Sunday, February 8, 2009
coolbeans, 2/8
The class on Thursday really cleared up what Lyotard was trying to say for me. I found it hard to grasp what the reading was saying because the point seemed to jump around from topic to topic. Something that I found to be really interesting was that he said that the avant-garde does not exist anymore because it becomes commodified and available to everyone. I do believe that this is somewhat true. The punk style was once a thing that was seen as avant garde and unusual. A movement of style reflected in the fashion of a rebellion against establishment. Nowadays, it seems that the style has been mass produced to be sold in stores such as Hot Topic. Back when the style movement was first started people were ripping their own jeans and putting their own safety pins through their clothes, now kids can buy their jeans with holes in them already and safety pins in them already. Not only that, but the message of the original subculture has also been commodified. The ideas of nonconformity and not selling out that were the primary ideologies of the subculture movement. These ideologies have been commodified as well. Now when someone dresses in the punk style and chooses to act rebellious it is seen as another form of conformity and selling out. The person is conforming to a different now mainstream style choice and selling out to the ideologies that they are supposed to embody because of the way that they dress. Fashion provides a good example in how the avant garde has become commodified. Some forms of fashion however, remain true to the avant garde style. The form of fashion design known as haute couture is the creation of pieces that are exclusively custom made and fitted for a specific person. Also, some companies such as Billionaire Boys Club, Johnny Cupcakes, and Kidrobot only create small amounts of each item of clothing in order to keep the items from being mass produced and to add a sense of limited exclusivity to the clothing line.
Juice15, 2/5
The two terms that really jumped out at me from the Lyotard reading were realism and avant-garde. These terms apply to today’s world in many different ways but are becoming part of the spotlight in media and technology.
As for realism Lyotard feels that the notion of knowing something is not real, but assuming it is real is dangerous. I would agree with him here. From television shows to so called reality shows many people treat these two the same, if they both are even real. Many people have begun to devote time out of their lives to sit down and watch shows like Lost, Survivor, and The Hills. These shows become part of people’s routines and mess with their sense of reality, is there nothing more productive that could be occurring during the hours people spend watching, discussing, blogging and trying to understand these shows? The times when people used to read multiple newspapers every morning and listen to the radio to figure out what is really going on in the world people have turned to shows like The Office or even to Family Guy get a sense of what the work world or family living is like today which gives a false face to this. As we learned in the first day of class about reality “It ain’t what it used to be.”
Avant-garde has also become an everyday part of today’s society. This notion of I’m going to be in front of everybody else is a common theme I notice a lot. I see this as a way of companies taking products and trying to make them their own. When Under Armour came out and sold its clothing products companies such as Nike started to make vary similar products to cut into the market that Under Armour started. You tube is another way that anybody can try to take an original thing and try and make it theirs. But that takes us back to the question of what exactly is original. It seems somebody is always going to try and turn it into a commodity.
As for realism Lyotard feels that the notion of knowing something is not real, but assuming it is real is dangerous. I would agree with him here. From television shows to so called reality shows many people treat these two the same, if they both are even real. Many people have begun to devote time out of their lives to sit down and watch shows like Lost, Survivor, and The Hills. These shows become part of people’s routines and mess with their sense of reality, is there nothing more productive that could be occurring during the hours people spend watching, discussing, blogging and trying to understand these shows? The times when people used to read multiple newspapers every morning and listen to the radio to figure out what is really going on in the world people have turned to shows like The Office or even to Family Guy get a sense of what the work world or family living is like today which gives a false face to this. As we learned in the first day of class about reality “It ain’t what it used to be.”
Avant-garde has also become an everyday part of today’s society. This notion of I’m going to be in front of everybody else is a common theme I notice a lot. I see this as a way of companies taking products and trying to make them their own. When Under Armour came out and sold its clothing products companies such as Nike started to make vary similar products to cut into the market that Under Armour started. You tube is another way that anybody can try to take an original thing and try and make it theirs. But that takes us back to the question of what exactly is original. It seems somebody is always going to try and turn it into a commodity.
ashlayla, 2/5
Television happened after Lyotard wrote his article, but he was able to predict that eventually characters from plays/TV would seem very real to those of us watching them. In class we talked about how verisimilitude is like a simulation of the real world. The characters that are in TV shows are engaged as if they are real people and we as the audience react to them like they are real people. An example of this brought up in class was soap operas. I think that a soap opera is a good example of verisimilitude because the characters are mimicking real world people. Because they are such good actors, audiences are drawn into these shows day after day. My favorite television show is Gilmore Girls. Although it no longer airs on TV, I watch it often because I own all the seasons. Gilmore Girls is my favorite show because I was able to relate with the two main characters, Rory and Lorelai. They are a mother and daughter with a close relationship; the Lorelai does everything in her power to make sure Rory gets the best of everything. Lauren Graham and Alexis Bledel are such good actresses that instead of feeling like a real TV show, I felt like it was something real and similar to the relationship I have with my mom. They were mimicking real life situations but made the show seem real and not like a simulation.
-ashlayla
-ashlayla
yellowdaisy4, 2/8/09
The examples given in the last class really help clear up what exactly realism is for me. The concept of verisimilitude, which is having the sense that the characters you are watching on TV or in a film are real, is very fascinating because most people do it without even realizing it or knowing there is an actual word for it. I, myself have definitely done that before especially back when the drama “The O.C.” was on. I would get so into the storylines and show that I actually cried when Ryan almost had to move back to Chino, even though it was obvious he was coming back or else there wouldn’t have been a show, and the time when the character Marissa died. I remember calling all my friends on the phone in shock of what had just happened even though it was clearly not real at all. This also brings me to what we talked about regarding reality TV. I feel like this concept is so confusing to most people because it promotes itself as being real but most people are not put in the situations like being trapped on an island having to play survival games or stuck in a house fighting for one semi-famous guy with twelve other women. The MTV show “The Hills” was one of the shows that has been called out on their use of the term “reality” recently with gossip sites revealing how they shoot scenes multiple times and set up fake drama for the supposedly real people and not actors to live out in front of the camera. This connects to the danger that Lyotard was talking about when we confuse what is fake with what’s real. This got to be so bad on “The Hills” that real magazines were reporting on the fake fights on the “reality show” and people like Senator McCain were commenting on them. This also reminds me about the Dan Quail and “Murphy Brown” example we heard in class. I find it really ridiculous yet funny how a smart enough man to be vice president would base an issue on a made up character in a TV show as if she was this real role model for unwed mothers and not just a character dealing with storylines on TV. Some people even get disappointed when they finally get to meet an actor and they are not like the characters they play at all. It is like they get so into that character that they want them to be real and don’t see the person playing them as an actor. I think that is why some actors get bad press and have to worry about their image so much so they don’t disappoint people more while also having a clear separation of personal life so they don’t have to deal with a stalker.
post-it note, 2/8/2009
Our conversation in class was thought provoking and is the first time that I have thought about CMC in terms of the big picture. Educating the American population on the impact of media on our lives is important why? For one, I believe it is important to understand the processes that occur in our world. Whether political or social, understanding these ideas create educated people capable of manipulating the very thing set in place to control them. It is also important to understand the origin and reason for the media’s controlling nature in order to remedy this behavior.
We can only speculate as CMC majors at Rollins as to what would happen if the media did not fill as much or any of our lives with information, useful or useless. This reminds me of economics, as far as the speculation goes. In economics, theories are studied. But these theories only work within the law of ceteris paribus: all else equal. And considering that all theories are only speculation, we only have reason to believe that the theories will be partially true; that other factors will play into them due to the ever-changing landscape of life in the 21st century. How can we expect that parts of some theories will be correct, that a hodgepodge of contemporary and classical theory will be created? This would mean that all the theories that each theory we are studying is irrelevant as a whole, but might become relevant in parts if a media revolution were to occur.
Not to say that what those in history had to say is unimportant. This is not my statement. My statement here is that the theorists that we are reading are important to understand and learn from, but we must look beyond their thoughts in order to understand where we have been and thoughts on where we might be going. All of these ideas are windows into the minds of media geniuses. We should not feel as if we have a right to their ideas, but we should consider them important in perspective building on this journey of understanding and change.
We can only speculate as CMC majors at Rollins as to what would happen if the media did not fill as much or any of our lives with information, useful or useless. This reminds me of economics, as far as the speculation goes. In economics, theories are studied. But these theories only work within the law of ceteris paribus: all else equal. And considering that all theories are only speculation, we only have reason to believe that the theories will be partially true; that other factors will play into them due to the ever-changing landscape of life in the 21st century. How can we expect that parts of some theories will be correct, that a hodgepodge of contemporary and classical theory will be created? This would mean that all the theories that each theory we are studying is irrelevant as a whole, but might become relevant in parts if a media revolution were to occur.
Not to say that what those in history had to say is unimportant. This is not my statement. My statement here is that the theorists that we are reading are important to understand and learn from, but we must look beyond their thoughts in order to understand where we have been and thoughts on where we might be going. All of these ideas are windows into the minds of media geniuses. We should not feel as if we have a right to their ideas, but we should consider them important in perspective building on this journey of understanding and change.
aro0823, 2-8
“Go ahead class, be terrorists.” These are not words one typically expects to hear from a teacher. As a matter of fact, I have never heard anyone, in any profession, encourage easily influenced young minds to become terrorists. But, this is postmodernism we’re talking about, so all prior expectations are essentially thrown out the window.
I automatically linked Dr. Rog’s opening comments about terrorism to the totalized metanarrative of “America.” I find it fascinating that as a country, we have our own very distinct metanarrative. Unfortunately, after 9/11, terrorism is very much a part of it. Though, delving deeper, I think terrorism is so engrained in our American metanarrative because of all of the media criticism and commentary devoted to 9/11 and the totalized “War on Terror.” If so much [non-critical] analysis were not given to the words and actions of both our government and hostile governments abroad, terrorism would not be possible. Media conglomerates claim to give you “the real story,” but all they do is give sound bites that subconsciously encourage the viewer to listen to authority figures. The goal of terrorists is to spread fear, and because our news networks constantly pump fear into the hegemonic ideology, terrorism is deemed effective.
The emergence of postmodern thought makes it harder than ever for the ruling elite to continue their hegemony. These elite strive to maintain the status quo, and resort to whatever means necessary to keep the public from being overly critical of policy decisions. Indeed, classicism is “ruled out in a world in which reality is so destabilized,” but modernism is not, especially in the context of conservative administrations. Modernists love absolutes; modernists love tautological phrases. We noted in CMC 200 that part of the reason why the Bush administration was able to so successfully convince the public that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was because of the constant echoing of buzzwords like “war on terror” and constant encouragement of patriotism and the strength of America. Without postmodern critics to dissect these sensationalist phrases, the metanarrative of America is maintained, so the real terrorists can play on the instilled fear of the general public.
I automatically linked Dr. Rog’s opening comments about terrorism to the totalized metanarrative of “America.” I find it fascinating that as a country, we have our own very distinct metanarrative. Unfortunately, after 9/11, terrorism is very much a part of it. Though, delving deeper, I think terrorism is so engrained in our American metanarrative because of all of the media criticism and commentary devoted to 9/11 and the totalized “War on Terror.” If so much [non-critical] analysis were not given to the words and actions of both our government and hostile governments abroad, terrorism would not be possible. Media conglomerates claim to give you “the real story,” but all they do is give sound bites that subconsciously encourage the viewer to listen to authority figures. The goal of terrorists is to spread fear, and because our news networks constantly pump fear into the hegemonic ideology, terrorism is deemed effective.
The emergence of postmodern thought makes it harder than ever for the ruling elite to continue their hegemony. These elite strive to maintain the status quo, and resort to whatever means necessary to keep the public from being overly critical of policy decisions. Indeed, classicism is “ruled out in a world in which reality is so destabilized,” but modernism is not, especially in the context of conservative administrations. Modernists love absolutes; modernists love tautological phrases. We noted in CMC 200 that part of the reason why the Bush administration was able to so successfully convince the public that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was because of the constant echoing of buzzwords like “war on terror” and constant encouragement of patriotism and the strength of America. Without postmodern critics to dissect these sensationalist phrases, the metanarrative of America is maintained, so the real terrorists can play on the instilled fear of the general public.
thestig, 2/8
“Artists who question the rules ‘are destined to have little credibility’; ‘they have no guarantee of an audience’” (41).
In class, we discussed that Lyotard suggests that no one hears you; everything has to be pulled into the mainstream, or no one will believe it. Last semester, I took International Media with Shamis Media. I think my fellow students would agree that this is the main problem with media: the only people who are actually heard are those who have the finances, the political connections, etc. The result: a politically and economically influenced message. What isn’t deemed “credible” by the major networks, studios, or media hubs has little chance of a “guaranteed” audience. Well there is a problem here: everybody has a story.
The story that you might be hearing on the news or reading in the newspaper may or may not have any credibility (in the sense that it does or does not have content, or is critical, etc), so the question is how does the everyday person or community broadcast their story? How does one shake the tail of Lyotard’s ideology, and find an audience when he/she is far from the audience?
Evolution.
Dr. Rog touched on the evolution of this ideology: that technology has changed things enormously, i.e. the John Lennon guitar kid. Everybody’s story can now be told, and reach a global audience, i.e. each of our blog posts. In the past, you needed a big expensive camera, and the political connections to get your story to the world – and even then, the audience had to be tuned in at a specific time. Now, you can buy a video camera for $300, and edit in no time at all, and broadcast it 24/7 for free. Current TV or youtube are good examples. Now, a small story can become a big story. Your story can be the story.
This is a huge leap forward in respect to progress for small countries, or even for people not so far from Rollins, where immigrant laborers are abused, and are living under harsh conditions. Their story can be your agenda.
In class, we discussed that Lyotard suggests that no one hears you; everything has to be pulled into the mainstream, or no one will believe it. Last semester, I took International Media with Shamis Media. I think my fellow students would agree that this is the main problem with media: the only people who are actually heard are those who have the finances, the political connections, etc. The result: a politically and economically influenced message. What isn’t deemed “credible” by the major networks, studios, or media hubs has little chance of a “guaranteed” audience. Well there is a problem here: everybody has a story.
The story that you might be hearing on the news or reading in the newspaper may or may not have any credibility (in the sense that it does or does not have content, or is critical, etc), so the question is how does the everyday person or community broadcast their story? How does one shake the tail of Lyotard’s ideology, and find an audience when he/she is far from the audience?
Evolution.
Dr. Rog touched on the evolution of this ideology: that technology has changed things enormously, i.e. the John Lennon guitar kid. Everybody’s story can now be told, and reach a global audience, i.e. each of our blog posts. In the past, you needed a big expensive camera, and the political connections to get your story to the world – and even then, the audience had to be tuned in at a specific time. Now, you can buy a video camera for $300, and edit in no time at all, and broadcast it 24/7 for free. Current TV or youtube are good examples. Now, a small story can become a big story. Your story can be the story.
This is a huge leap forward in respect to progress for small countries, or even for people not so far from Rollins, where immigrant laborers are abused, and are living under harsh conditions. Their story can be your agenda.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)