer iPod?
Smiley Face - Habermas
What I found most interesting about Habermas's writing is his discussion about what is classical and what is modern. If you think about it we, our generation today is modern, well postmodern actually, but we consider ourselves more modern than 50 years previous to us. This concept of modernism suggests that the cultural definition of the word 'modern' changes over time. As much as people over time define themselves as modern, there is no clear distinction between these modern periods of time, not in the word modern that describe both.
Writers of the eighteenth century relied on the ancients, classical men, to classify themselves as in fact modern. As much as the modern writers of the early eighteenth century used the ancients as a means of promoting their own development in culture, they also relied on them for much of their source of knowledge. Furthermore, with the change in definitions between modernists and classics - where does the time period lie in which one moves from being a modernist figure to a classical one? The classics at one time were considered modernists, much like the writers of the eighteenth century and much like ourselves today. Samuel Johnson in his work "Shakespeare's Excellence" in "The Preface of Shakespeare" he discusses Shakespeare's move from being a modern to a classic, as he states that he may "begin to assume the dignity of an ancient." The time Johnson wrote this was a good hundred years after Shakespeare's time, therefore there is somewhat of a time period in which he could move from modernist to classic.
Overall, the constant use of the word modern has turned it into a word of meanings that can only be understood within the time period or culture it is being referred to as. One mus take into consideration that a certain amount of time must pass before the cycle of change occurs where the old moderns become the new classics to make room for newer modernists.
Writers of the eighteenth century relied on the ancients, classical men, to classify themselves as in fact modern. As much as the modern writers of the early eighteenth century used the ancients as a means of promoting their own development in culture, they also relied on them for much of their source of knowledge. Furthermore, with the change in definitions between modernists and classics - where does the time period lie in which one moves from being a modernist figure to a classical one? The classics at one time were considered modernists, much like the writers of the eighteenth century and much like ourselves today. Samuel Johnson in his work "Shakespeare's Excellence" in "The Preface of Shakespeare" he discusses Shakespeare's move from being a modern to a classic, as he states that he may "begin to assume the dignity of an ancient." The time Johnson wrote this was a good hundred years after Shakespeare's time, therefore there is somewhat of a time period in which he could move from modernist to classic.
Overall, the constant use of the word modern has turned it into a word of meanings that can only be understood within the time period or culture it is being referred to as. One mus take into consideration that a certain amount of time must pass before the cycle of change occurs where the old moderns become the new classics to make room for newer modernists.
dmariel, Habermas
During our Lyotard discussion in class, we covered some material about Habermas and his perception of expert knowledge, art as taste, and art as unity of experience. When reading Habermas directly, the part that most interested me that we had begun talking about in class last week was the idea that “life is splintered into independent specialties ruled by disciplinary experts”. Our culture has become fragmented, due to the frustration of people being unable to fit all the knowledge of the world into their heads. This is obviously impossible in our day and age; therefore we must break things down within our culture.
The Enlightenment period was a time in which people believed that science and reason would help explain everything around us, to bring us out of darkness and into the future. Habermas claims that the twentieth century has shattered this optimism. Consequently, “the differentiation of science, morality and art has come to mean the autonomy of the segments treated by the socialist and their separation from the hermeneutics of everyday communication. This splitting off is the problem that has given rise to efforts to ‘negate’ the culture of expertise” (103-104). Habermas questions whether or not we should still have faith in science and morality or shall we declare modernity a lost cause? This is an extremely controversial question, considering that the twentieth century has been shaped almost entirely by science and technology. I believe that we live in a culture full of neoconservatives, welcoming modern science to forward technical processes towards capitalist growth and rational administration. What hope would we have if it weren’t for science? I think our society would feel lost and surrendered without the amazing advances we have made in the past years. In conclusion, Habermas states “with the decisive confinement of science, morality and art to autonomous spheres separated from the life-world and administered by experts, what remains from the project of modernity is only what we would have if we were to five up the project of modernity altogether”.
The Enlightenment period was a time in which people believed that science and reason would help explain everything around us, to bring us out of darkness and into the future. Habermas claims that the twentieth century has shattered this optimism. Consequently, “the differentiation of science, morality and art has come to mean the autonomy of the segments treated by the socialist and their separation from the hermeneutics of everyday communication. This splitting off is the problem that has given rise to efforts to ‘negate’ the culture of expertise” (103-104). Habermas questions whether or not we should still have faith in science and morality or shall we declare modernity a lost cause? This is an extremely controversial question, considering that the twentieth century has been shaped almost entirely by science and technology. I believe that we live in a culture full of neoconservatives, welcoming modern science to forward technical processes towards capitalist growth and rational administration. What hope would we have if it weren’t for science? I think our society would feel lost and surrendered without the amazing advances we have made in the past years. In conclusion, Habermas states “with the decisive confinement of science, morality and art to autonomous spheres separated from the life-world and administered by experts, what remains from the project of modernity is only what we would have if we were to five up the project of modernity altogether”.
Trapnest, Habermas
“The word ‘modern’ in its Latin form ‘modernus’ was used for the first time in the late fifteh century in order to distinguish the present, which had become officially Christian, from the Roman and pagan past.” - Habermas
While in the grand scheme of the work this may seem slightly insignificant, I think that this statement represents an important part of the overarching theme of what Habermas is attempting to explain: That nothing is really ever ‘modern.’ What may be modern at one point by our standards soon becomes a fragment of the past, associated with the old ways of doing things. We once wore neon colors, legwarmers and stockings, at once (The TV show ‘Jem’ anyone?) to be modern, unlike the once-modern poodle-skirts before that. Now it’s blue jeans, t-shirts, and sun dresses.
All of this makes me think of Lyotard’s work. Granted, he was arguing the nature of postmodernism, but I believe he made a specific connection of postmodern to modernism. He argued that nothing could be postmodern because there would always be someone waiting to commodify it. I feel that this also stands true for modernism. How can something remain modern if people are constantly attempting to create a formal for it and reproduce multiple copies?
Habermas discusses how things are tired to the classic, not from drawing from old works, but in a sense being so original that the modern works instantly become classics themselves. But, this also seems self defeating to me, because once something is a classic isn’t it inherently not-modern? In art you study works against the classics, what has come before and withstood time, but these are always not considered modern works.
While in the grand scheme of the work this may seem slightly insignificant, I think that this statement represents an important part of the overarching theme of what Habermas is attempting to explain: That nothing is really ever ‘modern.’ What may be modern at one point by our standards soon becomes a fragment of the past, associated with the old ways of doing things. We once wore neon colors, legwarmers and stockings, at once (The TV show ‘Jem’ anyone?) to be modern, unlike the once-modern poodle-skirts before that. Now it’s blue jeans, t-shirts, and sun dresses.
All of this makes me think of Lyotard’s work. Granted, he was arguing the nature of postmodernism, but I believe he made a specific connection of postmodern to modernism. He argued that nothing could be postmodern because there would always be someone waiting to commodify it. I feel that this also stands true for modernism. How can something remain modern if people are constantly attempting to create a formal for it and reproduce multiple copies?
Habermas discusses how things are tired to the classic, not from drawing from old works, but in a sense being so original that the modern works instantly become classics themselves. But, this also seems self defeating to me, because once something is a classic isn’t it inherently not-modern? In art you study works against the classics, what has come before and withstood time, but these are always not considered modern works.
coolbeans, Habermas
Habermas says that the relation between ‘modern’ and ‘classical’ has lost its historical reference. Because we consider what was once modern to become outmoded and then to become a classic we create a scenario in which something must either be modern or classic and making it difficult for something to be both. Something that has survived time will always be considered a classic but what about those things that were once modern but have not survived time? For example, let’s take a look at music. We consider pieces written by Chopin, Strauss, or Vivaldi to be classics because they have stood the test of time. We even put bands such as The Beatles, The Who, Lynyrd Skynyrd, and the Rolling Stones in the classic rock category. We consider recent Grammy winners such as Coldplay and Lil’ Wayne to be modern. But what about those bands who are neither considered neither modern nor classic? How do we classify this type of music? We forget the context of these works because we do not quite know where to place them. The problem with thinking of things as modern and classical is that we lose track of the many notable things that come in between. Also, a disparity between modern and classical is created in which modern seems less prestigious than classical. By stating that something must stand the test of time to become classical it seems that we are saying that in order for something modern to reach the same level of prestige or achievement as something classical it must not lose popularity over time. While it is true that it is impressive how things we have classified as classical have been able to remain popular for many generations, it is not to say that something modern does not require the same level of skill that is required to produce a classic.
post-it note, Habermas
The relation between ‘modern’ and ‘classical’ has definitely lost a fixed historical perspective (from Habermas’s Modernity – An Incomplete Project).
This makes sense to me because we are learning about Post-Modernity as it is happening. We are in a post-modern class that defines post-modernity before the era is over. According to Habermas, this means that the words modern and classical have modern definitions because we use them to describe the present as modern. Modernity is characterized as a time that uses the very most up-to-date techniques. In post-modernity, the techniques that are modern utilize classic lines that are reminiscent of history. Things that seem old are new versions of classics. Antiques are no longer antiques, as we have discussed at great length in class. I believe that this stems from an devalued importance of old things in a society where being up-to-date requires that the old be dissgarded, almost forgotten so that all the new tech paraphernalia has enough time to be used before the next great thing is created. But the times that modernity has cast a shadow upon are making a comeback because the past is becoming valuable again to many who want to remember the world that they grew-up in before the race to uncover the next greatest YouTube video began. Modernity was yesterday when we were living in yesterday. Today is modernity because we live today. The same pattern will be followed tomorrow. But how do we know this time that we are in a post-modern world. Since when did the world become proactive in its ways so that naming an era in which we are a part of, they we contribute to, alongside the progress that is made in that same era? It is for this reason that Habermas sees modernity as an incomplete project. And why modern and classical as adjectives have lost meaning in defining the past when there are not modern words to describe our own actions.
LightningBolt, Habermas
“Modernity revolts against the normalizing functions of tradition; modernity lives on the experience of rebelling against all that is normative.”
This description of what is modern seems to be very accurate and applies to today’s world in many ways. In order for something to be considered modern it must catch peoples attention and provide them an element of surprise and “un-knowness.” In order to create this surprise and interest the new object, idea, whatever it may be, must rebel against the “traditional way.” The thing or idea that is being replaced is not thought to be traditional or classic until something is there to replace it. Until it is replaced it may still be the modern way, because it replaced the old traditional way. Publish Post
Some examples of this concept:
-There are many different ways to raise children, years ago it may have been seen as appropriate and normal to spank your children or make them walk to school. When this way of parenting was replaced with giving children time outs and driving them to school it was seen as modern parenting techniques. The technique rebelled against the old way of strict roles and tough love so people thought of it is different and attention getting. Since this new way of parenting has become the norm older people who lived through the days of the first genre of parenting see the old way as traditional. Just because something is seen as traditional does not mean that it is the best option.
-New clothing styles are another good example of modernity revolting against normalized functions of tradition. The first time you see someone walking down the street in clothing that you find outrageous, you make think that they look terrible and are crazy. Then the style begins to catch on and eventually replaces the tradition clothing that everyone once wore. This new clothing will be seen as modern and the old way of dressing will be seen as classic or traditional.
yellowdaisy4, Habermas
I think Habermas was trying to explain how modernity is the change from what is old and traditional to what is new and different. He states “most recent modernism simply makes an abstract opposition between tradition and the present” which means that modernism is changing things like art for example to fit with changing society. I also really like the quote of “modernity revolts against the normalizing functions of tradition; modernity lives on the experience of rebelling against all that is normative”. I feel like this quote explains more of the change from things from classical to things that are more different and out there instead of what old and new. In terms of art, which Habermas references when explaining modernity, this concept makes me think of Andy Warhol. Andy Warhol took traditional art like portraits and still-lifes and made something completely different and new out of them. His painting of the different colors of portraits of Marilyn Monroe or the Cambell’s soup can show this change into modernity. This ties to the quote of “modernist culture has come to penetrate the values of everyday life” because Andy Warhol’s work was so different than classical art that it kind of threw people off a bit until the new colorful different kind of art emerged and slowly became more mainstream. Art like Andy Warhol’s also explains the avant-garde concept. What avant-garde is to me are people or things that are totally different from the norm and are imaginative and very creative. I feel like this concept has been present in most of our readings in explaining what modernism is. To me, what’s avant-garde especially in art is the most beautiful because it doesn’t bore you at all and reawakens your creativity and gives a new aesthetic experience. However, ironically it seems works that are avant-garde are becoming more common because now people want what is different from everything else which makes it kind of confusing to separate what is inspired non-conformity and what is more typical mainstream non-conformity.
Petite Etoile, Habermas, response to WoolyBully
This is somewhat of a continuation of WoolyBully's post, or a commentary at least. I have always struggled with the idea of the avant-garde and the non-conformists because generally from what I have seen it is a form of conformity all on its own. Yes those who truly break out of the norm and think outside of the box and create new and beautiful things because they were inspired to do so are avant-garde and non-conformists. But for the most part, at least in my experiences, people tend to strive for non-conformity simply to be known as non-conformist. The 'non-conformist' group of people at my school all seemed to look the same to me. They were all different and 'weird', not in a derogatory sense but in the fact that they dressed and did things that were different from the mainstream people, but they all did it in the same way. They all wear the same type of 'edgy' clothes and have the same 'edgy' haircuts and listen to the same 'underground' music. They don't allow themselves to wear what everyone else is wearing, which to me is a limitation not a freedom. I see myself as non-conformist because I wear whatever I want regardless of whether or not everyone else is too. So that style of jeans is very popular, but if I like how they look and fit I'm going to wear them because of that, not because everyone else is or isn't. There are also the artists who push themselves to be avant-garde because they know we live in a society now where a large portion of people will like it simply because it is different. They're not inspired to do what they do, they just create crazy random things because they know people will like it or it will be profitable. And maybe I'm going too deep into this, but I think that the best way to be avant-garde is to really just be who you want to be, not trying to be different on purpose or trying to be like everyone else either.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
WoolyBully7, Habermas
“The avant-garde must understands itself as invading unknown territory, exposing itself to the dangers of sudden, shocking encounters, conquering an as yet unoccupied future. The avant-garde must find a direction in a landscape into which no one seems to have yet ventured.”
– Habermas
Avant-garde refers to an expressive piece of culture that is experimental and also has never been tried before. The term originated as a military troop that first advanced into battle in unknown territory. Now, in the Habermas quote, it refers more closely to that original definition but instead of used in military purposes, it is in our culture, art and politics. As far as art goes, avant-garde is very powerful. It is often used for social reforms and protests, stirring up emotions of the public. Wikipedia says avant-garde-ism is manifested within non-conformists. What does that even mean? Who is to say who conforms and who doesn’t? We all conform or non-conform in our own ways.
Avant-Gardes go against anything popular and put a great emphasis on uniqueness and inidividuality. They are interested in the newest and most creative things, not a traditional item or event. Avant-Gardes and Modernity go hand in hand. “Modernity revolts against the normalizing functions of tradition; modernity lives in the experience of rebelling against all that is normative.” Modernity and A-G both want to change the future, something completely innovative that has never been thought of or done before.
000ooo000ooo Habermas
I am still struggling a lot to really get a grip of what "postmodernity" is. Every author we've read has a lot to say about every other school of thought and a lot to say about what postmodernity is not, but no one has actually said what it is, what it means, or why it is useful. Given this the readings continue to confuse and, sometimes, frustrate me as authors go around in circles talking about movements and ideas that I know very little about while never actually coming to any concrete conclusions. However, with each author we read I find one more possibility for what postmodernity might be. This time I find an explanation in this quote on page 99: "This most recent form of modernism simply makes an abstract opposition between tradition and the present..." This thought seemed to be echoed throughout most of the article. There are things we deem "traditional", things that try to remake that tradition, and things that are genuinely new. Modernism then is the things that are genuinely new. This still begs the question, what is postmodernism?
From this the best explanation I can see is that postmodernism is a way of thinking that denies the dichotomy between "old and new" or "classic and modern". Postmodernism realizes that everything we do is connected to our past because everything that we know, believe, fear, desire, etc. all comes from both our personal and cultural history. Thus, any distinction we draw between classic and modern is both untrue and useless. We need to recognize our connection to the past and incorporate that into the present. We need to do this because our past is all we know. Even someone who thinks they are being entirely modern and breaking off from the past is using ideas, signifiers, and concepts from the past. This is how we operate and we can't escape from it. If we totally left the past behind us w would have nothing left, nothing would have any meaning to us. Hence, there is no modern, no classic or tradition. Everything we have done accumulates into the here and now and gives us the broad category of postmodern.
From this the best explanation I can see is that postmodernism is a way of thinking that denies the dichotomy between "old and new" or "classic and modern". Postmodernism realizes that everything we do is connected to our past because everything that we know, believe, fear, desire, etc. all comes from both our personal and cultural history. Thus, any distinction we draw between classic and modern is both untrue and useless. We need to recognize our connection to the past and incorporate that into the present. We need to do this because our past is all we know. Even someone who thinks they are being entirely modern and breaking off from the past is using ideas, signifiers, and concepts from the past. This is how we operate and we can't escape from it. If we totally left the past behind us w would have nothing left, nothing would have any meaning to us. Hence, there is no modern, no classic or tradition. Everything we have done accumulates into the here and now and gives us the broad category of postmodern.
Dot, Habermas
It is obvious that Habermas is a very intelligent man and that he definitely believed in and was very passionate about what he was writing about. When reading his work it seems apparent that he wanted everyone to know of his intelligence and demonstrated it with intricate ideas and complex sentences, something that made his piece very hard to understand. However, I was struck by what I did comprehend and found it to be very insightful.
He states that "whatever can survive time has always been considered to be a classic", but goes on to say that in this day and age, this is not the characteristic something must have to be deemed a classic (99). Modern things, in this sense meaning something newly created, can be thought of as classic if "it has once been authentically modern". For example, we all know what classical music is. If I have recently composed a piece of music that fits into the classical genre, it is still considered to be classical because of the style it is done in, not the time period. We can also look at cars. Although a car may have been made in the year 2009 to resemble those of the 20's, we call it a classic even though it is actually modern because of its looks. We would not call the car modern, modern cars are something more "new age".
Habermas later says that "the relation between 'modern' and 'classical' has definitely lost a fixed historical reference". I agree with what he is saying and I do not believe I would have realized this or its significance without Habermas pointing it out. How do we know what is a true classic if we are recreating classics everyday? Shouldn't there be another word to describe the modern works turned classic so that we may cherish the real classics that we still have? What will future generations hold as classic or important if we are reinventing it all?
Monday, February 9, 2009
kuloco, Habermas
“Since then, the distinguishing mark of works which counts as modern is ‘the new’ which will be overcome and made obsolete through the novelty of the next style. But while that which is merely ‘stylish’ will soon become outmoded, that which is modern preserves a secret tie to the classical. Of course, whatever can survive time has always been considered to be a classic” (99).
I think it is interesting how Habermas describes modernity, especially in relation to the term “the new”. Obviously, to be modern is to understand the demand of the present public opinion. Modern is only a fleeting moment in time. When I read this quote and the rest of the article, I thought about trends in our society. We have all looked at past pictures—maybe of parents or grandparents—and asked: “What were they thinking?” But, by using Habermas’s thoughts on modernity, we understand that things change. What was considered “stylish” when that picture was taken seems outdated and maybe even odd when looked at today. The things that become timeless are those that can be defined as classic, even if they once started as a “new” or modern idea.
Trends also pertain to advertising, especially in a society that is as consumer-driven as ours. The majority of advertisements we see on a daily basis are promoting something that is “new.” Media has created the ideology that we must consume what is new, because we have begun to use the terms new and better synonymously. In example, we could take a look at another photograph—one of a vehicle your parents owned and the one you may own now. This gives a view of the differences in our society and the technological advances in creating “new” products.
The other thing that I found interesting about the article was Habermas’s comparison of the different variations of modernity: antimodernism, premodernism and postmodernism. These terms combine the different progressions away from modernity. This also relates to trends, drawing examples from different time periods that can still be seen in society today.
I think it is interesting how Habermas describes modernity, especially in relation to the term “the new”. Obviously, to be modern is to understand the demand of the present public opinion. Modern is only a fleeting moment in time. When I read this quote and the rest of the article, I thought about trends in our society. We have all looked at past pictures—maybe of parents or grandparents—and asked: “What were they thinking?” But, by using Habermas’s thoughts on modernity, we understand that things change. What was considered “stylish” when that picture was taken seems outdated and maybe even odd when looked at today. The things that become timeless are those that can be defined as classic, even if they once started as a “new” or modern idea.
Trends also pertain to advertising, especially in a society that is as consumer-driven as ours. The majority of advertisements we see on a daily basis are promoting something that is “new.” Media has created the ideology that we must consume what is new, because we have begun to use the terms new and better synonymously. In example, we could take a look at another photograph—one of a vehicle your parents owned and the one you may own now. This gives a view of the differences in our society and the technological advances in creating “new” products.
The other thing that I found interesting about the article was Habermas’s comparison of the different variations of modernity: antimodernism, premodernism and postmodernism. These terms combine the different progressions away from modernity. This also relates to trends, drawing examples from different time periods that can still be seen in society today.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
jl0630 - 2.5.09
The way we see and internalize media is particularly linked to Lyotard’s notion of verisimilitude that we talked about in class on Thursday. Verisimilitude is the idea that we’re recreating an appearance of truth. A great example of is the famous scene in the Russian movie, Battleship Potemkin, called the Odessa steps.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J74IKt8rxkQ
This particular scene is considered one of the greatest manipulations in history because although there was unrest in Russia at this time, this particular battle never occurred. When Battleship Potemkin first aired abroad, however, there were many riots at against what its viewers thought had happened at Odessa.
This goes to show how easily influenced we are, especially by the media and film. The concept of what is reality and what is not becomes very confusing and is often internalized when having nothing else to support it. It also makes us start to question who the people behind the media are, and what are their motives? To briefly reiterate what we learned in CMC 100, the power behind advertisements and its depictions have greatly influenced not only our ideas of who we are, what we should be, and how we should look like – but they have influenced the eyes abroad as well.
One last thing to wrap up what we were talking about in class on Thursday is how we have gotten so simple-minded that when we watch a movie it is not, “how was it?”… it is, “did you like it or not?” There is no depth to the latter and it is almost alarming to think that we can get away with such minimalism. As a critic under Critical Media and Cultural Studies, I am making a personal vow to never catch myself asking or responding to such unassuming questions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J74IKt8rxkQ
This particular scene is considered one of the greatest manipulations in history because although there was unrest in Russia at this time, this particular battle never occurred. When Battleship Potemkin first aired abroad, however, there were many riots at against what its viewers thought had happened at Odessa.
This goes to show how easily influenced we are, especially by the media and film. The concept of what is reality and what is not becomes very confusing and is often internalized when having nothing else to support it. It also makes us start to question who the people behind the media are, and what are their motives? To briefly reiterate what we learned in CMC 100, the power behind advertisements and its depictions have greatly influenced not only our ideas of who we are, what we should be, and how we should look like – but they have influenced the eyes abroad as well.
One last thing to wrap up what we were talking about in class on Thursday is how we have gotten so simple-minded that when we watch a movie it is not, “how was it?”… it is, “did you like it or not?” There is no depth to the latter and it is almost alarming to think that we can get away with such minimalism. As a critic under Critical Media and Cultural Studies, I am making a personal vow to never catch myself asking or responding to such unassuming questions.
Spaghetti, 2/8/09
I would like to respond to WollyBully7's post about the notion of non-conforming, or the avant-garde. Lyotard conveys the notion that the current creative environment is not conducive to the new, the creative, the avante-garde. He recognizes, just as WollyBully7 has pointed out, the prevalence of the "cookie-cutter theory." As Doc Rog pointed out, nothing new is really accepted with open arms in the art world anymore. I remember he used the example of a TV show idea. he said that it is unlikely that someone would propose a completely new concept to a production company, because, as Lyotard agrees, the whole purpose of art (at least in our competitive capitalist society) is to make money. So naturally, producers are going to want to create something that they know will easily generate revenue, and the best determiner of that is history, or what has done well in the past, and they attempt to mirror that model.
I got to wondering in class however, about the concept of "new," or of "avant-garde." We defined value as determinable by popularity or demand. Therefore, reality TV shows such as "The Real World" are popular because they have done well in the past and are eaten up by the public. however, didn't the concept for htat show have to be original at some point? Doc Rog told us a story about a student he had in the past hwo came up with an idea for a show similar to that of "The Real World," and he told us that he and his fellow collegues shot the idea down, criticizing it for it's marketability and eventual success (as measured by revenue, of course). Lo and behold, "The Real World" has now been successfully airing for several seasons. So at some point, that concept had to be new.
So in terms of the Baldwin Park example, sure for the insider's view, all the houses look alike and it can be a somewhat bland neighborhood (an excellent example of urbane urbanism). I would argue, however, that the neighborhood as a whole was once an original concept that was new and different from past plans. And different doesn't always mean unsuccessful. For Baldwin Park, I would say the project proved to be very successful. Lots of people live there, the stores and schools have good business, so by our capitalist standards, it is a relatively successful place. And in evaluating it in terms of being an "avant-garde" concept, I think at one point, that type of project was.
I got to wondering in class however, about the concept of "new," or of "avant-garde." We defined value as determinable by popularity or demand. Therefore, reality TV shows such as "The Real World" are popular because they have done well in the past and are eaten up by the public. however, didn't the concept for htat show have to be original at some point? Doc Rog told us a story about a student he had in the past hwo came up with an idea for a show similar to that of "The Real World," and he told us that he and his fellow collegues shot the idea down, criticizing it for it's marketability and eventual success (as measured by revenue, of course). Lo and behold, "The Real World" has now been successfully airing for several seasons. So at some point, that concept had to be new.
So in terms of the Baldwin Park example, sure for the insider's view, all the houses look alike and it can be a somewhat bland neighborhood (an excellent example of urbane urbanism). I would argue, however, that the neighborhood as a whole was once an original concept that was new and different from past plans. And different doesn't always mean unsuccessful. For Baldwin Park, I would say the project proved to be very successful. Lots of people live there, the stores and schools have good business, so by our capitalist standards, it is a relatively successful place. And in evaluating it in terms of being an "avant-garde" concept, I think at one point, that type of project was.
Trapnest, 2/8
There is a certain extent to which I would disagree with Lyotard and his argumentation that we feel that what we see should represent reality. While I think that this is most definitely true in some aspects, for example the picture of the ad for the hamburger. When we see something in an advertisement we want it to look exactly like reality, and often times will be upset if, or rather when it does not. How many times have one of us ordered something offline and have been sorely disappointed when we’ve gotten it in the mail because it looks nothing like what we expected?
But I also challenge this notion in our culture, in that what we want to see is a hybrid reality. Something that is crafted just for us, which we realize is inherently un-real but often will desire it more because of that. The whole entertainment industry is based on this. If you approach ten people and ask them if they think the reality TV shows are “real” I would feel that most of them would say no. But it doesn’t make for good television to say something is completely fake, because then the audience cannot relate at all.
As a result I think that this does support his later point where people begin to confuse what is “really real” as opposed to the construction. If we know that most of it is constructed, but have that “real” persona attached it can most certainly blur the lines of understanding. Think of how many movies support the creation of a false reality but push the envelope and intentionally blur the line for their consumers. The Blair Witch Project is something that comes to mind. One of the first movies to use viral marketing extensively it created a whole world for the Blair Witch to reside in, and a real feeling to a fake movie. All of this added to the movie’s popularity because there was a time where it was unknown if it was a movie, or the collected film of three lost children who went into the woods and encountered an unfortunate fate. We wanted something I think that we all knew had to be false to be real, and I just question, why do we have this desire?
But I also challenge this notion in our culture, in that what we want to see is a hybrid reality. Something that is crafted just for us, which we realize is inherently un-real but often will desire it more because of that. The whole entertainment industry is based on this. If you approach ten people and ask them if they think the reality TV shows are “real” I would feel that most of them would say no. But it doesn’t make for good television to say something is completely fake, because then the audience cannot relate at all.
As a result I think that this does support his later point where people begin to confuse what is “really real” as opposed to the construction. If we know that most of it is constructed, but have that “real” persona attached it can most certainly blur the lines of understanding. Think of how many movies support the creation of a false reality but push the envelope and intentionally blur the line for their consumers. The Blair Witch Project is something that comes to mind. One of the first movies to use viral marketing extensively it created a whole world for the Blair Witch to reside in, and a real feeling to a fake movie. All of this added to the movie’s popularity because there was a time where it was unknown if it was a movie, or the collected film of three lost children who went into the woods and encountered an unfortunate fate. We wanted something I think that we all knew had to be false to be real, and I just question, why do we have this desire?
Savvy, 2.5.09
"So-called realistic representations can no longer evoke reality except as nostalgia or mockery" (40).
I thought that Tina Fey was a perfect example of what Lyotard was trying to convey to his readers. When we were watching the clip in class I thought that it really related to this quote. Tina Fey looks so much like Sara Palin and uses what Palin has said for mockery. I though it was interesting that Dr.Casey kept pointing out to us during the clip that the lines Tina Fey was saying were really words that Palin had said in "reality". The only difference is that Tina was was using the lines in the clip for mockery and the audience found them to be funny. Tina was using the representation of Sarah Palin to evoke reality for mockery.
"Eclecticism is the degree zero of contemporary general culture." (42)
Dr.Casey told us that this is one of Lyotards most famous quotes. I think that this is one of the most important quotes to take from Lyotard. I can help but to look at the world that we live in and find different people and cultures interacting. This quote is representative of a mix of cultures all coming together. I really think of New York City when I read this quote. America is an example of this quote because of all the different cultures and people we have in our country. You can be walking down the sidewalk and see so many different people from all around the country and the world in just one block. It is kind of like when making a soup. You put all these different ingredients together, thinking that they wouldn't taste good, but they do. As Dr. Casey said, it if going to a salad bar, getting all the different food, and then tossing the salad. I think that this quote is most symbolic of our culture and the direction that our current culture is going in.
I thought that Tina Fey was a perfect example of what Lyotard was trying to convey to his readers. When we were watching the clip in class I thought that it really related to this quote. Tina Fey looks so much like Sara Palin and uses what Palin has said for mockery. I though it was interesting that Dr.Casey kept pointing out to us during the clip that the lines Tina Fey was saying were really words that Palin had said in "reality". The only difference is that Tina was was using the lines in the clip for mockery and the audience found them to be funny. Tina was using the representation of Sarah Palin to evoke reality for mockery.
"Eclecticism is the degree zero of contemporary general culture." (42)
Dr.Casey told us that this is one of Lyotards most famous quotes. I think that this is one of the most important quotes to take from Lyotard. I can help but to look at the world that we live in and find different people and cultures interacting. This quote is representative of a mix of cultures all coming together. I really think of New York City when I read this quote. America is an example of this quote because of all the different cultures and people we have in our country. You can be walking down the sidewalk and see so many different people from all around the country and the world in just one block. It is kind of like when making a soup. You put all these different ingredients together, thinking that they wouldn't taste good, but they do. As Dr. Casey said, it if going to a salad bar, getting all the different food, and then tossing the salad. I think that this quote is most symbolic of our culture and the direction that our current culture is going in.
WoolyBully7, 2/8
“Let us wage a war on totality.”
-Lyotard
Let us fight against complete, centralized systems. Let us fight similarity and praise individuality. As much as I love people who go against the grain and try to be their own unique person, a lot of bad has happened from people who hate conforming. Everything we see today is a reflection of society and is trying to make us conform. Gossip magazines tell you what the celebrities are buying and wearing so you can go get it and be just like them rather than buying you truly want, not because someone famous promotes it. The only person who should tell you what to be is yourself. The same goes for housing developments. If you have driven by Baldwin Park recently you know exactly, exactly what I mean.
It’s called the cookie cutter theory. Sure it’s a very nice neighborhood with a lot of benefits but it’s just so insipid and tasteless. Sorry to anyone who lives there but there was honestly hardly any creativity involved in its construction. I go there almost every day to eat, shop or visit someone but it is really a strange place. I was driving by the elementary school on the main road, I saw kids out at recess and I wondered if those kids knew they lived in such a bland area. I mean growing up in a neighborhood like BP is not reality. That’s just me thinking. It really is like the movie Pleasantville. No crime, no loose ends, a straight edged community. One of the main reasons people conform is because they are afraid of being too much of an outcast. Sure on the outside most of us may have a couple designer items but who we are, our attitudes, opinions, beliefs, hobbies, inspirations, goals, that make us not conform since no two people are exactly alike.
-Lyotard
Let us fight against complete, centralized systems. Let us fight similarity and praise individuality. As much as I love people who go against the grain and try to be their own unique person, a lot of bad has happened from people who hate conforming. Everything we see today is a reflection of society and is trying to make us conform. Gossip magazines tell you what the celebrities are buying and wearing so you can go get it and be just like them rather than buying you truly want, not because someone famous promotes it. The only person who should tell you what to be is yourself. The same goes for housing developments. If you have driven by Baldwin Park recently you know exactly, exactly what I mean.
It’s called the cookie cutter theory. Sure it’s a very nice neighborhood with a lot of benefits but it’s just so insipid and tasteless. Sorry to anyone who lives there but there was honestly hardly any creativity involved in its construction. I go there almost every day to eat, shop or visit someone but it is really a strange place. I was driving by the elementary school on the main road, I saw kids out at recess and I wondered if those kids knew they lived in such a bland area. I mean growing up in a neighborhood like BP is not reality. That’s just me thinking. It really is like the movie Pleasantville. No crime, no loose ends, a straight edged community. One of the main reasons people conform is because they are afraid of being too much of an outcast. Sure on the outside most of us may have a couple designer items but who we are, our attitudes, opinions, beliefs, hobbies, inspirations, goals, that make us not conform since no two people are exactly alike.
Scorpio, 2/5
Our class discussion about Lyotard was very interesting. After class, I thought a lot about society, art, and the need to move aesthetics from “taste” to historical “problems of existence”. As viewers in this postmodern world, we are consumed by the notions of “like” and “dislike”. For example, last night I attended a just-released movie at the theater. Sitting in the audience, I couldn’t help but to look around at my fellow movie-goers (I admit I enjoy people watching). I found it a little comical that even though the movie was packed with young and old, males and females, every race, perhaps difference in sexuality as well, once the previews started, EVERYONE became a movie critic. I find it hard to believe that a 30 second preview can take into account an entire film and yet there were people whispering after every end clip if they enjoyed the content or not. I relate this back to Lyotard because I can now see that audience perception to art has shifted into like and dislike instead of the appreciative nature that art brings.
I attend a reading by the Nobel Prize winning poet Derek Walcott (as part of Winter With The Writers, 2009) on Thursday as well. With Lyotard fresh on my mind, I listened to Walcott recite poems about culture, Africa, the sea, and even Barack Obama. During the question and answer portion of the night, Walcott expressed his ideas about poetry. When asked who he believes are the best poets of the 20th century (post-modern era), he could not answer just a few names. He went on to say that if you asked an artist how many pieces they truly thought were works of art, they might say only a small percentage of their creations. For poets, Walcott said, may only pick 5 or 6 lines as their best work. He also said that if we combined theses lines, the world might have only 4 pages of actual art that was exceedingly wonderful. This answer surprised me, because Lyotard would have agreed that art is only great once somebody puts a price sticker on it. In addition, Walcott stated that if he only created 6 lines of pure art in his life, he would be content with his contribution to the greater world of artistry.
I attend a reading by the Nobel Prize winning poet Derek Walcott (as part of Winter With The Writers, 2009) on Thursday as well. With Lyotard fresh on my mind, I listened to Walcott recite poems about culture, Africa, the sea, and even Barack Obama. During the question and answer portion of the night, Walcott expressed his ideas about poetry. When asked who he believes are the best poets of the 20th century (post-modern era), he could not answer just a few names. He went on to say that if you asked an artist how many pieces they truly thought were works of art, they might say only a small percentage of their creations. For poets, Walcott said, may only pick 5 or 6 lines as their best work. He also said that if we combined theses lines, the world might have only 4 pages of actual art that was exceedingly wonderful. This answer surprised me, because Lyotard would have agreed that art is only great once somebody puts a price sticker on it. In addition, Walcott stated that if he only created 6 lines of pure art in his life, he would be content with his contribution to the greater world of artistry.
PetiteEtoile, 02-05-09
I though the class discussion about realism and verisimilitude was very interesting and something that has a large effect on our society and should be given more attention to. Dr. Rog was poking fun at the president for attacking a fictional character in his speech. But I think that he was right, it doesn’t matter that the characters aren’t real, they still have a huge effect on the psychii of the public. I’m not agreeing that the show was dismantling family values, but I do believe that shows have the power to do so and that other shows have. And it’s not just family values that shows have an effect on. Self esteem in young girls has plummeted and eating disorders have sky rocketed as the average weight of a model or actress on television has consistently dropped since the they first began to air. Stereotypes that were once just milling about in the air, maybe underlying in our toys and in our education, are now being pounded into the minds of children beginning at a very young age and almost for the rest of their lives. Girls are suppose to be skinny, pretty, sweet. Boys are suppose to be rugged, manly, and unemotional. So as children watch these perfect people live their perfect lives on television, they must begin to realize the difference between themselves and those people, and eventually come to the realization that because they are not like them they are less. And this is just the surface, there are many violent acts such as the shooting at Columbine that have been linked to movies or television shows or music. I know that in Brazil the public is so convinced of the realism of their soap operas, that if someone is a bad character on television, that actor will actually be harassed in real life. People will actually yell at them and curse them out as if though they had really killed their only son to marry their cousin or whatever scandal it is that week. And if you could spy in on the conversations, you would think they were talking about real people when you see the emotions on their faces as they discuss so and so’s beautiful wedding or so and so’s tragic death. I think when we created television we thought it was simply a form of entertainment, we had no idea the real beast we have brought to life, all the risks and dangers and new elements that it brought with it. I think it is something that should not be taken lightly, for once a child’s mind has been geared to have low self-esteem, violence and disrespect for authority, it is very difficult almost impossible to ever get that innocence back again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)