Sunday, November 1, 2009
HOLLA! 11/1/09
In class on Thursday we discussed Adorno and his ideas on how culture has become what it is today and almost how it got there. One quotation in particular that sums up Adorno’s idea is, “The concept of a genuine style becomes transparent in the culture industry as the aesthetic equivalent to power” (47). This idea means that if you want to be in the ruling class its normal for you to have style. It goes back to Marx’s idea of how the individuals with material well-being are the ruling class. So if you have style you are materialistic well off, you are the leader, you are the haves who are producing style for the have-nots to internalize. The world functions on this notion of ideology how the stylish individuals in this world are the ones who really develop our culture. Even though Hebdige might say that subcultures become the new trend in many cases, it is the haves and the stylish who bring it to the forefront. Designers are who bring the “grunge” look into the mainstream for example, these designers are the haves producing this subculture into the new stylish idea that will be internalized by the have nots. This idea is what our culture focuses on and I believe that this is the idea that Adorno was trying to capitalize on. The standardized forms…were originally derived from the needs of the consumers…(42). The consumers, the haves, are who determine what will be the stylish in thing. Adorno also capitalized in his reading on the idea of, “Culture today is infecting everything with sameness” (41). Everything is the same in our culture, and we want the same things. So the haves produce the style that everyone else buys into, yet we are buying into these same ideas tat have been circulating for forever, this is based on Lyotard’s idea of Bricolage. I think Adorno had a lot of true thing to talk about on culture, and he really summed up how our culture functions as a whole.
Gwatter06, 11/1
This week in class we covered a lot on Hebdige, Hockeheimer and Adorno. With Hebdige we covered his concepts on culture and hegemonic ideologies. It was easily noticeable how much of Hebdige’s concepts relate to other theorists both that we have covered this semester and other’s that I’ve encountered in other areas of critical media. Hebdige defines culture as, “all these tightly wound ideologies that make people act and respond a certain way under the belief that they are under a set of ideologies.” To comment on this, “belief that they are under a set of ideologies,” I full heartedly agree with this statement. I believe that our society and the different cultures that are found within are too susceptible to conforming to base ideologies. These ideologies created by cultures establish this subconscious belief that people are bound to one culture solely through ideologies. Another interesting concept that we covered from Hebdige was the notion that, “subcultures represent ‘noise’ (as opposed to sound): interference in the orderly sequence…” (154). This directly relates to Hebdige’s concept of “deviance” in saying that those who know what the hegemony is but make choices that are deviant or counter-cultural (anti-hegemonic) represent deviance. He explains that these people make those choices to not be ascribed to hegemony. An example of this that we were shown in class was the graffiti artist who chooses not to express his art on the conventional canvas, but to rather express his art on the sides of buildings and trains. I think this deviance found within culture relates to Macherey’s concept of rupture in literature in the sense that it is a change or separation from societal conformity. We also covered some interesting topics from Hockheimer and Adorno, but one of the main concepts that stood out to me was, “Culture today is infecting everything with sameness” (41). What I believe the authors were explaining with this quote is that conformity is infectious and that cultures are controlled by ideologies in which create this sameness between those who are signified by that culture. All in all, I thought we covered a lot on all of the theorists this week and I was surprised at how much I was able to comprehend and incorporate it to past works.
Nemo 11/1
In class on Tuesday we connected our reading by Dick Hebdige to other theorists such as Althusser, and Barthes. We spent some time analyzing Althusser's quote "the author and the reader...both live...'naturally' in ideology" (46). We said that the ruling class would be the author and the reader would be the majority. When we talked about this quote in class we came up with many different ideas of what it means. One idea was that Althusser was trying to say that ideology has become so normalized that we don't even question it anymore. Another was that maybe the author doesn't now that he or she is even functioning under ideology. We gave the example of how people don't even question a police man, they just do what they are told because they have too.
During class this week we also discussed how culture, myths, ideology, and hegemony are all the same thing just with different terms attached to the meaning. We looked at Barthes' quote "myth is a type of speech". Here we said that Barthes is talking about the same thing as Hebdige but instead of calling it culture he refers to it as myths. We looked at Althusser's idea of hegemony and "social authority" and how it is the dominant ideology in power - which is what Marx describes as the ruling class. We discussed Mythology and normalization. The words deviance and freaks were given as an example of how the 'ruling class' has created these words to describe people and now the majority uses them just because they were told that one of these terms describes a certain myth. We then looked at Hebdige and his idea of recuperation of the subculture, and how subcultural sings become mass produced. The quote that highlighted this point for me the most was "as soon as the original innovations which signify 'subculture' are translated into commodities and made generally available, they become 'frozen'" (156). Here he is saying that strategies are created in order to deal with the other. We said how we trivialize, domesticate, and naturalize in order to reduce otherness to sameness. The class discussions this week were really helpful in making me understand that even though all the theorists are saying things in different ways they are the same thing. That the 'ruling class' has made people become zombies, in a sense that they just do what they are told, they become the same and that there is no room to challenge the authoritative figures.
During class this week we also discussed how culture, myths, ideology, and hegemony are all the same thing just with different terms attached to the meaning. We looked at Barthes' quote "myth is a type of speech". Here we said that Barthes is talking about the same thing as Hebdige but instead of calling it culture he refers to it as myths. We looked at Althusser's idea of hegemony and "social authority" and how it is the dominant ideology in power - which is what Marx describes as the ruling class. We discussed Mythology and normalization. The words deviance and freaks were given as an example of how the 'ruling class' has created these words to describe people and now the majority uses them just because they were told that one of these terms describes a certain myth. We then looked at Hebdige and his idea of recuperation of the subculture, and how subcultural sings become mass produced. The quote that highlighted this point for me the most was "as soon as the original innovations which signify 'subculture' are translated into commodities and made generally available, they become 'frozen'" (156). Here he is saying that strategies are created in order to deal with the other. We said how we trivialize, domesticate, and naturalize in order to reduce otherness to sameness. The class discussions this week were really helpful in making me understand that even though all the theorists are saying things in different ways they are the same thing. That the 'ruling class' has made people become zombies, in a sense that they just do what they are told, they become the same and that there is no room to challenge the authoritative figures.
Bubbles-11/1
In our class discussions this week we focused mainly on ideology, hegemony and culture. We discussed how the media uses ideology to manipulate their audience into believing ideas that are set by the ruling class. I found the Adorno and Horkmeier reading to be very helpful in understanding the medias ways of manipulation. The quotes that we went over in class on Thursday helped me connect a lot of different theories and helped me get a better grasp on ideology and hegemony.
My quote in class stated, “ The concept of genuine style becomes transparent in the culture industry as the aesthetic equivalent power.” Here Adorno is explaining that “style” has become a way of acquiring power. As Hedbige would say style naturally becomes a way to acquire social authority. I find this idea to be extremely prevalent in our culture today, products are not sold any more; style is. For example, Jimmy Choo, and extremely luxurious shoe and handbag brand, whose products are hand made from the finest leather and sell for hundreds and thousands of dollars, recently released a new line at H&M, a fast fashion store, selling “quality and fashion at the best price.” The Jimmy Choo line for H&M is not made with the same materials, or talent that their regular line is made of, so why would H&M collaborate with Jimmy Choo? Because in this culture and our ideology tells us that just the name “Jimmy Choo” means better, luxury, even if they are made out of the same materials and the made by the same hands that the regular line at H&M is made from. This relates to Adorno’s idea that “mechanically differentiated products are ultimately all the same.” The H&M line and the Jimmy Choo for H&M line are mechanically all the same, yet the products with the Jimmy Choo sticker are sold for more and are viewed as more luxurious. There is sameness between everything that is produced yet the media uses ideology to make us believe that the products are differentiated.
My quote in class stated, “ The concept of genuine style becomes transparent in the culture industry as the aesthetic equivalent power.” Here Adorno is explaining that “style” has become a way of acquiring power. As Hedbige would say style naturally becomes a way to acquire social authority. I find this idea to be extremely prevalent in our culture today, products are not sold any more; style is. For example, Jimmy Choo, and extremely luxurious shoe and handbag brand, whose products are hand made from the finest leather and sell for hundreds and thousands of dollars, recently released a new line at H&M, a fast fashion store, selling “quality and fashion at the best price.” The Jimmy Choo line for H&M is not made with the same materials, or talent that their regular line is made of, so why would H&M collaborate with Jimmy Choo? Because in this culture and our ideology tells us that just the name “Jimmy Choo” means better, luxury, even if they are made out of the same materials and the made by the same hands that the regular line at H&M is made from. This relates to Adorno’s idea that “mechanically differentiated products are ultimately all the same.” The H&M line and the Jimmy Choo for H&M line are mechanically all the same, yet the products with the Jimmy Choo sticker are sold for more and are viewed as more luxurious. There is sameness between everything that is produced yet the media uses ideology to make us believe that the products are differentiated.
Teets, 11/1
In class this week we covered Hebdige (Tuesday) and Horkheimer and Adorno (Thursday). In discussing Hebdige we looked at the idea of sameness, and how deviant behavior has been redefined as normal. A great example we looked at in class is body art. Body art in our culture 30 years ago is much different than body art today. It is still seen as deviant behavior to an extent, but it is normalized as well. When more and more people deviate from what is normal, their deviation becomes normalized. A loose connection can be made to Horkheimer and Adorno with regards to the trivialization of deviance.
“Mass culture gives tragedy permanent employment as routine” (62).
Tragedy and deviance are similar in this comparison because once they become normalized and broadcasted by the media they lose their significance. They become completely trivialized because of mass reproduction through the media. This relates to Barthes notion of Authenticity. When an idea, product, theory, etc, becomes mass reproduced it loses its aura, its authenticity. All types of media trivialize certain aspects of society without intending to. An example of an idea loses its authenticity would be the graffiti artist we talked about in class. His work became famous through the media and he eventually made a lot of money from his works on buildings and trains. His original works, on the sides of trains and buildings, lost its authenticity when it became reproduced in many ways. The aura of the original was lost, as Barthes would say.
The way we covered Horkheimer and Adorno on Thursday was different than normal, but it seemed to get more people engaged in discussion. It was beneficial in that each person or group of persons learned a very specific part of Horkheimer and Adorno’s argument. Switching up the daily routine forced people to be active participants in discussion, which should help people understand Horkheimer and Adorno a little bit better. I think switching up the routine should be done more often. Not too often though, because then it would be trivialized and lose its authenticity.
“Mass culture gives tragedy permanent employment as routine” (62).
Tragedy and deviance are similar in this comparison because once they become normalized and broadcasted by the media they lose their significance. They become completely trivialized because of mass reproduction through the media. This relates to Barthes notion of Authenticity. When an idea, product, theory, etc, becomes mass reproduced it loses its aura, its authenticity. All types of media trivialize certain aspects of society without intending to. An example of an idea loses its authenticity would be the graffiti artist we talked about in class. His work became famous through the media and he eventually made a lot of money from his works on buildings and trains. His original works, on the sides of trains and buildings, lost its authenticity when it became reproduced in many ways. The aura of the original was lost, as Barthes would say.
The way we covered Horkheimer and Adorno on Thursday was different than normal, but it seemed to get more people engaged in discussion. It was beneficial in that each person or group of persons learned a very specific part of Horkheimer and Adorno’s argument. Switching up the daily routine forced people to be active participants in discussion, which should help people understand Horkheimer and Adorno a little bit better. I think switching up the routine should be done more often. Not too often though, because then it would be trivialized and lose its authenticity.
Ron Burgundy, 10/29
This week in class we discussed the works of Hebdige and Horkheimer and Adorno. When we looked at Horkheimer and Adorno, we discussed the prominence of the culture industry and how it dominates the way our society lives. The piece discussed how "the whole world is passed through the filter of the culture industry", so much so that the reality seen on TV and film looks so similar to that of real life that we just accept it as so. In this way we begin to see the culture in films, etc. as our own and therefore try to mimic it. We become consumed with the consumerism that they portray and want to be a part of the action, in a sense, to live up to the Jones'. After reading this article this week, I came across an article written by a journalist in the New York Times, who frequently writes critiques of the media industry and the culture it develops. The article specifically was discussing the "Balloon Boy" phenomenon and how the actions of the parents of little Falcon were just a product of the desire to be a part of the culture industry. The author writes that, "Richard Heene is the inevitable product of this reigning culture, where “news,” “reality” television and reality itself are hopelessly scrambled and the warp-speed imperatives of cable-Internet competition allow no time for fact checking". This idea reminds me of the critique of Horkheimer and Adorno as the author explains that the media industry is profit driven, that fact-checking and deep journalism no longer reign over the spectacle that can grab big numbers and great ratings. Horkheimer and Adorno support this idea as they explain the structures of the programming that fill our television screens today that are no longer concealed and that show a market model media industry. The article in the New York Times also explains the phenomenon of how we accept the reality seen on TV as the truth without asking any questions as no onlookers "questioned how a balloon could waft buoyantly through the skies for hours with a 6-year-old boy hidden within its contours". According to the author the fact "that so few did is an indication of how practiced we are at suspending disbelief when watching anything labeled news, whether the subject is W.M.D.’s in Iraq or celebrity gossip in Hollywood". This not only supports Horkheimer and Adorno's notion of the "illusion that the world outisde is a seamless extension of the one which has been revealed in cinema" but also Zizek's idea that today's audience enjoys the "spectacle" and that these types of dramatic tragedies are exactly what the people want. So in the end, is it really Falcon's father that America spent two hours watching a hoax played out on national television or is our culture and our media to blame?
Captain Outrageous, 11/1
This week we examined the works of Adorno and Hebdige, discussing the culutre industry and the subculture industry respectively. I found these reading to correspond perfectly. Whether normalizing a subculture or normalizing a higher culutre, the process of mass production normalizes our cultural environments.
Normalization was the concept that most struck my fancy this week in conjunction with the concepts we discussed through Marx last week about those who control material production control mental production, likewise Althusser and ideology. As a capitalistic society, particularly as consumers, we don't often find ourselves being asked our opinion on what we want. As Adorno described, we never give an official opinion on anything and everything we do recieve is based off of our "needs". I don't personally recall telling Starbucks that I needed them to be in every strip mall or telling Apple that I needed ten different kinds of ipods. To break this down analyitically, there's somewhat of a chronological process. Someone (ruling class) makes a decision to create a product (material production), that will be the next big thing that people will want (ideology). Then suddenly Miley Cyrus happens and it happens everywhere. Then different kinds of Miley Cyrus show up (all culture being the same). Now I understand that society either accepts or rejects what is given to them, but we still don't have a say; mostly, because there are enough people who will buy it and the monstrosity continues.
Because of this, I find, is why normalization happens. Between the workings of ideology and media conglomeration, new trends and new culture enter our environment so rapidly and so vastly that its only natural for things to seem natural. And yes it is natural for the markets to change, culture to change, trends to change, but again, these readings showed us that its imperative to remember it is only natural because someone else makes it so.
Normalization was the concept that most struck my fancy this week in conjunction with the concepts we discussed through Marx last week about those who control material production control mental production, likewise Althusser and ideology. As a capitalistic society, particularly as consumers, we don't often find ourselves being asked our opinion on what we want. As Adorno described, we never give an official opinion on anything and everything we do recieve is based off of our "needs". I don't personally recall telling Starbucks that I needed them to be in every strip mall or telling Apple that I needed ten different kinds of ipods. To break this down analyitically, there's somewhat of a chronological process. Someone (ruling class) makes a decision to create a product (material production), that will be the next big thing that people will want (ideology). Then suddenly Miley Cyrus happens and it happens everywhere. Then different kinds of Miley Cyrus show up (all culture being the same). Now I understand that society either accepts or rejects what is given to them, but we still don't have a say; mostly, because there are enough people who will buy it and the monstrosity continues.
Because of this, I find, is why normalization happens. Between the workings of ideology and media conglomeration, new trends and new culture enter our environment so rapidly and so vastly that its only natural for things to seem natural. And yes it is natural for the markets to change, culture to change, trends to change, but again, these readings showed us that its imperative to remember it is only natural because someone else makes it so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)