Marie89, 1/22

I found the activity that we did in class last week very interesting. The idea that the context of a word or phrase can continuously change the meaning of it and make people consider new ideas is fascinating. Some contexts provoke a variety of responses while others limit our ideas, creating a more general understanding of the word or phrase being used. It is interesting that our brains are programmed to think in a certain way, as that is how we have been trained within our society. This activity also made me think of another activity that I was asked to partake in during junior high. Our class was given a list of colors, but instead of being written in the color listed, they were written in a different color. We were then supposed to say the color of the word, rather than read the word. It was a very difficult task, and I had a lot more trouble with it than I ever would have imagined. After learning how to read, it is impossible to see a word and not read it. I suppose this is why advertising works. We are programmed to read the word rather than see the text, making it so that certain messages inevitably get across to the reader. I also found it interesting, however, that not every culture would consider blue to be blue. It is a facet of our culture—what we have grown up to realize as truth when in reality, it could easily be classified as something completely different to another set of people. It is fascinating that cultures are different yet connected as conflict rarely emerges within languages. After the activity in class, I also thought of an email that I once received where the middle letters of words were missing. Tmesis again proves true as I was able to read the text with clarity and full understanding, filling in the gaps as I went. This is due to the fact that I have been programmed to rewrite and fill in gaps. Language is an interesting concept that we have been programmed to know yet ignore. It has become a way of life to the extent that we do not consider it or realize the complexity of its functionality.

Brookes77, Jencks 1/27/09

“The Emergent Rules” was a very interesting reading. It spoke about our view of old and new values and rules in art and architecture. Throughout the list of 11 the “historical continuum and the relation between the past and present” stuck out to me the most. About the description there was a redevelopment project in London. This was interesting to me because I just spent the past semester in London where one can see the old art and architecture and the new combined together. An example of this would be Oxford Circle where there are many old classical style buildings surrounded by huge bill boards and a huge glass buildings, it is classic yet modernized. To some the classical style in Oxford Circle looks tainted, yet to me the combination with the old and the new was beautiful and a real life example of the different styles of art and architecture throughout time. The reading gives an example of how Anna and Patrick Poirier capture “ this logic of dreams in their fragmented constructions which combine archetypes, half-remembered myths and miniature landscapes”. ( 286) I find it interesting that the reading explains that it is a inconsistent genre, and a “narrative without a plot”. In London I found that the old with the new is beautiful and with these styles combined, it is not original yet a different style of art and architecture, that is unique.
Another Rule that stuck out to me was urbanism. “ The urbane way of life is simply better than is the disassociated and over centralized city” (285). I agree with this because I think it is important to have a proper balance between essential elements such as “ public to private work to living monument to infill….etc.”. I think it is important to have balanced city lay out yet at the same time a city could turn into a “Pleasantville” type of city where everything is planned out to make a perfect city. It would be welcoming, yet it would not be real.
“Things fall together and there is no centre, but connections” is the ending quote. This is a very significant quote, it states that throughout time it is the connections that link the modern world with the past.

Rico72, 1/22

In class on Thursday, we discussed Macherey and the concept of tmesis. I'm so glad I finally found the "official" word to describe the idea of placing your own thoughts into a text and making it your own interpretation. Machery discussed this idea mainly with text, but I'd like to expand it to different forms of media such as television and film.

With television, I think all of the drama and messages they are sending are usually pretty straight foward, however this is not the appeal of tv dramas such as Gossip Girl, Smallville, The OC, or any others I'm missing. What really draws people to any character really is personal experience. I doubt anyone has had to live with hiding a super power from the person they love because they fear it will be used against them or having relationship troubles in Cabo, but some have had an experience that was similar or felt the same way, and this is what draws not only teens but all viewers to television and film. It's not always just about the characters we are seeing, but about our own personal experiences. We like certain characters because we can relate to them in some way. This is how I see tmesis relates to television and film (or how I see it).

Another interesting thing is seeing what people take away from a film. I saw Slumdog Millionaire this weekend with my girlfriend and after the film we seemed to have different opinions on it. She thought it was good, but did not deserve all of the hype it is getting. She just could not relate to anything in it. I personally loved it and thought it was a great (even if slightly unoriginal) story about life, friendship, and love. This is another example of tmesis applies to film.

thestig, 1/22

Tmesis is a very interesting concept: that we all re-write while encountering a text. Everybody experiences this; sometimes we address it – after community service trips, people often discuss their feelings: we all feel differently about what we have seen – but most of the time it is happening unconsciously.

Some say it is the small things that make life worth living. Tmesis is one element of life that transforms shades of gray into vibrant colors. Think of how short and boring conversation would be without our minds coming up with new thoughts. Dr. Rog exemplified what conversation is like with tmesis: “‘I was born in a small town-’ ‘me too!’” Yes, this can be a little strange, especially if you haven’t finished your sentence, but the notion of tmesis allows one to make connections that are relevant to one another, making the conversation more enjoyable. Isn’t it boring when you talk to someone who doesn’t utilize their ability to make connections and hold a conversation? That person may or may not be as experienced as you – in reading, writing, traveling, what have you – but everyone has the ability to make some sort of connection.

Another point pertaining to tmesis and the evolution of Hemingway’s poem in the presentation: our “short stories” on the text was driven primarily on how we saw the words on the screen. Some of us said that “A Short Story” was the name of a screenplay; when “For Sale” was added, the story changed to a screenplay that was on the market for purchase. Then, the colon was added: all of a sudden, “typo,” “first half of a title for a paper,” and so on. Once again, it’s the small things in life that make it worth living. Throughout this entire exercise, I couldn’t help but reflect upon Dr. Cheng’s Visual Rhetoric class. If the font had been a different size, weight, color, etc., then all of our stories and perception of what the text on the page meant would have been completely different.

dmariel, 1/22/09

In reference to this week of class, learning from theorists such as Barthes, Macherey and deSaussure, the concept that stands out in my mind first and foremost is Barthes idea concerning conflict..he states: “Let difference surreptitiously replace conflict..conflict is nothing but the moral state of difference”.
Language, in my opinion, is the most powerful aspect of humanity..or better yet-anything alive. Anything with this much positive power can also be destructive. Spoken words can generate more effect than any other form of communication. Language has the ability to bring people together, and also the ability to cause huge barriers between different ethnicities, religious backgrounds, etc..
The world is comprised of millions of groups of people with extremely different moral values, beliefs, and systems of language. One example which we touched on in class was fundamental religious beliefs. Right after class with Dr. Casey, I proceeded my day and went to my Modern and Contemporary Jewish Thought class. Our entire class period was spent discussing the importance of text in different religions. The Torah is the most sacred text to Jewish people, yet it is viewed much differently than Christians would feel about the bible. As far as I know, Christians view the Bible as the most pure text there is and that the purity of the text will guide them in life. Jewish theologians are known as co-authors of the Torah. Through reading, practicing and studying the text, it is believed that they individually rewrite it according to their own life experiences. My text for the class states “By providing the Torah with a voice, with animation, the theologian thereby becomes a co-author of the Torah, a collaborator with God in perpetuating and in helping to augment and to amplify in the present the voice once heard at Sinai”. This directly correlates with Barthes idea of tmesis, or the way that unique individuals interject their own ideas into text. Therefore, the Torah is an open text, or a writerly text, open to interpretation.
After learning about Barthes idea of language as difference I could better understand what it meant as a theologian to be a “co-author” of a text.

MerryChristmas!, Barthes, 1.22.09

In class on Thursday we discussed the idea of tmesis or the gap that we fulfill when reading a text. We learned that tmesis is the process in which our brains are rewriting what we are reading. While the rest of the class seemed to have no problem filling in the gap with the "A Short Story" exercise, I seemed to have considerable trouble doing so. Like Julie, I completely separated the words and their meanings. I disregarded capitalizations or any grammatical extras like quotations, semicolons, and periods. They were just words to me. I felt no need to imagine what is the meaning beyond the words because the meaning lies in the word itself and only changes when we attempt to interpret it. I assumed that the exercise was to show how grammar plays a role in the meaning of words, not about tmesis.
Another idea that Barthes coined was that "from one reading to the next, we never skip the same passage". In other words, while watching a movie a second time, one realizes more about the movie and the meaning changes. This may be a stretch, but I related that idea to one of mine. Have you ever gone to a place when you were a child and thought that it was so big? The people were so much older and the place where you were seemed massive. You go away for a few years and you come back to that same place with the same people. The place all of a sudden seems smaller and the people don't seem so old. Even now, I can remember being in high school when my brother went off to college and thinking he was so accomplished and so much older than myself. Now that I am here, I still feel the same, but my perspective has changed. Perhaps we can apply some of Barthes' quotes and theologies to our own lives in a similar way. However, in the end, I believe that this is all about perspective and how one "sees" things.

Savvy,Tmesis, 1.22.09

Tmesis, the gap. Every time we read text and we read onto the next word, in our brain we are in the process of rewriting what we are actually reading. By this point, Dr. Casey was referring to the gap. During this process we are allowing for our own thoughts to intemperate the text. I suppose that this is why there can be so many interpretations people can take from text. We are connecting the text and interpreting it because of our own experiences we have had in our lives. This is why I liked Dr. Casey's point that the author can never really know how the audience is going to interperate the meaning of his words. Barthes states, "The author cannot predict tmesis" (109). The author cannot know how what he says will be interpreted by the audience.
This idea could really be seen with the "Short Story" exercise that we did in the beginning of class. It was very interesting to listen to my peers to see how they interpreted the words differently from what I did. I found it really interesting when we kept adding on to the words "short story" and with the addition of those words the meaning changed. In this way we are injecting ourselves into the text like Dr.Casey said.
Another idea that we touched upon in class that I thought was important was the idea of what entices us in texts. Barthes quote on page 108, "Is not the most erotic portion of a body where the garment grapes?" The images of Marilyn Monroe and Richard Geere were very good examples of Barthes idea. I agree with Barthes in the sense that it is the "peep show", the mystery that entices us. A naked picture of Marilyn Monroe and Richard Geere would not be as seductive.
We cannot help the way that we intemperate text. "The pleasure of the text is that moment when my body pursues its own ideas for my body does not have the same ideas I do"(111). Barthes is referring to how often, the body is saying one thing and the mind is telling us another. It is about the tension and excitement in the text.