Daisy, 10/3

I found Zizek to be an extremely interesting and brilliant man. After attending his lecture Monday night and his lecture in class on Tuesday I realized he is just full of information and would lecture for hours if there were time. I did find him hard to understand and felt that I only comprehended about 50% of what he was saying. But just being able to pull out a few quotes was insightful.
Zizek talked a lot about seeking the truth in the media. He said in order to seek the truth; we must put on glasses to see the reality in the media. He gave an example of viewing a commercial on television that is raising money for starving children in Africa. In the commercial, a picture of a malnutrition child is shown, this then provokes you to want to give money. But Zizek says if you put the ideological glasses on you see that the money will make you feel better, but it is not going to change the problem. The glasses are a way to see the truth in the media. The commercial isn’t trying to combat world hunger; it is just trying to make it a little less severe. Zizek advocated being more critical of the media. Being more critical of the media requires us to look beyond the images shown, but the meaning behind them, understanding the reality vs. the fiction.
On Thursday we went back and talked about Baudrillard and the question if reality is more fictional than fiction. For example, we have seen the image of the starving children in Africa over and over, almost being desensitized to it. This makes me question how real is the image. How framed or set-up are the images? I would say that these images are an example of masking and denaturing reality, one of the successive phases of images talked about by Baudrillard. As Zizek said, the purpose behind the images is money, not change. The images of the sad children are almost fictional. To portray the reality of the starvation in Africa, I think Zizek and Baudrillard would agree for the media to show actual deaths and children dying, rather than the sugarcoated black and white image of malnutrition children holding their hands out for food. While there are aspects of truth in the images the media shows, they are still being framed in a way appropriate for television. But will we ever see the reality unless we experience it for ourselves?

Elmo, 10/3

I thought that our class discussion on reality versus fiction was very eye opening. The question, “is reality itself more fictional than fiction” really stuck with me and left me curious. It seems that in our society reality and fiction are coming closer to being one and the same everyday. Many times when we watch reality TV shows there is a scripted plot, which then gives the show a fictitious edge. While the show is claiming to be realistic how can we really know which parts are real and which ones are story lines made up by the producers? Even in the news, there always seems to be parts of the story that aren’t necessarily true and are just added in to make the story more interesting or exciting for the viewers. This leaves me with a huge question of, “can we really trust everything we see” and this I may never know the answer to.

Moving in a different direction, I also really liked how we learned about the successive phases of the image. The phases are, reflects reality which is said to be good, masks and denatures reality which is said to be evil, masks the absence of reality which is said to be sorcery, and no relation to reality which is said to be simulacric. At first I didn’t completely understand this concept but when shown the images on the PowerPoint I realized what all of these phases meant. In the media we are shown so many images which may or may not be “real”. Sometimes images do reflect the truth but often times they are slightly skewed; trying to make us believe something else. The best example of this was the image we saw in class of George Bush with the army men; this image was made to make the public think that Bush was a hero just like the men fighting to defend our country. This image is representing fiction because we all know Bush didn’t ever fight in the war in Iraq but the media wanted to portray him in an honorary and heroic light. It is still crazy to me how much the media can skew our perception of reality.

10/3

“ Does reality actually outstrip fiction? (228) In class we discussed how Baudrillard says that this so-called realism is something that all theroirst as a being highly probomatic. Is reality itself more fictional than fiction?
A lot of reality is scripted, framed and plots are formed. Such as in reality shows and in the news. On the opposite side, you have to think of what is your notion of reality. It may depend on what you are watching. In fiction you still have more control. We discussed how here is a tension between reality and the artificial, which leads to paranoia. Or it leads to a notion of conspiracy that all the things are interconnected. Our language ads to paranoia as to decide what is real and what is fictional. The same language we use to talk about the media is the same language we use to talk about paranoia. For example the show Lost… it makes us think, “can I trust what I see”
“To dissimulate is to pretend not to have what one has. To simulate is to feign to have what one doesn’t have. One implies a presence, the other an absence.” (454) Baudrillard uses the root word, to simulate. An example of this would be verisimilitude, or the video games in SIMS. To simulate is to fake something that you do not have. Dissimulate is to pretend to not have something that you really do. Allusion is about having it or not having it.
Even though the camera is making us think it is showing reality, it is not. Baudrillard would argue that all media is about putting something there that you do not have or not showing something that you do have.
Learning about what is real and what is fictional and the concepts of dissimulate to silmuate were two very interesting concepts Rog discussed with us on Thursday. Baudrillard is a very interesting theorist and I am excited to go back to my notes and see which theorist I can connect him to.

DoubleBubble, 10/2

On Tuesday we were able to have a conversation on truth with Zizek. I thought it was very interesting to be able to read something in our class and then be able to have a conversation with this author we are learning from. I think that Zizek provided a lot of good information and ideas for us to understand better the idea of truth within our society. Although it was a difficult conversation to have listening and having the knowledge of his writings the ideas and thoughts came together.

On Thursday we discussed Baudrillard some more and what was interesting to me was the concept of the steps of reality. The first step of reality is the concept of reflection of reality. The second step is that reality masks and denatures the idea of reality. And finally the third step is the idea that reality is masking the absence of reality.

When the picture of the soldiers on the ground with the car in the background it is instantly assumed that the soldiers have died in a war related incident. This reflects the reality. This picture could be on the cover of the New York Times and it is instantly assumed by our society that this picture is presenting the ideas of death. The viewers are not there only the photographer was there, so how do we know it is real and how do we know that it actually occurred? We technically don’t, the only people who know are the people who were there.

The second step of reality masks and denatures the idea of reality. This step is known as the evil step. This picture is the one that grabbed my attention and interested me. It is the picture of the coffin’s with the flags on the airplane. It is our norm to assume it is a plane filled with coffins, but really all we see are flags. It could just be a plane filled with flags, but we wouldn’t know because we were not there. We are taking information and assuming things based on the assumptions we have of pictures.

The third step is masking the absence of reality. This picture that relates to this is the actual photograph of the men at Iwo Jima. In Washington, DC there is a famous statue of the men putting the flag into the ground that we connect to the battle at Iwo Jima. Before I saw the actual photograph I thought that the placing of the flag into the ground actually looked how the statue is formed. The absence of reality is there from the statue because reality is absent and we are not seeing the real idea.

Our society has the issue of assuming things based off of taking people accountable for their facts and information. We instantly believe the New York Times and their stories, but what makes us believe them? Just because they are a newspaper should not be the reason. Every week this class makes me realize how much of an impact the mass media has on our lives and thoughts and now I understand why Dr. Rog said we would leave this class with a different view on society.

ESPN12, 10/1

Baudrillard’s idea of Successive phases of the image that we discussed in class on Thursday along with the photos really interested me. It reminded me of notion of Historical silences that I just learned of in CMC 200. Specifally the last three phases, Masks and denatures reality (evil), Masks the absence of reality (sorcery) and, No relation to reality—simulacric. If I understood correctly, these three phases essentially do not reflect reality. It understood what is happening in the photo in a general sense but it really does not capture what is going on or what happened. In relating in to CMC 200 silences of history it is similar in the way that, the game medal of honor depicts WWII in the way that we know what is going on and one can fight in it during the game, however it does not explain how the war started, racial tension and women’s rights, and so on. It does not accurately depict reality and the realness of war even though kids playing the games are commenting on how real it is. Additionally, the phases are similar to Disney in the way that they leave out huge historical moments in there park just like the phases show the media leaves out important images in the pictures that would better help us have a feel for reality. I also related the phases to Benjamin. Benjamin said “the presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity.” I think Baudrillard in his first phase shows that it is the closest we can get to reality without being there and as discussed prior, the final three phases cannot really depict reality. So as we continue are such for what is real, I think Baudrillard would agree with Benjamin in that even though his first phase can portray reality, the presence of the original, or in this case, being at the spot when the photo was taken, is the only way we can experience reality.

Graham, 10/1

“Does reality actually outstrip fiction?” (228).Dr. Casey posed the question of whether or not “reality” more fictional than actual fiction. I think that this was a really interesting point, because many things that happen today are so unusual so it is difficult to think of it as being real. Someone in class used the example of reality television. Many people take this very seriously, and believe that it is real, even though this is not a realistic thought. In real life, we are not followed by cameras, and the scenes are obviously scripted which in a way makes it fiction, because we are not able to set up scenes in reality.
On the other hand, someone else brought up that fiction may be more fictional than reality. Speaking about television, he brought up the point that it depends on what you are watching (not only on television, but also in daily life.) What is your occupation, where do you live? When these things change, our realities change along with it.
We discussed the concept of “Simulacra” which is a word used to make us think that we are somewhere or doing something that we have never actually experienced. He gave the example of the restaurant, Johnny Rockets, because it is set up to be an old fashion 1950’s scene. When we go in there, we get to experience somewhat what it was like, but we actually have no idea what it was like to live so many years ago.
We discussed photos that were taken in Iraq by a photographer when no one else was around. Is it real? Is there a good source, or is it on Fox news? The source is very important in determining whether or not something is real, but it gets harder to say when no one but the photographer saw it. But “images reflect reality”.

Ron Burgundy, 10/1

In class on Thursday we discussed Baudrillard and his thoughts on dissimulation and simulation. According to Baudrillard “ to dissimulate is to pretend not to have what one has [….] to simulate is to feign to have what one doesn’t have” (454). Dr. Rog depicted this concept by showing us different pictures of various soldiers in war to exemplify Baudrillard’s points on what is “real” versus what is simulated, and therefore evil. One of the first pictures we looked at showed several American soldiers, either hurt or deceased, lying on the ground in front of an army tank. This type of image, in Baudrillard’s mind, is a good image as it accurately reflects reality of war. This image was in contrast to the subsequent picture that showed dozens of coffins covered by American flags being brought home in an airplane. According to Baudrillard, the second of these images “masks and denatures reality” because it does not blatantly depict the dead soldiers but instead provides you with the notion of their death by the coffins with flags laying over them. As we discussed this in class, I wondered if Baudrillard would critique our media coverage of the war and the images that are often seen in the war on television and even in news articles. Most frequently the images associated with the war in these types of media reflect more of the second image ideas, dead soldiers in coffins but not just pictures of them dead on location. If I am following Baudrillard’s ideas when the media shows these kinds of images, they are deceiving the public, feeding them a false sense of the reality of the war and causalities. But I have to question whether Baudrillard would be correct then to ask the media to show the other type of image, that which is often gory and shocking. The reason why I question this type of image as appropriate for the media is because of the factor of ethics that goes along with putting such an image in the media. Images are a sort of communication from one person to another and as with all communication, involve ethical implications. Therefore as we go to put an image of five dead soldiers lying on the ground in a battlefield we must first question the ethics of communicating such an image to our audience. We must wonder if the family of the deceased would be ok with such a public display of the tragedy of a loved one, or if it is in fact unethical to show such a private and tragic image that could be damaging to a family. In my opinion, the concept of simulation and dissimulation that Baudrillard discusses, particularly looking at images and the evil of images that “conceal the truth”, is not as simple as saying the people need reality, there are other factors such as ethics that have to put into consideration that may hold greater weight as well.

Ace Ventura, 10/1

In class today we covered Baudrillard and his ideas of reality, false reality, and covering up of reality. When applied to the pictures of the Iraq war or the pictures of George W. Bush (which I personally didn't see the humor in that doll), these concepts were much easier to understand and honestly much more interesting. As I've been reading these theorists over the past month or so, I find myself saying, "well that's nice, but how can I ever apply this to anything in the real world?". When looking at the picture of all the coffins covered up by American flags, your first thought is of sadness and feeling sympathy for the families of those soldiers and feeling a sense of patriotism because these people died on behalf of your country. But when looking at it from Baudrillard's point of view, it seems that the intention of the photographer or the media source that released this picture was to cover up those feelings of sadness, hide the fact that people are dying for your country, and only on these flags as symbols of patriotism. This is really an interesting perspective and "hiding" or "masking" reality as something other than what it is now seems like something that is very prevalent in our society, especially on the news. Now that I've come to realize this, the most interesting part about it will be to recognize these images and start to think about why someone wants to cover up or mask reality as something other than it is. What intentions are behind this and what repercussions will it have on the people viewing it?

Captain Planet - Dorfman and Mattelart

The reading by Dorfman and Mattelart titled " Introduction: Instructions on How to Become a General in the Disneyland Club" was one of the easier readings to comprehend. The topic of Disney is a particularly personal one to me. I wrote my research paper for CMC200 on the topic of Disney, after having taken a class on Religion and Pop Culture which looked at the religion in the world of Disney. It is no doubt that Disney has become a worldwide corporation. As the article states, the public opinion is "the thinking of people who have already been conditioned by the Disney message and have based their social and family life upon it." I have always been a fan of Disney. When i think of my childhood, I can summarize my youth by Disney movies, princess costumes, and trips to the theme parks. With that being said that, I agree with the statements and accusations of the Disney empire. Dorfman and Mattelart state that "adults create for themselves a childhood embodying their own angelical aspirations." Many of the quotes that Dorfman and Mattelart state are surrounded by the idea that audlts have created this utopia of idealistic dreams which is then thrust upon children. Children are then shaped to perceive the world in terms of how Disney has portrayed it... with an angelic view. The world that Disney has made children to believe exists is a false one. The idea of what is real and what isn't is questioned again. Children are made to believe that an idealistic world exists, when it does not.

Elmo, Dorfman & Mattelart

The article by Dorfman and Mattelart titled “Introduction: Instructions on How to Become a General in the Disneyland Club” was much easier to understand than most of our other readings, perhaps because it had to do with Disney. This article reminded me a lot of a book I had to read my freshman year having to do with the idea of Disney and pop culture. Through reading this book I learned how Disney is not only a theme park but also a worldwide corporation. Disney as a company is horizontally integrated in our society by not only sponsoring theme parks but also having a television station, radio station, as well as CD’s and DVD’s, the list could go on forever. Disney paints a picture of the world almost too perfect for words and this is how children come to view it. It is only later in life that they realize they are not living in a perfect Disney world. As Dorfman and Mattelart state, “children’s comics are devised by adults, whose work is determined and justified by their idea of what a child is or should be. Often, they even cite “scientific” sources or ancient traditions in order to explain the nature of the public’s needs. In reality, however, these adults are not about to tell stories which would jeopardize the future they are planning for their children” (125). This quote reminded me a lot of what I had read my freshman year and learned in CMC 200 last semester. Parents and adults want to shield kids away from the hash reality that is life. They don’t want kids to be scared to grow up or have fears of what the “real world” may be like. Adults want children to think of the world as a safe and happy place and don’t want them to have to face the reality of crime and hardship, which sometimes people must face. Adults want to their children to look forward to a bright future rather than one tarnished with terrorism, poverty, or divorce. Disney is definitely a blanket covering up the abrasive real world.

Daisy, Dorfman and Mattelart

I have been a Disney fan my entire life. I have seen all the movies, visited the Disney parks, and purchased a large amount of Disney memorabilia. As children we are brought up around Disney, I mean how could you not love the magic it creates! I can remember one year for Halloween I was Minnie Mouse and another I was Cinderella (she was my idol at the time ☺). Although I have my own preconceived notions about Disney, I was still able to set that aside and agree with the truth that Dorfman and Mattelart presented in his article, “Introduction: Instructions on How to Become a General in the Disneyland Club.” I believe I am one of those kids like Dorfman talked about in his book who has been conditioned to love the magical world that Disney presents. Although I do agree with many of the things that Disney does for children I can also recognize the fairy tales it put into children’s heads. I agree with Dorman and Mattelart that “even to whisper anything against Walt is to undermine the happy an innocent palace of childhood…” (123). Disney is a place that even makes adults feel like a kid again; there is something for everyone at Disney. Reading this article made me think about the fact that adults created Disney so they are the ones writing the stories and giving off the aura that surrounds it. The Disney movies teach children lessons and values, almost “conditioning” them to follow the “right” path. But of course the situations in the movies do not portray “reality” they portray a magical world. The adults are the ones deciding what is important to teach the children, like Dorfman and Mattelart said, their “work is determined and justified by their idea of what a child is or should be” (125). It is interesting to think that Disney has been such a teacher is almost every child’s life.
Another quote from Dorfman and Mattelart that made me think was “Disney is the great supranational bridge across which all human beings may communicate with each other” (123). When I went abroad this summer I noticed people wearing Disney shirts and selling Disney merchandise. Also, my friend is abroad in Paris and went to visit the Disneyland there. This just shows that Disney is a popular commodity not just in the United States, but in other parts of the world as well.

Mongoose, Dorfman

I think everyone who has a pulse is aware of the widespread influence of Disney and all of its corporations; however, when most people think of the influence and popularity of Disney they probably tend to think of the financial aspects of this influence. The fact of the matter is, according to Dorfman, Disney’s greatest influential means may have nothing to do with money whatsoever. The one quote that I feel best sums up the arguments presented in this article is: “Thus, the imagination of the child is conceived as the past and future utopia of the adult.” (127). The article continually brings up the unrealistic qualities which are present in all Disney cartoons, movies and comics, the fact that everyone involved is so innocent and naïve to the harmful nature of our world. Dorfman argues that this may be a way of adults choosing to shelter their children and protect them from things that may have bothered them throughout their life. These Disney story lines are a way for adults to recreate a reality that they may see as a less that perfect world and hope to create a vision of hope and encouragement for their children. This is why Dorfman presents this quote arguing that we all came into this world as spotless, sinless people (past utopia) and hope to someday, depending on one’s religious beliefs, return to a life of being perfect beings (future utopia).
Dorfman also makes the argument that Disney characters are often represented as animals, with the hope of giving the children the image of not seeing individuals based on their skin color or race, but rather seeing them for who they are and creating a sort of “pure entertainment” for the children.

DoubleBubble - Dorfman

After taking the Disney intercourse I thought I understood a lot of the psychological and behind the scenes secrets of Disney. Although they are not technically secrets it is Walt’s secret because he is the one who created all of these animals and ideas. Or did he just simply create this idea because of his desire and had no idea the impact Mickey and characters would have on our society? Do we know?

Disney is influencing our everyday lives from when we are born to being a father. The keyhole idea on page 127 is a good example of how to explain the reoccurring influence throughout time Disney has on us. Dorfman quotes, "The father must be absent, and without direct jurisdiction, just as the child is without direct obligations" (127). The father can't direct a child through life but instead needs to let them pick their path and peep through the keyhole every once in a while to check up.

We have been impacted by the Disney society since birth and we have adapted to that society whether we realize it or not. The impact of Disney has grown so large that ironically Child banned Disney from Chile because they believe in the idea of not teaching their children to share their love, feelings and other emotions through animals. Each character represents a different type of person within our society. For example, the millionaire, McDuck, and then all of the other millionaires within our society showing off money and then suffer a heart issue. The connection between how much Disney characters and the people within our society has never crossed my mind until I read this article.

One of the most important ideas that I learned form this article that is not visible to society is the idea that when it comes to “pure entertainment” there is no presence of the issue of politics. You don’t see Mickey and Donald arguing over who is going to be the king of Disney. Not only does this apply in leadership but also into social classes within our society. Our society suffers from the issue of social classes and difference but within this Disney world these animals represent all of us minus the social class.

I’m not saying we should wear animal costumes and constantly live in this fairy tale world, but although the article insults the idea of Disney characters are not they doing better than us? What I mean is that if you took the soul, morals, ideas, and personality from the characters and gave it to an ordinary person within our society who lives in a world without social classes, would our world be a better place?

HOLLA! Dorfman and Mattelart

When I say Disney World…what do you think about? I think about magic, Mickey Mouse, the Magic Kingdom, and a world that never gets old. I grew up loving Disney like I am sure a lot of my generation did. Like Dorfman and Mattelart said, “Disney thus establishes a moral background which draws the child down the proper ethical and aesthetic path” (124). I could not agree more with this statement. I learned many lessons from Disney movies like friendship in The Fox and the Hound and love in The Little Mermaid. Disney helped me to expand my imagination through its animal characters as well. But enough about the child like aspects of Disney, Dorfman and Mattelart go deeper into Disney and its creators. They say that the adult is the one who produces these movies and brings these characters to life and the child is the one that consumes them. These adults are living vicariously through children to form a utopia in which they never had. They go on to say “this is a closed circuit: children have been conditioned by magazines and the culture which spawned them. They tend to reflect in their daily lives the characteristics they are supposed to posses, in order to win affection, acceptance, and rewards; in order to grow up properly and integrate into society” (126). Disney is teaching children the morals, lessons, and values needed to succeed and the social norms that must be followed. Adults are the ones creating these social norms, telling children they must follow these guidelines in order to be accepted. Disney is a type of literature, according to Dorfman and Mattelart, that is a father surrogate. “Parentalism in absentia is the indispensable vehicle for the defense and invisible control of the ostensibly autonomous childhood model” (128). This means that a child fantasy becomes a special place where parents do not exist but maybe the favorite uncle does. Disney is a desired place that children may see as a reality as they grow up and learn, if anything I see it as a teaching mechanism and an a much needed escape from the world around us.

Kiwki, Dorfman

We all know that the unrealistic fantasy world of Disney World is one in which we all enjoy visiting, because it gives us the idea of escapism. “Disney is a great supranational bridge across which all human beings may communicate with each other. And amidst so much more sweetness and light, the registered trademark becomes invisible” (Dorfman, 123). When you enter the gates of Disney you are simply escaping into a new world, that could be nothing but a happy place, and this is because we want to enjoy it, because we are “supposed to.” Dorfman seems to have a problem with the animation of Disney because she thinks that it does not prepare kids for real life situations and its all just a fantasy world. I agree with Dorfman that Disney does not fulfill what is in the real world, but who ever said in the first place that Disney is a place that prepares us for the real world? Like I mentioned above, Disney is a place in which we can all agree, is a place of make believe and magic. Disney advertises itself as a place of magic and fantasy, they don’t advertise themselves as a place of teaching children how succeed in real world is. This is where I got very frusterated with Dorfman when she states, “In juvenile literature, the adult, corroded by the trivia of everyday life blindly defends his image of youth and innocence” (127). I think this offensively underestimates and diminishes that large amount of good people in our society and think that Dorfman has no right to make these assumptions their behaviors that could be completely false

Overall I found this reading extremely frustrating in how it centered all of its problems towards adults and how they are said to be a bad parent if they are a parent that exposed their child to a place like Disney. We all know that Disney is a popular place because it’s a place where everyone can come and have fun and do silly make believe things.

Captain Outrageous Dorfman

So here's the thing. Since I first saw the movie "Big" I have always wondered about the relationship between adults, children, and these types of movies. I've been curious as to why these movies are produced, what they say about the adult culture. More specifically I've always wondered what it is in childhood the adults so desperately need. I guess I've always been a critical thinker. I knew there had to be some answer. In fact, I'm sure if I rummaged enough I could find things I used to write on this entirely frustrating subject: how horrible growing up must be if these stories keep getting told about adults always needing to find their inner child or explore the child mentality or something. After reading Dorfman I have many questions answered and I'm a little less confused but still frustrated and here's why: I've always kept it under special consideration that the reason I wanted to explore this topic was because of my own carefully constructed views of child, childhood, purity, etc. which were of course in total opposition to anything adult; but, as it turns out, the foundations on which the views were created, i.e. the movies, stories and ideas that I was raised with were not only chosen by adults but created by adults and in turn created in my own childish lens a mini adult able to, at a very young and not very grown up age at all, look at childhood nostalgically. I feel both liberated and restrained, though that's the purpose of this whole juvenile literature idea anyway isn't it?

To make this not entirely personal, I'll go into the movie "Big" briefly. There's a bit of a formulated flow chart within this movie that's pretty easy to understand after having read Dorfman: child wishes to be adult though child is already adult---child turns into adult but is in fact more of a childadult---goes from childadult to normal adult---changes an absolutely normal adult into a childadult---new childadult sends other adult back to childhood---our first adultchildadult goes back to childhood as a more grown up child familiar with what the adult life is like and what childhood should be because he already grew up so he can now appreciate childhood. Phew. So do you all see the problems with control here?

First of all, Josh (Tom Hanks) wants to grow up more quickly because he isn't tall, but in his home life he takes care of his sister and helps his struggling middle class family, hence he is already being shaped by adult forces. Moving on Josh gets "big" and turns into an adult. What better job for a child slash adult to get than working with toys? In the toy industry and then in his love life Josh is a breath of fresh air because of his child-like behavior and carefree simplistic ways: the adult who acts like a child. In a lot of normal societies this doesn't usually work out, in constructed socieities it changes everything. Josh meets Susan (Elizabeth Perkins) and two things happen: one, Josh decides he wants to become more adult (for his job and because I'm pretty sure he has sex); two, Susan becomes more like a child, releasing her inner child behavior. After a while Susan finds out about this whole crazy scenario thing and insists that Josh "goes back". In the end Susan actually drives Josh home- he's an adult in the car, a child by the time he reaches his front door. When the child again Josh turns to wave goodbye, his expression is jaded, all-knowing: he is already a grown up and he will now appreciate the remainder of his childhood through a nostalgic lens.

How does all this relate to Disney? It doesn't really. It relates to all Dorfman's ideas concerning the adult and the child, who controls who, how they do it, the worlds that are created, the distance of the worlds etc. And what does this matter if they are just movies? Well as good CMC students know there is no such thing as "just a movie", but, aside from that, I think it raises a horribly terrifying set of questions: When does childhood stop being an experience and start being a memory? How will we construct the imaginary worlds of our children? Is there such a thing as imaginary world and playing pretend if they are all vehicles of adult self-gratification? Do we let this affect us, do we let a line be drawn between child and adult, do we let childhood be a construction of loss? Is there a way to escape this or is there black and whtie, child and adult, and any intermingling is sado-masochistic? What does adult even mean, what does growing up mean, what does child mean, why do they have to mean something?


I won't grow up.
Not a penny will I pinch.
I will never grow a mustache,
Or a fraction of an inch.
'Cause growing up is awfuller
Than all the awful things that ever were.
I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up,

Maybe its no wonder after all that adults hate adulthood and latch onto childhood and construct childhood as this wonderful thing that must remain pure...because we start with this stuff, then end up there.

FloRida, Dorfman

“There are Disney strips in five thousand newspapers, translated into more than thirty languages, spread over a hundred countries. According to the magazine’s own publicity puffs, in Chile alone, Disney comics reach and delight each week over a million readers.” And after reading this statement, how can we as a society wonder why we are confused with reality. It all seems pretty clear this point why we can confuse what is actually real with what we think is real. I really enjoyed Dorfman’s article, “Introduction: Instructions on How to Become a General in the Disneyland Club.” It makes a huge connection to Baudrillards article that we read a few classes ago. Baudrillard asks, “How do things stand with the real event, then if reality is everywhere infiltrated by images, virtuality and fictions?” We are bombarded with images that make us think about what our “reality” should look like when in actuality that goal or aspiration is unreachable and not even really a good idea. We believe because it gives us something to identify with. Disneyland and everything thing it stands for and everything that backs it, is universal. We all think we want that Utopia, that ideal world, where signs don’t create our thoughts and beliefs. The problem with that is signs are what help make us who we are as a people. Disney is also a sign. What struck me most was how we constantly have been learning and relearning how language is part of the notion of signs and this is exactly what the article points out. Dorfman makes is extremely clear that Disney “extends beyond all frontiers and ideologies, transcends differences between people and nations, and particularities of custom and language… Disney is the great supranational bridge across which all human beings may communicate with each other.”

ESPN12, Dorfman

It seems that if every CMC class I’ve been in so far has critically discussed Disney and this reading was no different. It seems as if Disney is a popular company to be critical of but I guess it is because of its size and impact on children. Dorfman starts by discussing the sheer magnitude of Disney. Today it is a worldwide corporation that has its hand in nearly every type of entertainment available and any kind of merchandise one can think of. When one looks at Dorfmans argument that the animations in movies or comics dose not prepare kids for harsh realities of real life it is important to realize how big Disney really is. The animation of Disney reaches nearly every kid in the world. I know when I think about the movies I grew up on, I always think of Disney movies. Dorfman seems to have a problem with the animation of Disney as she thinks that it does prepare them for real life situations and it is all just a fantasy world. I agree that it doesn’t fulfill what is in the real world. But I question if it is necessarily Disney job. They claim to be a world of magic and escape, not preparing you for the real world. Dorfman states that “children’s comics are devised by adults, whose work is determined and justified by their idea of what a child should be.” Maybe the story’s should be altered a bit to prepare the kids a little better for life, but who else is going to write the stories besides the experienced adults? The problem with adults writing is that they try to remember what child life is like and as they are not the child gets a different sense of reality. Disney should keep the kids in mind because they are such a big company but there needs to be a line drawn somewhere. However, it would be quite interesting to see how kids would develop if comics and animation based on more of a reality of actually life.

Ron Burgundy, Dorfman and Mattelart

Reading the article by Dorfman and Mattelart was extremely frustrating in my opinion. In past CMC courses we have read articles about Disney before and the supposed harm that it is causing to the minds of our youth. I have agreed with points made before in those articles as critics have discussed the dangers of the “history” that Disney tries to teach that is extremely inaccurate and so can portray an inaccurate reality of the past. However this article focused on the content of the Disney comics, etc. and I feel wrongly states various assumptions about the purpose behind such pieces. Dorfman and Mattelart at first seem to have a positive view on the effects of Disney and their ideals on children, which are later mocked and meant to be factious. They make such statements such as “Disney thus establishes a moral background which draws the child down the proper ethical and aesthetic path” which is something I happen to agree with in the purpose of the work (124). Later though they attempt to show how this is really the domination of the corrupt adult over the naïve child as they try and forcibly project their desires for a utopia and innocence on their offspring. According to the authors “in juvenile literature, the adult, corroded by the trivia of everyday life blindly defends his image of youth and innocence” (127). Why is it in this article that the authors are supposing every individual lives a “trivial” and “corrupt” life, which is only escaped and justified through projecting ideals of innocence and fantasist on their children through Disney media? I think this terribly underestimates and devalues the amount of good people in the world today, and presupposes certain assumptions on their behavior that could be extremely false. For example, when I think about Disney media from my childhood I do not fantasize about a magical world that is less corrupt and full of innocence that I can escape to but rather a happy youth filled with memories of my parents spending time with me. Why can it not be supposed that a father reading a Disney story to a child is not for his own selfish pleasures of concealing the “guilt arising from his own fall from grace” but in order to spend quality time with his child reading something that is appropriate for both parties and often teaches a moral lesson that we would want all children to understand (127)? According to these authors no such thing occurs in this type of act, instead it would demonstrate “adult values projected onto the child” (126). I do not understand why projecting positive moral values and moral lessons through such literature is wrong in a parental standpoint. Other factors from the outside media and world are significant in the socialization of a child and reveal bits of reality to the child to help him or her develop their own system of values, etc. Why is it wrong then that a parent should want to provide their child with a positive set of ideals to counter negative ones that they may be experiencing by other means. I do not believe this to be blinding a child to the harshness of reality but aiding them in their socialization and helping to guide them towards a wiser path. All in all I found this reading extremely frustrating as it assumed a certain standpoint of the adult child relationship in exposing children to such Disney literature while completely ignoring other factors that could, and in my mind do, prevail.

Ace Ventura, Dorfman and Mattelart

Since becoming a CMC major, the corrupt aspects of the Disney corporation have been looked at several times. Usually we are discussing the corruption of ownership and the monopoly that has been created by Disney. This is the first study I've looked at that discusses the corruption of the actual content that Disney produces and what it does to today's youth. I think this article is HUGELY exaggerated. What is wrong with showing children movies that teach them good values? Why is it a problem to have animal charcacters reflect today's society and teach children how to handle problems? And why does showing these films to children mean that the parents are corrupt or immoral? When we are young, the issue of right and wrong is very black and white to us. Lying is always wrong, stealing is always wrong. But as we get older, right and wrong comes with shades of grey. This is just part of reality and as the child gets older, they will come to learn these differences. But what would happen to the child if they never started out by viewing the Disney movies and learning these lessons? Wouldn't our next generations turn out to be far more corrupt than the one before it? I think that Dorman and Mattelart's claim that 'the imagination of the child is conceived as the past and future utopia of the adult' is dramatically underestimating the possibilty of adults maintaining good morals and values. You don't have to lose your morals just because you are an adult and watching Disney movies as a child won't impact a child for the worse. Parents complain about children watching nonsense television. These Disney programs actually teach valuable lessons and now we are complaining about them too. Is there anything that we can be satisfied with??

Graham, Dorfman

This “Disneyfication” that he speaks of is the idea that everything is perfect as soon as you walk through the gates at this theme park. They “make all your dreams come true” at Disney World, and kids can not seem to get enough (not only of the park, but also the overpriced souvenirs, television shows, and movies). The unrealistic fantasy world of Disney World is one in which we all enjoy visiting, because it gives us the idea of escapism. For the period of time that you are in the park, you have no worries, everything is adventurous, fun, and technologically advanced. We discussed this in my CMC200 class, and concluded that Disney uses deprivation of history in order to make the theme park a happier place to be for children (who are not really there to learn about the history of the nation). Instead, it makes it a happy place that Walt Disney created in order to show what a “perfect world” would be like. The articles discuss how Disney is such a popular place because of the way that it makes people feel. There are a lot of stereotypes and injustices in the society today, but none of this exists in this fantasy world. It is a place where everyone can come and have fun, no matter who you are or where you are from. People come from all over the world to visit this attraction, therefore it has become somewhat of a melting pot, a place where people can come and not be discriminated against. “Disney is a great supranational bridge across which all human beings may communicate with each other. And amidst so much more sweetness and light, the registered trademark becomes invisible” (Dorfman, 123). This article is so true, I see it every time that I go to the park. Everyone is so happy, with their Mickey Mouse t-shirts and lollipops. You don’t see people arguing or being unpleasant…unless of course someone gets in front of you in the 2 hour long lines!

Gwatter06, Dorfman

I was very intrigued by our reading assignment on Disney because right off the bat I realized that it was on something similar that I have already covered in another CMC course. Therefore, I was interested in observing the similarities and the differences that the different authors had on a similar topic. Both authors focused on animated fetishism and how Disney’s fantasmic wonderland affects the societal overlook of children. Focusing more on Dorfman, he illuminates the societal and cultural structures that are affected by Disney’s worldwide impact and dominance. After deciphering the playful banter by the author in the beginning of the excerpt I began to understand the issues being upheld by Disney’s corporation and it’s mainstream societal effects. In examining this Dorfman states, “Disney is part – an immortal part, it would seem – of our common collective vision” (123). Dorfman explained how popular and influential Disney is worldwide, what I understand from this is that children are latching onto Disney as peer mentors, for lack of a better term, and Disney’s aura of a utopian perfection will lead to children’s misperception of life. It is true in the sense that kids getting caught up in a fantasy world in which characters directly relate to their own issues will ultimately grasp influential formalities that undermine real life situations and struggles that children will have to endure. Dorfman also exemplifies these probable misconceptions to the relationship of the adult and the child pertaining to Disney. He points our that the authors are adults, trying to interpret what the life of a child is like, but instead is predetermining the life of a child should be like. Dorfman illustrates this notion in stating, “adults create for themselves a childhood embodying their own angelical aspirations…” (126). This creates a new reality for a child, not embracing their own, but it rather isolates the child from the reality of the everyday.

Teets, 9/27

Our visit to the museum this week helped link together some of the concepts we have been talking about, especially Zizek’s concept of reality versus virtual reality. The first exhibit we visited was Michael Phillips and the Internal Method of William Blake. Blake developed the technique facsimile copy, or simply the perfect copy. What we saw in the museum were not Blake’s plates, because those were lost awhile back. We saw copies of Blake’s copies, which to me is funny given what certain authors would say about that. Benjamin would argue that neither Blake’s plates nor the ones were saw were authentic. The fact that the plates were in casing made them seem authentic, but in reality they were simply copies of an original. This is similar to the concept of “simulacra” I learned about in CMC100. Simulacra is an unsatisfactory representation or reproduction of an original. I would side with Benjamin and say that all copies or duplicates are unsatisfactory because they do not exude the aura of an original. To me the plates we saw had no aura of authenticity or originality. The typical passerby would disagree, but they are less informed.

The second exhibit we examined was photographer Andre Kertesz’ “On Reading.” This title is fitting because we discussed texts and what the definition of a text is. One person said that a text is something that can be read. From the photos I read the most into the idea of surveillance. The point of view of the photos was rather “peeping-tomish”, which is why I read the images like I did. Surveillance and becoming more and more advanced as new technology develops. This is a scary concept because soon government’s will have unlimited control of a nation in every way if they can see what is going on. Taking this notion a step further, I think that a government could even manipulate footage for certain reasons. This would allow them to create virtual reality from reality, a concept Zizek discusses in depth. Zizek’s comments on September 11th were controversial, yet they were provocative. Americans feed on virtual reality and chaos, as long as it never crosses over into their reality. I am yet to have the “click” happen in terms of understanding and relating the materials we have read. However, I am beginning to grasp the concepts better each passing week it seems.

Mongoose, 9/27

This week’s readings were much easier to follow and understand so I felt that I had a much better understanding of Zizek and Baudrillard than the ones in our recent past. However, in class this understanding was expanded and I picked some new things that I did not from the reading. One particular area of interest to me was Zizek’s idea that “the terrorists themselves did not do it primarily to provoke real material damage, but for the spectacular effect of it”. When I thought back to September 11th and I how I felt on that day and soon after, I never once thought that the attacks were done in order for the “image” as Zizek claims, I saw it simply as an attack on American lives and property. After seeing this quote and discussing it, I see how the “image” of this attack can be far more beneficial to the terrorists motives than the damage which was done. Zizek says this because images are very powerful in this day in age; as soon as the towers fell you could find video and pictures all around the world on the internet, striking fear and sadness into all who viewed them. This is exactly what the terrorists were going for; they were more concerned with the fear element that they would now hold over the average American, making them feel as if they had the upper hand on us. The comment was made that these terrorists could have killed many more Americans had they crashed the planes into the middle of New York streets or other more crowded places, but they chose to crash into the twin towers because of the “cinematic” or spectacular effect that it would create. It really does look like a scene from a movie and everyone who sees these images even today still gets a sick feeling in their stomach, exactly the effect the terrorists were going for.

Captain Outrageous, 9/27

What a fascinating week in CMC300! The trip to the museum was more interesting than I expected and I am really glad about that. I'm also really glad that our discussions from the museum translated into discussions on Thursday in terms of being able to read into things intertextually.

I'm glad I have been exposed to Zizek and that we get to hear him lecture this week! Though the September 11 topic is a sensitive I find it important to talk about it critically through a number of lenses. The ZIzek/Boudriallard lens is a harsh one but it is thorough and accurate. It is important to be harsh on American tragedies and the way it is handled.

This weekend I saw the movie District 9 and couldn't help but think of Zizek and Boudrillard. Attack-Events happen in the movie that cause great damage and hysteria- when they do happen, the film shows how the "news" is covering it and the news throws up "terrorist attacks" "caught by surprise" "enemy being captured" so on and so forth. The news showed only small clips of any actual carnage regarding the "enemy", but when it came to the scenes outside of the "news", there was little holding back when it came to dehumanizing and torturing the enemy. I felt this couldn't apply more to our readings, especially when it comes to the enemy retaliating and Americans acting so stinking surprised. What I found particularly interesting though is how true Dr. Casey was when he said this class will change the way you look at things forever. I admit I'm already falling victim to that, if victim is even the right word. My friend thought the movie was all about immigration, I thought it was a commentary on media coverage and corporate/government control etc. I find that maybe our CMC teachings blur the line sometimes between conspiracy theory and critical theory. Either way, I suppose we as CMC students still have the upper hand.

ESPN12, 9/27

This week was a very interesting one as we visited the museum and Zizek. I enjoyed the museum but Zizek a bit more. A few things that stuck out for me from Zizek were the notion that certain products are missing there malignant properties, I never quite realized how many items like that are out there. Secondly, Zizek said “It is surprising how little of the actual carnage we see. . . in clear contrast to reporting on Third World catastrophes. . . . The real horror happens there, not here.” He basically shows how there are two districted values of what the media shows here and there. To me this is entirely true as the media almost gives us a false sense of what is going on. Not only in the case of such things as 9/11 but only in other countries. It is almost as if America is its own spate world and we do not report in nearly the same way from overseas countries as we do for American media. In a way, the picture of the sick African boy is related to this and for me it really hit home. It is a shame that such things can even be joked about in American media and really corresponds to what Dr, Rog was saying when he mentioned the notion that you cannot create humor if it relates to you - only if it relates to others, and in this case the “you” is America. If there was such a starvation and health problem here as there is in Africa then people would not think that the south park episode was funny, in fact people would probably be very mad. Our sense of reality is really skewed now days and though we have a better idea of what is going on outside the U.S. because of the media it is still not a true feeling of reality. It may be a stretch but I looked at in a way that related it to Andy Warhol. In the photos he took of the people with white powder covering their face is not who they really are but that’s what we see and how we remember them. It is similar in the media in the way that it may not be the real version of something and may be slightly covered up, but that is what we see and that is the reality we get.

Daisy, 9/27

In class on Thursday we discussed Zizek and I was intrigued by the quote, “On today’s market, we find a whole series of products deprived of their malignant properties” (231). As I was thinking of it more, I realized that so many things in our society our deprived of their core ingredient. For example, faux wood floors, they look like real wood, but some are not even made out of wood. I tried to relate Zizek’s article to the architecture and art article by Jencks. Jencks’ article talked about different types of architecture styles. I think that some architectural devices can be related to Zizek’s idea of depriving products of their malignant properties. For example, the architectural device, tradition reinterpreted, is to take a classical architectural design and use it for something else. This type of device is to take something that already has a purpose and use it as something else. The picture we were shown in class was of cranes reinterpreted and used as light fixtures. The purpose of cranes is not to be stationary and produce light, but their purpose is to construct buildings. To me this is depriving the cranes of their malignant properties. Cranes are not light fixtures, nor are they supposed to function as them, but they can be reinterpreted into being “real”.
Another idea that Zizek discussed in his reading and we expanded on in class is how the media portrays the Third World countries as culturally “other” to us. This puts the idea “that can’t happen to us “ into our heads and makes them appear very different to us. We have become immune to seeing pictures of starving children in Africa, but when we see a starving child from America we are appalled. I think Katrina and 9/11 really changed a lot of people’s perceptions about the world. It made us think, “this can happen to us!” They were two problems we could not ignore. It also showed us how the government handled the situations. It seemed that the government blamed 9/11 solely on the terrorists and took any blame off of the government, which we know is not true. The media has so much power to reinterpret what is real; it makes educating society about their power extremely important.

FloRida, 9/27

This week’s classes were all about connecting the dots for me once again. Dr. Rog’s description of Zizek’s personality is very intriguing and I am extremely interested and excited to get to see him in person. One concept that was brought up in class what about how WE as Americans believe that nothing bad will ever happen to us. I really loved Zizek’s thoughts and ideas of the realities behind this. Zizek states that, “America got what it fantasized about, and that was the biggest surprise.” We constantly fantasize about what happens in other places and how terrible it is but lucky enough we live in America, so we are exempt from these horrors. “It is surprising how little of the actual carnage we see… in clear contrast to reporting on Third World catastrophes… The real horror happens there, not here.” Reality is rarely portrayed within the images we view. This view somewhat changed when September 11th occurred. “The ‘terrorists’ themselves did not do it primarily to provoke real material damage, but for the spectacular effect of it,” explains Zizek. The idea behind the word spectacular is very different in this scenario than in most. Spectacular, in my mind, usually relates to something that is an amazing, great, or huge image, idea, film etc. In this case, spectacular relates to us making our meanings based on an image we see. It will be really interested to see how what we have been studying about Zizek applies to what he is going to be talking about throughout the lectures.

Gwatter06, 9/27

I believe we covered a lot this week in class, and our approach was revamped with the visit to the museum. I enjoyed the visit to the museum because it was the first time that I’ve been there and our curator did a good job of implementing the artists in terms of modernity and postmodernity. Doing this opened up a whole new window in applying the aspects of imagery and their meaning and applying to our newly found notion of postmodernity. I really enjoyed the Andy Warhol exhibition because it was not only well done but the backdrop to his artwork was very compelling. He is known for coining “being famous for being famous,” which is this interesting concept where people become famous for really nothing at all, just being seen with the right people at the right times and acting or playing famous which ultimately makes the person famous. His display of polaroids and the simplicity of his work that turns into a complex plethora of images and designs was also very enthralling. Then later in the week, we focused on Zizek and his excerpts and discussions in class. What caught my attention the most, besides his critically acclaimed, “outlandish” comments surrounding the 9/11 instances was his take and concept on reality and virtual reality. He makes a great point in stating, “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…” What I think Zizek is getting at is that the public is losing our sense reality and trading it for virtual reality. We spoke about how could diet coke be coke when it contains nothing that is within coke, it isn’t “real” in a sense because it is trying to personify something that it is not. I believe society today has gotten caught up in this concept of virtual reality and has taken on to it so strongly clearly do to mass media and creating a social norm that things are what they are but really aren’t.