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come and take the opposite view, This is seen in Wimsatt and Beardsley's belief in the death of the author that has been replaced by postcolonialism and U.S. Ethnic Theory.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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)