Saturday, September 26, 2009
HOLLA! 9/26/2009
I initially did my post-class-post on Zizek’s reading and after class on Thursday I was able to familiarize myself even better with his work. There were a few of his quotations that really stuck with me after class as well, one of them being, “The ‘terrorists’ themselves did not do it primarily to provoke real material damage, but for the spectacular effect of it” (231). This quotation can sort of go off on the bases of the plot of an action Hollywood movie. We go to the theaters to see explosion, action, and horror and during September 11th we could turn on the television and it was everywhere, on every newspaper, and at every corner. This is the point that Zizek was trying to get across when he wrote this article. “America got what it fantasized about, and that was the biggest surprise” (233). By this Zizek meant that if you read the images created in America, the movies, what we buy, the spectators in film, it’s only logical that that’s what we wanted. Zizek’s article was quiet short but had big meaning to it. In class we also discussed how Zizek showed individuals that American’s didn’t and still almost don’t see some things as real like the actual carnage we see even when it happens in our backyard. Dr. Rog talked about Katrina and September 11th and it was almost like something you’d see in a third world country or in the movies. Images are what we see and yet to believe images like these as real is so hard because these images are what we see on the movie screens across America. By Zizek saying, “America got what they fantasized about” he meant that we got what we see on television, we got what we see as entertainment. I am really looking forward to the Zizek sessions this week, to hear his thought on other media forms that we see and how we actually do interpret them.
BiegieGo, 9/26
So this week in class we focused on Zizek and the question of what is real? “In today’s market we find a whole series of products deprived of their malignant properties: coffee without caffeine, cream without fat, beer without alcohol…” these are things what we never stop to think of in our day to day lives. What is the point of drinking coffee without the caffeine or beer without the alcohol? Well, this is where virtual reality comes into play, “it provides reality itself deprived of its substance.” We see these images on the screen and we start to believe them because they are repeated over and over again until the product become second nature to us and we done even notice what is happening.
For example “the ‘terrorists’ themselves did not do it primarily to provoke real material damage, but for the spectacular effect of it.” Someone in class explained this quote very well. He said that the terrorist are not trying to mainly hurt people, but it is the only way to get the camera on them so they can get their message out to the world. They think that is the attack is bigger them the more coverage to their story they will get. The image of the planes hitting the WTC on September 11 was what the people of America were repeatedly shown and therefore it led to an up-rise in anger and took us into war. I believe if the images that the media displayed were not repeated so often on the news then the anger of the Americans would have not been so high. Another thing is that in America the people tend to believe that nothing should ever happen to us. They think we are the greatest nation there is and if something ever happens or if there is a bomb that explodes in our country then we must fight back because we are Americans.
For example “the ‘terrorists’ themselves did not do it primarily to provoke real material damage, but for the spectacular effect of it.” Someone in class explained this quote very well. He said that the terrorist are not trying to mainly hurt people, but it is the only way to get the camera on them so they can get their message out to the world. They think that is the attack is bigger them the more coverage to their story they will get. The image of the planes hitting the WTC on September 11 was what the people of America were repeatedly shown and therefore it led to an up-rise in anger and took us into war. I believe if the images that the media displayed were not repeated so often on the news then the anger of the Americans would have not been so high. Another thing is that in America the people tend to believe that nothing should ever happen to us. They think we are the greatest nation there is and if something ever happens or if there is a bomb that explodes in our country then we must fight back because we are Americans.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Ace Ventura, 9/22
This week we went to the Cornell Art Museum which I thought provided an interesting perspective on post modernism. So many of the theorists that we have read talk about the interpretation of literature and art and all the different ways of looking at things and going to the museum really allowed us to create our own interpretations. I thought the Andre Kertesz On Reading exhibit was the most relevant to our class. In all of the photographs, people were reading in diffferent settings and reading different things, whether they be novels, magazines, newspapers, or street signs. Some of the photos reminded me of Barthes idea of jouissance or the pleasure that one gets from reading. Many of the readers in the photographs were in seclusion, alone with their novels or magazines and just enjoying the pleasure of reading and the pleasure of interpreting the text to way they feel necessary and in a way that is applicable to their lives. And as a viewer of the photographs, I was able to come up with my own interpretation of the meaning of the photo and what meaning the reader was coming up with and the emotion behind that. So it was really like a third person perspective on reading voyeurism.
Warhol's Personalitie exhibit applied to Lyotard's idea of realism and verisimilitude, or having art that mirrors real life as close as possible. Some of these polaroids were just of ordinary people. And even the polaroids that were of celebrities didn't appear to be any fancier than the ones of ordinary people. As the tour guide pointed out, the women in the photos were wearing make up and that came into question when Warhol first produced these photos, but his response was that women wear make-up and dress themselves up in every day life so why should they be any different in these photos? Being able to view these different exhibits and relate our new theories to them made some of them a bit more clear and easily applied to the world around me.
Warhol's Personalitie exhibit applied to Lyotard's idea of realism and verisimilitude, or having art that mirrors real life as close as possible. Some of these polaroids were just of ordinary people. And even the polaroids that were of celebrities didn't appear to be any fancier than the ones of ordinary people. As the tour guide pointed out, the women in the photos were wearing make up and that came into question when Warhol first produced these photos, but his response was that women wear make-up and dress themselves up in every day life so why should they be any different in these photos? Being able to view these different exhibits and relate our new theories to them made some of them a bit more clear and easily applied to the world around me.
BiegieGo, 9/25
So I know this is super later but I thought I should post on it anyways. Our class took a little field trip to the museum this past week and was introduce to what are museum has to display to us. The main exhibit that our class went to see was called “On Reading.” The show before this one was about printing and print making. I could kind of relate to the printing show because I took a art class here at rolling and we worked with making different kinds of prints and we were shown how to layer prints. One would think that printing can possible be that hard but it is very difficult because you have to line everything up and mix the right paints properly or else you will not get the color you wanted. I had never seen printing like that before I took the art class and I am glad I was able to experience it.
The show “On Reading” was about this one man, I forgot his name, which went around taking pictures of people reading. I thought it was an awesome idea to make a show on this topic because a lot of people like to read but you never really focus on what the people look like when they are in the act of reading. I felt the artist did a great job of getting the emotions of the people while they are reading. The tour guide as the class “if on reading was not on the wall, would you look at the pictures differently?” I believe I would have look more closely. I think that the title “On Reading” made me look for the person doing the act and made me move more quickly though the exhibit. I saw the person reading and I just move right along to the next picture not really taking in the surroundings of what was around the picture.
The show “On Reading” was about this one man, I forgot his name, which went around taking pictures of people reading. I thought it was an awesome idea to make a show on this topic because a lot of people like to read but you never really focus on what the people look like when they are in the act of reading. I felt the artist did a great job of getting the emotions of the people while they are reading. The tour guide as the class “if on reading was not on the wall, would you look at the pictures differently?” I believe I would have look more closely. I think that the title “On Reading” made me look for the person doing the act and made me move more quickly though the exhibit. I saw the person reading and I just move right along to the next picture not really taking in the surroundings of what was around the picture.
Kiwi, 9/24/09
This week we visited the Cornell arts museum which I thought was very interesting. We were able to apply what we have been reading and discussing in class to everyday images. Our class visited three exhibits; Michael Phillips and The Internal Method of William Blake, Andre Kertesz on Reading and Andy Warhol.
The first exhibit, Michael Phillios and The Internal Method of William Blake was an artist at the end of the 18th century. He was a visual artist as well as a poet. Blakes revolutionary technique was, facsimile copy which meant to be a perfect copy. All of the original plates of Blackes were lost in the 19th century so Phillips began to study how to reproduce them. Benjamin says a copy is not authentic. What is the first print? Is there really a first? Is it the plate, the first print, or the first drawing? Phillips plates were etched from a picture of Blake’s plate, so it is not that original. I thought that this exhibit was very interesting and the plates were something I have never seen before. However this was not my favorite exhibit.
The second exhibit was Andre Kertesz on reading. Andre Kertesz was the pioneer of the 20th century of photography. He drafted into the Austro-Hungarian army and was wounded. After that emigrated from Budapest to Paris to pursue his photography. He traveled to American, and made his living as a commercial photographer (1930’s-1960’s). After that he became bitter because he was had seperated himself from the higher art he loved. Then In the 1960’s he stopped doing commercial art. His archive was found and moved back into high art/ fine art. 1915-1970’s he had a range of photographs; that were from all over the world. His recurring theme is reading (quiet, personal, introspective). The Concept of surveillance; always being watched, like reality TV Many are on still life (inanimate object); which offers space for recreation of meaning. The whole world is text; these photos are text and are about text. If a lot of the photos come before the 1960’s do they fit in with postmodern critique of society? These arbitrary dates are meaningless. Many people argue postmodernism is just a continue of modernism. So why do we have to continue to organize and categorize this? Simply because history repeats itself. These items can help us structure our thought process. Art used to be taught sequentially, now it is taught in themes. So does this mean we cannot agree on postmodernism because we are already in it?
The second exhibit was probably my favorite because I thought that photographs were unique and different and I like how they all applied to the theme of reading. I guess I never really took the time to think of all the different ways we apply reading to our daily tasks.
The third exhibit that we visited was Andy Warhol who was known as a chaser of celebrities the curator thinks, without Andy Warhol there would be no Paris Hilton. He coined the term “superstars”
Famous not because of talent, but photographed with the right people, they demonstrate a larger than life persona. For example, Edie Sedgwick. Being famous for being famous. Andy Warhol was known for breaking the rules or art. His postmodern sketches equaled Polaroid, which he would call his studio “the factory”. We also discussed how Warhol’s artwork came from the environment of kitsch. His work as the curator said was, “kitsch mass-produced”, inexpensive image into high art.
Overall I thought the museum field trip was a lot of fun and I thought that it was very beneficial, because it helped me to better understand the readings that were assigned in class. I enjoyed this field trip a lot and I hope we will have more to come.
The first exhibit, Michael Phillios and The Internal Method of William Blake was an artist at the end of the 18th century. He was a visual artist as well as a poet. Blakes revolutionary technique was, facsimile copy which meant to be a perfect copy. All of the original plates of Blackes were lost in the 19th century so Phillips began to study how to reproduce them. Benjamin says a copy is not authentic. What is the first print? Is there really a first? Is it the plate, the first print, or the first drawing? Phillips plates were etched from a picture of Blake’s plate, so it is not that original. I thought that this exhibit was very interesting and the plates were something I have never seen before. However this was not my favorite exhibit.
The second exhibit was Andre Kertesz on reading. Andre Kertesz was the pioneer of the 20th century of photography. He drafted into the Austro-Hungarian army and was wounded. After that emigrated from Budapest to Paris to pursue his photography. He traveled to American, and made his living as a commercial photographer (1930’s-1960’s). After that he became bitter because he was had seperated himself from the higher art he loved. Then In the 1960’s he stopped doing commercial art. His archive was found and moved back into high art/ fine art. 1915-1970’s he had a range of photographs; that were from all over the world. His recurring theme is reading (quiet, personal, introspective). The Concept of surveillance; always being watched, like reality TV Many are on still life (inanimate object); which offers space for recreation of meaning. The whole world is text; these photos are text and are about text. If a lot of the photos come before the 1960’s do they fit in with postmodern critique of society? These arbitrary dates are meaningless. Many people argue postmodernism is just a continue of modernism. So why do we have to continue to organize and categorize this? Simply because history repeats itself. These items can help us structure our thought process. Art used to be taught sequentially, now it is taught in themes. So does this mean we cannot agree on postmodernism because we are already in it?
The second exhibit was probably my favorite because I thought that photographs were unique and different and I like how they all applied to the theme of reading. I guess I never really took the time to think of all the different ways we apply reading to our daily tasks.
The third exhibit that we visited was Andy Warhol who was known as a chaser of celebrities the curator thinks, without Andy Warhol there would be no Paris Hilton. He coined the term “superstars”
Famous not because of talent, but photographed with the right people, they demonstrate a larger than life persona. For example, Edie Sedgwick. Being famous for being famous. Andy Warhol was known for breaking the rules or art. His postmodern sketches equaled Polaroid, which he would call his studio “the factory”. We also discussed how Warhol’s artwork came from the environment of kitsch. His work as the curator said was, “kitsch mass-produced”, inexpensive image into high art.
Overall I thought the museum field trip was a lot of fun and I thought that it was very beneficial, because it helped me to better understand the readings that were assigned in class. I enjoyed this field trip a lot and I hope we will have more to come.
Graham, 9 / 24/ 09
I think that going to the art museum was really beneficial, because it helped me to better understand the readings that were assigned in class. We discussed the concept of what is the first? What is the original? It is hard to determine, because there are copies and sketches and prints…so it becomes difficult to say exactly what the first one was.
Then, we went into the 2nd exhibition, where the photographer took over a hundred photos of people reading. I thought that this was creepy, because the people did not know that they were being photographed, so it was almost like they were being spied on. I think that the point of this project was to show that different people read in different ways, and they also read different things. In some photos we saw people sitting under a tree reading, but in some photos we saw people stopping and reading newspapers that were scattered on the floor. I didn’t understand this at first, but after someone pointed it out I thought that it was really interesting.
I also liked the 3rd exhibit that we saw, with the faces of the celebrities, and other everyday people. I found it interesting when someone asked why he put white powder on a majority of the women that he photographed. The group leader said that women cover themselves every day with all types of makeup and everything else, so it was just something that was “normal” to do.
In Thursday’s class we went over some more architecture that we did not get to finish the week before. We also discussed the realness of products. For example, Diet Coke…is it real coke? They just try to sell the product and make it more popular, but by doing so they are taking away the very thing that made the product popular in the first place. People like the taste of Coke, but they do not like what it is doing to our bodies so we sell them the same products without caffeine and sugar. Advertising is a crazy thing.
Then, we went into the 2nd exhibition, where the photographer took over a hundred photos of people reading. I thought that this was creepy, because the people did not know that they were being photographed, so it was almost like they were being spied on. I think that the point of this project was to show that different people read in different ways, and they also read different things. In some photos we saw people sitting under a tree reading, but in some photos we saw people stopping and reading newspapers that were scattered on the floor. I didn’t understand this at first, but after someone pointed it out I thought that it was really interesting.
I also liked the 3rd exhibit that we saw, with the faces of the celebrities, and other everyday people. I found it interesting when someone asked why he put white powder on a majority of the women that he photographed. The group leader said that women cover themselves every day with all types of makeup and everything else, so it was just something that was “normal” to do.
In Thursday’s class we went over some more architecture that we did not get to finish the week before. We also discussed the realness of products. For example, Diet Coke…is it real coke? They just try to sell the product and make it more popular, but by doing so they are taking away the very thing that made the product popular in the first place. People like the taste of Coke, but they do not like what it is doing to our bodies so we sell them the same products without caffeine and sugar. Advertising is a crazy thing.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Ron Burgundy, 9/22
Today’s lesson took us out of the classroom and into the Cornell Fine Arts Museum. Having never been there before I didn’t know what to expect from the exhibits, I only had the knowledge of what he learned from the recent theorists to aid in my experience of the works. The three different exhibits that we looked at were all extremely interesting and played a different role in explaining some aspect of the postmodern era and key terms recently discussed in class. While looking at one exhibit in particular, “Kertesz: On Reading”, a profound point was made by the museum guide that connected largely with one of the theorists discussed in class. The guide asked the class what the most prominent aspect of the different photographs in the exhibit were and several students answered all noticing different elements of the works. As he noted this observation he went on to discuss how each picture could be seen as a text that speaks differently to each observer and how the story can change each time you approach the picture as you may view it in a different way or notice different things you never saw before. This idea is directly connected to the concept that Macherey discusses in his piece, “A Theory of Literary Production”. Macherey explains the importance of the said versus the unsaid within a text and the meaning that the unsaid, once acknowledged, can bring to the whole of the text. The guide asked us if in fact these pictures could be considered texts, and because of the several different responses that were given from different students about a single picture I believe that they can. Each person that had spoken up in the discussion of the picture recognized a different aspect of the unsaid within the “text” that was the image, and therefore the picture could have told a different story to them than another person. As I heard different responses from my peers on the image I also connected their ideas with the concept of how the author cannot fully appreciate their text because they cannot anticipate what experiences their audience may bring to a text to understand it, a key concept of Macherey. Each student seemed to recognize something different in the image because they looked at it with their own perspective, which led them to see certain things and ignore others.
DoubleBubble, 9/24
Tuesday’s Class in the museum was different and I thought very interesting. We were able to take the ideas we have been learning in the classroom and applying it to the everyday images that we are exposed to. Although the exhibits we saw in the museum were not things we see in our day-to-day lives it was interesting because in a way, it is. With the “reading” exhibit we were exposed to the idea of ‘reading’ through the photographer’s eyes. He used his camera and went to numerous different places and took photographs of people simply reading. He found a topic and an idea and basically used it for his artwork. What I thought was great was that although he was sick and had to stay in his apartment, he never gave up and still shot pictures from his apartment. I really enjoyed the pictures of the children and also the pictures of older people. What I did not like as much were the pictures of women sunbathing. I felt those were semi out of focus and also that they were in a sense kind of stalkerish.
After this week’s reading and class I understand better the concept of Zizek and Baudrillard idea’s but now there begins to be confusion of what is real? Do we know what is real? We never really take the time to look into what is real in our society. When we see something on the news we instantly assume that what they are saying is true. When we look at things we are accustomed to know the meaning behind what we are looking at. In a way, isn’t our life compared to the life in the movies? Dr. Rog mentioned in class how we use to look at vampires and be terrified of them, but now in our society we want to fall in love with vampires. Our society is changing as a result of our media.
After this week’s reading and class I understand better the concept of Zizek and Baudrillard idea’s but now there begins to be confusion of what is real? Do we know what is real? We never really take the time to look into what is real in our society. When we see something on the news we instantly assume that what they are saying is true. When we look at things we are accustomed to know the meaning behind what we are looking at. In a way, isn’t our life compared to the life in the movies? Dr. Rog mentioned in class how we use to look at vampires and be terrified of them, but now in our society we want to fall in love with vampires. Our society is changing as a result of our media.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Nate Dogg, Zizek
Zizek has informed us that we love the unreal, and I’m inclined to believe him. We are obsessed with things that are not real. Zizek’s comparisons to decaf coffee and low-fat cream could be just as easily drawn to how fake and shallow “reality” tv is and yet, there are around 4 or 5 different seasons running of “Real Housewives in SomeBigCity”. It should be noted that the women on this show are typically different variations of the worst person you’ve ever met. I think that we used to want to portray “real” people on television, because it is interesting to watch people behave in a way that the view can relate to. We had a “passion for the real”, and then “the real” sold out.
The falseness of today’s television shows are false because studios realized they could pay anyone to act like a fool or an idiot, or themselves if acting is not required (Paris Hilton). I think that the amount of reality television shows on air right now is a product of what happened on 9/11. Prior to those events, people in the U.S. had not, at least in the past 50 years, experienced such a tragedy happening, let alone in our most famous city. I think that those events sparked a desire in people to “see the event”, to become a part of what is going on in “the real world” by watching things happen to “real” people and being able to discuss it. Reality Tv, just like Zizek’s California paradise, are “in a way unreal, substanceless, deprived of material inertia.” (232) People can get addicted to that California paradise, just as people can get addicted to reality tv.
I think that the de-realization of the September 11 attacks via news corporations is a very interesting point that Zizek brings up.
I really appreciated his comment on how in the movies, which is supposedly not real, we see blood and guts and gore, while in real life during the live feed on 9/11, where it certainly was real, we were shown none of it. That aspect alone sort of illustrates how we feel about the difference between fake and real. We can tolerate seeing blood, guts and gore when it’s fake, but when it’s real for some reason it is classified as “too harmful” to show on television. Why is that the case? Why were we shown the exact same image over and over again for weeks, even months after the attacks, instead of seeing the footage of what happened to the people that were killed? Why are we being force fed the unreal and kept from the real?
The falseness of today’s television shows are false because studios realized they could pay anyone to act like a fool or an idiot, or themselves if acting is not required (Paris Hilton). I think that the amount of reality television shows on air right now is a product of what happened on 9/11. Prior to those events, people in the U.S. had not, at least in the past 50 years, experienced such a tragedy happening, let alone in our most famous city. I think that those events sparked a desire in people to “see the event”, to become a part of what is going on in “the real world” by watching things happen to “real” people and being able to discuss it. Reality Tv, just like Zizek’s California paradise, are “in a way unreal, substanceless, deprived of material inertia.” (232) People can get addicted to that California paradise, just as people can get addicted to reality tv.
I think that the de-realization of the September 11 attacks via news corporations is a very interesting point that Zizek brings up.
I really appreciated his comment on how in the movies, which is supposedly not real, we see blood and guts and gore, while in real life during the live feed on 9/11, where it certainly was real, we were shown none of it. That aspect alone sort of illustrates how we feel about the difference between fake and real. We can tolerate seeing blood, guts and gore when it’s fake, but when it’s real for some reason it is classified as “too harmful” to show on television. Why is that the case? Why were we shown the exact same image over and over again for weeks, even months after the attacks, instead of seeing the footage of what happened to the people that were killed? Why are we being force fed the unreal and kept from the real?
Ron Burgundy, Zizek
The excerpt from Zizek's “Welcome to the Desert of the Real” that was a reading this week was extremely interesting and thought provoking. This particular passage coincided greatly with the previous piece by Baudrillard about the spectacle of terrorism and the “real”. Zizek brings up the interesting observation about the current market that exists today that promotes a series of products “deprived of their malignant properties; coffee without caffeine, cream without fat, beer without alcohol” (231). He attempts to show the irony in having such products but still how they are popular commodities in our culture today. He goes on to make the point that this concept translates into the realm of reality versus pseudo reality with things such as “virtual reality”. He states that “Virtual Reality is experienced as reality without being so” (231). In other words Zizek is explaining that “virtual reality” is giving one the ability to experience something that they could experience in real life but without it being real. Zizek's fascination for the occurrence and popularity of virtual reality in today's culture is one I share with him. To me, the fascination of being able to do something through a computer or gaming system instead of experiencing it in real life is odd and is telling about the type of society that we live in today. I recently was shown a youtube video by a friend that demonstrated the newest and most technological gaming system that would be available to consumers soon known as XBOX Natal. The video explained the great strides that our technological development in gaming has taken, so much so that you can now do basically anything you would in “real life” while sitting in front of a television screen with a system that can replicate every movement you make in front of it. One of their greatest achievements with this system was a small boy character who was able to recognize not only movements of the individual in front of the gaming system but also emotions. This character could hold a conversation with you as you ask him how his day was and what he is up to and responds specifically to your answers and the emotions with which you answer them. As the video continued it showed the demonstrator interacting with the small boy walking to a lake with him and “moving” the water around with her hands. The demonstrator also helped with boy with a school assignment of drawing a fish that he had to complete by drawing it on real paper and then holding it up to him at the screen. All of this was clearly impressive as it showed how advanced our current technology is, and at first I was extremely intrigued by the idea of this gaming system. At the same time though I recognized a bit of irony in the pleasure and fascination that my friend who showed me the video had with the ability to play with the water in the game by just moving your hands around as you would in “real life”. I also wondered what kind of individual would prefer sitting in front of a television talking to an imaginary boy, helping him with homework, and playing in the water when you could do all of this in real life and actually help someone who really needs help. The reality is that most people would love to have this type of virtual reality experience, which in my opinion is scary as we transition to a culture that embraces a life like that seen in “The Truman Show” instead of experiencing and recognizing the real.
FloRida, Baudrillard and Zizek
“How do things stand with the real event, then if reality is everywhere infiltrated by images, virtuality and fictions?” (Baudrillard). A question that I can kind of wrap my mind around and a question that relates to many concepts being studied in this class. Baurillard makes a reference to The Desert of the Real. From what I comprehend, this notion relates the idea that when people see something and it is real, when in reality it is not real at all. Pictures are a great example because we associate pictures with some forms of reality, when most likely they are not. Bourillard states that, “Therefore, pretending, or dissimulating, leaves the principle of reality intact: the difference is always clear, it is simply masked, whereas simulation threatens the difference between the ‘true’ and the ‘false,’ the ‘real’ and the ‘imaginary.’” Simulation deals with the idea of Utopia and how there are no signs within the ideal. The problem is that in our reality signs make us who we are and what we believe. Signs are what create reality in today’s world. A great example that Baudrillard brings up is Disneyland, a modern day form of Utopia. It provides illusions and fantasies that create an alternative world for people to believe in. Disneyland is a “digest of the American way of life, panegyric if American values, idealized transposition of a contradictory reality” (Baudrillard). One profound statement that really summarizes this concept of Disneyland is that it is presented as something imaginary in order to make us think that it must be real. Slavoj Zizek article makes a direct connection to Baudrillard’s ideas through ideas of what is reality and what is not. Zizek focuses on Virtual Reality by bringing in a lot of explanations through television shows and movies. To explain this concept he states that, “Virtual Reality simply generalizes this procedure of offering a product deprived of its substance: it provides reality itself deprived of its substance, of the hard resistant kernel of the Real- just as decaffeinated coffee smells and tastes like real coffee without being real coffee, Virtual Reality is experienced as reality without being so.” I truly understood and related to their approaches on these topics through modern experiences and ideas. The interconnectedness between these two articles made an impact on the knowledge and understanding of what was being said.
DoubleBubble - Baudrillard
Jean Baudrillard quotes in The Spirit of Terrorism that “what stays with us, above all else, is the sight of the images”. For once, I instantly knew what the author was going to talk about and I was not confused. Once I read this opening line I understood from my memory exactly what the author meant. Whenever we see something that is important to us, we remember it. This could be anything from the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centers or simply remembering someone by their face.
We are impacted by these images because they captivate us and as a result images become our original scene. When we view images, the image takes over the event that it is representing and instantly offers it to our society and naturally we consume the image in ways we want to consume it. Once we see the image we first see the image and then the “frisson of the real” as Baudrillard explained is added. Best explaining the “frisson of the real” is through the images from September 11th, 2001. Once we see the images of the two towers the “real” is then added onto to the image. Once it is added it creates this sense of terror to the audience. As a result we conclude through our minds that not only is it scary, it is also REAL. What is most terrifying here after reading this exert is the idea that even though we think the image is ‘real’, it in a way is not. Unfortunately the image is symbolic, which makes it worse. Violence as a whole is the not the issue, the problem is symbolic violence is worse than violence overall. We are creating these ideas of violence by our norms. Our media has corrupted us.
Baudrillard quotes, “There is no ‘good’ use of the media; the media are part of the event, they are part of the terror, and they work in both directions”. (229) What has our media turned into? Has our desire for News and Media corrupted the media?
We are impacted by these images because they captivate us and as a result images become our original scene. When we view images, the image takes over the event that it is representing and instantly offers it to our society and naturally we consume the image in ways we want to consume it. Once we see the image we first see the image and then the “frisson of the real” as Baudrillard explained is added. Best explaining the “frisson of the real” is through the images from September 11th, 2001. Once we see the images of the two towers the “real” is then added onto to the image. Once it is added it creates this sense of terror to the audience. As a result we conclude through our minds that not only is it scary, it is also REAL. What is most terrifying here after reading this exert is the idea that even though we think the image is ‘real’, it in a way is not. Unfortunately the image is symbolic, which makes it worse. Violence as a whole is the not the issue, the problem is symbolic violence is worse than violence overall. We are creating these ideas of violence by our norms. Our media has corrupted us.
Baudrillard quotes, “There is no ‘good’ use of the media; the media are part of the event, they are part of the terror, and they work in both directions”. (229) What has our media turned into? Has our desire for News and Media corrupted the media?
Mongoose, Baudrillard
Baudrillard is very concerned with the effects that images have on our culture; he believes that the image actually gives and creates meaning for events the take place in the world. He also believes that although they can “exalt the event, they also take it hostage” (228); by this he means that a particular image is all that comes to mind when then event is spoken of. Baudrillard uses the example of September 11 and the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, whenever someone hears the words terrorism or terrorist attack their mind automatically views the image of the towers collapsing and this strikes up certain emotions within them. He also believes that the terrorists use these images in order to promote fear or other terrorist ideologies; they know and take advantage of the ‘real time’ transmission of images around the world, knowing that the entire world will soon see the image and immediately strike fear in all who see them. Baudrillard presents the argument that these images and the emotions they bring up for those who see them were responsible for support of the war, a war which he sees as contradictory. He believes that fighting violence with violence sends the wrong message and serves no purpose.
Zizek’s article runs along the same path with Baudrillard in coming to the conclusion that the images of September 11 have come to make the actual event un-real. By saying that it is unreal they mean that they have been repeated so many times that we are no longer seeing the actual event, but rather just images of the event. To me this idea kind of tied in with Benjamin’s ‘waning of affect’ idea; Benjamin argues that when we see an image too many times it loses it affect and originality on the viewer. While I don’t believe that seeing the images of September 11 will ever lose their power and the feelings of hurt and anger that come along with them, I can see where they are coming from on this.
Zizek’s article runs along the same path with Baudrillard in coming to the conclusion that the images of September 11 have come to make the actual event un-real. By saying that it is unreal they mean that they have been repeated so many times that we are no longer seeing the actual event, but rather just images of the event. To me this idea kind of tied in with Benjamin’s ‘waning of affect’ idea; Benjamin argues that when we see an image too many times it loses it affect and originality on the viewer. While I don’t believe that seeing the images of September 11 will ever lose their power and the feelings of hurt and anger that come along with them, I can see where they are coming from on this.
Captain Outrageous, Baudrillard/Zizek
Finally a bit of reading that doesn't entirely fry my brain. Though I've just read the two short pieces, not the long Baudrillard. Nonetheless. Compelling stuff. This concept of altered reality is nothing new though now better and quite articulately explained. through both "The Spirit of Terrorism" and "Welcome to the Desert of the Real" I found myself making the same type of notes: the genre of horror and the scary movie trope.
How many times have you found yourself driving down an unfamiliar and more than likely relatively isolated road late at night and thought to yourself or said aloud as a joke, "This is how scary movies start". Or, how many of you have had something happen that shakes your world as you know it and you find yourself saying something along the lines of "I can't believe this is happening, this is like a bad movie." ? I believe that to a certain extent this is what Baudrillard and Zizek are trying to convey.
As some might remember from CMC 100, the genre of horror is roughly defined as the scary possibility actually coming true, your worst fears becoming your reality. In these "reality" shattering moments such as September 11th, our real world and the 'horror' world that is depicted for us onscreen intertextualize themselves before our very eyes: still on screen. For the majority of us who weren't in Manhattan, the "desert of the real' is truly in its purest possibility, unfathomable because we weren't there. For that selection of us, what we saw was, as the authors call it, a "spectacle" on TV, a scene of destruction and disaster that literally could have come out of the movies. This splits into two areas, one by each author.
The first is the idea of the image as presented by Baudrillard. Baudrillard says that the "real" is "superadded" to the image which creates a "bonus terror". He says that "reality is jealous of fiction, that the real is jealous of the image which can be the most unimaginable. So not only is the image of the WTC being hit or going down scary, it is basically super-scary because it is real: the genre of horror- the scary becoming reality, becoming true. The second is the idea of the Hollywood movie from Zizek. Just as Zizek says that "the distance which separates Us from Them...is maintained: the real horror happens there, not here" the scenes repeated on the news on our TV screen kept us separated though the catastrophe was in our own country. The scenes couldn't be more spectacle, couldn't be more out of a movie, especially, as Zizek points out, because we pretty much wrote the plot.
If you have ever heard of "The Secret" you have heard the idea that you put out into the universe is what you recieve. I suppose that after years of catastrophe and worst case scenario movies simulating the destruction of American monuments through terrorist actions ("Independence Day" as Zizek examples) America's "reality" got what it had been asking for; or, to put it more lightly as Zizek does "fantasized about". Through some uncanny connection, Hollywood has predicted reality. The genre of horror depicting the worst possible fear becoming true turned into a genre of reality on September 11th. What's somewhat disturbing is, that while we can accept the outcome in the movies, the idea of it actually happening to us (partly due to the othering and detachment of societies) was "the biggest surprise".
We learned in CMC100 about how the news and other basic mediums create an outside "other" where things might be happening but it doesn't matter much to us because its happening "over there". Just like when you go to see a scary movie its happening to someone else. You could almost say America held its head a bit too high when it came to the "late-captialist consumer city" image of a country functioning like that Californian paradisio. You could almost laugh that a critical discourse on a terrorist attack can be translated into the empty trope "I can't believe this is happening, this is like a bad movie". The truth is its sad and disturbing because the realm of depicted reality and actually reality is officially intermixed.
Like any sort of prank show you see when the unexpected target has their temporary world shattered by something they truly weren't expecting because after all that kind of stuff only happens on prank shows, you laugh because, as Dr. Casey elaborated for us regarding reality, "you just can't write that sort of stuff". When it comes to America and the September 11th attacks, we wrote it ourselves.
How many times have you found yourself driving down an unfamiliar and more than likely relatively isolated road late at night and thought to yourself or said aloud as a joke, "This is how scary movies start". Or, how many of you have had something happen that shakes your world as you know it and you find yourself saying something along the lines of "I can't believe this is happening, this is like a bad movie." ? I believe that to a certain extent this is what Baudrillard and Zizek are trying to convey.
As some might remember from CMC 100, the genre of horror is roughly defined as the scary possibility actually coming true, your worst fears becoming your reality. In these "reality" shattering moments such as September 11th, our real world and the 'horror' world that is depicted for us onscreen intertextualize themselves before our very eyes: still on screen. For the majority of us who weren't in Manhattan, the "desert of the real' is truly in its purest possibility, unfathomable because we weren't there. For that selection of us, what we saw was, as the authors call it, a "spectacle" on TV, a scene of destruction and disaster that literally could have come out of the movies. This splits into two areas, one by each author.
The first is the idea of the image as presented by Baudrillard. Baudrillard says that the "real" is "superadded" to the image which creates a "bonus terror". He says that "reality is jealous of fiction, that the real is jealous of the image which can be the most unimaginable. So not only is the image of the WTC being hit or going down scary, it is basically super-scary because it is real: the genre of horror- the scary becoming reality, becoming true. The second is the idea of the Hollywood movie from Zizek. Just as Zizek says that "the distance which separates Us from Them...is maintained: the real horror happens there, not here" the scenes repeated on the news on our TV screen kept us separated though the catastrophe was in our own country. The scenes couldn't be more spectacle, couldn't be more out of a movie, especially, as Zizek points out, because we pretty much wrote the plot.
If you have ever heard of "The Secret" you have heard the idea that you put out into the universe is what you recieve. I suppose that after years of catastrophe and worst case scenario movies simulating the destruction of American monuments through terrorist actions ("Independence Day" as Zizek examples) America's "reality" got what it had been asking for; or, to put it more lightly as Zizek does "fantasized about". Through some uncanny connection, Hollywood has predicted reality. The genre of horror depicting the worst possible fear becoming true turned into a genre of reality on September 11th. What's somewhat disturbing is, that while we can accept the outcome in the movies, the idea of it actually happening to us (partly due to the othering and detachment of societies) was "the biggest surprise".
We learned in CMC100 about how the news and other basic mediums create an outside "other" where things might be happening but it doesn't matter much to us because its happening "over there". Just like when you go to see a scary movie its happening to someone else. You could almost say America held its head a bit too high when it came to the "late-captialist consumer city" image of a country functioning like that Californian paradisio. You could almost laugh that a critical discourse on a terrorist attack can be translated into the empty trope "I can't believe this is happening, this is like a bad movie". The truth is its sad and disturbing because the realm of depicted reality and actually reality is officially intermixed.
Like any sort of prank show you see when the unexpected target has their temporary world shattered by something they truly weren't expecting because after all that kind of stuff only happens on prank shows, you laugh because, as Dr. Casey elaborated for us regarding reality, "you just can't write that sort of stuff". When it comes to America and the September 11th attacks, we wrote it ourselves.
ESPN12, Zizek
Zizek asks at the end of his piece “where have we already seen the same thing over and over again? In working backwards from Zizek, he answers his own question earlier. In talking about September 11th he says “America got what it fantasized about, and that was the biggest surprise.” This quote stems off of his ideas that America has a “passion for the real.” I believe that we do as well how many times do people say while watching TV or playing a video game, wow that looks real? As we continue to look at the many aspects of what reality is and what it does now days we can see that media and the ‘reality’ it produces may not be the best. Both Zizek and Baudrillard I believe would agree with this as well. I think that Zizek would agree with Baudrillard when he said that “there is no ‘good’ use of the media; the media are part of the event, they are part of the terror, and they work in both directions.” Media is the reason that today we have skewed versions of reality and what is real. Zizek mentions that we were forced to see the horrible images of September 11th over and over again. However, because of the media today and such movie like Independence Day (example of where we have already seen the same thing over again), the 9/11 attacks on us, for viewers at home did not seem real. It was as if we were simply watching a movie and the reality of the terror did not hit home. As horrible as it is it is true, I know what for me this was true. As a seventh grader, I did not feel the effects of the terror and was almost intrigued in seeing the towers repeatedly fall. Zizek says “is this not yet further proof of how, even in this tragic moment, the distance which separates Us from Them, from their reality, is maintained: the real horror happens their not here.
Graham, zizek
This reading was confusing to me at first, but I think that I grasped some of the major concepts that they were discussing..well at least I hope that I did.
It was said that "virtual reality simply generalizes this procedure of offering a product deprived of its substance: it provides reality itself deprived of its substance, of the hard resistant kernel of the real- just as decaffeinated coffee smells and tastes like real coffee, without being real coffee, virtual reality is experienced as reality without being so" (231)
I think this means that virtual reality has the illusion of being real, because you can see it, sometimes feel it, or maybe even taste it (in the sense of the coffee example) but it is not the real thing. It is like the difference between a 10,000 dollar gucci bag, and a knock off purse that you get from New York. It might look real, it might smell like leather, and even say the brand on it...but it is not real. Of course the object exists, and it is real in that case, but it is not what it appears to be. It is an illusion for everyone to assume that you are wealthy and have a beautiful designer bag. There are so many things today that have "knock-off" versions, that it is difficult to even determine what is real anymore.
Like when we went to the art museum Tuesday, we discussed which art work was the first to be created. Is it the first copy, or the first sketch..what is the first? What is real? This is sometimes a difficult question to answer, but I think that it is what the author was getting at when he wrote this story. I hope that I grasped the idea that the author was trying to portray to the reader, I think that this was one of the readings that I understood best so far, but tell me if im wrong!
It was said that "virtual reality simply generalizes this procedure of offering a product deprived of its substance: it provides reality itself deprived of its substance, of the hard resistant kernel of the real- just as decaffeinated coffee smells and tastes like real coffee, without being real coffee, virtual reality is experienced as reality without being so" (231)
I think this means that virtual reality has the illusion of being real, because you can see it, sometimes feel it, or maybe even taste it (in the sense of the coffee example) but it is not the real thing. It is like the difference between a 10,000 dollar gucci bag, and a knock off purse that you get from New York. It might look real, it might smell like leather, and even say the brand on it...but it is not real. Of course the object exists, and it is real in that case, but it is not what it appears to be. It is an illusion for everyone to assume that you are wealthy and have a beautiful designer bag. There are so many things today that have "knock-off" versions, that it is difficult to even determine what is real anymore.
Like when we went to the art museum Tuesday, we discussed which art work was the first to be created. Is it the first copy, or the first sketch..what is the first? What is real? This is sometimes a difficult question to answer, but I think that it is what the author was getting at when he wrote this story. I hope that I grasped the idea that the author was trying to portray to the reader, I think that this was one of the readings that I understood best so far, but tell me if im wrong!
Gwatter06, Baudrillard/Zizek
And now the confusion starts! All along I’ve been priding myself on how well I’ve been able to absorb the authors and theorists that we have covered and take in at least some bit of comprehension from the works. However, I feel as though I have met my match with Baudrillard. I don’t believe it is what he is speaking about that I can’t piece together, but rather the density of his narration and the jumping around of points he attempts to create and sustain. From what I hope I was able to understand that I found quite interesting from Baudrillard was his narrated excursion of reality and simulation. Baudrillard describes simulation as, “It is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality: a hyperreal” (453). What I think Baudrillard is trying to explain here is that simulation is not reality, but nor is it fake because in order for something to simulate it must exist and be real. This notion, in turn, creates this hyperreality in which characterizes the inability of consciousness to distinguish reality from fantasy as we briefly discussed in class. Another interesting point that Baudrillard covered was his explanation of the role of images. Baudrillard stated, “the role of images is highly ambiguous” (228). By this I believe he means that images cant have any stern or definitive intent, that they are used for multiple different reasons and situations. He also explains that images are used to consume a moment or event and exude an impact. Zizek was a much more easier to read, and I believe his choice of topic made it more compelling as well. His narration on virtual reality and reality TV was very easy to relate to and something that we experience everyday. He takes an approach to look at the psychoanalysis on the effects of reality TV and what it means and how it affects people. He uses a great example in referring to the 9/11 attacks and how he builds on Stockhausen’s notion that the events were “a work of art.” He explains that the event and images of the event exhaulted the spectacular that we find in virtual reality and that we found the falsity behind it when we were able to experience the WTC towers collapsing. It was interesting to see how closely Baulliard’s points related to Zizek’s and vice versa, and I am looking for to going over both authors and works and also attending Zizek’s public lectures.
Teets, Zizek
Before 9/11 I think most people would agree that Americans lived in a protective bubble. We knew that tragedies were occurring in other parts of the world, but they only existed within our television screens. We would see explosions and catastrophes in blockbuster movies, but our minds processed those kinds of things as illusions of reality. The attack on the World Trade Centers on 9/11 poked a hole in our protective bubble. “It is not that reality entered our image: the image entered and shattered our reality” (C 234). Americans had seen images similar to the image of 9/11, but never considered it to be real.
So our reality was shattered by this tragic image. We heard new stories each day highlighting the positive characteristics of the “heroes” on the now infamous day. However, the media coverage constantly shorted Americans on certain real aspects of the victims. “Is this not yet further proof of how, even in this tragic moment, the distance which seperates US from Them, from their reality, is maintained: the real horror happens there, not here?” (C 232) Media has a substantial amount of power over our society, and it used it to make light of the tragedy. How many images did we see of dead people in the days following the event? None. We didn’t see visuals of the real carnage that occurred, we just heard stories. Stories don’t have the same kind of impact as real images, and media knew this fact. If gruesome photos were shown, society would have been even more afraid. I’m trying to say that we still didn’t experience true reality because the media coverage had an agenda, similar to the government regime at the time.
In today’s society I don’t think that reality is something that people want to push to the back of their minds. Our world is full of unsolved problems. Our world is full of war, hate and discrimination. People die every day due to murder, disease or starvation. These problems are real. Americans have the ability to solve some of these problems, but instead we elect to spend money on our own entertainment, or war! Our world is extremely corrupt and our effort to solve that is simply pathetic. People recognize these issues within our world, but are too afraid to do something about it.
So our reality was shattered by this tragic image. We heard new stories each day highlighting the positive characteristics of the “heroes” on the now infamous day. However, the media coverage constantly shorted Americans on certain real aspects of the victims. “Is this not yet further proof of how, even in this tragic moment, the distance which seperates US from Them, from their reality, is maintained: the real horror happens there, not here?” (C 232) Media has a substantial amount of power over our society, and it used it to make light of the tragedy. How many images did we see of dead people in the days following the event? None. We didn’t see visuals of the real carnage that occurred, we just heard stories. Stories don’t have the same kind of impact as real images, and media knew this fact. If gruesome photos were shown, society would have been even more afraid. I’m trying to say that we still didn’t experience true reality because the media coverage had an agenda, similar to the government regime at the time.
In today’s society I don’t think that reality is something that people want to push to the back of their minds. Our world is full of unsolved problems. Our world is full of war, hate and discrimination. People die every day due to murder, disease or starvation. These problems are real. Americans have the ability to solve some of these problems, but instead we elect to spend money on our own entertainment, or war! Our world is extremely corrupt and our effort to solve that is simply pathetic. People recognize these issues within our world, but are too afraid to do something about it.
Ace Ventura, Baudrillard
Baudrillard's theory on Simulacra was not the easiest to understand. What it seems like he was saying is that nothing is real or "reality" anymore but at the same time, without having something that is real, you also can't have illusions or imitations because it has nothing real to be based off of. What I have a hard time understanding is when reality ceased to exist. Or if it ever actually existed to begin with I guess. One concept that I think I was able to grasp was "The Divine Irreference of Images" and the differences between pretending and simulating. As a former psychology major, Baudrillard's example of pretending to be sick and simulating illness to the point that you can display actual symptoms reminded me of Munchausen's Syndrome . This is a psychological illness that is able to manifest itself in the physical. This goes beyond "pretending" to be in ill and saying you have a cough so that you can get out of going to school. But this raises the questions, "simulation threatens the difference between the 'true' and the 'false', the 'real' and the 'imaginery'. Is the simulator sick or not, given that he produces 'true' symptoms?" (454). In the case of Munchausen's syndrome, the person is actually sick with this psychological illness but is not actually ill with whatever sickness they are feigning until they force it upon themselves. Therefore, I think this is where illusion comes into play instead of reality because the symptoms are very much real and there is a real illness at play but it didn't originate from reality. This is where his idea of nostalgia filling in for the full meaning comes into play I think. We see that these symptoms exist and appear to be "real" and causing illness and our nostalgia of what we previously know about this illness fills in the rest of the information for us and causes us to believe that this illness is what is actually at play instead of the psychological illness. I don't know if this actually makes sense to anyone else?? Sorry! This is what I related it to in order to be able to understand the Simulacra theory.
Kiwi, Baudrillards
n Jean Baudrillards article.” The Spirit of Terrorism” Baudrilled explains that the media has not defined reality in a way for us to understand, it is unclear and indefinable. There seems to be a confusion of what is real and what is fiction. The news presents us with what we want them to tell us. American Media is different from the media of the rest of the world. What I mean is that, Americans show what America wants to see. For example, two years ago in CMC100 we talked about 9/11 and how all of the news stations we talking about the same thing, yet each one had different ways of telling us what happened and all had a different way of telling us. Obviously there can only be one REAL story. But how are we supposed to know which story is real?
Baudrillard goes on to explain that, “The media are part of the event, they are part of the terror.”(22) Here is is trying to make the point that the media has ability to control our thoughts, and that media contributes to our false realities. What I mean is for example, if our society were to look at a picture of a bunch of Arabic people standing around with signs in their hands. More then likely 90% of our society probably would be thinking horrible things about all of these people in the picture, just because of all the bad stereotypes our society has made about them. Even if there was no explanation about the picture we still make these assumptions about aerobics based off of what we have “heard” on the news or within the media. The media has become a part of the terror by controlling are thoughts falsely.
I’m not sure if I am way off topic with my last explanation but that particular situation was exactly what I kept thinking of when I was reading Baudrillard and how media runs our lives and our believe patterns to the point where we don’t question if they are right or wrong, we just assume they are right, and let them control our thought patterns. So here is my question that I hope Rog will be able to and answer tomorrow in class… Does this mean we are living in a false world? That what we are told is real is not real? How are we supposed to depict what is real from what is not?
Baudrillard goes on to explain that, “The media are part of the event, they are part of the terror.”(22) Here is is trying to make the point that the media has ability to control our thoughts, and that media contributes to our false realities. What I mean is for example, if our society were to look at a picture of a bunch of Arabic people standing around with signs in their hands. More then likely 90% of our society probably would be thinking horrible things about all of these people in the picture, just because of all the bad stereotypes our society has made about them. Even if there was no explanation about the picture we still make these assumptions about aerobics based off of what we have “heard” on the news or within the media. The media has become a part of the terror by controlling are thoughts falsely.
I’m not sure if I am way off topic with my last explanation but that particular situation was exactly what I kept thinking of when I was reading Baudrillard and how media runs our lives and our believe patterns to the point where we don’t question if they are right or wrong, we just assume they are right, and let them control our thought patterns. So here is my question that I hope Rog will be able to and answer tomorrow in class… Does this mean we are living in a false world? That what we are told is real is not real? How are we supposed to depict what is real from what is not?
HOLLA! Slavoj Zizek
The September 11th attacks are embedded in every Americans mind from the images we saw on newspaper covers to the copious media coverage we watched on every American News station. It was almost like you were watching a movie because you never thought something like this could really happen, could be ‘real’. Slavoj Zizek’s reading reminisces about September 11th media coverage by saying, “When, days after September 11 2001, our gaze was transfixed by images of the plane hitting one of the WTC towers, we were all forced to experiences what the ‘compulsion to repeat’ and jouissance beyond the pleasure principle are: we wanted to see it again and again; the same shots were repeated ad nausea, and the uncanny satisfaction we got from it was jouissance at its purist” (231-232). As we all watched this tragic event it really was like watching a movie developed by Hollywood. We weren’t really at the scene it wasn’t our reality. Zizek says, “even in this tragic moment, the distance which separates Us from Them, from their reality, is maintained: the real horror happens there, not here” (232). I feel as if we as American’s felt on top of the world and protected before that tragic day when the WTC towers fell. We lived in a reality where fear was not an issue, where what we saw on television was fiction, not reality. Now that terror has knocked on our front doors, it is only now that we see our reality as ‘real’. Before we saw terror and horror as only something in the movies or in blood diamond thirsty Africa, not at our front door. But 9/11 has changed that and our reality is now real. “It is not that reality entered our image: the image entered and shattered our reality” (234). In other words, as we lived in our powerful/feared/perfect bubble (America before 9/11/), reality (terror, horror, death) entered our world and shattered what we saw as reality, as America.
Daisy, Baudrillard
Fear is a word we often discuss in CMC courses because it is an ever-present issue within our society. Fear is instilled into us and it is how we function. Jean Baudrillard’s article The Spirit of Terrorism discusses the idea that we are living in a society where the media has created and motivated the idea of terrorism, which is a way of evoking fear within us. The main vehicle for this terrorism presented by the media is through images. Baudrillard brings into perspective the problem that many times images are the only way we can know about an event. The texts (the images) that are presented to us, how do we know they are real? As citizens we trust that the media presents truthful images. As the images of terrorism are spread from news station to news station, magazine to magazine, the issue is magnified. As the article mentions, these images are fiction, but these photographs often outshine the reality of the event.
The author Baudrillard, uses the example of 9/11 as an event that was made real by the images. I liked the quote, “the real is superadded to the image like a bonus of terror” (229). The “real” is secondary to the image, but the “real” came first. This idea is so eye opening to me, it is almost hard to wrap my head around it. But as a society we don’t believe it until we see it, and most of the time the only way we see it is through the media. I know when I went to NYC after 9/11 happened, the site was entirely cleaned up, and without the images in the media I not have been able to comprehend the event.
We live in a society where will believe anything we see on television, and we are willing to believe it without seeing it in person. Baudrillard makes it apparent that this issue of what we believe to be real is a serious problem. The media has controlled out lives into thinking that they have the “real” information. But what they are reporting has been passed through so many levels of modfication and editing that the “real” aspects are lost. What remains though is what the media wants us to know, and many times that deals with fear. The media has coined the word terrorism to panic us anytime we hear it. Thanks to the media we are living in a “spirit of terrorism.”
The author Baudrillard, uses the example of 9/11 as an event that was made real by the images. I liked the quote, “the real is superadded to the image like a bonus of terror” (229). The “real” is secondary to the image, but the “real” came first. This idea is so eye opening to me, it is almost hard to wrap my head around it. But as a society we don’t believe it until we see it, and most of the time the only way we see it is through the media. I know when I went to NYC after 9/11 happened, the site was entirely cleaned up, and without the images in the media I not have been able to comprehend the event.
We live in a society where will believe anything we see on television, and we are willing to believe it without seeing it in person. Baudrillard makes it apparent that this issue of what we believe to be real is a serious problem. The media has controlled out lives into thinking that they have the “real” information. But what they are reporting has been passed through so many levels of modfication and editing that the “real” aspects are lost. What remains though is what the media wants us to know, and many times that deals with fear. The media has coined the word terrorism to panic us anytime we hear it. Thanks to the media we are living in a “spirit of terrorism.”
Elmo, Baudrillard
In his essay titled “The Spirit of Terrorism”, Jean Baudrillard makes an interesting remark on reality. He states that, “reality is a principle, and it is this principle that is lost” (228). I believe from reading Baudrillard that he feels that the media has made reality such an ambiguous word and one that is increasingly more difficult for us to define. It seems that there is a blurred line in the media about what is actually real and what is fiction. The news presents us with stories that are often times stretched and molded to fit the way a news network wants them to. For example, in Baudrillard’s piece he discusses the terrorist attack of 9/11. While the media did portray this event seemingly accurate we will never be entirely sure because we weren’t there. Every news station had a little variation of the story and showed different images of the event. So, which one depicts reality? We may never know.
Baudrillard later makes an interesting comment saying. “there is no ‘good’ use of the media; the media are apart of the event, they are apart of the terror, and they work in both directions” (229). Here, Baudrillard is making a point that the media aids in terror and that they not only report about it but essentially aid in creating it as well. It seems to me that the media just fuels the fire on terror. Every time there is some sort of act it is all over the media, every news station, every newspaper, every magazine. It gets so much press that it almost seems as if the media seeks out these types of stories to report on. This goes back to one of our first classes where we discussed fear. The media wants to report stories that they know will get a lot of attention and these types of stories are ones that instill fear in the readers, such as terrorism. I wonder what it would be like if there were only one news station and one newspaper reporting the stories, or even none at all, would everything be as hyped up? It seems almost sad at how subjected to the media we have all become and how much they run our lives.
Baudrillard later makes an interesting comment saying. “there is no ‘good’ use of the media; the media are apart of the event, they are apart of the terror, and they work in both directions” (229). Here, Baudrillard is making a point that the media aids in terror and that they not only report about it but essentially aid in creating it as well. It seems to me that the media just fuels the fire on terror. Every time there is some sort of act it is all over the media, every news station, every newspaper, every magazine. It gets so much press that it almost seems as if the media seeks out these types of stories to report on. This goes back to one of our first classes where we discussed fear. The media wants to report stories that they know will get a lot of attention and these types of stories are ones that instill fear in the readers, such as terrorism. I wonder what it would be like if there were only one news station and one newspaper reporting the stories, or even none at all, would everything be as hyped up? It seems almost sad at how subjected to the media we have all become and how much they run our lives.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Elmo, 9/22
When thinking about how going to the Cornell Fine Arts Museum was going to relate to CMC 300 I was a little confused but, being in the museum today and listening to the curator talk about all the art made it all much more clear. Everything the curator was speaking about seemed to relate to our class discussions (shocking).
For me, I could relate most of the work in the museum to the theories of Benjamin. Benjamin asked questions such as “what is real”, “what is original”, and “what makes something unique”; in his theory he seeks to explain this struggle we have with these questions and provides insight into how we may be able to answer them. Benjamin says, “the presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity” (20). This quote seemed to relate well to what we saw in the museum today, which was an array of prints and photographs. The exhibit displaying the prints was interesting because while it had a vast amount of art none of it was the one and only “original” Since the artist made the prints from copper molds, which act like a stamp, it is very debatable as to what is the original work of art. Is it the copper stamp itself or is it the first print made from this stamp? What makes any of the prints less original if they are all made from the same mold? These questions puzzled me. I believe that the copper stamp, or mold, itself is the original and unique piece of art, I do however believe that each print it makes could also be seen as unique because the artist could vary the amount of paint or ink used or the color or essentially any other variable. The most valuable and unique piece of art in this puzzle, to me, is definitely the original copper mold because this is where the artist first let his creativity flow.
In the photography exhibit there was a lot of discussion on how one would read these texts. These works of art brought me back to the theories of Macherey. Macherey argues that, “what is important in the work is what it does not say” (18). This applies very well to art. While the artist was most definitely trying to convey a message to its viewer we will never know exactly what this message was. There is no way to be 100% positive about what an artist meant by a piece unless you ask them, but still even then they may leave some parts up to the imagination. Macherey urges readers to study the gaps and what the author, or artist in this case, isn’t saying. I can confidently say that if you asked everyone in our class what a certain photograph was “saying” everyone’s answer would differ. Visiting the museum today really opened my eyes and allowed me to apply the concepts from class to real life.
For me, I could relate most of the work in the museum to the theories of Benjamin. Benjamin asked questions such as “what is real”, “what is original”, and “what makes something unique”; in his theory he seeks to explain this struggle we have with these questions and provides insight into how we may be able to answer them. Benjamin says, “the presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity” (20). This quote seemed to relate well to what we saw in the museum today, which was an array of prints and photographs. The exhibit displaying the prints was interesting because while it had a vast amount of art none of it was the one and only “original” Since the artist made the prints from copper molds, which act like a stamp, it is very debatable as to what is the original work of art. Is it the copper stamp itself or is it the first print made from this stamp? What makes any of the prints less original if they are all made from the same mold? These questions puzzled me. I believe that the copper stamp, or mold, itself is the original and unique piece of art, I do however believe that each print it makes could also be seen as unique because the artist could vary the amount of paint or ink used or the color or essentially any other variable. The most valuable and unique piece of art in this puzzle, to me, is definitely the original copper mold because this is where the artist first let his creativity flow.
In the photography exhibit there was a lot of discussion on how one would read these texts. These works of art brought me back to the theories of Macherey. Macherey argues that, “what is important in the work is what it does not say” (18). This applies very well to art. While the artist was most definitely trying to convey a message to its viewer we will never know exactly what this message was. There is no way to be 100% positive about what an artist meant by a piece unless you ask them, but still even then they may leave some parts up to the imagination. Macherey urges readers to study the gaps and what the author, or artist in this case, isn’t saying. I can confidently say that if you asked everyone in our class what a certain photograph was “saying” everyone’s answer would differ. Visiting the museum today really opened my eyes and allowed me to apply the concepts from class to real life.
Penny Lane- 9/22/09
The Andy Warhol “Personalities” exhibit at The Cornell Fine Arts Museum offered a significant glimpse into the advent of the post-modernist perspective. Warhol’s interpretation of kitsch culture has now come to define the High-Art spectrum of Pop. Because many of his works played upon common images found in everyday life (Brillo boxes and Campbell’s soup cans), the originality and talent of Warhol was often called into question by critics of his era. While many of his pieces were merely copies of products or photographs, the statement of Warhol’s art was undeniably unique. He saw a pattern in popular social cues that had gone unnoticed for decades. He threw culture back in America’s face with a jarring approach that ultimately produced recognition of Pop culture outside of the art world. Warhol was also fascinated with the idea of the avant-garde persona and pseudo celebrity. His entourage ruled the New York social scene from the Silver Sixties through the era of Studio 54. The term “superstar” was coined by the artist to describe people that possessed qualities outside the framework of normalcy. He also described the concept of 15 minutes of fame, which has so strongly come to define our reality show obsession today. Warhol’s wide assortment of friends often served as his subjects through his years as an artist. During his lifetime, Andy often switched the focus and mediums of his work. He initially became famous for his prints, but was also an extensive film-maker and photographer. I use the term film-maker rather than director intentionally because Warhol rarely gave any instruction within an individual study. Instead he would often tell the subject to let the action and dialogue occur naturally. Warhol often suffered from nervous anxiety and was in fact quite the introvert. For this reason, he was very skilled at observing people and found natural action to be most interesting form of human expression. Additionally, the Polaroid photographs displayed in the museum parallel the notion of candid immediacy he was dedicated to capturing. Benjamin often discusses the notion of authenticity vs. imitation in his argument on the reproduction of culture. Two sides could successfully dispute and prove Warhol’s art to fall under either category. However, it is Andy Warhol’s unique approach to cultural commentary that has kept his work so prevalent and influential throughout the epoch of post-modernism.
Serendipity, 9/22/09
During today’s class we were taken to the exhibits in the Cornell Fine Arts Museum. I must say that my favorite exhibition by far was the one of Andy Warhol-Personalities. One of the reasons for this is because it opened up my mind to a completely different idea of art. We are taught by the principles of “Bourgeois Art”, that is the layman is educated to become an expert so that we can behave as competent consumers. Most art is very pleasant to look it, if not boring. This exhibit was drastically different. This is one of the first times I have thought of mediums such as simple Polaroid’s as even more true art than very well done realistic paintings. Andy Warhol is thought of as a “fame-whore”, one who only was interested in celebrities. It has become apparent that this is not the case. He went against the grain and photographed people who he was drawn to because of their persona and charisma, and is apparent through his photographs. These people are not conventionally pretty, but seeing them through Andy Warhol’s eyes made you believe they were. He quotes “I never met a person I couldn’t call a beauty. Every person has a beauty at some point in their lifetime. Usually in different degrees”. He is completely Post Modern in his way of thinking about women and about beauty and it shows through in his art work. He questions and counters hegemony; even though he photographed beautiful people such as Marilyn Monroe and Edie Sedgwick, he did so because he was enamored with their persona’s even more than their beauty. He photographs people of all different ages/sizes/and backgrounds and essentially bricolages beauty into a new idea.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Kiwi, 9/20/09
This week’s class discussions specifically Thursday’s class on Jencks really helped me to better understand concepts of postmodern era and the points that Jencks was trying to make. In class we looked at and compared all of the forms of architecture which I thought was a great way to relate to Jencks reading. Learning the terms traditional, classic and modern and how they each help to form new types of architecture around the world was new to me and helped me to realize that postmodernism isn’t just something we see in the media and art but also is in things such as architecture. Taking a closer look at the pictures of the varieties of the architecture pieces and matching them with different terms was probably one of my favorite exercises that we have done this year. One idea in particular that Rog explained to us in class that really interested me was, “Anthropomorphism.” This architecture was putting human characteristics on a building (Ex: face building, rabbit bottle opener) which I thought was very cool. When Rog showed us pictures of this it reminded me of when I was a kid and would ride in the car with my mom. I used to always look at building and houses and be able to resemble the buildings; cat faces, pumpkin faces, human faces etc… I used to always think I was crazy that I could see all of these different faces but who knows…. Maybe I was actually looking at anthropomorphism architecture and I never even knew!
One other architecture that I thought was interesting to learn about was the
“urban urbanism.” Making a building look new and like it’s been there forever sounded unreal to me. I had no clue that this was a type of architecture when designing buildings until Rog gave us a perfect example of this which was Baldwin Park.
As we delve deeper into topics I become more engaged in this class. This week’s topic was interesting because it was a subject that I have never explored in classes before
One other architecture that I thought was interesting to learn about was the
“urban urbanism.” Making a building look new and like it’s been there forever sounded unreal to me. I had no clue that this was a type of architecture when designing buildings until Rog gave us a perfect example of this which was Baldwin Park.
As we delve deeper into topics I become more engaged in this class. This week’s topic was interesting because it was a subject that I have never explored in classes before
Captain Outrageous 9/20
The readings from this past week were no doubt difficult to understand. After our lectures and discussions I admit I am still confused but have a clearer understanding. Jenck's arguments about architecture and Habermas's arguments about art and literature are so crucial to our understanding of postmodernism and CMC. I connect these things to the ideas of semiotics and signification. For as long as I can remember I have always tried to understand what the "styles" of art and architecture mean, what different aspects of different styles create that "look" or make one think of a certain area, a certain time period. I admit, I always felt a little weird about that! But it is what I have always wanted to understand, and through CMC and these readings especially, I have a much better understanding. It may seem odd that architecture and art pertain to CMC and the outside world, but it isn't that odd. Like I said, signification, semiotics. There are so many layers to the everyday things we see and consider that we don't actually see or consider. We could even take the Rollins as a campus. As a whole the architecture is beautiful and as the tour guides tell you its based on Spanish Mediterranean architecture; however, when you break it down, its influenced by a lot more things. For example, there's tons of columns around campus. Do you know how many different styles of columns there are from so many different time periods? Even the embellishments on the tops or bottoms of the columns are different times, different styles. Whether the column is round or squared makes a difference. The type of relief makes a difference. But, generally speaking, we see columns with floral embellishment, we hear Spanish Mediterranean, and that's all we know and consider. This falls into signification does it not? There's architecture as a sign, there's details that are the signifiers of some sort of style, and there's a general idea of a "look" (to reference Benjamin a bit) that is signified. Maybe this is too minute and specific but I for one think it makes a bit of sense. It can help us to move our ideas of architecture from general "styles" to dimensions and color palettes and history and, well I suppose, postmodernist concepts. As we should have figured out by now in the CMC major, everything means...I mean signifies...something. Its up to us as critical thinkers to find out what it is. Wage war on totality, right?
Ron Burgundy, 9/17
This week’s class lectures, specifically Thursday’s discussion on Jencks, are extremely helpful in understanding the abstract and difficult concepts that we are studying in this course. Reading the Jencks article is was difficult to make sense of all of the key terms that were being explained through describing architecture. However after Thursday’s class I felt I had a much better grasp on the concepts that Jencks was trying to explain in dealing with the postmodern era and even gained a new perspective on what Jencks' points were. In this particular major when we think of postmodernism we initially think of media and the influence of the postmodern attitude on the productions of our media companies. This article and class discussion was extremely enlightening as it opened my mind to realize that postmodernism isn’t just something we see in the popular culture realm or media and art but also in things such as architecture. We often forget that architecture should be revered as an art form and just as any other art is influenced by the times, periods of influence that our society experiences. Seeing the pictures of varying pieces of architecture to coincide with the different terms was extremely helpful and interesting in understanding postmodernism. One idea in particular that was explained that was interesting to me was the “tradition-reinterpreted” kind of architecture that takes a classic architectural style and uses it for a completely different function. When Dr. Rog showed us an example of this I immediately thought of the architectural style that is in the store that I work in. At the surf shop I work at the walls are decorated with Greek-like columns every eight feet or so with arches between them. Although they look stone and heavy the columns are actually made out of a cheaper easier to work with material but still give the classic look to the store. This exemplifies the “tradition-reinterpreted” well as these classic columns which would usually be seen in an ancient Greek building are seen in a surf shop giving it a bit of style.
Mongoose, 9/15
This week’s discussion of Habermas really helped clear some things up for me from the reading. I chose to post about Jenks earlier in the week because I did not feel comfortable writing about Habermas after reading him before class; however, I now feel that I have a firmer grasp on Habermas’ writing than I do of Jenks. After looking at the works of both of these men, I feel that they have two different views on what postmodernism means to them. Habermas feels that postmodernism is ‘anti-modern’, he believes that when moving forward and improving, we are naturally moving away from what made the world ‘modern’. According to him we lose sight of the classic and turn our focus toward the new. Jenks’ view of postmodernism differs quite a bit from the view of Habermas, Jenks seems to have a bit of nostalgia in how he looks at the progression of society. He turns his attention in the direction of the arts and architecture and finds that there is a tendency to hold onto the past when progressing toward the future. Directly opposed to Habermas’ view of postmodernism being ‘anti-modern’, Jenks finds that postmodern art tends to build off of modern or past ideas and apply them to their current projects.
One particular area of Habermas’ writings that caught my attention was his notion of the “cult of the new”; he felt that our culture has an obsession with what is new, as soon as something new comes out, whatever it is improving on or replacing is immediately tossed aside and no longer considered relevant. Not only was this true when Habermas was writing but it remains relevant today. One area where I see this come to light is the ever-improving ipod; it seems as if every time you turn on the TV a new ipod commercial is on with some sort of upgrade to the past model. The original intention of this item was to play music but now also doubles as a phone, video camera, arcade or a DVD player depending on the model you choose to buy. Nowadays, the standard ipod music player is completely outdated and whatever model you buy today will also soon be outdated because we continue to be obsessed with that which is new.
One particular area of Habermas’ writings that caught my attention was his notion of the “cult of the new”; he felt that our culture has an obsession with what is new, as soon as something new comes out, whatever it is improving on or replacing is immediately tossed aside and no longer considered relevant. Not only was this true when Habermas was writing but it remains relevant today. One area where I see this come to light is the ever-improving ipod; it seems as if every time you turn on the TV a new ipod commercial is on with some sort of upgrade to the past model. The original intention of this item was to play music but now also doubles as a phone, video camera, arcade or a DVD player depending on the model you choose to buy. Nowadays, the standard ipod music player is completely outdated and whatever model you buy today will also soon be outdated because we continue to be obsessed with that which is new.
Elmo, 9/20
This week in class really helped me to solidify some of the terms and concepts we have been learning about this year. From class I have realized that there is not one way to explain anything in life and that there is always more to learn. Modernity has finally begun to make more sense to me because at first I was pretty confused about its significance. A quote from Habermas about modernity which I feel really captures the whole concept is, “the idea of being ‘modern’…changed with the belief, inspired by modern science, in the infinite progress of knowledge…” (99). This is saying that the whole tenant of modernism is that there is an infinite pool of knowledge and we are always seeking to find out more; things are always getting brighter and better.
Another concept which became much more clear to me this week was binary opposition and the fact that modern advancements can both help and hinder us as a society. An example of this is how technology has become so advanced and helps us so much in our everyday lives with computers and cell phones but it also hinders us with inventions such as weapons of mass destruction. So while, yes, these things are modern and new and exciting, are they really going to be beneficial in the long run?
Lastly, I really enjoyed our class period in which we compared all the forms of architecture. I found it extremely interesting and a great way to relate Jencks reading. The way that different forms of architecture incorporate the old and the new helped me to understand that the old and the new can be found in most things. The terms traditional and classic are combined with modern in order to form new types of architecture around the world. Its funny that the old can be incorporated with the new to make something which is considered “modern”. While the term modern still seems a little arbitrary I am beginning to understand it much better and am now able to understand many of the theorists thoughts behind the word.
Another concept which became much more clear to me this week was binary opposition and the fact that modern advancements can both help and hinder us as a society. An example of this is how technology has become so advanced and helps us so much in our everyday lives with computers and cell phones but it also hinders us with inventions such as weapons of mass destruction. So while, yes, these things are modern and new and exciting, are they really going to be beneficial in the long run?
Lastly, I really enjoyed our class period in which we compared all the forms of architecture. I found it extremely interesting and a great way to relate Jencks reading. The way that different forms of architecture incorporate the old and the new helped me to understand that the old and the new can be found in most things. The terms traditional and classic are combined with modern in order to form new types of architecture around the world. Its funny that the old can be incorporated with the new to make something which is considered “modern”. While the term modern still seems a little arbitrary I am beginning to understand it much better and am now able to understand many of the theorists thoughts behind the word.
HOLLA! 9/20/09
Last week I did my pre-class-post on Habermas and what I took away from his reading. After going over Habermas in class on Tuesday something really stuck out that I could truly understand. In class we discussed Habermas’ quotation of “The twentieth century has shattered this optimism” (103). I can truly say this quotation is one that makes complete sense. It is almost like in the Bible how Eve eating the fruit on the tree shattered the optimism of a perfect life and unity. Everyone is so obsessed with ‘progress’ making life better; the future will bring more positive enlightenment to the present etc. Habermas is explaining that this progress almost doesn’t exist. We said in class that tension between progresses make life better for us and progress takes up time, worst for humanity, for example, cell phones. I think in our society today we are so set on improving life that it is almost like our goals are unrealistic. I also feel once we meet certain goals they take away from the original intension, for example, how cell phones have almost complicated life with all of their new technologies and applications. Our society is so obsessed with the next new amazing gadget, but they are just getting more complicating and almost less helpful. Also in our society there is no longer metanarratives. This was an interesting point because through out my life I have seen this diminish. When we were in kindergarten we all knew the national anthem and pledge of allegiance, but now you can ask a 6 year old if they know it and the chances are they do not. Basically the way I see it is that the more we ‘progress’ the more we lose these metanarratives completely. We have all these forms of technology to do our basic daily needs; we are losing the classical and traditional aspects of life.
Gwatter06, 9/20
This past week we had to cover Habermas and Jencks, and I have to say they were quite the pair to endure. I did enjoy both of the readings and feel like I was able to gain and comprehend most of the work the men incorporated in their pieces. I was also able to continue to observe and piece together the coincidences between these authors and previous ones we have covered which has been helping me a great deal in keeping up with and comprehending the information. In our first meeting of the week we covered Habermas and his aspects and concepts on traditionalism and conservatism and how they relate to postmodernism. One of the more basic and preliminary things we covered from Habermas’ is he believes that the basic tenant of modernism is that we are making progress, the world is always getting brighter and better. On another note, one of the more interesting things that we went over in class was Habermas’ notion stated by this quote, “Culture in its modern form stirs up hatred against the conventions and virtues of everyday life” (101). This quote signifies a notion that I have come to realize is prominent within multiple authors we have covered. What I understood from this quote and what we went over in class is that we are in an era where conformity should no longer be permitted and is not wanted by our modern culture. What I also enjoyed from class this week was going over Jencks and his explanations on architectures. We looked over numerous pictures of different styles and buildings and went over which styles Jencks expressed and how it’s incorporated with postmodernism. There were so many different styles and I was intrigued by how some carried similarities and others carried extreme differences but all at the same time had underlying significances.
Teets, 9/20
Habermas discusses both traditionalism and avant-gardism in his piece. Avant-gardism is linked to postmodernism while traditionalism is linked classicism. I think this juxtaposition of concepts tied in very nicely with our class discussion on Thursday regarding Jencks. In class we looked at architecture using some of Jencks’ eleven canons. We looked at canons such as disharmonious harmony, anthropomorphism, radical eclecticism, urbane urbanism, anamnesis and divergent signification. I’ve always noticed differences in certain architecture, but never to the extent we covered in class. To me the concepts were all avant-garde because they go against the norms we have created in society. A normal building is one with four walls, windows and doors. To me the most radically different concept was divergent signification. It takes the traditional building and literally reverses it inside out. It is a bit of an eyesore, but people can appreciate the idea behind it. Instead of hiding the plumbing and other hidden features, it exposes them. We primarily covered architecture in class, but I think that Jencks’ insight can be applied to many facets of society.
Specifically I want to compare the concepts of urbane urbanism and radical eclecticism to our society. In class we mentioned that these concepts are essentially complete opposites in architecture. Radical eclecticism seeks to contrast two or more pieces of architecture in close proximity in a drastic way. One of the examples we discussed was the Louvre. The old Louvre is a rather plainly designed European building. However, a new entrance was built with a large Pyramid as the focus. These two forms of architecture were extremely contrasting, hence radical eclecticism. Urbane urbanism is essentially creating a new building that looks like it fits in with old architecture. In society, traditional people seek to fit in with the crowd, move seamlessly along with the norms of society. However, radical people seek to stand out, make themselves noticeable. It is often the radically eclectic people that have an influence in the world, not the traditionalist people who try to fit in everywhere they go. Standing out can often be a negative thing, but many times over it can be an excellent way to live your life. Instead of hanging in the background with everyone else, why not make yourself the focus of the foreground?
Specifically I want to compare the concepts of urbane urbanism and radical eclecticism to our society. In class we mentioned that these concepts are essentially complete opposites in architecture. Radical eclecticism seeks to contrast two or more pieces of architecture in close proximity in a drastic way. One of the examples we discussed was the Louvre. The old Louvre is a rather plainly designed European building. However, a new entrance was built with a large Pyramid as the focus. These two forms of architecture were extremely contrasting, hence radical eclecticism. Urbane urbanism is essentially creating a new building that looks like it fits in with old architecture. In society, traditional people seek to fit in with the crowd, move seamlessly along with the norms of society. However, radical people seek to stand out, make themselves noticeable. It is often the radically eclectic people that have an influence in the world, not the traditionalist people who try to fit in everywhere they go. Standing out can often be a negative thing, but many times over it can be an excellent way to live your life. Instead of hanging in the background with everyone else, why not make yourself the focus of the foreground?
BiegieGo, 9/20
First off I didn’t mean to send the past blank post. Sorry.
I found that the readings for this week were a little difficult to understand but by no surprise Dr. Rog managed to explain them in to terms that were more understandable thanks. Another thing I noticed in the last class was in some of the photo’s he showed that class I had been to some of the places. I thought that was awesome!
In the Habermas reading, the quote that stayed with me the most, and I could relate to is the “the cult of the new.” Meaning that it’s the “newest modern,” that if its new its better and that our society needs it and goes and gets it when it comes out on the market. For example the iphone or the newest iPod or pretty much anything apple related, our society seems to want it and has to get the latest style or technology. It almost seems as we are somewhat robotic. We hear about some new style or invention coming out, we go stand in lined for hours to get it and then when it gets old we do it all over again like robots.
In the Jencks reading, I found it very helpful to think of all terms in a building kind of way. I thought that multi-valence was interesting because it is looking at how to make as many sides as possible out of one thing, I think that was cool how frank gray used a cube to build apartment houses.
I found that the readings for this week were a little difficult to understand but by no surprise Dr. Rog managed to explain them in to terms that were more understandable thanks. Another thing I noticed in the last class was in some of the photo’s he showed that class I had been to some of the places. I thought that was awesome!
In the Habermas reading, the quote that stayed with me the most, and I could relate to is the “the cult of the new.” Meaning that it’s the “newest modern,” that if its new its better and that our society needs it and goes and gets it when it comes out on the market. For example the iphone or the newest iPod or pretty much anything apple related, our society seems to want it and has to get the latest style or technology. It almost seems as we are somewhat robotic. We hear about some new style or invention coming out, we go stand in lined for hours to get it and then when it gets old we do it all over again like robots.
In the Jencks reading, I found it very helpful to think of all terms in a building kind of way. I thought that multi-valence was interesting because it is looking at how to make as many sides as possible out of one thing, I think that was cool how frank gray used a cube to build apartment houses.
Captain Planet 09/20/09
I loved looking at all the different pictures of architecture in class on Thursday. By looking at the different types of architecture on the overhead, the concepts that Jencks discussed in the reading were clarified. Even though Jencks was an easier reading to get through that Habermas, I was still a bit confused about some of the key terms that were discussed. By actually seeing types of buildings and talking about the meanings of the terms, I was able to understand exactly what Jencks was talking about. Prior to the Jencks reading we have been talking about postmodernism in terms of media. I never realized that postmodernism also applied to architecture. Architecture follows the trend, just like media. Styles are repeated throughout history; ex: classical becomes neo-classical. I hadn’t been to any of the buildings that we looked at in class, yet I knew of most of the buildings. I realized that many of the buildings we looked at were famous because of they’re architecture. The Louvre in Paris is an easily recognizable building, and yet I never looked at the architecture as something uniquely different. Once we placed the term “radical eclecticism” to the type of architecture that The Louvre represents, I was able to clearly understand the definition of the term. This goes for the rest of the terms as well. I also loved looking at the anamnesis buildings. As soon as the ‘birds nest’ was shown I immediately knew that it was the swimming pool building from the Olympics and knew that it was called the ‘birds nest.’ Like The Louvre, I never thought to assign a certain type of architecture to the building. Now that I understand how many different types of architecture there are, I have already begun to look critically at buildings when I look at magazines pictures, or watch a commercial, or drive down the highway.
Daisy, 9/20
Last class I really enjoyed looking at the architect visuals. It was helpful to associate the meaning of a word with a picture. In my pre-class post I had talked about Frank Lloyd Wright’s architecture and that I thought it could be applied to Jencks’s article, I was really excited when Dr. Rog used it in class as an example.
A comment that I received on my pre-post blog was to think about how Jencks’s definitions could apply to more than just art, but society. If you think about it, just like art, our society has progressed along the same way. During the Greek and Roman times when the Parthenon was built, society was very symmetrical like the architecture. The men worked and the women took care of the home, children, and their husbands. As architecture became more ornate, so did society. The women’s rights movement allowed women to do more than just be stay-at-home moms. Society became more diverse as revolutions happened and people going against what was consider the norm. Now thinking of our society in the modernism era, technology plays a large part in both art and other aspects. I-phones, Blackberry’s, and computers dominate our lives. Everyone today is connected, and if you’re not than you are not keeping up with the times. Jencks’s applies the term disharmonious harmony to an architectural building that has many different aspects but they all fit together. I think many people today have different aspects that make up their lives but somehow they all fit together. For example, a woman might be a lawyer, participate on her child’s school board, be an active member on her local hospital’s women’s board, and also be a triathelete. While the woman has a main occupation, she also has many aspects of her life that all go together to make her unique, like many people in our society. Just like multivalence architecture, people have many different sides to them. Like Habermas talked about, we live in a hyperstimulated modern culture where everyone specializes in multi-tasking.
A comment that I received on my pre-post blog was to think about how Jencks’s definitions could apply to more than just art, but society. If you think about it, just like art, our society has progressed along the same way. During the Greek and Roman times when the Parthenon was built, society was very symmetrical like the architecture. The men worked and the women took care of the home, children, and their husbands. As architecture became more ornate, so did society. The women’s rights movement allowed women to do more than just be stay-at-home moms. Society became more diverse as revolutions happened and people going against what was consider the norm. Now thinking of our society in the modernism era, technology plays a large part in both art and other aspects. I-phones, Blackberry’s, and computers dominate our lives. Everyone today is connected, and if you’re not than you are not keeping up with the times. Jencks’s applies the term disharmonious harmony to an architectural building that has many different aspects but they all fit together. I think many people today have different aspects that make up their lives but somehow they all fit together. For example, a woman might be a lawyer, participate on her child’s school board, be an active member on her local hospital’s women’s board, and also be a triathelete. While the woman has a main occupation, she also has many aspects of her life that all go together to make her unique, like many people in our society. Just like multivalence architecture, people have many different sides to them. Like Habermas talked about, we live in a hyperstimulated modern culture where everyone specializes in multi-tasking.
ESPN12, 9/17
I never quite realized that in this post modern era that along with media, art, and our thoughts being affected, architecture is involved to. I really enjoyed studying the buildings in class. It was quite interesting to see how they are different and how buildings have evolved over the years. It has opened my eyes to the way I view architecture. I was introduced to so many new terms I had never heard before and there were so many things I had never seen or paid attention to before. I have been to Paris before but prior to class I simply looked at such things as the Luv in a primitive way. I had always appreciated the beauty instilled in the buildings but now I see there is so much more. I am now able to see the difference in them and how the other buildings around are affected. For instance, when I now look back at my pictures I am able to classify buildings such as the Luv in Radical eclecticism. I have also been to China and if I would have not known the name of the birds nest prior to visiting; I would have surly been able to guess what it was. I certainly then took part in the notion of anamnesis as I connected it in my subconscious. Another building that I saw while in china was the world finical building in Shanghai. It was no on the slide show in class. However, If I understood the definition right, I now realize that it is in the category of Anthropomorphism because it looks exactly like a beer bottle opener and it is commonly referred to as so. I also used anamnesis when I first looked this building to as I immediately associated it with a beer opener. It is remarkable how far architecture has come since the days of simple classicism, for me it is exciting as more buildings arise because I am now able to look at them more critically in this postmodern world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)