Lyotard said some interesting things. After going over his article in class, I understand him a lot better now. His use of language is very particular, as when he is talking about about waging a war on totality. He is really serious about getting rid of that notion, because totalities lead to generalizations, and stereotypes, living little or no room for interpretation. He needed to use a harsh adjective to describe how he felt about totality and what we should do.
Also, the fact was pointed out that capitalism derealizes or desensitizes familiar objects. In a capitalistic country, money comes first no matter what. It's always a race to the top, a strive to do better than the next guy. It may cause some detachment, but it leaves opportunity always available, and makes people try to be the best that they can be at what they do.
However, his quote about pornography not being challenged, was challenged in class. We agreed that that medium of mass media had been challenged due to the fact that some people accept it and others reject it. It pushed the envelope and got a mixed reaction from critics. It is definitely not a general model for visual narratives. Even though some art can be considered offensive to some people, where do you draw the line on what's appropriate and what's not? And who is the one that gets to draw that line?
Further, I'm not quite sure I understand his view on classicism and what we spoke about in class in terms of American Idol. Classics remain classics if they withstand time, and different trends. Therefore, it is rarely possible if a "classic" is overused - as in American Idol tryouts. In an audition, you're going to probably pick a classic because you can assume it is generally well known and well liked, and you can then try to put your own talent into that song.
Friday, February 15, 2008
boo boo bear 2-15
Last class there were a lot of quotes that we covered that brought some intriguing thoughts and ideas to my head. Especially this one:
“Culture, in its modern form, stirs up hatred against the conventions and virtues of everyday life.”
Some would say that our culture, this modern culture, is one of sex, drugs and lack of hard work. I think with this quote, it is referring culture such as tv, music and movies. In this context, I would have to agree with this quote because as I watch tv at night I notice that almost every show questions and abandons what we would consider traditional values, specifically monogamy. 75 years ago, the majority of people would say that they believe you should have one sexual partner you whole life. Now a days, the majority has flipped, saying its ok to have sex with more than one person. I would guess that this changed is directly related to the values connected to some of our tv, music and movies we watch and listen to everyday. Just look at some of the most watched shows on television. Two of my personal favorites are Nip/Tuck and Two and a Half Men. Nip/Tuck has a soft core porn scene every episode while Two and a Half Men insinuates one of the men having sex every episode, most of the time more than once. Our music these days even has become very sexualized. Of course the first songs that come to mind are the rap songs materializing women every line, but it goes even further than that. Some of the most romantic songs of our generation are much more sexual than generations past, example: “Ill make love to you” Boys 2 Men, or “Let’s Make Love” Faith Hill and Tim McGraw (I know they are married but still).
“Culture, in its modern form, stirs up hatred against the conventions and virtues of everyday life.”
Some would say that our culture, this modern culture, is one of sex, drugs and lack of hard work. I think with this quote, it is referring culture such as tv, music and movies. In this context, I would have to agree with this quote because as I watch tv at night I notice that almost every show questions and abandons what we would consider traditional values, specifically monogamy. 75 years ago, the majority of people would say that they believe you should have one sexual partner you whole life. Now a days, the majority has flipped, saying its ok to have sex with more than one person. I would guess that this changed is directly related to the values connected to some of our tv, music and movies we watch and listen to everyday. Just look at some of the most watched shows on television. Two of my personal favorites are Nip/Tuck and Two and a Half Men. Nip/Tuck has a soft core porn scene every episode while Two and a Half Men insinuates one of the men having sex every episode, most of the time more than once. Our music these days even has become very sexualized. Of course the first songs that come to mind are the rap songs materializing women every line, but it goes even further than that. Some of the most romantic songs of our generation are much more sexual than generations past, example: “Ill make love to you” Boys 2 Men, or “Let’s Make Love” Faith Hill and Tim McGraw (I know they are married but still).
Thursday, February 14, 2008
sawsaw 2/14
I found today's class discussion to be very interesting and insightful. There were many quotes I enjoyed, but I found two of them very true and evident in my everyday life. The first quote is, “the relation between ‘modern’ and ‘classical’ has definitely lost a fixed historical reference.” I am reminded of a discussion I had in high school with a teacher in one of my classes. He kept trying to define the postmodern era and put it into a certain timeline. I was always taught that postmodernism is a period of time we are experiencing in history. I found this concept to be very confusing. After reading this quote by Habermas it is very easy to see that modern and classic are a way of thinking and are concepts to be analyzed, not a specific period of time in history. When something is said to be modern people assume it is the most recent or cutting edge thing. You can never quite define something that is modern because things change all the time. What was modern fifty years ago is very different from what is modern today. The same thing is to be said of the word classic. Classic means old or something in the past. It is very difficult to describe something that is classic because something in the past can still be popular today. An example of this is classic rock. Classic rock is something in the past yet is very popular in today’s contemporary society. The second quote I found to be interesting is, “the cult of the new.” This is so true in today’s society. Everyone wants the newest invention and latest styles. This is why corporations such as Mac, Proctor and Gamble, Toyota and Cannon are so successful. People are constantly upgrading to the newest products and are always trying to keep up with the latest inventions. After discussing Habermas’ concepts in class, it is evident to me how much our society has changed in the past twenty years. If these ideas were evident in society during the 1980’s how much more are they evident in our society today. It really makes me wonder how much things will change in the next twenty years!
kaymac 2.14.08
Oh Habermas, how you make me swoon. No, seriously, he does. The concept of postmodernism being anti-modernity just blows my mind. It's like avant-gardism: screwing up what we traditionally think is beautiful on purpose, just for the sake of being different.
"Culture in its modern form stirs up hatred against the conventions and virtues of everyday life." (101)
So in this Habermas is calling out today's society. Everything we do goes against the so-called "great" and "acceptable" morales that the "country was founded on." You know, that usual religious/righteous bullcrap that they shove down your throats from the time you're born until the time you die: family, friends, and god are all you need in life; money is the root of all evil(however, ironically enough, I'd like to point out that the subtle undertone of all of our morals is that you need money in order to be happy, because even if you do have friends, family, and god and you're living under a bridge, you're still not going to be too happy),do unto others as you would have others do unto you, etc. etc..
So, according to Habermas, we are creating resistance to our morals in an effort to pull away from modernity/traditional values and be "avant-garde" just for the sake of doing that. Maybe it makes life interesting. Maybe we're all just sick of neo-conservatives running the country/world and feel like it's time to step up.
Yet we've developed into this culture where we need instant gratification and so when we protest the war or gay marriage or anything at all, we expect to see instant results and if we don't, we automatically give up and maybe that is what Habermas is saying as well. We are losing our will to be democratic citizens who take action and stick with something we started.
But honestly, I think we're all just chickens. We want to stay rooted in our traditions so that we will have our "clearly defined identities and existential security" and that way we won't have to know what life is like without money, friends, family, or a roof over our heads. We don't want any extremist viewpoints in either direction. We just want this comfortable middle and so when somebody comes to shake it up, we ignore it or find some way to make it acceptable. But I think that this just a ticking time bomb and sooner or later, it's all going to blow up in our faces.
"Culture in its modern form stirs up hatred against the conventions and virtues of everyday life." (101)
So in this Habermas is calling out today's society. Everything we do goes against the so-called "great" and "acceptable" morales that the "country was founded on." You know, that usual religious/righteous bullcrap that they shove down your throats from the time you're born until the time you die: family, friends, and god are all you need in life; money is the root of all evil(however, ironically enough, I'd like to point out that the subtle undertone of all of our morals is that you need money in order to be happy, because even if you do have friends, family, and god and you're living under a bridge, you're still not going to be too happy),do unto others as you would have others do unto you, etc. etc..
So, according to Habermas, we are creating resistance to our morals in an effort to pull away from modernity/traditional values and be "avant-garde" just for the sake of doing that. Maybe it makes life interesting. Maybe we're all just sick of neo-conservatives running the country/world and feel like it's time to step up.
Yet we've developed into this culture where we need instant gratification and so when we protest the war or gay marriage or anything at all, we expect to see instant results and if we don't, we automatically give up and maybe that is what Habermas is saying as well. We are losing our will to be democratic citizens who take action and stick with something we started.
But honestly, I think we're all just chickens. We want to stay rooted in our traditions so that we will have our "clearly defined identities and existential security" and that way we won't have to know what life is like without money, friends, family, or a roof over our heads. We don't want any extremist viewpoints in either direction. We just want this comfortable middle and so when somebody comes to shake it up, we ignore it or find some way to make it acceptable. But I think that this just a ticking time bomb and sooner or later, it's all going to blow up in our faces.
Sgt. Pepper, Habermas
What is modernism?
"The most recent modernism simply makes an abstract opposition between tradition and the present; and we are, in a way, still the contemporaries of that kind of aesthetic modernity which first appeared in the midst of the nineteenth century." (99).
From what I could decipher of Habermas's idea of modernism and modernity, it is on the way out. Or rather, a better way to explain that is to look at his quote above. What he seems to be trying to say in his article is that modernism, in a sense, always reflects what is classical. So, then is it modern at all? He says that once something is considered modern it is "secretly" classical as well.
I'm not sure if this directly relates, but this general type of thinking did cross my mind when I went to NYC's Museum of Modern Art in November. Having been to many art museums, I anticipated mostly what is considered "modern" art, or what's been made in the past century, at least. However, the famous "Starry Night" by Van Gogh is at MOMA, Monet's "Water Lilies," and many other pieces that were made about a century ago which, to me, are not modern art. So are they there because in their day and age they were considered modern? And since they have been dubbed classic, thus still holding on to some kind of modernity? I'm reaching for answers, but is the term "modern" no longer modern?
One thing that frustrated me from the article was Habermas's explanation of the reception of art and modernism and how practically the minute the "everyday expert" receives art or culture in a modern way, it is no longer modern.
So, is it impossible for me to think modernly? Am I really that old fashioned?
"The most recent modernism simply makes an abstract opposition between tradition and the present; and we are, in a way, still the contemporaries of that kind of aesthetic modernity which first appeared in the midst of the nineteenth century." (99).
From what I could decipher of Habermas's idea of modernism and modernity, it is on the way out. Or rather, a better way to explain that is to look at his quote above. What he seems to be trying to say in his article is that modernism, in a sense, always reflects what is classical. So, then is it modern at all? He says that once something is considered modern it is "secretly" classical as well.
I'm not sure if this directly relates, but this general type of thinking did cross my mind when I went to NYC's Museum of Modern Art in November. Having been to many art museums, I anticipated mostly what is considered "modern" art, or what's been made in the past century, at least. However, the famous "Starry Night" by Van Gogh is at MOMA, Monet's "Water Lilies," and many other pieces that were made about a century ago which, to me, are not modern art. So are they there because in their day and age they were considered modern? And since they have been dubbed classic, thus still holding on to some kind of modernity? I'm reaching for answers, but is the term "modern" no longer modern?
One thing that frustrated me from the article was Habermas's explanation of the reception of art and modernism and how practically the minute the "everyday expert" receives art or culture in a modern way, it is no longer modern.
So, is it impossible for me to think modernly? Am I really that old fashioned?
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
ChittyChittyBangBang Habermas
warning: Just a heads up-I've been insanely sick for the past 5 days so the things I'm writing could potentially make no sense whatsoever, and for that, I apologize...
The article, Modernity - An incomplete Project, by Habermas was a little difficult to follow. First of all, what is modern?
"The word 'modern' in its Latin form 'modernus' was used for the first time in the late fifteenth century in order to distinguish the present, which had become officially Christian, and from the Roman and pagan past. With varying content, the term 'modern' again and again expresses the consciousness of an epoch that relates itself to the past of antiquity, in order to view itself as the result of a transition from the old to new." (98)
So the term modern has been repeatedly used over time, modern represents the new and latest. Our technology is constantly evolving and what once was 'modern' to us is now old. What will be modern to us tomorrow?
"...whenever, moreover, antiquity was considered a model to be recovered through some kind of imitation." (98)
The term verisimilitude comes to mind when I read these quotes. Saying art is actually a potential copy. Modernity is directly tied to European art, though I think it is even more than just art. It is morality, science, religion, human traditions...
Perhaps we are constantly imitating the past and making copies of the old and transitioning to the new.
Modern is constantly evolving? So, what is postmodern?
The article, Modernity - An incomplete Project, by Habermas was a little difficult to follow. First of all, what is modern?
"The word 'modern' in its Latin form 'modernus' was used for the first time in the late fifteenth century in order to distinguish the present, which had become officially Christian, and from the Roman and pagan past. With varying content, the term 'modern' again and again expresses the consciousness of an epoch that relates itself to the past of antiquity, in order to view itself as the result of a transition from the old to new." (98)
So the term modern has been repeatedly used over time, modern represents the new and latest. Our technology is constantly evolving and what once was 'modern' to us is now old. What will be modern to us tomorrow?
"...whenever, moreover, antiquity was considered a model to be recovered through some kind of imitation." (98)
The term verisimilitude comes to mind when I read these quotes. Saying art is actually a potential copy. Modernity is directly tied to European art, though I think it is even more than just art. It is morality, science, religion, human traditions...
Perhaps we are constantly imitating the past and making copies of the old and transitioning to the new.
Modern is constantly evolving? So, what is postmodern?
ChittyChittyBangBang 2/13
I am still trying to process some of the quotes we went over in class on Tuesday. Lyotard has some very intriguing points of views that I hope we go back over at some point. One quote I would like to focus on is:
Artists who question the rules "are destined to have little credibility"; they have no guarantee of an audience. (41)
This quote reminds me of previous class discussions we have had. Such as one's focusing on, the artist and the ordinary critic can't really have the same appreciation of their work. It reminds me of Lyotards quote because I think he is trying to say that the artist can't predict the effect it could have on another viewer. The artist doesn’t know all of its meanings. If the artist analyzes his work too much it even looses its meaning. I don’t know if this is at all the way I should be reading the quote because I feel like this quote is even deeper than I can see right now.
I also liked during class when we studied the pictures of Katie Couric. The way that technology can enhance and change appearances is scary, because how do we know what is real and what isn't. I like that Katie Couric was upset at the change in her appearance. Trying to portray her as thinner, with a bigger smile, etc etc... trying to make her fit into this insane standard we have built for appearances in our society is wrong. It isn't real and to be respected I think you need to be honest about everything that you are.
It's true that as critics we need to interject ourselves in the middle, into the gap! We need to be aware!!!
Artists who question the rules "are destined to have little credibility"; they have no guarantee of an audience. (41)
This quote reminds me of previous class discussions we have had. Such as one's focusing on, the artist and the ordinary critic can't really have the same appreciation of their work. It reminds me of Lyotards quote because I think he is trying to say that the artist can't predict the effect it could have on another viewer. The artist doesn’t know all of its meanings. If the artist analyzes his work too much it even looses its meaning. I don’t know if this is at all the way I should be reading the quote because I feel like this quote is even deeper than I can see right now.
I also liked during class when we studied the pictures of Katie Couric. The way that technology can enhance and change appearances is scary, because how do we know what is real and what isn't. I like that Katie Couric was upset at the change in her appearance. Trying to portray her as thinner, with a bigger smile, etc etc... trying to make her fit into this insane standard we have built for appearances in our society is wrong. It isn't real and to be respected I think you need to be honest about everything that you are.
It's true that as critics we need to interject ourselves in the middle, into the gap! We need to be aware!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)