“Does reality actually outstrip fiction?” – Baudrillard
I find it interesting that we have evolved into a media climate in which we have to question if reality is more interesting than fiction. Historically, I think that it is fair to say the distinction between reality and fiction has been both clear on which is more desired, or which can “outstrip” the other. The reasoning I feel for this is simply technology. If you look into the past information traveled much slower and media forms were much simpler and limited. Limited in medium and also in who had the capacity to create. True, there were a lot of “tall tales” in circulation I am sure, but overall I believe that reality could easily outstrip fiction.
Now everything has reached a sensationalized peak, in which we are put into a position of “hyperstimulated sensitivity” as Habermas would say. The simulacric world of media, I feel, donates most to this hyperstimulation. The rationale for this, is I feel that to achieve a changed reality you need to over stimulate the consumer to believe in a false reality. To use the same example we used in class of Johnny Rockets to acheve the simulacric and create a sense of nostalgia for something that never existed the restaurant needs to create a whole world. Everything the consumer interacts needs to re-enforce this feeling and emotion within them. Otherwise the illusion would fail and the consumer would not have a simulacric experience. Baudrillard gives another example of this when bringing up Disney:
“Disneyland exists in order to hide the fact that it is the “real” country… Disneyland is presented as imaginary in order to make us believe that the rest is real…”
Disney is an even more literal translation in that they create a whole world for their consumers to engage with through their products and theme parks. To keep up this façade they go through great lengths, for example, have you ever seen the “behind the scenes” of Disney? They keep things tight lipped, with no cameras are allowed behind the façade.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
WoolyBully7, 2/21
I felt that Thursday’s class was one of our more insightful classes, everyone in the room could relate the material in one way or another to some aspect of their life whether it be watching TV with their family at home or living in NY during 9/11. I also feel that Baudrillard and Zizek were a little easier to read, maybe its just that their work is a little more contemporary, I don’t know. Also, Dr. Casey picked some great images that really corresponded, to a T, what we had read, especially Zizek’s quote, “was not the framing of the shot itself reminiscent of spectacular shots in catastrophe movies?” and The Towers picture. I think as shocking as the 9/11 images are, having feature film recreations of that day make it a little more “tolerable” and not as shocking.
I think movies like that demean the actual real events. A movie cannot recreate an event like the way it originally was, which refers us back to Habermas, but then again war movies make the same argument. You obviously cannot recreate a live war event but death is kind of expected at times during war. Going to work in the morning in New York City and experiencing something like 9/11 is not expected by any means. I also think its interesting to look closer at the relationship between creators and the active partakers in the terror. In real life events, such as 9/11, the creators (terrorists) do it for the spectacle and the do-ers (subsidiary terrorists) do it to create an effect. In fictional events, such as movies, the creators (directors) do it create an effect amongst the viewers and the do-ers (actors) do it for the spectacle.
I think movies like that demean the actual real events. A movie cannot recreate an event like the way it originally was, which refers us back to Habermas, but then again war movies make the same argument. You obviously cannot recreate a live war event but death is kind of expected at times during war. Going to work in the morning in New York City and experiencing something like 9/11 is not expected by any means. I also think its interesting to look closer at the relationship between creators and the active partakers in the terror. In real life events, such as 9/11, the creators (terrorists) do it for the spectacle and the do-ers (subsidiary terrorists) do it to create an effect. In fictional events, such as movies, the creators (directors) do it create an effect amongst the viewers and the do-ers (actors) do it for the spectacle.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
brookes77, 2/19/09 class
In class today Dr. Casey put up picture of students from the Middle East holding signs in Arabic, the last sign to the left stated "Live Free or Die". When we were discussing with our peers I really did not believe this was real, i thought that the media had "photo shopped" the sign to mean something less serious and more of a joke. This immediately made me think of the website my dad introduced to me where you can pick a picture and Photoshop it to say what you want it to say then you can email to anyone. Because these pictures look so real, it is hard to see that this is fake. This is an example of how difficult the media it to understand what is real and what is not. I question everything I see on the news on in magazines or advertisements.
“The media is a part of the event, they are part or the terror.” This was such an interesting quote. To me this means that the media glamorizes an event good or bad, causing more publicity, which brings on fear or terror. This is what the news does every day they take an event and they make it a big enough deal about it causing an up rage. Then in class when we talked about how “terrorists” themselves do not primarily provoke real material damage, but for the spectacular effect of it. The media makes terror and fear over people worse by showing a bad event in the worst way, causing everyone to feel at danger. I would have never noticed that a lot of stories in the news, media, magazines are not real unless I took this class where I studied the underlying meaning that this is what the media is trying to enforce on people; a world of drama, danger, and insecurity.
yellowdaisy4, 2/19/09
I found the quote we discussed in class being “the media are part of the event, they are part of the terror” to really sum up a lot of what Baudrillard was talking about. What I take Baudrillard’s quote to mean is that an event isn’t truly an event unless it is covered by the media who really make it into whatever it becomes. I feel like the media are the ones who create the terror out of an event in the way they present it to the public. For example, you might not care about this crazy new virus or an escaped murderer miles away until the media presents in the way of “you’re in extreme danger so you must keep watching us so we can tell you what’s going on and what to do.” The Arabic protest picture is a great example in showing sometimes the media doesn’t really check it’s facts and shows things in order to get that shock value and people’s attention. Instead of thinking that the protest shown is an important revolutionary idea from college students and that they were smart enough to quote the American Revolution “live free or die” and manage get attention of western media, the media probably twisted it into something violent with the threat of death because the word die was present.
Connecting to shock value, it was really interesting to think about Zizek’s quote of “was not the framing of the shot itself reminiscent of spectacular shots in catastrophe movies?” I feel like a lot of us do this without even realizing it because when we are so awed by something. It’s as if it’s something fake from a movie because that is the only place we can connect it to like how in class pictures of 9/11 can remind of the alien movie “Independence Day”. In movies if you see an explosion a lot of people like to think to themselves how fake it looks or how the special effects are so obvious sometimes but when they see something like 9/11 videos or drive my a huge car accident, they can’t help but be shocked and can’t look away. It’s like when you are watching a movie you want to believe it’s real but when you see something that is actually real it’s hard to let yourself believe what you are seeing and sometimes then you wish it was fake effect in a movie.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Asyouwish 2/18/ Disney
This transparent world is designed both to conceal and reveal blatant traces of real and painful tensions"(126). For example in Disney's Aladdin deals with this idea of real painful tensions in that Jasmine and Aladdin are from two different social classes and thus are not to socialize let alone marry. Such an occurrence also takes place in Pocohontas where an native american girl is prohibited from interacting with the white man. Even movies such as Bambi feature a young child (or fawn in this case) losing their parent. Fox and Hound also features characters who because they are different animals are prohibited from being friends because one is supposed to be the predatory and the other the prey. Disney is full of these lifelike stories, most of these types of story-lines relate to historical occurrences that took place in real life. The discrimination that is forced between fox and hound is much like the discrimination that occurred within our own country during the 1960's. In my opinion many of the plots of disney films are based on that of historical moments and thus in there own way teach young children. While not all disney films teach a lesson of history, in my opinion they are least somewhat educational. In many of the disney movies a character falls victim to a problem that the other characters must help them resolve, thus showing the children that people (or characters with human-like traits) must help each other. Most disney movies are also about friendship, take the Lion King for example, Timone and Puma show their new friend how to get over his problems and when the problem comes back they help him resolve it. Friendship in disney movies is probably the most important plot theme and it is also one of the most important parts of real life. Thus by watching disney movies children learn many important aspects of life and history.
Trapnest, Baudrillard & Zizek
(I wasn’t sure if I should post on the reading that was scheduled for tomorrow or the old reading since we hadn’t really yet covered it. I decided to post on the older reading because I felt that’s what we’d be covering in class; I hope this isn’t too incorrect.)
“And was not the attack on the World Trade Center with regard to Hollywood catastrophe movies..." – Slavoj Zizek
One of the first things that crossed my mind upon reading this particular quote was the September 11th movies that followed the horrible events within a year or so after. Not just one movie, but at least two that I personally know of were produced, outside of documentaries. “World Trade Center” (2006) directed by Oliver Stone, and “United 93” (2006) directed by Paul Greengrass. Following the actual events by only five years while the War that followed as a result is still occurring most watching these films lived through the actual events and watched the endless news reels that ran those weeks. These movies are claimed to some extent to be based off of fact. But even if they were not I challenge the thought that people would treat them as fact none-the-less. With the incident so fresh in people’s minds, many people believe that with such a serious event you cannot show something that isn’t real or factual.
This analogy I formulated made me think of Baudrillard:
“How do things stand with the real event, then if reality is everywhere infiltrated by images, virtuality and fiction?”
In this example how can people rightly compare these movies to the actual events that took place, the “real” facts of the matter? If people assume everything is a little bit false, at least a tiny amount, then people would rightly be inclined to put stock in these movies as truth. The movie produces create their own reality over such a fresh and emotionally charged event that people naturally put a small amount of stock in what is being said. Even Zizek goes on to discuss how people almost want things to be sensationalized by the media, it is out “Paranoiac fantasy” and such we are presented with it at every turn producers can.
“And was not the attack on the World Trade Center with regard to Hollywood catastrophe movies..." – Slavoj Zizek
One of the first things that crossed my mind upon reading this particular quote was the September 11th movies that followed the horrible events within a year or so after. Not just one movie, but at least two that I personally know of were produced, outside of documentaries. “World Trade Center” (2006) directed by Oliver Stone, and “United 93” (2006) directed by Paul Greengrass. Following the actual events by only five years while the War that followed as a result is still occurring most watching these films lived through the actual events and watched the endless news reels that ran those weeks. These movies are claimed to some extent to be based off of fact. But even if they were not I challenge the thought that people would treat them as fact none-the-less. With the incident so fresh in people’s minds, many people believe that with such a serious event you cannot show something that isn’t real or factual.
This analogy I formulated made me think of Baudrillard:
“How do things stand with the real event, then if reality is everywhere infiltrated by images, virtuality and fiction?”
In this example how can people rightly compare these movies to the actual events that took place, the “real” facts of the matter? If people assume everything is a little bit false, at least a tiny amount, then people would rightly be inclined to put stock in these movies as truth. The movie produces create their own reality over such a fresh and emotionally charged event that people naturally put a small amount of stock in what is being said. Even Zizek goes on to discuss how people almost want things to be sensationalized by the media, it is out “Paranoiac fantasy” and such we are presented with it at every turn producers can.
CMCstudent, Dorfman & Mattelart
Dorfman and Mattelart talk about Walk Disney’s massive merchandise of characters. It is true that Disney characters and paraphernalia are abundant everywhere, not just in the U.S., but around the entire world. Honestly, I think it is a little ridiculous to have Disney characters on things such as lamps, rocking chairs, soap, and watches. I also could not believe the Disney comedy strips are translated into 30 languages and over one hundred countries! It is very true that we see the Disney trademark so often that it becomes invisible. This is especially true in the Central Florida area, where we are surrounded by everything Disney.
I think since Disney is based so much on characters it really lends itself to be universal, because one all can see themselves in it, and animals have a universal language (no one can understand). It goes through ideologies because it uses a universal language to talk to children and teach them ways of behavior. Fables are “full of valuable lessons in the way animals can teach us how to behave under the most difficult circumstances”(124). It is easier to be supportive of an animalistic character rather than actual people. When you put a person in a story other elements are always added in to define the person. When animals are used, they stay one-dimensional and are easier for children to understand. Hence, the name of the tale, the Rabbit and the Hare, not Bob and Jack.
Essentially everything can be brought back to politics, so to think that “politics cannot enter into areas of ‘pure entertainment;” is not true. Values are instilled in children all the time that reflect that of the countries. Since the country is run by politics, anything that is reflected by the country can be said to be political. Today, there is no such thing as “pure entertainment” and all should be questioned.
I think since Disney is based so much on characters it really lends itself to be universal, because one all can see themselves in it, and animals have a universal language (no one can understand). It goes through ideologies because it uses a universal language to talk to children and teach them ways of behavior. Fables are “full of valuable lessons in the way animals can teach us how to behave under the most difficult circumstances”(124). It is easier to be supportive of an animalistic character rather than actual people. When you put a person in a story other elements are always added in to define the person. When animals are used, they stay one-dimensional and are easier for children to understand. Hence, the name of the tale, the Rabbit and the Hare, not Bob and Jack.
Essentially everything can be brought back to politics, so to think that “politics cannot enter into areas of ‘pure entertainment;” is not true. Values are instilled in children all the time that reflect that of the countries. Since the country is run by politics, anything that is reflected by the country can be said to be political. Today, there is no such thing as “pure entertainment” and all should be questioned.
killla cam 2/18
I thought that the desert of real had really talked about the world trade center incident and hit it on the head but then i began to think and realized what they world trade center actually did. what happened when the world trade center incident occured is that we as people actually ebcame even more desensized and didnt even realize it. i realized as i looked back that after that happened our president started to say things like we will not be scared and that we together are strong as one. And as they showed the damage on tv people just became even more desensitized. Even more movies about killing and terroism came about. Even movies with the world trade disaster as the main plot. I couldnt beleive that after a year they made one about the disasters in new york. That just goes to show that we have no feeling what so ever and arent scared to be terroized over and over agian. I see even more games, movies, and books about scary things that we dont even realize effects us. we dont even stir.
Marie89, Dorfman and Mattelart
I find Disney to be a very interesting study as it is seen as encompassing the American Dream and all that America stands for. It is ironic, however, that there is so much to Disney that goes unnoticed that would imply otherwise. As a symbol of America, it contains a lot of aspects that are critiqued and questioned by those who dig deeper into the underlying motives of the once thought of, magical kingdom. On page 126, Dorfman and Mattelart state that, “The Disney world is sustained by rewards and punishments; it hides an iron hand with the velvet glove.” In other words, on the surface, Disney World is a place to make people happy and feel good about the world that they live in, when in reality, the basis on which Disney stands is corrupt and run by ulterior motives. “It enables the adult to partake of his own demons, provided they have been coated in the syrup of paradise, and that they travel there with the passport of innocence” (127). This sugar coated world of Disney has created an alter-reality for Americans. It allows them to dream and fantasize and let their dreams come true in a world where everything seems perfect. “Similarly readers find themselves caught between their desire and their reality, and in their attempt to escape to a purer realm, they only travel further back into their own traumas” (127). The truth is that Disney’s dream world is only a possibility because of sad realities. The ways in which Disney works through ideology convinces people of a false reality. In CMC200, we talked about how Disney omits parts of history that would suggest a negative view of Americanism. It is through this censoring that the American Dream seems to be a reality when it is only creating false hope for Americans, especially being the main attraction of America—a must see for all families.
Rico72, Dorfman
We recently read an article in CMC 200 about Disney World and it goes along with this one perfectly. Although the article we read focused more on political economy aspects of Disney, this article did a fantastic job of summing up the "Disney" feeling. The reason Disney world stays in business and charges such high prices is because there is no where else in the world (other than a Disney park somewhere else) that can give almost everyone the same exact feeling, being a child again. This is proven by the thousands of people that go to the parks each DAY! Since I work in a theme park (although not Disney), I can say that on the slowest days there are still going to be about 5,000+ people. On busy days, such as New Years Eve they will sometimes have to close the gates to the park and not let anyone else in because it is no longer "safe" according to the fire department. Dorfman perfectly states what brings people to want to pay to wait in lines and buy over-priced clothes to wear after getting sick on a ride and re-visiting their over-priced food.
"Nostalgically, he appropriates the "natural disposition" of the child in order to conceal the guilt arising from his own fall from grace; it is the price of redemption for his own condition. By the standards of his angelic model, he must judge himself guilty; as much as he needs this land of enchantment and salvation, he could never imagine it with the necessary purity. He could never turn into his own child. But this salvation only offers him an imperfect escape' it can never be so pure as to block off all his real life problems" (127).
Dorman is saying that when you go to Disney World as an adult, you wish you could see it from a child's eyes. When I go to Disney now it doesn't have the same magic it did when I was a kid. Parents bring their kids there so they can see the expressions on their face and they hope it will help them feel that special feeling again. Sadly, none of us ever will. Like Dorfman says, we lack the necessary purity. We will never be able to forget about our real life problems that we have matured and come to understand. It's a little depressing to think about honestly...so hopefully this will both be slightly relevant...and put a smile on your face!
"Nostalgically, he appropriates the "natural disposition" of the child in order to conceal the guilt arising from his own fall from grace; it is the price of redemption for his own condition. By the standards of his angelic model, he must judge himself guilty; as much as he needs this land of enchantment and salvation, he could never imagine it with the necessary purity. He could never turn into his own child. But this salvation only offers him an imperfect escape' it can never be so pure as to block off all his real life problems" (127).
Dorman is saying that when you go to Disney World as an adult, you wish you could see it from a child's eyes. When I go to Disney now it doesn't have the same magic it did when I was a kid. Parents bring their kids there so they can see the expressions on their face and they hope it will help them feel that special feeling again. Sadly, none of us ever will. Like Dorfman says, we lack the necessary purity. We will never be able to forget about our real life problems that we have matured and come to understand. It's a little depressing to think about honestly...so hopefully this will both be slightly relevant...and put a smile on your face!
Asyouwish 2/18/ Disney
This transparent world is designed both to conceal and reveal blatant traces of real and painful tensions"(126). For example in Disney's Aladdin deals with this idea of real painful tensions in that Jasmine and Aladdin are from two different social classes and thus are not to socialize let alone marry. Such an occurrence also takes place in Pocohontas where an native american girl is prohibited from interacting with the white man. Even movies such as Bambi feature a young child (or fawn in this case) losing their parent. Fox and Hound also features characters who because they are different animals are prohibited from being friends because one is supposed to be the predatory and the other the prey. Disney is full of these lifelike stories, most of these types of story-lines relate to historical occurrences that took place in real life. The discrimination that is forced between fox and hound is much like the discrimination that occurred within our own country during the 1960's. In my opinion many of the plots of disney films are based on that of historical moments and thus in there own way teach young children. While not all disney films teach a lesson of history, in my opinion they are least somewhat educational. In many of the disney movies a character falls victim to a problem that the other characters must help them resolve, thus showing the children that people (or characters with human-like traits) must help each other. Most disney movies are also about friendship, take the Lion King for example, Timone and Puma show their new friend how to get over his problems and when the problem comes back they help him resolve it. Friendship in disney movies is probably the most important plot theme and it is also one of the most important parts of real life. Thus by watching disney movies children learn many important aspects of life and history.
Super!Geek, 2/18, Žižek
As I was getting ready to write this blog I decided to turn on my TV. It was likely a procrastination tool, the television would have distracted me until I got too fed up with not being productive and turned it off. The anxiety of not writing a decent blog in the allotted time would have prompted me to write a semi-decent blog with a few moments to spare. If Žižek were to categorize it, he would say it was all the the blog with little of the real thought, more stream of conscious than concise ideas. So of course, I turned on, only to have The Matrix greet me. Seriously. And in a move that made me actually question if I was in the Matrix or not, the scene we viewed in class on Tuesday was playing. In it the character of Morpheus states, "You've been living in a dream world, Neo. This is the world as it exists today. Welcome to the desert of the real." I feel like this essay just might have been the 'desert of the real' for me.
To say Zizek blew my mind might be an understatement. Of all the theorists we have read so far, it is Zizek who has truly captured my attention; beyond just reading the text, it spoke to me. Simply put, within the 21st century, we live in a world of fantasy. It is what we are inundated with on a regular basis, and it is upon the principles of each fantasy that we lead our lives. Our construction of what is real and unreal is predicated upon the systems put forth by the fantasy. But because the fantasy is so deeply engrained in us, it actually functions as our reality. Zizek’s illustrates this idea in his discussion of the 9/11 attacks and the images we saw of it in the following days. In describing our reaction to the attacks, Zizek states, “It is not that reality entered our image: the image entered and shattered our reality (i.e. the symbolic coordinates which determine what we experience as reality.)” In moments where we are faced with real, tangible tragedy or strife, it is common that we react in shock. Yet the shock of the moment is truly powerful in that it makes us realize how detached we actually were from reality before the tragedy occurred.
The discussion of the WTC attacks made me reconsider what I remembered from that period of time. What particularly struck me as I re-examined my memory of those broadcasts was that the images we viewed were almost always of the WTC. Occasionally, CNN would show the Pentagon or the field in Pennsylvania where Flight 93 went down, but the overwhelming majority of those images where of the planes hitting the towers then crashing down. Those images resonated so deeply in a way because it led to the realization that we were not untouchable, contrary to what the fantasy told us. But the fantasy may also be interpreted differently by each generation and subset viewing it. In reading Zizek, I also found myself thinking about what we watch on the news. We are constantly berated with stories of rapist, missing children, and shootings. Yet those in this generation and the one prior to it, do not truly fear being affected by these maladies. Even though many would claim we live in the era of ‘the culture of fear’ the reality of that statement is questionable. Yes, many lead paranoid lives by standards of the past, but for the Millennial, real terror does not seem to exist. Are idea of reality is founded in part upon images of destruction and mayhem. To us, random and persistent crime, murder, and even poverty are norms rather than aberrations. Zizek ends his essay by stating that we should take a deeper examination of where we have seen images like 9/11 before. We must look beyond the surface of each moment to see what the foundation of it is. Those who created the tragedy did so for the pure spectacle of it, to see how we would react to a new reality. Yet the spectacle was not new and it is likely not the last time we will see it. All we have to do is see the ‘Jason’ movie or The Dark Knight to recapture it again and again.
To say Zizek blew my mind might be an understatement. Of all the theorists we have read so far, it is Zizek who has truly captured my attention; beyond just reading the text, it spoke to me. Simply put, within the 21st century, we live in a world of fantasy. It is what we are inundated with on a regular basis, and it is upon the principles of each fantasy that we lead our lives. Our construction of what is real and unreal is predicated upon the systems put forth by the fantasy. But because the fantasy is so deeply engrained in us, it actually functions as our reality. Zizek’s illustrates this idea in his discussion of the 9/11 attacks and the images we saw of it in the following days. In describing our reaction to the attacks, Zizek states, “It is not that reality entered our image: the image entered and shattered our reality (i.e. the symbolic coordinates which determine what we experience as reality.)” In moments where we are faced with real, tangible tragedy or strife, it is common that we react in shock. Yet the shock of the moment is truly powerful in that it makes us realize how detached we actually were from reality before the tragedy occurred.
The discussion of the WTC attacks made me reconsider what I remembered from that period of time. What particularly struck me as I re-examined my memory of those broadcasts was that the images we viewed were almost always of the WTC. Occasionally, CNN would show the Pentagon or the field in Pennsylvania where Flight 93 went down, but the overwhelming majority of those images where of the planes hitting the towers then crashing down. Those images resonated so deeply in a way because it led to the realization that we were not untouchable, contrary to what the fantasy told us. But the fantasy may also be interpreted differently by each generation and subset viewing it. In reading Zizek, I also found myself thinking about what we watch on the news. We are constantly berated with stories of rapist, missing children, and shootings. Yet those in this generation and the one prior to it, do not truly fear being affected by these maladies. Even though many would claim we live in the era of ‘the culture of fear’ the reality of that statement is questionable. Yes, many lead paranoid lives by standards of the past, but for the Millennial, real terror does not seem to exist. Are idea of reality is founded in part upon images of destruction and mayhem. To us, random and persistent crime, murder, and even poverty are norms rather than aberrations. Zizek ends his essay by stating that we should take a deeper examination of where we have seen images like 9/11 before. We must look beyond the surface of each moment to see what the foundation of it is. Those who created the tragedy did so for the pure spectacle of it, to see how we would react to a new reality. Yet the spectacle was not new and it is likely not the last time we will see it. All we have to do is see the ‘Jason’ movie or The Dark Knight to recapture it again and again.
Brookes77, Zizek 2/19/09
In Zizecks reading, "Welcome to the Desert of the Real", scared me in a way because i have never thought of my reaction of the WTC towers that way before. When i first watched the clips on the news hours after it had happen, i was in 7th grade and i was shocked, scared, and extremely upset. I did think i had ever seen anything more terrible on the news or in movies. Yes i was young, and had not been very experienced with the news or movies, it still did not feel like reality. Yet as i look back, i had seen many other movies that inflict danger, pain and death. This caused my reaction of the event to be extremely upset, yet i had seen this before. Since this terrible event, the media is making us, as we learned in CMC 200 have a fear of everything. When Zizeck quotes " It is not reality entered our image: The image entered and shattered our reality", it really made this clear. Since the WTC towers were replayed over and over again on the news, it opened the door to Hollywood to produce more movies with the same amount or even more danger, death, pain and fear shown. Movies like Vantage Point gave me the same kind of fear as it did when i saw the clips of the WTC, and there are many more movies like this; showing terrorism and causing fear to all viewers. This is becoming a very bad thing for our society. It is actually as the reading said "shattering our reality". There are two sides to what i am trying to argue. First this overplaying of movies like this is causing everyone to fear everything, and second some of us are not taking the WTC disaster seriously enough now because of all these new movies that are being made. We are starting to not know what is real and what we should fear on the news and in movies and most importantly in real life. This is making it a scary reality.
MerryChristmas!, Dorfman & Matterlart
Disney has been an area of extensive critique and study among people for a long time. People like Dorfman and Matterlart attempt to understand why Disney is so successful and what it tell us about human nature. We discussed this issue thoroughly in CMC 200 and we came to the conclusion that Disney gives a false sense of history by eliminating the bad and emphasizing the good. Some argue that this is wrong while others argue that it isn't necessarily bad. We are, however, projecting this false sense of reality and what it used to be in the United States in the past. Dorfman and Matterlart's explanation of what Disney is attempting to do was rather interesting to me. They say, "The comics show the child as a miniature adult, enjoying an idealized, gilded, infancy which is really nothing but the adult projection of some magic era beyond the reach of the harsh discord of daily life." They call the era a magic one because it is truly portraying a life that did not exist. Perhaps the facts may be true, but this magic era is a very skewed version of reality. They then go on to say, "It is a plan for salvation which presupposes a primal stage within every existence, sheltered from contradictions and permitting imaginative escape. Juvenile literature, embodying purity, spontaneity, and natural virtue, while lacking in sex and violence, represents earthly paradise." This is also an interesting statement. By recreating the past in a positive light, the mastermind behind the project are creating this idea of earth that is impossible, thus calling it earthly paradise. Disney is a place where one can escape the earth in which they live and have that perception of earth altered. Another quote: "It guarantees man's own redemption as an adult: as long as there are children, he will have the pretext and means for self-gratification with the spectacle of his own dreams." Their explanation of why man tries to recreate this earthly, magical paradise was so eye-opening. Perhaps man is trying to redeem themselves from what they have become and how corrupt they have become by creating this mold of what they really want to happen.
DBA123, Dorfman and Mattelart
“Children’s comics are devised by adults, whose work is determined and justified by their idea of what a child is or should be.” (125)
I have always known that books and comics that are written by children are obviously produced by adults, but I had never thought as it is put in the context above. When parents tell their kids to do clean their room or go to bed they are conditioning them to behave in a certain way. But I had never thought of a children’s book as another way to teach a child a way to be, and further, a parent’s decision in which book or comic to read to their children is chosen by what its contexts contain. The fact that Dorfman and Mattelart bring up this issue and then relate it to basically everything Disney has ever created I found to be fascinating. I have always associated Disney with what all children grow up believing; Disney is magical. Not until college, and especially this article did I really sit down and think, Disney’s goal is not to keep children happy and entertained, showing them fairy tales and talking animals. It is to make money. To make money they need to please the parents, the ones buying their merchandise for their kids. Therefore, to keep parents buying, Disney needs to continue to produce material that shows talking animals and fairy tales. This happens to be is what parents believe is what a child should be watching and conditioning them to be the way they should be. Then it is interesting to think of some of the newer age baby books and movies. Take for instance, Baby Einstein, a new brand that produces educational videos and toys that show babies what colors are what, the alphabet, numbers, etc. This seems to be quite the opposite of Disney, showing them real, tangible things as opposed to fairy princesses being picked up on balconies by magic carpets. So which do we choose to show our children, how do we want them conditioned? It would be interesting to take a survey of what parents would choose.
I have always known that books and comics that are written by children are obviously produced by adults, but I had never thought as it is put in the context above. When parents tell their kids to do clean their room or go to bed they are conditioning them to behave in a certain way. But I had never thought of a children’s book as another way to teach a child a way to be, and further, a parent’s decision in which book or comic to read to their children is chosen by what its contexts contain. The fact that Dorfman and Mattelart bring up this issue and then relate it to basically everything Disney has ever created I found to be fascinating. I have always associated Disney with what all children grow up believing; Disney is magical. Not until college, and especially this article did I really sit down and think, Disney’s goal is not to keep children happy and entertained, showing them fairy tales and talking animals. It is to make money. To make money they need to please the parents, the ones buying their merchandise for their kids. Therefore, to keep parents buying, Disney needs to continue to produce material that shows talking animals and fairy tales. This happens to be is what parents believe is what a child should be watching and conditioning them to be the way they should be. Then it is interesting to think of some of the newer age baby books and movies. Take for instance, Baby Einstein, a new brand that produces educational videos and toys that show babies what colors are what, the alphabet, numbers, etc. This seems to be quite the opposite of Disney, showing them real, tangible things as opposed to fairy princesses being picked up on balconies by magic carpets. So which do we choose to show our children, how do we want them conditioned? It would be interesting to take a survey of what parents would choose.
coolbeans, Dorfman
A lot of CMC readings that I have read seem to have a critical view of Disney. I do agree that Disney creates an unrealistic depiction of the real world for children in order to make a lot of money for the company. However, I also do not necessarily view Disney in such a negative light as many of the CMC readings that I have read seem to view it. How can a company that allows so many children to feel happy be a bad thing? Yes, Disney does manipulate the public into spending lots of money by creating a world that seems perfect. However, I think that children need something like Disney. Kids need something that allows them to hope and dream, something fun, something that allows them to play. If children did not have Disney or other sorts of cartoons, then they would be exposed to the real world at a much younger age. I do think that at some point people reach an age when they should know the difference between what is real and what is fantasy, but the beauty of being a kid is that childhood is the only time that it will be acceptable for a person to hope and dream of being a princess. Childhood is the only time that a person can enjoy not being in the real world without facing any consequences. I remember that when I was a kid I lived in a happy place where Santa came and brought me Christmas presents, the tooth fairy brought me money, and I was one day going to be a dolphin trainer. Somewhere along the road I learned that there really is no Santa, the tooth fairy does not really exist and that my parents probably would not be too thrilled at me being a dolphin trainer after paying for 12 years of private school. I look back to my childhood and am glad that I had the chance to go to Disneyworld and watch Disney movies and believe in its magic; despite the fact that now I understand Disney for what it truly is, another major corporation.
Kuloco, Dourfman & Mattelart
“Even to whisper anything against Walt is to undermine the happy and innocent palace of childhood, for which he is both the guardian and guide” (M 123).
I thought it was interesting how the text from Dourfman and Mattelart describes the creation of the childhood “reality” through the comics and cartoons, especially those of the Disney company. They go into depth the relationship between the present and future represented by the “father” adult and the child. The father is the creator of the fantasy world for the children and imposes their thoughts of how a child should act in order to become a member of society. What I think that the article strays from is Walt Disney’s role as the leading father of these children’s comics. Through his use of characters, he speaks directly to children and, also, to people of other generations. The children that are exposed to Disney’s cartoons learn from them the ways of social and political behaviors that will benefit them later in life.
Every one of us has been exposed to Disney at some point in our life. It has become a household name and has spread around the world and affected almost every culture. No matter the level of exposure one has had to Disney comics and cartoons, they have learned something from them. Whether they tend to believe the life lessons portrayed in the texts, there are morals present in every aspect of Disney creations. From movies to theme parks and other forms of products, each person is affected by the “Disneyfication” of reality.
When I took the Disney and the City intersession class and read the Disney article for CMC 200, we went more in depth into the commodification and influence that Disney has on our society. With Walt’s vision came an entire company through which it was relayed to the public audience. The Company has admitted to the falsified realities that they instill in their movies and theme parks. However, one must realize that they are in the business of entertainment and profit-making. The life lessons and view of life that Disney presents are skewed to the innocence of purity of a child’s life. Their business, and therefore the influence, of the Disney products would be highly affected if they presented the world from the adult point of view.
The article by Dourfman and Mattelart highlights the differences in the realities of children and adults. Through the comics and cartoons and characters, the father uses his ideas of how children should live their lives. This is a step in preparation for life, to instill the ideology of a happy world for children to grow up in. Walt Disney has been a seriously influential voice in the creation of this world and his ideals will continue to resonate through each generation cross-culturally.
I thought it was interesting how the text from Dourfman and Mattelart describes the creation of the childhood “reality” through the comics and cartoons, especially those of the Disney company. They go into depth the relationship between the present and future represented by the “father” adult and the child. The father is the creator of the fantasy world for the children and imposes their thoughts of how a child should act in order to become a member of society. What I think that the article strays from is Walt Disney’s role as the leading father of these children’s comics. Through his use of characters, he speaks directly to children and, also, to people of other generations. The children that are exposed to Disney’s cartoons learn from them the ways of social and political behaviors that will benefit them later in life.
Every one of us has been exposed to Disney at some point in our life. It has become a household name and has spread around the world and affected almost every culture. No matter the level of exposure one has had to Disney comics and cartoons, they have learned something from them. Whether they tend to believe the life lessons portrayed in the texts, there are morals present in every aspect of Disney creations. From movies to theme parks and other forms of products, each person is affected by the “Disneyfication” of reality.
When I took the Disney and the City intersession class and read the Disney article for CMC 200, we went more in depth into the commodification and influence that Disney has on our society. With Walt’s vision came an entire company through which it was relayed to the public audience. The Company has admitted to the falsified realities that they instill in their movies and theme parks. However, one must realize that they are in the business of entertainment and profit-making. The life lessons and view of life that Disney presents are skewed to the innocence of purity of a child’s life. Their business, and therefore the influence, of the Disney products would be highly affected if they presented the world from the adult point of view.
The article by Dourfman and Mattelart highlights the differences in the realities of children and adults. Through the comics and cartoons and characters, the father uses his ideas of how children should live their lives. This is a step in preparation for life, to instill the ideology of a happy world for children to grow up in. Walt Disney has been a seriously influential voice in the creation of this world and his ideals will continue to resonate through each generation cross-culturally.
yellowdaisy4, Dorfman
Dorfman’s article about Disney is very intriguing because it is rare to see Disney portrayed in more of a negative light. I liked how the authors made it into kind of a satire in that they made it into a club and wrote a list of ways one can be expelled in sort of a sarcastic tone. I, like I’m sure most other people, always thought of Disney in the same way they described as a sweet and innocent place to go that makes me feel like a kid again and have good clean fun. Little did I know that this misconception is seen as a danger to society. I found the quote in which the authors explained that the worse way to expel someone from the Disney club is “to accuse him repeatedly of trying to brainwash children with the doctrine of colorless social realism, imposed by political commissars” (125). I liked this quote because it boldly throw it in your face that Disney may not have the “make everybody happy” agenda that most people believe but are spreading their propaganda for their own agenda. It’s hard to think that Disney does what it does really to make money by playing off the happy childhood feeling. Yet, even though they are a huge corporation in a sweet disguise to make money like other corporations, I still can’t help by like Disney. Even if they are creating this fake innocence feeling or confuse children, I still think Disney really isn’t that bad because at least they are making people have fun and enjoy themselves while attempting to spread positive messages so it really could be worse. I don’t think Walt Disney deserved a noble peace prize because he was a business man nor do I feel like it should ever be banned like it was in Chile. Whether or not it’s for the right reasons, I think Disney makes children happy so it can’t have that bad of an affect on them and most adults I feel are wise enough to realize Disney is just a moneymaking corporation aimed at little kids but ignore that fact because they don’t want to ruin the good experience they themselves had watching something or being at Disney.
Weezy27/ postclass 2-18
In class we were asked to answer the question: “Does reality actually outstrip fiction?” My answer to this question was “definitely. “ When it comes to the media we are desensitized to things such as violence, objectification of women, racism, and other common themes we encounter daily. However, once we begin to see these things off the television screen and in real life we are usually more emotionally affected than we would be just seeing these things in a fictional environment. For example, each day we come across advertisements which objectify women both sexually and physically, yet, we are not affected by the sight. However, when we see a woman molested or raped in real life that’s not okay. Another example is violence and bloodshed. These two things are commonly seen on many video games, television shows, movies, and even cartoons. Again, these things are fine to watch on TV yet, unbearable in real-life situations. So the question is “Why are people okay which watching these things on TV, if in real life these themes are considered catastrophic?”
Fiction is something bearable in someone’s mind because it is not “real,” it is considered “the impossible” when people watch it on television. Therefore, when a real life situation or experience arises with these things that we never thought could happen (9-11, Columbine) we tend to be affected more personally. As opposed to in fictional circumstances in which we are not affected at all. Reality outstrips fiction because of the affect it has on people personally and emotionally. Fiction, as long as it is considered “the impossible,” is something that is okay because we are most times unaffected, or at least never affected to the extent of if a bad situation were to actually happen. We have the power in our minds to decide between what we want to believe as real and what we want to believe as fiction. However, once reality sets in, fiction is completely overshadowed.
Fiction is something bearable in someone’s mind because it is not “real,” it is considered “the impossible” when people watch it on television. Therefore, when a real life situation or experience arises with these things that we never thought could happen (9-11, Columbine) we tend to be affected more personally. As opposed to in fictional circumstances in which we are not affected at all. Reality outstrips fiction because of the affect it has on people personally and emotionally. Fiction, as long as it is considered “the impossible,” is something that is okay because we are most times unaffected, or at least never affected to the extent of if a bad situation were to actually happen. We have the power in our minds to decide between what we want to believe as real and what we want to believe as fiction. However, once reality sets in, fiction is completely overshadowed.
thestig, dorman
A couple “realities” came to my attention while reading Dorfman and Mattelart’s article.
The adult produces the comic; the child consumes them (126).
How often do you think about this concept? That to every cartoon, children’s movie, or comic, there is a wide range of staff, executives, and creatives working a product to be consumed by a child. To me, it must be a strange life. I had the privilege of working with Howie Hoffman, a cartoon director, when I was 12 or 13 at Camp Androscoggin up in Wayne, Maine (As a side note, the general store in Wayne sold bumper stickers that said, “Where the hell is Wayne, Maine?” So you are not alone…). Howie is wonderful person; a mentor, devoted to his work, and to teaching the skill of animation. The spot that we made was simply for pure fun, and had no sociological implications about our culture; no powerful ideology that Dorfman and Mattelart are getting to with Disney’s impact on Chile and the rest of the world. Nonetheless, I think it is worth thinking about the people who craft the ideas and the images that kids watch and are immersed in day in and day out. I’m sure many of you find yourselves in conversations about whether or not your parents let you watch TV or made you read a book. Should we be more critical about animation and its creators?
Dorfman and Matterlart describe these creators as adults who “create for themselves a childhood embodying their own angelical aspirations, which offer consolation, hope and a guarantee of a ‘better,’ but unchanging future” (126). The guarantee of a better future… ‘hmmm.’ I trust Howie because I know him, but how are we to spread this word about being critical of the filmmaker. There is a huge potential for catastrophic damage to the youth viewers of animation: Disney is a prime example.
Mommy, I want to meet Donald Duck. I want to go to Disney World!
The adult produces the comic; the child consumes them (126).
How often do you think about this concept? That to every cartoon, children’s movie, or comic, there is a wide range of staff, executives, and creatives working a product to be consumed by a child. To me, it must be a strange life. I had the privilege of working with Howie Hoffman, a cartoon director, when I was 12 or 13 at Camp Androscoggin up in Wayne, Maine (As a side note, the general store in Wayne sold bumper stickers that said, “Where the hell is Wayne, Maine?” So you are not alone…). Howie is wonderful person; a mentor, devoted to his work, and to teaching the skill of animation. The spot that we made was simply for pure fun, and had no sociological implications about our culture; no powerful ideology that Dorfman and Mattelart are getting to with Disney’s impact on Chile and the rest of the world. Nonetheless, I think it is worth thinking about the people who craft the ideas and the images that kids watch and are immersed in day in and day out. I’m sure many of you find yourselves in conversations about whether or not your parents let you watch TV or made you read a book. Should we be more critical about animation and its creators?
Dorfman and Matterlart describe these creators as adults who “create for themselves a childhood embodying their own angelical aspirations, which offer consolation, hope and a guarantee of a ‘better,’ but unchanging future” (126). The guarantee of a better future… ‘hmmm.’ I trust Howie because I know him, but how are we to spread this word about being critical of the filmmaker. There is a huge potential for catastrophic damage to the youth viewers of animation: Disney is a prime example.
Mommy, I want to meet Donald Duck. I want to go to Disney World!
Happy Birthday, Dorfman
"Disney is the great supranational bridge across which all human beings may communicate with each other. And amidst so much sweetness and light, the registered trademark becomes invisible" (123)
Disney is a very complex and controversial issue that i never really understood until coming to college. When I was younger, my parents took my sisters and I to Disney World every year...it was just something we did--but I never really read into all of it's facades (of course I was too young at this point). But, even throughout high school I never heard one negative thing about Disney World, not once. Once in college I felt like Disney World was some sort of devil...every professor I had freshman year had negative things to say about it. It intrigued me so I wrote my research paper on this for CMC 200. Disney is one of the most powerful media conglomerates in the world, and its ability to reach consumers on a global level is impressive yet unsettling at the same time. I think this is one of Dorfman's main points in his writing. Disney takes on this imperialistic role with a worldwide mission and set of beliefs that it eventually profits off of by throwing it onto there biggest consumers...children. While researching I found on Disney's website the executive stating that Disney's primary financial goals were to maximize earnings and cash flow. This shows us that Disney will do whatever it takes to win over a group of people or sway a certain groups mentality to that of Disney's mentality.
Disney is a very complex and controversial issue that i never really understood until coming to college. When I was younger, my parents took my sisters and I to Disney World every year...it was just something we did--but I never really read into all of it's facades (of course I was too young at this point). But, even throughout high school I never heard one negative thing about Disney World, not once. Once in college I felt like Disney World was some sort of devil...every professor I had freshman year had negative things to say about it. It intrigued me so I wrote my research paper on this for CMC 200. Disney is one of the most powerful media conglomerates in the world, and its ability to reach consumers on a global level is impressive yet unsettling at the same time. I think this is one of Dorfman's main points in his writing. Disney takes on this imperialistic role with a worldwide mission and set of beliefs that it eventually profits off of by throwing it onto there biggest consumers...children. While researching I found on Disney's website the executive stating that Disney's primary financial goals were to maximize earnings and cash flow. This shows us that Disney will do whatever it takes to win over a group of people or sway a certain groups mentality to that of Disney's mentality.
post-it note, Dorfman & Mattelart
The introduction of Ariel Dorfman and Armand Mattelart’s Instructions on How to Become a General in the Disneyland Club brought many details to my attention about business and economy and markets. The Disney trademark is designed by adults for children. Dorfman and Mattelart suggest that being “made for children by adults” taints the innocent minds of children through the origin of the ideas from adults; that the ideas of adults inherently suggest inappropriate ideologies for children. Whether they are correct or not does effect the question that I now have about children and the media: in order to survive in a swirling-world of media vortexes, should adults, as protectors of children, protect children from the media, or should children be educated on the effects of the media before the ideologies that we have become accustomed to become the norm for them too?
I don’t remember when I realized that my parents are not perfect. I did at one time think that they had all of the answers, and I know now that they do not, so there is a partition that separates these two periods of time in my life, I just cannot define the moment that I had this realization. The very realization opens many doors though, because understanding that my parent’s rules are guidelines to protect me, rather than the law, makes me a more contemplative human being. To live away from my parents makes me think about consequences and benefits of doing “risky” things…driving way too fast, going out to dinner at 11 pm on a Tuesday, listening to that song that my mom disagrees with…I can make my own decisions. But growing up in a world where my parents were the ultimate power also skewed my ideas of the real world once I realized that they were not everything that I held them to be. Feeling as if we are participating in risky behavior, those behaviors that we would never elucidate for our parents are instilled in us at various levels, according to the severity of our parents’ beliefs.
These same beliefs are those that I believe are cultural, and inherent in all actions that we make or take in daily life. There are racial beliefs in America that exist as a part of our culture that would never make sense in another country. These ridiculous ideologies are recognized as being wrong, but remain a problem. For the same reasons that Disney utilizes animals as characters, Disney also seeks to educate the young and innocent masses on the importance of acceptance and friendships and manners. While these are important, the creators of such media have already given into the ideologies of such a culture. Infused are the images with the preconceived ideas of what sets American culture from any other culture. Good or bad, the creators are trying to change the world while not realizing that their revolutionary ideas have all been tried before. And so the cycle continues…
I don’t remember when I realized that my parents are not perfect. I did at one time think that they had all of the answers, and I know now that they do not, so there is a partition that separates these two periods of time in my life, I just cannot define the moment that I had this realization. The very realization opens many doors though, because understanding that my parent’s rules are guidelines to protect me, rather than the law, makes me a more contemplative human being. To live away from my parents makes me think about consequences and benefits of doing “risky” things…driving way too fast, going out to dinner at 11 pm on a Tuesday, listening to that song that my mom disagrees with…I can make my own decisions. But growing up in a world where my parents were the ultimate power also skewed my ideas of the real world once I realized that they were not everything that I held them to be. Feeling as if we are participating in risky behavior, those behaviors that we would never elucidate for our parents are instilled in us at various levels, according to the severity of our parents’ beliefs.
These same beliefs are those that I believe are cultural, and inherent in all actions that we make or take in daily life. There are racial beliefs in America that exist as a part of our culture that would never make sense in another country. These ridiculous ideologies are recognized as being wrong, but remain a problem. For the same reasons that Disney utilizes animals as characters, Disney also seeks to educate the young and innocent masses on the importance of acceptance and friendships and manners. While these are important, the creators of such media have already given into the ideologies of such a culture. Infused are the images with the preconceived ideas of what sets American culture from any other culture. Good or bad, the creators are trying to change the world while not realizing that their revolutionary ideas have all been tried before. And so the cycle continues…
Juice 15, Dorfman and Mattelart
“In as much as the sweet and docile child can be sheltered effectively from the evils of existence, from the petty rancors, the hatreds, and the political or ideological contamination of his elders, any attempt to politicize the sacred domaine of childhood threatens to introduce perversity where there once reigned happiness, innocence and fantasy” (Dorfman,Mattelart 124).
This is a very strong quote provided by the authors and makes a lot of sense after the reading. To begin with this reading it is interesting to see how the authors view Walt Disney as more than a business man. At first glance it appears Walt Disney World is a place that accumulates tremendous profits and is a place that every child wants to go to. But due to his name recognition around the world many others things can come about.
The story about the propaganda experts in Chile deciding to ban Walt Disney was when I first really noticed how people view two sides of Walt Disney and all that is associated with Disney World. One woman felt that Disney deserved the Nobel Peace Prize and the government stated that “…Chilean children should not think, feel, love, or suffer through animals.” They then went on to discuss how some of the characters relate to human society. I have never been to Disney World, or even got into anything Disney but it is interesting to see two extremes of the view of Disney.
Parents today are trying to shelter their kids away from movies, television and videogames that include excessive sex, violence, drugs or anything that can be put under evils of existence, so now people are trying to hide things under this “domaine of childhood.” The next few pages deal with the adults relationships to children. The people who make comics or whatever devise them to put forth their idea of what child is or should be. This is used by the people to try and make their own redemption as an adult, or used as a means of self-gratification with the spectacle of their own dreams. I feel this is trying to say that parents are trying to relive their childhood through their own kids. One television show that reminds me of this is the one that is titled something like my kid is the next big star. These parents push their kids and make them do things the parents didn’t achieve in their childhood. I feel that this authoritarian relationship if pretty prevalent today, especially in academic and athletic endeavors.
This is a very strong quote provided by the authors and makes a lot of sense after the reading. To begin with this reading it is interesting to see how the authors view Walt Disney as more than a business man. At first glance it appears Walt Disney World is a place that accumulates tremendous profits and is a place that every child wants to go to. But due to his name recognition around the world many others things can come about.
The story about the propaganda experts in Chile deciding to ban Walt Disney was when I first really noticed how people view two sides of Walt Disney and all that is associated with Disney World. One woman felt that Disney deserved the Nobel Peace Prize and the government stated that “…Chilean children should not think, feel, love, or suffer through animals.” They then went on to discuss how some of the characters relate to human society. I have never been to Disney World, or even got into anything Disney but it is interesting to see two extremes of the view of Disney.
Parents today are trying to shelter their kids away from movies, television and videogames that include excessive sex, violence, drugs or anything that can be put under evils of existence, so now people are trying to hide things under this “domaine of childhood.” The next few pages deal with the adults relationships to children. The people who make comics or whatever devise them to put forth their idea of what child is or should be. This is used by the people to try and make their own redemption as an adult, or used as a means of self-gratification with the spectacle of their own dreams. I feel this is trying to say that parents are trying to relive their childhood through their own kids. One television show that reminds me of this is the one that is titled something like my kid is the next big star. These parents push their kids and make them do things the parents didn’t achieve in their childhood. I feel that this authoritarian relationship if pretty prevalent today, especially in academic and athletic endeavors.
Smiley Face - Dorfman and Mattelart
In my CMC 200 class, a few weeks ago we read a historical research article on Disney and it's re-writing of history through its depiction of what Corporate Disney considers 'important' about history. This subsequently lead to any part of history that went against the American Image. From this article came the critical perspective of the damaged social health of Disney onto society, which I feel is a similar issues being portrayed in this article by Dorfman and Mattelart. This article sparked my interest in the realms of Disney with confronting the characters used and the role of children's literature in the construction of hegemony and ideology at an early age.
I, for one, will openly admit that I was a Disney child and spent much of my childhood vacationing in Disney World and watching all the movies three times over. Therefore I am intrigued to discover the depiction of family roles when visiting the parks or even enjoying the Disney Media. Children's literature is made out to mirror the child's imagination and how it is unrestricted with the rules and regulations of life that children later learn as they grow up. On the other hand, the article suggests that the importance of Dinsey and children's literature as a genre and culture industry is of more importance to the parents and adults than the children. I like the quote "the imagination of the child is conceived as the past and future of the adult" (127) because it clearly shows how adults wish to regress back to that stage of wonder and amazement. Comparing the experiences I had at Disney World as a child to now, I am now certainly not so mesmerized as I was as a child because I have now learned of life and reality (though I am still questioning the meaning of that word).
Overall, the society's social health is being hindered and helped by Disney. While Disney shaped history to their consumerist goals it furthermore reflects on the relationship of adults and children to therefore reflect on the importance of the development of the child's imagination into a corporation.
I, for one, will openly admit that I was a Disney child and spent much of my childhood vacationing in Disney World and watching all the movies three times over. Therefore I am intrigued to discover the depiction of family roles when visiting the parks or even enjoying the Disney Media. Children's literature is made out to mirror the child's imagination and how it is unrestricted with the rules and regulations of life that children later learn as they grow up. On the other hand, the article suggests that the importance of Dinsey and children's literature as a genre and culture industry is of more importance to the parents and adults than the children. I like the quote "the imagination of the child is conceived as the past and future of the adult" (127) because it clearly shows how adults wish to regress back to that stage of wonder and amazement. Comparing the experiences I had at Disney World as a child to now, I am now certainly not so mesmerized as I was as a child because I have now learned of life and reality (though I am still questioning the meaning of that word).
Overall, the society's social health is being hindered and helped by Disney. While Disney shaped history to their consumerist goals it furthermore reflects on the relationship of adults and children to therefore reflect on the importance of the development of the child's imagination into a corporation.
ginger griffin, dorfman
"It has been observed that in more than one country Mickey Mouse is more popular than the national hero of the day."(123) This statement is absolutely ridiculous, but the sad part is that I have no doubt in my mind that it is entirely true. Disney creates this faux reality for men, women, and children and has the believing that everything everywhere is going to be fine, as long as there is a duck or mouse telling you so. Disney leads us all to be ignorant to anything outside those crystal walls.
Now don't get me wrong, I was, and still am, a Disney fan. I enjoy the shows and the theme park. I enjoy the happiness when you walk into those pearly gates, I enjoy the rides and the nostalgic feeling I get, but then when I leave it is almost instantly gone. All of those feeling leave me as soon as I get to I-4.
Another quote I found very interesting was on page 127, "It enables the adult to partake of his own demons, provided they have been coated in the syrup of paradise, and that they travel there with the passport of innocence." I liked how he linked his demons to paradise and it must have a "passport of innocence" to get there. This article was easy for me to read and I really enjoyed learning about this because although I do enjoy Disney, I refuse to be so Naive to what is going on just 20 miles from where I live.
Now don't get me wrong, I was, and still am, a Disney fan. I enjoy the shows and the theme park. I enjoy the happiness when you walk into those pearly gates, I enjoy the rides and the nostalgic feeling I get, but then when I leave it is almost instantly gone. All of those feeling leave me as soon as I get to I-4.
Another quote I found very interesting was on page 127, "It enables the adult to partake of his own demons, provided they have been coated in the syrup of paradise, and that they travel there with the passport of innocence." I liked how he linked his demons to paradise and it must have a "passport of innocence" to get there. This article was easy for me to read and I really enjoyed learning about this because although I do enjoy Disney, I refuse to be so Naive to what is going on just 20 miles from where I live.
DBA123, post class 2/17
Going back to a topic we discussed thoroughly in class, “Does reality actually overstrip fiction?” I left class thinking a lot about this concept.
I believe that this statement is true in the sense that reality is more powerful, meaning it affects us more, but fiction is something we enjoy more. In fictional situations, we see and hear about happenings that seem a little far-fetched to actually happen to us. For example, two people meeting after years of separation “by fate” right after one of them decided to not go through with their wedding (Serendipity), or on the flip side, a husband framing his own wife of his murder to get out of a sticky money situations (Double Jeopardy). When we watch movies we get lost in them and forget about our reality. We just sit back and compare our relatively normal lives to these fictional situations. Whereas, if anything like this happened for real, our fiction begins to become real and we are then personally affected by either a good or bad situation. Therefore, I feel reality will always outstrip fiction because we actually live with the consequences or rewards of our actions. Fiction just takes possible occurrences and elaborates on them; we let ourselves enjoy them, but not let ourselves get too hopeful or too paranoid about this happening to us. Being realistic is too powerful for us to take fiction seriously.
As class continued, we discussed Baudrillard’s “Successive Phases of Images.” Good was described as reflecting reality, whereas evil was explained as masking and denaturing reality. I would say this contributes to the reality outstripping fiction argument. Fiction on many occasions, takes reality and keeps it familiar but, warps and manipulates it, taking it out of context. I believe this further proves fiction will always be around and something we want to see, but reality will always overpower fiction.
I believe that this statement is true in the sense that reality is more powerful, meaning it affects us more, but fiction is something we enjoy more. In fictional situations, we see and hear about happenings that seem a little far-fetched to actually happen to us. For example, two people meeting after years of separation “by fate” right after one of them decided to not go through with their wedding (Serendipity), or on the flip side, a husband framing his own wife of his murder to get out of a sticky money situations (Double Jeopardy). When we watch movies we get lost in them and forget about our reality. We just sit back and compare our relatively normal lives to these fictional situations. Whereas, if anything like this happened for real, our fiction begins to become real and we are then personally affected by either a good or bad situation. Therefore, I feel reality will always outstrip fiction because we actually live with the consequences or rewards of our actions. Fiction just takes possible occurrences and elaborates on them; we let ourselves enjoy them, but not let ourselves get too hopeful or too paranoid about this happening to us. Being realistic is too powerful for us to take fiction seriously.
As class continued, we discussed Baudrillard’s “Successive Phases of Images.” Good was described as reflecting reality, whereas evil was explained as masking and denaturing reality. I would say this contributes to the reality outstripping fiction argument. Fiction on many occasions, takes reality and keeps it familiar but, warps and manipulates it, taking it out of context. I believe this further proves fiction will always be around and something we want to see, but reality will always overpower fiction.
dmariel, Dorfman and Mattelart
Unlike most other children, I was never a huge fan of Disney. I believe that as a child I didn’t know exactly why I didn’t like it, possibly the long lines, the big crowds of people, or the emptiness I felt when I left. Today, I believe I have come to a better understanding of why I never caught onto the Disney craze. I think that Disney makes children ignorant to the world around them. It is an entire world in itself, built without politics, class conflict, or any truth about reality. Dorfman and Mattelart state, “this autonomous realm of magic, is artfully isolated from the reality of everyday life”.
Just recently in CMC200, we studied Disney in depth. The article we read explained that Walt’s motive was not to recreate history, but to improve it. What is referred to as a ‘Disney Realism’ is the way that all of the negativity in the world is programmed out as unwanted elements to make room for positivity. This type of construction teaches children from young ages the wrong representation of the world, leaving them to be bombarded at some point with truth. Disney has become a utopia, that according to Dorfman and Mattelart, “brainwash children”.
I found the instructions on “How to Expel Someone from the Disneyland Club” to be truthful yet comical. The authors describe themselves to be the exact opposite of Disney: indecent, immoral, political agitators, embittered, subverters of youth and domestic peace, unpatriotic, and cultivators of “Marxism-fiction”. Their goal is to remove innocent brainwashed children from the world of Disney and to provide them with their own literature. Children without Disney can have the opportunity to learn, to grow, and to develop in a world full of love, hate, class inequality, war, etc..This may not be as ideal as Disney, but it may create a better and more sophisticated generation of children. I believe that kids would be entirely different if Disney never existed. Although children’s innocence is probably their number one quality, I believe that it is important to be introduced to the world at a young age.
Just recently in CMC200, we studied Disney in depth. The article we read explained that Walt’s motive was not to recreate history, but to improve it. What is referred to as a ‘Disney Realism’ is the way that all of the negativity in the world is programmed out as unwanted elements to make room for positivity. This type of construction teaches children from young ages the wrong representation of the world, leaving them to be bombarded at some point with truth. Disney has become a utopia, that according to Dorfman and Mattelart, “brainwash children”.
I found the instructions on “How to Expel Someone from the Disneyland Club” to be truthful yet comical. The authors describe themselves to be the exact opposite of Disney: indecent, immoral, political agitators, embittered, subverters of youth and domestic peace, unpatriotic, and cultivators of “Marxism-fiction”. Their goal is to remove innocent brainwashed children from the world of Disney and to provide them with their own literature. Children without Disney can have the opportunity to learn, to grow, and to develop in a world full of love, hate, class inequality, war, etc..This may not be as ideal as Disney, but it may create a better and more sophisticated generation of children. I believe that kids would be entirely different if Disney never existed. Although children’s innocence is probably their number one quality, I believe that it is important to be introduced to the world at a young age.
ginger griffin, 2/18
Yesterday in class I thought we got into a very good conversation about Baudrillard. About what is real and what is not. Then in my class after that we actually started talking about Baudrillard with real vs fake in the native American culture and the show "The Lone Ranger". But in class when we first started talking about Baudrillard Dr. Casey asked the class to think about a quote, "Does reality actually outstrip fiction?" I was thinking for minutes and I just couldn't wrap a thought around it. Then I talked to the person sitting with me and we talked about what reality actually is? Does it exist? If it does, can someone please explain it to me? We then talked about how we thought fiction was wanted more in society. After talking about this I thought I had it figured out until what I believe was Dr. Casey said, "You can watch bloody and scary movies but when it comes to events like Columbine and 9/11 it (was) too hard to watch." After he said this I know longer know where I stand when it comes to reality and fiction and which is wanted more. I suppose that for me, reality does outstrip fiction because I always watch this show called Snapped and it is about the true stories of women who murder their husbands. I am obsessed with this show, but when it comes to scary movies about murder I simply can not watch them, my heart races and I have to turn away. My friends try to figure it our but I tell them it's a waste of time. I am not sure why I am able to watch true stories that set up the murders and show real crime scene pictures of the bloody bodies but I can not watch something of the same sort on the big screen. No sense in trying to understand it because I can't even understand it.
Another interesting thing we talked about in class was the good, evil, sorcery, and simulacric examples. I thought all of these were very good in describing the ways in which they were. I also thought it to be a little funny when somebody said "how can you make a reference to a reality in which you never experienced it? Like Johnny Rockets.
Another interesting thing we talked about in class was the good, evil, sorcery, and simulacric examples. I thought all of these were very good in describing the ways in which they were. I also thought it to be a little funny when somebody said "how can you make a reference to a reality in which you never experienced it? Like Johnny Rockets.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Happy Birthday, 2/17
“Does reality actually outstrip fiction?” (223)
This quote is very powerful and has stuck with me all day. When asked our opinions I wanted to explain that I was torn. I think that it’s a little bit of both. I think reality is reality and it’s something no one can deny. But, for some people, their reality is a fictional story. Whether that fiction revolves around gossip magazines/websites, movies, television shows, etc. But then I got to thinking…and I confused myself, because what is reality now anyways? Is our reality what solely/personally happens to us individually on a day to day basis…or is it what we see on the news? It’s hard because can we even believe our news sources anymore. I feel like most media outlets are concerned with the goriest story or the most “thrilling” story….usually about a rape, kidnap, shoot out, etc. Our reality is never really addressed, it’s always gray, there’s no clear cut answer between what’s real/true and what’s not. Everything is biased, and everything is skewed or re-written to someone else’s liking. My main point is that we will never really understand someone else’s reality, and if we try to we would be turning it into a fiction. So essentially, reality is fictitious in a sense. We are all engulfed in all different types of media so our reality is formed from this, thus, leading it to be fictitious.
I think both sides could make a damn good argument, but I just think that reality is a joke now. My reality doesn’t even make complete sense to me because I am surrounded by all this gossip and media telling me one thing, my parents telling me another, my friends telling me something else, and so on. Reality in a sense is fictitious.
This quote is very powerful and has stuck with me all day. When asked our opinions I wanted to explain that I was torn. I think that it’s a little bit of both. I think reality is reality and it’s something no one can deny. But, for some people, their reality is a fictional story. Whether that fiction revolves around gossip magazines/websites, movies, television shows, etc. But then I got to thinking…and I confused myself, because what is reality now anyways? Is our reality what solely/personally happens to us individually on a day to day basis…or is it what we see on the news? It’s hard because can we even believe our news sources anymore. I feel like most media outlets are concerned with the goriest story or the most “thrilling” story….usually about a rape, kidnap, shoot out, etc. Our reality is never really addressed, it’s always gray, there’s no clear cut answer between what’s real/true and what’s not. Everything is biased, and everything is skewed or re-written to someone else’s liking. My main point is that we will never really understand someone else’s reality, and if we try to we would be turning it into a fiction. So essentially, reality is fictitious in a sense. We are all engulfed in all different types of media so our reality is formed from this, thus, leading it to be fictitious.
I think both sides could make a damn good argument, but I just think that reality is a joke now. My reality doesn’t even make complete sense to me because I am surrounded by all this gossip and media telling me one thing, my parents telling me another, my friends telling me something else, and so on. Reality in a sense is fictitious.
000ooo000ooo 2/18
One idea that we talked about in class was the successive phases of images. Only one of these steps was seen by Baudrillard as a "good" phase. As an example Dr. Casey used a picture of an army vehicle that had been blown up and all of the soldiers who had been injured in the blast. I understand in the context of this war how seeing this image once in relation to the other images we often see can be understood as "reflecting reality". However, how many times can we see images like this before they no longer have a "realistic" effect on us? If we begin to get desensitized to this or view these things as just images and forget that they are actual people - as I think often happens with this type of picture - than we are not experiencing the "reality" of this situation at all. If this is true than I would ask, how can we get "honest" reporting and representations of the world? While I agree that the only way to fully understand a situation is to experience it, there has to be some other way for people to gain understanding. Eventually we all become used to hearing certain things and if we are going to follow the news closely than we are going to start seeing things happening over and over in the world. I agree with Baudrillard that there are varying levels of effectiveness and honesty within images, but I would challenge him to propose a new way of doing things that would be better. It is impossible to show all honest images all the time. Perhaps the problem is not with the representations but how consumers interpret them?
I would also like to add my thoughts to the question of: "Does reality outstrip fiction?"
Reality should outstrip fiction because it is real and actually happens and has direct effects on human beings. However, our culture has come to love fiction so much that we put it on a pedestal equal to reality and since fiction is often more aesthetically exciting, people prefer it.
I would also like to add my thoughts to the question of: "Does reality outstrip fiction?"
Reality should outstrip fiction because it is real and actually happens and has direct effects on human beings. However, our culture has come to love fiction so much that we put it on a pedestal equal to reality and since fiction is often more aesthetically exciting, people prefer it.
LightningBolt, 2/17
“Culture in its modern form stirs up hatred against the conventions and virtues of everyday life” (101)
Discussing this quote in class today, I realized how many things in our culture do just this. We as a culture are constantly conforming to abstract ways of life that are the exact opposite of what would be considered the “conventional life style.” An example which we discussed in class, the structure of a family, shows how this can be a positive concept. For a very long time a family was seen as a mother, father, three children, living in a big house in a safe neighborhood. Not only has our culture learned to disregard this as the “conventional” family, but we have started to display alternative family styles on things such as TV shows. Divorce used to be taboo and it is now seen as an excepted part of life. Sometimes families do not work out in the, what once was seen as the conventional way, but it is better to except all kinds of families so that people can live at their happiest.
Another example of stirring up hatred against the conventions and virtues of everyday life is interpersonal interactions. Before postmodernism, interaction between two people was either face to face or a well thought out letter of phone call. In today’s world things such as Myspace and instant messaging allow people to meet people, and even have full on relationships without actually meeting face to face. This is totally against what is considered to be conventional, but it is what works in our society.
These new ways of life and views of the world will never be accepted by everyone. There will always be people who are apposed to straying away from conventional lifestyles.
Discussing this quote in class today, I realized how many things in our culture do just this. We as a culture are constantly conforming to abstract ways of life that are the exact opposite of what would be considered the “conventional life style.” An example which we discussed in class, the structure of a family, shows how this can be a positive concept. For a very long time a family was seen as a mother, father, three children, living in a big house in a safe neighborhood. Not only has our culture learned to disregard this as the “conventional” family, but we have started to display alternative family styles on things such as TV shows. Divorce used to be taboo and it is now seen as an excepted part of life. Sometimes families do not work out in the, what once was seen as the conventional way, but it is better to except all kinds of families so that people can live at their happiest.
Another example of stirring up hatred against the conventions and virtues of everyday life is interpersonal interactions. Before postmodernism, interaction between two people was either face to face or a well thought out letter of phone call. In today’s world things such as Myspace and instant messaging allow people to meet people, and even have full on relationships without actually meeting face to face. This is totally against what is considered to be conventional, but it is what works in our society.
These new ways of life and views of the world will never be accepted by everyone. There will always be people who are apposed to straying away from conventional lifestyles.
Monday, February 16, 2009
killacam 2/15 zizek and baudrillard
The posts about 9/11 very interesting and personal for me because i live in New York and i remember all the commotion that day. Anyways Baudrillard explanation of how powerfult he images were was very interesting. The role the images played was negative and positive. The way he explained that it was used to exploit at the same time was used to educate people at the event really affected the country in a weird way. The way people responded to the images of violence with immediate positiveness was interesting. Such a terrible event brought the contry together. People were so affected byt he images that were played continuously on the news. The leads directly into the question of how some people did not take the images as real. Zizek explains it as it hard to extracate the real form the ficiton in a spectacle. And since we are used ot seeing sectacle of that nature on the big screen its hard for us to interpret in a way in which we understand. I took as the week that 9/11 happened was the most surreal week. I honestly cant remember what happened that week because it was so devastating. Its like it was all a type of dream and this is what i think he was trying to get at.
jl0630 - Baudrillard
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LUjE2DMH5Q
My CMC 100 video was loosely based around what Baudrillard’s, The Spirit of Terrorism, touched on about how “deregulation ends up in a maximum of constraints” (230). A segment of my video project was about our present generation’s ideas about dating and relationships. What it boiled down to is that since the deregulation of the media in the early 1900’s, the new and liberal media started to produce a plethora of ‘radicalized’ images that men and women begin to internalize as reality. In our video project we used the deregulation of media and the abundance of sexually explicit advertisements to help support the notion that the traditional views of courtship have been turned upside down to what we now refer to as ‘the hookup.’ This idea of the hookup, Baudrillard argues, would be nothing without the media. The media has exerted the ideology about women being sexual objects into mainstream society, and thus, our present generation is being fed these ideas about men’s roles and the way women should look, act, and feel. The media has thus ‘exerted its hold’ over this new ideology and thus the deregulation in the media has wound up in a maximum of constraints because there is nothing we can do about it but let it run like a wild fire. If we were to do something about it such as re-regulating television, advertisements and other modes of media, Baudrillard suggest that the product would look both defensive and disorderly and would never work out.
The liberalism of the media not only opened doors for a new ideology, but such images are further ‘refuelled’ by promiscuous television, videos, and even recently – promiscuous novels targeted to the youth such as the Gossip Girl series. One last quote from Baudrillard that I think sums up this argument is, “the spectacle of terrorism forces the terrorism of spectacle upon us.” In other words, the explicit images that we consume and secretly love have only impacted the proliferation of promiscuous imagery and ideology and is thus, for now at least, an endless cycle.
My CMC 100 video was loosely based around what Baudrillard’s, The Spirit of Terrorism, touched on about how “deregulation ends up in a maximum of constraints” (230). A segment of my video project was about our present generation’s ideas about dating and relationships. What it boiled down to is that since the deregulation of the media in the early 1900’s, the new and liberal media started to produce a plethora of ‘radicalized’ images that men and women begin to internalize as reality. In our video project we used the deregulation of media and the abundance of sexually explicit advertisements to help support the notion that the traditional views of courtship have been turned upside down to what we now refer to as ‘the hookup.’ This idea of the hookup, Baudrillard argues, would be nothing without the media. The media has exerted the ideology about women being sexual objects into mainstream society, and thus, our present generation is being fed these ideas about men’s roles and the way women should look, act, and feel. The media has thus ‘exerted its hold’ over this new ideology and thus the deregulation in the media has wound up in a maximum of constraints because there is nothing we can do about it but let it run like a wild fire. If we were to do something about it such as re-regulating television, advertisements and other modes of media, Baudrillard suggest that the product would look both defensive and disorderly and would never work out.
The liberalism of the media not only opened doors for a new ideology, but such images are further ‘refuelled’ by promiscuous television, videos, and even recently – promiscuous novels targeted to the youth such as the Gossip Girl series. One last quote from Baudrillard that I think sums up this argument is, “the spectacle of terrorism forces the terrorism of spectacle upon us.” In other words, the explicit images that we consume and secretly love have only impacted the proliferation of promiscuous imagery and ideology and is thus, for now at least, an endless cycle.
LightningBolt, Baudrillard
“There is no ‘good’ use of the media; the media are part of the event, they are part of the terror, and they work in both directions.” (229)
Baudrillard presents an interest point about the media. He not only blames the media for making violence what it is but he also blames media for the creating of any violence at all. I started thinking what the world would be like if things such as news channels, news papers, or informative internet sights didn’t exist. If we lived in a world where we had no idea what our government was dealing with. If we lived in this world would the same amount of conflict exist in our world? Baudrillard brings up the idea of terrorism several times. One of the main goals of terrorism is to create a large enough uproar that the news stations with splatter it across the news and everyone in the world will no about it. If these terrorist acts received no publicity would there be any point in committing them?
The purpose of news is so inform all of us citizens what is happening in the world. If in doing this what is happening in the world is changing is it worth altering our reality? Baudrillard presents a concept I am a little less clear on. What makes something real? He states, “Reality is a principle, and it is this principle that is lost.” (228) The images we see on the news are not real. They are simply pictures, so how are we supposed to know that something actually exists is we can not see it right in front of us. But Baudrillard even says that something that is right in front of our eyes, like the world trade centers collapsing is not reality, it is just an act of violence. When can something be considered reality?
Baudrillard presents an interest point about the media. He not only blames the media for making violence what it is but he also blames media for the creating of any violence at all. I started thinking what the world would be like if things such as news channels, news papers, or informative internet sights didn’t exist. If we lived in a world where we had no idea what our government was dealing with. If we lived in this world would the same amount of conflict exist in our world? Baudrillard brings up the idea of terrorism several times. One of the main goals of terrorism is to create a large enough uproar that the news stations with splatter it across the news and everyone in the world will no about it. If these terrorist acts received no publicity would there be any point in committing them?
The purpose of news is so inform all of us citizens what is happening in the world. If in doing this what is happening in the world is changing is it worth altering our reality? Baudrillard presents a concept I am a little less clear on. What makes something real? He states, “Reality is a principle, and it is this principle that is lost.” (228) The images we see on the news are not real. They are simply pictures, so how are we supposed to know that something actually exists is we can not see it right in front of us. But Baudrillard even says that something that is right in front of our eyes, like the world trade centers collapsing is not reality, it is just an act of violence. When can something be considered reality?
Murphy, Baudrillard & Zizek
When referring to the events of 9/11 and the terrorism inflicted upon the World Trade Center, Baudrillard writes, "..the twentieth century's two elements of mass fascination are combined: the white-magic of the cinema and the black magic of terrorism; the white light of the image and the black light of terrorism" (Baudrillard 228). After taking a Intro to Film class I am able to make connections between those lessons and this reading. A cinematographer can trick the viewer into seeing something that isn't really there or really happening. What appears to be real is staged. The same happens in the media, what we are shown is edited, cropped and dupes the audience. The American culture has a fascination with watching morbid images repeatedly. There are still images all around us today reminding us of September 11th, which just reiterates the mass hysteria, and in the end reiterates the point of the terrorism. The buildings falling are more a symbol of a bigger message than an individual attack. The terrorists are more successful in their mission when our media outlets constantly publicize the attacks and create a mass panic. As Baudrillard says, "There is no 'good' use of the media; the media is part of the event, they are part of the terror, and they work in both directions" (Baudrillard 228).
I found Zizek's writing important and at the same time comical, in the way that we never question what is marketed to us. For example the coffee with out caffeine and the beer without alcohol. In a way if the media names something, even if it doesn't embody the characteristics that should define it, we take it for face value. This ties back into our previous reading and class discussion on reinvention. Television networks take one idea and use it over and over, for example: first there was the land of the lost, then there was Gilligan's Island, next came survivor, and finally there is Lost. The same applies to products that we are sold, we are told they are retro and and familiar, and we believe the media and consume at high levels. Reality is distorted, and today what is REALLY real?
I found Zizek's writing important and at the same time comical, in the way that we never question what is marketed to us. For example the coffee with out caffeine and the beer without alcohol. In a way if the media names something, even if it doesn't embody the characteristics that should define it, we take it for face value. This ties back into our previous reading and class discussion on reinvention. Television networks take one idea and use it over and over, for example: first there was the land of the lost, then there was Gilligan's Island, next came survivor, and finally there is Lost. The same applies to products that we are sold, we are told they are retro and and familiar, and we believe the media and consume at high levels. Reality is distorted, and today what is REALLY real?
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Happy Birthday, 2/15
"The Cult of the New"
This weekend i reflected upon this idea quite thoroughly. I came to the conclusion that it is silly of me to think that a newer product is better than that of the old. But, how come then, do we as consumers believe this? The answer is simple. The age of the "millenials" is all about new, improved, and faster products that supposedly make one's life "easier". I have indirectly been told this my whole life through all sorts of media outlets, which has led me to subconsciously believe this idea. It's silly I know, but it's hard to get out of this mentality of wanting the new product, because for me at least, I am surrounded by friends, family, teachers, etc, with the newest and latest cutting edge technology.
I think products keep being re-invented because technology keeps improving itself and there's a greater demand for the product that works the best. So that product, eventually will keep making itself better, and then other products will follow that product. For example, when Apple came out with the iPhone, virtually every other phone company came out with a similar type of phone. I think traditionalists (like my grandfather) would stick with the old simple cell phones, but Habermas would be inclined to try the newer product out because he believes that “newer is better”. Another example of this I find relevant to our school is the new white boards that are seen in a couple of the classrooms around campus. These new white boards are extra special because once something is erased from them…they can remember what was written on them before and be shown in another class (correct me if I’m wrong)…or maybe you can print out the notes that were written on the whiteboard. My point is…what was wrong with the other standard white boards? Beyond that what was wrong with chalkboards (other than the horrifying noises they make)?
This weekend i reflected upon this idea quite thoroughly. I came to the conclusion that it is silly of me to think that a newer product is better than that of the old. But, how come then, do we as consumers believe this? The answer is simple. The age of the "millenials" is all about new, improved, and faster products that supposedly make one's life "easier". I have indirectly been told this my whole life through all sorts of media outlets, which has led me to subconsciously believe this idea. It's silly I know, but it's hard to get out of this mentality of wanting the new product, because for me at least, I am surrounded by friends, family, teachers, etc, with the newest and latest cutting edge technology.
I think products keep being re-invented because technology keeps improving itself and there's a greater demand for the product that works the best. So that product, eventually will keep making itself better, and then other products will follow that product. For example, when Apple came out with the iPhone, virtually every other phone company came out with a similar type of phone. I think traditionalists (like my grandfather) would stick with the old simple cell phones, but Habermas would be inclined to try the newer product out because he believes that “newer is better”. Another example of this I find relevant to our school is the new white boards that are seen in a couple of the classrooms around campus. These new white boards are extra special because once something is erased from them…they can remember what was written on them before and be shown in another class (correct me if I’m wrong)…or maybe you can print out the notes that were written on the whiteboard. My point is…what was wrong with the other standard white boards? Beyond that what was wrong with chalkboards (other than the horrifying noises they make)?
Rubber Soul, Baudrillard
Baudrillard offers a concrete example of "the impossibility of rediscovering an absolute level of the real is of the same order as the impossibility of staging illusion" (466). He describes a scene of staging a robbery. Your intentions might be entirely harmless and aimed toward merely recreating the scene, but people experiencing the recreation of a robbery won't be able to determine if it's harmless or not. He describes the police officer at the scene firing a gun at the man recreating the scene of the robbery, and a man at the bank as an innocent bystander fainting and suffering a stroke from the implied danger of the situation. He goes on to state, "The challenge of simulation is never admitted by power" (466). For instance, how would one verify in court that the staged-robbery was merely a reactionary test and not an attempt at committing a crime. The power of order would be lost if this were a permissible excuse. Plus, how would punishment be distributed to merely a simulation of defiance? Baudrillard basically tells us that recreating the real gets lost in translation. Thus our society's (along with others) political economy thrives to produce and overproduce the "restored" real that has been lost. We are then diluted with resemblances of the real. I suspect he could mean interpretations of history that allot us a singular view point that is beneficial for maintaining order. And so the real that is manifested is one without definite origin. What can one make of the truth if the artificially sweetened truth is not what actually happened? It's an ongoing process that cannot be traced to a clear and logical solution. And he mentions that even if we destroy the system of power, the cycle would be renewed through an anti-power. "To seek new blood in its own death, to renew the cycle through the mirror of crisis, negativity, and antipower: this is the only solution-alibi of every power, or every institution attempting to break the vicious circle of its irresponsibility and of its fundamental nonexistence.." He envisions war and peace as equivalents because one deters the other. The creation of the nuclear bomb freezes it from ever being used because of the fact that engineers can flip a switch and destroy an entire nation. Apparently nobody wants to do that.. even tho the U.S. did on Hiroshima--that is supposed to act as a deterrent for other powers. "Lockdown and control increase in direct proportion to liberating potentialities"(479).
000ooo000ooo Baudrillard and Zizek
In reading articles from both Baudrillard and Zizek I could not help but think of the irony of September 11th for our country. On every level this event turned our culture upside down and our culture had rendered most of us unable to create a reasonable response to the events that took place. As was true of most of the consequences of World Trade Center buildings collapsing, I truly don't think the terrorists could fathom the full effect of what they were doing (they likely had no idea that the buildings would collapse after they were hit). However, this attack was something that our media and cultural value system could not handle.
First, there is the paradox of how accustomed we had become to destructive imagery and how much people seemed to almost enjoy watching the buildings collapse over and over again verse the lack of "actual carnage" we were shown on TV. Zizek describes how through years of disaster movies Americans have practically fantasized about an event such as this taking place: "Not only were the media bombarding us all the time with talk about the terrorist threat... the unthinkable which happened was the object of fantasy, so that, in a way, America got what it fantasized about..." (223). Time and time again we have seen American landmarks and cities get blown up on screen. Why have these images been repeated so much? In a market generated by the need to make money, the only possible answer is that in some way, we like seeing these things happen. Given this, when this fantasy became real life, people wanted to keep watching it happen again and again: "When, days after September 11 2001, our gaze was transfixed by the images of the plane hitting on of the WTC towers... we wanted to see it again and again..." (232) Given our apparent love of destruction one would assume that we also liked to see blood and human destruction. However, Zizek explains that people actually prefer not to see this kind of footage. Although we are okay with seeing people this type of footage in Third World catastrophes, it is upsetting to see Americans being hurt - which is an interesting comment in itself. I think there are two reasons for this. First, we dehumanize people who live in Third World countries. It is not as upsetting to see them suffer physically because they are hardly people to most Americans. Second, media companies want to keep events like 9/11 in the realm of virtual reality for most people. We have seen images of buildings blowing up so much that they almost just seem like a real life extension of what we have already seen in movies. People want to see them because they feel they are experiencing real lives but they are not as upset by these images because they feel so familiar. However, if we saw images of "dismembered bodies.. blood... desperate faces of dying people" (232) the images would suddenly move from being virtual reality to reality and this would be too difficult for people to watch.
First, there is the paradox of how accustomed we had become to destructive imagery and how much people seemed to almost enjoy watching the buildings collapse over and over again verse the lack of "actual carnage" we were shown on TV. Zizek describes how through years of disaster movies Americans have practically fantasized about an event such as this taking place: "Not only were the media bombarding us all the time with talk about the terrorist threat... the unthinkable which happened was the object of fantasy, so that, in a way, America got what it fantasized about..." (223). Time and time again we have seen American landmarks and cities get blown up on screen. Why have these images been repeated so much? In a market generated by the need to make money, the only possible answer is that in some way, we like seeing these things happen. Given this, when this fantasy became real life, people wanted to keep watching it happen again and again: "When, days after September 11 2001, our gaze was transfixed by the images of the plane hitting on of the WTC towers... we wanted to see it again and again..." (232) Given our apparent love of destruction one would assume that we also liked to see blood and human destruction. However, Zizek explains that people actually prefer not to see this kind of footage. Although we are okay with seeing people this type of footage in Third World catastrophes, it is upsetting to see Americans being hurt - which is an interesting comment in itself. I think there are two reasons for this. First, we dehumanize people who live in Third World countries. It is not as upsetting to see them suffer physically because they are hardly people to most Americans. Second, media companies want to keep events like 9/11 in the realm of virtual reality for most people. We have seen images of buildings blowing up so much that they almost just seem like a real life extension of what we have already seen in movies. People want to see them because they feel they are experiencing real lives but they are not as upset by these images because they feel so familiar. However, if we saw images of "dismembered bodies.. blood... desperate faces of dying people" (232) the images would suddenly move from being virtual reality to reality and this would be too difficult for people to watch.
CMCstudent, 2/15
I really liked learning about “the cult of the new.” It is definitely a change that has come with time and a difference of generations. As some have noted in their blogs their older family members say “if nothing is wrong with it, why fix it”. I believe this is a concept of the past. In today’s world and as a new generation, we are constantly wanting new things. We believe “this is new so it must have something the older one doesn’t”. We do not realize that a lot of the things that are older are actually better in quality. For example, furniture. Compare the furniture quality in the early 1900’s to today. Back then, everything was made from wood, and usually hand carved. Today, we buy desks made of compressed wood fibers to save money. The furniture from the early 1900’s may not be super glossy, but it sure is stronger than the compressed wood fibers desks that are going to collapse in about 3 years. However, we are so brain washed by hegemonic media that we assume if anything has the word “new” associated with it, it is automatically better. Modernists view the world as advancing in knowledge everyday, so everyday one becomes smarter than the last, thus inventing and reinventing “new,” improved items. We all remember products that after time have become “obsolete through the novelty of the next new style” (99). An example of this is the chalk board. Chalk boards used to be in all schools since the beginning of their being made. It caused problems with children who had asthma and other breathing problems. The advancing knowledge found a way to be able to do the same thing with a different product. Now white erase boards are installed into most schools replacing and making chalk boards obsolete.
thestig, 2/15
Through our study of Lyotard, I’m confused: do I agree or disagree with his train of though on post-modernity vs. modernity?
One of Lyotard’s main points is that post modernity opens the door to opportunities and textualists – writers, critics, architects – to make a differences, as opposed to modernism, which requires a specialist before being able to do anything. I think I agree with Lyotard, in that do we need a “specialist” in order to pick a movie to rent or see? The development of Web 2.0 has made it possible for the consumer to see what other “average joe’s” like. This critic may not be accurate in his or her observations of a film, but it is someone’s opinion. What’s the harm in that?
Then there is the concept of reality attempting to suggest it is a copy of the real world, but the truth is it isn’t; that you cannot capture “reality” without verisimilitude. Well, we don’t stop trying to: I just visited with my aunt and uncle who recently got an iPod Touch. One of the applications they showed me was a virtual guitar. My uncle, who is a professional musician, started to complain (jokingly) that he wasn’t able to add a certain effect to the music. Nonetheless, he was able to play this “guitar” pretty well, and it was pretty entertaining to watch.
I think what we are seeing a shift from modernism to post-modernism. Before, everything available was mainstream ideology; today, you have more choices, more opportunities, and it’s all available for less than what it would have been worth years ago. This post-modern era started with the personal computer, and has since been sustained by Web developments and iPhones.
Though Habermas might argue that I’m an anti-modernist, I’m not. I do not think science is bad and overwhelming; the world is not ‘getting worse.’ I don’t think that each day, “The only thing I know for sure is that I don’t know anything; that I know less than I did yesterday:” I just find myself realizing that each day I learn that there is a lot I don’t know. Post-modernism is lighting these bulbs today, in that the various opportunities presented to us in today’s world opens the door to new discoveries.
One of Lyotard’s main points is that post modernity opens the door to opportunities and textualists – writers, critics, architects – to make a differences, as opposed to modernism, which requires a specialist before being able to do anything. I think I agree with Lyotard, in that do we need a “specialist” in order to pick a movie to rent or see? The development of Web 2.0 has made it possible for the consumer to see what other “average joe’s” like. This critic may not be accurate in his or her observations of a film, but it is someone’s opinion. What’s the harm in that?
Then there is the concept of reality attempting to suggest it is a copy of the real world, but the truth is it isn’t; that you cannot capture “reality” without verisimilitude. Well, we don’t stop trying to: I just visited with my aunt and uncle who recently got an iPod Touch. One of the applications they showed me was a virtual guitar. My uncle, who is a professional musician, started to complain (jokingly) that he wasn’t able to add a certain effect to the music. Nonetheless, he was able to play this “guitar” pretty well, and it was pretty entertaining to watch.
I think what we are seeing a shift from modernism to post-modernism. Before, everything available was mainstream ideology; today, you have more choices, more opportunities, and it’s all available for less than what it would have been worth years ago. This post-modern era started with the personal computer, and has since been sustained by Web developments and iPhones.
Though Habermas might argue that I’m an anti-modernist, I’m not. I do not think science is bad and overwhelming; the world is not ‘getting worse.’ I don’t think that each day, “The only thing I know for sure is that I don’t know anything; that I know less than I did yesterday:” I just find myself realizing that each day I learn that there is a lot I don’t know. Post-modernism is lighting these bulbs today, in that the various opportunities presented to us in today’s world opens the door to new discoveries.
jl0630 - 2/12
“What is advised… is to offer works… that the public will recognize what they are about, will understand what is signified”
We talked about this Lyotard-ian concept in class and I could not agree more that in order to sell things you need to tell people things they already know. We used examples like best seller help books saying that they would not be best sellers if they were telling people things they wouldn’t understand because it would be confusing. I went to go see He’s Just Not That Into You this weekend, and I also read the book, and I would argue that this is a perfect example of what Lyotard is saying. The book is a series of chapters with real-life stories about women, men, and dating – and an advice column that all boils down to one answer, ‘he’s just not that into you.’ This advise, leads into the next quote we talked about in class, “there is no reality unless testified by a consensus between partners over a certain knowledge and certain commitments” (42). What this is saying essentially, is that the ‘he’s just not that into’ reality is not an actual reality until someone tells you or you read it. Even though you may already think it, it takes that second party to set it in stone.
In the movie one of the subplots is about a woman named Gigi who, by the books, is doing everything wrong when it comes to men and relationships. It takes a friend/second party Alex, however, to explain the repeatedly misinterpreted signs she is getting from men about how interested – or lack of – they actually are.
Bringing it back to the earlier quote, both the movie and book got such great reviews people could/can relate to it. They make sense and provide us with familiar concepts that apply to us individually – either first hand or not. The beauty of a best seller is that it tugs at your emotions and makes you feel like you are a part of it, which is also a concept we talked about in our previous classes about verisimilitude.
We talked about this Lyotard-ian concept in class and I could not agree more that in order to sell things you need to tell people things they already know. We used examples like best seller help books saying that they would not be best sellers if they were telling people things they wouldn’t understand because it would be confusing. I went to go see He’s Just Not That Into You this weekend, and I also read the book, and I would argue that this is a perfect example of what Lyotard is saying. The book is a series of chapters with real-life stories about women, men, and dating – and an advice column that all boils down to one answer, ‘he’s just not that into you.’ This advise, leads into the next quote we talked about in class, “there is no reality unless testified by a consensus between partners over a certain knowledge and certain commitments” (42). What this is saying essentially, is that the ‘he’s just not that into’ reality is not an actual reality until someone tells you or you read it. Even though you may already think it, it takes that second party to set it in stone.
In the movie one of the subplots is about a woman named Gigi who, by the books, is doing everything wrong when it comes to men and relationships. It takes a friend/second party Alex, however, to explain the repeatedly misinterpreted signs she is getting from men about how interested – or lack of – they actually are.
Bringing it back to the earlier quote, both the movie and book got such great reviews people could/can relate to it. They make sense and provide us with familiar concepts that apply to us individually – either first hand or not. The beauty of a best seller is that it tugs at your emotions and makes you feel like you are a part of it, which is also a concept we talked about in our previous classes about verisimilitude.
weesy27/2-15
I agree with both asyouwish and aro0823 about “the cult of the new.” It seems like everyday as you watch televisions or read through magazines you hear and see all kinds of ads talking about how we must have the newest version of every product out there. The best example of this I believe is in cellphones. Unfortuantely, I have fallen under the influence of the “cult of the new” in terms of cellphones. Ever since I can remember I have always been insanely obsessed with getting the newest and hippest cellphones, but why? I mean when I really think about it all I need from a phone is the simplest applications. Yet, we are now buying phones with internet and random applications which no one really needs. Its just more technology to make our lives simpler when things are easy enough already. The same goes with clothes, especially girls clothing. We are always under pressure to be walking around in the newest trends and clothing. We spend hundreds and hundreds of dollars just so we can look hip and be “in style.” The “cult of the new” is definitely something that is obvious in our society. It influences how we buy and think on a daily basis.
coolbeans, 2/15
The cult of the new is both manipulative and integral to our society. Advertisements are always telling us that we need the “new and improved” product in order to keep up with the times. This seems negative because it seems as if advertising is trying to manipulate us into buying the newer products. At the same time, our society needs advertisements such as these in order to survive. The American economy revolves around people being consumers. It can be easy to view advertising as negative because they try to get us to buy things, spend our money in order to improve our selves or our lives. However, the job of an advertisement is to do precisely that; to get people to buy things. If we did not have advertisements to tell us what to buy then how would we even know about what products were out there? In my English Gender Adaptations class we read a short story called “The Girl Who Was Plugged In” which describes a society in which advertisements were illegal. The people in that society had to resort to an underground method of advertising through “celebrities” using certain products and spreading its name. Also, if we look back in history before advertising and media were created people were living in a completely different manner than we do now. People were creating their own tools, and necessities. If we really think about advertising, we start to see that we are sort of being manipulated. Yes, ultimately we do have the choice of succumbing to the advertisements or not, but without advertisements we would not know about the products that are trying to be sold to us. In order for us to keep functioning in the same manner, to keep the world running as it still does, and keep our economy from sinking we need these advertisements.
Marie89, 1/13
“The idea of being ‘modern’…changed with the belief, inspired by modern science, in the infinite progress of knowledge…” (99). It is believed in the American society that one must gain infinite knowledge in order to compete as all other people are also searching for that which will give them an edge up on all other competition. In reality, we are all on a hedonic treadmill which implies that everyone is moving at same pace as one another, making it impossible to surpass others unless everyone else gives up. This never ending cycle has overcome out culture and has created a competitive model difficult to overcome. It is the same with the media and American advertising. American aesthetics are now driven by Habermas’ theory of “the cult of the new.” This idea implies that newer is better because it is the most modern version of something, implying the most recent knowledge has gone into its creation. This concept of the newer version surpassing all preceding versions quite honestly gives me a headache. Somehow, an ideology has been put in place that makes one assume that newer is better. Therefore, companies continue to be inventive and come out with newer versions which are then advertised to the society as being better than the last. With the hedonic treadmill in place as well, it is impossible for Americans to avoid this principle, and they are tricked into buying the products even if their older version was perfectly capable. A clear example of this concept would be technology. For example, the iPod has become an ever changing product as Apple continues to come out with a new and improved product every other month. This is the way the media tricks us into then buying products to accompany our newer version that no longer fits in the same case or is no longer compatible with the software that is now out of date. The same applies to cell phones, cars. etc. It is an ingenious plan by advertising industries as it pulls Americans in, whether they realize it or not. Even if we do acknowledge the ideology, we are still forced to compete with others in society if we ever do want an edge up in this competitive society.
yellowdaisy4, 2/15/09
It’s strange how we are constantly bombarded by advertisements and salespeople telling us we must have what’s brand new and usually without questioning we believe them. Even though it seems we need to have what’s new because it sounds not only appealing but necessary to live, usually what we already have was working just fine. It’s weird how advertisements play off “the cult of the new” to make you feel like there was something wrong with the old stuff you have and that you now need the newest version of whatever it is. I can connect to this feeling because I continuously want a new cell phone. I got the phone I have now a little over a year ago when it was the newest one out. Now that I see images on TV and ads showing the iphone, my phone is no longer good enough because it’s not the newest. It still works fine and as similar features as the iphone does but because it’s an older version I want a different one. It’s interesting how I didn’t even realize this process regarding “the cult of the new” was affecting my decisions until Habermas pointed it out.
I also found the ad that was shown in class that depicted a sign that said “new improved on sale”. This is amusing because how can you really improve pepper spray and if you already have some and it’s working then why does it even matter if there is a newer version. This seems so obvious because it’s depicting pepper spray but phone companies for example are doing the same thing in manipulating people to believe newer is better even if nothing really changes that much.
Additionally, I found the American Idol example from class to be another interesting depiction of this. Besides the popularity of the show itself, the contestants put out the American Idol CDs. What this is is just basically new younger singers singing classic songs that have already been put out by other artists in the past. Advertisers and producers just make what has already been done and old seem new by projecting that image of new young talent giving it a new twist. It’s strange how people buy in to that and purchase the CDs of the same songs they might already have because they were made to believe it’s somehow new and different.
I also found the ad that was shown in class that depicted a sign that said “new improved on sale”. This is amusing because how can you really improve pepper spray and if you already have some and it’s working then why does it even matter if there is a newer version. This seems so obvious because it’s depicting pepper spray but phone companies for example are doing the same thing in manipulating people to believe newer is better even if nothing really changes that much.
Additionally, I found the American Idol example from class to be another interesting depiction of this. Besides the popularity of the show itself, the contestants put out the American Idol CDs. What this is is just basically new younger singers singing classic songs that have already been put out by other artists in the past. Advertisers and producers just make what has already been done and old seem new by projecting that image of new young talent giving it a new twist. It’s strange how people buy in to that and purchase the CDs of the same songs they might already have because they were made to believe it’s somehow new and different.
Asyouwish/2/15 response to aro0823
I agree with the idea of "the cult of the new" that aro0823 talked about as being something that greatly affects our society. Technological advances such as new cellphones happen at a very fast pace; a pace which for me is too hard to keep up with. A lot of my friends have the I-phone touch. In the past when I have needed to use someone's phone and they handed me their I-phone touch I have had trouble using it, it seems technology progresses so fast that if you do not get on the bus right away you will be left behind. A perfect example of such an occurrence takes place in the movie Sex and the City when Sarah Jessica Parker’s character Carry asks for a phone in panic and someone hands her an I-phone and she states "I don't know how to use this". Another technology that advances at a faster pace than most of us can keep up with is video game sets, playstations, nintendos, wii, game cube, and then there are also the handheld games. I see children in airports playing with handheld electronics that I could not even tell you the name, yet alone how to play them. I played all different types of game systems growing up, Nintendo, SuperNintendo, Nintendo 64, gamegear and gameboy, but the new game systems keep changing and I am less able to keep up with them. The "cult of the new" seems to be mainly applicable to electronics because it is the one area the human race has not come close to fully testing out. It seems every year inventors come out with new products that have yet to appear on the shelves and thus they make their debut and the newer generations rush out to buy them. Older generations become less and less familiar with the new technologies. For example, when our parents were younger they had televisions with knobs you turned to change the channels and then they created remotes. Over the years remotes have had buttons added making them even more complicated to use, and now they are so complicated people like my mother even have trouble turning the television on and off. The cult of the new seems to be here to stay, at least it will keep companies like, Sharper Image, Brookstone, Apple, Sony and Panasonic in business and allow for interesting purchases available in inflight magazines.
ashlayla, 2/12
We always have to have the newest edition of technology even if we have an older edition that still works perfectly. That's "the cult of the new." Advertisers use their creative ways to get people to buy products. For example, cell phones. Cell phones used to be huge and bulky, but no one cared because they were the newest thing on the market. After some time, cell phones got smaller and then there was the flip-phone. After that, technological advances made it possible to add cameras and internet to cell phones and allowing them to also be used as MP3 players. And then, just over a year ago, the iPhone arrived. The iPhone became so popular because not only was it a phone with all kinds of applications but it was also a touch screen phone. No one had ever seen a touch screen phone that could perform like the iPhone and so of course, everyone wanted it. Apple created advertisements for the iPhone that would catch the average consumer’s eye. In result of these advertisements and what the iPhone could do, Apple stores were met with long lines on the release date of the phone. Everyone wanted the iPhone, but not everyone got one because there were limited quantities at the stores. First it was the iPhone, now (after last year) it’s the Blackberry Storm. The newest edition of Blackberry’s that everyone wants. Advertisers promoted it, made it look appealing, and now people are buying it. They're buying it, because it's the newest thing on the market.
When advertisements announce that the newest thing in technology is about to be released, advertisers get creative because they know consumers always want the newest thing in technology. If consumers don’t get what’s new on the market, they feel out of the loop. Consumers want to feel like they’re cool so they buy what’s new no matter the cost. Advertisements make new technology appealing making the technology sell out quickly.
When advertisements announce that the newest thing in technology is about to be released, advertisers get creative because they know consumers always want the newest thing in technology. If consumers don’t get what’s new on the market, they feel out of the loop. Consumers want to feel like they’re cool so they buy what’s new no matter the cost. Advertisements make new technology appealing making the technology sell out quickly.
aro0823, 2/14
“The Cult of the New.”
I blame the advertising industry for the rise in prominence of “the cult of the new.” Marketers are quite perceptive and realize just how unassuming and persuadable consumers have become. The rise of modern American consumer culture in the 1950s and the subsequent development of the “position treadmill” has made advertisers’ jobs remarkably simplistic; they need merely to attach the words “new” or “improved” to any product and it will fly off retailer’s shelves. Habermas too was remarkably perceptive when he wrote about the ‘new’ being overcome and “made obsolete through the novelty of the next style (99).” The transition from ‘new’ to ‘obsolete’ is remarkably apparent in the electronics industry, specifically with Apple products.
When Apple introduced the first iPod in 2002, it was said to revolutionize the music industry. Interestingly enough, even after introducing the subsequent fifteen generations in six years, Apple still claims that each new model is revolutionary and you must have it because it is the latest. The iPod mini lasted only two years before the smaller iPod shuffle debuted, only to be replaced by the Nano nine months later. Though the iPod classic is still available for the traditionalists out there, the postmodern employees in the store insist that you buy the iPod Touch because it is the most recent release. All of this technology is handheld and plays music, but if you don’t rush out and purchase the latest version, you will assumedly feel alienated and left out.
Cell phone companies like Verizon follow similar models with their “New Every Two” agreement, in which the customer is able to upgrade his phone to a better model every two years, even if the old one works perfectly. “Traditional substance becomes devalued” and the consumer falls into the never-ending pattern of pursuing the new (103). For this reason, regardless of the market price of these objects, no rational consumer expects any technology to be long-lasting and therefore has no problem paying obscene amounts of money for new high tech gadgets multiple times a year. Although he was born in the late 20s, Habermas would undoubtedly have no issue cornering the advertising industry today, nine decades later.
I blame the advertising industry for the rise in prominence of “the cult of the new.” Marketers are quite perceptive and realize just how unassuming and persuadable consumers have become. The rise of modern American consumer culture in the 1950s and the subsequent development of the “position treadmill” has made advertisers’ jobs remarkably simplistic; they need merely to attach the words “new” or “improved” to any product and it will fly off retailer’s shelves. Habermas too was remarkably perceptive when he wrote about the ‘new’ being overcome and “made obsolete through the novelty of the next style (99).” The transition from ‘new’ to ‘obsolete’ is remarkably apparent in the electronics industry, specifically with Apple products.
When Apple introduced the first iPod in 2002, it was said to revolutionize the music industry. Interestingly enough, even after introducing the subsequent fifteen generations in six years, Apple still claims that each new model is revolutionary and you must have it because it is the latest. The iPod mini lasted only two years before the smaller iPod shuffle debuted, only to be replaced by the Nano nine months later. Though the iPod classic is still available for the traditionalists out there, the postmodern employees in the store insist that you buy the iPod Touch because it is the most recent release. All of this technology is handheld and plays music, but if you don’t rush out and purchase the latest version, you will assumedly feel alienated and left out.
Cell phone companies like Verizon follow similar models with their “New Every Two” agreement, in which the customer is able to upgrade his phone to a better model every two years, even if the old one works perfectly. “Traditional substance becomes devalued” and the consumer falls into the never-ending pattern of pursuing the new (103). For this reason, regardless of the market price of these objects, no rational consumer expects any technology to be long-lasting and therefore has no problem paying obscene amounts of money for new high tech gadgets multiple times a year. Although he was born in the late 20s, Habermas would undoubtedly have no issue cornering the advertising industry today, nine decades later.
Petite Etoile, 2/15
Our society has a never ending thirst for something new, something exciting, something that’s never been seen or done before. We constantly crave entertainment, and we cant spend more than two minutes without turning on the TV or the radio or getting on our computers. We can never just simply be. And on top of all this, we have the attention span of a 5-year old who just ate a few spoonfuls of sugar. Something can only keep us happy and retain our attention for a short while before it becomes old and boring, even though not to long ago it was the newest and the best. It’s sad really, how easily tricked we are into this cult of the new. We have perfectly working cellphones, tv’s, cars, computers and so forth, but when the newest and most improved version comes out we simply must have it. Even though they aren’t that much different at all from their perfectly functioning predecessors, except for their large increase in price. This happens a lot especially with cellphones. We don’t really need cellphones that can take pictures and play games and count backwards in Chinese from 345. But because of all the hype of the brand new and better model, everyone buys into it and spends a lot of money they don’t have. I think this is the root of most of the problems in our society. We don’t buy out of necessity, we buy out of frivolous desire. And this leads to debt, over consumption, and a lack of political and social justice. We would rather spend all of our money and time on stupid entertainment than trying to help people around the world who are suffering. We’ve become lazy and selfish and are not willing to give up our toys to help others or to try and save the environment, because it doesn’t affect us directly and we would rather have what we want fast and cheap. It was only until gas prices started directly affecting the American public’s pockets that people suddenly started being eco-friendly. I think we need to take a step back and re-learn what it is to be ourselves, without any music or games or entertainment. I think we need to re-learn what its like to have a face to face conversation without any technology or music or movies to distract or alcohol or drugs to make it better. I think if we could somehow all just take a day off, just pack a picnic basket and go out onto a grassy hill and lay back and look up at the sky, maybe we would realize that the best parts of life really are the simply joys and the real relationships.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)