Thursday, May 16, 2013
Gerald Vizenor and Paula Gunn Allen
If Gunn Allen and Vizenor, the author of The Heirs of Columbus were to meet up for coffee what do you think they would say to each other? Both are Native American writers and both believe that the dominant culture has twisted the stories of Native Americans and given them a western worldview. However, how do you think the two would differ? Would being a male writer impact Vizenor's viewpoint, and make his opinion differ from Gunn Allen? In Heirs of Columbus, Vizenor seems to point out feminist issues, but what would Gunn Allen say about his position?
What Will Come After Post-Colonialism and U.S. Ethnic Theories?
Post-colonialism and U.S. ethnic theorists emphasize the role of the author and assert that people's differences in culture and experience are important to a work. Do you think the next wave of theorists will again believe that emphasizing people's differences is offensive and that as humans, all people share basic assumptions, regardless of their experience. I seems that it criticism, if one view is prominent than eventually someone will come and take the opposite view, This is seen in Wimsatt and Beardsley's belief in the death of the author that has been replaced by postcolonialism and U.S. Ethnic Theory.
What do you think will be the next popular theory in criticism?
What do you think will be the next popular theory in criticism?
Beauty Pageants and Feminism
How would a feminist view beauty pageants and are there any feminist scholars who have spoken specifically in referece to beauty pageants? What would they say about male beauty pageants? I feel like Rich would not find male beauty pageants to be as objectifying as traditional female pageants. However, I feel like Anzaldua would feel that women need to sympathize with men who have becom victim to sexualization by society? What do you think these or other thinkers would have to say about this?
Can We Think of Movies The Same Way After This Class
Recently I went to see Iron Man 3 and while watching the movie I found myself thinking about Horkheimer and Adorno. There was nothing novel or unexpected. It followed the typical plot of the super hero movies that have come out in the past few years, and seemed that the only reason it was made is because they knew that the other movies did well financially so again people will pay money to see this movie.
Then I started viewing this movie from a feminist point of view. There were only two female characters, but they don't really talk to each other, but rather were the former and current lover of the main character, Tony Stark. Also, in the end the woman is weak and in danger and must be saved by Iron Man.
What do you think? Do so many theorist only apply too well to current movies and popular culture.
Then I started viewing this movie from a feminist point of view. There were only two female characters, but they don't really talk to each other, but rather were the former and current lover of the main character, Tony Stark. Also, in the end the woman is weak and in danger and must be saved by Iron Man.
What do you think? Do so many theorist only apply too well to current movies and popular culture.
A Serious Of Comics On Great Gatsby and What-In-The-Hell They Have To Do With Theory
Okay. So this is a long series of comics, so instead of having you read them then talk about them, I'm going to frame them a few ways and see what happens.
Let's talk about plot variation, is there anything, however shallow Rhizomatic that's happening. The riffing of possibility, and and ands and ands and ors.
Let's talk about portrayal of women, sure it's not great in The Great Gatsby, but also in the comic, what does second and third wave feminism has to say?
Maybe it's lame to say why isn't there something here? But in all these jokes about problems in Gatsby, no joke about how everyone in the novel is white? Euro-centric anyone, What would Bhabha or hooks say?
Anyone watched Derrida? Heard what he had to say about love? This is a less serious framing, but I think that informs these sketches in an interesting way.
TRICKSTER
Let's talk about Trickster, a collection I stumbled upon recently. It's a collection of twenty Graphic retellings of trickster tales written by Native American Authors who collaborate with illustrators on a one-on-one basis in order to create, basically, comics. Right away, I think Gunn Allen and Narrative structures and I wonder about a few different things:
One: Does the visual representation, the comic and the narrative structures thereof subvert the intended plot purposes of Native story-telling. I imagine this differs tribe-by-tribe (i.e. different for the Keres People than for the distant Sioux People).
Two: Does the visual represetnation, perhaps more adequately fulfill the narrative requirements, especially for stories rooted in ritual, I imagine the visual nature of the comic/graphic novel is actually closer to the true tale than the entirely verbal re-telling.
Three: Does it matter, significantly that it's only Trickster tales. I imagine these tend to fit into the less holy or ritualistic of stories, and nearer to entertainment and moralistic stories, therefore bearing a little less of the weight than say, Kochinnenako.
Four: Does the book re-conform it's tales to typical western-european/masculine standards. Does it insist upon, what Gunn Allen says is persistent "Foregrounding."
I would guess yes, but my guess doesn't really matter, what I'm getting at here is that an understanding of the dialogue, and of Gunn Allen and those like her is vital to a healthy reading of texts like this.
White Late Night? Said who?
Okay, getting going, check out or read this article it's a short little stub with some highlighted twitter-responses:
What it basically explains, or deals with, is that for the tv-comedian-producing factory that is Saturday Night Live, the cast isn't just largely white, it's dominated by white people. And that largely, anyone of a different, or other ethnicity is brought on and asked to play impressions or caricatures of famous ethnic people or famous ethnic stereotypes. They, use a few brief examples, but for the most part keep it low-key, before asking the cheapest question of all time: now that we know it's a racially subjugating institution, who should be the next "comedian of color"?
It takes a bit to get going—it turns out Second Stage is pretty white too.
From here people bounce around names, a hand full of the sketches also dealing in race, and racial stereotypes.
I can't help but think about Said's Orientalism and his structures for other-ism. The way that these actors are reduced from being someone, or possessing some trait, and are instead characterized by being not-white. It's not that important what their actual racial origin is, or whether they Identify with that grouping, are proponents of such agendas, etc. Rather it matters only that they are different, and that they are defined by the difference. Okay, now that I've been all heavy handed and prescriptive, thoughts? Do you find that non-white actors get treated like, well, non-white actors? Defined by negation? Does this same thing happen to native cultures? To women in media? What would Gunn Allen, or De Beauvoir say?
Achebe (via Matt) Takes A Shot At The Zoo Matt Went To As A Child In Kansas, Then Digresses To Talk About Ota Benga
Please? The African Savannah?
Isn't there any other locale of interest besides the Savannah? It's only the cradle of civilization.
Isn't there a kind of person, native to Africa whose stature isn't some vaguely humanoid stretched-thin-and-tall dark shadow holding a spear? Do all people in Africa live in straw huts.
Largely, the other-ized african continent is one of sub-human primal activity. It's seen especially in the historical understanding of those belonging to indigenous tribes.
Take, for example, Ota Benga, pictured below.
This picture is taken from the 1906 Bronx zoo exhibit, where he was costumed and displayed this way. (Okay Doug, I know this isn't contemporary, but I read about this and it's so outrageous I had to blog post up a storm) Though he was able to, and later did, learn english, he was not taught it until he was freed from the park. Thus, unable to speak the language of his new location and estranged from his home, a tribe of pygmies native to the Congo, he was displayed amid animals, originally called The Missing Link. I know I go off on Conrad, but this is some seriously other-ized victim of colonization, or what Said would call, Orientalism. The insistence that other cultures are unlike in a subsidiary way to white, western-european cultures. And that what they are, is actually not a question anymore of what the are but what they aren't. What Ota Benga isn't, is an average sized-english-speaking-white-american. Therefore he is mystical, primal, and unusual. Thoughts on Benga? Other-ized African culture? Zoos?
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Paula Gunn Allen Mininterprets Ric Gendron's Art
Ric Gendron is a Spokane-based artist whose work can be seen any time you fancy. This is in part a measure of his excellence and in part a measure of his abstraction: any gallery seeking to expand its cultural inclusivity finds an excellent metonymy in Gendron, who is (Thank God!) both a member of the Confederated Nation of the Colville and a popular painter. His work occupies a fascinating interstitial space between tribal identification and pop art. It is interesting that his work is described as an attempt to negotiate a hybrid identity between Colville tradition and American amalgamation, but then, this seem to be the only conversation allowed Native American artists. Anzaldua might have been a remarkable mestiza in her time, however, all blended identities that follow are, it seems, doomed to dialectical discourse (Gendron has a Colville father and an Umatilla mother! Fascinating!).
The interpretation of Gendron’s work is far more interesting. In an article from the Spokesman review published on May 15, a reviewer said absolutely nothing, and in an article from 2011 following the cancellation of Gendron’s largest show to date, a reviewer said nothing again. Nothing except for a description of Gendron’s working method and objective content. In an especially bold move, one critic wrote: “Gendron’s work involves bluegrass music, with which he is also involved.” The trouble, it seems, is that while Gendron draws upon tribal design and iconography in his painting, no one seems willing to point out the fact that Gendron is almost entirely separated from a Colville Tradition, living instead outside the Colville reservation. Since it is the case Gendron is not, in fact, portraying cultural narratives, and he is not, in fact, articulating hybrid identities, the critical discussion around his work is forced to focus on the formal elements of his painting.
Nevertheless, Gendron is marketed as a tribal artist. It seems to be a reinvention of Paula Gunn Allen’s interpretive difficulty. In the first place, a tribal narrative is marred by the interpretive framework imposed upon it. In the second place, out of the desire to understand personal identities in terms of communal histories, a tribal framework is imposed on a work of non-tribal art, therefore obfuscating the actual identity of the artist.
The interpretation of Gendron’s work is far more interesting. In an article from the Spokesman review published on May 15, a reviewer said absolutely nothing, and in an article from 2011 following the cancellation of Gendron’s largest show to date, a reviewer said nothing again. Nothing except for a description of Gendron’s working method and objective content. In an especially bold move, one critic wrote: “Gendron’s work involves bluegrass music, with which he is also involved.” The trouble, it seems, is that while Gendron draws upon tribal design and iconography in his painting, no one seems willing to point out the fact that Gendron is almost entirely separated from a Colville Tradition, living instead outside the Colville reservation. Since it is the case Gendron is not, in fact, portraying cultural narratives, and he is not, in fact, articulating hybrid identities, the critical discussion around his work is forced to focus on the formal elements of his painting.
Nevertheless, Gendron is marketed as a tribal artist. It seems to be a reinvention of Paula Gunn Allen’s interpretive difficulty. In the first place, a tribal narrative is marred by the interpretive framework imposed upon it. In the second place, out of the desire to understand personal identities in terms of communal histories, a tribal framework is imposed on a work of non-tribal art, therefore obfuscating the actual identity of the artist.
Said Goes to the Theater and Gets a Tattoo
Said describes Orientalism as the articulation of otherness by groups with power so that dominant parties can understand themselves by differentiation. In Said’s description, the process of differentiation is done by the dominant group. However, it seems the case that marginalized communities will often represent themselves as a deliberate binary to dominant classes. For example, in Louis Valdez’s play Zoot Suit, Chicano youth in Los Angeles in the 1940’s don a performative set of clothing in order to build a group identity directly opposed to the dominant group. There seem to be two explanations.
It is possible that Oreintalism is eventually accepted by subjugated groups, groups who agree to understand themselves only in the space of difference from dominance. In this model, even rebellious counter-cultures affirm societal stratification when they describe their identity as a difference from the dominant structure.
It is also possible that Orientalism fails to accurately describe revolution. Or, since information is most easily organized in binaries, it might be the case that a group dissastisfied with the operation of a pervasive structure might create an alternative identity in dialectical tension. Young Hegelians do this all the time. Oh you young revolutionaries with your strange music. It is therefore possible that otherness is not an affirmation of dominance, but a discursive space in which plural identities might be negotiated.
It is possible that Oreintalism is eventually accepted by subjugated groups, groups who agree to understand themselves only in the space of difference from dominance. In this model, even rebellious counter-cultures affirm societal stratification when they describe their identity as a difference from the dominant structure.
It is also possible that Orientalism fails to accurately describe revolution. Or, since information is most easily organized in binaries, it might be the case that a group dissastisfied with the operation of a pervasive structure might create an alternative identity in dialectical tension. Young Hegelians do this all the time. Oh you young revolutionaries with your strange music. It is therefore possible that otherness is not an affirmation of dominance, but a discursive space in which plural identities might be negotiated.
Bhaba and Hegel Crush Science
“It is often taken for granted in materialist and idealist problematics that the value of culture as an object of study…lies in a capacity to produce a cross-referential, generalizable unity that signified a progression or evolution of ideas-in-time” (2370).
Now this: http://www.techwench.com/scientists-invent-oxygen-particle-that-if-injected-allows-you-to-live-without-breathing/
Science is its own culture. It operates according to its own epistemic rules, and it is almost intentionally self-congratulatory. It is expressed as progress over time. I am convinced that Bhaba would think science was in fact a deliberate affirmation of particular ideologies. This is because science, expressed as advancement (and therefore positive), calls goodness the sustentation of particular conditions. It is important for science to describe itself as neutral, a unifying expression of human advancement. However, it seems that this guise of neutrality could instead cover dominant affirmation. For the ability to extend life is always owned by particular parties, parties that are keen to perpetuate a condition under which their product is desirable. That condition is the assumption that aliveness is the best expression of goodness. This is, more than anything else, a cultural claim.
It seems that science, especially medical science, is linked inextricably to particular ideologies. Particularly consumption and control, both of which are valued in a dominant structure of production and distribution, that is, the heirs of Euroamerican neocolonial powers. The trouble is that neo and postcolonialsim no longer accurately describe international relationships. There are not large-scale discrete parties. There are, however, small communities engaged in particular enterprises. Those small communities are, in fact, dominant by nature of their monolithic capital. In science, differentiation is accomplished through idiomatic language, the display of technologies, and the ownership and administration of technologies by particular groups.
Now this: http://www.techwench.com/scientists-invent-oxygen-particle-that-if-injected-allows-you-to-live-without-breathing/
Science is its own culture. It operates according to its own epistemic rules, and it is almost intentionally self-congratulatory. It is expressed as progress over time. I am convinced that Bhaba would think science was in fact a deliberate affirmation of particular ideologies. This is because science, expressed as advancement (and therefore positive), calls goodness the sustentation of particular conditions. It is important for science to describe itself as neutral, a unifying expression of human advancement. However, it seems that this guise of neutrality could instead cover dominant affirmation. For the ability to extend life is always owned by particular parties, parties that are keen to perpetuate a condition under which their product is desirable. That condition is the assumption that aliveness is the best expression of goodness. This is, more than anything else, a cultural claim.
It seems that science, especially medical science, is linked inextricably to particular ideologies. Particularly consumption and control, both of which are valued in a dominant structure of production and distribution, that is, the heirs of Euroamerican neocolonial powers. The trouble is that neo and postcolonialsim no longer accurately describe international relationships. There are not large-scale discrete parties. There are, however, small communities engaged in particular enterprises. Those small communities are, in fact, dominant by nature of their monolithic capital. In science, differentiation is accomplished through idiomatic language, the display of technologies, and the ownership and administration of technologies by particular groups.
DERRIDA, A DOCUMENTARY I WATCHED FOR EXTRA CREDIT (WITH MATT)
First of all, there is a three-minute scene of Derrida getting a haircut. Which is completely ridiculous. You cannot tame Derrida’s hair in only three minutes. Derrida tried for years to look unimposing and still failed.
Second, Derrida’s position as in the documentary is remarkable. He actively deconstructs himself, pointing out the artificiality of his conditions and the disconnection between the representation of his life and the always already deferred reality of his life. This might mean that Derrida is obsessed with himself. Actually, it does mean that Derrida is obsessed with himself, since he calls all human interaction and thought narcissist and refers to himself as a king narcissist.
At one point in the documentary, Derrida is asked about love. After belittling his interviewer, pointing out that love is a topic, and not even a topic, but always already you-know-what, Derrida avers that a better question about love would be between who and what, objectivity and subjectivity. When a person is in love with another person, asks Derrida, are they in love with the person as an object or with their attributes? Is it love for the ontological essence of an individual or their performative abilities? Because performative abilities, Derrida is quick to point out, are predicated upon particular circumstances, and circumstances, being dynamic, naturally alter the possible actions of an individual. However, even though actions and identities are shifting, Derrida points out that it would be impossible to know an individual outside such arbitrary attributes and therefore impossible to love an ontology outside a teleology.
Apparently, this distinction relates to all philosophy, everywhere. Is it possible to talk about objects without talking about its attributes? And if it is only possible to talk about attributes, where then are Plato’s forms? Since human beings are oriented towards objects relationally, it follows that a person’s experience of an object would be dynamic, relative to the disposition of that individual (their expectations and desires) in a given instant. That being the case, it would be at all times impossible to get to an object, since an object is only an attribute interpreted through a person’s relationship. That being the case, it would seem that Derrida suggests Deconstruction is in fact a description of an individual’s interaction with the world: objects, participants in discourse, are also always already deferred.
Second, Derrida’s position as in the documentary is remarkable. He actively deconstructs himself, pointing out the artificiality of his conditions and the disconnection between the representation of his life and the always already deferred reality of his life. This might mean that Derrida is obsessed with himself. Actually, it does mean that Derrida is obsessed with himself, since he calls all human interaction and thought narcissist and refers to himself as a king narcissist.
At one point in the documentary, Derrida is asked about love. After belittling his interviewer, pointing out that love is a topic, and not even a topic, but always already you-know-what, Derrida avers that a better question about love would be between who and what, objectivity and subjectivity. When a person is in love with another person, asks Derrida, are they in love with the person as an object or with their attributes? Is it love for the ontological essence of an individual or their performative abilities? Because performative abilities, Derrida is quick to point out, are predicated upon particular circumstances, and circumstances, being dynamic, naturally alter the possible actions of an individual. However, even though actions and identities are shifting, Derrida points out that it would be impossible to know an individual outside such arbitrary attributes and therefore impossible to love an ontology outside a teleology.
Apparently, this distinction relates to all philosophy, everywhere. Is it possible to talk about objects without talking about its attributes? And if it is only possible to talk about attributes, where then are Plato’s forms? Since human beings are oriented towards objects relationally, it follows that a person’s experience of an object would be dynamic, relative to the disposition of that individual (their expectations and desires) in a given instant. That being the case, it would be at all times impossible to get to an object, since an object is only an attribute interpreted through a person’s relationship. That being the case, it would seem that Derrida suggests Deconstruction is in fact a description of an individual’s interaction with the world: objects, participants in discourse, are also always already deferred.
Baudrillard Goes to the Space Station
Facebook is simulacral. Obvious, and not very interesting. More interesting? This little gem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaOC9danxNo
That’s right. An astronaut. Singing “Space Oddity.” In space. The map has become the territory, and Baudrillard, if not delighted, is at least a bit self-satisfied. The proliferation of the video is fascinating. It seems that we, as participants in mass media dialogues, love to see actions accept constructed frameworks. Human beings standing by statues will stand like statues and everyone has walked across a crosswalk like the Beatles at some point in their life. The map is not laid over the territory. The map is made to structure interaction, and then experience is laid down across it, trying to stay within its boundaries.
There seem to be two explanations for this. The first is stability which is really immortality. If an astronaut sings “Space Oddity” in space, then all is as it should be, a reflection of an image. And if a human being is only another frame in a precession of simulacra, that person is, effectively, static and undying, a participant in an infinite regress of images. Mass media is built upon the conviction that human beings do not want to deal with objectivity, and this desire for precession can be exploited. That is, like Disneyland, structures of simulacra are commodified and sold.
Second, if the real problem with the postmodern condition is not the absence of absolutes by the infinite subdivision of time, a re-ordering of both time and space that reflects the basic human desire to be God, then an Astronaut playing “Space Oddity” in a space shuttle is useful because even events--like three-minute songs--do not exist in time in a simulacrum. It is a data bit shattering across nodular space. This is hyperreality: the creation of absurd events to stabilize society by offering the promise of comprehensible, sound-byte experiences that are totally under human control. Only, they are not under human control, and a person watching the video of the astronaut becomes implicated in the simulacrum, and therefore absorbed by postmodern motricity. The video is viral. This does not mean it is popular. It is instead moving itself around the internet.
Fascinating.
That’s right. An astronaut. Singing “Space Oddity.” In space. The map has become the territory, and Baudrillard, if not delighted, is at least a bit self-satisfied. The proliferation of the video is fascinating. It seems that we, as participants in mass media dialogues, love to see actions accept constructed frameworks. Human beings standing by statues will stand like statues and everyone has walked across a crosswalk like the Beatles at some point in their life. The map is not laid over the territory. The map is made to structure interaction, and then experience is laid down across it, trying to stay within its boundaries.
There seem to be two explanations for this. The first is stability which is really immortality. If an astronaut sings “Space Oddity” in space, then all is as it should be, a reflection of an image. And if a human being is only another frame in a precession of simulacra, that person is, effectively, static and undying, a participant in an infinite regress of images. Mass media is built upon the conviction that human beings do not want to deal with objectivity, and this desire for precession can be exploited. That is, like Disneyland, structures of simulacra are commodified and sold.
Second, if the real problem with the postmodern condition is not the absence of absolutes by the infinite subdivision of time, a re-ordering of both time and space that reflects the basic human desire to be God, then an Astronaut playing “Space Oddity” in a space shuttle is useful because even events--like three-minute songs--do not exist in time in a simulacrum. It is a data bit shattering across nodular space. This is hyperreality: the creation of absurd events to stabilize society by offering the promise of comprehensible, sound-byte experiences that are totally under human control. Only, they are not under human control, and a person watching the video of the astronaut becomes implicated in the simulacrum, and therefore absorbed by postmodern motricity. The video is viral. This does not mean it is popular. It is instead moving itself around the internet.
Fascinating.
DERRIDA, A DOCUMENTARY I WATCHED FOR EXTRA CREDIT
But also enjoyed.
I wouldn't say it was especially illuminating for his theory, though. I think this is the problem with accessibility. There's a point where you say: this is about opening Derrida up, and therefore we must provide an extensive backgrounding so that anyone can access it. That's great, except that by-and-large I'm going to guess the audience interested in watching ninety minute of Derrida also already read Derrida. I think this attitude led to some of the heavy handed illustrations. Derrida talking about layers of knowing while the camera occasionally flips to shots of Derrida watching videos of videos of himself. Very clever.
All is not lost, Derrida talks about love. Or rather when asked about love he curtly tells her she can't ask him to talk so generally. Then, when asked about why philosophy continues to address that issue, he again says, You can't ask me that. Although, his apparent distaste for the question doesn't prevent him from going on about his views on love, this misplacement of it, the question between loving someone and loving something. The dependence loving someone has on the understanding of various traits which are ultimately mutable and therefore not lasting in the identity of the person. I think this, more than most parts, was surprising, and engaging.
This, and the everyday-ness, the humanizing effect it has on a figure whose essays and thoughts seem to outweigh his personality, was very interesting. The question then is: what is the value of the documentary? Is simply being interesting enough? Should their be more provoking thought-evidence?
I wouldn't say it was especially illuminating for his theory, though. I think this is the problem with accessibility. There's a point where you say: this is about opening Derrida up, and therefore we must provide an extensive backgrounding so that anyone can access it. That's great, except that by-and-large I'm going to guess the audience interested in watching ninety minute of Derrida also already read Derrida. I think this attitude led to some of the heavy handed illustrations. Derrida talking about layers of knowing while the camera occasionally flips to shots of Derrida watching videos of videos of himself. Very clever.
All is not lost, Derrida talks about love. Or rather when asked about love he curtly tells her she can't ask him to talk so generally. Then, when asked about why philosophy continues to address that issue, he again says, You can't ask me that. Although, his apparent distaste for the question doesn't prevent him from going on about his views on love, this misplacement of it, the question between loving someone and loving something. The dependence loving someone has on the understanding of various traits which are ultimately mutable and therefore not lasting in the identity of the person. I think this, more than most parts, was surprising, and engaging.
This, and the everyday-ness, the humanizing effect it has on a figure whose essays and thoughts seem to outweigh his personality, was very interesting. The question then is: what is the value of the documentary? Is simply being interesting enough? Should their be more provoking thought-evidence?
Anzaldua- Changing Identity
http://www.dustjacketpress.com/standards/v8n1/FIRST/anzaldua.html
This link goes to an interview with Gloria Anzaldua. She discusses identity and claims that people can and should change their identities. Do you agree with this?
This link goes to an interview with Gloria Anzaldua. She discusses identity and claims that people can and should change their identities. Do you agree with this?
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
More Orientalism in Music
Doug's comment the other day about the use of pseudo-Middle-Eastern themes in popular music got me thinking. Mostly, it had me thinking that I didn't really buy it. Musicians didn't start incorporating Middle Eastern themes because of 9/11 or the Gulf War; pop music has always been exploiting these kinds of themes, haven't they?
Well, as it turns out, no. No, they haven't. I went and checked the top 20 songs from 1999-2000 for overt use of "oriental" sounding instrumentation, beats or themes. With the exception of Christina Aguilara's "Genie in a Bottle (Which, compared to, say, 50 Cent's Candy Shop, barely makes the cut), I found none. Compare that to this list, which I compiled from soundbites and music videos, of songs from the 5 years after 9/11:
2002
1) In da Club--50 Cent
2) Get Busy--Sean Kingston
3) Baby Boy--Beyonce ft. Sean Kingston
2004
4) I Don't Wanna Kno--Mario
5) Lean Back
6) Freak-A-Leak--
7) Naughty Girl--Beyonce
2005
8) 1,2 step (The high descant)--Ciara
9) Candy Shop--50 Cent
10) Don't Phunk with my Heart--Black Eyed Peas
11) Don't Cha--Pussycat Dolls
12) Just a Little Bit--50 Cent
13) Pon de Replay--Rihanna
2006
14) Temperature--Sean Paul
15) Hips Don't Lie--Shakira
16) Ridin--Chamillionare
17) Buttons--Pussycat dolls
My point, besides that Doug was right and pop music really has bolstered itself with Orientalism in the wake of 9/11, is that all of these artists are artists of color. It is somehow more acceptable for non-white artists to use these beats, because it adds to the image culture has created for them. They are being different, other, from white artists, but they're doing so in a way that lines up with the image the West constructed after September 11th. The beats get more and more pronounced, celebrated, and sellable as time goes on. It's all very depressing.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I think I'll go listen to something classical again...
Well, as it turns out, no. No, they haven't. I went and checked the top 20 songs from 1999-2000 for overt use of "oriental" sounding instrumentation, beats or themes. With the exception of Christina Aguilara's "Genie in a Bottle (Which, compared to, say, 50 Cent's Candy Shop, barely makes the cut), I found none. Compare that to this list, which I compiled from soundbites and music videos, of songs from the 5 years after 9/11:
2002
1) In da Club--50 Cent
2) Get Busy--Sean Kingston
3) Baby Boy--Beyonce ft. Sean Kingston
2004
4) I Don't Wanna Kno--Mario
5) Lean Back
6) Freak-A-Leak--
7) Naughty Girl--Beyonce
2005
8) 1,2 step (The high descant)--Ciara
9) Candy Shop--50 Cent
10) Don't Phunk with my Heart--Black Eyed Peas
11) Don't Cha--Pussycat Dolls
12) Just a Little Bit--50 Cent
13) Pon de Replay--Rihanna
2006
14) Temperature--Sean Paul
15) Hips Don't Lie--Shakira
16) Ridin--Chamillionare
17) Buttons--Pussycat dolls
My point, besides that Doug was right and pop music really has bolstered itself with Orientalism in the wake of 9/11, is that all of these artists are artists of color. It is somehow more acceptable for non-white artists to use these beats, because it adds to the image culture has created for them. They are being different, other, from white artists, but they're doing so in a way that lines up with the image the West constructed after September 11th. The beats get more and more pronounced, celebrated, and sellable as time goes on. It's all very depressing.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I think I'll go listen to something classical again...
Said and Dvorak are Going Home
In Heirs of Columbus, Vizenor's use of Dvorak's New World Symphony is so perfect it's almost hilarious. The piece is most famous for the theme of its second movement, and more specifically for the theme that plays in the first three minutes of it, which is also used in the folk tune "Going Home." Vizenor is correct when he says that the symphony was inspired by Native American (and African American) songs, although he is apparently not correct in saying that its themes were based on specific Native American tunes. Dvorak is often quoted as saying the following:
I have not actually used any of the [Native American] melodies. I have simply written original themes embodying the peculiarities of the Indian music, and, using these themes as subjects, have developed them with all the resources of modern rhythms, counterpoint, and orchestral colour.1
Which, I think, is perfect when we bring Said into the picture. Dvorak has created this symphony (which is so beautiful, especially in the 2nd movement's recapitulation at around 9 minutes, that it makes me want to cry) to represent the New World to his white American and Western European listeners, but there is nothing particularly Native or American about his work He has used Western instruments to represent Native tunes (usually the oboe and flutes) and Western chords to tug at their heartstrings (Dvorak is, after all, a Romantic). Finally has ended his symphony with this movement, in which the Native tunes (again, oboes and flutes) fight with and eventually submit to the stronger, louder, more rigid Imperial voices (French horns, trumpets, strings when they get loud). Seriously, listen to that movement. It's like the story of colonization.
So what we have is an image of Native American culture that the West has created in order to demonstrate (and enforce) the subjugation of a non-dominant culture. Vizenor knows his music. It all does more to point out white America's insecurity about its identity (Dvorak was commissioned and paid a fortune to write this by a wealthy American woman) than to reveal anything real about Native Americans. This article, if you're interested, says a bit about that.
Like Said, though, I have trouble dismissing the piece because of its inherent imperialism. It's still great music, and though I can't find any recordings of Said's orchestra playing it, I have no doubt that they would.
I have not actually used any of the [Native American] melodies. I have simply written original themes embodying the peculiarities of the Indian music, and, using these themes as subjects, have developed them with all the resources of modern rhythms, counterpoint, and orchestral colour.1
Which, I think, is perfect when we bring Said into the picture. Dvorak has created this symphony (which is so beautiful, especially in the 2nd movement's recapitulation at around 9 minutes, that it makes me want to cry) to represent the New World to his white American and Western European listeners, but there is nothing particularly Native or American about his work He has used Western instruments to represent Native tunes (usually the oboe and flutes) and Western chords to tug at their heartstrings (Dvorak is, after all, a Romantic). Finally has ended his symphony with this movement, in which the Native tunes (again, oboes and flutes) fight with and eventually submit to the stronger, louder, more rigid Imperial voices (French horns, trumpets, strings when they get loud). Seriously, listen to that movement. It's like the story of colonization.
So what we have is an image of Native American culture that the West has created in order to demonstrate (and enforce) the subjugation of a non-dominant culture. Vizenor knows his music. It all does more to point out white America's insecurity about its identity (Dvorak was commissioned and paid a fortune to write this by a wealthy American woman) than to reveal anything real about Native Americans. This article, if you're interested, says a bit about that.
Like Said, though, I have trouble dismissing the piece because of its inherent imperialism. It's still great music, and though I can't find any recordings of Said's orchestra playing it, I have no doubt that they would.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Said about 9/11 and America
http://progressive.org/0901/intv1101.html
This article is an interview with Edward Said shortly after 9/11 happened. In it, some of Said's ideas connect with ISAs and RSAs, "Heart of Darkness," the Other, as well as Said's own Orientalism. Do you agree with the ideas behind Said's opinion of the US response to 9/11?
This article is an interview with Edward Said shortly after 9/11 happened. In it, some of Said's ideas connect with ISAs and RSAs, "Heart of Darkness," the Other, as well as Said's own Orientalism. Do you agree with the ideas behind Said's opinion of the US response to 9/11?
Achebe and "Heart of Darkness"
This article describes a conversation between Achebe and a reporter about Conrad's "Heart of Darkness."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2003/feb/22/classics.chinuaachebe
Does Achebe make a good case? Is there any merit in the reporter's good opinion of Conrad?
Why, if Achebe dislikes Conrad so much, does he spend so much time on Conrad's work? I would think that if Achebe thinks that Conrad is racist and therefore should not be considered part of the canon, then he would try to give Conrad less attention, not more. Achebe's focus on "Heart of Darkness" has probably increased the attention that "Heart of Darkness" receives, and while most people do consider Conrad a racist writer now, "Heart of Darkness" is even more firmly a part of the canon now.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2003/feb/22/classics.chinuaachebe
Does Achebe make a good case? Is there any merit in the reporter's good opinion of Conrad?
Why, if Achebe dislikes Conrad so much, does he spend so much time on Conrad's work? I would think that if Achebe thinks that Conrad is racist and therefore should not be considered part of the canon, then he would try to give Conrad less attention, not more. Achebe's focus on "Heart of Darkness" has probably increased the attention that "Heart of Darkness" receives, and while most people do consider Conrad a racist writer now, "Heart of Darkness" is even more firmly a part of the canon now.
Music and lit crit
Just like in literary theory there have been times when theorists/authors have not cared about previous authors at all or they have only cared about previous authors and historical context, music has gone through similar phases. During the 19th century and early 20th century, musicians played music by Mozart (1756-1791), Bach (1685-1750), Palestrina (1400s), and Perotin (1100s) all in the same style, even though the composers wrote in drastically different styles and they were meant to be played very differently. In the second half of the 20th century, musicians started trying to pay more attention to what the composer of each piece would have intended, and learn more about the historical context of the music. This then affected the performances and the style in which the musicians would play the different pieces. Like in literary theory, musical performance practice has changed a lot over time based on politics, world events, and random theorists writing exciting articles and books.
Monday, May 6, 2013
What Happened in France
Lately, during the discussions about a lot of our existentialist/postmodern scholars, we've touched on their involvement in the French student uprisings of the 1960s, specifically the uprising of 1968, which led to the closure of the University of Paris at Nanterre and Sorbonne and nearly broke the government. I thought I'd post a brief chronology of this uprising, since it a) involved and inspired so many of our mid-20th century theorists, and b) was so significant in French history that every student protest since cannot escape comparison to it by the media. Also, did I mention it almost broke France? It almost broke France.
It is also significant because all of this happened in about a month. May of 1968 remains a landmark month in French history. Here's a brief overview:
1) The University of Nanterre. Students are unhappy about France's class discrimination and, specifically, the bureaucratic nature of the school's funding. After months of conflict and an instance in which the students invaded a board room and held their own meeting, the school closes and several of the key students are threatened with expulsions. Students are even less happy.
2) Students of Nanterre, who have a lot of free time now that their school has closed, gather in Paris to protest the closure. When a brutal riot breaks out, they are joined by students from Sorbonne (which has also been closed due to protests), high school students, and civilians. They meet at the Arc du Triumph to demand that a) all the charges be dropped b) the police calm the heck down, and c) the schools be reopened. The government responds with d) none of the above, and the students are even less happy.
3) The protests moves from a student protest to a general protest when workers from hundreds of factories join to march against police brutality and an unethical economic system. It quickly turns into another riot, complete with flying pavement stones, Molotov cocktails, and burning cars. The Communist party and union movement get involved. Over two million join the protests, and begin re-occupying factories and the University of Sorbonne, which is announced to be an autonomous "people's university." At this point, no one is happy.
4) Negotiations fail over and over, and by this point not even the re-opening of Sorbonne is enough to quell the protestors' rage. They call for the overhaul of the government and set the stock exchange on fire. President De Gaulle flees the country, but remains firm. At this point, no one remembers what happy looks like.
5) After the Grenelle agreements, which raise average salaries by 10% and minimum wage by 25%, protestors continue to march in the streets by the hundred thousands. President de Gaulle threatens to declare a state of emergency and announces the dissolution of the National Assembly. No one really knows what to do.
6) By the 5th of June, a month after the protests began, most strikers have gone back to work. De Gaulle is re-elected. Everyone is a little sheepish, and no one asks if the students are happy.
Here's my source (which tends to be a little overdramatic, if very informative), and here is a list of graffiti slogans used during the uprising. To me, this is all very exciting, and it sheds new light on the more anti-establishment leanings of our recent theorists. Also, it reminds me of this. Is that racist?
It is also significant because all of this happened in about a month. May of 1968 remains a landmark month in French history. Here's a brief overview:
1) The University of Nanterre. Students are unhappy about France's class discrimination and, specifically, the bureaucratic nature of the school's funding. After months of conflict and an instance in which the students invaded a board room and held their own meeting, the school closes and several of the key students are threatened with expulsions. Students are even less happy.
2) Students of Nanterre, who have a lot of free time now that their school has closed, gather in Paris to protest the closure. When a brutal riot breaks out, they are joined by students from Sorbonne (which has also been closed due to protests), high school students, and civilians. They meet at the Arc du Triumph to demand that a) all the charges be dropped b) the police calm the heck down, and c) the schools be reopened. The government responds with d) none of the above, and the students are even less happy.
3) The protests moves from a student protest to a general protest when workers from hundreds of factories join to march against police brutality and an unethical economic system. It quickly turns into another riot, complete with flying pavement stones, Molotov cocktails, and burning cars. The Communist party and union movement get involved. Over two million join the protests, and begin re-occupying factories and the University of Sorbonne, which is announced to be an autonomous "people's university." At this point, no one is happy.
4) Negotiations fail over and over, and by this point not even the re-opening of Sorbonne is enough to quell the protestors' rage. They call for the overhaul of the government and set the stock exchange on fire. President De Gaulle flees the country, but remains firm. At this point, no one remembers what happy looks like.
5) After the Grenelle agreements, which raise average salaries by 10% and minimum wage by 25%, protestors continue to march in the streets by the hundred thousands. President de Gaulle threatens to declare a state of emergency and announces the dissolution of the National Assembly. No one really knows what to do.
6) By the 5th of June, a month after the protests began, most strikers have gone back to work. De Gaulle is re-elected. Everyone is a little sheepish, and no one asks if the students are happy.
Here's my source (which tends to be a little overdramatic, if very informative), and here is a list of graffiti slogans used during the uprising. To me, this is all very exciting, and it sheds new light on the more anti-establishment leanings of our recent theorists. Also, it reminds me of this. Is that racist?
Sunday, May 5, 2013
The Head Shave
Each time we discuss feminism(s), we are drawn back to the two schools of thought: The Essentialists (Cixous) vs. The Not-Essentialists (de Beauvoir, Kolodny, Kristeva, etc). The Big Question: are there qualities that are essentially male or female, or are all gender roles socially constructed (and, many argue, oppressive)?
Which, naturally, made me think about Demi Moore.
Specifically, it made me think of the iconic head shaving scene from Moore's movie G.I. Jane (From about 1:15-3:00 in this video). This, to me, encapsulates these two sides of the feminist argument.
The Non-Essentialists: This is great! This scene represents the whole theme of the movie: she's defying traditional gender stereotypes to show that she can be just as athletic, strategic, and strong as men. In shaving off her hair, she's symbolically taking away all of the (oppressive) roles that have been forced upon her and is free to reach the same level of potential as her male counterparts. (This is the general opinion of the women in the film, and seems to be the intended reaction from the movie).
The Essentialists: But why is this a good thing? This scene (which does represent the whole film) is about how she becomes more successful by becoming more male. Success, in this film, is defined as "doing what boys can do," and if she succeeds in the end, she has only succeeded in playing in a man's game. If femininity is also a man's game, she hasn't really gained anything at all. Defying womanhood is not the same as becoming less oppressed.
Thoughts?
Which, naturally, made me think about Demi Moore.
Specifically, it made me think of the iconic head shaving scene from Moore's movie G.I. Jane (From about 1:15-3:00 in this video). This, to me, encapsulates these two sides of the feminist argument.
The Non-Essentialists: This is great! This scene represents the whole theme of the movie: she's defying traditional gender stereotypes to show that she can be just as athletic, strategic, and strong as men. In shaving off her hair, she's symbolically taking away all of the (oppressive) roles that have been forced upon her and is free to reach the same level of potential as her male counterparts. (This is the general opinion of the women in the film, and seems to be the intended reaction from the movie).
The Essentialists: But why is this a good thing? This scene (which does represent the whole film) is about how she becomes more successful by becoming more male. Success, in this film, is defined as "doing what boys can do," and if she succeeds in the end, she has only succeeded in playing in a man's game. If femininity is also a man's game, she hasn't really gained anything at all. Defying womanhood is not the same as becoming less oppressed.
Thoughts?
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Lulu
I saw something today that (almost) literally made me sick to my stomach.
Lulu is a new app for girls to rate guys. And I'm not just talking about celebrity guys, but also the guy-next-door, the high school crush, whoever.
Now, commence explosion of anger. (Willa, I'm looking at you.) On a side note, I can't help but think this sounds a bit like an alien invasion:
Lulu is a new app for girls to rate guys. And I'm not just talking about celebrity guys, but also the guy-next-door, the high school crush, whoever.
"When should I use Lulu?The ratings are based on looks and personality, of course. Like if his personality is "future husband material." Because, of course, the only thing women care about in men is whether or not he'll be your future husband. Because women, in order to create relationships with men, can't possibly care about whether he's registered to vote or not.
If you meet a guy at a party and hit it off, admit it: you’re going to Facebook and Google him when you get home. Lulu is the place to do your research. Except we’re not going to bore you with whether he’s registered to vote. No way. Lulu tells you the stuff you want to know: is he a heartbreaker or your future husband? Lulu is the fastest way you can find out if he has a good track record with the ladies."
"By girls, for girls … strictly girls only, meaning no boys allowed," says the description on the app storeGuys, do you feel left out? No worries. Lulu's got that covered.
"What is Lulu Dude?How otherizing is this? Have we learned nothing from feminism? Do we not understand the basic concepts of objectification and how it's not good? Oh, don't even get me started on how this otherizes gay relationships. Um, "By girls, for girls"? Really? You mean guys can't be attracted to guys?
Lulu Dude is a separate app we created for the boys because we do not let them into the original Lulu.
Guys don’t see what the girls see. We let them select their relationship status and profile picture and we encourage them to get their “fan base” to review them.
Lulu Dude is also a place for guys to get self-improvement tips. Think of Lulu Dude as Cosmo for guys."
And it's expecting guys to voluntarily otherize themselves, to accept the objectification and dehumanization.
"On LuluDude, guys can put their best faces forward on Lulu, so they can change their profile pictures, they can add their own personal hashtags about themselves, they can tell a girl what their turn-ons and turn-offs are, they can change their relationship status, and, at the same time, we give them a hint of how they’re performing on Lulu. If a girl does a review of them and they score high in one of the categories, they get a trophy, so it gives them a sense of how they’re doing."I can't even fully articulate my feelings about this right now, but essentially, they expect the men to perform, to propagate an image of themselves. This is all about images, about how people come across, but nothing about this app seems to focus on how things really are. If a guy finds out he's not doing well on Lulu, he might do various things (mentioned in the above excerpt) in order to change that image. For the guys on the app, they can do nothing but interact with their image.
"Is Lulu evil?I think the very fact that you asked if Lulu is evil says that something is up. "Collective wisdom for women": ENTER WOLLSTONECRAFT. This is what women's education looks like now? This is what we're expected to educate ourselves with? We're not supposed to have a problem with this.
Lulu is cheeky, but definitely not evil. Our quiz is sweet, not tacky or vulgar. We know what girls talk about when they discuss their latest crush… we’re just making it easier to have that discussion. Call him out on bad behavior. Give him credit for being a true gentleman. Either way, Reviews are a quick, fun way to contribute the collective wisdom for women everywhere."
Oh, and another thing that's terrifying? It doesn't give men a choice.
And as far as I can tell, there's no opt-out for men who'd rather not be shagged and tagged: when I set up my account, the Facebook profile of every chap I know was dragged into the Luluverse and I was invited to comment on their eligibility. I'm sorry, guys. It didn't ask me if I wanted that to happen, never mind you.Fellow Lit Critters, please be terrified. Check out the article I looked at, whose author was sufficiently disgusted and snarky, and please for the love of Wollstonecraft do not download the app.
Now, commence explosion of anger. (Willa, I'm looking at you.) On a side note, I can't help but think this sounds a bit like an alien invasion:
"TSD: What has been the general response to Lulu among the college campuses you’ve visited?Lulu: So far phenomenal, actually. All of the college campuses that we have an active program in, we penetrate probably about 35 to 40 percent of the female population. They join Lulu in the first couple weeks of entering the college campus, and then at least 60 percent of the guys are on Lulu after we enter these communities. So among those that speak against Lulu, you actually see that they’re quite active users of it."
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
The (sort of) Reality of Theme Parks
So, the only theme park I've ever been to is Wild Waves, which is really just a collection of rides and has no identifiable theme other than 'water', although not all of the rides are water, so that isn't really accurate, either.
If we're going to talk about the hyperreal in the context of theme parks, how does that work? Using the examples of Disneyland/world, the Wizarding World of Harry Potter (more commonly referred to as "Harry Potter Land") or other themes, how does the park create its supposed hyperreality?
These parks operate under the assumption that they will be accepted by the public as real, especially children. Given the Wizarding World of Harry Potter, (though I have not been to any of these parks, I am by far the most familiar with the Wizarding World) we can look at how the park is advertised.Click here to visit the park's webpage
The park is clearly not real. Adults and children of all ages alike are aware of this. Hogwarts is located in Scotland, and even if you don't know this, you know it's somewhere not in Florida. The only people who might be fooled by this are age four and under. Yet, adults and children do not act like the Wizarding World is in any way unreal. They participate in the world, interacting with the workers, asking questions in British accents, and immersing themselves fully into the fake reality around them. I guess what I'm trying to get at here is that, although there is a knowledge of the fakeness of parks like this, there is also the initial acceptance upon entering that, while within the park, it is reality. And, in a sense, it is more real than the reality outside.
A theme park would not be able to operate under the assumption that nothing within is real. Instead, there is acceptance - for a day, a weekend, or even a whole week - that, even just for now, this is what reality is. In contrast to Baudrillard, this begins to make the real world seem less all-encompassing, less interactive, and ultimately less real.
If we're going to talk about the hyperreal in the context of theme parks, how does that work? Using the examples of Disneyland/world, the Wizarding World of Harry Potter (more commonly referred to as "Harry Potter Land") or other themes, how does the park create its supposed hyperreality?
These parks operate under the assumption that they will be accepted by the public as real, especially children. Given the Wizarding World of Harry Potter, (though I have not been to any of these parks, I am by far the most familiar with the Wizarding World) we can look at how the park is advertised.Click here to visit the park's webpage
The park is clearly not real. Adults and children of all ages alike are aware of this. Hogwarts is located in Scotland, and even if you don't know this, you know it's somewhere not in Florida. The only people who might be fooled by this are age four and under. Yet, adults and children do not act like the Wizarding World is in any way unreal. They participate in the world, interacting with the workers, asking questions in British accents, and immersing themselves fully into the fake reality around them. I guess what I'm trying to get at here is that, although there is a knowledge of the fakeness of parks like this, there is also the initial acceptance upon entering that, while within the park, it is reality. And, in a sense, it is more real than the reality outside.
A theme park would not be able to operate under the assumption that nothing within is real. Instead, there is acceptance - for a day, a weekend, or even a whole week - that, even just for now, this is what reality is. In contrast to Baudrillard, this begins to make the real world seem less all-encompassing, less interactive, and ultimately less real.
Saturday, April 27, 2013
Hyperreality
The article below theorizes that there was a common theme of hyperreality in the movies of the 90s such as Schwarzenegger films, The Matrix, Memento, and Star Wars, to name a few. Even without reading the article, do you think that these movies could be examples of hyperreality?
http://www.americanpopularculture.com/journal/articles/spring_2010/laist.htm
http://www.americanpopularculture.com/journal/articles/spring_2010/laist.htm
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Portfolio 7
In 1621 Robert Burton published Anatomy of Melancholy, a text significant in its attempts to move nervous disorders from classification as physical afflictions to psychological ills. It was in that text that hysteria, already thoroughly explicated by Elizabethan authors Weyer and Jordan, was classified as a fit of the “Mother” occasioned by physical maladies coupled with extreme stress. It is important to note that Burton, following the conviction of his time, averred that the lower a woman’s social class, the less likely her affliction by hysteria. It was, by all accounts, a rich woman’s disease. So it is with Ophelia. By Act IV, scene 5, Ophelia is well-progressed into madness. An Elizabethan audience would doubtless see the signs of hysteria and witchcraft. It is important to note, however, that Shakespeare, responding, perhaps, to the medical developments of his day, complicated the notion of madness. The gentleman describing her affliction states: “her speech is nothing, / Yet the unshaped use of it doth move / The hearers to collection; they aim at it, And botch the words up fit to their own thoughts.” It is possible, of course, that Shakespeare refers to the infectious nature of madness. However, it is also possible that the “hearers” are only constructing Ophelia’s hysteria, ignoring her true ailments in favor of their presuppositions. So it is that Ophelia enters with the phrase “Where is the beauteous majesty of Denmark?” In so doing, she summarizes the entire play as well as the opening query “Who’s there?” Ophelia’s question is aimed at the location of greatness, in persons, in families, in systems. In asking as to the vestment of majesty, Ophelia in fact locates the conflict of the play with more accuracy than any character in the scene, thus demonstrating the Elizabethan potential for the hysterical woman to act as a kind of oracle.
In 1621 Robert Burton published Anatomy of Melancholy, a text significant in its attempts to move nervous disorders from classification as physical afflictions to psychological ills. It was in that text that hysteria, already thoroughly explicated by Elizabethan authors Weyer and Jordan, was classified as a fit of the “Mother” occasioned by physical maladies coupled with extreme stress. It is important to note that Burton, following the conviction of his time, averred that the lower a woman’s social class, the less likely her affliction by hysteria. It was, by all accounts, a rich woman’s disease. So it is with Ophelia. By Act IV, scene 5, Ophelia is well-progressed into madness. An Elizabethan audience would doubtless see the signs of hysteria and witchcraft. It is important to note, however, that Shakespeare, responding, perhaps, to the medical developments of his day, complicated the notion of madness. The gentleman describing her affliction states: “her speech is nothing, / Yet the unshaped use of it doth move / The hearers to collection; they aim at it, And botch the words up fit to their own thoughts.” It is possible, of course, that Shakespeare refers to the infectious nature of madness. However, it is also possible that the “hearers” are only constructing Ophelia’s hysteria, ignoring her true ailments in favor of their presuppositions. So it is that Ophelia enters with the phrase “Where is the beauteous majesty of Denmark?” In so doing, she summarizes the entire play as well as the opening query “Who’s there?” Ophelia’s question is aimed at the location of greatness, in persons, in families, in systems. In asking as to the vestment of majesty, Ophelia in fact locates the conflict of the play with more accuracy than any character in the scene, thus demonstrating the Elizabethan potential for the hysterical woman to act as a kind of oracle.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Let's Talk About Dove's "Real Beauty Sketches"
Most of you have probably seen this already. For those of you who haven't, this is a Dove (soap/beauty products, etc.) project that just recently went viral. Please watch it.
Well, WWWT? (What Would Woolf Think) Or de Beauvir? Cixous? Any of the feminists we've talked about? None of our readings focused too much on the pressure for females to be beautiful. So, in what other ways would these critics respond?
Would they feel that women have been Othered? Are they mysterious? Are they compulsively heterosexual? Why does the artists have to be male? How would they criticize? Would they praise this video at all?
I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Horkheimer, Adorno, and the Pinnacle of Capitalism
Let's take popular music as our example of capitalism. Obvious. Let's take a look at how in it, "all our mass culture is," as Horkheimer and Adorno put it, become "identical,"and how "the lines of its artificial framework begin to show through." Capitalism, which has for so long been telling us it creates products based on consumer need, is having to make such claims less and less. Soon, we will be sold rubbish, even though we know it's rubbish, even though it will cost us. Why? Because, they told us we wanted it, that's why.
And this was all written in 1947. Couple this idea with the idea of progress so ubiquitous in the discussion of capitalism, and add in the acceleration of change in the last few decades, and it seems to me we should be at about critical mass. By now, we should have an example of rubbish we don't need or want but buy anyway. We should have the perfect product of capitalism.
So here's my theory: it's Ke$ha. KE-Dollarsign-HA. And I realize that people have said this about popular music in every genre and every decade since Horkheimer and Adorno, but I think Ke$ha has brought it into a new level. And here's why:
1) The recycled beats. Not only are the backgrounds to Kesha's songs cliche copies of other songs in her genre, some are acknowledged as being almost exactly the same. This has happened more than once. Music producers lose no money on creating new tracks, and fans eat it up. It's an old song that happens a lot in the music world, but Kesha's tracks are unapologetic.
2) The auto-tune. The Machine need not find an artist with vocal talent when it can easily find one that it can auto-tune into a top-selling timbre.
3) The look. She's known for her over-the-top costumes and makeup. What this does two things. a) It draws attention away from what Kesha actually looks like, and b) it draws attention to the products she uses. She could be conventionally pretty, but she no longer needs to be in order to sell. The Machine is therefore saved the trouble of finding a talented, attractive, creative starlet to exploit. It now only needs to find someone to auto-sing over pre-created tracks and wear the body paint and fake eyelashes that the label intends to sell. Kesha is made into less of an individual and more of a character that anyone willing to wear the costume could play.
4) The lyrics. Most are familiar with Kesha's "brush my teeth with a bottle of Jack," or her "the party don't stop till I walk in." Her songs are about living large and partying hard, and there always seems to be an abundance of brand-name alcohol and body glitter (Did I mention Kesha has her own line of body glitter?) in these parties. The moral of the story: More products=better party. And they lived happily ever after, children.
So, we've done it, folks. We've created the perfect sell-able formula for capitalism: recycled tracks + auto-tune + face-hiding makeup = a "human" product (music) without any need for a specific human. People become commodities, and twelve-year-olds buy more glitter.
Do you buy it? Is the pinnacle of capitalism someone/thing else? Am I even asking the right questions?
And this was all written in 1947. Couple this idea with the idea of progress so ubiquitous in the discussion of capitalism, and add in the acceleration of change in the last few decades, and it seems to me we should be at about critical mass. By now, we should have an example of rubbish we don't need or want but buy anyway. We should have the perfect product of capitalism.
So here's my theory: it's Ke$ha. KE-Dollarsign-HA. And I realize that people have said this about popular music in every genre and every decade since Horkheimer and Adorno, but I think Ke$ha has brought it into a new level. And here's why:
1) The recycled beats. Not only are the backgrounds to Kesha's songs cliche copies of other songs in her genre, some are acknowledged as being almost exactly the same. This has happened more than once. Music producers lose no money on creating new tracks, and fans eat it up. It's an old song that happens a lot in the music world, but Kesha's tracks are unapologetic.
2) The auto-tune. The Machine need not find an artist with vocal talent when it can easily find one that it can auto-tune into a top-selling timbre.
3) The look. She's known for her over-the-top costumes and makeup. What this does two things. a) It draws attention away from what Kesha actually looks like, and b) it draws attention to the products she uses. She could be conventionally pretty, but she no longer needs to be in order to sell. The Machine is therefore saved the trouble of finding a talented, attractive, creative starlet to exploit. It now only needs to find someone to auto-sing over pre-created tracks and wear the body paint and fake eyelashes that the label intends to sell. Kesha is made into less of an individual and more of a character that anyone willing to wear the costume could play.
4) The lyrics. Most are familiar with Kesha's "brush my teeth with a bottle of Jack," or her "the party don't stop till I walk in." Her songs are about living large and partying hard, and there always seems to be an abundance of brand-name alcohol and body glitter (Did I mention Kesha has her own line of body glitter?) in these parties. The moral of the story: More products=better party. And they lived happily ever after, children.
So, we've done it, folks. We've created the perfect sell-able formula for capitalism: recycled tracks + auto-tune + face-hiding makeup = a "human" product (music) without any need for a specific human. People become commodities, and twelve-year-olds buy more glitter.
Do you buy it? Is the pinnacle of capitalism someone/thing else? Am I even asking the right questions?
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Gilbert and Gubar
Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar argue that women writers have "an anxiety of authorship." They claim that this anxiety is different than the anxieties male writers have, because while men are anxious in living up to their precursors, women really don't have any percursors to refer to. Woman has to instead worry that her writing will be deemed as unworthy to be read because man will not be able to understand the way in which the woman has written. As a writer, I can say that I am certainly anxious in how my work compares to the works of others, but I have never felt anxiety that my work would be viewed as less because of its distict feminine viewpoint and way of thinking. Was Gilbert and Gubar's statement more applicable in 1979 than it is today? Have any of you experienced what Gilber and Gubar define as the male "anxiety of influence" or female "anxiety of authorship?"
Saturday, April 13, 2013
A portrayal of women Simone de Beauvoir might approve of?
I decided to see if I could find an example of contemporary culture that tried to fight agaisnt the myth of woman as the other. The Dixie Chicks are often considered for songs about woman empowerment, and I think that Simone de Beauvoir might agree with their songs to a large degree. For example, the songs "Cowboy, Take me Away" and "Wide Open Spaces" are primarily about a young woman wanting to be free. Even the song "Cowboy, Take Me Away" is not so much about being with a man as it is about being free. In fact, no males appear in the music video. Woman is seen first as a free being in and of herself, and is not defined based on her actions or relation towards man. What do you think de Beauvoir would see? Would she agree with what these songs are trying to do or still see too much evidence of the myth of women as other in our culture?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hntXAO_Rq7c
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Woolf and the Bechdel Test
In response to today's musings as to whether Virginia Woolf's ideas are still relevant in light of new research (and, of course, the ubiquitous "isn't-femenism-kind-of-over" question), I'd like to take a look at Woolf's "Chloe Liked Olivia" section. Woolf talks about the way literature and media so rarely portray female homosocial situations. When we come across a scene in which Chloe is free to like Olivia, we are startled. Shocked, even: "Do not start," says Woolf, "do not blush. Let us admit in the privacy of our own society that these things sometimes happen. Sometimes women do like women" (899). And though we know that life might work in this way, that women actually do have positive relationships with other women, we've come to accept that movies (or books or anything else) usually do not. Women are shown only in relation to men, only as the Other to men. Woolf suggests that this is the product of fiction written by men who are "terribly hampered and partial in [their] knowledge of women" (899).
And, as we all know, this is absolutely still a thing. In film, especially, women are shown and defined only through their relations with men, which in reality are very small parts of life. So, in response, I offer you The Bechdel Test
Some of you are probably pretty familiar with this test, but I put it here because it changed the way I looked at movies. It's a test used to identify gender bias in fiction, and was created by Alison Bechdel in her comic strip Dykes to Watch Out For. Here's how it works: for a film to be free of male bias it must 1. contain two female characters [with names] 2. who have a conversation 3. that is not about a man.
In 2011, of all of the films nominated for Best Picture, only The Help passed.
Here's a website with listings of different films. Do your favorites pass?
And, as we all know, this is absolutely still a thing. In film, especially, women are shown and defined only through their relations with men, which in reality are very small parts of life. So, in response, I offer you The Bechdel Test
Some of you are probably pretty familiar with this test, but I put it here because it changed the way I looked at movies. It's a test used to identify gender bias in fiction, and was created by Alison Bechdel in her comic strip Dykes to Watch Out For. Here's how it works: for a film to be free of male bias it must 1. contain two female characters [with names] 2. who have a conversation 3. that is not about a man.
In 2011, of all of the films nominated for Best Picture, only The Help passed.
Here's a website with listings of different films. Do your favorites pass?
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
An Explanation of Spittin' Hard
It’s not quite Hegelian to maintain that each generation of
theorists reacts to the excesses of its predecessor. The flow chart of
criticism follows this principle. There are, of course, a few basic
equalizers. You either read Plato or are Plato. You are either male or
de Pizan or Wollstonecraft. The next large shift is simply a function of
whether or not you are going to pay attention to social tensions (a
product of economic tensions) as the governor of human action. If you
are, then you are going to be a Marxist, and if you are not, you are
either going to have to turn to created objects or the natural world.
The former will make you more interesting, the latter will make you
Wordsworth.
Criticism is neither meliorist nor dialectical. It is the
via negative, determining new theoretical movements based upon the
failures of Plato and then everyone else.
Digressions on a Diagram
This diagram is of a tree, but don't be fooled. At first it may seem like those strangely large seeds are growing the tree of thought, and the higher or lower level of thinkers has something to do with progress. That's just Hegelian insistence on some positivistic dialectic model of reality. The tree just has to do with passing time, and is subject for my authorial quips concerning the placement of various thinkers in and around the tree. Also, those seeds, you may notice (as Blaine Eldredge first did) have a level of similarity to the appearance of testicles. That is an unfortunate accident.
I think it's important to note the way that they are in a sort of unified dialogue despite, or perhaps because of their differences. I also notice that's important to not over-value their thoughts. There's this idea that these thinkers are gods, but really there are times when they happen to be petty, or make mistakes, or say things they don't mean. In short, they're human beings. That's a big part of why I made this with a kind of satire or mockery in mind. Many of the catchphrases being over-simplifications or things of the sort. Think of Sidney, who is relegated to a stone beneath the earth. It's not about the insult, its about the realization that these people aren't more than other people.
Theorist Diagram
Tragedy
Plato
-> Aristotle -> Nietzsche -> Freud -> Lacan -> Horkheimer/Adorno
Symbolism/Author’s
intentions
Plato
-> Augustine -> Maimonides -> Hume -> Kant -> Schleiermacher
-> Emerson -> Nietzsche -> Freud -> Lacan -> Eliot ->
Wimsatt/Beardsley
Genius
Maimonides
-> Hume -> Kant -> Hegel -> Wordsworth -> Coleridge ->
Emerson -> Nietzsche -> Horkheimer/Adorno
Education/Societal
Impact
Plato
-> Aristotle -> de Pizan -> Sidney -> Wollstonecraft -> Hegel ->
Emerson -> Marx/Engels -> Horkheimer/Adorno -> Althusser -> Eliot
Most
theorists consider tragedy to be one of the greatest art forms, and they
usually look to Plato and Aristotle’s parameters for what is a good tragedy.
Freud and Lacan take a slightly different approach, as Freud connects tragedy
to the Oedipus complex and Lacan has a more tenuous connection between the
imitation and mimicry in the mirror stage and Aristotle’s definition of tragedy
as a representation of an action. However, neither Freud nor Lacan argue with
any of Aristotle’s rules about good tragedy, and theorists such as Horkheimer
and Adorno have returned to Aristotle and now complain that tragedies have
become more about just punishment than about reversals and the suffering of good
men. A constant problem for theorists is how to interpret symbolism in art, and
how much the author’s intentions matter. Some theorists, such as Hume and
Schleiermacher, think that the author’s background and intentions are vital to
an accurate interpretation of their work, while others, such as Eliot, Wimsatt,
and Beardsley, think that the author is irrelevant once he or she has finished
the work. Augustine and Nietzsche both say that words are metaphors for other
things, and both theorists have theories on how to interpret the metaphors. Freud
and Lacan also believe that almost everything is a symbol representing
something else, often revealing something about the author’s subconscious. Many
theories have been presented regarding symbolism and how an author impacts his
or her work, but none have been proved to be better than all of the others yet.
The
concept of genius has been a steady theme throughout the works of many
theorists. Some theorists directly use the term ‘genius,’ and some simply state
ideas that match other theorists’ definitions of the term. Most often, a genius
is defined as someone who is separate from most of society because of some
superiority, whether it is innate or whether they were chosen to be superior. From
Maimonides’ assertion that only a few can understand to Nietzsche’s Übermensch,
most theorists have some theory of genius. When this theory reaches Horkheimer
and Adorno, these theorists take the idea of genius in a different direction.
In an attack against capitalism, Horkheimer and Adorno say that individuals are
chosen to be special and admired by society, but they are chosen completely at
random and so are in fact not any different from the rest of us. Finally, the
question of how art affects society and how society affects art has been
discussed for centuries with conflicting results. Plato believes that poetry
brings out inappropriate emotions that will hurt society, while Sidney thinks
that poetry supports virtue. Wollstonecraft claims that society educates us,
and Horkheimer and Adorno say that society manipulates and controls us.
Joanna's Flow Chart Midterm Diagram
Hey, fellow Lit Critters! Please click this link: This is my attempt to let you see a more effective and in-focus version of my diagram flow chart thing.
This is the small version of my chart:
This flow chart is meant to map out the relationship of main ideas between these theorists. There are some theorists whose main ideas are not in direct relation to other theorists of their time. Sidney, for example, lived almost 2,000 years after Plato, yet he responds directly to Plato's arguments. de Pizan and Wollstonecraft, though their lines are quite separate from all the others (they follow a rather unique path) are not entirely disconnected. Their particular lines are separate, but they are directly in the middle of the chart, surrounded by the other theorists. These two women wrote about different things than other critics; they focused (especially in our readings) on women's rights. Their prominent ideas might have been separate, but their writing, their rhetoric, and their backgrounds were completely caught up in the writings and histories of these other theorists.
The chart sort of explains itself as you go along, so not much extra explanation is needed. The most multi-faceted section of the chart is "Relationship with who?" This is after the importance of the individual is determined. "Relationships with who?" leads to Others (Master/Slave), The Universal Being, The powerful Ubermensch, The imagination, and Nature. While I previously understood Coleridge, Emerson, and Wordsworth to be related, it was only through this question ("Relationships with who?") that I really understood them. The fact that Nietzsche and Hegel both fit under this headline is fascinating, and it allows me to see them in a different light. This chart is not meant to be the most accurate and complete diagram of theorists' relationships ever. It is a flow chart pointing out possible directions of thought and connection.
Monday, April 1, 2013
Evans Midterm Part 1
Map of Influence
 |
| Key |
(Just in case the zoom doesn't work, here is a link to Google Drive: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15TejlYv4vrtX4Yd64BJE2rYO2x5016PR37LjWxKGypc/edit?usp=sharing)
My diagram is in roughly chronological order from top to bottom, with colors marking the different critical groupings (the large red circle, for example, represents Romanticism). Blue arrows indicate that one theorist has marked influence on another. Arrows with red outlines indicate that a theorist was reacting to another (or to the previous critical movement). Under each theorist's name is a brief paraphrase of his or her views on the relationship between art and truth; more specifically, I tried to think of each theorist's answer to the question "how do we judge art?" or "how do we look at literature?" Though these statements obviously do not include all discussed ideas of each theorist, I thought the repetition of these ideas would more clearly show the theoretical evolution from Plato to Althusser.
I suppose I should not have been surprised at the extent to which the texts are interrelated, but I found the relationships staggering. Schleiermacher, especially, seemed to show up when I least expected him, especially in his views about the reciprocal relationship between historical context, language, and art. In a future draft of this diagram, I would want to find a clearer way to represent the relationships between theorists; I realize it is not quite comprehensive, but I feared that adding arrows would make it unreadable. There should be, for example, a very large arrow from Augustine to De Saussure (concerning their discussions of signs), but adding it only made the diagram confusing. Finally, in a future draft, I would want to find a way to connect theorists beyond their critical moments. If, for example, I could find a way to connect the Romantics (Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Emerson) to Schleiermacher in their value of the author, and also group the New Critics and the Structuralists in their dedication to the "Death of the Author," I would be more satisfied. Similarly, if I could group Wollstonecraft, Marx, Horkheimer and Adorno, and Althusser together (because of their tendency toward social criticism), I think it would be more complete. To achieve all of this, however, I think I would have to begin again using a sort of enormous Venn Diagram, a feat I will leave to someone with better academic credentials.
Strausbaugh,Derek's Midterm Diagram
In this diagram, I started at the very beginning, with Plato, because his work interacts with all other critics we have examined. Plato leads directly to Aristotle, who expands and refutes Plato's ideas. The next generation of philosophers, Augustine, Sidney, and Maimonides deal with different aspects of text than Aristotle, but seem to be out of the same critical tradition. I loosely connect Maimonides with Schleiermacher because they both deal with hermeneutics. Emerson also deals directly with Schleiermacher's Ideas.
Hegel and Kant wind up side by side because they both represent huge influential ways that changed the way people though, Hegel with the dialectic and Kant centering goodness around the human being. This leads directly into Hume's ideas of taste, which Eliot runs with. Coleridge, Wordsworth, and Emerson all draw from Hume and his idea of taste, and expand upon that with ideas of how the poet should compose works, and how inspiration works. Marx and Engels splinter off from the romantics, rebelling from the notion that all humanity believes in the same ideals of art, and posit that taste is manufactured in society by those who control production. Horheimer, Adorno, and Althusser expand upon Marx and Engels by getting more specific as to how the society creates its own norms. Similarly, Wollstonecraft rebels against previous notions of taste stating that Gender has been a factor in the past. Pizan is linked to Wollstonecraft in her ideas. Freud is another rebellion from humanity having an innate sense of beauty. He puts for the idea that our psychology and experiences determine what we deem tasteful. Lacan and Nietzsche both draw from Freud, moving his theories into different arenas and expanding upon them. Lacan uses the Idea of the sign in order to accentuate language as a system of symbols. De Saussure take that idea and expand upon it. Wimsatt and Beardsly take that idea to the next level saying that the text is the only thing that matters, because everything that there is to know about a text is in the signs.
Friday, March 29, 2013
Midterm Part 1-Diagram
Progression of History | Psychoanalytic Theory
Hegel Freud
/ \ |
Marx/Engels Wordsworth | Psychoanalytic Applied to Language
| Coleridge Lacan
Adorno/Horkheimer Emerson | |
Nietzsche | De Saussure
New Critics | |
Eliot Barthes
Wilmsatt/Beardsley Interpreting Texts
Schleiermacher
My diagram is meant to demonstrate the connection between theorists in a format similar to a family tree in which the dashes indicate which theorists’ ideas are built upon and expanded by subsequent theorists. The dash down the middle represents the idea of truth or reality that all of the thinkers are trying to find in some form. Aristotle and Plato are placed on opposite sides of the trunk (dash center line) because they had opposite views on the same idea. While Plato believed art did not give insight to truth, Aristotle believed truth could be found in art, especially tragedy. Sidney is placed with Aristotle because he also believes in the value of art, particularly poetry, stating that it can give more insight to truth than philosophy and history can.
Once Hegel comes on the scene, it seemed that more of the theorists were interrelated, directly building upon the ideas of others. Hegel’s interpretation of the dialectical movement of history with each event joining with its antithesis and his idea of positivism are utilized by many later theorists. For example, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels applied the dialectical movement of history to their theory that eventually the proletariat would revolt against the bourgeoisie, dissolving existing capitalist institutions and creating a new world order. Marx and Engels ideas gave birth to Adorno and Horkenheimer, and also Althusser’s application to culture, conveying how capitalism is evident in all cultural entertainment and institutions. Branching in a different direction, Hegel’s concept of positivism influenced the romanticists, Emerson, Wordsworth, and Coleridge. All three theorists believed in the power of the individual to find truth inside himself and believed that man should not copy history, but only refer to it, in order to create better works. Stemming from this, Nietzsche also believes an individual should act for one’s self,and illustrates this with the thesis and antithesis of Dionysian and Apollonian characteristics. This diagram is intended to show that the theorists’ ideas are not separate, but many originate from the concepts of other critics.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
HORKHEIMER and ADORNO: "BABIES" (DOCUMENTARY or PORNOGRAPHY?)
BABIES—a documentary?
A few years ago I watched a french documentary, with almost no words, that chronicled five-ish babies over the course of the first year of life. It features predominately different cultures treating children in different ways, but also the kind of similarity from baby to baby.
At first horkheimer & adorno, I imagine, are almost fooled by the movie, the lack of dialogue and the straightforward style of everything makes them think that this may be accurate and healthy cinema.
But no!
Look at those carefully prepared camera angles! Think about all the cuts to all the cute or funny things babies do! This is just a derivation of the machine! Ordinary life repurposed into a "documentary" which actually promotes the classic themes of tantulus! This is no better than pornography. This simply promotes an idealized sense of procreation and a false positivism for today. Having babies won't solve anything, but now we believe that they might. But especially for parents, these are knowingly not the whole picture of baby-hood. Sure there's some breast feeding and one or two messes but by and large this is a distorted and not totally attainable picture. The only way to get "satisfied" is to come back for more which is also incomplete, and leaves you wanting.
In fact, the episodic style of each clip furthers the ability to re-watch and to feel as though you could endlessly desire more baby clips. It's like someone put high-quality youtube into a film. It does nothing but poorly re-iterate an idealization of your machined and alienated lifestyle! Marx 4 Life!
A few years ago I watched a french documentary, with almost no words, that chronicled five-ish babies over the course of the first year of life. It features predominately different cultures treating children in different ways, but also the kind of similarity from baby to baby.
At first horkheimer & adorno, I imagine, are almost fooled by the movie, the lack of dialogue and the straightforward style of everything makes them think that this may be accurate and healthy cinema.
But no!
Look at those carefully prepared camera angles! Think about all the cuts to all the cute or funny things babies do! This is just a derivation of the machine! Ordinary life repurposed into a "documentary" which actually promotes the classic themes of tantulus! This is no better than pornography. This simply promotes an idealized sense of procreation and a false positivism for today. Having babies won't solve anything, but now we believe that they might. But especially for parents, these are knowingly not the whole picture of baby-hood. Sure there's some breast feeding and one or two messes but by and large this is a distorted and not totally attainable picture. The only way to get "satisfied" is to come back for more which is also incomplete, and leaves you wanting.
In fact, the episodic style of each clip furthers the ability to re-watch and to feel as though you could endlessly desire more baby clips. It's like someone put high-quality youtube into a film. It does nothing but poorly re-iterate an idealization of your machined and alienated lifestyle! Marx 4 Life!
ALTHUSSER TALKS ABOUT PITCHFORK
Ever heard of Pitchfork? I assume a lot of you have. If not it's a notoriously snarky and elitist music review website. It's a tastemaker. An example of theme tearing apart music can be found
here.
At first glance I recognized Pitchfork according to Althusser as another form of the ISA. People are operating under the common idealogy: music can and should be reduced and quantified by its social and musical quality then compared to discern what is "best" and "worst." What is "new" and "derivative." These ideologies are increasingly complicated then by the subsidiary ideologies as to what constitutes these descriptors, what makes it good or bad. In any case by sharing these Ideologies there is an apparatus by which people create a community which controls and manipulates its members. Saying what should and should not be done, exiling those who don't do it, and including and lauding those who do. Its a classic example of how any society of any level of freedom creates Ideologies that bring people together.
But there was a problem. I realized that although Althusser traditionally relegates the RSA to the national government, and its subjugation or repression through violence, within a subculture of the music world Pitchfork and taste-making websites like it are that government. They're reviews are often violent, willfully repressing that which people create or make in an attempt to create the best possible situation for themselves, that is, they're continued authority in the music world. The review then becomes the same as a chopping block or a guillotine where they have the final word and on which bands live and die. Let's be honest thought, Pitchfork doesn't quite have that power, people like Mumford and Sons will continue to be popular without Pitchfork. But when taken with other websites and promoters like this one, there is a serious repressive authority at work, wouldn't you say?
here.
At first glance I recognized Pitchfork according to Althusser as another form of the ISA. People are operating under the common idealogy: music can and should be reduced and quantified by its social and musical quality then compared to discern what is "best" and "worst." What is "new" and "derivative." These ideologies are increasingly complicated then by the subsidiary ideologies as to what constitutes these descriptors, what makes it good or bad. In any case by sharing these Ideologies there is an apparatus by which people create a community which controls and manipulates its members. Saying what should and should not be done, exiling those who don't do it, and including and lauding those who do. Its a classic example of how any society of any level of freedom creates Ideologies that bring people together.
But there was a problem. I realized that although Althusser traditionally relegates the RSA to the national government, and its subjugation or repression through violence, within a subculture of the music world Pitchfork and taste-making websites like it are that government. They're reviews are often violent, willfully repressing that which people create or make in an attempt to create the best possible situation for themselves, that is, they're continued authority in the music world. The review then becomes the same as a chopping block or a guillotine where they have the final word and on which bands live and die. Let's be honest thought, Pitchfork doesn't quite have that power, people like Mumford and Sons will continue to be popular without Pitchfork. But when taken with other websites and promoters like this one, there is a serious repressive authority at work, wouldn't you say?
ELIOT on TWITTER!
In all cases the use or the ordering of words is of utmost importance. In particular, while or a use of language can reference another thing, good poetry, and good writing for that matter, should exist on its own, whatever referenciality contained. In short, the thing should have value in and of itself.
That is why I have been so peeved about this late development: "The Twitter" in particular, the posts by someone calling himself "The Snoop Dogg." First things first, his disregard for tradition, which is the word as the agreed-upon symbolic representation of meaning, is disturbing. Even in his own naming. Why would he not write Dog? What does Snoop mean? They seem like choices without an obvious meaning. Or without a hidden intrinsic meaning. But enough of that criticism, if his rhetoric allowed for deeper meaning, this could be forgivable.
But tweets are notoriously short, and their endless referenciality is disturbing. It is not quality allusion but rather they are consistently reliant for their meaning on an outside thing, like his endless reminders to get "tix" or brief descriptions of concerts or festivals like the cryptic "#Lionfest 2013 !! we went hard !! #Reincarnated." Here again, there is no respect for the tradition of punctuation and creation of intrinsic meaning.
Even when he's not relying on an outside event for meaning, the weight of the tweet is so small it might as well be called worthless. Think about this tweet reading only "Vaporize 2 start tha day." What value does this hold? Get high to start the day? Why? These fragments aren't shorn against my ruin! or his ruin!
That is why I have been so peeved about this late development: "The Twitter" in particular, the posts by someone calling himself "The Snoop Dogg." First things first, his disregard for tradition, which is the word as the agreed-upon symbolic representation of meaning, is disturbing. Even in his own naming. Why would he not write Dog? What does Snoop mean? They seem like choices without an obvious meaning. Or without a hidden intrinsic meaning. But enough of that criticism, if his rhetoric allowed for deeper meaning, this could be forgivable.
But tweets are notoriously short, and their endless referenciality is disturbing. It is not quality allusion but rather they are consistently reliant for their meaning on an outside thing, like his endless reminders to get "tix" or brief descriptions of concerts or festivals like the cryptic "#Lionfest 2013 !! we went hard !! #Reincarnated." Here again, there is no respect for the tradition of punctuation and creation of intrinsic meaning.
Even when he's not relying on an outside event for meaning, the weight of the tweet is so small it might as well be called worthless. Think about this tweet reading only "Vaporize 2 start tha day." What value does this hold? Get high to start the day? Why? These fragments aren't shorn against my ruin! or his ruin!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)