FloRida, 9/19

I am really happy that Louisa read those specific blogs this week. They really helped me realize how to connect different theorist to one another. I have been having trouble connecting all of them in my mind but it is a great idea to read other blogs to help you put the pieces together. The past few theorists have been pretty difficult to understand and reading/seeing other people’s takes on what the readings are about truly helps.
This past week we discussed Habermas and Jencks. Habermas was extremely difficult material, while Jencks was a little less difficult to comprehend. One point that Dr. Rog discussed through Habermas was the concept of conservatism. We constantly label our society with two different parties, when in reality the use of the words conservative and liberal means something completely different than what it used to. According to Habermas there are three types of conservatives: Young-claim centered anti-modern revelations (AKA: Theorists)/ Old- decry decline of reason, yearn for Renaissance (AKA: Liberal Arts)/ Neoconservatives- technical, capital, rational (AKA: Cheney). I believe the quote that conceptualizes this point is when Habermas states, “Hegemony never sees itself as “political” or “ideological.”
Jencks was somewhat more readable. He wants to move from the classical to the neoclassical. This means that we move away from a very simplistic style to a more ornate, decorative style. Jencks discusses eleven rules or canons that he uses to describe art or architecture. In my pre-class post, I discussed how I could really understand the first one which is about beauty and composition. He describes them as dissonant beauty or disharmonious Harmony. Through Dr. Rog’s presentation and the use of visual I could truly understand the other ten canons. I really liked the concept of Urbane Urbanism. I feel like a lot of architecture does this, where the builders try and make the building or art form look like it is much older than it actually is.
I could connect the two through their concepts of art and architecture. Habermas uses the ideas of traditionalism versus avant-gardism, while Jencks uses his eleven canons to explain different reasons for why art and architecture are presented a certain way. Both have interconnected ideas when looked at in depth.

Graham, 9/18/09

I really enjoyed the reading for Thursday, and I thought that the architecture that we looked at in class really helped me to understand what Jencks was talking about with disharmonious harmony…etc.
I never really looked at architecture this way before, and the fact that I went to many of these places that he showed on the overhead, it really made me think that I need to appreciate architecture that I see and notice the work that has been put into it.
I now see that I did not understand the reading fully, I focused my pre-post on Urbane urbanism, and thought that Jencks was trying to say that we try to combine too many ideas into one building (making the building have multiple uses) but I found out that Urbane urbanism is something that is extremely popular in Colorado, Florida and California. The idea of it is to be urban and condensed, but appear that it has been there forever. For example, Baldwin Park and Celebration. Now that I think of it, this occurs so often with the new apartments and subdivision that are being built.
I also thought the other slides we looked at were interesting too. The buildings that looked like faces was so odd to me. I have never seen a building that looked like this. This also went along with the rabbit corkscrew that is sold at Target. They are beginning to give living being features to every day products.
Anamnesis: Den Kub was actually inspired by a rubix cube, and I thought that this building was really fun to look at.
I think that Thursday’s class was very beneficial, and it made the reading extremely clear to me, and cleared up the misconceptions I had when I was reading. I really liked this topic.

Ron Burgundy, Jencks

This piece by Jencks was extremely confusing to me. The preface of it didn't seem to lead into the main points of the article well enough so I was terribly confused on what the author's intent was in the article. It seemed that Jencks was writing on some aspects of the postmodern era that characterize it, specifically looking at art and architecture. Although much of the article was extremely hard to grasp I tried to make sense of a particular section in which Jencks wrote about the tendency of the postmodern architechture to be a play between the old style and the new technology. Jencks talks about the ironic "cardboard architecture" that is meant to resemble the classical style of historical architectural pieces but is made up of new innovative, and more affordable materials such as cardboard (291). He explains how in the postmodern era artists often show reverence and make reference to the past but to reform it in a new way that makes it postmodern. This way of explaining the concept of postmodern makes me connect it closely with the avant-garde, which is against the traditional. In particular it makes me think of an episode of project runway in which the designers were meant to create avant-garde pieces to display on the runway. What the different designers came up with were extremely interesting and reflect the idea of being inspired by the past but recreating it in a new way. All of their garments resembled a certain era of fashion and history but had been recreated with new twists of modernity which in essence made them very postmodern pieces. They were pieces that we would associate with certain periods of history but also recognize that they were a new innovative take on an old traditional thing. As I read ideas about the concept of postmodernism such as this one, it leads me to believe that much of what can be considered "postmodern", specifically speaking in the realm of art, consists of aspects of the old traditional works that are reformed with a more modern perspective.

DoubleBubble - Jencks

"Often in history there is a combination of continuity and change which looks perplexing because of view of both the old and the new is altered". This is how Jencks starts his article. After reading this article and also reading the other students blogs I think that this quote is the most important aspect of what Jencks is trying to say. History, there is a mixture of what we are use to and also a mixture of a change. Sometimes we are scared about this change. Why are we scared, because it is a mixture of both the new and the old. Sometimes within our society we are scared of the new and changing our lives to new things, but actually those types of things are important to our everyday society. We can't just live our lives like the past always has, or else we would never be changing. But also, we are terrified, especially our older generation of exposing ourselves to the new. For instance, my mom is always terrified to go on the computer, she thinks it is way to technological for her and she is just not living in the type of technological generation we are. Even worse, my grandmother just got an answering machine two years ago after we forced her to install it, and she still uses a rotary phone. yup.

In our society I think a lot of the time people are scared to face the idea of new and better things. But also, we do not want to live in the past. The old is what is altered and also the new is being altered. I truly think that the way that Jencks starts his article is the most important way for us to think about how we view our postmodern society as well as our modern society.

The present to us looks weird and disturbing, but yet also so does the romantic age when we look at it. So is there a happy middle? Who knows.

Nate Dogg, Jencks

I liked Jencks quote towards the end of the piece "The ambivalence accurately reflects this double state of transition, where activity moves away from a well-known point, acknowledges the move, and yet keeps a view, or trace, or love of that past location" (293). It's interesting to think about how many buildings you've been inside of, or even seen, that owe their creation to an architect, who in turn owes credit to another architect, and so forth. People like to bring things from their past into their present. We save books full of pictures of old friends, old scenic views. The past affects our present and future in every facet, leaving it's imprint on everything we do and everything we will do in life. Post-modernism wants us to put the past aside and do something that hasn't been done before. With daily reminders of continuing tradition and savoring nostalgia existing in the buildings we live in, go to school in, or work in, its hard to find inspiration for something new and creative without invoking some aspect of the past. Capitalism adds to this problem by stifling creativity to an extent. How do we break the rules when making something?
I also liked how Jencks wrote about how the difference between living in a world that is in cosmic harmony, and living in one that is evolving affects art. "Vitruvius equated the "perfect" human body with the celestial order and then justified the perfected order of the temple on these assumptions." (282) What would Vitruvius think of his creation if he knew that the universe was ever changing, and that the same celestial bodies that he based his works around would be in far different shapes and places as more and more time passed? Would he feel that it takes away from his creation? Would he be happier without the knowledge that those stars would change?

FloRida, Jencks

Jencks begins his article by stating, “Often in history there is a combination of continuity and change which looks perplexing because our view of both the old and the new is altered. Thus, with Postmodern Classicism the meanings, values and forms of modernism and classicism are simultaneously transformed into a hybrid combination.” He makes this statement in relation to art and architecture. I believe that this statement also relates to most everything in our lives. Life constantly changes and evolves, never slowing down and always progressing. Postmodern Classicism, in my mind, means that we are breaking boundaries for new ideas but still forming them from classical concepts and perspectives by keeping the classic in the back of our minds! Jencks relates a certain set of rules to the new ideas and architecture. He comments that, “Now, rules or canons for production are seen as preconditions for creativity, a situation caused partly by the advent of the computer, which makes us conscious of the assumptions behind a building.” We consciously make decisions about things based on our minds being conditioned to think or do something specific. There are eleven canons (rules) that he mentions and the one that I could understand most was the first one about beauty and composition. “In place of Renaissance harmony and Modernist integration is the new hybrid of dissonant beauty, or disharmonious harmony. Instead of a perfectly finished totality ‘where no part can be added or subtracted except for the worse’ (Alberti), we find the ‘difficult whole’ (Venturi) or the ‘fragmented unity’ of artists...” Society no longer has one concept or meaning for anything. We connect ideas, beliefs, words, and art to create what we find beautiful and meaningful. Pieces are used to create a whole. “Inevitably art and architecture must represent this paradoxical view, the oxymoron of ‘disharmonious harmony’, and it is therefore not surprising that we find countless formal paradoxes in postmodern work such as ‘asymmetrical symmetry’, ‘syncopated proportion’, ‘fragmented purity’, ‘unfinished whole’ and ‘dissonant unity’.”

ESPN12, Jencks

"Often in history there is a combination of continuity and change which looks perplexing because our view of both the old and new is altered." Jencks starts off with this quote and though short, it says a lot. If I understand him right I got that there are things within the post modern culture that can change are views of both present culture and past. I found it interesting to think that this notion can change the way we view the past. I understand that since we are living in the post modern world that are view of the world can change because of it, but I never really thought to much of how it can affect our views of the past. To me it makes quite a lot of sense.
In Jencks view of post modernity he states eleven of his most significant cannons to help better understand his view on the creativity of the arts and the architecture in this new culture. In my understanding of his explanation of the arts the quote "When several possible readings are presented simultaneously, it is left to the reader to supply the unifying text" helped me better understand. I was able to see it is similar to Bartes in the way that he says sometimes the authors cannot even predict the tmesis in their art and they are not sure what they meant. They leave it up to the reader/viewers to try and figure out what they mean. He mentions at times that it can be frustrating for readers because they want clear cut answers. However, it can also be a good thing and people will sometimes enjoy figuring out what they think is trying to be said. It leads to debates and people are able to relate the items back to themselves in a way that they think it was meant for them. Such debates and thought makes me think of the way that Jencks uses this sense of a pluralist society in the way there are multiple sides for everything and more put into the simplest of ideas art work and architecture.

Gwatter06, Jencks

Postmodernity and classicism in one! What I like most about this piece is the expression of correlation between modernity and history. Jencks takes an interesting approach in his understanding of postmodernity and classicism and formulates a compelling understanding of the two and how they live in and amongst each other. At first I was confused by Jencks use of “canon” in his descriptions, but I later understood it as the rules behind the preconditions of creativity. What I understood from this is that there are underlying entities to art and creativity. Jencks continues on this concept by stating, “the only escape from rule-governed art is to suppress from consciousness the canon behind one’s creativity…” (281). I found this to be the most interesting concept that Jencks includes in his piece because it is so closely related to a notion we have covered in Barthes on tmesis. What I think Jencks is saying here is that modern art and creativity is distorted by the authors need to control what he or she has manifested. He explains that the only way to get around this is by omitting the “canons” behind creativity. Barthes also covered this notion with tmesis, stating that author and artists need to have that “break” or “rupture” in their work for critique without the attempt to force it or implement it. Jencks also compiles to this notion with the first selection in his list of what supplements Postmodern Classicism. He brings up the concept of “dissonant beauty, or disharmonious harmony” (282). He then explains that this is work that is not perfectly finished in its totality, but is moreover, a “difficult whole” or “fragmented unity.” This explains that art or literature should not be finished or completed, but left for improvement or criticism. What I have learned and been able to conclude is that this notion of the possibility to critique is very important in postmodernism. I look forward to seeing if this concept reemerges in other readings as well.

Kiwi, Jencks

I know that this is said almost every time, but again… I was very confused with the reading and I’m not sure if I am on the right track with this reading or not, but I’m just going to give it my best shot and I hope for the best.
Jencks introduces to us “disharmonious harmony” which is an object within our society that gives us multiple meanings to help us understand pluralism. So then we ask the question, what is pluralism? Jencks goes on to explain that pluralism is what signifies multiple views of an object opposed to only one. So what does any of this mean? Jencks mentions that postmodern architects and artists create pieces that have multiple meanings to give its individual piece its on signification. This at times can become somewhat frustrating to views because of the unclear clarification.
Jencks also explains the idea of simply improving the old and making it better, rather than destroying it entirely. . Jenks feels that postmodernism is what changes art and architecture while still holding onto the values of the past. “The most commonly-held aim of postmodern architects is to achieve an urbane urbanism. Urban conceptualism gains near universal assent. New buildings, according to this doctrine, should both fir into and extend the urban context, reuse such constraints as the street, arcade and piazza, yet acknowledge too the new technologies and means of transport.” What I think Jencks is trying to say is that, when we build onto something or update a new building we should keep some of the old and add to it. Jencks point is that, he doesn’t see a problem with mixing the past and present together. He likes the past as well as the present, so why not put the two together and make a unique, creative, significant piece. He thinks we should move forward into the present; bring some of the past with as well.
Jencks like the idea of looking at something and questioning what its signification is. He likes the combination of the past and present and believes that they together achieve in an urban urbanism.

Teets, Jencks

Charles Jencks highlights eleven “canons” that lie behind the new art and architecture. He begins by talking about dissonant beauty, or disharmonious harmony. “From a pluralist society… we find an oversimple harmony false or unchallenging. Instead, the juxtaposition of tastes and world-views is appreciated as being more real than the integrated languages of both Exclusionist Classicism and High Modernism” (282). With all the various world views and different cultures, dissonant harmony in art is something considered postmodern. People of many different backgrounds can appreciate a work of art because it is not constructed for just one type of people. “Significantly it appeals to different tastes and ages” (282). I would compare this concept to reality television shows, in which they try to cast the most diverse group of people. They cast some whites, some minorities, some gay people, some crazy people, etc, so they can draw in a more eclectic crowd. This makes perfect sense because in American society today people get bored very easily. If there is something we can view in many different ways, it has more longevity. It will remain interesting longer than a one-dimensional work of art or show, in a sense.


This notion of eclecticism is something Jencks considers a canon as well. “As strong a rule as ‘disharmonious harmony’, and one which justifies it, is pluralism… In architecture, the stylistic counterpart of pluralism is radical eclecticism – the mixing of different languages to engage different taste cultures and define different functions according to their appropriate mood” (282-283). This concept of radical eclecticism is essentially what I just talked about. A work of architecture can function well in society if it has this sort of disharmonious harmony, a collection of countering world-views. It is what makes the work postmodern and interesting. Art has changed a lot over the years, and this seems to be a popular theme. This is the same reason you see music artists trying to blend different genres into one. Performing a trope at its tropiest is no longer interesting. In order to be considered interesting, an art form must be different and function through disharmony. Disharmony makes the audience stop and think for a second. It generates more thought process to produce, but also to observe.

Mongoose, Jenks

Jenks begins his article with a very interesting statement that I found to be very closely related, or opposed to what we have read in the past. He says: "Often in history there is a combination of continuity and change which looks perplexing because our view of both the old and new is altered." This is quite a strong statement to begin an article with; right off the bat he is asserting there are changes which have the potential to alter ones view of both the present and the past. This is of course what he feels postmodernism is doing, or does, to a culture; he feels it changes art and architecture while still holding onto the values of the past. This is notion goes directly against what Lyotard felt about postmodernism; Lyotard wanted to see a significant change through postmodernism, or at least felt that this is what was happening. Lyotard believed that postmodernism was a complete change from the 'modern' era and that newer was better. 'Out with the old and in with the new' kind of sums up his view of postmodernism. This is why Jenks introduces to us the new view of postmodernism, postmodern classicism', the idea of simply improving the old, rather than destroying it.
Throughout the rest of the article Jenks lays out to the reader his rules for what postmodern art and architecture are attempting to achieve; one of these that stuck out to me, interrelating the notion of keeping both the past and the present, is the idea of 'urbane arbanism'. This concept focused on constructing new buildings for people of the "urban lifestyle" to live; these buildings focused on keeping the same elements that made these individuals feel comfortable, i.e. 'the street', arcades and pizza places, while giving them an upgrade in living conditions. This genre also focused on providing individuals with upgrades in technology and transportation options while not taking away their simplistic lifestyle they had grown accustomed to. I believe that this idea is tied into the construction of 'retro' looks today; one example that comes to mind is the Johnny Rockets hamburger chain. I realize that this is not the construction of a living quarters but it does apply some of the same principles; these restaurants focus on making their customers feels as if they are eating in a 1950's hamburger joint, playing old music, wearing the same outfits we saw back then as well as the construction of the building itself appears retro. This may be a little bit of a stretch but I believe there can definitely be similarities drawn between this chain and the postmodern principles of Jenks.

Graham, Jencks

A point that I found very interesting was the idea of urban urbanism Jencks says that you have to have “the ‘proper balance’ between essential elements: public to private, working to living, monument to infill, short blocks to city grid, foreground square to background housing.”
I believe that what he is trying to say is that the postmodern ideas have become so intricate and specific, instead of just serving a purpose as it did many years ago. A building used to be a building…a building did not need to be a garden, arcade, train station…etc. Now, architects are making their work so intricate, and that is the only way that we find their work acceptable, because of our postmodern ideas. In the past 5 years we have transformed from the Nokia “brick phones” to the Apple Iphones. Technology is really getting out of control as time passes, it makes me wonder what things will be like in years to come. I do not believe that Jencks agrees with these postmodern ideas, and he does not think that we should focus on them.
I think that architects and manufacturers are focusing too much on creating things that will be seen as “futuristic.” I do not know why it has to be this way, because it is not really necessary for one thing to serve so many purposes. Sometimes, as he mentions, it gets difficult, because it is so easy to forget what the purpose of the thing is, because it has so many other uses. I think that they should focus on making the best products or architecture, that will last a long time and serve the purpose effectively, instead of just trying to make it appear like the latest technology. We get too caught up in the future, and lose track of the time that we are currently living in.
I might have been really off track…but I tried.

Daisy, Jencks

After reading Jencks I found him to a little easier to digest than the previous theorists Lyotard and Habermas. My impression of Jencks is that he believes we live in a postmodern era, which is governed by new rules, different from the classical rules. Although he mentions these rule, he says that we should escape the rules and rise above them, because with following the rules they are constricting.
Jencks first canon talks about “disharmonious harmony.” This concept deals with objects within our society that we can denote multiple meanings, which is justified by another rule which Jencks highlights, pluralism. Pluralism denotes multiple different views and an opposition to just one view. I find the application of “disharmonious harmony” and “pluralism” fascinating influences on architecture and art. It was created infinite possibilities to be creative. Jencks mentions that postmodern architects and artists create pieces that have multiple meanings and create at times frustration because there is not a clear meaning. Another rule that Jencks identities which postmodern artists incorporate within their work in multivalence, which creates “continual discovery of new meaning” (290).
When I was thinking of these rules and applying it to an artists/ architects I knew I thought of Frank Lloyd Wright. I remember going on a field trip in 7th grade to Fallingwater, which was a house he created in the late 30’s. It was a very modern house, but it tied many natural aspects into it at the same time, such as a waterfall. I would consider some aspects of the architecture to fall under Jencks rules. I find Fallingwater to be an example of “disharmonious harmony” by merging modern concrete architecture with the organic nature around the home. Looking at the outside of the home it looks very modern. On the inside there is an aspect of modernism merged with raw natural materials. At times it almost feels like you are still outside when inside. Reading Jencks fifth rule, anamnesis, which he says is the relation between past and present, I felt Wright demonstrated this within his architecture. He did this by creating something new and modern but using design elements that are more traditional, such as raw stone and woodwork. I found Jenck’s article to be very interesting and applicable to many buildings and artworks within our society.

BiegieGo, Jencks

Does every generation have its own set of rules that the society follows? According to Charles Jencks, “The only escape from rule-governed art is to suppress from consciousness the canon’s behind one’s creativity—hardly a comforting liberation.” So the rule that keeps people from moving on is their sacredness of hiding their creativity from the world. Although I feel our society does have some rule I was immerged into a film the other night called “taxi to the dark side.” Before the film was don’t I sat thinking to myself that every US military person goes off to work knowing how to handle themselves in that line of duty. I was all wrong. The documentary showed us that there are many people that have been sent off to war with no or little experience in training. Those are just simple rules that have been thrown out the window when we look at our military, the people who are representing us in different parts of the world.
At this point I am very confused on what to write next. One minute I feel like I understand the reading and the next I feel I have no clue of where it is leading me.

“Another credible subject is the historical continuum and the relation between the past and the present.” Does our society look at the past to make the present better or do we just skip the present and look at the future? Sometimes I feel like we just skip the present and look at the future because our society moves to fast. I think we need to focus on the here and now and not so much the future.

Serendipity, 9/15

One of Habermas’ quotes that really struck me in class today was the fact that he believed that the 20th century is the “problem”. I definitely agree that this is the case. The 20th century was a time of turmoil that led to shattered optimism. I believe that this is the reason that our modern day U.S culture is so obsessed with escaping reality. Reality is pain and people do not want to feel it. Technology and machines are meant to further us through post modernity, but instead they are stifling us. Television, movies, the internet, Facebook, Google, and Twitter are just a few of the immensely immersing activities that people these days cannot get enough of. We are so obsessed with entering onto these websites and virtual realities, and also engrossing ourselves in television shows and celebrity magazines. Not only do we do this, but there is also the encompassing mentality that faster is better and you can never get enough of anything. These artificial realities take away from our humanity. It is a completely different time than 30, 20, and even 10 years ago. It is impossible to sit in a room with a person without speaking about a celebrity, a tv show, or the internet. There would be nothing to talk about because it is not in our culture to do so. We live in ADD nation, and the newest, more absurd thing is always seen as better. We have such short attention spans that satisfaction cannot come from reality anymore. I definitely think that a “technological blackout” would be a beneficial thing if we were made to be accustomed to it for a little while until we could balance the real and the unreal.

Ace Ventura, Jencks

When Jencks speaks about the "withheld gratification" in art forms, to me, this connected with Barthes idea of the "readerly text" but in a bit of a different context. Jencks says that "When several possible readings are presented simultaneously, it is left to the reader to supply the unifying text" (285). This is similar to Barthes idea in that fact that both art forms are leaving the interpretations up to the readers or viewers. An art form can take on many different meanings to many different people if the artist leaves it open-ended.
However, Jencks speaks about the frustration that this can cause for the viewer or reader. As he says about Stirling's and Salle's work, "it is frustrating in the sense that it avoids a hierarchy of meaning. One has to look elsewhere to find a clearer expression of a unified view" (285). Being unable to form a meaning out of a book or work of art can definitely result in frustration for the viewers. It can also lead to many debates. Mona Lisa's smile has been in debate for years about whether it is sad, happy, mysterious, etc! In the same way, real events that occur can leave society with this same sense of frustration and misunderstanding. When the meaning behind something are so ambiguous that reasonable interpretations can not be reached or consensus on meaning can not be reached by multiple viewers or readers, that is where the frustration begins. And I think that is a fine line that artists must learn to control.

Captain Outrageous, Habermas

So here's the honest truth: I don't get it.

This is the first time in my life I've ever read something and couldn't even break it down a little bit. I mean there's little bits of little bits but, I'm lost.

I'll discuss one quote since that's about all I got.

" ' Fashion has a scent for what is current, whenever this moves within the thicket of what was once ' "

First of all, don't judge me for only fully comprehending the fashion part.

Second of all, it makes a lot of sense (I think) when it comes to the ideas of transitions in art, culture, the relations between past and present and modernity and all this nonsense. Fashion essentially never does anything new. The ideas of what is 'new' in Fashion are merely improvements or interpretations of what is 'old' or what was once 'new'. Habermas is using Benjamin in this, discussing how modernity relates to history in a "post historicist attitude" and it makes sense. Most movements throughout history are based off the same concept- they're improvements or interpretations of the past. Even when they are complete abandonments, they are still improvements. You can't really have a post-modern without there having been a modern and the modern had to be a post-something else anyway. That's pretty much true with Fashion then. You can't have a dress without it somewhere down the line relating to the potato sacks from the beginning of dresses- and as I write that I am thinking how a lot of dresses (they are called shifts now) look like potato sacks, and some dresses have stamps so that they really look like potato sacks! And if you asked the designers they might tell you its a post-modern thing, trying to reinvent its meaning through its literal meaning or something like that. What it comes down to is that the equation is inseparable.

Captain Planet, Habermas

This reading by Habermas was a tough one to get through. The reading was dense. There was a lot of important information to pick out of the text. The reading began by Habermas’ distinguishing between what the modern use to mean and what it has come to mean today. On page 100, Habermas says, “Modernity revolts against the normalizing functions of tradition; modernity lives on the experience of rebelling against all that is normative.” In this quote Habermas is stating that modernity goes against the rules of tradition. Even though the term modernity has been used for several decades now, the term continues to be redefined because the idea of ‘the new’ continues to evolve. The work of Jackson Pollock was considered modern for its time, yet Pollock’s first exhibits began showing nearly sixty years ago in the early 1950’s. And although he is a memorable painter with pieces still being shown is art museums like the MoMA and The Tate, new and more innovative artists have claimed the forefront of modern art. It is interesting to note the difference in Habermas and Lyotard. In the Lyotard reading that we did for last Thursday Lyotards said that artists who question the rules “are destined to have little credibility”; “they have no guarantee of an audience” (41). Although I haven’t fully grasped the meaning of the Habermas reading, I currently think that the two have opposing theories. Habermas is arguing in favor of the avant-garde and modernity whereas Lyotard is not in favor of it. Habermas states that, “Modernist culture has come to penetrate the values of everyday life; the life-world is infected by modernism. Because of the forces of modernism, the principle of unlimited self-realization, the demand for authentic self-experience and the subjectivism of a hyperstimulated sensitivity have come to be dominant” (100-101). I think what Habermas is saying here can be interpreted both positively and a negatively thing. Habermas is claiming that modernist culture is everywhere, and because of this, artists need to have lived experiences to create their sense of self in the world. Yet it is because of this media and modernity domination that the need for experiences and for self-realization is greater now than ever before. In conclusion, I am looking forward to getting to class tomorrow to determine the meaning of the Habermas reading.

HOLLA! Habermas

This is not my first time reading something of Habermas, but it is my first reading of his in the event of addressing modernity. This reading once again was a challenge and I could only take a few things from it here and there. On page 99 Habermas discusses what “modern” is and its relationship to the traditional and the present. I took from this reading that modernism is considered as classical. Now I could be wrong but let me explain. Habermas states, “a modern work becomes a classic because it has once been authentically modern” (99). Now if a work of art is once considered as new and modern, for example like the Mona Lisa once was many decades ago, then this once modern piece of work becomes a classic because it once was authentically modern. This can also be said for musical pieces of work like those of Beethoven and Mozart. Now I think I am on the right track but I get somewhat confused when Habermas states, “But while that which is merely ‘stylish’ will soon becomes outmoded, that which is modern preserves a secret tie to the classical” (99). This quotation leads me to believe that what is modern at one time may not be stylish and what is modern can only then become classic. Is there a middle ground for individual art that is both stylish and modern, for example artists like Andy Warhol. His work of art is currently stylish and modern, his work will always be remembered and will “preserve a secret tie to the classical” (99). Does Andy Warhol’s art “make an abstract opposition between tradition and the present” (99)? How can we exactly determine what modern art is versus stylish art and so on? These questions may stay unanswered or may not be a logical question at all, but I would love to find these answers in class tomorrow.

Penny Lane- Habermas

Jugen Habermas’ article on modernity and its effects on culture and society exposed a relevant trend throughout history. “Culture in its modern form stirs up hatred against the conventions and virtues of everyday life, which has become rationalized under the pressures of economic and administrative imperative” (101). While examining this notion and other similar claims throughout the article, I began to draw correlations within my own generation that fit this description. As a whole, my particular demographic of peers and society as a whole have lost touch with the institution of religion. Even though this pattern is evident within younger western generations, it does not translate to all regions or ethnicities. While most Americans identify with some sort of faith or belief, the practice of organized and institutional religious practice seems to be on the decline. Habermas claims: “Modernity revolts against the normalizing functions of tradition; modernity lives on the experience of rebelling against all that is normative” (100). For nearly all of human existence, religion of one form or another has been the controlling force in morality and thought. Modern American society, only within the last several decades has shifted away from this way of thinking. Perhaps the influence of mass media and culture has replaced this previous influence as the new medium for socialization. Today, certain truths of right and wrong will always hold strong, but the Church is no longer the source enforcing this code upon society. We have begun almost resenting organized religion for its failure to see life in a different light than black and white. The notion of Gay Rights is only one factor that has come into the consciousness of societal morality. Popular culture now expresses more tolerant view than witnessed in the past. Furthermore, as our population has become more educated through legislature and science, it is difficult for religion to still be governed by literal interpretation of religious texts. The article also notes an observation made by Daniel Bell which asserts that “a religious revival to be the only solution. Religious faith ties to a faith in tradition will provide individuals with clearly defined identities and existential security” (101). This understanding lacks recognition of all the harm and devastation religious tensions have caused throughout recorded history. Most wars were in someway or another related to institutional religion, which combats the claim that dogmatic practice is strictly a unifying force in society. The current modern area seems to be moving away from the divisions of specific faith toward an agnostic view-point. Modernity in this way has sparked our resentment of “the preacher” in order to shift us toward a new more individual conclusion on morality.

Elmo, Habermas

While reading Jurgen Habermas’s article, “Modernity- An Incomplete project”, I thought to myself how I would define modern. When you look up the word modern some synonyms are, contemporary, current, cutting-edge, fresh, now, and present, just to name a few. These words went along with what I had been thinking in my head, which was the word new. One quote from Habermas’s article that provided me with a good definition of modern or modernist thought was, “modernist culture has come to penetrate the values of everyday life; the world is infected by modernism. Because of the forces of modernism, the principle of unlimited self-realization, the demand for authentic self-experience and the subjectivism of a hyper stimulated sensitivity has come to be dominant” (Habermas 100-101). This really gave me an overall idea of modernism. Habermas’s use of the word infected really struck me because I truly feel as if our society has come to think that if something is not modern or new it is no longer acceptable. Modernism, as Habermas says, has definitely infected our culture.

It seems to me that in order for something to be considered modern it must outdo its predecessor and then whatever has come before is now in turn called classic or traditional. Modern is eye-catching and flashy, whereas classic is old and often times looked upon as boring; for example, the iphone. A few years ago it was considered modern and up with the times to have a flip phone that took photos and had texting ability, now that is certainly not considered modern. What is considered to be modern now is the iphone. When I look around, not only at Rollins, but pretty much anywhere I always see people on their iphone, downloading apps, taking photos, and listening to music. The iphone, with all of its advanced technology, grabs people’s attention and keeps them entertained. Since nothing has come out yet to truly rival the iphone it is still considered to be modern. In time, however, this is sure to change when the next latest and greatest gadget hits the scene. I wonder if it will be possible for us to one day hit a ceiling on what is modern and if we will ever stop trying to out glitz each other with new ideas, thoughts, and technology.

Teets, 9/13

Saturday Night Live reached new heights with their coverage of the 2008 election. The video with “Sarah Palin” and “Hillary Clinton” was the most downloaded video of 2008. SNL mocked the two women by using a lot of real dialogue in a comedic way. This video is disturbing because it shows that our society would rather watch and download a mockery of the election, and not the election itself. To me this demonstrates that our society has somewhat of a grip on realism. People know that a lot of what politicians say is simply false, so they decide to not tune in. However, people will oblige to watch comedy playbacks of speeches on The Daily Show or The Colbert Report. While most people would argue that our society has a shallow view of reality, I would argue that our society is becoming increasingly more cognizant of what is real and what is not.

A statistic that is laughable is that more people vote for American Idol than for the the President of the United States. To me this shows that America has become centered on Entertainment. People choose to view what entertains them, which coincidentally is more advertised than anything else. The entertainment business on the whole has become our version of reality. “Reality” TV shows are viewed on a week to week basis by millions of people. I don’t have a statistic, but I can only imagine that more people watch Television “fluff” than world news. Our view of reality has changed from global to national. While some people know what’s going on in the world, those that don’t aren’t missing out on much. American society has the power to elect officials to run our country. We do not, however, have much more power in terms of what goes on in the world. We do not collectively have the power to change the world.

The world is so corrupt and full of lies I posit that we are better off living in the reality that entertainment has created for us.

Nate Dogg, 9/13

*Sorry this is late*

With each class that goes by I feel like I'm starting to get more and more the point behind the articles we've been reading. The discussions we have in class help to clarify parts of the readings that would otherwise be very difficult to understand. In my previous post I really did not understand how to classify "post-modernism" or even what makes something post-modern. Having class be based around progressive comedy rather than simply re-going over the text really helps to add perspective on what parts of class I'm getting versus the parts that I'm not. I have a long way to go in being able to intelligently discuss what Lyotard and Machery are really talking about, but I like that I am able to at least speak my mind, even if it's not the brightest idea that comes out. I think it's very interesting that SNL and The Daily Show are programs that accurately poke fun at how our government works, and that that's what people want to see. I think that the news paradigms of the past are slowly but surely on the way out. FOX's decision to not broadcast the speech to Congress shows that they are willing to be taken seriously as an entertainment channel and not as a viable news source, but are people intelligent enough to see where those lines are drawn? While I enjoy reading The Onion every day, I have friends that do not understand that it's not a real paper. I think that the issue of journalistic ethics is going to come under serious discussion soon with the advent of Facebook and Twitter. The news corporations that we know are not going to be the same in 5 years, and intelligent discourse in the form of comedy is doing everything it can to speed that change up.

Gwatter06, 9/8

Our discussions in class this week were very interesting, but didn’t seem as engaging as the week before. I enjoyed our continued coverage of Benjamin in our Tuesday class session. In this discussion we went over originality and authenticity. It was interesting to see the dilemma behind what makes and distorts authenticity and originality. We used popular examples like the Mona Lisa, explaining how there are millions of copies of the art but there remains only one true original form in which is locked up in a museum. The Mona Lisa is a perfect example of a problem that Benjamin has found with reproduction. Benjamin explains that, “by making many reproductions it substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence.” (21) I completely agree with Benjamin in this sense, especially with art. For too many years now the “unique existence” of art and other forms of expressionism has been lost or rendered through reproduction. This concept can be related to modern instances and concepts as well. I see many cases where people choose to change their style, life choices or interests because of repetition. I alluded to an example of this from a video we saw in class in CMC100 called “The Merchants of Cool.” What we went over in class and what I understand from the readings is that in the modern era art is completely changing and might be connected to postmodernism. Benjamin provides an example of this by stating, “Every day the urge grows stronger to get hold of an object at very close range by way of its likeness…[this] differs from the image seen by the unarmed eye” (22). We discussed in class that you could take a picture in which makes the aesthetics mobile and can be sent and used in different areas. All in all the discussions in class remain to be intellectual and is a learning experience each time which is always helpful.

DoubleBubble, 9/13

After Class this week, a few things stuck in my head. Before class this week, I viewed reality as the way it was presented to us through the media. But then I realized, how corrupt our view on reality is. When we watched the Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin video I thought it was interesting how we laugh and find humor in videos like that. Our government is being laughed at and made fun of and our society is viewing this comedy as a view on our reality. We get our information on our government and politics through comedy. Isn’t that wrong? Our reality is false because the creators of the video are more concerned about publicity and success than making sure information is correct. Since a lot of our society views this video with more entertainment than the shows on real politics, we are getting our information on politics through this humor. While some of the information on these videos could be true, it is more false than true.

Within our society our idea of realism is completely changing because what really is real? What really is realism within our society? These ideas and videos are influencing our ideas on what we think is real. We are influenced by the companies, producers, authors to believe certain ideas and concepts which we think are “real”. We don’t really even know what is real, or what is “realism” within our society. We have grown up to believe these certain ideas and concepts and think they are real, because these companies advertise new ideas and clothing and our society follows these companies and clothing because we believe it is up to date and the new fashion. These companies are telling us what is new fashion but, what really are the new hip things to wear? How do we even know if companies are influencing our decisions?

BiegieGo, 9/13

One thing that stayed with me throughout the weekend from the last class is the simple question of, what is real. I guess it’s not that simple because I keep on thinking about it. Is there really a valid answer to the question of what is real? Then you start to think about, if that’s not real, then what is. In our contemporary social we seem to just go with what is told to us. It seems to be the easy was for people to live their lives. If we would just challenge the norm and be a little different then maybe people would not just believe everything that’s out there.

I was in the gym this past weekend and the TV was set to the new channel CNN. I could not hear anything of what the program was saying because I had my iPod on but on the bottom corner on the right of the program there was a sign that said CNN=Money. The whole weekend I was blown away at the fact that the news channel is not only telling non-valid information but they think they are the best at what they do. For me the symbol CNN=Money tells me that our society is just out for the money. Everything people do or say is simply for money rather than the good the people. It almost seems like people these days don’t want anything to do with helping out people unless it for money.

So do you think postmodern is even real? I think that it all depends on the person’s beliefs of what postmodernism is. I believe that the postmodern thing these days is the new hip thing. You can only have your own style for so long and then when someone else sees your styles then they take it and it simply becomes part of the norm. Nothing can stay unique for very long anymore these days.

FloRida, 9/13

What is Realism? What is truth? What is reality? Thursday’s class really provided us with the ability to possibly answer these questions. Dr. Rog quoted Lyotard by saying that, realism “stands somewhere between academicism and kitsch” it provides “correct” images, narratives, and forms designed as “the appropriate remedy for the anxiety and depression for the public experiences” (41). We as a society use ALL of our media outlets to escape our own “reality.” This could be through television, magazines, or the internet. We watch reality shows that are not even real and sitcoms that we think we can relate to, just to take our mind off all of the things we currently have to deal with. Realism is dominating our culture. A statement that really related to this concept of what is truth or what is reality and connected with me was, “so-called realistic representations can no longer evoke reality except as nostalgia or mockery” (40). The Saturday Night Live skit we watched in class really reinforces this statement. Society is constantly making a mockery of important topics either to get people interested or to stir up some conflict. Either way it causes a reaction, which is exactly what Big Media wants to happen. This definitely goes back to Benjamin’s article describing the notion of reproduction. Once something is replicated or said SOOO many times, we identify with it in a specific way. When certain iconic people either celebrities or politicians are represented a certain way within media, society starts to believe everything about them and identifies them in a way that might not be actual reality. Basically, what we are seeing is not actual reality or truth within media but we are experiencing realism, which is causing us to have certain beliefs, ideas, and representations in our mind of specific people, places, and things.

Ron Burgundy, 9/10/09

This Thursday’s class discussion was led on the reading done on Lyotard and realism. Although I found the reading very hard to grasp at first, Dr. Rog’s lecture in class helped to shed some light on the topic. He talked about the emergence of realism in theater and other arts and how it was meant to be as “realistic” as possible. This idea of realism and portraying the “realistic” is extremely interesting to me. Currently in our society, specifically in the media, there is a rising trend of the programming called “reality TV”. Whether it is reality competitions, documentaries, or reality sitcom type of shows, this genre of television programming has become increasingly popular in the 21st century. This genre of television is meant to portray people in the real world, facing real problems, and showing real emotions. When I first began watching these types of programming I fell for their promises of “real people in real situations” and took the events and interactions that happened as reality. In a sense, this was the new “realism” in art, attempting to show the world the truth about society/reality. Having seen these programs for years I now know that the greater majority of these types of programming are in fact fabricated, and in no way show any type of reality. Although I am enlightened in this aspect, many people who watch this type of programming still believe that these types of programs reflect society and the reality of the world that we live in. In my opinion this fabricated realism is extremely dangerous for our society as people may attempt to have their lives imitate those seen in reality TV. Most people in these “reality shows” live extravagant lifestyles that are only able to have the luxuries they are afforded because of their participation in such programming. When people try to imitate this type of behaviors it can prove to be extremely dangerous.

Captain Outrageous, 9/13

The Lyotard reading was definitely a warning of things to come in terms of how difficult our readings are going to get. After our class, though, I feel somewhat more confident in my understanding of Lyotard.

What stood out to me the most was the concept of how "capitalism derealizes familiar objects" and how reality only "offers an occasion for rating and experiments". Our discussions in class really opened these topics to me by comparing it to comedy or television. I have always heard the term "You can't write that sort of stuff" but I never understood the depth to how disturbing it truly is. Reality, as Dr. Casey explained, is the most ridiculous thing, not comedy. Realistic representations evoke reality no further than mockery. When Dr. Casey first started to explain this, I wasn't very shocked. In a Sociology class I took we learned that comedy is a system of pointing out the obvious in the real world. We laugh at a comedian for daring to point out the obvious. What I realized, however, is that we are laughing at ourselves (in a general way), at our reality. Yes we can hear a joke and say "oh that's so true!" but the question must be asked should it be funny that the truthfulness of reality is a mockery?

On the one hand I have to answer yes partly because life would get too miserable without the tragic irony. Then again, we may go on oblivious as we already do. On the other hand I have to answer no. It shouldn't be funny that our lawmakers are the constant chumps of Saturday Night Live. It shouldn't be funny that comedy writers "can't write that kind of stuff" because even the stupidest of comedy movies can't compare to everyday human behavior.

Reality has become a commodified mockery. SNL and YouTube and the like bank off of the stupid things humans do every day. I suppose we can keep on laughing as long as we keep in mind its no laughing matter.

Ace Ventura, 9/10

This week's readings were a bit tougher than the previous weeks. The concepts in Lyotard were difficult and a bit abstract. Especially with his references to Kant and early philosophers. The idea that post modernism is a concept that even the greatest minds can't really put a definition on really frustrates me and makes me wonder how we, as a class, are supposed to understand it. Or what conclusion will we arrive at when the semester ends? Will we all be frustrated that we've struggled through these readings only to find that we were studying a concept that still isn't understood by anyone? The concepts that are intertwined in the reading such as Lyotard's idea of metanarratives that attempt to explain all parts of life are interesting and applicable to the study of art (including films) and literature. But I supposed I'm still waiting for that "click" where I can link all of these ideas to post modernism and begin to form my own idea about what post modernism really is. I'm also waiting for all the readings to come together. Either to combine into one meaning or theory or to be opposing theories. Currently, I see them all in their own seperate realms that really don't have much to do with one another other than that they all reference post modernism.

Elmo, 9/13

One specific quote/conversation that really stuck with me after class was, “so-called realistic representations can no longer evoke reality except as nostalgia or mockery” (Lyotard 40). This quote went along with the SNL skit mocking Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton. After thinking about this I realized that so much of information we get concerning politics, or anything else for that matter, comes to us in the form of comedy. SNL has become very popular in US culture along with other shows such as The Chapelle Show or MadTV. All of these shows have become very mainstream and have acquired a large audience. Most of the time these shows will mock some sort of political figure and it comes off as comedy. Everyone seems to be able to relate to these shows because they take aspects of the truth or actual quotes said by a politician, or other popular figure, and spin it to make it comical. While some of the information is true, a lot of it also isn’t true. This is a problem because most people come to view these comedy sketches as reality.

Another part of our class discussion which I found very applicable to our daily lives was when we talked about new movies or books. The quote discussed was, “classicism seems to be ruled out in a world in which reality is so destabilized that it offers no occasion for experience but one for ratings and experimentation” (Lyotard 40). This applies to when there is a new film being advertised and the ad says “the best new summer blockbuster” or when a book is being advertised as “the next number one seller”. These ways of advertising are giving people a false reality; how does the advertiser know that his or her movie or book is going to be the best without even selling one ticket or one copy. They are selling something without even experiencing how it is actually is perceived in reality. I had never really thought of this before, but it actually really interesting how advertisers seem to do this.

Daisy, 9/13/09

We discussed in class the idea of avant-garde, which is pushing the boundaries, going against what is considered normal. I didn’t fully understand what Lyotard meant by liquidating “the heritage of the avant-garde” (40). After discussing it is class and re-reading the article I feel like I understand it a little better. Our culture has killed the avant-garde with realism. Once someone does something unusual in our culture it is turned into a fad and everyone follows. We are not surprised by anything in our culture. I think that we have learned to except everything and look for something new to entertain us, something that will shock us. But I’m not sure if we would be shocked. I mean if aliens landed on earth I wouldn’t be shocked. There have been many movies, documentaries, and merchandise sold that has to do with aliens you would almost think that they really did happen. Lyotard might say that if aliens did land on earth they would not evoke reality but nostalgia (40).
Another idea came to me when I was flipping through Vogue. I love looking at the artistic photographs, but so many times I think I would never wear that. Designers must come up with a new creative idea to show their line. Usually they pair their designs, often times mismatched, with outrageous hairstyles, make-up applications, and poses you would never see off the runway. While the photos grab our attention, they aren’t presenting anything original, but everything we expect to see. Thinking about what we talked about in class how no one wants to see avant-garde unless it is something the masses want to see. The designers play on the same outrageous themes, but only to a certain extent, because designer who questions the rules too much will have no “guarantee of an audience” (41). Realism has placed restrictions on us as to what to accept.

Mongoose, 9/10

This week in class we discussed Lyotard’s view of the world and the “postmodern” era which he thought us to currently be in. We discussed many of the things which he felt related to the postmodern era with realism seeming to be the main topic of his writing. Lyotard felt that the ‘avant-garde’ approach ( going against the grain; we used the example of hanging a toilet in the art museum and calling it art) had destroyed realism because it did not present a ‘real’ view of society as a whole. According to Lyotard ‘realism’ was a vital part in the world of the arts, by art we mean: paintings, sculptures film etc.; he felt that the artists held the duty of restoring or healing a sick community as well as introducing to us a new tern called ‘verisimilitude’. Lyotard tells us that verisimilitude is the act of making an artistic production as lifelike as possible, whether that be in television or a painting or whatever, it was meant to appear realistic, which is why verisimilitude is used to create realism. One particular quote from Lyotard that I want to focus on on the topic of realism is that: Realism “stands somewhere between academicism and kitsch” it provides “correct” images, narratives, and forms designed as “the appropriate remedy for the anxiety and depression for the public experiences” 41. I think that this quote is very relevant in our society today; many people use television as an escape from their own personal problems. Whenver someone has a bad day or problems in their life they can turn on a lighthearted TV show and escape from these problems; this is why many sitcoms focus on making people feel good at the end of the show and allow the viewer to relate to many of the issues shown in each episode. Reality TV is another area where the viewer can relate to such realism to escape from their own world. The show Big Brother comes to mind as an example; in this show there are people of all races, religions or belief systems all put together in one house and they are constantly talking or arguing about their differences, because of the wide differences shown it allows the viewer to relate to particulars members of the house and understand their struggles in the house.

ESPN, 9/10

After understanding Lyotard a little better from class; I am able to see some of what he is saying as it pertains my new understanding of realism and the world I see every day. The concept of Auant-garde, which I now see as being at the forefront, being the first, or being the original, is used to explain the effect of post-modern realism. I am able to see that realism has gotten rid of Auant-gard. This is because once someone is at the front, they are pushed right back to the middle. It is now very hard to be new and original. Nothing surprises us now. I even notice it just today when I was walking through the airport I saw many people with clothes of hair styles that were crazy. They were such outfits that years ago, people would think they were crazy for wearing but now, it is almost normal, and if not normal, we are at least not surprised about anything people do or wear.
The second term that I was not familiar with, prior to class was meta-narratives. I understand meta-narratives as a way to live your life or a guide for it. A religion could be an example. However, Lyotard says that in order to be critical then one must not have a meta-narrative. My question is then does he think that we should not have religion? I understand we need to take a step out of are meta-narrative to be critical of it and get another view, but should we simply not believe in anything?
In addition to Lytard’s other terms, the term callicism, is the one I see the most. I have seen the idea of describing something even before it happens before but once again I never realized there was an actually name for it. However, I will never forget it as every time I watch TV now and see such an advertisement I realize what they are claiming. It showed how ridiculous it is, now that I noticed it as well. Just today I was watching TV and I saw an advertisement. It was for a new movie and it said that it was the first monumental movie of the summer. In critically analyzing I find it quite funny how people claim something that hasn’t even happened yet. It is to the point now were when there are claims such as monumental, I almost automatically tell myself that it will not be which is the opposite of what they really want us to think.