Captain Planet 09/12/09

In class on Thursday we discussed realism. I never truly understood the concept of realism; how it was defined, how it was used, and how the term connected to the course concepts we’ve been studying. After doing the Lyotard reading and dissecting the text, the class discussion we had on Thursday really aided in my understanding of realism. Realism is a part of our everyday lives because it’s the media. We discussed in class that these so-called reality shows on all the major TV networks don’t actually portray reality at all. When asked if their lives were more like The OC, a show about a group of high school kids, or like Laguna Beach, a reality show about a group of high school kids, college kids on average said their own lives were more like The OC. The fictional show mirrored ‘reality’ more than the ‘reality show’ did. The show Murphy Brown blurred boundaries in the 80’s and 90’s when the lead character became the topic of news headlines because of her out-of-wedlock pregnancy. Every day we are bombarded with images of actors and actresses trying to live normally in their everyday lives – and then on the reverse side of that – of reality show characters on TV commercials and magazine ads. Media has confused us. We no long can determine what is real and what is not. And furthermore, due to realism, nothing new and innovative can be produced. Several blockbuster movies come out in a month nowadays. The movies that follow along with ideas that have already been done before are the ones that masses flock to. The movies that introduce new ideas are often overlooked by the public. Society seems to be driven by realism.

kiwi, 9/11

This week in class we discussed the concepts of authenticity and originality and which one comes first when describing an object. The original thing had more value than authenticity. Benjamin wrote in 1936, “What happens to the work of art when it is constantly reproduced is lost with no value.” FREE Original Hamburger—what is the meaning of this? Get all hamburgers free, but which one is the original one? We struggle to understand which is original and which is real now more than society did back in 1936.
In class, Dr. Rog showed a Harvey Hamburger advertisement that had a mound of hamburgers on it that looked all the same. At the bottom of the advertisement, it said… “This Sunday is Harvey’s Hamburger day, Free original hamburger” But the question is… what is original? If all of the hamburgers physically look the same and taste the same, how can just one hamburger be an “original hamburger” because there are millions of them. How can one decipher between original hamburger A and original hamburger B? Are they talking about an authentic hamburger? This is something we don’t really know, yet no one really takes the time to consider these things. For example, the other day I asked a friend… what do you consider original? She used a piece of art in her explanation. She considered an original piece of art one that is unique but does not necessarily have to be different from its genre. I could see her frustration in trying to decipher original from authentic. “The presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity” (20) The presence implies I am physically here and it is physically here, unless it is physically here, it is not authentic. I have come to the notion that it is nearly impossible to define original and authentic without somehow one crossing the other.

HOLLA! 9/13/09

In class on Thursday we spoke about realism and the theorist’s opposed to the idea. I guess before Thursday’s class I never really understood exactly what realism was or the fact that we live it everyday when we watch any form of media. After really understanding what realism is I love the idea! I feel realism is there to let individuals escape from their everyday lives into something new. If we didn’t have television, movies, plays, etc I honestly don’t know how I would keep myself entertained. In class we discussed that Lyotard’s definition of realism and his somewhat negative opinion of it. He believes realism “stands somewhere between academicism and kitsch.” It provides “correct” images, narratives, and forms designed as “the appropriate remedy for the anxiety and depression the public experiences” (41). Now I feel this definition is harsh considering I don’t see myself or anyone close to me as depressed and anxious individuals relying on television to heal their sufferings. The only negative point that I could see stemming from realism in media is that of crossing the line. We discussed the television series Murphy Brown and how it seemed to cross line of reality and fiction. I can truly say I see this happening a lot in television, individuals not being able to decipher between what is fictional and what is reality. A good example is the fictional show Gossip Girl and the reality show NYC Prep. NYC Prep is playing off of the show Gossip Girl and its ideas. It is showing viewers that Gossip Girls is real because the kids in NYC Prep are living similar lives. I just feel that TV, cinema, plays, etc need to be there for a little escape from our hectic everyday lives, not there to confuse us as the boundaries of what is real and what is not are crossed.

Graham, 9/10/09

It was interesting the way that we discussed the idea of the McDonalds sign, which has become extremely cliché to the majority of Americans, because we see it constantly, which cause us to ultimately forget that the sign itself is a piece of art. This occurs a lot in society today, because things are reproduced so rapidly, causing them to lose their value, because we no longer know what the “original is. We looked at pictures on the Powerpoint, and pointed out the fact that it is almost impossible to figure out what the original is. I believe that this is one of the most important things that Walter Benjamin discusses in his article.
“The camera…need not respect the performance as an integral whole” (25) was also talked about the way that the media completely changes the way that we watch television. Dr. Casey used the example of watching a sports gave on TV, and actually watching it in person. When we are actually there, we encounter various interruptions and distractions which make it very hard for us to stay focused. However, when we watch it at home we intimately see only what the camera crew wants us to see, so it is a lot easier to stay focused. He explained that “the camera has taken place of our eyes” because we sit at home and watch a movie, and we feel as if we are actually there. This is why we cry in movies, and believe that reality television is real. We watch these things and relate to them, so that we actually allow these shows and movies to effect our emotions.
However, if we do not agree with something that is happening in the media, we begin thinking that we could have written it better. He gave us the quote saying “everybody who witnesses its [a film’s] accomplishments is somewhat of an expert…At any moment the reader is turned into a writer.” As a society, we are always judging others and believing that we are far more capable than them.

Captain Outrageous, Lyotard

POST BELOW IS FROM CAPTAIN OUTRAGEOUS! I FORGOT TO PUT IN THE TITLE SORRY!

" LET US WAGE WAR ON TOTALITY; LET US BE WITNESSES TO THE UNPRESENTABLE; LET US ACTIVATE THE DIFFERENCES AND SAVE THE HONOR OF THE NAME"

I'm going to tell a story. Hopefully the story should explain itself. Having the possibility that it won't, after the story I'll give an explanation as to how it relates to Lyotard.

It's summer of 2003 and I'm visiting New York City for the bagillionth time, but the first time in matters of life importance. I've just finished my freshman year of high school and everything is nouveaux rebellion for me, what's new, what's life, what's different? The city feels different on this trip, the museums seem different, even the city buses smell different in the most exhilarating of ways. On the particular day of which I speak, I went to the Metropolitan Museum of Art solely for the purpose of the Chanel exhibit in the Basement (where they had recently started doing fashion-oriented exhibits, which are marvelous if you should ever get the chance). I had been to the Met and to other famous museums dozens of times over- I had seen Monet, Van Gogh, Dali, Rembrandt, the likes. Strolling through these art sections meant nothing much to me anymore for I had studied them I had learned from them...I was tired of them. Being so, I decided to explore the Contemporary Art museum for the first time in my life and was aesthetically changed.

As in any Contemporary Art exhibit there are things that don't...make sense. Well, they didn't then at least. Exhibits containing chairs and trash cans and running video, pieces that looked like exploding vomit- most notably for me, a series of solid color canvases hanging on a wall meant to resemble a xylophone. I had one main question and disappointment running through my frustrated nerves: WHY? Why a blank canvas with two colored stripes? Why a canvas with nothing on it but PlaySkool Pink (I didn't realize then what a time-space issue it was aside from lack of knowledge concerning postmodernism)? I was growing increasingly frustrated and further conservative in my aesthetic values when I turned my vision from one wall and landed it upon a Pollock.

Most unfortunately, I don't remember which piece it was. It was big and splattered, but those are no defining qualities when it comes to the work of postmodern artist Jackson Pollock. I would like to say it was Lavender Mist, but only because that piece is my favorite of his. If you haven't seen a Pollock before, you cannot possibly understand the magnitude of what it is. First of all, it is superbly large. Most of us wouldn't be able to fit one into a dorm room or a chapter room for that matter- they most certainly make you feel small. Second of all, they are chaotic: layers upon layers of splatter and dribble and color and texture and continuity and discontinuity and most importantly- unknown- unknown that evokes...something. And that is all that mattered for me. I went quite quickly from being disgruntled to being in awe. I stood in front of that monstrosity of anything-ness and couldn't tear my eyes away, which were slowly streaking my cheeks with tears. The Contemporary Art Section suddenly made a bit of insensible sense- the art didn't have to make sense, it didn't have to mean anything, it didn't have to correspond to the likes of what I considered 'art'- it simply had to evoke. I was overwhelmed, I was confused, I was inspired, I was lost and found at the same time. I didn't understand Pollock at that moment and to this day, after many projects and papers of research about him, I refuse to understand Pollock entirely for that would defeat the purpose of his art or furthermore defeat the purpose of postmodernism.

After reading Lyotard, this experience of mine makes more sense. Really, the xylophone makes sense, the exploding vomit makes sense. Lyotard discusses that 'modern' is the art devoted to present the fact that the unpresentable exists. I would say that postmodern, then, is the art that interprets the unpresentable. A lot of art critics call this abstraction. Lyotard calls abstraction a negative presentation. Lyotard also asks us, "But how to make visible that there is something which cannot be seen?" I answer him "With our eyes open". The Sublime concepts that Lyotard discusses (pleasure and pain) is like understanding Modern Art or Contemporary Art: there is no pleasure from prior knowledge for their are no objects attached to the concepts, there is pain from going beyond these conventions and opening your eyes to a greater acceptance, a greater emotion perhaps or interpretation. We must all be avant-gardes who "devote themselves to making an allusion to the unrepresentable by means of visible presentations".

Let us then 'wage war on totality' and be 'witnesses to the unpresentable'. Let us open our eyes. Let us be evoked.

BiegieGo, Lyotard

“Modernity, in whatever age it appears, cannot exist without a shattering of belief and without discovery of the ‘lack or reality’ of reality, together with the invention of other realities. “What, then, is post modern?” “It is undoubtedly a part of the modern.” “In an amazing acceleration, the generations precipitate themselves. A work can become modern only if it is first postmodern. Postmodernism thus understood is not modernism at its end but in the nascent state, and this state is constant.”
Although I did not understand this reading entirely, I pick out some quotes that I thought had some importance to my brain. The first quote about modernity came off to me as whatever the time period of the work or art or language is pretty much modern. Whatever is happening in that state of being is seen to me as realism. What is in the here and now is all that matters in that point in time for being the reality of real. With saying that is something does not come off as real then other real things can be really real so there for their can’t be any realism.
The bigger question we are looking at is “what is postmodern?” to really describe what postmodern is, would be saying that it is the modern. Whatever the modern is, is what the postmodern was. We can’t have the modern without the postmodern. Some believe that the postmodern is an era that has past but for me postmodern is the beginning of not end. It has happened but it continues to happen and it is changed a little but it will always be in the modern state. It will always be in the here in now even though it has already happened. So postmodern is never ending.