graham, derrida

I found the Derrida reading very dense, and I had a difficult time getting through it. However, I believe that he was attempting to discuss difference and the way that there are many differences in language and the way that people interpret it. This relates to De Saussure. It reminded me of when Dr. Casey showed us the word ghoti, and asked us what it meant. No one knew, but it made perfect sense when he told us that it said “fish”. If you sound out ghoti, it does sound the same, but we did not look at it that way, because we are so used to the way that we see the words spelled in society. Derrida really focuses on language and words, and how they are able to function. There was one quote that really helped me to understand his main concept… “There never has been and never will be a unique word, a master name.” We give words meanings, and society chooses to accept these meanings. However, it seems weird to me that the same words have the possibility of having multiple meanings. Did we run out of letters to put together to form new words? Why would we have the same spelling for different meanings? This gets confusing. Also, the context of words is extremely necessary to know, because although the words may sound the same, they can be spelled differently (for example, sun and son). Language is something that is very difficult to understand because of all these differences and similarities. Even in the dictionary there are multiple meanings for the same words. Culture normalizes language, and that is the only reason why we accept the fact that it is so confusing. Something I thought was interesting as I was reading this is that people communicate with one another in an attempt to say the same things. However, there are multiple languages that exist in the world today. This only creates more differences, and as we all know if we have taken a foreign language, it can be very hard to learn other languages and understand what others are saying. The bottom line, and the main point that Derrida and De Saussure are making, is that there are always going to be differences no matter how intelligent you are, where you live, or what language you speak. This is because “in language, there are only diffrences.”

graham, 11/15

I thought that the Bordeau reading was fairly interesting, but the Power Point that was shown in class really helped me to understand it a lot more clearly. I think the main focus was that similar to Althusser because a similarity in both readings was ideology. In this weeks reading, the ideology that we follow seems to be what the those on television are telling us. I also found it similar to Marx, because he says “he who has gold, rules!” And in this case, I believe those on television are ‘those with gold’ and power. Therefore, they are able to tell us what to do, and we give them power, allowing them to “rule”. Bordeau discusses the fact that television hosts, news anchors, and sports announcers “have turned into two-bit spiritual guides, representatives of middle-class morality. They are always telling us what we ‘should think’ about what they call ‘social problems’”. This means that since they have the power of television (which Bordeau mentions is crucial in having an influence in society) that they are able to influence individual’s way of thinking and feeling, because we tend to relate to those we see on television even if they are not in the same social class as us. Since we relate to them, we tend to assume that we have the same viewpoints in life, therefore we do not find out for ourselves, we just agree with them. He even discusses the fact that we believe these individuals to be intelligent and worthy of respect, despite the fact that we are not able to determine how smart and worldly they are by how well they read a teleprompter. Because they get the opportunity to “speak” to the country, we feel that they are superior to mainstream society, and therefore we must treat them accordingly. Someone gave the example of Oprah, and the way that she is extremely wealthy and powerful in society. She is now getting her own channel, because people love and respect her so much that a television show that comes on once a day was no longer enough. He also mentions that although many people read the printed press, news does not really become as big of a deal until the television stations get a hold of it and begin to air the story. Even if the story is not something that is a huge deal, many people will become very interested once television stations pay attention to the story and deem it important. We rely a lot on what we see on tv. I have to assume that it is because people are getting too lazy to do the research themselves, and therefore the television is the next most reliable source. When I did the reading I understood that he was discussing television and news, but I was honestly unsure of where he was going with it. I found Tuesday’s class to be very beneficial and informative.

FloRida, Derrida

Reading Derrida made me think about the ideas of “difference” and “difference,” things I had never thought about before. Derrida’s ideas relate to many theorists that we have studied so far in CMC 300. He connects language to signs to the normalization of language. “Within a language, within the system of language there are only differences. A taxonomic operation can accordingly undertake its systematic, statistical, and classificatory inventory, But, on the one hand, these differences play a role in language, in speech as well, and in the exchange between language and speech” (127). Derrida’s ideas really relates to what our class has previously learned from De Saussure about signs and language. Language is different for everyone. Words and signs mean different things in every culture. Derrida connects to De Saussure through the idea that “language is a set of interdependent terms that derive their meanings from the simultaneous presence of other terms.” Terms used only represent their true meanings when they are placed next to other terms because, “in language there are only differences.” No two things are the same. We think that people with other languages or cultures are different, making this language of differences normal. “Difference” cannot be defined because it does not mean the same thing to each person. Derrida says that the notion of “difference” was produced. Our culture normalizes something that is at first “different.” This relates to Lyotard’s ideas avant guarde. We first think something is “weird” or “different” but once it is masses produces, we consider it to be normal and part of our culture and society. Language is a very powerful within a society and I believe that he is trying to prove this. Derrida helps me grasp the change of language and what and why “differences” occur.

Ron Burgundy. Derrida

I found this week's reading from Derrida extremely difficult to grasp. It seems that attempts to encompass several theorists ideas as he goes about his writing, in a way to show the irony of language and signs. One of his main ideas in the article stems from the word differance that he creates. This "differance" is a hard thing to grasp because as Derrida states it is "neither a word or a concept". He explains how difficult it is in speech to accentuate that he is saying differance versus difference because of the unavailability to see it and therefore understand the difference (ironic) between the two. Derrida explains how the simple changing of a letter of the word difference changes its signification even though phonetically it seems to be the same thing. This concept takes us back to De Saussre and his theories on the language, specifically the sign, signifier, and signified. Because Derrida's "differance" is not a word or a concept perhaps we could refer to it as a "sign" that he himself applies meaning to and therefore creates a signifier and the signified. "Differance" did not exist until Derrida brought it into existence and had no meaning until Derrida applied a specific meaning to it. The simple act of switching the "e" to an "a" signifies, in the English language, that there is some sort of reason behind the spelling and therefore a different meaning to the word. It is interesting in order to better understand difference that Derrida would create a difference, from the "e" to the "a" in order to better explore the concepts behind the single word "difference".

DoubleBubble, Derrida

Derrida explains the concept of Difference. He emphasizes that meaning is not in the signifier itself, but that it only exists within our networks with a relation to other things. Derrida relates this concept to deSaussure and his concept of the relationship between the signifier and the signified. This relationship is arbitrary and showed that signs only mean in relation to each other. Within this article, Derrida quotes deSaussure, “Even more important: a difference generally implies positive terms between which the difference is set up; but in language there are only differences without positive terms” (127). Here Derrida emphasizes this whole idea about how the meaning behind something is not within the signifier but instead within this idea of network and the relations to other things within these networks.

Différance comes before being. This throws the idea of "origin," of true original meaning, into radical question. Derrida begins to discuss the idea of origin of something, there is nothing that has it’s own identity. This idea that Derrida discusses goes into further detail of what deSaussure had already discussed. Anything within society is itself; it depends on other things in order to explain itself. Nothing stands outside the system of differences.

Derrida then begins to combine the sense of difference as time and also as space. He does this in order to make a point of how the ideas of presence or being that our Western Culture has been focusing around are actually not so trustworthy. Within a sign the meaning is actually not there and instead signs are referring to another sign and how this idea has made us grasp the idea of speech over writing through the idea of presence as trustworthy. The shaky grounds of understanding presence as our being relates to the idea of self-presence, which is consciousness.

Ace Ventura, Derrida

Derrida's discussion of differ, difference, and differance was very confusing but maybe simple at the same time if I understood it correctly. To me, it seems as though he was saying even though differing represents an inequality and distinction, there is still a relationship there that must be represented between two words or meanings. This reminded me of the langue and parole, all the words there are to choose from, and the one word we actually choose to represent the meaning that we are trying to convey. Words or signs are not only given meaning by what they are, but their meaning is also created by everything they are not. This is the case with difference and differance. Their meanings can be vastly different but it is only shown by the change of one later "a" and "e". Derrida also seemed similar to Baudrillard's idea of simulacra. A word or sign that is different from another still simulates another meaning by showing what it is not. For example, the color white can also simulate the idea of the color black because they are considered to be opposites. This negative correlation is very important when considering individual interpretations of signs. White and black are very readily identifiable as opposites, but other more ambiguous signs could have many opposites when they are being considered by different people. So recognizing that differing creates a relationship between two or more things gives depth to it's meaning(s). Rather than only looking at a signs superficial interpretation (Jameson), that is only seeing it for what it is on the surface, the difference gives a deeper meaning by representing all the things it is not or can not be.

Daisy, Derrida

Reading Derrida was difficult due to the fact that he dwells on ideas we discussed in the beginning of the semester, such as difference. Derrida is concerned at looking into words and what makes them function. Difference allows the words to function and be set apart from each other. The signification of a word is made-up of all the things that it is not. For example, the word dog is able to create a meaning due to how it differs from other objects.
Derrida, a French philosopher, talked about the term differance with an –a. This is a French term, which means both to defer and to differ. To Derrida, this word then has two significations, “in the one case, ‘to differ’ signifies nonidentity; in the other case it signifies the order of the same” (120). Putting an –a in place of an –e, makes the word different, and it coincides better with being different.
While Derrida puts an –a in place of an –e, it still looks the same, so when I viewed it I immediately thought of the word difference. The missing –e did not change my interpretation of the word. So to me, difference and differance represent sameness to me. So was Derrida trying to be different by adding the –a, or was he showing us that there really isn’t difference.
This made me think of Adorno and his idea of sameness. One the outside, things look different to us, like the word differance might look to some people, but going back to the origin of the word is sameness. A word as a signifier causes many different significations, but the “epoch” or origin of the word is the same. Like Saussure talked about, language is about difference. The connection and significations between the person and referent is arbitrary, however, the origin of the referent is the same for everyone. I’m looking forward to class tomorrow to help get rid of some of my confusion.

Elmo, Derrida

Before reading Derrida I hadn’t really thought about or even know about the distinction between difference and differance. Derrida explains the distinction between the two by saying that, “in this sense, the Latin differre is not the simple translation of the Greek diapherein; this fact will not be without consequence for us in tying our discussion to a particular language, one that passes for being less philosophical, less primordially philosophical, than the other…The other sense of ‘to differ’ [differer] is the most common and most identifiable, the sense of not being identical, of being other, of being discernible, etc. And in ‘differents,’ whether referring to the alterity of dissimilarity or the alterity of allergy or of polemics, it is necessary that interval, distance, spacing occur among the different elements and occur actively, dynamically, and with a certain perseverance in repetition” (124-125). I still am not sure exactly what the contrast is between these two words is but I do know that they both signify something different. Similar to previous theorists such as DeSaussure, Barthes, and Macherey, Derrida touches on how difference and differance don’t have the same meaning and can signify distinctive things. This relates to the previous theorists we have studied because they all talk about how things have multiple meanings and can mean different things to different people. Now I am thinking about how perhaps that when I’ve read things in the past I have probably completely looked over these two words and never thought of the multiple meanings. I am still a little confused by the Derrida reading but I am excited to hear other peoples thoughts and what they got out of the reading, and also, of course, to hear Dr. Roj’s take on it all. However, I am glad that I now DO know more about the difference between differance and difference.

Mongoose, Derrida

When I first began reading this essay by Derrida I immediately began thinking about DeSaussure and his theory that in language there are only differences; this only seemed to make sense because Derrida was talking about language and the word ‘difference’, or was it ‘difference’ – I see no difference. However, as Derrida continued on in his writing he began elaborating on the ‘difference’ that one letter can make within the spelling of a word; the alteration of one letter can change the entire meaning of the word and context to which it would be used. After reading these parts my thoughts began to travel toward another theorist, Barthes, who spoke about the arbitrary-ness of language. His thoughts were that words and letters really have no specific meaning, we have given them meaning throughout our development of language and some words have distinctly different meanings from one language to the next. This concept is what I thought of when looking at the difference between difference and difference – is there really a noticeable a difference between the upon looking at the word? No – not in the literal sense but because we have applied cultural meanings to words, now even such a subtle difference in language changes everything.
Another topic of Derrida’s that caught my attention was his view of signs; he said that “signs represent the present in its absent (125).” I took this to mean that when we cannot have the thing which we are trying to represent present, we find a replacement for it. For example: a billboard advertising for a new concert coming to town obviously can not have the band or singer standing in front of the sign for a couple weeks, but placing an image of them on a billboard is replacing their absence because they can not be there. I also related this back to Macherey when he said that in order to understand anything, we must understand what is not said – in this case we are understanding that the sign is a replacement for what is not really there.

Teets, Derrida

Jacques Derrida was extremely difficult to comprehend at first, but I feel like I was able to grab what he was getting at. He starts off by saying that difference “Indicates distinction, inequality, discernibility; on the other hand it expresses the interposition of delay, the interval of a spacing and temporalizing that puts off until later what is presently denied, the possible that is presently impossible” (120). Difference deals with the present in relation to the past. For example, going back to your kindergarten playground now would change the way you looked at it many years ago. When you were younger, the playground in its’ then present state seemed huge and full of adventure. Reflecting back on that, you realize it was just an ordinary playground. The difference occurs due to a deferral in time, or more simply the passing of time.

“Every concept is necessarily and essentially inscribed in a chain or system, within which it refers to another and to other concepts, by the systematic play of differences” (127).

Any new concept that is created must be explained by comparing it to a previous concept. This is where we understand the differences between the two. However, differance is neither a word nor a concept. I’m not sure I totally understood what Derridas meant by the term differance, because he described it in so many ambiguous ways. I think the point he is trying to drive home is that differance is just a fancy way of spelling difference. He created a concept to show how powerful language can truly be. He says that differance is the closure of presence, which to me is confusing. I think he is noting de Saussure to give credence to the power of language. He cleverly used the words difference and differance to trick people into thinking there was in fact a major difference between the two.

Gwatter06, Derrida

Back to the beginning it seems, Derrida was one of those difficult reads, similar to that of Lyotard and such. Derrida just seemed to be circular in his thoughts, while reading the excerpt I felt as though the theorist repetitively said the same thing over and over just in different fashions at times, creating a very dense reading. Although the reading was quite tough, I was able to somewhat grasp the gist of the author’s concepts and meanings behind the literature. Early on the reader is introduced to Derrida’s early explanation of differance and how it relates to difference and what its signification is in literature. Derrida explains, “With it’s a, differance more properly refers to what in classical language would be called the origin or production of differences and the differences between differences, the play [jeu] of differences. Its locus and operation will therefore be seen wherever speech appeals to difference” (120). What I believe Derrida is describing here is that differance refers to the creation of difference. It is obviously not a word, but implemented in our language and understanding of language it creates what we know difference not to be, hence giving us the capacity to realize and produce difference within literature. He explains this by stating that “differance is neither a word nor concept” rather it relates to “what has been most decisively inscribed in the thought of what is conveniently called our ‘epoch’” (120). I believe that this relates to a topic that we covered early on in the course in which was attempting to signify postmodernism (what it is and what time it is from). I think that Derrida relates differance as inscribing our era, and this injection of differance, in which theorist like Nietzsche, Sussure, Freud, Levinas and Heidegger strive off of, actually relates to the era of postmodernism. Another interesting concept that I came across in the reading was Derrida’s understanding and implementation of language in our society. Derrida concurs that “Language is necessary for the spoken word to be intelligible and so that it can produce all of its effects” (130). This basically explains that without language, words would have no meaning and we would lose our comprehension in society as a whole. This closely relates to De Sausser’s notion that, “without language, thought is a vague, uncharted nebula.” There were many other concepts that Derrida closely relates to De Sausser, such as his explanation of the system of linguistic differences and how it applies to the signifier and the signified in which he explains that without these differences can a subject become a signifying subject. All in all Derrida was a dense read, but still a unique and intriguing one.

ESPN, Derrida

Derrida’s quote on 127 “Within a language, within the system of language there are only differences. A taxonomic operation can accordingly undertake its systematic, statistical, and classificatory inventory…these differences play a role in language, in speech as well, and in the exchange between language and speech” really stood out for me. I was able to relate Derrida’s reading to what we learned earlier in class with De Saussure (who he is speaking of) and Macherey in how they deal with language. It was a pretty hard read but from what I understood, he was talking about how for everyone and everywhere language is different. It is also completely arbitrary. For instance he states on page 115 about how "you might see a neon sign for SHELL with a faulty circuit for the S so that it reads HELL, though a similar chance occurrence might have made it read SHE or HE or S ELL. However if the word hell were to appear in china they would view it in the same way and read it with the difference that we do, although there would still be a difference as they would it deed read it differently. Signs mean different things in every culture and language. He mentions Difference is it is hard to define because what is what is different to one person is not the same as different to someone else. Also when something is first introduced it is seen as different but after it is normalized it is no longer different, so really is there such thing as difference? Or is just that something has to be different at first but once it is normalized it is not different. In his effort to explain differences he says it is then produced – differed - by difference but then the problem arises what differs who differs? I understood it over all to deal with difference of language in that it is arbitrary but also the word difference in trying to find its meaning.

HOLLA! Derrida

Difference or differance…does it really matter? As I read Derrida, a very intellectual thinker at that, I honestly was confused as to the focus he had on the true relation between differance and difference. It got me thinking about De Saussure and how meaning is given to an arbitrary sign. In this case a different meaning is given to differance because of the arbitrary “a” in its context, whereas difference is given a different meaning because of the second arbitrary “e” in its context. Derrida considers in his text that differance can be seen as the “strategic note or connection—relatively or provisionally privileges—which indicates the closure of presence, together with the closure of the conceptual order and denomination, a closure that is effected in the functioning of traces” (121). I am not sure of the exact meaning of his quotation but I believe it to mean that differance is the denominator or connection of an object to its closure. Or it can mean that in language or words there are only difference or different meanings. As a whole I think Derrida is trying to explain that we are the individuals who give words meanings and in some cases different words mean different things to different individuals. Maybe this idea is what Derrida is trying to say what differance truly means. As I examine this reading more in depth it begins to confuse me more, I almost just want to skim the surface versus digging in. From going as in depth as I could, like I said above, I feel Derrida’s main point is to say that “every concept is necessarily and essentially inscribe in a chain or a system, within which it refers to another and to other concepts, by systematic play of difference” (127). I think this means, arbitrary words all being different give meaning to other arbitrary words, difference is what make these words their own giving us language as a whole. My idea or opinion or conclusion of this reading could be completely misunderstood, but these ideas and concepts are what I took away from Derrida’s text.

BiegieGo, Derrida

“truths are illusions of which one has forgotten that they are illusions.” Derrida is a very interesting character when it comes to difference. If truths are illusions then truth would never be seen as real. The question here should be: what is an illusion? Some would say it’s an image of something that is not real for example when you need water in the desert and you start seeing things, those are known as illusions. So in that case the truth would be false, but in Derrida’s case “thought, speech and writing all depend upon representations and the signifier.” We can relate this back to theorist DeSaussure because he also talks a lot about signifiers and what they stand for. In DeSausurre’s case a signifier stands for the word. For example, the word mug would be the signifier for the object mug that we can use to drink from which would be known as the signified and if we see a picture of a mug that would be known as a sign. Both Derrida and DeSaussure focus on the langue of something.
Derrida tells us that the “difference represents what is at issue between speech and writing.” We must look at both speech and writing to find the difference between the two because you can’t have a difference if you only look at one of the two. If there is a visible issue then we can clearly see the difference but if there is not them maybe we must look harder within the text or read between the lines to really understand it. He also says that there can be “no absolute point of origin or conclusion.” We may or may not know when things start or when they will even end if they do but we just know they’re there and we can study them. There is an “unconscious” state that blocks this absolute point or origin or conclusion.

Kiwi, Derrida

One concept that really made a lot of sense to me that Derrida discussed in the reading was, Logocentrism and how logos equal words. He says that, “as human beings, we are locked into words, or name”( 115) Weather we want to believe it or not, it is true to say that our society basis’s everything off of words, names and logos. Our society determines what class an individual falls under based on the brand names and material he or she has/wears. For instance; when we see someone that wears Neiman Marcus clothes we write away make the stereotype of that individual to be wealthy and part of the higher class, where as an individual wearing clothes from Walmart we make the stereotype of he/she being a part of the lower class. This can be seen on what people wear and can also be seen in jewelry and different accessories people wear as well as what car he/she drives. For example, back at home where I live the police are known for pulling over people that drive beat up, not so nice cars. They make the stereotype obviously that these people are sketchy people and are up to no good. I think that this is horrible and is not fair! But again… they make stereotypes of these people based off of the car they are driving.

Althusser says that, “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being which determines their consciousness” (Altuhsser) This connects to Derrida in how we make stereotypes of human’s and we are locked into words in name that we give them. This is because our society goes by certain ideologies. Even though we may not know why we follow them we continue to, because we do not know any better. As Lyotard would say, “we are living in a world of metanarratives.” He says that we all go by certain beliefs and values of how to live our lives.

I thought that this reading was different in how Derrida got across his message from any other reading we have had this year I think that Derrida can be connected to a lot of theorists we have learned and I look forward to class on Thursday to talk about Derrida and see how other people approached him and who they may have connected him to.

DoubleBubble, Sven Birkert's Lecture

Bikert’s lecture started off with his ideas on photographs and how he felt when he first saw them a few weeks ago, and the moved into his idea of reading and ebooks and how the history of books is going out.


Photographs, was something he mentioned. Photographs display a story, but only a story that we ourselves based on our experiences can relate to. A photo is taken, and once it is out of the hands of the photographer we are not sure the truth behind it, as one of our previous theorists had mentioned. How do we know what we think behind the photograph is what was actually occurring at that exact moment the photograph was taken? We don’t, because we only base it on our personal experiences and ideas. This is something interesting that I thought he mentioned and I thought it was unique in how it relates to our previous discussions but instead towards emotions instead of truth of events. How do we really know what those people are feeling? We don’t, so we can only base it off what we felt when we saw it and how well the photographer portrayed the message they intended to display. In a way, everyone can view a photograph differently unless it is photographed exactly how the photographer wanted it. The photographer is creating the ideas and emotions for us to develop. After listening to his lecture I thought about this idea, could we be feeling complete opposite and different emotions from two different pictures of the same event? I wonder what it would be like to do a case study with two photographers photographing the same exact thing but in their own ways, would we feel different? Or still somewhat the same?


Bikert’s then shifted to reading and how reading has transformed into a chore from a pleasure. That is how I saw the lecture because he discussed the ideas of how ebooks are making the history of books become invisible by moving everything to electronics. After he talked about this I thought about what book had importance on me, physically. It took me a while to think of something but then I realized the different outcomes I have with reading an article online versus in a book. When I read an article online, I sometimes have difficulty grasping the idea and concept because I don’t feel a connection with the article through the computer. When I read an article in an actual textbook or book I relate more to the article and the understanding of it because I feel physically attached to the book. After I thought about this, I realized that the physical attachment, or history of books is beginning to fade out. The feeling of old pages and sense of attachment will become non-existent which may result in the emotional attachment some people have with reading. You would never see a child reading a Harry Potter book off a laptop the day it came out, would you? How do you dog-ear a laptop? The emotional benefits and satisfaction of reading a book in your hands does not occur when reading online. This is the main idea and concept I grasped from Bikert’s lecture and it really made me think about how lazy and high-tech our general public is becoming. I really enjoyed this lecture and it really made me think about how much of an influence this technological change can influence our understanding and connection to readings.

DoubleBubble, Hebdige MAKEUP

Hebdige was a tough but very interesting article to read about.

Hebdige’s article was about ideologies and the notion of where they come from and how they interact within our society on classes and the public. Hebdige talks about how ideologies have become this form of common sense, meaning that ideologies have become this idea of normality and something that we automatically relate to. We relate and develop these ideologies to be common sense because they have been around and part of our everyday lives for so long. This idea of ideology and how it is our everyday norm can relate to Althusser and his idea about how ideology is unconscious and we are not aware that we are doing it. It could also relate to Lyotard and the idea of how we belong to these certain groups and we form to them, and while forming to them we also form to the ideologies it follows.

Sometimes there is the issue of a group of the general public who wants to be different and try to escape these ideologies. The ruling class creates ideologies unconsciously and we follow these ideologies because we presume that is what is normal. When attempting to escape these ideologies and become different, subgroups attempt to disrupt the suppression of classes through ideologies, which were created by the ruling class. As a result this causes deviant behavior to be redefined in order to “quiet the noise”. The reason these sub-groups do this is because they want to be different, but then they enter the issue of sameness. Once, the subgroups new ideas and concepts are presented to the general public they are ‘frozen’. Frozen means, they are no longer original because they have been presented and followed by the general public. All subcultures want to become different, but once their ideas and thoughts are put out to the public to follow, they are no longer different because everyone else is following them and they just sink back into this idea of sameness.

Hebdige’s article overall taught me the idea of ideologies and how much these ideologies are created by a ruling class. Even when a subculture breaks free from the ruling class ideologies, they are different for such a short amount of time, because the general public follows after them and their new ideologies and the subculture is then back as a part of the general public.

DoubleBubble, 11/1 MAKEUP

Since I was out with the Flu the week during which we went over Adorno and Horkheimer I thought I could base my post class post on the ideas and theories I developed myself from the reading based on the quotes given in Dr. Rog’s powerpoints.

One quote that stood out to me was, “Amusement always means putting things out of mind, forgetting suffering, even when it is on display. At its root is powerlessness”. The idea that Adorno and Horkheimer are expressing behind this quote I believe is the idea of how in order for the general public to be entertained by something we must sometimes block out the inequalities and forgetting about tem for a minute in order to grasp the idea behind what is initially being displayed. Inequalities also mean the inequalities of the messages behind the images we are being shown because if we do not block out these inequalities we will not be amused by what we are seeing. Power comes into play with the idea of how we feel powerless to change it, because we are not in control of what we are seeing, and therefore we have to ignore it. This idea of power and ignorance connects to the idea of superficial interpretations given to us by Jameson. We look at something only one way, the way it is presented to us and that allows us to ignore the underlying messages that influence our amusement.

Another quote that stood out to me was, “Advertising and the culture industry are merging technically no less than economically. In both, the same thing appears in countless places”. Advertising industries and the creators of pop culture are coming together to reproduce things into the general public over and over again. They do this so that we buy into this product and as a result we do not have any other options of what to consume. The reproduction and redundancy of this product occurs so often to the general public that we are adapted into believing and following the “spell” of advertisers. Jameson and his concept of Multinational Capitalism come into play here because only some companies are able to control large amounts of products, and large amounts of products have control over large amounts of people. Jameson and his idea of multinational capitalism come into play because wherever you go, no matter if a different country, you encounter the same idea in products because it has been repeated so many times.

Nate Dogg, Sven Birkerts Lecture

I enjoyed the lecture on Thursday evening. I've heard of e-books like the Kindle or the upcoming Nook, but I really hadn't considered the impact of the idea behind the device until the topic came up at the lecture. The Kindle takes what would be thousands of pounds worth of paper and condenses it so that the user can carry an entire library around with them at any point in time. While this is certainly a technological upgrade, it will be interesting to see what happens to traditional books. The paper industry has been hurting and will continue to bleed with mass electronic reading on the horizon. It instantly brings to mind the notion of authenticity, and how not only are we willing to give up the cover, the chosen typeface, the body of the book itself, but we are doing it and buying into a status icon image at the same time.
The fact that the Kindle is a successful product shows that there are still vast amounts of people who enjoy casual reading, but I think the idea of going to a library to pick out a book to read is something my generation will not get to properly experience. It's a shame, but the inclusion of all the books in a public library into a small, personal device is too difficult to pass up, and with data memory capability increasing the way it has consistently year after year, that looks to be a very real possibility in a not too distant future.
I see how Vinyl Records have made somewhat of a comeback recently, the last remnants of puritan audiophile defense against the mp3 dominated music industry. I believe books will enjoy and entertain a similar audience, for a time. Eventually, paper will become obsolete and electronic reading will be the mainstream, but imagining a world without paperback books is pretty wild.
I liked how one audience member at the lecture asked if kids would still "get lost in the stacks" like he had when he was younger. I think that the idea behind getting lost in the stacks is completely lost in my generations and the ones that will follow it. We process information too fast to take enough time for the slower paced and imagination consuming act of reading written words.

Serendipity, Lecture 11/15

Imagery is an incredibly unclear way of getting a message across. Unless however that is the point. Some artists use photography and images as ways to evoke feeling and to convey a general message. However, due to personal circumstance and subjectivity, the meaning may be taken in a completely different direction than the artist intended it to, which in most arts is usually okay. However, there is still a distinction that has to be made, and this is that pure text can usually get the message across more easily and clearly than an image, even though it may lack some of the emotional "oomph". In Sven's lecture on Thursday evening, he explained that the camera lens does not equal clarification. Photographs yield misrepresentation, but the artist is aware of this. It is up to the viewer to decipher the codes in the way that makes the most sense to them, and make it meaningful to themselves, therefore the meaning will take a slightly different turn for each individual person. Photographs are imaginary removals from the here and now, and it is impossible to know what was really happening at the time it was taken, whether it is posed, or whether the image was tinkered with. "Don't always trust your eyes" is basically what Sven feels about most imagery. This notion is similar to Benjamin's idea that the camera lies, and that we can never know the truth unless we were physically there at the the time the photograph or filming was taking place. Imagery is a way of decoding, putting words to mental pictures. This is different from reading, which is putting images to words. As Sven mentioned, Cartege claims that reading is mental recreation. I personally am addicted to reading for leisure, and find that the images I create in my mind are much more fabulous than those a director making a movie can come up with. For this reason, I am almost always somewhat disappointed with the movies based off of books, and refuse to see the movie until after I have read the book, as not to taint my mind with the mediocre images the movie portrays in contrast to those I come up with in my mind. In general, I think both text and images are equally as important, and they both convey different things, it is up to the artist to decide what medium to use in order to produce the most impact on the viewer.

Nemo 11/15 Birkerts lecture

Thursday evening I attended the lecture by Sven Birkerts where he analyzed Kertesz’s exhibit “On Reading”. He discussed how Kertesz’s photographs impacted him; how a photograph has the power to provoke thought. He pointed out a few of the pictures in the exhibit that meant something to him and discussed what he thought of when he saw them and the possible message that Kertesz was trying to convey. He said that know one knows what the people in the photographs were feeling when they were reading but that a person could imagine the feelings that the subject was having based on their own experiences.

He then discussed the idea of the E-Book, and how in recent years it has become more popular and how it will affect the sacredness of reading. When talking about the E-book he stressed that although the text might be the same, the experience you have while reading is not. His most interesting argument is that when we read an E-book we are losing the physical object that shows others what we are interested in. Which takes away our ability to start a conversation with another person if you can see that they have read the same books as you. I agree with Birkerts’ argument that E-books have taken away the sacredness that we associate with a hard cover book.

Gwatter06, 11/15

We had a very interesting class session this week after our test on Tuesday, which I have to admit was a bit more difficult then the first. We covered Foucault and his different concepts on discipline, surveillance and power within society. Dr. Rog did an interesting little display in class on Thursday to help the class get a feel for just what Foucault tries to discuss in his readings. Dr. Rog explained that surveillance is everywhere in our society, whether we are conscious towards the fact or if we’re not. By performing his weird shindig, he expressed that even if we were aware of surveillance taking place and that we knew we were constantly being watched that it would have a direct affect on those being watched. I think this affect works both ways, negatively and positively. I feel that if those who are unaware that they were being surveyed but become conscious of the fact that they would have a negative reaction to it and feel as they their privacy was being invaded and in turn would be reluctant to power. On the other hand, I think that some people thrive off of surveillance as we saw with the examples of facebook, youtube and that new website that Dr. Rog showed us where you can upload videos as status updates. These people take surveillance as an avenue for being known and getting their image out to society, Foucault would call this relinquishing power to those who survey others. Foucault exhibits this notion by stating, “induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power” (98). Foucault explains here that Power is automatic, you give it up even if your not being watched. He backs this up with the statement, “A real subjection is born mechanically from a fictitious relation” (99). Foucault explains that we give up power to those who we suspect are surveying society even if the surveillance doesn’t exist or is fictional. I found this the most interesting thing that we covered because it relates to Althusser and his notion that “the author and the reader…both live…naturally in ideology.” The fact that we give up power to surveillance even if we don’t know that the surveillance actually exists is a notion and matter of naturalization. Our society has naturalized the fact that “Inspection functions ceaselessly” (94).

Teets, 11/15

I thought the test was more difficult than the first one, but it still wasn’t too bad. On Thursday we covered Foucault and I consider him to be one of the more interesting theorists. The Panopticon example is very thought provoking because it is a perfect model for society. People fear breaking the law the same as prisoners in the Panopticon example feared the guards. Whether we fully acknowledge it or not, the Gaze always has some kind of control over us. When I think of surveillance for some reason I always think about speeding tickets first. It is a common thing for people to want to get places as fast as possible. Our society is obsessed with the aesthetic of speed, like we covered earlier in the semester. However, people do not fly down roads because of the gaze of law enforcement officers. People do not want to pay a fine for speeding, so they drive the speed limit and get places slower than they could.

In class Dr. Rog opened up with a quote from Foucault, then proceeded to “observe” us, ask people questions and so on. The act went on for a solid portion of class, which was obviously to prove his point. What Dr. Rog did was essentially what happens to people on an everyday basis, but we go through life not always knowing this gaze is upon us. People sais they felt uncomfortable in class during this act, yet people don’t feel uncomfortable on a day to day basis. Why is this? Because society has normalized the idea of being watched, being under constant surveillance in many ways. Surveillance was created to discipline people, but it might become too powerful in the years to come. Countries such as England have already felt the huge effects of surveillance, as they are the most watched nation in the world. It won’t be long until surveillance in America really gains more power.

Elmo, 11/15 Birkerts

Birkerts speech at the museum on Thursday night was really good! I found it to be an interesting subject matter and I actually understood everything he was talking about. He analyzed the Kertesz exhibit on reading. I thought that it was cool to hear him speak about the pictures in the exhibit since we had had the opportunity to view them a few weeks ago and spend time examining them. Birkerts talked a lot about how the camera eye proposes a field of perception; it shows you only what it wants you to see. He talked about how the artist “creates” an image which he or she wants the reader to see. This reminded me a lot of what Benjamin talked about and how the camera doesn’t allow us to see the entire picture, only what, again, the author or artist wants us to see. Birkerts also talked about how both the artist and the observer are of equal importance to the image, similar to what we have learned about Macherey. Birkerts said that the artist has a image or meaning of the picture as does the observer, but they are both different, which in turn makes them both equally important in reading the picture.

Something else, which moved in a different direction, was when Birkerts brought up the new phenomena of e-books and the kindle. He raised the question of if this takes away from the books history or authenticity. He talked a lot about how the kindle brings about loss and takes away from a books history. It privates us in a sense because we don’t actually get to see the book, and perhaps how old it is, or feel the pages; It makes everything the same. This is just like what Adorno said when he talked about how everything these days is the same. If all of our books become electronic then there really is no difference besides the actual words themselves, all the fonts are the same, there are no images, no ripped or crinkled pages to indicate oldness, and no dust to brush off the cover. I had never really thought about this before and I find it to be really interesting to think about. Overall I thoroughly enjoyed Birkerts speech on reading.

Ron Burgundy, Sven Birkerts

Thursday I attended the talk that was given by Sven Birkerts. He read his piece that he had written based upon Andre Kertesz’s exhibit “On Reading”. His work which exemplified how “to talk about reading is to talk about everything under the sun” was extremely interesting as it introduced some of the paradox’s that existed in Kertesz’s images of reading. He explained the paradox of the outward ness of photography vs., the inwardness of reading, the polarity of immobility and unseen property of the engaged, and the dual perspectives, that of the reader and that of the observer. As he continued he also delved into the phenomenon of the E-book that is becoming increasingly popular in culture today and what it means for the sort of sanctity of reading. One of the most interesting points Birkerts brought up that stuck with me even after the talk was the disappearance of the book as a tangible object in the age of the E-book. He discussed the significance of the material nature of a book vs. the online e-book whose “text is unhoused”. If we only read via the Internet we lose the “housed” text that sits on our bookshelf and in a sense gives an inclination to our character and interests. The E-book takes away from the idea of a child investing in an object, no tangible books help them fall asleep at night but rather a bright screen tells them stories and disappears when it is closed. Birkerts also looked at the point of a library in the age of the E-book as it may eventually lose its significance. But Birkerts makes a great point in the need and significance of maintaining the material object of a book; it shows what we value as content. For example, if you took a look at the bookshelf that I have in my dorm room you would see a row of about ten to twelve books that I have read during my life. These books were selected to be on my bookshelf because of their significance and impact on my life and therefore serve to tell an individual who may enter my room and see them, a little bit about me. If all the books I’ve read were kept online, I would not be able to glance around my room and see the stories that have consumed hours of my days, I would not be able to lend a book I know helped me in a certain point of my life to someone I felt could use it as an escape. In this way, I support Birkerts’ work that discusses the importance of the preservation of the material object of the book, and clearly enjoyed his presentation.

"THE GOOD ONE" HOLLA! 11/15/09 (Sven Birckett)

Sven Birckett had some very interesting things to say through his analyses of Kertesz’s photographs of reading. I thought it was interesting how he saw photography as being committed to outer resources and reading being more of something committed to inner meaning. I agree with this completely because when reading individuals can be taken to all different places depending on how they are internally interpreting meaning. For example, I can read a novel talking about life and how to live and so can my roommate. We can have different internally meanings though depending where we are in life and how we’ve been brought up to look at life. On the other hand, images are seen from the outside world, needing the eye to give meaning. Images give more of a shared meaning than that of reading. I also like how Sven went into the differences of the reader versus the observer. For example, a reader does not have to be aware of his or her setting but an observer must be aware of their surroundings and what they’re observing, i.e. an image. Sven also went into detail about the progression of reading materials going from hand written books, to printed books, to now digital books like the Kindle. This new technology has brought into opposition the printed pages versus lit screens. He interestingly compared this as old world versus post-postmodernity. I agreed with his question of “does the Kindle extend the invitation that the open book extends?” Personally I do not believe so because with a book you can snuggle up in bed, bend it and maneuver it for comfort etc. My question to Sven would be, as we have progressed technologically from oral to written to print to now digital, is it possible that we can progress any further? To me a Kindle is just another form of book, it is nothing different from a written book, it still means and gives the same meaning. Sven on reading was very interesting, but I feel there is more to be looked at when it comes to this subject.

HOLLA! 11/15/09 (Sven Birckett)

The disciplinary modality of power, Foucault’s main theory, is based on a similar mechanism of power, that of Althusser’s ideological state apparatus. Instead of using ideology as the enforcer of power, Foucault believes discipline to be this unnoticed force of power. I like how Foucault used the “pantonic principle” as the reasoning behind his theory. It is more that discipline is a type of surveillance. This idea is the same as the purpose behind the Panopticon, built by Bentham, a perfectly structured observation building. A building in which its inhabitants are observed twenty-four seven without the knowledge of knowing so. “He who is subjected to a field of visibility, and who knows it, assumes responsibility for the constraints of power; he makes them play spontaneously upon himself; he inscribes in himself power relation in which he simultaneously plays both roles; he becomes the principle of his own subjection” (99). Foucault’s quotation shows why it is important that individuals not know they are being observed or watched over. In other words, this comparison between discipline and surveillance as power was made to show readers that the “disciplinary modality of power” is just that. We are being observed all the time without knowing it and this surveillance is what keeps us in order and the disciplinarians in power. So how ideology is a superstructure of power in which we act on unconsciously, the disciplinary modality of power is also working on us unconsciously as we follow it and allow it to rule our lives. I think what sums up Foucault’s theory of power in a nutshell is that, “We are neither in the amphitheatre, nor on the stage, but in the panoptic machine, invested by its effects of power, which we bring to ourselves since we are part of its mechanism” (101).

ESPN, 11/14

After the test on Tuesday which I am so happy to be done with, we went over Foucault which I found very interesting. It was a different way to start class as Dr. Rog was creeping around to expand the notion that Inspection functions ceaselessly. Everyone really is essentially inspecting each other and we our lives accordingly as we always get ourselves ready each day to be watched. My favorite quote from Foucault is however that, everyone locked up in his cage, everyone at his window, answering to his name and showing himself when asked. It seems that everyone in trying to be in this cage and there is unspoken rules on what needs to be done to be in. one is either in or out of the cage, there is no in between. If I understand correctly, the cage he speaks of is in reference to society. for example I was in church today and realized everyone was wearing similar things such as polo shirts and kakis, it is like Adorno says are society is infected with sameness. That being said if someone were to walk in there will a outfit fit for the beach, people would look at them funny. Thus, you are either in or you’re out, you wear the same thing or you are different. We must think what we are going to wear in anticipation of being watched. Being watched is a powerful thing and it dramatically affects how people live. The affects can be seen in the notion of the PANOPTICON. I had never heard about it before and it opened my eyes to see how people live according to how they think they are being watched. If the people inside the Panopticon did not think anyone was watching, they would have acted entirely different. In a similar fashion I did it just today. I had people coming over and I changed entirely all because I was going to be watched, we are always concern with how other perceive us and it is just another reason for the false being that we portray to fit in to society and its norms.

Ace Ventura, Sven Beirkets

On Thursday night, I attended the Beirkets talk. He had been very inspired by Kirtezche "On Reading" art work. Beirkets had always thought of reading as an inspirational process, rather than just going through images. Part of the beauty of Kirtezche's artwork that inspired him was that, in the photographs and in real life, when someone is reading their mind is focused on consuming the information and interpreting what they are reading, not on their outward self. Beirkets says that an engaged reader is never aware of their setting because that is not where their focus lies. One thing that I found to be interesting and true was when Beirkets spoke about the images of children reading. He said that these pictures remind us of a time when we were capable of "absolutely imaginative transport", before we were consumed by the business world. This really appealed to me because I can remember how much I loved to read when I was younger. And all of the things that I loved to read were stories that required a large imagination (a personal favorite of mine was The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe). As a child, you are not bound to reality as much as adults are because you don't have as many responsibilities to burden you and consume your thoughts or stress you. Beirkets called this dilemma "suffering the anxiety of consciousness". As our world and our lives grow more complex, it is harder to live out our interpretations that we get through reading. In a way, I think this is why people seem to return to reading when they become elderly. As an elderly person, you have less things to burden you and less responsibilities and I think there is a desire to return to that childhood-like stage when you can use your imagination to transport you to different times.