Saturday, March 28, 2009
Marie89, 3/26
In class on Thursday, we talked about how Jameson stated that “depth is replaced by surface.” In a literal sense, this can be applied to architecture or art in that what we see is more important than its function. For example, our culture has become a group of people who focus on image rather than function. It seems that there is a competitive nature among us that strives to be the most aesthetically pleasing rather than functional. Architecture has begun to take on extreme characteristics, artwork has begun to lose its meaning, and we have begun to want things that enhance our image rather than our well-being. We are a society driven by image—and it has overflowed into other aspects of our culture as well. More figuratively speaking, however, we are also a society based upon the quick flow of ideas. We are busy in that we want things instantly, even if it means disregarding important features that may enhance its purpose. For example, in high school, one of my teachers stated that our generation has lost sight of searching for hidden meanings within texts. We no longer read into movies, etc. as we are programmed to have the message laid out for us. We often find movies boring or miss the meaning altogether when this is not the case. This is not our fault, however, as our generation is so accustomed to having things done for us. We are a culture based on instant gratification, even if at the expense of a greater appreciation of works. This also goes along with the cult of the new. We always strive for what is better which we instantly identify with new. We hardly challenge this idea as we only look to the surface of meaning rather than striving to read into it. Depth has become a thing of the past, for our generation, at least.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Rubber Soul, 3/27
"Pastiche eclipses parody"
"Parody finds itself without a vocation"
I watched the Jon Stewart Comedy Central skit with the advisors on stock telling people what the smartest businesses were to invest money in. Each video clip showed some stock advisor assuring that the business was solid and unyielding and then a caption would follow the clip with how long it was until that business went under, or how low that stock plummeted. There was nothing invented to make this skit funny. It was comedic merely because it was facts pieced together to show how incredibly pretentious and wrong these advisors actually were. Ultimately the reality of the events became the parody without need for adding to the ludicrousness. This act of postmodern criticism allows for realization of seemingly trustworthy systems. 50 years ago, if people made claims like these, the public eye wouldn’t have been reminded of the failings from such a trustworthy American news source. I just saw the movie Born on the Fourth of July, and the movie is based on actual events surrounding Vietnam and what the American people and the American soldiers went through. At the start of the war, the public was told that communism was taking over and that the war would be a quick and clean sweep. The movie played hits from the time period in the background. Scenes of war, soldiers on hospital beds getting their limbs amputated, and patriotic parades with veterans wheeling down the road in wheel chairs were layered with pop songs like “Brown Eyed Girl” and it created a very eerie effect. The cross between what people were listening to on the radio safe at home in America with the suffering and death going on in the war was nothing humorous but the contrast was stark and undeniably ironic. There was no need to invent anything to make the movie any more shocking. What people initially believed about Vietnam couldn’t have been more false and it is the reality of the situation that’s so intriguing and entertaining about the film.
"Parody finds itself without a vocation"
I watched the Jon Stewart Comedy Central skit with the advisors on stock telling people what the smartest businesses were to invest money in. Each video clip showed some stock advisor assuring that the business was solid and unyielding and then a caption would follow the clip with how long it was until that business went under, or how low that stock plummeted. There was nothing invented to make this skit funny. It was comedic merely because it was facts pieced together to show how incredibly pretentious and wrong these advisors actually were. Ultimately the reality of the events became the parody without need for adding to the ludicrousness. This act of postmodern criticism allows for realization of seemingly trustworthy systems. 50 years ago, if people made claims like these, the public eye wouldn’t have been reminded of the failings from such a trustworthy American news source. I just saw the movie Born on the Fourth of July, and the movie is based on actual events surrounding Vietnam and what the American people and the American soldiers went through. At the start of the war, the public was told that communism was taking over and that the war would be a quick and clean sweep. The movie played hits from the time period in the background. Scenes of war, soldiers on hospital beds getting their limbs amputated, and patriotic parades with veterans wheeling down the road in wheel chairs were layered with pop songs like “Brown Eyed Girl” and it created a very eerie effect. The cross between what people were listening to on the radio safe at home in America with the suffering and death going on in the war was nothing humorous but the contrast was stark and undeniably ironic. There was no need to invent anything to make the movie any more shocking. What people initially believed about Vietnam couldn’t have been more false and it is the reality of the situation that’s so intriguing and entertaining about the film.
aro0823, 2-27
Two primary topics we discussed in class on Thursday troubled me greatly for reasons I cannot quite pinpoint. The first is the notion of what would happen to the world as we know it if people decided they no longer needed so many things. The culture industry functions on the absent minded public’s inability to critically analyze their actions, but what if the public suddenly became educated? Would the culture industry lay in ruin? To posit a hypothetical situation, say that the field of media studies gains widespread acceptance and is adopted into elementary school curriculums worldwide. Generations would then grow up realizing the illogicality of the “frantic economic urgency of producing fresh waves of ever more novel-seeming goods.” So, in this hypothetical world, people may start purchasing only what they needed and contemporary forms of advertising would essentially be rendered useless. In theory, advocates of globalization argue that the world would improve significantly with an educated population. Ironically, the more educated the population gets in terms of postmodern absurdities, the more potential the capitalist system that globalization advocates would crumble under its own weight.
Continuing along with the world-is-doomed-if-the-population-gets-common-sense theme, how would the media function if people came to realize what kinds of messages they were actually receiving? As we discussed during our Adorno lecture, “countless people use words and expressions which they either have ceased to understand at all or use only… as trademarks.” By and large, conversation today is the opposite of analytical. Individuals merely repeat verbatim the messages the news media delivers to them. Thus, we live in a society of parroting drones. The media thrives because they focus all of their stories around certain catchphrases like “wasting taxpayer money.” When the populace hears these dreaded three words, they automatically go up in arms, regardless of the actual issue. However, if the public actually understood any economic principles, they would be able to dissect the given messages and formulate (gasp) individualistic opinions. The formation of said opinions is exactly the opposite of what the culture industry is trying to do. If pseudoindividuality didn’t reign, just imagine the horrors that could come from a freethinking community. If such a travesty would occur, we may actually have enough resources to last more than the next 30 years. Woe are we.
Continuing along with the world-is-doomed-if-the-population-gets-common-sense theme, how would the media function if people came to realize what kinds of messages they were actually receiving? As we discussed during our Adorno lecture, “countless people use words and expressions which they either have ceased to understand at all or use only… as trademarks.” By and large, conversation today is the opposite of analytical. Individuals merely repeat verbatim the messages the news media delivers to them. Thus, we live in a society of parroting drones. The media thrives because they focus all of their stories around certain catchphrases like “wasting taxpayer money.” When the populace hears these dreaded three words, they automatically go up in arms, regardless of the actual issue. However, if the public actually understood any economic principles, they would be able to dissect the given messages and formulate (gasp) individualistic opinions. The formation of said opinions is exactly the opposite of what the culture industry is trying to do. If pseudoindividuality didn’t reign, just imagine the horrors that could come from a freethinking community. If such a travesty would occur, we may actually have enough resources to last more than the next 30 years. Woe are we.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
CMCstudent, Jameson
“The producers in a culture have nowhere to turn but to the past: the imitation of dead styles.” This quote by Jameson can be seen through the trends of fashion. A recent fashion trend, overlarge shirts paired with leggings incorporated the style of the 80’s. However even leggings were not a new thing is the 80’s, they date back until at least the colonial time. I recollection I have from when I was younger was when bellbottoms were all the rage. Since I didn’t too much about styles other than what were in the store I didn’t realize that I was wearing something that was being worn by my parents! I remember when my father saw me wearing them and told me that this style that I thought was so cool, was not a new one. He explained it was the style of the 70’s and were all the rage back then too. He continued on only to tell me how he used to wear them, this horrified me. I could not imagine men in such attire! The 70’s bellbottom pants were worn by both men and women. The men did not think it was weird to wear the pants; they were men’s pants, even if they did happen to be the same style the women wore. Looking back I see it was a normalization of the ideology of what the 70’s style was. It is not just bellbottom pants that are imitation of something that has already been introduced, but as we learned earlier this semester things are constantly being reinvented opposed to invent. Even in the fashion of Avant Gard where one strives to do things that have never been seen, the designers must pull their ideas from somewhere. It becomes common to turn to the past for suggestion of reinvention.
Savvy,Jameson, 3/25/09
Jameson really stresses the idea that culture and the economy is connected. The quote that I took from the reading to stand out the most to me is "what has happened is the aesthetic production today has become integrated into commodity production generally: the frantic economy urgency of producing fresh rates of turnover, now assigns an increasingly essential structural function and position to aesthetic innovation and experimentation"(485). In response to Petite Etoile, I comepletely understand what she is talking about with the recreation of songs. I can remember when Kelly Ozborne came out with the song "Papa Don't Preach" and it came on the radio when I was in the car with mom. I can remember mom saying to me how surprised she was that there was already I remake of that song from Madonna. Madonna had only come out with that sing about ten to twelve years prior. Broadway plays and books are constantly being turned into movies. The movies are copying the originals.
This can also be seen in artwork. How many times have you seen a copy of "Starry Night" or "The Mona Lisa". It has become such a commodification. It has been reproduced to be sold and commodified. I think that this raises an important question. By having these reproduction, does the original loose its value? I do not mean this in the sense of dollar signs. I mean, does it loose its worth in the sense of its uniqueness and awe.
I think that we have become a culture that plays into commodification. The economy and the culture play off one another. What is selling to the public, is what companies are going to produce. They are going to produce it at long as people are still buying the product. I think that this is one of Jameson's most important arguments.
This can also be seen in artwork. How many times have you seen a copy of "Starry Night" or "The Mona Lisa". It has become such a commodification. It has been reproduced to be sold and commodified. I think that this raises an important question. By having these reproduction, does the original loose its value? I do not mean this in the sense of dollar signs. I mean, does it loose its worth in the sense of its uniqueness and awe.
I think that we have become a culture that plays into commodification. The economy and the culture play off one another. What is selling to the public, is what companies are going to produce. They are going to produce it at long as people are still buying the product. I think that this is one of Jameson's most important arguments.
JLO63O Jameson
“…if this copiously reproduced image is not to sink to the level of sheer decoration, it requires us to reconstruct some initial situation out of which the finished work emerges” (487).
This quote of Jameson’s immediately triggered me to Barthe’s notion of Tmesis. The idea of tmesis, or injecting our own thoughts to a given subject, is used day in and out and redefines the world as we know it. In this context, Jameson is specifically talking about Van Gogh’s painting, Peasant Shoes.
In a former context of the painting, Peasant Shoes was supposed to symbolize the misery, poverty, and hardships of peasantry. Today, Jameson argues, Peasant Shoes lack that symbolism because it’s so mass produced, and somewhere in that mass production, the famous painting seemed have lost its authenticity and has been redefined as an inert object of sheer decoration. Although Barthes likes the voyeuristic notion of tmesis, theorists like Jameson and Benjamin believes mass production generates an unarmed eye. While I was google-ing Peasant Shoes, I landed upon an Andy Warhol reproduction of the image titled Diamond Dust.
I could not believe it the irony in the reproduction (which I will touch on shortly) and it further connected me to the concept of the cult of the new which Habermas argues. In a previous post someone commented on if everything is a remake, where is the original? The irony in the reproduction is that Diamond Dust completely undermines, and almost mocks, any symbolism of peasantry and destitution Van Gogh was trying to portray. On that note, what does Diamond Dust symbolize?! Whatever it may be, it is certainly does not dive deep into anything. Contemporary art is losing its depth, compassion, and originality as we know it. If think if Van Gogh and Andy Warhol were to meet, Warhol would be walking away with much more injury than a cut of earlobe.
This quote of Jameson’s immediately triggered me to Barthe’s notion of Tmesis. The idea of tmesis, or injecting our own thoughts to a given subject, is used day in and out and redefines the world as we know it. In this context, Jameson is specifically talking about Van Gogh’s painting, Peasant Shoes.
In a former context of the painting, Peasant Shoes was supposed to symbolize the misery, poverty, and hardships of peasantry. Today, Jameson argues, Peasant Shoes lack that symbolism because it’s so mass produced, and somewhere in that mass production, the famous painting seemed have lost its authenticity and has been redefined as an inert object of sheer decoration. Although Barthes likes the voyeuristic notion of tmesis, theorists like Jameson and Benjamin believes mass production generates an unarmed eye. While I was google-ing Peasant Shoes, I landed upon an Andy Warhol reproduction of the image titled Diamond Dust.
I could not believe it the irony in the reproduction (which I will touch on shortly) and it further connected me to the concept of the cult of the new which Habermas argues. In a previous post someone commented on if everything is a remake, where is the original? The irony in the reproduction is that Diamond Dust completely undermines, and almost mocks, any symbolism of peasantry and destitution Van Gogh was trying to portray. On that note, what does Diamond Dust symbolize?! Whatever it may be, it is certainly does not dive deep into anything. Contemporary art is losing its depth, compassion, and originality as we know it. If think if Van Gogh and Andy Warhol were to meet, Warhol would be walking away with much more injury than a cut of earlobe.
ashlayla, Jameson, response to asyouwish & petite etoile
I also agree with the quote that asyouwish chose and what petite etoile said in response to the asyouwish post. To me, Hollywood is slowly running out of ideas and, therefore, must take from movies and television shows that were made in past years. They are even turning popular television shows into big screen movies. If Hollywood does not borrow from the past they recreate an animated film into a film with real people acting in it. For example, 101 Dalmations was originally an animated film but now you can also see it as a film with real people. Even Broadway is borrowing from the big screen and vice versa. Legally Blonde was originally a movie and is now a musical on Broadway. Rent, Grease, and Hairspray were all original Broadway productions that have been made into films. I have completely stopped watching American Idol because frankly, I'm tired of it. American Idol has been on for eight or so seasons and it is the same thing every year. Watch the people who have no talent sing and then vote for your favorite once the top 12 has been chosen. Of the eight winners from American Idol, I only know what 3 or 4 of them are doing now since they have left the show. Now there are dance shows (So you think you can dance and Dancing with the Stars) that have the same idea as American Idol, except instead of singing it's dancing. Hannah Montana has been on the Disney Channel for a few seasons and is now going to be turned into a movie that comes out this summer. The Brady Bunch show was also turned into a movie. Hollywood and producers are now relying on other television stations and movies and shows from the past to help create and recreate films and shows. I agree with Petite Etoile that in the future whatever is created or recreated for our viewing pleasure, there will be fans who watch the show or movie religiously and because of those fans these shows will be on for at least 2 or 3 seasons. I'm not going to lie, I think that sometimes watching remakes of certain movies is fun because you can compare the original to the new. But if that is all that is released in theaters, remakes get old after awhile and eventually people will stop going to the movies. Postmodernism maybe nearing its end but I think that it could last a little longer if producers of movies and television had some fresh inspiration to create something new.
MerryChristmas!, Jameson
Fredric Jameson's, "Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism", is a compilation of several theorists we have previously discussed. He describes architecture as the aesthetic populism. This brings to mind Jenck's theologies behind architecture. Jameson states,"the arrival and inauguration of a whole new type of society, most famously baptized 'post-industrial society', but often also designated consumer society, media society, information society, electronic society, or 'high tech, and the like." Through all of these associations, Jameson is touching on the idea that our society is a "cult of the new" or something always being developed or improved in order to make our lives easier. Unlike Jameson, I cannot possibly see this era ending, but merely improving. If we follow the same ideology in regards to our society as we do our era, then the postmodern era we are in will always go on, but continuously improve. Like we have said in class, we are obsessed with this notion of something being instant or fast. But how much faster can we go? James says that, "...anxiety and alientation are no longer appropriate in the world of the postmodern." This is because the postmodern era and technology have enabled us to become global citizens. Through globalization, we will always be connected to others.
Jameson also said that we are at a point where postmodernism cannot be shifted into something else and that we can only look into the past in order to reinvent it. He says, "the producers of culture now have nowhere to turn but to the past: the imitation of dead styles, speech through all the masks and voices stored up in the imaginary museum of a now global culture...the past is itself modified..." Again, Jameson is touching on globalization. The postmodern era has reached the end and can only be improved further by new technological advancements. New ideas are no longer new, but recreations of the past. Nothing is authentic anymore.Jameson says that as a result of this globalization, we will become one culture. "To focus the problem in this way is of course immediately to raise the more genuine issue of the fate of culture generally, and of the function of culture specifically, as one social level or instance, in the postmodern era." This quote stands out to be because I have heard that eventually, one day we will all become one race, with one set of beliefs or values and everyone will be the same. Obviously, this idea of having a single culture has a long way to go, but it is intriguing to think about the possibility of this occurring in our future.
Jameson also said that we are at a point where postmodernism cannot be shifted into something else and that we can only look into the past in order to reinvent it. He says, "the producers of culture now have nowhere to turn but to the past: the imitation of dead styles, speech through all the masks and voices stored up in the imaginary museum of a now global culture...the past is itself modified..." Again, Jameson is touching on globalization. The postmodern era has reached the end and can only be improved further by new technological advancements. New ideas are no longer new, but recreations of the past. Nothing is authentic anymore.Jameson says that as a result of this globalization, we will become one culture. "To focus the problem in this way is of course immediately to raise the more genuine issue of the fate of culture generally, and of the function of culture specifically, as one social level or instance, in the postmodern era." This quote stands out to be because I have heard that eventually, one day we will all become one race, with one set of beliefs or values and everyone will be the same. Obviously, this idea of having a single culture has a long way to go, but it is intriguing to think about the possibility of this occurring in our future.
Smiley Face - Jameson
Jameson's article confronts many aspects of culture with references to previous theorists covered in class. As a whole, the article confronts the cultural dominance of postmodernism in various aspects of society and culture.
"The new social formation in question no longer obeys the laws of classical capitalism, namely the primacy of industrial production and the omnipresence of class struggle" (484)
This quote struck me most since it strongly refers to Marx and his views on class struggle in society. The 'new social formation' refers to the emergence of the middle class, upper-middle and lower-middle classes Victorian era, the first society holding modern values. What in fact makes the Victorians such an accessible time period was that fact that they were faced with issues that are still being faced today. Before the presence of multiple classes, there were only two: the rich and the poor. The Victorians were the first industrial culture in the world, which was the main reason that Marx traveled to England and study the new phenomenon of culture. From the new social construction in society came the middle classes' growing power over society. Jameson captures the change between social orders that are still present in our society today.
" 'Intertextuality' as a deliberate, built-in feature of the aesthetic effect, and as the operator of a new connotation of 'pastness' and pseudo-historical depth, in which the history of aesthetic styles displaces 'real' history" (495)
Here Jameson is referring to the work of Macherey and his concept of individual experience determining the way that one decodes text. In regards to Jameson's work, he sees the function of intertextuality as a way of finding beauty and history. This quote also reminds me notion of nostalgia created for a place or a time period that one hasn't personally traveled to or lived in. Although this nostalgia comes from media, Jameson suggests that the nostalgia comes from the individual.
"The new social formation in question no longer obeys the laws of classical capitalism, namely the primacy of industrial production and the omnipresence of class struggle" (484)
This quote struck me most since it strongly refers to Marx and his views on class struggle in society. The 'new social formation' refers to the emergence of the middle class, upper-middle and lower-middle classes Victorian era, the first society holding modern values. What in fact makes the Victorians such an accessible time period was that fact that they were faced with issues that are still being faced today. Before the presence of multiple classes, there were only two: the rich and the poor. The Victorians were the first industrial culture in the world, which was the main reason that Marx traveled to England and study the new phenomenon of culture. From the new social construction in society came the middle classes' growing power over society. Jameson captures the change between social orders that are still present in our society today.
" 'Intertextuality' as a deliberate, built-in feature of the aesthetic effect, and as the operator of a new connotation of 'pastness' and pseudo-historical depth, in which the history of aesthetic styles displaces 'real' history" (495)
Here Jameson is referring to the work of Macherey and his concept of individual experience determining the way that one decodes text. In regards to Jameson's work, he sees the function of intertextuality as a way of finding beauty and history. This quote also reminds me notion of nostalgia created for a place or a time period that one hasn't personally traveled to or lived in. Although this nostalgia comes from media, Jameson suggests that the nostalgia comes from the individual.
Petite Etoile, Jameson, response to asyouwish
I also think that postmodernism is nearing its end and that avant-garde has reached its final stages. I cant count how many times I've been listening to a song on the radio and my parents have been like, “Hey... I remember that song... what did they do to it??” It seems like nearly everything has been created already. Most movies today are remakes of old movies, they're already casting actors for the remake of Footloose. Footloose was made in the 80's, it's not even 30 years old and were already remaking it. Or like we talked about before, a lot of movies are just making fun of other movies. And television shows just keep adding more and more seasons without any real significant plot changes. How many seasons of American Idol or America's Next Top Model can we handle before we get sick of seeing the same thing over and over again? And going even deeper, once America's Next Top Model came out, a million other shows came out just like it. You can watch a show about the next top designer, chef, hairstylist, fashion assistant.... I even saw a show over the weekend that was about loggers... yes a show where you watch people cut down wood in the forest. It seems like almost everything has already been done, so when someone does find something remotely new (before America's Next Model there weren't really any shows like it) everyone jumps on it and reproduces it again and again until its on every channel in every way shape and form possible. We go through phases, right now we enjoy watching these kind of shows. Before this it was reality tv show stage, before that it was the dating show stage, who knows what the next fad will be. But whatever they come up with thats remotely new and interesting you can bet will be replicated all over the place until your sick of seeing that too.
Happy Birthday!, Jameson
Jameson's piece titled, "The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism", works to break down the key components of postmodernity and how it affects our culture today--in doing so Jameson brings together concepts of works that we have previously read and gone over in class. Jameson explains that this era of postmodernity is not one type of “style” but rather an eclectic group of styles. Jameson states, “It is in the realm of architecture, however, that modifications in aesthetic production are most dramatically visible”. (483) Here he is quick to point out that postmodernism is most evident in architecture. This idea directly correlates with one of our previous theorists, Mr. Jencks. Jencks talks about many different way in which architecture show postmodern attributes. For example, Urbane Urbanism is something that is very new on the outside and looks very new but it is actually reminiscent of something old.
Also, Jencks talks a lot about radial eclecticism, and how it is produced by combining two completely different elements of architecture and putting them together. For example, the glass pyramid in front of the Louvre in Paris. In the postmodern age Jameson talks about progressing into a "high modernism" style. Making something common in society is how the media and the elite create ideologies. This relates to Hebdige as well because Hebdige argues that things that are different in society eventually become normalized and mainstream. For example, subcultures like the one shown in class on Tuesday (Marilyn Manson) was considered extreme/ radical/ and abnormal. But, as time progressed we see more and more people who like to express themselves in a gothic manner, and dress in dark clothes with makeup…thus becoming more normalized in our culture.
Also, Jencks talks a lot about radial eclecticism, and how it is produced by combining two completely different elements of architecture and putting them together. For example, the glass pyramid in front of the Louvre in Paris. In the postmodern age Jameson talks about progressing into a "high modernism" style. Making something common in society is how the media and the elite create ideologies. This relates to Hebdige as well because Hebdige argues that things that are different in society eventually become normalized and mainstream. For example, subcultures like the one shown in class on Tuesday (Marilyn Manson) was considered extreme/ radical/ and abnormal. But, as time progressed we see more and more people who like to express themselves in a gothic manner, and dress in dark clothes with makeup…thus becoming more normalized in our culture.
Weezy27/2-25
In class on Tuesday we discussed the ideas of Horkheimer and Adorno. While discussing the work I could not help but compare many quotes to Benjamin’s idea of originality. One of the quotes states: “culture today is infecting everything with sameness.” By saying this I think they are stating that reproduction is causing a disruption in today’s society. I would have to agree with this statement. In today’s society is there ever an original or is everything simply a mock of something else?
I then started thinking about this in terms of trends in fads in today’s pop culture. As I walked around campus today I could not help but to notice the similarities in the ways that people were dressing. Everyone looked just alike with their skinny jeans, bright colors, and gladiator sandals. It was interesting; however, when I saw someone dressed in something completely random, such as a trench coat, I began to view the person as weird and honestly a little scary. But why is this? Why do we live in such a way that something different from the “sameness” is considered strange? Therefore, going back to the quote, I would have to agree with the word “infecting” because we are in fact contaminated with these ideas that anything different should be considered strange or even in some cases scary.
I then started thinking about this in terms of trends in fads in today’s pop culture. As I walked around campus today I could not help but to notice the similarities in the ways that people were dressing. Everyone looked just alike with their skinny jeans, bright colors, and gladiator sandals. It was interesting; however, when I saw someone dressed in something completely random, such as a trench coat, I began to view the person as weird and honestly a little scary. But why is this? Why do we live in such a way that something different from the “sameness” is considered strange? Therefore, going back to the quote, I would have to agree with the word “infecting” because we are in fact contaminated with these ideas that anything different should be considered strange or even in some cases scary.
dmariel, 3/25
The most striking quote from Horkheimer and Adorno that we went over in class on Tuesday was “Amusement always means putting things out of mind, forgetting suffering, even when it is on display. At it’s root is powerlessness”. When I first read this quote in the reading, I didn’t think twice about. After discussing it as a class, there is so much more meaning behind it. I think it almost defines our culture as one of ignorance and naivete. We ignore the deepness of things in order to enjoy them. Movies about the end of the world may not just be fictional. Many people believe that the world will really end in 2010, but until that may happen, these movies are entertaining to us. Another perfect example, which we touched on in class as well, is South Park. South Park is successful for exactly this: putting the important issues behind and presenting them as comedy and entertainment. They take cultural stereotypes and important political occurrences, turn them around and make us laugh at them. The powerlessness is found when we push the seriousness behind without asserting authority over the situation...
This directly relates to Bejamin’s idea that “mankind’s self alienation has reached such a degree that it can experience is own destruction as an aesthetic pleasure of the first order”. Our culture is so manipulated that we enjoy destructive images, suffering, and things which take us out of our comfort zone. This example reminds me of the September 11th media that was being played over and over on the TV everyday to the point where average Americans were enjoying the images before them.
Just the other day in CMC200, we read a research project on the film Rush Hour 2 and the stereotypical messages within the movie. A study was done in order to see if people felt that the stereotypes were offensive. Almost all of the participants thought that since the racial slurs were for entertainment that they were not offensive to the race at all. These people are the exact example of powerlessness, pushing away seriousness to salvage entertainment.
This directly relates to Bejamin’s idea that “mankind’s self alienation has reached such a degree that it can experience is own destruction as an aesthetic pleasure of the first order”. Our culture is so manipulated that we enjoy destructive images, suffering, and things which take us out of our comfort zone. This example reminds me of the September 11th media that was being played over and over on the TV everyday to the point where average Americans were enjoying the images before them.
Just the other day in CMC200, we read a research project on the film Rush Hour 2 and the stereotypical messages within the movie. A study was done in order to see if people felt that the stereotypes were offensive. Almost all of the participants thought that since the racial slurs were for entertainment that they were not offensive to the race at all. These people are the exact example of powerlessness, pushing away seriousness to salvage entertainment.
Asyouwish 2/25 Jameson
"For with the collapse of high-modernist ideology of style what is unique and unmistakable as your own fingerprints, as incomparable as your own body (the very source, for an early Roland Barthes, of stylistic invention an innovation) - the producers of culture have nowhere to turn but to the past: the imitation of dead styles, speech through all the masks and voices stored up in the imaginary museum of now global culture" (494).
To me the above quotation was the most important one in all of Jameson's writing because the concept behind it links not only to Barthes but also Lyotard. This ideo of postmodernism ending because nothing new can be created greatly has to do with Lyotard's concept of the avant-garde. The end of postmodernism means that a new creation or idea is not new, that there is truly no longer an avant-garde, not only because everything created is commodified or recreated but because no new ideas or inventions are possible, everything has already been done. If concepts and creations truly reach their limitations with the ending of the postmodern period then the filling of the gap would not be possible. Barthes concept of Tmesis (filling in the gap of the texts we read and rewriting it to see it in a different way) would not even be possible because every-way to see or read something would already be provided or done.
In my opinion the end of postmodernism has already come to some degree. For example, movies that were created long ago are now being recreated not only because producers think the film can be improved upon, but also because there are few stories through films that have not been told. For example, rumor has it The Neverending Story, one of my favorite childhood movies is being recreated. Why I ask? Jameson, Lyotard and Barthes seem to provide the answer, with the ending of postmodernism comes the recycling of ideas and concepts. This recycling however has not only occurred in movies and television already, but also in fashion. In fashion things that were once in come back again constantly because people like the way they looked, but mainly in my opinion because no one can think of any better clothing styles for people to wear. Looking back at my post, it is a scary thought but it seems that we may already be near the end of postmodernism
Trapnest, Jameson
“… every position on postmodernism in culuture – whether apologia or stigmatization – is also at one and the same time, and necessarily, an implicitly or explicitly political stance on the nature of multinational capitalism today.” - Jameson (484)
I chose to begin with this quote because I feel it outlines the beginning of Jameson’s argument in the piece, “Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism.” Jameson references previous theorists and theories of culture, and how they relate to postmodernism. He begins by looking at the realm of artwork, classifying how our interpretations of, and the way we handle and relate to artwork signify dominant cultural themes.
“… the frantic economic urgency of producing fresh waves of ever more novel-seeming goods.” (485)
Or other interpretations like:
“Unless that situation – which has vanished into the past – is somehow mentally restored, the painting will remain an inert object, a reified end-product, and be unable to be grasped as a symbolic act in its own right…”
Both of these are showing how cultural industries become transformed into tangible products for a market and mass consumption. This connection is important to Jameson’s overall argument because it supports that there is a connection between culture and economy.
Jameson seems to be arguing throughout this piece against traditional notions of postmodernism as seen through these other theorists. Yet he seemed to argue many similar things as the previous theorists that had come before him. He mentions the breakdown of signifiers in one instance, which is an obvious reference to DeSaussure and his theories of signs and signifiers. His criticism of this is that it narrows down our understanding of objects and what they can be, items “lose their capacity to extend beyond itself.”
While I am uncertain, I will admit, overall about Jameson’s work I feel it proposes an interesting debate, since all other theorists since Marx have believed that since postmodernism was set into motion it was like a switch that began and cannot be stopped and modernism fails to explain it properly.
I chose to begin with this quote because I feel it outlines the beginning of Jameson’s argument in the piece, “Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism.” Jameson references previous theorists and theories of culture, and how they relate to postmodernism. He begins by looking at the realm of artwork, classifying how our interpretations of, and the way we handle and relate to artwork signify dominant cultural themes.
“… the frantic economic urgency of producing fresh waves of ever more novel-seeming goods.” (485)
Or other interpretations like:
“Unless that situation – which has vanished into the past – is somehow mentally restored, the painting will remain an inert object, a reified end-product, and be unable to be grasped as a symbolic act in its own right…”
Both of these are showing how cultural industries become transformed into tangible products for a market and mass consumption. This connection is important to Jameson’s overall argument because it supports that there is a connection between culture and economy.
Jameson seems to be arguing throughout this piece against traditional notions of postmodernism as seen through these other theorists. Yet he seemed to argue many similar things as the previous theorists that had come before him. He mentions the breakdown of signifiers in one instance, which is an obvious reference to DeSaussure and his theories of signs and signifiers. His criticism of this is that it narrows down our understanding of objects and what they can be, items “lose their capacity to extend beyond itself.”
While I am uncertain, I will admit, overall about Jameson’s work I feel it proposes an interesting debate, since all other theorists since Marx have believed that since postmodernism was set into motion it was like a switch that began and cannot be stopped and modernism fails to explain it properly.
coobeans, Jameson
In his essay, Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, Frederic Jameson states that postmodernism has become more than just a style, but rather a cultural dominant, that allows many different aspects of society to coexists together. One example that Jameson cites is the fact that aesthetic production and commodity production have become integrated together in our culture today. “What has happened is that aesthetic production today has become integrated into commodity production generally: the frantic economy urgency of producing fresh rates of turnover, now assigns an increasingly essential structural function and position to aesthetic innovation and experimentation” (485). I took this quote to mean that the two aspects of culture of aesthetics and commodities coexist together in our society. The two seem to go hand in hand many times because often times aesthetics are used in the commodification of an object. An object is created to be aesthetically pleasing in order for people to be attracted to it and buy it. When a newer version is created then something has been added to the aesthetics in order for the product to be “new and improved”. The popularity and ability of the commodity to be sold is dependent on the aesthetic quality of the product. An example of this from the last class was when we talked about the cars and how they are ultimately the same car with different exterior accents or an updated hood but the interior remains the same. People will buy the cars based on the exterior that they like the best. Therefore the aesthetics aid in the commodification of the car. Another example of this is cellular phones. The basic idea of why people buy cellular phones is so that they have a means of communication. A cell phone is a cell phone, it is used to call people. As long as a cell phone functions in calling people the reason for why it is purchased is achieved. However, people want to buy phones that look nice, which is why certain phones are sold in more popularity than others.
Murphy, Jameson
Fredrick Jameson's notion of postmodernism and how it should be defined in relation to culture seems to change throughout his essay. He seems to leave the idea up in the air and point out many different viewpoints and ideas on the subject. Towards the very end of his essay Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, he describes two radically different views of postmodernism. The first indicates that postmodernism is one style among many others available, and that it is created through moral judgments. While the second point of view sees postmodernism as the cultural dominant of the logic of late capitalism, and can be described as "a dialectical attempt to think of our present of time in history". If there can be two such dramatically different points of view on an era stemming form modernism, how can one be right? Jameson would lean toward the side that suggests postmodernism is not a style, but a cultural dominant.
Earlier in the article we read,"Not only are Picasso and Joyce no longer ugly; they now strike us, on a whole, as rather "realistic"; and this is the result of a canonization and an academic institutionalization of the modern movement generally, which can be traced to the late 1950's" (Jameson 485). To me this sums up every fad, phase, cultural phenomena, media craze, and popular movement. If a piece of art, fashion trend, music genre, architectural structure, or any other aesthetic item seems radical at one moment in time, it will soon be normalized. Our culture takes in what the media puts out and we resist the initial form because it seems "strange" and within a short period of time it is the new popular thing to watch, wear, follow, or be a part of. Picasso was defined as abstract, and now, as Jameson points out, we see it as realistic. All of this stemming from the 1950's when American culture, as well as other cultures around the world, began to dramatically go against dominant ideologies and rebel.
Earlier in the article we read,"Not only are Picasso and Joyce no longer ugly; they now strike us, on a whole, as rather "realistic"; and this is the result of a canonization and an academic institutionalization of the modern movement generally, which can be traced to the late 1950's" (Jameson 485). To me this sums up every fad, phase, cultural phenomena, media craze, and popular movement. If a piece of art, fashion trend, music genre, architectural structure, or any other aesthetic item seems radical at one moment in time, it will soon be normalized. Our culture takes in what the media puts out and we resist the initial form because it seems "strange" and within a short period of time it is the new popular thing to watch, wear, follow, or be a part of. Picasso was defined as abstract, and now, as Jameson points out, we see it as realistic. All of this stemming from the 1950's when American culture, as well as other cultures around the world, began to dramatically go against dominant ideologies and rebel.
Dot, Jameson
In his piece, Frederic Jameson discusses the many different facets of what he describes as postmodernism and how they affect the culture we live in today. In reading of of Jameson's first arguments on postmodernism as being culturally dominant, I was reminded of something that Dick Hebdige said in his analysis of hegemony. Hebdige discusses ways in which our culture deals with the other, stating that the main culture either trivializes, or naturalized, or domesticates the other and in doing so reduces the otherness to sameness (157). Jameson argues something very similar about culture in his article. He states that "obscurity and sexually explicit material ... psychological squalor and overt expressions of social and political defiance ... no longer scandalize anymore and are not only received with the greatest complacency but have themselves become institutionalized" (485). In this, he is saying that all of the aspects of our society that at one time shocked people have now become normalized and are accepted as part of the mainstream. for example, open displays of homosexuality were at one time deemed extremely socially unacceptable, but in today's culture they are accepted more and will continue to be more normalized in years to come. Jameson and Hebdige both see eye to eye on this point, and I am sure have many other similar views concerning our culture's function.
Going along with the idea of our culture normalizing absurdities, Jameson states that "aesthetic production today has become integrated into commodity production generally" and that "the frantic economic urgency of producing fresh waves of ever more novel-seeming goods (from clothing to airplanes), at ever greater rates of turnover, now assigns an increasingly essential structural function and position to aesthetic innovation and experimentation" (485). If everything that was once seen as being the other in our society is now seen as being normal, it is hard to create products that are aesthetically pleasing and that grab consumer attention in new ways. As Jameson states in this passage, companies are being forced to quickly create new and exciting aesthetically pleasing products in other to make more money and sell products, were as several years ago the creation of aesthetically pleasing products was seen as significant because it was not necessarily the norm. In reading this passage, I was also reminded of the way in which our society is largely consumer driven and through Jameson's remarks could see how this has both been created and perpetuated through postmodernism.
000ooo000ooo 3.25
In class yesterday the quote I was responsible for analyzing went as follows:
"Culture today is infecting everything with sameness" (41).
At first I did not consider the language used in this quote, only the message. However, after having some more time to process the quote and think about its implications, I now see the language as very important. The thing I find most interesting is how "culture" is treated almost like a living entity, capable making decisions and doing what it wants. This implies that there is some sort of brain for "culture" that determines its actions and pushes it to "infect everything with sameness". For an intelligent being to do something it must perceive and action as advantageous. This is the part that's most puzzling to me, who is gaining from this cultural sameness? Or is culture just a random natural force, like the wind, that acts upon us and we can't control it?
Horkheimer and Adorno would probably argue that the giant brain behind culture is the "Culture Industry". The goal of this industry is to make money so it can be assumed that whatever "they" are doing is believed to be the best choice financially. Somehow then, if Horkheimer and Adorno are correct, sameness must be financially viable. The simple solution we have talked about in class is that once a good formula has been found it is repeated in different forms. Going outside of this formula is risky because one cannot be sure people will like it and often people will feel uncomfortable about something that is radically different from what they're used to. But, where did this original idea for the "good" form come from? Before this form was invented was culture much different than it is now? It seems that every culture, throughout history, is just a bunch of likenesses between people and their tastes. Eventually something happens, whether it be a war, natural disaster, economic disaster, etc. that makes people unable to afford whatever it is they like (either because they don't have time or they don't have resources) and so everything goes away until a new culture rises up and promotes new things. A culture full of "newness" would probably be a very interesting place to live and there's no real way to predict what this would look like, but I would question Horkheimer and Adorno to provide some sort of blue print for making this happen. What can people do to attain this?
This is a very prevalent issue in our world today as new communications link even the most distant cultures (Osama bin Laden commonly communicates with the American people through videobroadcasts). Eventually this sameness could envelop the world and unless the entire world's civilization fell apart, it would be extremely challenging to break this sameness.
"Culture today is infecting everything with sameness" (41).
At first I did not consider the language used in this quote, only the message. However, after having some more time to process the quote and think about its implications, I now see the language as very important. The thing I find most interesting is how "culture" is treated almost like a living entity, capable making decisions and doing what it wants. This implies that there is some sort of brain for "culture" that determines its actions and pushes it to "infect everything with sameness". For an intelligent being to do something it must perceive and action as advantageous. This is the part that's most puzzling to me, who is gaining from this cultural sameness? Or is culture just a random natural force, like the wind, that acts upon us and we can't control it?
Horkheimer and Adorno would probably argue that the giant brain behind culture is the "Culture Industry". The goal of this industry is to make money so it can be assumed that whatever "they" are doing is believed to be the best choice financially. Somehow then, if Horkheimer and Adorno are correct, sameness must be financially viable. The simple solution we have talked about in class is that once a good formula has been found it is repeated in different forms. Going outside of this formula is risky because one cannot be sure people will like it and often people will feel uncomfortable about something that is radically different from what they're used to. But, where did this original idea for the "good" form come from? Before this form was invented was culture much different than it is now? It seems that every culture, throughout history, is just a bunch of likenesses between people and their tastes. Eventually something happens, whether it be a war, natural disaster, economic disaster, etc. that makes people unable to afford whatever it is they like (either because they don't have time or they don't have resources) and so everything goes away until a new culture rises up and promotes new things. A culture full of "newness" would probably be a very interesting place to live and there's no real way to predict what this would look like, but I would question Horkheimer and Adorno to provide some sort of blue print for making this happen. What can people do to attain this?
This is a very prevalent issue in our world today as new communications link even the most distant cultures (Osama bin Laden commonly communicates with the American people through videobroadcasts). Eventually this sameness could envelop the world and unless the entire world's civilization fell apart, it would be extremely challenging to break this sameness.
LightningBolt, Jameson
“What happened is that aesthetic production today has become integrated into commodity production generally: the frantic economic urgency of producing fresh waves of ever more novel-seeming goods (from clothing to airplanes), at ever greater rates of turn over, now assigns an increasingly essential structural function and position to aesthetic innovation and experimentation” (485)
This Jameson quote reminds me of Habermas and the Cult of the New. Jameson is arguing that our culture thrives on new and different goods, from clothing to airplanes. At first thought clothing is a more obvious argument than airplanes: we are attracted to clothes that are new and slightly original. An aesthetically pleasing airplane makes people more comfortable, and a new and original airplane keeps people satisfied because new must instantly equal better. For example Jet Blue has TV ‘s on the seat in front of your chair, so their flight service must be better than Southwest’s.
Since goods have started to gain a fast turn over rate, people expect it to continue. If the Iphone has released updates once every two months for the past two years, and they suddenly stop people will become upset. They desire the new product and know the company is capable of producing something new. Aesthetics of products are important to people because they serve as a status symbol. For example, if you have the white cased Iphone, everyone will know that you spent more money than people with a black case. The publics desire for constantly having new aesthetically pleasing goods causes companies to produce goods at a fast pace. How long can a product that is considered aesthetically pleasing stay that way? Our culture gets tired of the same look and feels the need for a new look. This is interesting because as Horkheimer and Adorno stated, our culture craves sameness and rejects anything new or different. This means that as a culture we need products that are similar enough to what we know with a new sparkle to it.
This Jameson quote reminds me of Habermas and the Cult of the New. Jameson is arguing that our culture thrives on new and different goods, from clothing to airplanes. At first thought clothing is a more obvious argument than airplanes: we are attracted to clothes that are new and slightly original. An aesthetically pleasing airplane makes people more comfortable, and a new and original airplane keeps people satisfied because new must instantly equal better. For example Jet Blue has TV ‘s on the seat in front of your chair, so their flight service must be better than Southwest’s.
Since goods have started to gain a fast turn over rate, people expect it to continue. If the Iphone has released updates once every two months for the past two years, and they suddenly stop people will become upset. They desire the new product and know the company is capable of producing something new. Aesthetics of products are important to people because they serve as a status symbol. For example, if you have the white cased Iphone, everyone will know that you spent more money than people with a black case. The publics desire for constantly having new aesthetically pleasing goods causes companies to produce goods at a fast pace. How long can a product that is considered aesthetically pleasing stay that way? Our culture gets tired of the same look and feels the need for a new look. This is interesting because as Horkheimer and Adorno stated, our culture craves sameness and rejects anything new or different. This means that as a culture we need products that are similar enough to what we know with a new sparkle to it.
Marie89, Jameson
“This is, however, precisely why it seems to me essential to grasp ‘postmodernism’ not as a style, but rather a cultural dominant: a conception that allows for the presence and coexistence of a range of very different, yet subordinate features” (484).
Through this statement, it seems as though Jameson is stating that postmodernism is an ideology impressed on a culture through the ruling class. He believes postmodernism to be a culmination of the past, present, and future ideas of a dominant class and the ways in which ideas are interpreted by that class. Postmodernism does not entail only one aspect of culture, however, but a culmination of ideas and concepts ranging from architecture to artwork to the media. Jameson also states that, “Postmodern culture is the internal and superstructural expression of a whole new wave of American military and economic domination throughout the world: in this sense, as throughout history, the underside of culture is blood, torture, death and horror” (485). This statement relies on the idea that cultures seem to be influenced by that which gives them pleasure. For instance, that which gets our attention, even if it through pain, is seen as entertaining and therefore is pleasurable. Our culture relies on the ideals of military and economic domination as they are the ones with the power to influence the media, get the attention of the people, and therefore influence ideals and things that a culture deems important. The viewpoints and images expressed by the economic and military functions in a state are not necessarily pleasant, yet they grab the attention of the people as they are the ones who claim dominance. A culture cannot function without a ruling ideology in which to assume normalcy. Therefore, the facets of a culture that claim dominance entail what is postmodern and therefore normal.
Through this statement, it seems as though Jameson is stating that postmodernism is an ideology impressed on a culture through the ruling class. He believes postmodernism to be a culmination of the past, present, and future ideas of a dominant class and the ways in which ideas are interpreted by that class. Postmodernism does not entail only one aspect of culture, however, but a culmination of ideas and concepts ranging from architecture to artwork to the media. Jameson also states that, “Postmodern culture is the internal and superstructural expression of a whole new wave of American military and economic domination throughout the world: in this sense, as throughout history, the underside of culture is blood, torture, death and horror” (485). This statement relies on the idea that cultures seem to be influenced by that which gives them pleasure. For instance, that which gets our attention, even if it through pain, is seen as entertaining and therefore is pleasurable. Our culture relies on the ideals of military and economic domination as they are the ones with the power to influence the media, get the attention of the people, and therefore influence ideals and things that a culture deems important. The viewpoints and images expressed by the economic and military functions in a state are not necessarily pleasant, yet they grab the attention of the people as they are the ones who claim dominance. A culture cannot function without a ruling ideology in which to assume normalcy. Therefore, the facets of a culture that claim dominance entail what is postmodern and therefore normal.
ginger griffin, Jameson
Long quote, "The word 'remake' is, however, anachronistic to the degree to which our awareness of the pre-existence of other versions, previous films of the novel as well as the novel itself, is now a constitutive and essential part of the film's structure: we are now, in other words, in 'intertextuality' as a deliberate, built-in feature of the aesthetic effect, and as the operator of a new connotation of 'pastness' and pseudo-historical depth, in which the history of aesthetic styles displaces 'real' history." (495)
I would like to relate this quote to Macherey when he states, "To know the work, we must move outside it." (20) In order to understand a film that came from somewhere else, you must first know where it came from. Did it come from an idea, did it come from a book, or another movie, maybe a television show. Where ever it came from, you must be able to suspend your disbelief and realize that what you are viewing might be written differently and maybe not meant to be viewed in such the way that you might be viewing it. You can not write something without adding in your own personal viewpoints and style because you will be doing it sub-consciously. We do this with everything we read or write, we add what we know and what we have learned. I relate that to another quote from Macherey, 'Are there books which say what they mean... Without depending directly on other books?" (16) It is impossible and the interdependence and relating it to something else will always happen. The subsection called, "The Nostalgia Mode", was very interesting for me because it talked about "remakes" and how basically there are only remakes out there. Nothing is an original anymore and like HorkHeimer and Adorno, "culture today is infecting everything with sameness." (41) Originality no longer exists, the only thing left to ponder is what will they think of next?
I would like to relate this quote to Macherey when he states, "To know the work, we must move outside it." (20) In order to understand a film that came from somewhere else, you must first know where it came from. Did it come from an idea, did it come from a book, or another movie, maybe a television show. Where ever it came from, you must be able to suspend your disbelief and realize that what you are viewing might be written differently and maybe not meant to be viewed in such the way that you might be viewing it. You can not write something without adding in your own personal viewpoints and style because you will be doing it sub-consciously. We do this with everything we read or write, we add what we know and what we have learned. I relate that to another quote from Macherey, 'Are there books which say what they mean... Without depending directly on other books?" (16) It is impossible and the interdependence and relating it to something else will always happen. The subsection called, "The Nostalgia Mode", was very interesting for me because it talked about "remakes" and how basically there are only remakes out there. Nothing is an original anymore and like HorkHeimer and Adorno, "culture today is infecting everything with sameness." (41) Originality no longer exists, the only thing left to ponder is what will they think of next?
Jameson, 3/25
“For with the collapse of the high-modernist ideology of style—what is as unique and unmistakable as your own fingerprints, as incomparable as your own body…-- the producers of culture have nowhere to turn but to the past” (494).
Cultural production of the postmodern society is full of imitations. After reading this article, along with similar theories, I realize the truth behind the statement. It can be applied to almost every aspect of our American ‘culture’. When we were children, we were warned about the effects of karma—what goes around comes around. It’s interesting how this advice, which has stayed with us since we were young, is actually fitting and appropriate when looking at our society.
I view style as a very subjective thing. We talked about in class how it has become a complement, adding to a person’s personality. A “good sense of style,” however, seems to be an abstract thought. I know I have personally questioned the so-called “style” of my parents or older generations, especially in comparison to my own. Their behavior and dress seems outdated, conventional and conservative. But, without fail, my mother always reminds me that one day I’ll have children of my own and I’ll get to experience the distance between generations.
Just as modernist “style” has seemed to vanish, we can assume that what we view as normal will do the same, only to reappear down the line. The imitation of “normal style” of our society will undoubtedly occur in the future, presented as a new and cool trend. We have already witnessed the coming and going of past trends, especially in the fashion industry. I feel that this reproduction of the past highlights the almost lazy nature of our postmodern culture, and it is not just in fashion. This imitation extends to all areas of our culture—music, films, novels, etc.
As Dorfman stated in his article, “Fiction reinforces in a circular fashion.” The concept of fiction can be replaced with the concept of style. A controversial aspect of culture is found trendy and stylish by a subculture, then becomes mass produced and accepted as “normal,” paving the way for other trends. Making something common in society is how the media and the elite create ideologies. Ranging from fashion to architecture, these ideologies exist as an industry. These industries then rely heavily on the past cultures. Just as GM became prosperous, taking past ideas that work and tweaking them allows for the ability to appeal to the masses. The masses, however, are not usually aware of the origin of the trend, which allows the industries to continue to be economically successful.
Cultural production of the postmodern society is full of imitations. After reading this article, along with similar theories, I realize the truth behind the statement. It can be applied to almost every aspect of our American ‘culture’. When we were children, we were warned about the effects of karma—what goes around comes around. It’s interesting how this advice, which has stayed with us since we were young, is actually fitting and appropriate when looking at our society.
I view style as a very subjective thing. We talked about in class how it has become a complement, adding to a person’s personality. A “good sense of style,” however, seems to be an abstract thought. I know I have personally questioned the so-called “style” of my parents or older generations, especially in comparison to my own. Their behavior and dress seems outdated, conventional and conservative. But, without fail, my mother always reminds me that one day I’ll have children of my own and I’ll get to experience the distance between generations.
Just as modernist “style” has seemed to vanish, we can assume that what we view as normal will do the same, only to reappear down the line. The imitation of “normal style” of our society will undoubtedly occur in the future, presented as a new and cool trend. We have already witnessed the coming and going of past trends, especially in the fashion industry. I feel that this reproduction of the past highlights the almost lazy nature of our postmodern culture, and it is not just in fashion. This imitation extends to all areas of our culture—music, films, novels, etc.
As Dorfman stated in his article, “Fiction reinforces in a circular fashion.” The concept of fiction can be replaced with the concept of style. A controversial aspect of culture is found trendy and stylish by a subculture, then becomes mass produced and accepted as “normal,” paving the way for other trends. Making something common in society is how the media and the elite create ideologies. Ranging from fashion to architecture, these ideologies exist as an industry. These industries then rely heavily on the past cultures. Just as GM became prosperous, taking past ideas that work and tweaking them allows for the ability to appeal to the masses. The masses, however, are not usually aware of the origin of the trend, which allows the industries to continue to be economically successful.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
DBA123, post class 3/24
“The concept of genuine style becomes transparent in the culture industry as the aesthetic equivalent of power.” (47)
I thought this quote from today’s class was particularly interesting. In class, our explanation of the quote was along the lines of, which once something new, or original, is produced, there will soon be replications of it. I thought that this quote and our clarification of it related to some of Lyotard’s ideas. Lyotard believed that nothing was truly modern; he didn’t think that Avant Garde was truly possible. This could be interchangeable with ‘genuine style.’ That no style is actually authentic, it came from somewhere else. Speaking about style in terms of fashion, how many times when we look through magazines have we read “The 80’s are making a comeback,” or whatever decade it is of the season. Moving onto the second part of the quote and relating it to Lyotard’s concepts, it says that style has become equivalent with power. Lyotard says that products value depends on what someone else will pay for it. In class we discussed how these ‘genuine styles’ soon become mass-produced, people paying to replicate the original they had seen.
I thought this quote, when relating it to Lyotard, illustrated how our culture depends on images or media to tell us what to do next. If we take Lyotard’s stance on what is or isn’t modern and apply it to the first half of this quote, we are saying that nothing really is genuine. If we take his definition of power and value and apply it to the second half of the quote, we are saying we give power to something that wasn’t ever authentic. When the media stops showing us images of what the next big thing is, is that when we stop placing value upon it as well?
I thought this quote from today’s class was particularly interesting. In class, our explanation of the quote was along the lines of, which once something new, or original, is produced, there will soon be replications of it. I thought that this quote and our clarification of it related to some of Lyotard’s ideas. Lyotard believed that nothing was truly modern; he didn’t think that Avant Garde was truly possible. This could be interchangeable with ‘genuine style.’ That no style is actually authentic, it came from somewhere else. Speaking about style in terms of fashion, how many times when we look through magazines have we read “The 80’s are making a comeback,” or whatever decade it is of the season. Moving onto the second part of the quote and relating it to Lyotard’s concepts, it says that style has become equivalent with power. Lyotard says that products value depends on what someone else will pay for it. In class we discussed how these ‘genuine styles’ soon become mass-produced, people paying to replicate the original they had seen.
I thought this quote, when relating it to Lyotard, illustrated how our culture depends on images or media to tell us what to do next. If we take Lyotard’s stance on what is or isn’t modern and apply it to the first half of this quote, we are saying that nothing really is genuine. If we take his definition of power and value and apply it to the second half of the quote, we are saying we give power to something that wasn’t ever authentic. When the media stops showing us images of what the next big thing is, is that when we stop placing value upon it as well?
aro0823, jameson
“… we seem increasingly incapable of fashioning representations of our own current experience.”
This sentence, more so than any other we have read, has summarized postmodernism into logical terms. Basic tenets of postmodernism – illogicality, chaos, and irrationality – serve as the framework because we are not (as Lyotard would say) in an era of slackening, but rather an era of utmost confusion and identity crises. In modernism, things made sense. Everything was logical and had an order. Because the world as we currently know it is in such disarray, “the producers of culture have nowhere to turn but the past [to find meaning]” (494). To further complicate the complicated, the cultural producers are almost completely devoid of the ability to express feelings and make that meaning we lack (492). As Adorno says, the culture industry is responsible for mass ideological reproduction. If this industry is in a state of constant chaos and projects that message to the masses who aren’t equipped with the ability to express feelings, we as a society are in deep, deep trouble.
To be honest, I used to have such hope for postmodernism. I agreed whole-heartedly with Lyotard’s “war on totality.” However, the more of the assigned 40+ pages I read of Jameson, the more I was filled with hopelessness. In the postmodern era, we aren’t the crusaders of the war on totality; we are fueling the other side’s totalism with our hopeless addictions to “kitsch… Reader’s Digest culture… the airport paperbacks… and the grade-B Hollywood film (complete with predictable ending)” (483).
How could this happen, this utter disaster of an era? Why can’t we fashion representations of our own current experience? I agree with Jameson and blame the politicization and commodification of every material object that can possibly have profit extracted from it. The shamelessness of the capitalist system has created a universe of empty signifiers – simulacra – in which everything is void of any meaning and assigned an arbitrary material value. I would go so far as to say we turn to nostalgic images because they come from a time when the industry functioned to meet the people’s demands instead of the people falling victim to the globalized, totalized, impersonal, mass producing culture industry.
This sentence, more so than any other we have read, has summarized postmodernism into logical terms. Basic tenets of postmodernism – illogicality, chaos, and irrationality – serve as the framework because we are not (as Lyotard would say) in an era of slackening, but rather an era of utmost confusion and identity crises. In modernism, things made sense. Everything was logical and had an order. Because the world as we currently know it is in such disarray, “the producers of culture have nowhere to turn but the past [to find meaning]” (494). To further complicate the complicated, the cultural producers are almost completely devoid of the ability to express feelings and make that meaning we lack (492). As Adorno says, the culture industry is responsible for mass ideological reproduction. If this industry is in a state of constant chaos and projects that message to the masses who aren’t equipped with the ability to express feelings, we as a society are in deep, deep trouble.
To be honest, I used to have such hope for postmodernism. I agreed whole-heartedly with Lyotard’s “war on totality.” However, the more of the assigned 40+ pages I read of Jameson, the more I was filled with hopelessness. In the postmodern era, we aren’t the crusaders of the war on totality; we are fueling the other side’s totalism with our hopeless addictions to “kitsch… Reader’s Digest culture… the airport paperbacks… and the grade-B Hollywood film (complete with predictable ending)” (483).
How could this happen, this utter disaster of an era? Why can’t we fashion representations of our own current experience? I agree with Jameson and blame the politicization and commodification of every material object that can possibly have profit extracted from it. The shamelessness of the capitalist system has created a universe of empty signifiers – simulacra – in which everything is void of any meaning and assigned an arbitrary material value. I would go so far as to say we turn to nostalgic images because they come from a time when the industry functioned to meet the people’s demands instead of the people falling victim to the globalized, totalized, impersonal, mass producing culture industry.
Juice15, Jameson
This post is over the section of the reading titled “The Hysterical Sublime.” This section of the reading I felt could be tied back into other readings and themes that were prevalent in those readings. “…where automobile wrecks gleam with some new hallucinatory splendor” (Jameson 504.) This was part of when Jameson was discussing the transition that is occurring now from things such as Hopper’s buildings to new surfaces. I feel this can be tied into Zizek and how things today look like they are straight from a movie. Zizek was talking about the 9/11 attacks and how the pictures taken were framed to make it look like it was not even real. Which I feel is what Jameson is trying to get at here also by talking about hallucinatory exhilaration. Also I feel it ties into Benjamin and how we are absent minded observers and just accept what we are given and how we live for those types of splendors.
The next tie back to other theorists is when how Jameson says “newer art is radically anti-anthropomorphic” (504). This goes back to Jencks. Anthropomorphism is giving human characteristics to something that is not human. Jameson says the newer art is getting away from this and later in the reading he talks about how technology has no capacity for representation or emblematic and visual power.
The last part of this section deals with technology and can be tied back into Poster. The part that talks about grasping power and control. I look at as being tied into when Poster talks about how technology defines the character of power. With the explosion of new technology I feel that this idea of “high tech paranoia” will become more prevalent here soon especially concerning themes of authenticity, virtual communities and the idea of what is real or normal.
The next tie back to other theorists is when how Jameson says “newer art is radically anti-anthropomorphic” (504). This goes back to Jencks. Anthropomorphism is giving human characteristics to something that is not human. Jameson says the newer art is getting away from this and later in the reading he talks about how technology has no capacity for representation or emblematic and visual power.
The last part of this section deals with technology and can be tied back into Poster. The part that talks about grasping power and control. I look at as being tied into when Poster talks about how technology defines the character of power. With the explosion of new technology I feel that this idea of “high tech paranoia” will become more prevalent here soon especially concerning themes of authenticity, virtual communities and the idea of what is real or normal.
brookes77, 3/24/09
“ The whole world is passed through the filter of the culture industry…. The more… completely its film’s techniques duplicate empirical objects, the more easily it creates the illusion that the world outside is a seamless extension of the one which has been revealed in the cinema”.
This quote shows that everything is being made into a commodity to make it more appealing as we talked in class. As I thought about this quote I remembered examples of CMC 200, a Harry Potter reading. Harry Potter once use to be a book and now has become a movie, website, clothing line, jelly bean, the idea of “Harry Potter” has become completely commodified in order to become more appealing to its audience. This is an book example, but clearly as we have talked about in previous classes and as Horkheimer and Adorno restate in the past reading it is getting out of hand. This can relate to Dick Hebdige when he explains “strategies to deal with the other” is to either Trivialize or to transform into exotica. The idea of Harry Potter was very erotic, different, weird, at first. No one had written a book, or series, like this before. It was soon transformed, naturalized, normalized and the theme of Harry Potter became available in every form to consumers, taking away its’ significance in the book, turning this idea into an obsession.
The last quote that was displayed during class was “Amusement always means putting things out of mind, forgetting suffering, even when it is on display. At its root is powerlessness”. We then talked about South Park and how this goes against this quote, how South Park makes amusement, what we think is humorous in the show a crule and inappropriate humor that we feel bad about after we make fun of it. I never really though about how this quote is utilized in South Park. The amusement they display is very out in the open almost avant guard in a way that we can not ride our minds of this unethical amusement. This is why this show appears more inappropriate, it brings cultural, ethical and many other issues to the table; without hiding them, making us forget, and our minds become powerless in seeing wrong from right in amusement.
This quote shows that everything is being made into a commodity to make it more appealing as we talked in class. As I thought about this quote I remembered examples of CMC 200, a Harry Potter reading. Harry Potter once use to be a book and now has become a movie, website, clothing line, jelly bean, the idea of “Harry Potter” has become completely commodified in order to become more appealing to its audience. This is an book example, but clearly as we have talked about in previous classes and as Horkheimer and Adorno restate in the past reading it is getting out of hand. This can relate to Dick Hebdige when he explains “strategies to deal with the other” is to either Trivialize or to transform into exotica. The idea of Harry Potter was very erotic, different, weird, at first. No one had written a book, or series, like this before. It was soon transformed, naturalized, normalized and the theme of Harry Potter became available in every form to consumers, taking away its’ significance in the book, turning this idea into an obsession.
The last quote that was displayed during class was “Amusement always means putting things out of mind, forgetting suffering, even when it is on display. At its root is powerlessness”. We then talked about South Park and how this goes against this quote, how South Park makes amusement, what we think is humorous in the show a crule and inappropriate humor that we feel bad about after we make fun of it. I never really though about how this quote is utilized in South Park. The amusement they display is very out in the open almost avant guard in a way that we can not ride our minds of this unethical amusement. This is why this show appears more inappropriate, it brings cultural, ethical and many other issues to the table; without hiding them, making us forget, and our minds become powerless in seeing wrong from right in amusement.
Asyouwish for 2/22-2/24
In class we have been discussing Hebdidge’s idea of the subcultures becoming mass-produced and thus being normalized. Take the band Green Day for instance. They were once deviant and radical and now they are no longer the defiant punks they used to be but instead a subculture. Green Day was once their own band on their own terms, but once MTV got a hold of them their music started to change and became like everything else. It seems the MTV generation, while great, seems to change every original type of sound to something more mainstream. During the 90’s MTV turned college and university students spring break into something entirely different. Spring break has almost always consisted of people getting together with their friends to drink and party. This type of behavior had always been frowned upon but when MTV started Spring Break these behaviors were normalized at least in the eyes of the viewers watching from their homes. MTV Spring Break normalized drinking and vulgar activities because they kept showing thousands of people doing such activities each day. Since so many people were participating in these activities it was almost abnormal to be a college aged student who wasn’t celebrating their spring break in the spirit of MTV. While MTV Spring Break is no longer as big a deal as it used to be, it did inspire people to go away and party hard during their spring breaks. A bunch of my friends each year have gone away for spring break to the Caribbean or Mexico where they party like crazy because that is what they had grown up watching. It is what the generation before them had done and had fun with. These actions no longer receive questioning because they have become part of the American College culture. Spring Break for most college students means party time.
LightningBolt, 3/24
“Culture today is infecting everything with sameness” (41)
Today in class we talked about this Honkheimer and Adorno quote. The example given in class was the TV shows 7th Heaven and Everybody loves Raymond. These two shows differ from each other in many ways, but ultimately have the same base story line: a family overcoming their every day struggles. This quote makes me wonder why it is that our culture clings to things that are similar. Why is it that all the TV shows we like are all similar to one another? I think that it has to do with our comfort levels. We mistake unfamiliarity with dislike. If I were to turn on a TV show such as Star Track, It would be unfamiliar to me. This would cause me to think that I dislike the show.
The idea of sameness applies to more than television, it can even be applied to fast food. McDonalds, Burger King, and Wendy’s all share a core menu. Yet can’t food items besides hamburgers, French fries, and chick nuggets be unfrozen and served at a fast pace for a small amount of money? If someone was to walk into Burger King and see pizza on the menu, something that can be unfrozen and served quickly and cheap, they would be confused. Why is pizza being served at a fast food restaurant? The person may not even realize that they are actually in the mood for pizza because they mistake this change for dislike when really it is just something new and different.
Today in class we talked about this Honkheimer and Adorno quote. The example given in class was the TV shows 7th Heaven and Everybody loves Raymond. These two shows differ from each other in many ways, but ultimately have the same base story line: a family overcoming their every day struggles. This quote makes me wonder why it is that our culture clings to things that are similar. Why is it that all the TV shows we like are all similar to one another? I think that it has to do with our comfort levels. We mistake unfamiliarity with dislike. If I were to turn on a TV show such as Star Track, It would be unfamiliar to me. This would cause me to think that I dislike the show.
The idea of sameness applies to more than television, it can even be applied to fast food. McDonalds, Burger King, and Wendy’s all share a core menu. Yet can’t food items besides hamburgers, French fries, and chick nuggets be unfrozen and served at a fast pace for a small amount of money? If someone was to walk into Burger King and see pizza on the menu, something that can be unfrozen and served quickly and cheap, they would be confused. Why is pizza being served at a fast food restaurant? The person may not even realize that they are actually in the mood for pizza because they mistake this change for dislike when really it is just something new and different.
ginger griffin, horkheimer and adorno
Today in class each table was given a quote from Horkheimer and Adorno, the quote I was given was, "The concept of a genuine style becomes transparent in the culture industry as the aesthetic equivalent of power." My partner and I discussed this and I thought that it meant to be an original is to have all the power. What I mean by this is that if you are an original, you will have many followers and reproductions of whatever the original might be. Then somebody in class mentioned "what is an original anyway, because everything is mass produced?" I thought about that for awhile and I wanted to say that in order for something to be mass produced it must first have an original. Nothing can be produced without having an original of something. Take for instance the example I gave during class, skinny jeans. Somebody somewhere decided one day I'm going to wear skinny jeans, they did, and from there the "fad" started and multiple types and colors were made. Like the Ford and GM example, skinny jeans were made into many different colors but when broken down to its barest, you realize they are all the same, some more expensive because of the logo imprinted on the back pocket and others because of the type of color. Walter Benjamin states, "The presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity." The Original has to start somewhere, but where it will end up, well, nobody can answer that.
Horkheimer and Adorno Basically talk about mass reproduction and the concept of originality. They are very closely tied to Habermas and Walter Benjamin. almost every quote that we saw today in class was about originality and how everything is the same and everything is being mass produced and therefore there are no originals left. Everything has been made over and over in so many different ways that we hve almost lost the idea of what an original is. I do not think any originals can be made anymore because everything has been made up and been made different, just ever so slightly but its basis is that of its original piece.
Horkheimer and Adorno Basically talk about mass reproduction and the concept of originality. They are very closely tied to Habermas and Walter Benjamin. almost every quote that we saw today in class was about originality and how everything is the same and everything is being mass produced and therefore there are no originals left. Everything has been made over and over in so many different ways that we hve almost lost the idea of what an original is. I do not think any originals can be made anymore because everything has been made up and been made different, just ever so slightly but its basis is that of its original piece.
Monday, March 23, 2009
brookes77, horkheimer & adorno
“ In a film, the outcome can invariably be predicted at the start- who will be rewarded, punished, forgotten and in light music the prepared ear can always guess the continuation after the bars of a hit song and is gratified when it actually occurred.” (44)
Although this reading was incredibly difficult for me to grasp, reading about Culture Industry and how everything is in one form or another the same, similar. I read this quote and I could not help but relating this to the movie Jaws, and how when the shark is about to attack the cliché “danger” music always comes on, so when it happens we can predict what will happen, but some how this still scares us. Also in one of my CMC elective classes about Native American’s in the media, we have been watching stereotypical western films, with the cowboys and Indians. Right from the beginning of the films we see, with the music, costumes, and the way the characters caring themselves, who will be the hero and who will be the victim, they are all very stereotypical from the first few minuets of the film. Although these films are from decades ago, they still follow the format that the quote explains and these were the first examples that came to mind.
“ The concept of a genuine style becomes transparent in the culture industry as the aesthetic equivalent of power”. To me this quote basically defines ideology and how “genuine”, traditional, dreams and visions become intertwined in the dreams that the culture industry has slowly molded for us. And those ideologies that the culture industry has created have become visual symbolisms of power and control. The quote on page 47 then goes further into giving an example of this with art. It explains that he most successful artists are not those whose pieces of art is perfect, yet those who show pain, suffering, and those who have “adopted a style as a rigor… a negative truth”.
Culture Industry seems inevitable in our society. “ Everyone is supposed to behave spontaneously according to a “level” determined by indices and to select the category of mass product manufactured for their type.” Every product and every individual has a category that culture industry has created. Everything can be read and is premeditated. I do not know if I fully understood this reading, although I tried to grasp select parts of it.
Although this reading was incredibly difficult for me to grasp, reading about Culture Industry and how everything is in one form or another the same, similar. I read this quote and I could not help but relating this to the movie Jaws, and how when the shark is about to attack the cliché “danger” music always comes on, so when it happens we can predict what will happen, but some how this still scares us. Also in one of my CMC elective classes about Native American’s in the media, we have been watching stereotypical western films, with the cowboys and Indians. Right from the beginning of the films we see, with the music, costumes, and the way the characters caring themselves, who will be the hero and who will be the victim, they are all very stereotypical from the first few minuets of the film. Although these films are from decades ago, they still follow the format that the quote explains and these were the first examples that came to mind.
“ The concept of a genuine style becomes transparent in the culture industry as the aesthetic equivalent of power”. To me this quote basically defines ideology and how “genuine”, traditional, dreams and visions become intertwined in the dreams that the culture industry has slowly molded for us. And those ideologies that the culture industry has created have become visual symbolisms of power and control. The quote on page 47 then goes further into giving an example of this with art. It explains that he most successful artists are not those whose pieces of art is perfect, yet those who show pain, suffering, and those who have “adopted a style as a rigor… a negative truth”.
Culture Industry seems inevitable in our society. “ Everyone is supposed to behave spontaneously according to a “level” determined by indices and to select the category of mass product manufactured for their type.” Every product and every individual has a category that culture industry has created. Everything can be read and is premeditated. I do not know if I fully understood this reading, although I tried to grasp select parts of it.
yellowdaisy 4, horkheimer & adorno
In the readings, Horkheimer and Adorno discussed the sameness of culture industries and how most things are identical and replicated from something else. They even go as far as to say culture industries like film and radio aren’t even portraying what they are as art anymore. I found the quote about that being “the truth that they are nothing but business is used as an ideology to legitimize the trash they intentionally produce” (42), to be very prevalent today. I feel like most things today put out there, on TV especially, could not even be disguised as art anymore. An example of this is how many networks from basic cable like Fox to channels like MTV all put out reality shows. What’s worse is all these reality shows follow the same formulas of either competing with members of the same sex for a date or testing yourself with physical challenges for money both which require living in a house with a bunch of strangers while cameras film your fights. This to me cannot even be disguised as art but trash that we are constantly bombarded with. Culture industries create the ideology that reality TV shows are the best thing to watch because the fake “realness” they create is more exciting and make everyone want to have their own reality show because they make consumers believe that “real” life can be that interesting. It’s a good business move for the industries because they don’t really have to hire actors or work too long on a plot line and can keep quickly producing these same shows over and over with different names. Films do this as well like how they follow the same formula for horror movies or teen movies because they know what their target audiences like to expect. Horkheimer and Adorno go on to discuss how it’s the few production centers that have a dispersed reception yet keep the “standardized form” because it is “derived from the needs of consumers” so we accept less than art and just want they give us for entertainment because we even believe it’s what we want to see. We accept what the culture industries give us and watch it mindlessly not bothering to want anything with actual depth. I can connect this concept of sameness in media industries to Benjamin. He stated how “the greater the decrease in the social significance of an art form, the sharper the distinction between criticism and enjoyment by the public. The conventional is uncritically enjoyed and the truly new is criticized with aversion” (29). This quote is about how television shows or films like my examples above, are pitched by saying they are based off something that already exists and works. It’s not usually anything radically different or moving which is what art should be because it’s now all based on making money.
thestig, Horkheimer and Adorno
the CAPITALIST
“The routine translation of everything, even of what has not yet been thought, into the schema of mechanical reproducibility goes beyond their rigor and scope of any true style – the concept with which culture lovers idealize the precapitalist past as an organic era” (46).
I agree with what Horkheimer and Adorno are pointing out in this quote, and I think they use some strong examples to support there claim. It really is incredible how commodified everything is in today’s world. Things that used to be made to order are now mass produced. The “precapitalist past” is an “organic era” because it represents the time where companies were driven more by their input in society than the capitalistic nature of today’s business owners. Today’s business owner is ruthless: he or she has created this “schema of mechanical reproducibility” by commodifying items. This is the process of making a product more cost efficient. This involves outsourcing, lowering wages, cutting corners in tax payments, and lowering the quality of the item produced. It shatters the organic era’s spirit in one’s ability to achieve, for example, the American Dream. What’s interesting about this point is the first part: that everything, even those ideas that haven’t been imagined (ideas that may help fulfill one’s definition of the American Dream), will fit into the category of being a commodity. When one thinks about moving forward, or “big ideas” about the future, one thinks in terms of commodification. Is this true? Are people more interested in how much money they can make as opposed to how solid of a product they can produce? An example of capitalism, and the long lost sense of an organic era in today’s world is seen in the real estate market through urbane urbanism. Horkheimer and Adorno address this feature of society to show “mass culture under monopoly (urbane urbanism) is identical. Are these housing projects well built, or are they just cheap housing that creates enormous profits for the business owner?
I’m not an expert on this issue, but from my experiences, these mass produced communities are not built well. This is a relevant problem in the greater New Orleans area, as families and businesses are still in the rebuilding process. Should major real estate firms go into New Orleans and build a Baldwin Park, or are those homes not strong enough to withstand hurricanes? Will the buildings last like the housing projects did? It’s ironic that some of the cheapest housing in New Orleans, the housing projects, didn’t get destroyed by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. They were built in the “organic era” and, despite the poor urban planning – a major, major downfall to these projects – were built very well. It’s too early to tell if the capitalist way of building homes is going to work, but what we do know is how effective the “schema of mechanical reproducibility” is.
“The routine translation of everything, even of what has not yet been thought, into the schema of mechanical reproducibility goes beyond their rigor and scope of any true style – the concept with which culture lovers idealize the precapitalist past as an organic era” (46).
I agree with what Horkheimer and Adorno are pointing out in this quote, and I think they use some strong examples to support there claim. It really is incredible how commodified everything is in today’s world. Things that used to be made to order are now mass produced. The “precapitalist past” is an “organic era” because it represents the time where companies were driven more by their input in society than the capitalistic nature of today’s business owners. Today’s business owner is ruthless: he or she has created this “schema of mechanical reproducibility” by commodifying items. This is the process of making a product more cost efficient. This involves outsourcing, lowering wages, cutting corners in tax payments, and lowering the quality of the item produced. It shatters the organic era’s spirit in one’s ability to achieve, for example, the American Dream. What’s interesting about this point is the first part: that everything, even those ideas that haven’t been imagined (ideas that may help fulfill one’s definition of the American Dream), will fit into the category of being a commodity. When one thinks about moving forward, or “big ideas” about the future, one thinks in terms of commodification. Is this true? Are people more interested in how much money they can make as opposed to how solid of a product they can produce? An example of capitalism, and the long lost sense of an organic era in today’s world is seen in the real estate market through urbane urbanism. Horkheimer and Adorno address this feature of society to show “mass culture under monopoly (urbane urbanism) is identical. Are these housing projects well built, or are they just cheap housing that creates enormous profits for the business owner?
I’m not an expert on this issue, but from my experiences, these mass produced communities are not built well. This is a relevant problem in the greater New Orleans area, as families and businesses are still in the rebuilding process. Should major real estate firms go into New Orleans and build a Baldwin Park, or are those homes not strong enough to withstand hurricanes? Will the buildings last like the housing projects did? It’s ironic that some of the cheapest housing in New Orleans, the housing projects, didn’t get destroyed by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. They were built in the “organic era” and, despite the poor urban planning – a major, major downfall to these projects – were built very well. It’s too early to tell if the capitalist way of building homes is going to work, but what we do know is how effective the “schema of mechanical reproducibility” is.
Dmariel, Horkheimer and Adorno
When reading about the culture industry today, I felt like I was awakening from a naive dream. Horkheimer and Adorno definitely put the American culture industry into a critical perspective. As I was reading, I was immediately reminded of Althusser’s concept of ideology when I read that “something is provided for everyone so that no one can escape; differences are hammered home and propagated..everyone is supposed to behave spontaneously according to a ‘level’ determined by indices and to select the category of mass product manufactured for their type”. Althusser generalizes this idea through ideology when he states “those who are in ideology believe themselves by definition outside ideology”. Through the act of counter-hegemony, one may believe that existing in a social group makes you different than all the others, when in reality you are just like everyone else. In relation to Horkheimer and Adorno, they claim that no one can escape! Everyone follows a certain ideology that is mass produced for their type. Therefore, “for the consumer there is nothing left to classify, since the classification has already been pre-empted by the schematism of production”. We are the producers and consumers of ideologies, all existing together under a higher power: the culture industry.
Horkheimer and Adorna state that “the routine translation of everything, even of what has not yet been thought, into the schema of mechanical reproducibility goes beyond the rigor and scope of any true style-the concept with which culture lovers idealize the pre-capitalist past as an organic era”. Benjamin believed that in our culture today we are producing things that we don’t even know that we want. We are taking away from ‘true style’ and unique existence through mass reproduction. We are no longer driven by tradition in the postmodern world, we are driven by production. Subsequently, there is a “withering of imagination and spontaneity” in todays culture. The term ‘new’ has lost it’s meaning, we rely on improving what is already made and act within our obedience to the social hierarchy.
Horkheimer and Adorna state that “the routine translation of everything, even of what has not yet been thought, into the schema of mechanical reproducibility goes beyond the rigor and scope of any true style-the concept with which culture lovers idealize the pre-capitalist past as an organic era”. Benjamin believed that in our culture today we are producing things that we don’t even know that we want. We are taking away from ‘true style’ and unique existence through mass reproduction. We are no longer driven by tradition in the postmodern world, we are driven by production. Subsequently, there is a “withering of imagination and spontaneity” in todays culture. The term ‘new’ has lost it’s meaning, we rely on improving what is already made and act within our obedience to the social hierarchy.
Spaghetti, Horkheimer and Adorno
As we continue the readings for CMC300, I have been recognizing apparent trends in the works we study and the opinions held and expressed by the authors of those pieces. So many of the theorists we have studied are disappointed with the progression of art as an expression and they fear for its future. When Horkheimer and Adorno state that "culture today is infecting everything with sameness," they convey an image of sickness, of disease (41). They discuss their opinions of the progression of culture, and more specifically art, as an amalgamation of all things once uniquely and individually celebrated. No doubt Lyotard would comment on this piece reinforcing his idea that artists and writers need to be the healers of a community, a statement which coincidently perpetuates the image of developing culture as an illness.
The two authors discuss the notion of supply and demand and reproduction, which reflects on Benjamin's ideas. When they state that "traditional rationality today is the rationality of domination," they allude to Hebdige's article we read last week which references hegemony. In their analysis of elements of culture which are destructive in nature and yet commonly cited as forms of pleasureable entertainment, Horkheimer and Adorno could easily be connected back to ideas expressed in the writings of Zizek.
One connection that I found most interesting was the theme of avant-garde vs, traditionalism buried in this piece. When they discuss media as an integrated whole, they touch on the idea that so many theorists we have studied (Benjamin and Habermas to name a couple) seem to be preoccupied with: authenticity and the truely "new." Horkheimer and Adorno discuss music, film, radi---everything is fair game for critique; and they point out that nothing is really ever "new." This got me thinking more specifically about different texts i have encountered which are recreations of a former text. For some reason, I remembered the Woody Allen film, "Matchpoint." Only half way through it did I realize that the general plot line was almost an exact replica of that in Dostoevsky's famed novel, "Crime and Punishment." As soon as I realized this, I whispered it to my friend, who had not read the book. Although this is an idea proposed by another theorist (Benjamin), This particular reading sparked this though process for me. Does the original really need to be known in order to fully understand and recognize a reproduction? ....Drawing on the notion that everything is a replica of something else, perhaps my friend could have said in response to my comment, "No, it's not, it's based on the movie 'crime and Punishment in Suburbia' ,"(a movie also based on the novel). Even though she did not know the original novel, she knew an earlier replication of it. Which is the original? If everything is interconnected in media especially, and if everything influences everything else, then what is really original?
The two authors discuss the notion of supply and demand and reproduction, which reflects on Benjamin's ideas. When they state that "traditional rationality today is the rationality of domination," they allude to Hebdige's article we read last week which references hegemony. In their analysis of elements of culture which are destructive in nature and yet commonly cited as forms of pleasureable entertainment, Horkheimer and Adorno could easily be connected back to ideas expressed in the writings of Zizek.
One connection that I found most interesting was the theme of avant-garde vs, traditionalism buried in this piece. When they discuss media as an integrated whole, they touch on the idea that so many theorists we have studied (Benjamin and Habermas to name a couple) seem to be preoccupied with: authenticity and the truely "new." Horkheimer and Adorno discuss music, film, radi---everything is fair game for critique; and they point out that nothing is really ever "new." This got me thinking more specifically about different texts i have encountered which are recreations of a former text. For some reason, I remembered the Woody Allen film, "Matchpoint." Only half way through it did I realize that the general plot line was almost an exact replica of that in Dostoevsky's famed novel, "Crime and Punishment." As soon as I realized this, I whispered it to my friend, who had not read the book. Although this is an idea proposed by another theorist (Benjamin), This particular reading sparked this though process for me. Does the original really need to be known in order to fully understand and recognize a reproduction? ....Drawing on the notion that everything is a replica of something else, perhaps my friend could have said in response to my comment, "No, it's not, it's based on the movie 'crime and Punishment in Suburbia' ,"(a movie also based on the novel). Even though she did not know the original novel, she knew an earlier replication of it. Which is the original? If everything is interconnected in media especially, and if everything influences everything else, then what is really original?
post-it note, Horkheimer & Adorno
“Those in charge no longer take much trouble to conceal the structure, the power of which increases the more bluntly its existence is admitted” (42).
As the ideology of commodifed culture become realized, the power that culture has over the population increases. This increase is due to the understanding that the creators of culture have motives, but the population continues to consume the culture amidst these understandings. And so, just as Hebdige discussed the “conversion of subcultural signs into mass-produced media,” the new waves of understanding the media’s purpose in our lives should give more people a reason not to consume this type of media, although a demand for media remains. This is Horkheimer and Adorno’s concept of the passive consumer. Even with knowledge of the dangerous things around us available, we continue to live the way we want to, not in the way that is best for us.
Benjamin said “mankind’s alienation has reached such a degree that it can experience its own destruction as an aesthetic pleasure of the first order” - this is what is occurring when we find pleasure in the media (34). This is what Lyotard meant when he said ‘pleasure derives from pain” (43). The destruction of a character’s reputation on a show creates culture that relieves the pain of daily life. This is what Horkheimer and Adorno call this the “compulsory intellectualization of culture” (56). When culture is supposed to be mimicked by media, it is framed in such a way that the real is better than real. As this progression continued, similar to the progression of subcultures into mainstream culture and the bad in media propel the masses interests in the media. Entertainment used to add splendor and interest to educational material, but Horkheimer and Adorno argue that the original purpose of the media has been forgotten by the passive consumer.
As the ideology of commodifed culture become realized, the power that culture has over the population increases. This increase is due to the understanding that the creators of culture have motives, but the population continues to consume the culture amidst these understandings. And so, just as Hebdige discussed the “conversion of subcultural signs into mass-produced media,” the new waves of understanding the media’s purpose in our lives should give more people a reason not to consume this type of media, although a demand for media remains. This is Horkheimer and Adorno’s concept of the passive consumer. Even with knowledge of the dangerous things around us available, we continue to live the way we want to, not in the way that is best for us.
Benjamin said “mankind’s alienation has reached such a degree that it can experience its own destruction as an aesthetic pleasure of the first order” - this is what is occurring when we find pleasure in the media (34). This is what Lyotard meant when he said ‘pleasure derives from pain” (43). The destruction of a character’s reputation on a show creates culture that relieves the pain of daily life. This is what Horkheimer and Adorno call this the “compulsory intellectualization of culture” (56). When culture is supposed to be mimicked by media, it is framed in such a way that the real is better than real. As this progression continued, similar to the progression of subcultures into mainstream culture and the bad in media propel the masses interests in the media. Entertainment used to add splendor and interest to educational material, but Horkheimer and Adorno argue that the original purpose of the media has been forgotten by the passive consumer.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Trapnest, 3/22
Something that stuck with me after this week’s class was the quote:
“Ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence.” – Althusser
One of the reasons this stuck with me so closely is it reminds me of Rene Descartes in many ways. Descartes’ philosophical theory was based on the fact that the world as we know it, that which we interact with is something that we cannot “trust.” Trust meaning we cannot put stock into it because we use our senses to assess it. It is this interaction which can lead us astray. Therefore it is our thought processes that allow us to understand and know of our own existence. The famous phrase, “I think therefore I am” applies here.
The reason why I connected these two together is that in Althusser’s quote I also see a separation between the physical world and the world in which we exist in within our minds. Our senses may tell us that the car we have is fast, it has leather seats by our touch receptors, and it’s new by its “new car smell.” But all of these are just random facts and assessments on the situation. It is the ideologies and thoughts that tell us what this situation means. That the car being fast is a goo thing, the leather interior is a sign of wealth, and the fact that it’s new is also a desirable trait.
I feel that, as Descartes would argue it is the mental perspective that is more important. It is our ideologies, our collective thoughts, that tell us gold and diamonds are desirable. All the same those ideologies could tell us that clay and stones are desirable. The physical object is irrelevant and unimportant in the face of the ideological state of mind.
“Ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence.” – Althusser
One of the reasons this stuck with me so closely is it reminds me of Rene Descartes in many ways. Descartes’ philosophical theory was based on the fact that the world as we know it, that which we interact with is something that we cannot “trust.” Trust meaning we cannot put stock into it because we use our senses to assess it. It is this interaction which can lead us astray. Therefore it is our thought processes that allow us to understand and know of our own existence. The famous phrase, “I think therefore I am” applies here.
The reason why I connected these two together is that in Althusser’s quote I also see a separation between the physical world and the world in which we exist in within our minds. Our senses may tell us that the car we have is fast, it has leather seats by our touch receptors, and it’s new by its “new car smell.” But all of these are just random facts and assessments on the situation. It is the ideologies and thoughts that tell us what this situation means. That the car being fast is a goo thing, the leather interior is a sign of wealth, and the fact that it’s new is also a desirable trait.
I feel that, as Descartes would argue it is the mental perspective that is more important. It is our ideologies, our collective thoughts, that tell us gold and diamonds are desirable. All the same those ideologies could tell us that clay and stones are desirable. The physical object is irrelevant and unimportant in the face of the ideological state of mind.
MerryChristmas!, 2-22
“It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being which determines their consciousness.” (37)
This was the very first quote on the Marx powerpoint and the main one that jumped out at me. I thought more in depth about this quote meant and I realized that in the quote itself, the "social being" has determined Marx's own consciousness without realizing it. In this quote, Marx is reinforcing the truth about male-run societies. He uses the word "men" to refer to all beings. This disregards women entirely. I am no feminist by any means, but social constructs are being made. In Marx's society, men are obviously the dominant figure. I found this quote to be a little ironic in its wording.
Althusser states that, “The author and the reader . . . both live . . . ‘naturally’ in ideology.” (46). Who can determine what is natural? Marx's natural use of language is to refer to all of civilization as "men", but is that natural? The concept of natural is a difficult one to reflect on, because nothing is inherently natural besides Maslow's lowest hierarchy of needs which is basic needs for survival. Those are perhaps the only "natural" needs in this world. Ideologies simply mask one's biases into becoming natural. For instance, it is not natural for one to assume that men have power over women, but it is a social construct that has been placed on them from their society
This was the very first quote on the Marx powerpoint and the main one that jumped out at me. I thought more in depth about this quote meant and I realized that in the quote itself, the "social being" has determined Marx's own consciousness without realizing it. In this quote, Marx is reinforcing the truth about male-run societies. He uses the word "men" to refer to all beings. This disregards women entirely. I am no feminist by any means, but social constructs are being made. In Marx's society, men are obviously the dominant figure. I found this quote to be a little ironic in its wording.
Althusser states that, “The author and the reader . . . both live . . . ‘naturally’ in ideology.” (46). Who can determine what is natural? Marx's natural use of language is to refer to all of civilization as "men", but is that natural? The concept of natural is a difficult one to reflect on, because nothing is inherently natural besides Maslow's lowest hierarchy of needs which is basic needs for survival. Those are perhaps the only "natural" needs in this world. Ideologies simply mask one's biases into becoming natural. For instance, it is not natural for one to assume that men have power over women, but it is a social construct that has been placed on them from their society
aro0823, 2-22
I connected our Marx and Althusser discussion of the binary oppositions in the American ruling class to de Saussure’s notions about the necessity of the interdependence of individual terms for language as a system to function. The prevalence of diverging messages lead to everything in society to become thoroughly coded and contextualized. As we discussed in class, fast cars are good, but fast food is bad. New clothing is expensive, but vintage, preworn designer couture is often equally or more pricey. Though one should always strive to stand out in the crowd, one should simultaneously aim to fit in and purchase only the fashionably appropriate trends. After recognizing the illogicality of these oppositions, one must now question where they come from.
Is ideology formed by the ruling class, or is it really created by the subject and for the subject? There are many contradictory notions floating around in our discussion of the originator of such totalizing conclusions. Although we criticize the idea of hegemony for pushing repressive ideas onto the masses, we all are responsible for the maintenance of such ideas. By internalizing ideas without first critically analyzing them, it is easy for the absentminded audience to create a “common sense.” For example, though everyone is publically critical about the prevalence of gossip, people continue to speak slanderously about their neighbors and the cycle thus continues. If every person is consciously choosing to engage in such as action, can some outside hegemonic power really be blamed?
Naturally, one must then question if ideology is always repressive. Culture is part of the ideological state apparatus, and can therefore be used as a way to explain certain behaviors. Some critics praise globalization for enabling the creation of one world culture, whereas others condemn it because it ruins the unique natures of civilizations. Even though it falls within the dreaded category of “ISA,” culture enables individuals to express themselves in a way that is different from other people in other cultures, and therefore liberates and emphasizes individually.
Unfortunately, because postmodernism functions on chaos and illogicality, these binary oppositions will not soon disappear, and will continue to produce mixed and contradictory messages for the world’s people to internalize.
Is ideology formed by the ruling class, or is it really created by the subject and for the subject? There are many contradictory notions floating around in our discussion of the originator of such totalizing conclusions. Although we criticize the idea of hegemony for pushing repressive ideas onto the masses, we all are responsible for the maintenance of such ideas. By internalizing ideas without first critically analyzing them, it is easy for the absentminded audience to create a “common sense.” For example, though everyone is publically critical about the prevalence of gossip, people continue to speak slanderously about their neighbors and the cycle thus continues. If every person is consciously choosing to engage in such as action, can some outside hegemonic power really be blamed?
Naturally, one must then question if ideology is always repressive. Culture is part of the ideological state apparatus, and can therefore be used as a way to explain certain behaviors. Some critics praise globalization for enabling the creation of one world culture, whereas others condemn it because it ruins the unique natures of civilizations. Even though it falls within the dreaded category of “ISA,” culture enables individuals to express themselves in a way that is different from other people in other cultures, and therefore liberates and emphasizes individually.
Unfortunately, because postmodernism functions on chaos and illogicality, these binary oppositions will not soon disappear, and will continue to produce mixed and contradictory messages for the world’s people to internalize.
JLO63O, 3/22
In class we talked about ideology and how it becomes ‘natural’ and without question. In class I saw a few people chewing gum. I didn’t even question it, then it reminded me of a story when Dr. Casey was talking about punishment in school when he was a kid. My parents never chew gum and I never thought too question why. My mom told me a story about when she was in grammar school she got in trouble for chewing gum and had to go up to the chalk board, and had to stick her gum on the board in the middle of a traced out circle and had to put her nose on it until she was sent back to her seat. There are a drew generational and ideological differences going on in this story. One, chewing gum is a punishable offense. Two, the degree and means of punishment is wildly different than it is today. And three, they had chalk boards, not a dry erase boards or powerpoints.
In the same way as we see the unacceptable and flawed ideologies of past generations, those same generations are frowning on ours. We talked about sub cultures and dress in class. Although we see subcultural Marylin Mansons as deviant, some of the things that we say and the way we dress are deviant to the past generations as well. The best example I can think of is theme parties. I view theme parties in the way I view Halloween – it’s an excuse to dress up as something else and it’s fun playing that different role. The traditional witch, for example, has transformed to a large pointy hat, long gown and black lipstick to a skin tight, thigh high dress and ruby red lipstick. It’s almost like you have to set the label ‘witch’ to let others know what you are. A generation ago this would have been completely avant-garde for a theme party, but in today’s day and age, it’s merely ideological.
In the same way as we see the unacceptable and flawed ideologies of past generations, those same generations are frowning on ours. We talked about sub cultures and dress in class. Although we see subcultural Marylin Mansons as deviant, some of the things that we say and the way we dress are deviant to the past generations as well. The best example I can think of is theme parties. I view theme parties in the way I view Halloween – it’s an excuse to dress up as something else and it’s fun playing that different role. The traditional witch, for example, has transformed to a large pointy hat, long gown and black lipstick to a skin tight, thigh high dress and ruby red lipstick. It’s almost like you have to set the label ‘witch’ to let others know what you are. A generation ago this would have been completely avant-garde for a theme party, but in today’s day and age, it’s merely ideological.
Happy Birthday!, 3/22/09
Today in class we discussed why society does not question simple tasks and habits in our life; instead these habits/acts are deemed as “natural”. The question is, how did we learn to live naturally? I believe we all have different hobbies, habits, rituals, and certain qualms about us that explain where we are from and how we were raised not only by our parents but by the society surrounding us. For example, my friend from England cannot stand the fact that I say “yall”…in his culture they say “you all”. It’s not that I chose to say yall because I thought it sounded cool, it’s simply the way I learned language from my parents and society around me.
“Those who are in ideology believe themselves by definition outside of ideology”. (48)
Althusser is making another great point with this quote, that also helps explain my example above. We are ALL from and submerged into different ideologies… whether one is born out in the country on a farm or in NY city, chances are they will be saturated with a unique ideology that was formed based on who they surrounded themselves with and what’s natural in their society. If for some reason no one abided by a type of ideology…our world would be completely different. It would be full of chaos, there would be no order, probably no class structure—things would be more stressful and hectic.
“Those who are in ideology believe themselves by definition outside of ideology”. (48)
Althusser is making another great point with this quote, that also helps explain my example above. We are ALL from and submerged into different ideologies… whether one is born out in the country on a farm or in NY city, chances are they will be saturated with a unique ideology that was formed based on who they surrounded themselves with and what’s natural in their society. If for some reason no one abided by a type of ideology…our world would be completely different. It would be full of chaos, there would be no order, probably no class structure—things would be more stressful and hectic.
000ooo000ooo Horkheimer and Adorno
My thought first thought upon reading "The Culture Industry" was that it could have been greatly reduced in length. The authors have just a few major points that they draw out for much longer than needed. This is a common practice in academia, where the culture tells us that longer pieces must be more in-depth and therefor better. Keeping in line with the culture, Horkheimer and Adorno make their piece nearly 30 pages. This just goes to show how deeply culture runs in us when a critique of culture still falls into its parameters.
One quote that I found particularly compelling can be found on the bottom of page 47 and onto page 48: "The great artists were never those whose works embodied style in its least fractured, most perfect form but those who adopted style as a rigor to set against the chaotic expression of suffering, as a negative truth. In the style of these works expression took on the strength without which existence is dissipated unheard. Even works which are called classical, like the music of Mozart, contain objective tendencies which resist the style they incarnate. Up to Schonberg and Picasso, great artists have been mistrustful of style, which at decisive points has guided them less than the logic of the subject matter."
I can tell that this quote is getting at one of the most important points in the piece - change and how it comes about. However, I am not sure I fully understand what is being suggested. I have two interpretations.
First, the authors could be saying that the culture industry makes it difficult for anything truly "new" to come about. This idea is reminiscent of Habermas. Culture is quick to label anything "new" and challenging as wrong, immoral, risky, etc. To break through this it takes the work of a genius like Mozart, Picasso, or Schonberg. These men were able to create something that was both new and aesthetically pleasing enough to break through the culture industry. This would be a significant point because the authors then go on to explain how new media forms attempt to dull the differences between different media and create a sort of "unified" media whose main goal is to stop people from thinking too much, greatly reducing the chances of someone coming up with the next industry breaking genre or artwork.
Another way I interpreted this was that in order to break through the culture industry one must "incarnate" a style, yet include subtle "objective tendencies which resist the style they incarnate". In other words, you can't come up with something that is entirely avant-garde because then it will either be labeled as such (and once its avant garde it fits comfortable into a cultural mode for this style) or it will be entirely rejected by people because it feels so unnatural.
One quote that I found particularly compelling can be found on the bottom of page 47 and onto page 48: "The great artists were never those whose works embodied style in its least fractured, most perfect form but those who adopted style as a rigor to set against the chaotic expression of suffering, as a negative truth. In the style of these works expression took on the strength without which existence is dissipated unheard. Even works which are called classical, like the music of Mozart, contain objective tendencies which resist the style they incarnate. Up to Schonberg and Picasso, great artists have been mistrustful of style, which at decisive points has guided them less than the logic of the subject matter."
I can tell that this quote is getting at one of the most important points in the piece - change and how it comes about. However, I am not sure I fully understand what is being suggested. I have two interpretations.
First, the authors could be saying that the culture industry makes it difficult for anything truly "new" to come about. This idea is reminiscent of Habermas. Culture is quick to label anything "new" and challenging as wrong, immoral, risky, etc. To break through this it takes the work of a genius like Mozart, Picasso, or Schonberg. These men were able to create something that was both new and aesthetically pleasing enough to break through the culture industry. This would be a significant point because the authors then go on to explain how new media forms attempt to dull the differences between different media and create a sort of "unified" media whose main goal is to stop people from thinking too much, greatly reducing the chances of someone coming up with the next industry breaking genre or artwork.
Another way I interpreted this was that in order to break through the culture industry one must "incarnate" a style, yet include subtle "objective tendencies which resist the style they incarnate". In other words, you can't come up with something that is entirely avant-garde because then it will either be labeled as such (and once its avant garde it fits comfortable into a cultural mode for this style) or it will be entirely rejected by people because it feels so unnatural.
coolbeans, 3/22
In Thursdays class, we discussed how everyone is a follower of an ideology. The more I thought about this, the more I realized that this is true. It is true that those who are a part of a subculture follow an ideology also even though it is not the hegemonic ideology. They are still subscribing to a set of different beliefs. But one might ask then, “what about those who do not believe in anything?” Well even those people are conforming to the ideology of not believing in anything. Everyone is a follower of ideology in a way because everyone believes in something and most likely there are other people who also believe in the same things. This is similar to Lyotard’s view that postmodernism causes the disappearance of the avant-garde. A subculture is seen as avant-garde until it becomes another social group for people to join. An ideology is seen as unique until other people start to follow the same ideology and then it becomes a part of the mainstream. When it becomes a part of the mainstream people forget the meaning behind the reason why people did what they did and instead they just do things because that is what people associate the culture with. For example, people who were considered to be followers of the “punk rock” subculture originally dressed the way that they dressed and did their hair the way that they did their hair in order to make a statement of rebellion against the establishment. They did it as a political message. These days it seems that the whole message of “punk rock” has been commodified and it has become a social group to subscribe to. Television shows, music videos, and movies about high school commodify the different social groups, telling people how they should act and what they should dress like to be in a particular social group. For example, through these media outlets athletes are told that they need shove smart kids into lockers and wear Abercrombie and Fitch, people who follow the subculture known as “gothic” are told that they must wear black and be angry at the world, and the smart kids are told that they must be powerless and have a poor sense of clothing coordination. The different subcultures have been commodified and people lose their originality by trying to conform to what media tells us these people should be like.
WoolyBully7, 3/22
In Thursday’s class we did not get to the closing slides of the Hebdige powerpoint of all the different kinds of body art which I think we should have. I just thought of that because of an experience I had on Saturday. I was in a Five Guys restaurant having lunch and while I was eating I saw this girl walk in and everyone else dining there looked at her. It was probably because this high-school aged girl had a huge black Mohawk over a foot in height. I had thought to myself how ironic that was considering our class all about subcultures from Thursday. People were looking more at her hair than the picture of Ozzy Osbourne biting the head off of a bat on her black t-shirt.
Our class on postmodernism has showed us what our era or generation is really about, individuality, imagination and expression. The Mohawk was once considered original but now it considered by many to be cliché and very mainstream. This hairstyle is so “mass-produced” so that it doesn’t represent its founding subculture, of Native-Americans, but now is represented in a variety of subcultures such as rock/punk music, extreme sports, anarchists, wrestling, expressive arts and many more.
Volosinov argues that sign is the arena of the class struggle. Is a Mohawk a sign in that sense? Since none of the subcultures previously mentioned are associated with a certain class, I don’t think the Mohawk is a sign of the arena of class struggle. I think the Mercedes-Benz vs. GM example does a better job at that. If anything, the Mohawk represents youthful generations as compared to socioeconomic class.
Our class on postmodernism has showed us what our era or generation is really about, individuality, imagination and expression. The Mohawk was once considered original but now it considered by many to be cliché and very mainstream. This hairstyle is so “mass-produced” so that it doesn’t represent its founding subculture, of Native-Americans, but now is represented in a variety of subcultures such as rock/punk music, extreme sports, anarchists, wrestling, expressive arts and many more.
Volosinov argues that sign is the arena of the class struggle. Is a Mohawk a sign in that sense? Since none of the subcultures previously mentioned are associated with a certain class, I don’t think the Mohawk is a sign of the arena of class struggle. I think the Mercedes-Benz vs. GM example does a better job at that. If anything, the Mohawk represents youthful generations as compared to socioeconomic class.
Super!Geek, 3/22, Post-Class, Ideology
Ideology seemed to be the featured theme of the week, and it definitely made for interesting discussion. In CMC 100, I'm pretty sure most of us encountered Althusser and the idea of RSAs and ISAs, but gave a deeper weight and meaning to the ideas. For the most part, we function is a society dominated largely by ISAs, but I was a little disappointed as to how easily we discarded the relevance of RSAs role in some American's lives. I think for those outside the hegemonic population, RSAs can play a very visible role in a minority community. Take into account the percentage of Blacks within the prison population. 1 in 8 black men will likely see jail/prison time within their life, as opposed to the 1 in 100 for white men. A large percentage of those individuals will see jail time for drug related offenses, like heroin and crack abuse. These particular drugs hold heavy time, yet possession of the same amount of prescription narcotics or cocaine hold a much more lenient punishment. Even the possession of meth holds a slight lesser sentence. To put it plainly, drugs that are considered to be consumed largely by African-Americans hold a heavier sentence than those considered to be used by mostly whites. In that alone, a clear repressive state apparatus can be observed, but there is other observable oppression as well, via treatment by the police, etc. INTERSESSION 2009 ARTS AND SCIENCES SCHEDULE OF COURSES Such experiences should not be so easily discredited as issues of the past. Though the Rodney King case only occurred 17 years ago, the case Timothy Stansbury, Jr. only occurred less than five years ago. We need to continue to be cognizant of all apparatuses that influence our lives, so not to let an ideological state devolve into a more repressive one.
In a further, mildly off-topic point, I think I might have had that fabled "aha" moment Dr. Rog spoke of at the beginning of the semester. I went to see a film called Knowing this weekend (believe me it was against my will; and spoilers are about to be posted so look away if you must). It was a pretty horrid film, which I was expecting, but one of the final scenes features the destruction of earth, and I remember watching it thinking, "This is miserable! Zizek would have a field day with this film!" I then spent the remaining period of the film imagining what Zizek, and then Benjamin popped into my head, and I kept thinking about how perverse it is that we receive such pleasure from our own aesthetic destruction. It was both a horrifying and exciting moment, mainly because I realized any hopes of being a passive media consumer have pretty much been chucked. Needless to say, I've been unable to force myself to watch the telly since.
It's Better Not Knowing!
In a further, mildly off-topic point, I think I might have had that fabled "aha" moment Dr. Rog spoke of at the beginning of the semester. I went to see a film called Knowing this weekend (believe me it was against my will; and spoilers are about to be posted so look away if you must). It was a pretty horrid film, which I was expecting, but one of the final scenes features the destruction of earth, and I remember watching it thinking, "This is miserable! Zizek would have a field day with this film!" I then spent the remaining period of the film imagining what Zizek, and then Benjamin popped into my head, and I kept thinking about how perverse it is that we receive such pleasure from our own aesthetic destruction. It was both a horrifying and exciting moment, mainly because I realized any hopes of being a passive media consumer have pretty much been chucked. Needless to say, I've been unable to force myself to watch the telly since.
It's Better Not Knowing!
Weezy27/3-22
During class this passed week we talked a lot about different ideologies in today’s society. One quote really stood out to me by Louis Althusser: “Those who are in ideology believe themselves by definition outside ideology.” I thought this quote was interesting because it is so true. For example, we see people everyday that dye their hair a crazy color and wear outrageous clothing because they want to “step out of the norm.” Those people may be stepping outside of what they think is considered normal, yet they are walking right into another ideology consumed with people attempting to stray away from the normal. This concept brought me back to Benjamin’s idea of authenticity. If everyone is consumed in these different ideologies, is anything considered original or individual?
Along with Althusser we also talked a lot about Karl Marx. Marx spoke about the power of the ruling class. While discussing Marx’s ideas we talked about division within society. We said that societies can be divided under different labels; however, in times of destruction or even competition those divisions can come together as one. The example given in class was that in the United States there are Democrats and Republicans; however during 9/11 we all came together as Americans.
In today’s society we are controlled by different ideologies as well as the power of the ruling class. We make the majority of our decisions based on these ideologies and in the same token these ideologies control our decisions.
Along with Althusser we also talked a lot about Karl Marx. Marx spoke about the power of the ruling class. While discussing Marx’s ideas we talked about division within society. We said that societies can be divided under different labels; however, in times of destruction or even competition those divisions can come together as one. The example given in class was that in the United States there are Democrats and Republicans; however during 9/11 we all came together as Americans.
In today’s society we are controlled by different ideologies as well as the power of the ruling class. We make the majority of our decisions based on these ideologies and in the same token these ideologies control our decisions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)