In class we talked about Eco’s article and that “the U.S. is filled with cities that imitate a city” (200). I thought it was funny when it was said that a gondolier from Venice, Italy moved to America to work as a gondolier at the Venetian hotel in Las Vegas. When asked why he moved to do the same job he was doing in Italy, he said that our Venice was better than the real Venice because it wasn’t as smelly and the weather here was better. It is pretty crazy when people leave their own country to come to ours because we have ripped off their unique qualities and “perfected” them for commodity. I think it is very true that people prefer fantasy over the real because when you are making something up you can make it as you like, rather than have any natural negative effects. For example, the Venetian is like Venice only better, it takes all of the good qualities and leaves behind all of the bad.
Dr. Rog talked about a trip he took to Yellowstone where he watched a family wait impatiently for the geyser to go off, and when it did not go off in time they angrily hurried off. This proves to us, as Eco said in the reading, “technology gives us more reality that nature can” (203). This is because technology will do the same thing every time on the hour compared to a natural occurrence that cannot insure the same display each time. This uninsurrance and rarity of a natural occurrence is what makes it so special from technology which can produce pretty much anything on the spot. It is the wait for the geyser, knowing that no one has control over it that makes it so spectacular. Technology can reproduce it but then it becomes less spectacular, or so one would think. Today, people do not seem to care whether things happen naturally or by technology as long as they happen when they are expected to.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Asyouwish Cities in cities/epcot
The idea of America having cities within cities really interested me because I recently just went to Epcot for the first time. A few of my girlfriends went there a month ago to celebrate our friends 21st birthday. After their adventure they told me about how they went to Mexico, Italy, France, China, Japan, Germany, Norway, Morocco, Britain and Canada and having never been there I thought they were crazy. They went on to say they had German beer and in Germany, bellini's in Italy, couscous in Morocco and so on and so forth. I looked at them as was like no you didn't, what are you talking about? You just happened to have foreign drinks and food at Disney. However when I went to Epcot last weekend and saw the countries I understood what they meant. I had no idea what Epcot looked like and did not realize they actually recreated small areas of these countries with familiar structures. Having traveled a fair amount in my life I immediately knew which most areas represented. Italy was represented by structure taken from Sienna, France was represented by the Eiffel Tower, Britain was depicted with cobblestone streets and taverns, Mexico by an Aztec temple which I only recognized thanks to Tenth Grade World History. Having been to Italy, France, Britain and at least seen photos of these specific Aztec temples, to me it did not really feel the same as being there, but was definitely a close fit for those that might not be able to travel to distant countries. The countries I had never been to interested me more and were more believable to me maybe because I had never seen them. However to me, the whole experience did not feel the same as actually being across seas,( maybe because I wasn't jetlagged) but it certainly did not feel like I was still in Florida, especially since the day we went to Epcot was cold for Florida weather. Instead by being in these small replicated countries I felt that I was in a distant land, it was nice; it was a way to get away for a moment. While these were definitely not actually the foreign countries themselves, it at least seemed like another place and that was pleasant. Perhaps the idea of having cities within cities is not merely to be able to go to the place we want to go whenever we want to go there for cheaper, but instead a place to go to escape. The different atmosphere, sights, smells and tastes were refreshing. Perhaps the reason we have places like the Venician Hotel and Epcot are so that we can escape our normalcy and have adventure in our lives.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Trapnest, Dorfman
Disney is the ninth most valuable brand name in the world as stated by research done by interbrand (http://www.interbrand.com/best_global_brands.aspx) in 2008. Meaning that ignoring Disney’s assets such as physical objects, production powers and land owning the name and logo “Disney” alone is worth 29,251 million dollars. It is no personal shock that Disney could attain this metaphysical wealth by operating in almost a separate realm than most other products.
“Children’s games have their own rules and laws, they move supposedly in an autonomous and asocial sphere like Disney characters…” - Dorfman
This wealth Disney has, on all levels, I feel is also representative of how much influence Disney has over the development of children. I found it interesting how Dorfman and Mattelart points out that these child fantasies that Disney produce are created by adults. Also how this fantasy is used to promote what “adults want.” As Dorfman said:
“The authoritarian relationship between the real life parent and child is repeated and reinforced within the fantasy world itself…” – Dorfman
I think of how many parent/child relationships there are in the Disney movies. Even thinking back to the original inspiration for Disney the original Grimm fairy tales were designed to educate adults as well as children of how they should act and how their relationship should be. While it was more severe things like “don’t beat your children” and “don’t run away,” many of the relationship influences remain in-tact today. Looking at Cinderella, true it was a step mother, but it shows that you should not treat your children poorly. Otherwise it is possible that they can return and see their revenge and justice upon you for your actions. Or children who run away from their parents or don’t follow their advice and then end up getting into trouble or kidnapped. I think everyone knows of that touching moment in the end of the Disney movies where the kid hugs the parent and says “Mom/Dad, I’m sorry, I’ll listen from now on.”
“Children’s games have their own rules and laws, they move supposedly in an autonomous and asocial sphere like Disney characters…” - Dorfman
This wealth Disney has, on all levels, I feel is also representative of how much influence Disney has over the development of children. I found it interesting how Dorfman and Mattelart points out that these child fantasies that Disney produce are created by adults. Also how this fantasy is used to promote what “adults want.” As Dorfman said:
“The authoritarian relationship between the real life parent and child is repeated and reinforced within the fantasy world itself…” – Dorfman
I think of how many parent/child relationships there are in the Disney movies. Even thinking back to the original inspiration for Disney the original Grimm fairy tales were designed to educate adults as well as children of how they should act and how their relationship should be. While it was more severe things like “don’t beat your children” and “don’t run away,” many of the relationship influences remain in-tact today. Looking at Cinderella, true it was a step mother, but it shows that you should not treat your children poorly. Otherwise it is possible that they can return and see their revenge and justice upon you for your actions. Or children who run away from their parents or don’t follow their advice and then end up getting into trouble or kidnapped. I think everyone knows of that touching moment in the end of the Disney movies where the kid hugs the parent and says “Mom/Dad, I’m sorry, I’ll listen from now on.”
Murphy, Eco
Eco immediately grabs the readers attention by making a black and white comparison with our American culture against the European culture's version of "amusement". In the U.S. bigger=better, faster=better, fake=better. This article definitely supports that idea by analyzing "fake cities"...and not just that, but more specifically the "Absolute Fake". Eco describes this type of city as being "entirely made up of signs, not like the others, which communicate in order to function, but rather a city that functions in order to communicate." Although Disney World is not the only example it follows this outline of a fake city the closest. I went to Disney World, more specifically the Epcot park, last weekend. Before last weekend I hadn't been to Disney since I was 8 years old. I had a strange reminiscent feeling while walking through the park. Whereas if I walk around the town I used to live in when I was 8 years old and don't remember much because it has changed so much and my memory has faded. But going back to Disney was entirely different, I felt like it had been less than a year since I had visited. I think that memory is the same as when you see a movie when you are younger and never forget it because it had such a large theatrical delivery and leaves an effect. The same happens with Disney when you walk the streets, see the castle, and most importantly meet the characters. This brings me back to Baudrillard's question; "Does reality actually outstrip fiction?" The answer is no, at least for me and my memories from when I was younger. Fiction is bigger,more real, and leaves a lasting impression, whereas reality fades and changes with time.
Eco writes about another author's view of Disney World as a "degenerate utopia". Maybe people remember Disney World because it is the perfect world, or at the least the closest we'll ever get in this lifetime, to what we all wish we could have everyday, and it FEELS REAL.
Eco writes about another author's view of Disney World as a "degenerate utopia". Maybe people remember Disney World because it is the perfect world, or at the least the closest we'll ever get in this lifetime, to what we all wish we could have everyday, and it FEELS REAL.
WoolyBully7, Eco
After finishing the article, I felt like a kid again I can’t even lie. It brought back a lot of childhood memories, as I’m sure it did for many others. You see, when you’re a child, everything seems so much bigger, better and more entertaining. A quick example of this was when I watched a Star Wars movie when I was younger; I thought it was the coolest, most amazing thing I had ever seen. I watched it again just a few years ago on TV and I really wasn’t that impressed by it. It didn’t seem nearly as incredible or interesting as it once did. There wasn’t as much realism as I once thought there was. Now I know Star Wars doesn’t represent anything real (or does it?) but it still lost its original effect on me.
While I agree with everything Eco is referencing as far as the reconstructions represented in Disneyland, is the whole establishment as imaginative as we think it is? Some of the Disney characters such as Snow White or Peter Pan may be products of the imagination but almost everything else is “fake”. The imagination in the truest sense of the word is gone. The first four paragraphs outline over a dozen of these fake cities and how they represent past themes and events. The creativity ends after the characters and stories behind the characters. I think these representations of past eras are the exact same thing as the Johnny Rockets example from the other day. Disneyland and World are portraying the past with pirates and wild west gunfights, and Johnny Rockets with the faultless 1950s. At least in Johnny Rockets’ case, there are still people alive now who were alive in the 50s and this is not true for the pirate ships and wild west gunfights with Native Americans.
“The pleasure of imitation, as the ancients knew, is one of the most innate in the human spirit; but here we not only enjoy a perfect imitation, we also enjoy the conviction that imitation has reached its apex and afterwards reality will always be inferior to it.” -Eco
While I agree with everything Eco is referencing as far as the reconstructions represented in Disneyland, is the whole establishment as imaginative as we think it is? Some of the Disney characters such as Snow White or Peter Pan may be products of the imagination but almost everything else is “fake”. The imagination in the truest sense of the word is gone. The first four paragraphs outline over a dozen of these fake cities and how they represent past themes and events. The creativity ends after the characters and stories behind the characters. I think these representations of past eras are the exact same thing as the Johnny Rockets example from the other day. Disneyland and World are portraying the past with pirates and wild west gunfights, and Johnny Rockets with the faultless 1950s. At least in Johnny Rockets’ case, there are still people alive now who were alive in the 50s and this is not true for the pirate ships and wild west gunfights with Native Americans.
“The pleasure of imitation, as the ancients knew, is one of the most innate in the human spirit; but here we not only enjoy a perfect imitation, we also enjoy the conviction that imitation has reached its apex and afterwards reality will always be inferior to it.” -Eco
ashlayla, Dorfman
"It would be wrong to assume the Walt Disney is merely a business man." (122)
This is the very first line of Dorfman's & Mattelart's essay and I agree with it. Walt Disney was more than a business man, he was an entrepreneur bringing entertainment to millions of people around the world. The residents of Orlando, Anaheim, Paris, Tokyo, and Hong Kong are surrounded by the fantastical characters of Disney. If people don't live in a city that has a Disneyland/world, they go to the one that is closest to them or the one that they really want to visit. Some people try to even go to every single park so that they can experience it in a different way.
Dorfman and Mattelart continued to say that "Disney...transcends differences between peoples and nations, and particularities of custom and language. Disney is the great supranational bridge across which all human beings may communicate with each other." (123) Disney is like a universal language that we learn at a young age. Walt Disney was a successful entrepreneur interested in giving the world a fantastical place that allowed us to escape from our reality. We can communicate with people from a different country because Disney is a household name. As consumers, we constantly buy Disney things because they make us feel like a kid again. All the buildings on Main Street USA are shops disguised as old time buildings. When consumers walk down Main Street USA, past all the buildings, they don't know what is offered inside because there are no signs. There are no signs detailing what Disney "treasures" can be found inside. What they are greeted with are clothes that have Mickey and other characters all over them, lollipops that have Mickey's face smack-dab in the middle of it, and the iconic "Mickey Ears" that everyone buys and wears. Without the signs on the outside of the buildings, Disney consumers are coaxed inside and start buying almost anything and everything. This is what made Disney more than a business man. Getting people to buy his products and take them to their homes to show their neighbors spread the word that Disney is the hottest thing on the market.
This is the very first line of Dorfman's & Mattelart's essay and I agree with it. Walt Disney was more than a business man, he was an entrepreneur bringing entertainment to millions of people around the world. The residents of Orlando, Anaheim, Paris, Tokyo, and Hong Kong are surrounded by the fantastical characters of Disney. If people don't live in a city that has a Disneyland/world, they go to the one that is closest to them or the one that they really want to visit. Some people try to even go to every single park so that they can experience it in a different way.
Dorfman and Mattelart continued to say that "Disney...transcends differences between peoples and nations, and particularities of custom and language. Disney is the great supranational bridge across which all human beings may communicate with each other." (123) Disney is like a universal language that we learn at a young age. Walt Disney was a successful entrepreneur interested in giving the world a fantastical place that allowed us to escape from our reality. We can communicate with people from a different country because Disney is a household name. As consumers, we constantly buy Disney things because they make us feel like a kid again. All the buildings on Main Street USA are shops disguised as old time buildings. When consumers walk down Main Street USA, past all the buildings, they don't know what is offered inside because there are no signs. There are no signs detailing what Disney "treasures" can be found inside. What they are greeted with are clothes that have Mickey and other characters all over them, lollipops that have Mickey's face smack-dab in the middle of it, and the iconic "Mickey Ears" that everyone buys and wears. Without the signs on the outside of the buildings, Disney consumers are coaxed inside and start buying almost anything and everything. This is what made Disney more than a business man. Getting people to buy his products and take them to their homes to show their neighbors spread the word that Disney is the hottest thing on the market.
Umberto Eco, Petite Etoile
In Europe people go to houses of amusement, here we have entire cities of amusement. One such is Las Vegas, a “signs” city which does not communicate in order to function, as normal cities do, but functions purely to communicate. It is however still a real city because people really live there and work there. There are other cities however that are absolutely fake cities, an obvious example would be Disneyland, but there are cities that were built to imitate others. Some are authentic preserved cities from the past, but others have been born out of nothing. I believe St. Augustine is a good example of a preserved and renovated city, although there are parts of it that have been built out of nothing. I went on a field trip to a mini city there that was built to reconstruct an old farm, you can shuck corn and churn butter. Then they take you to the “Indian Village” where you can make old-style Indian jewelry, go inside a tepee and sit in a circle and sing Indian songs with an Indian. Wax museums have representations of reality, but make it clear that they are fakes. You can take pictures with Brad Pitt but you know that it's not really him, and you also know that it's not even a real person, he will not begin moving and put his arm around you and smile for the camera. Disney however invites you in and allows you to interact with the city and the people, and further blends reality and fiction. You know your not really in old-time America, but you can really enter the stores and talk to the characters and make purchases just as though you really were living in old-time America. Disney not only creates a fictional world, but it makes us prefer the fictional over the real thing. On our trip to North Carolina over thanksgiving break, we hiked a trail up a mountain to see a waterfall. As we went up the mountain, I remember my mom saying, “Now this isn't Disney World you guys, there's no handrails or workers here so if you fall you fall so be careful.” As we continued on the trail it got colder and colder and the ground started to be covered by ice. It was a long way back down, slipping and sliding and shivering (being from Florida and Brazil, cold isn't really our thing..) and I remember one time my mom almost fell completely she whined “I want my fake Disney World mountains back...” It's just more convenient to have a fake versus the real thing. You always know whats going to happen, so you're always guaranteed to get what you want, to be safe, and to have a representative there to help you or reimburse you if something should displease you. It's like the robot dogs or tamagochis we used to play with. You get the same satisfaction of a dog, it barks, wags its tail, walks, “eats” but comes without any of the responsibilities of a real dog. It doesn't smell, it doesn't make a mess, it doesn't run away. You don't have to bathe it or clean up after it. And you only have to “feed” it or “walk” it whenever you want. If you forget it in a closet or a drawer for a few weeks it will still be there alive and well whenever you decide it's amusing again. It's as if our society is teaching us that we don't have to be responsible for anything, just do whatever makes you happy or whatever entertains you and don't worry about the repercussions because there are none. Pregnant? Have an abortion. Fat? Take these pills or do this surgery. Don't have enough money? Just take out a loan or use a credit card. Do whatever you want whenever you want without thought or care as to what will happen in the future or how it will affect others. I think this is one of the main reasons we have such a problem with being eco-friendly here in America. We don't think about the repercussions. People buy SUV's, leave the water on, leave lights on, and don't bother to waste time recycling because they don't think about what that will do to our future. No wonder the rest of the world thinks were stupid, were messing up the same planet they have to live on. And it's only now with the economic crisis that people started “caring” about the environment and buying hybrid cars, and turning off their lights and water and buying energy efficient things. Plus celebrities have gotten in on it so it's become more of a fad than anything. Shopping organic and bringing your cloth bags with you to the grocery store is the new thing. Green is the new black.
post-it note, 2/19/09
Hyperstimulated sensitivity is a term for something that happens everyday in the United States. There are so many reasons for people to believe anything and everything, and the same amount of reasons to disbelieve. Keeping the facts straight through so many outlets including the internet, newspapers, magazines, nightly news and here-say. To understand the truth is almost irrelevant when so many sources say so many different things.
Take wikipedia. As a website, there are editors and professionals that ensure that the site is accurate. But when anyone can post anything on the site, there must be a period of time when the information is inaccurate. Even though the information will be corrected, there is inaccurate information even on regulated sites were democratized information is available. Stating an opinion is important, although, as we have discussed, blogging on the internet means to some that their opinion is actually an educated critique on whatever the topic being blogged about is.
The ironic thing about this account is that the internet is the result of a cultural phenomenon of which hypersimulated sensitivity can be attributed. The internet offers a realm where pictures of celebrities and web cams into homes offer broken bits of information up for interpretation. One thing is posted, like a report on CNN.com and the article can be commented on. Usually the comments are from the truly satisfied reader offering snaps for the author or those who disagree with the story, how it was reported or how it was framed or on the very nature of the topic of the report. All of that information that must be trudged though is important in that non-reporters are now able to post their own ideas. But posting an idea does not make it true or fact.
I think that many people believe everything on the internet because in the infancy of the internet, only qualified journalists and wealthy, therefore educated, individuals had access to it. But now, it is easy to see that there is a stigma about the internet. The duality that exists are those who believe in it and those who question it. It is plain to see that the internet does not have all of the answers when those answers are set against each other.
Take wikipedia. As a website, there are editors and professionals that ensure that the site is accurate. But when anyone can post anything on the site, there must be a period of time when the information is inaccurate. Even though the information will be corrected, there is inaccurate information even on regulated sites were democratized information is available. Stating an opinion is important, although, as we have discussed, blogging on the internet means to some that their opinion is actually an educated critique on whatever the topic being blogged about is.
The ironic thing about this account is that the internet is the result of a cultural phenomenon of which hypersimulated sensitivity can be attributed. The internet offers a realm where pictures of celebrities and web cams into homes offer broken bits of information up for interpretation. One thing is posted, like a report on CNN.com and the article can be commented on. Usually the comments are from the truly satisfied reader offering snaps for the author or those who disagree with the story, how it was reported or how it was framed or on the very nature of the topic of the report. All of that information that must be trudged though is important in that non-reporters are now able to post their own ideas. But posting an idea does not make it true or fact.
I think that many people believe everything on the internet because in the infancy of the internet, only qualified journalists and wealthy, therefore educated, individuals had access to it. But now, it is easy to see that there is a stigma about the internet. The duality that exists are those who believe in it and those who question it. It is plain to see that the internet does not have all of the answers when those answers are set against each other.
Murphy, 2/23
(Post-Class from Thursday 2/19)
Continuing our discussion on Habermas Thursday was most interesting to me when we talked about how our actions are based off of conventions. These conventions tell us what is real/authentic. Dr.Rog's example of how racing cannot be a part of educational culture, and keeping them separate is a way of thriving in both environments really made sense to me. Growing up in Indianapolis I lived around the Indy 500, and coming to school in Winter Park the first thing a lot of people ask me when I tell them where I'm from is "You don't like NASCAR do you?"
I think other situations are good example of conventions creating worlds that need to be separated, such as what music we listen to, what clothes we wear, and what types of food we enjoy eating. The idea brought up in class that "we have to take classes/ have an education to tell us what we like", rings true in everyday life. The other week I attended an etiquette dinner. I had to sit and listen to someone tell me how to eat a certain way to be proper and succeed in formal situations. The information was useful, but it is ironic that we have to be "taught" to eat a certain way. These cultural rules and regulations determine the "elite". Something I wrote down in my notes from Thursdays class in regards to elitism was-- Elitism is teaching us to consume these things that we do not necessarily care for.
I think people buy houses, buy cars, listen to certain music, watch certain movies, eat certain foods, and act a certain way all because we feel societies pressure to fit into certain categories.
Another part of Thursday's discussion that I really thought about later was the class exercise we did with the quote, "Does reality actually outstrip fiction?"
I wrote: After reading Baudrillard and Zizek, reality does not seem to outstrip fiction because fiction begins to define reality. Media is the biggest player in this scheme of manipulating images of what is real, into new images that we consume, accept, and for the most part never challenge.
I was specifically referring to the parts of their writings that talked about 9/11. The media plays into the terrorists favor by recreating over and over and over again the same image of destruction that causes the mass hysteria.
Continuing our discussion on Habermas Thursday was most interesting to me when we talked about how our actions are based off of conventions. These conventions tell us what is real/authentic. Dr.Rog's example of how racing cannot be a part of educational culture, and keeping them separate is a way of thriving in both environments really made sense to me. Growing up in Indianapolis I lived around the Indy 500, and coming to school in Winter Park the first thing a lot of people ask me when I tell them where I'm from is "You don't like NASCAR do you?"
I think other situations are good example of conventions creating worlds that need to be separated, such as what music we listen to, what clothes we wear, and what types of food we enjoy eating. The idea brought up in class that "we have to take classes/ have an education to tell us what we like", rings true in everyday life. The other week I attended an etiquette dinner. I had to sit and listen to someone tell me how to eat a certain way to be proper and succeed in formal situations. The information was useful, but it is ironic that we have to be "taught" to eat a certain way. These cultural rules and regulations determine the "elite". Something I wrote down in my notes from Thursdays class in regards to elitism was-- Elitism is teaching us to consume these things that we do not necessarily care for.
I think people buy houses, buy cars, listen to certain music, watch certain movies, eat certain foods, and act a certain way all because we feel societies pressure to fit into certain categories.
Another part of Thursday's discussion that I really thought about later was the class exercise we did with the quote, "Does reality actually outstrip fiction?"
I wrote: After reading Baudrillard and Zizek, reality does not seem to outstrip fiction because fiction begins to define reality. Media is the biggest player in this scheme of manipulating images of what is real, into new images that we consume, accept, and for the most part never challenge.
I was specifically referring to the parts of their writings that talked about 9/11. The media plays into the terrorists favor by recreating over and over and over again the same image of destruction that causes the mass hysteria.
Umberto Eco, brookes77
In Umberto Eco's studies of "The City of Robots", he discussed Las Vegas and mainly Disney world and Disney Land. He discussed how when we go to disney world or disney land and we park our cars and give ourselves to this fake world, that strips us of our power and our ability to make our own decisions. We listen to these voices that tell us what to do and how to do it. Yet, at the same time the parks do a good job in replicating the past, yet making the rides, the people, the events, "realer" then "real". An example of this would be "Santa's village" a park i use to love to go to when i was younger. This made Santa so real to me, yet he is not real at all. The park, forces the idea of santa on you making an even bigger deal then what you learn about in your own home. He states " Walt Disney, who had finally managed to achieve his own dream and reconstruct a fantasy world more real then reality, breaking down the wall of the second dimension, creating not a movie, which is illusion, but total theater, and with anthropomorphized animals but with human being." His research is very true when he discusses how we enjoy this imitation of a perfect world almost so much that the "reality will always be inferior to it".
These falsified cities, parks, are perfect worlds. They allow us to experience past events, wars, pirates, etc . yet when the ride is over we see sunshine, and we do not have to live in that world anymore, and we have the ability to forget and move on. This is not reality.
Another example, is on the last page, of how we lose complete power over ourselves when entering these parks and act like robots is that: "Tomorrow, with its violence, has made the colors fade from the stories of Yesterday. In this respect Disneyland, is much shrewder it must be visited without anything to remind us of the future surrounding it. Marin has observed that, to enter it, the essential condition is to abandon your car in an endless parking lot and reach the boundary of the dream city by special little trains." Our cars are what give us the ability to proceed with the future, to have our individual lives and agendas, yet without them we are confined to the parks agenda, and our individual schedule is no longer important to anyone. Although the park allows us to see that these are just representations of the real, it makes us want to live in a world like this, with fear but only till we are done fearing, with perfect houses, events that have a set beginning and end. These parks are enjoyable, yet they turn us into robots that have a skewed vision of what is real life and what is not.
These falsified cities, parks, are perfect worlds. They allow us to experience past events, wars, pirates, etc . yet when the ride is over we see sunshine, and we do not have to live in that world anymore, and we have the ability to forget and move on. This is not reality.
Another example, is on the last page, of how we lose complete power over ourselves when entering these parks and act like robots is that: "Tomorrow, with its violence, has made the colors fade from the stories of Yesterday. In this respect Disneyland, is much shrewder it must be visited without anything to remind us of the future surrounding it. Marin has observed that, to enter it, the essential condition is to abandon your car in an endless parking lot and reach the boundary of the dream city by special little trains." Our cars are what give us the ability to proceed with the future, to have our individual lives and agendas, yet without them we are confined to the parks agenda, and our individual schedule is no longer important to anyone. Although the park allows us to see that these are just representations of the real, it makes us want to live in a world like this, with fear but only till we are done fearing, with perfect houses, events that have a set beginning and end. These parks are enjoyable, yet they turn us into robots that have a skewed vision of what is real life and what is not.
Dot - Eco
I really enjoyed reading Umberto Eco's piece "The City of Robots" and found his insight on hyperreality very insightful. Having never been to Disney World, I do not know if I can fully grasp or understand all that he presented in the same way that someone who has experienced the "degenerate utopia" might be able to (2).
Growing up my parents never choose to take my brother and I to Disney World, proclaiming that my father hated lines and that it was a waste of money. When I tell this to my friends they say that I was a deprived child and that trips to Disney were some of the best times they ever had. Everyday people travel hundreds and even thousands of miles to visit this fantasy land, but I really do not feel as though I have missed out on very much. Sure it may be fun to ride the rides and see the princesses, but knowing it is all man made and fake actually makes me not want to go.
To me, Disney Land and Disney the company try to sell an escape reality to those people in our society who cannot deal with the actual reality of their own lives. The illusion that Disney creates in its fantasy lands is one that people begin to strive for in their own lives. As Eco says, "Disney Land not only produces illusion, but in confessing it stimulates the desire for it" (3). It makes people want the perfection they see in their own lives, which we all know is nearly impossible.
Eco goes on to say that "Disney Land is really the quintessence of consumer ideology" and I totally agree with this (3). Not only does Disney sell all of its products at the park, but also at malls all over the country. The Disney Store sells all types of Disney products, I am sure similar to the ones sold at the actual locations. Besides products, Disney also sells a lifestyle, one not realistic at all. It is unrealistic not due to its pricy nature, but because of its ultimate fabrication and falsity. Disney promotes a way of living through its films and parks that make people think that the fantasy world they see is something they can one day achieve, and that they need to achieve it to be ultimately happy.
In the end of Eco's piece, he presents an idea that I think is extremely insightful and highly representational of our culture as a whole. He states that at Disney, "visitors must agree to behave like its robots" (5). People who visit the parks are told what to do, where do go and when to do it. This theme is very reminiscent of our everyday lives, as society tells us all of these things, but on a much larger scale. Could this be why so many people enjoy Disney World? Do they need direction and a higher power to control their every move? Are we all robots being controlled with societies remote?
Petite Etoile - 2-33-09 - Response to jlo360
I personally hate Johnny Rockets because I think the food is terrible. The only thing I really like is when they sing and dance and thats about it. But my parents love it because it reminds them of the past. You want to know whats funny about that? They grew up in Brazil... yeah Johnny Rockets has nothing to do with the way they grew up. But they love the design of the diner and the food and the songs because they used to watch American television shows when they were younger, like Happy Days and the Brady Bunch and all that. And those shows had such an impact on them that today they have a nostalgic feeling for those things, even though they never really experienced them. It's a strange phenomenon that I have seen a lot throughout Brazil. Everyone there loves everything that is American and it becomes such a huge part of their lives even though it has nothing to do with their lives. For instance, Brazilian food is awesome. Like not even because I'm from there and I'm buyist or anything, but as innocent bystander it is hands down the best food ever. So when I get there and my family wants to take me out for lunch and they want to take me to McDonalds I'm not only shocked, I'm disappointed. And McDonalds has the same pitch aimed towards kids and trying to stir up this nostalgia in people that they went to McDonalds every day when they were little so they should keep going now 'for old times sake.' But this is far from the truth because when they were little McDonalds had just arrived in Brazil, there was only one in the city, and it was extremely expensive. So going to McDonalds was reserved for special occasions or the wealthy. Now it's more affordable, but even so it's not cheap like it is here. And I try explaining to them that the reason we eat McDonalds here is because it's cheap, so why in the world are they paying extra for this crap when there's awesome Brazilian food on every corner for a lot less? Which also shows a sense of exoticism and the thought that whatever is new is better. Everything American is believed to be better. A couple weeks ago my aunt was telling me how excited they were to go eat at the brand new first Outback Steakhouse that was opening there. Now I don't know if you understand the irony in this, but Brazil, especially where I'm from, is like the Texas of South America. Steak is our thing. One of the best and most expensive steak houses here in Orlando is Texas De Brazil. I just don't get it...
Sunday, February 22, 2009
jl0630 - 2/17/09
We talked in class the other day about the precession of simulacra. In retrospect, I realize how odd it is that we can have a nostalgia for something that doesn’t exist or we don’t actually know. We used Johnny Rockets as an example about how their burgers are just like the ones from the 50’s. This is odd for a couple of reasons: one, they are not actually burgers from the 50’s, and two, how would I know what burgers from the 50’s are actually like – I wasn’t even alive in that era! So stepping back and reflecting on this situation, is it Johnny Rocket’s that is feeding us this image of what a burger from the 50’s is like, or is it a greater media power that is giving us these ideas? I would have to argue both. Johnny Rockets directly gives us these images of the 50’s to play off of, whether it be a caption underneath a burger on the menu, “Johnny Rockets, the original burger,” or its 50’s style diner setting. Johnny Rockets is only able to do this successfully, however, because of the greater media force which displays the 50’s lifestyle of drive-in movies, a burger basket and fries at a diner, women with long poufy skirts, and men with perfectly groomed heads of hair. We’ve seen these images in commercials and TV shows like Happy Days that we can reference this to. It is the images in the media that support and give credibility to the display of Johnny Rockets and our views of the things that we do not know. We trust that they are right because we have nothing else that tells us otherwise. In other words, these simulacras/mere representations that we mindlessly encounter and regard as truth are actually just superficial. The most chilling part of this concept to me is how an advertisement, “Johnny Rockets, the original burger. Coming soon” can be so obviously paradoxical, yet this is the first time I have ever thought to question the advertisement.
Scorpio, 2/19
In class last Thursday, we discussed Baudrillard’s notion of real and what constitutes as real versus fake. Dr. Rog gave an example of a fake holdup in a bank that resulted in a man having a real heart attack. I thought that example was interesting to give and demonstrated Baudrillard’s article. When asked if reality outstrips fiction, I responded that the difference between reality and fiction is possibility. If the possibility of fiction is brought out, then it could become reality. This literal barrier helps to maintain fiction as entertainment and reality as true terror.
For example, I once saw this dateline episode where a story about this topic was being broadcasted. The incident revolved around a prank call to several fast food restaurant managers. The prank caller identified themselves as the police and said that the employee working had drugs on them. The caller then gave the manager step by step instructions on how to “strip search” the employees. Most of these searches were caught on tape. The ending result: the managers were arrested and charged with sexual harassment. I find this example a case of Baudrillard at work because the managers followed fake directions in a real attempt to search for drugs.
I come back to my answer above concerning the level that reality does indeed outstrip fiction. The possibility of an employee carrying drugs to work was more real than the chance of being prank called. Likewise, if the media shows us a fake image, we are hardly even apt to question the source, information, or events surrounding this. Therefore, the desert of the real is indeed alive and well in the media.
For example, I once saw this dateline episode where a story about this topic was being broadcasted. The incident revolved around a prank call to several fast food restaurant managers. The prank caller identified themselves as the police and said that the employee working had drugs on them. The caller then gave the manager step by step instructions on how to “strip search” the employees. Most of these searches were caught on tape. The ending result: the managers were arrested and charged with sexual harassment. I find this example a case of Baudrillard at work because the managers followed fake directions in a real attempt to search for drugs.
I come back to my answer above concerning the level that reality does indeed outstrip fiction. The possibility of an employee carrying drugs to work was more real than the chance of being prank called. Likewise, if the media shows us a fake image, we are hardly even apt to question the source, information, or events surrounding this. Therefore, the desert of the real is indeed alive and well in the media.
coolbeans, 2/22
In class on Thursday there was a slide that showed a picture of the bombing of the twin towers. I think that images like those are what make people think of something as real because they depict the actual state of something during what is happening. For a viewer, the action shot is much more visually “exciting” than seeing a before and after shot. When people watch explosions or people getting killed in a movie it is another part of the excitement of the movie. People tend to make comments such as, “Wow, that was so bad***!” when they watch action movies. The reactions change however, when it is something that actually happens in real life. What was once seen as awesome becomes something tragic. This is because we realize that it is real. In movies, we root for the good guys and when they kill or bomb the bad guys we feel that it is justified. In real life, when innocent people die or are affected by the death of their loved ones we feel angry or sad. We recognize the difference between film and reality because the fact that the actions seem unjust makes it real to us. When people who did nothing wrong are killed it is in our nature to become upset. The power that an action shot holds is in the attraction that it has. It is the same as a shot in a movie except that we recognize that it is real and see exactly the destructive quality of the explosion. Visually it is an amazing picture, captured in time, amazing not in a good way but in a way that makes us realize. It wakes us up from thinking “Wow that’s really cool!” to thinking “Wait, hold on, this really did happen. People were killed from this.”
Asyouwish 2/22
Does reality actually outstrip fiction?
I really like what ashlayla had to say about this question. She stated that, “fiction is more desirable than reality because we can’t lose ourselves in reality” but that, “we can lose ourselves in the fictional worlds”. I personally had not really looked at it from that point of view. Like Ashlayla I was originally a believer in reality outstripping fiction because reality is personal experience. In reality the pain that is affecting us is real. If someone we love dies, they are not coming back to life, they are truly gone. In a movie however if the character dies, they are only dead in the script but not in actuality. I guess it really depends how one looks at the word outstrip. In this question, outstrip obviously means to achieve more and thus in my opinion one cannot chose which achieves more. As I stated before, the pain reality causes affects us more because it is actually occurring, not just being shown to us. We truly experience things in reality and yet through fiction we are able to experience things through the voices and creativity of others that we ourselves might not have the chance to see or view in reality. Fiction allows us to experience and see things that are impossibly to view in our world. Through animation and manipulation of characters and scenes in movies, directors are able to create a world more interesting than the one we truly live in. I was watching Alvin and the Chipmunks the other day and after watching the film my friends and I had a silly conversation about how cool it would be if animals could really talk. We wondered what they would say. Take even Harry Potter, personally I have always wished there was such a thing as magic, to be able to make things happen with a flick of one’s wand. Fiction gives us another realm to imagine. Most of my favorite books are works of fiction and I suppose it is for this reason that Ashlayla was discussing about it being an escape from our world. The ability to read a story about a magically kingdom far away relieves our stress and transports our minds to a far away land. Fictional movies and books portray talking animals, magically objects and people, extraordinary inventions and situations; which would be highly unlikely to occur in reality. In this aspect fiction does achieve more and yet as I argued before reality has the luxury of experience of things actually happening to you and thus includes your mistakes, your triumphs, your love. You as a person are attached and connected more to reality than fiction but in the fictional world there are more possibilities. I realize I have not chosen a side in my argument and that is because in my opinion one cannot, both are very different in the way they achieve, one is personal achievement and experience and the other is through a realm of imagination and wishing.
I really like what ashlayla had to say about this question. She stated that, “fiction is more desirable than reality because we can’t lose ourselves in reality” but that, “we can lose ourselves in the fictional worlds”. I personally had not really looked at it from that point of view. Like Ashlayla I was originally a believer in reality outstripping fiction because reality is personal experience. In reality the pain that is affecting us is real. If someone we love dies, they are not coming back to life, they are truly gone. In a movie however if the character dies, they are only dead in the script but not in actuality. I guess it really depends how one looks at the word outstrip. In this question, outstrip obviously means to achieve more and thus in my opinion one cannot chose which achieves more. As I stated before, the pain reality causes affects us more because it is actually occurring, not just being shown to us. We truly experience things in reality and yet through fiction we are able to experience things through the voices and creativity of others that we ourselves might not have the chance to see or view in reality. Fiction allows us to experience and see things that are impossibly to view in our world. Through animation and manipulation of characters and scenes in movies, directors are able to create a world more interesting than the one we truly live in. I was watching Alvin and the Chipmunks the other day and after watching the film my friends and I had a silly conversation about how cool it would be if animals could really talk. We wondered what they would say. Take even Harry Potter, personally I have always wished there was such a thing as magic, to be able to make things happen with a flick of one’s wand. Fiction gives us another realm to imagine. Most of my favorite books are works of fiction and I suppose it is for this reason that Ashlayla was discussing about it being an escape from our world. The ability to read a story about a magically kingdom far away relieves our stress and transports our minds to a far away land. Fictional movies and books portray talking animals, magically objects and people, extraordinary inventions and situations; which would be highly unlikely to occur in reality. In this aspect fiction does achieve more and yet as I argued before reality has the luxury of experience of things actually happening to you and thus includes your mistakes, your triumphs, your love. You as a person are attached and connected more to reality than fiction but in the fictional world there are more possibilities. I realize I have not chosen a side in my argument and that is because in my opinion one cannot, both are very different in the way they achieve, one is personal achievement and experience and the other is through a realm of imagination and wishing.
Marie89, 2/17
“Does reality actually outstrip fiction?” (Baudrillard 228)
This quote is an interesting one to analyze as reality should outstrip fiction. However, because of the large role that the mass media plays in our society, I believe that fiction actually outstrips reality. If I am reading this quote as it is intended, I would say that fiction has a bigger impact in our society as the media has distorted our view of reality. It is difficult for people to decipher what is true and what is fake when all that claims to be reality in the media has to be looked at skeptically. For example, reality shows are only real to an extent, magazines are filled with “real” people who have been transformed with technology, and even the food that we eat claiming to be real isn’t necessarily 100% real.
Within our society, we have begun to accept this state of the media. With this accustoming mind-frame, we no longer challenge the statements and constructs imposed by the media. It is now extremely difficult to define reality in our culture because of how concepts and ideas are portrayed. We no longer know real from fiction and we no longer have faith in all that claims to be real. It is sad that this has happened to our society. We no longer question the media or its motives which is exactly what is intended by the media. Because of this, the ideologies of the hegemonic media will go unnoticed and we will continue to perpetuate the cycle of the media and its intentions will continue to be subtle yet impactful.
I believe that this quote also relates to the statements of Lyotard in that in order to escape from this system we have created for ourselves with our submission to the media, we must wage a war on totality. We can no longer be deceived by these images claiming to be real, nor those things created by realism. Authority must be questioned, the media must be questioned, and ideology must be challenged in order for reality to again outstrip fiction.
This quote is an interesting one to analyze as reality should outstrip fiction. However, because of the large role that the mass media plays in our society, I believe that fiction actually outstrips reality. If I am reading this quote as it is intended, I would say that fiction has a bigger impact in our society as the media has distorted our view of reality. It is difficult for people to decipher what is true and what is fake when all that claims to be reality in the media has to be looked at skeptically. For example, reality shows are only real to an extent, magazines are filled with “real” people who have been transformed with technology, and even the food that we eat claiming to be real isn’t necessarily 100% real.
Within our society, we have begun to accept this state of the media. With this accustoming mind-frame, we no longer challenge the statements and constructs imposed by the media. It is now extremely difficult to define reality in our culture because of how concepts and ideas are portrayed. We no longer know real from fiction and we no longer have faith in all that claims to be real. It is sad that this has happened to our society. We no longer question the media or its motives which is exactly what is intended by the media. Because of this, the ideologies of the hegemonic media will go unnoticed and we will continue to perpetuate the cycle of the media and its intentions will continue to be subtle yet impactful.
I believe that this quote also relates to the statements of Lyotard in that in order to escape from this system we have created for ourselves with our submission to the media, we must wage a war on totality. We can no longer be deceived by these images claiming to be real, nor those things created by realism. Authority must be questioned, the media must be questioned, and ideology must be challenged in order for reality to again outstrip fiction.
thestig, 2/22
“Does reality actually outstrip fiction?”
In class, we debated whether or not reality outstrips fiction. I think that yes, reality does outstrip function. This is why:
Reality is something that is not able to be fully absorbed on television, which is what I would argue is non-fiction, not reality. Reality is an occurrence that one experiences with an emotional state that can only be felt when present. Utilizing and making sense of your five senses is reality. There is a difference between being in New York during the week of 9/11, and reading about it in the Times or watching a news segment/documentary. I can tell you first hand what the chaos was like. I could feel it in the tone of peoples’ voice; I could smell the disaster from my apartment, five or so miles from ground zero; I could see the smoke. What is on TV is not necessarily fiction, but it isn’t reality. It is coded reality; it is fiction reality. The images depict what happens, nothing more. Furthermore, who knows if what you’re seeing on TV is actually “real?” You can’t get the full experience from the TV: if you haven’t been to New Orleans, then you don’t know what it’s like to be there, I promise. You don’t know the stench, the scope of the disaster, or the morale of the native people. Only an extremely sophisticated piece of film can come close to depicting reality. We are also desensitized by images and video clips that are on loop 24/7 on the web and major networks. We saw images of the planes crashing into the world trade center over and over on that day, but each of these images simply depicted a reality. Fiction is what we want: it is the desired outcome, it is the “let’s cut to the chase” of the story. So does reality outstrip fiction? You bet. Reality is a being, fiction is a notion, non-fiction is a depiction.
In class, we debated whether or not reality outstrips fiction. I think that yes, reality does outstrip function. This is why:
Reality is something that is not able to be fully absorbed on television, which is what I would argue is non-fiction, not reality. Reality is an occurrence that one experiences with an emotional state that can only be felt when present. Utilizing and making sense of your five senses is reality. There is a difference between being in New York during the week of 9/11, and reading about it in the Times or watching a news segment/documentary. I can tell you first hand what the chaos was like. I could feel it in the tone of peoples’ voice; I could smell the disaster from my apartment, five or so miles from ground zero; I could see the smoke. What is on TV is not necessarily fiction, but it isn’t reality. It is coded reality; it is fiction reality. The images depict what happens, nothing more. Furthermore, who knows if what you’re seeing on TV is actually “real?” You can’t get the full experience from the TV: if you haven’t been to New Orleans, then you don’t know what it’s like to be there, I promise. You don’t know the stench, the scope of the disaster, or the morale of the native people. Only an extremely sophisticated piece of film can come close to depicting reality. We are also desensitized by images and video clips that are on loop 24/7 on the web and major networks. We saw images of the planes crashing into the world trade center over and over on that day, but each of these images simply depicted a reality. Fiction is what we want: it is the desired outcome, it is the “let’s cut to the chase” of the story. So does reality outstrip fiction? You bet. Reality is a being, fiction is a notion, non-fiction is a depiction.
Rubber Soul, 2/22
Where do you draw the line between reality and fiction? The mock kidnapping of Dr. Rog is an example of something that is hard to determine what really happened and what didn't. Do you consider that Dr. Rog was kidnapped as a factual event? What constitutes that it was a kidnapping? The intentions of the students were to make him believe that he was really getting kidnapped, but one could argue that they were only trying to prove a point through demonstration, and Dr. Rog must have known that he was in safe hands and not really in immediate danger like the kidnappings that occur when we read about them in newspapers or see the faces of the children on fliers that have never returned. Reality is objective. When I was in high school, I tried out for the varsity soccer team. There was a tradition on the team to initiate the new players that made the cut. I was fast asleep one morning at about 5:30am during the week after try-outs when I heard my dog growling and barking ferociously. All of a sudden my door swung open loudly and people came into my bedroom screaming and banging on things. I tried to hide under my covers but I recognized the laughing and the girls' voices. They were players on the team and they told me I had made the team, then they blind folded me and walked me to the car while I was still in my pajamas. I was driven around in circles and had no idea where I was going. I got out of the car and lead into a house where all the other girls that made the team were having breakfast. Initially, I was in complete shock when strangers busted into my bedroom and the thought of being in danger did enter my mind. But once I realized that I had made the team I went along with the "kidnapping" and understood the whole scenario as something other than what a "true" kidnapping meant to me.
ashlayla, 2/17
“Does reality actually outstrip fiction?” (228)
In class, someone said that they believed fiction actually outstrips reality because fiction is more desirable. This statement made me reevaluate my original opinion on this quote and I have to say that I have changed stances and now believe that fiction really is outstripping reality. We desire fiction because we can lose ourselves in the fictional worlds of Beauty and the Beast or 101 Dalmatians. Fiction is more desirable than reality because we can’t lose ourselves in reality. We will always be a part of reality and we will always be a part of fiction. Fiction, however, is our escape from reality which makes it desirable and we can come and go from our fictional worlds as we please.
Juice 15, 2/19
“The media are part of the event, they are part of the terror.” Today I feel this is as true as ever. It is interesting to watch and see how our media dictates what we hear and see. Sometimes we may get the full story, or maybe certain parts are left out, it is hard for us to really know. Stories that occur in the Middle East are the stories that come to mind when I think about this. For one, there are not that many reporters over there and we can’t be sure if we are getting the full or truthful story since we were not there to view it ourselves. The military or government could very well be in control of the publicity that occurs and that in turn keeps us from getting the truth. I remember hearing stories about how the media always played the war out to be necessary and played it out to be that we were winning, but as we see today, nothing productive has seem to occurred, and seems that the media was either forced or influenced by some other.
Other then major corporations and government controlling or influencing media I sometimes feel that stories are put on or played up just to increase the ratings. Stories that are newsworthy today seem to be only negative ones that involve some kind of killing or downturn for the world. I don’t necessarily like to watch the news anymore because it is almost depressing to hear about all the things that are wrong with this world. This competition between news organizations to get the higher ratings or more readerships is another flaw that seems to be affecting the news we are receiving.
All this seems to tie back into what is considered real, or what we perceive to be real. CNN is normally thought to be the most trustworthy news station but has been caught up on a few different occasions. What it comes down to is what is listed under the objectives of this class, never to watch media non-critically again.
Other then major corporations and government controlling or influencing media I sometimes feel that stories are put on or played up just to increase the ratings. Stories that are newsworthy today seem to be only negative ones that involve some kind of killing or downturn for the world. I don’t necessarily like to watch the news anymore because it is almost depressing to hear about all the things that are wrong with this world. This competition between news organizations to get the higher ratings or more readerships is another flaw that seems to be affecting the news we are receiving.
All this seems to tie back into what is considered real, or what we perceive to be real. CNN is normally thought to be the most trustworthy news station but has been caught up on a few different occasions. What it comes down to is what is listed under the objectives of this class, never to watch media non-critically again.
RIco72, 2/22
In class this week we talked about some really interesting ideas. On Tuesday we were asked whether reality outstripped fiction. On Thursday we discussed Zizek's comparison of 9/11 to disaster movies. I found it interesting how both of these discussions can be related to each other.
Zizek is right on with his statement. Disaster movies are usually have a high budget for filming and special effects and bring in a good amount of money at the box office. According to boxofficemojo.com, the film Independence day cost $75 million to make. It made just over $306 million at the box office. Another great example is the film The Dark Knight. The Dark Knight cost $185 million to make and it has made over $1 billion worldwide just from ticket sales. Also, the villain in the film, The Joker, has been the center of attention since before the film was released. Heath Ledger did such a great job that he has been nominated for an Academy Award. People thought he played an excellent, clever, and interesting villain.
So what does this say about the question of reality outstripping fiction? First, I consider outstripping as outdoing or over passing. I would say that reality does in fact outstrip fiction. As much as people love seeing fiction and feeling like they are a part of it, reality will always feel stronger and more powerful to us. The idea of these catastrophe movies is the perfect example. We love to see destruction and mayhem on the big screen, and after we will talk about it for a while, maybe recommend it to a friend, and then move onto the next movie we see. However, incidents like 9/11 will always be remembered by those who lived through it and were part of it. I think people are so drawn to movies because we know it's fake. Our subconscious knows its fake. That is why we enjoy it so much. We also like to see stories about ordinary people doing extraordinary things. This gives everyone the hope that if the time came, they would be able to rise up to the occasion and do the same. But do we ever truly believe we can? I personally don't think so and this is why I believe reality does outstrip fiction.
Zizek is right on with his statement. Disaster movies are usually have a high budget for filming and special effects and bring in a good amount of money at the box office. According to boxofficemojo.com, the film Independence day cost $75 million to make. It made just over $306 million at the box office. Another great example is the film The Dark Knight. The Dark Knight cost $185 million to make and it has made over $1 billion worldwide just from ticket sales. Also, the villain in the film, The Joker, has been the center of attention since before the film was released. Heath Ledger did such a great job that he has been nominated for an Academy Award. People thought he played an excellent, clever, and interesting villain.
So what does this say about the question of reality outstripping fiction? First, I consider outstripping as outdoing or over passing. I would say that reality does in fact outstrip fiction. As much as people love seeing fiction and feeling like they are a part of it, reality will always feel stronger and more powerful to us. The idea of these catastrophe movies is the perfect example. We love to see destruction and mayhem on the big screen, and after we will talk about it for a while, maybe recommend it to a friend, and then move onto the next movie we see. However, incidents like 9/11 will always be remembered by those who lived through it and were part of it. I think people are so drawn to movies because we know it's fake. Our subconscious knows its fake. That is why we enjoy it so much. We also like to see stories about ordinary people doing extraordinary things. This gives everyone the hope that if the time came, they would be able to rise up to the occasion and do the same. But do we ever truly believe we can? I personally don't think so and this is why I believe reality does outstrip fiction.
Dot - 1/22
In class on Thursday when discussing Baudrillard, we were presented with the term "militainment", that is watching military related things for entertainment purposes. I had never heard this concept before but was immediately fascinated by it and what it says about our culture.
Ask anyone and I am sure they have watched some form of television program focused on some form of the military. Our culture has become so obsessed with entertainment that we use instances of war to satisfy our craving for visual pleasure. Looking back on many popular television shows we can see just how obsessed our culture is with the military.
Mash, Hogans Heroes, JAG, Band of Brothers, just to name of few.
As technology in our culture has developed, it is not unusual that the genre of military entertainment has expanded too. Today there are many video games that actually allow players to assume the role of soldiers and gun down the enemy. I have always had a problem with this as it desensitizes that general public and makes war and killing seem like a very normal and acceptable thing.
With militainment becoming such a large part of what our society sees as basic entertainment, I am fearful of what the world of actual warfare will become. When we take pleasure in viewing something so devastating, what can come next? When we get bored with basic warfare, who is not to say that we will develop a need to see brutal and more inhumane killings? When and where will our fascination stop?
dmariel, 1/22/09
Just the other day at the movie theater I found myself thinking of Baudrillard and Zizek as I watched a set of about 5 previews before my movie began. Three out of five of these previews were about: the end of the world...I remember when these movies first started coming out- they seemed to be portraying such a crazy idea. Today when I think about the ‘end of the world’ theme it has become more and more scary through perpetuated images in the media . Along with movies, the discovery channel has also made numerous TV shows about what may happen when the end of the world arrives. Are these fictional attempts preparing us for the future? Even Wall-E, an animated Disney movie for children, used this theme. I assume that it is so marketable because people are actually scared of this happening in reality. It is possible that viewers find comfort in watching these films- seeing how others try to survive when they reach the end of the world.
The best example, which we touched on in class on Thursday, of media as part of the terror, is the Casey Anthony case. When this missing child report first started being shown on the news, it was like any other I had seen before. After a few weeks without finding Caylee, news channels began to become more interested in other things. I would turn on the news to see signs such as BREAKING NEWS: Casey Anthony has intimate relationship with her lawyer. I have become so disappointed with the news that I don’t even pay attention to ‘breaking news’ flashes when they come on the TV. In this case, the news clearly began to make up their own stories in order to keep peoples attention on the undeveloped missing child case. In no way do I want to demean the importance of finding Caylee Anthony, but what made this one family so special? Children go missing everyday, people get murdered, kidnapped, and assaulted yet the news decided to focus on the Anthony’s case. This event became the center of the news due to the media exacerbating its importance through repeated coverage everyday.
The best example, which we touched on in class on Thursday, of media as part of the terror, is the Casey Anthony case. When this missing child report first started being shown on the news, it was like any other I had seen before. After a few weeks without finding Caylee, news channels began to become more interested in other things. I would turn on the news to see signs such as BREAKING NEWS: Casey Anthony has intimate relationship with her lawyer. I have become so disappointed with the news that I don’t even pay attention to ‘breaking news’ flashes when they come on the TV. In this case, the news clearly began to make up their own stories in order to keep peoples attention on the undeveloped missing child case. In no way do I want to demean the importance of finding Caylee Anthony, but what made this one family so special? Children go missing everyday, people get murdered, kidnapped, and assaulted yet the news decided to focus on the Anthony’s case. This event became the center of the news due to the media exacerbating its importance through repeated coverage everyday.
Smiley Face - 2/22
Reality, I feel, is based on the perception of the consensus. It is the masses who are able to shape reality and do so through the use of media. There are many 'fake' portrayals of reality whereby it is clearly not a real phenominon, for example a show described in one of our CMC 200 classes "Big Brother." The "Big Brother" phenomenon in England, stretches the concept of the activities of the real life - what they show is not reality and everyday. The show is of eleven housemates in a house constantly being watched by camera's from every angle. Ever move they make or action is videotapes and edited until it is broadcast to the nation. It perhaps its media's fault to mast reality, it is their audiences desires for reality to be masked, and it is the interest of the media corporation to feed to its audiences desires - therefore as a result reality is conveyed as inadequate and this 'hyperreality' (in my definition as sense of an extended over elaborated version of the real) is then glamorized to feed our, the consumers, needs and anxieties. Then again, most of what Media shows is a distortion of reality based on the concept that the media feed to their publics interest. Media mirrors the role of Disney, as described in class the other day. Disney is a physical example of media - how both seek an optimum world. Disney's optimum world is one in which its people are happy and content all the time. The media wish to create a more fearful world so that its audience are more likely to instill trust into their corporation to make capital as well as their lowered likelihood to challenge the information being presented. ○ I feel that we respond to the simulated reality differntly depending on how it is presented. When you go to Disney it is presented as the real, yet it is so exaggerated it is obvious that it is not real. When the media take something and exaggerate it yet keep it within the bounds of reality it is harder for the viewer to distinguish between reality and hyperreality.
aro0823, 2-22
We are all guilty of it. Someone whips out a digital camera and immediately we paste the fakest of smiles on our faces, simulating enjoyment and pleasure. A fake smile has seemingly replaced a real smile as a signifier of happiness. As Dr. Rog said in class, images strip away or create a sense of real that may or may not be there. That being said, any given college student’s Facebook album is chalk full of Bauldrillard’s concept of simulacra; it is chalk full of simulation. In reality, I do not have this smile on my face. However, to keep up appearances, I will feign enjoyment of the present situation, thus further perpetuating the cycle of fake smiles and pretend fun.
To speak specifically about Baudrillard’s relation to Facebook photo albums, I will theorize about something that has made me stop and think numerous times. I often find myself asking if a certain event was actually fun, or has looking back at the photos of people smiling made me think it was fun? Reality has become so convoluted that we feel the need to record every second of it just to assure ourselves it happened. Culture is undoubtedly deluding, thus leading to the confusion of reality with staged presence. We have managed to convince ourselves—by way of the intertextuality apparent in modern society-- that the fictional things we see on a daily basis that claim to be ‘real’ are in fact reality.
The rapid spread of repeated images has contributed to this unfortunate phenomenon. It is beyond simplistic to take a video on your phone and upload it to the internet, where it may very well become ‘viral’ and be watched by millions around the world. Regardless if the event was staged or the footage was doctored, people seldom stop to think if the image they are seeing is real if it makes the claim to be. The problem is further compounded by the lack of solutions to our societal delusion. The real and the pretend real have become so interconnected that it is a near impossibility to go back to the simple world of absolutes that occurred before this postmodernist mess of a place we live in today.
To speak specifically about Baudrillard’s relation to Facebook photo albums, I will theorize about something that has made me stop and think numerous times. I often find myself asking if a certain event was actually fun, or has looking back at the photos of people smiling made me think it was fun? Reality has become so convoluted that we feel the need to record every second of it just to assure ourselves it happened. Culture is undoubtedly deluding, thus leading to the confusion of reality with staged presence. We have managed to convince ourselves—by way of the intertextuality apparent in modern society-- that the fictional things we see on a daily basis that claim to be ‘real’ are in fact reality.
The rapid spread of repeated images has contributed to this unfortunate phenomenon. It is beyond simplistic to take a video on your phone and upload it to the internet, where it may very well become ‘viral’ and be watched by millions around the world. Regardless if the event was staged or the footage was doctored, people seldom stop to think if the image they are seeing is real if it makes the claim to be. The problem is further compounded by the lack of solutions to our societal delusion. The real and the pretend real have become so interconnected that it is a near impossibility to go back to the simple world of absolutes that occurred before this postmodernist mess of a place we live in today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)