Is This Real Life: Eco & Zizek & Dorfman

I find it a little terrifying that Disneyland if full of audio animatronic robots that seem way too life-like. As humans in order to escape reality we must go to amusement parks such as Disney, Universal, or even adult amusement parks like Las Vegas. The real world can be quite gloomy, so we decide to drop a lot of money and go spend the day in a fantasy land where there are no problems. Why do we feel the need to participate in such actives? Hint: It’s because reality sucks and I would know especially because my image of Disney is now ruined. Thanks Eco and Dorfman. Anyway, as I was growing up, I never really noticed all of the brain washing that Disney does to the young mind with stereotypes, reinforcing gender roles, and other issues. Disney creates this imaginary world where anything seems possible, and I literally mean anything. It’s impossible to think otherwise due to the happiness that is constantly surrounding you at every corner in the park.  

After discussing Zizek and Eco’s piece in class, I found that our world can be very deceiving at times, which is also very upsetting. In class the other day, when we were looking at the photos of war zones, death, victory and other military images, some of us couldn’t depict if the image was real or not. I mean how sad is it that when looking at a photo no one can depict if it’s from a movie or an actual photo. The one photo that really got into my head was the image in the aircraft carrier. The photo had many American flags draped across coffins that held our American troops. When we were in class it was hard for us to decide whether or not this photo was real or if it was in a film. The conclusion that we came to was that it was a real photo because as American citizens we never show our own deaths from war. After class was over I came to the conclusion that reality is painful, confusing, and a constant struggle. I now understand why people, like myself, throw so much money to go to a fake world where everything seems all happy and dandy. All the workers are happy to see you, the other families give you warm smiles, and even the fricken robots want you to join in on the fun. 

Technology has become so powerful and invasive that we don’t even know when we are being tricked. Our own eyes are being tricked with everything that is put in front of us. Eco says, “Disneyland tells us that technology can give us more reality than nature can” (203). The sad part about this is that Eco is completely right. I don’t mean to be a debbie downer here, but I don’t think it’s going to get any better either. If anything, technology is going to keep advancing. If we are questioning reality now, wait till 15 years from now! Who knows maybe robots will take over the world! Maybe, in an alternate universe where robots rule, the robots go to amusement parks to watch humans perform. I know, I know I'm going a little dark here, but I'm just trying to make a point. We must become aware to everything around us!

A.O. Eco

In Umbert Eco The City of Robots, Eco describes Disney as fake/message city; “…A message city, entirely made up of signs, not a city like the others, which communicate in order to function, but rather a city that functions in order to communicate. (Eco 200)” In this case, I assume that Eco is reffering to communicating th.  Eco goes on and on describing Disney as a land of illusions that works so well because we, I guess, give into this myth that it is in a sense real. At one point Eco says that once the total fake is admitted, it has to be as realistic as possible for it to be enjoyed (Eco 202). When coupling Eco’s examination with Baudrillard’s idea that Disneys’ multimedia empire isn’t much more than a machine designed to enforce ideologies in youth and subsequently adults, the “Happiest Place on Earth” title starts to seem rather disingenuous.  

 So all of this said, There’s something I’m thinking here. Unless you’re a young child (Disney’s intended audience), or an adult in need of dire psychiatric care, anyone could tell you that Disney is 100% fake, but that’s ok (for now, I’m sure I’ll be proven wrong soon). The “real world” is a scary and tiresome place and, in my personal opinion, sometimes an escape is nice, especially when reality is apparently just an empty old desert, so where's the harm in spending some time in a fake city. Don’t get me wrong, I by no means believe that Disney should be used as a means of escapism, but as a form of a break from dealing with it all.  Furthermore, I don’t believe that Disney is some precious child that can never do wrong, but I felt that Eco may have been a bit too harsh on the general consumer as in the phrase:

“The pleasure of imitation…is one of the most innate in the human spirit; but here we not only enjoy a perfect imitation, we also enjoy the conviction that imitation has reached its apex and that reality will always be inferior” (Eco, pg 204)

Yes, people love a good imitation, look at how many voice imitations there are on YouTube, but I don’t really know if it would be fair to say that people would see it as reality being inferior to it. I’m certain if people were given the honest choice of going to a Polynesian restaurant designed exactly like its referent or ACTUALY going to Polynesia, I think people would take the trip. Perhaps it is just me being optimistic, but I’d like to give people the credit that, while they can’t see past everything, they can see past Disney land and not get swept up in its imagery of being a city.

Not Every "Fake City" Is Run by Robots: Cracker Country

I am well aware that I read the wrong readings for this blog post, but I had an odd connection with Umberto Eco’s reading “The City of Robots.”  In Eco’s piece, he describes how there are many fake cities that have been built in America. Our great country has created places like Las Vegas, Disneyland, and Disney World in order to give people a true escape from reality. As Doorman and Mattelart say, “ ‘Real life is unreal, unglamorous and boring in this world, while the spectacle is exciting and enthralling” (90). Reality must be taken into question when entering into the gates of these perfectly designed worlds. As I continued to read through Eco’s piece, an idea popped into my head about an imaginary world that can be found right in the heart of Tampa. Fortunately, this magical world takes you back to the rural days of 19th century Florida without warping your sense of reality. This beautiful taste of past reality is also known as Cracker Country. 

What is Cracker Country you ask? Well, it is an outdoor history museum to show our generation what it was like to live in Florida’s rural heritage. According to Wikipedia, Cracker Country is located at the Tampa Fairgrounds and many of the buildings in the village date back as far as the 1870’s to early 1900’s. This small village may not sound all that interesting, but once you cross the wooden bridge, you feel as if you've been transported into another time period. Cracker Country, is obviously different than Disney World or Las Vegas but Cracker Country does provide a good illusion of what used to be reality for Floridians. 

After one crosses the wooden pathway, they enter into the world of the 19th century Floridian. One will see the good ole blacksmith shop, an old school house, the corn crib barn, the governors inn, out houses, the cane mill, the post office and even old houses that real Floridans used to live in back in the 1890’s. When I was in fourth grade, my school took us to Cracker Country for a field trip. We made candles out of animal fat, we took a trip to the Blacksmith to see someone get their tooth pulled out, and we even got to pretend we were students in the old school house. The main wall in the school house was covered with a large chalk board and all of the desks faced forward the front. In the left corner of the room, there was a small wooden stool where misbehaved children would sit if they didn’t listen to the teacher. 

We also visited the Cane Mill, which produced cane syrup for the community. A small donkey would power the mill by walking around to an attached lever system, which would squeeze juice from the sugar cane stalks and then eventually be turned into a sweet syrup. The kettle that the syrup is produced in is very large in size and can hold up to 80 gallons of sugary, sweet cane syrup. Another really interesting building in Cracker Country, was the train depot. My generation and many generations were fortunate enough to have cars as our sole form of transportation, but back in the 19th century trains were the only type of transportation. I don’t know why but it’s very hard for me to conceptualize old America with trains, cattle running around and old men spitting in spittoons. That is why I love visiting Cracker Country whenever I go to the Florida State Fair because it gives me a glance at what it was like to live in the ole days of Florida. 

My favorite place in Cracker Country is their beautiful garden, also known as the Kitchen Garden. It’s upsetting in some ways because nowadays one doesn’t see many gardens due to our fast paced demand for fruits and vegetables. Today we have farmers to do all of our dirty work for us. It is always very pleasing to see a garden full of tomatoes, peas, radishes, lettuce, cabbage, roses and so many other greens. Yes, Cracker Country is a representation of the past, but it isn’t as damaging or manipulative on the brain as Las Vegas or Disney. Cracker Country offers a different type of reality because it mimics a past reality. If you want to escape the real world for a few hours, but not be stuck in a toy city, then you should visit Cracker Country in Tampa, Florida.

My question is, Cracker Country is a fake village that was created to show people 19th, rural Florida, but is it deceiving on our sense of reality like Disney and Las Vegas? Why or why not? 

If you want to find out more about Cracker Country, please visit this link: http://www.crackercountry.org/index.php/come-visit/what-to-see

Reality is Jealous

Today in class, we discussed how discouraged and hopeless we feel with the current state of affairs and the role that the media plays. There was a general consensus in our class that mainstream media is no longer here to serve and educate the people, but here to adhere to capitalistic endeavors or (if you want to be more cynical) to help the government pursue their agenda. In The Spirit of Terrorism, Baudrillard states that without the media, terrorism would be nothing. Considering that terrorism is fueled by fear, I would agree that the media and its sensationalization of terrorist attacks help perpetuate this fear, thus increasing the power that terrorism has over us. In the United States for every American that is killed by an act of terror, more than 1000 people die by guns. You can guess which one Americans fear more. Due to the proliferation of terrorism images, the media engenders this disconnect between statistics and fear. We are fascinated with images, which Baudrillard claims is our primal scene. Why else are we glued to our TV screens when tragedy strikes? We consume images, “real” or “unreal” to construct our perception of reality.

 The concept that I still struggle to wrap my head around (but I am open to) is his proposal that perhaps reality is not even possible anymore. He questions the possibility of reality using 9/11 to argue that “it is not ‘real” but “symbolic.” He claims that due to the fact that reality is infiltrated by fiction and images, the real is no longer real. In fact he claims that “reality is jealous of fiction, that the real is jealous of the image.” What I am understand so far is that an event such as 9/11 has absorbed fictional energy to the point where it has become fiction itself. However, what does he mean when he states, “reality is a principle, and it is this principle that is lost.” I accept that 9/11 perhaps would not have been perceived as “real” without the images, but does that mean it is fictional? I may need more time to sit with this.

Instagram: The Land of Deception and Mechanically Reproduced Beauty

Horkheimer and Adorno brought up the idea of "the mechanical reproduction of beauty" an idea I found rather familiar in the midst of a confusing read. Elaborating on Benjamins idea of mechanical reproduction, both philosophers expressed that "the culture industry does not sublimate: it suppresses"(Horkheimer & Adorno, p. 62) the authenticity of not only art but the beauty of art throughout film, radio, and magazines.

Today, films, radio, and magazines focus on the "business" of the works rather than their "art". Cinemas, publication companies, and producers focus on consumer appeal in the form of extreme abstraction. Benjamin states that just as someone can consumed by a work of art when standing before it and studying it, the "distracted" mass (audience) often absorbs the "art" before them. Just as Benjamin explained that art slowly became more about "quantity" rather than "quality", Horkheimer and Adorno express that culture has become a commodity.

I found the most alarming component of this reading to be the period in which they were written. Both Horkheimer and Adorno composed these ideas around the year 1944. These concepts are so prevalent in our society today. Maybe not so much through film and radio than the world of social media. When reading this I immediately thought about Instagram which was originally created in 2010 as an photo editing and publishing app but has became a socially networking service throughout the short six years of its existence. Today it is a place where people go to get approval from society, companies go to sell their products, and celebrities post photos of their ostentatious lifestyles for the world to see. Instagram is digital world filled with artificial beauty, happiness, and personalities, leaving little to no room for the sharing of the true authenticity of the art of photography.

Many people believe that we are living in an era of social networking, a time that allows people to express themselves with ease and connect with people like never before. In reality, we are living in an era controlled by the social and culture industry. In other words, we are living in an era consumed by social, cultural, and economic mass deception.

“It is not our differences that divide us. It is our inability to recognize, accept, and celebrate those differences.”

            In the age of postmodernity, metanarratives no longer serve us. Lyotard who describes postmodernity as “incredulity toward metanarratives,” argues that we currently have trouble conforming to a single narrative. We are an era of eclecticism, compromised of several diverse perspectives, backgrounds, walks of life, and realities. In the pre modern and modern world, humans would prescribe to a grand narrative such as Christianity, the Enlightenment, and even the American Dream. Now we question these narratives, deconstruct them, and also look for alternative ones. Lyotard believes that in postmodernity we should continue challenging these narratives and incorporate micronarratives that are more inclusive, comprehensive, and diverse.

            I realize that in our generation, we are losing faith in the American dream and all that it promises. We are aware of the myth of meritocracy, which declares that success, wealth, and achievement can all be accomplished through talent and ability. However, this idea that hard work will grant you social, economic and political mobility is no longer one we subscribe to. We realize that there are systemic barriers and structural biases that advantage some while marginalize others. We are beginning to address these issues and proclaim that our differences and diversity should be used as a tool of empowerment, rather than an obstacle to a homogenous society.

Audre Lorde famously quoted in one of her poems, “It is not our differences that divide us. It is our inability to recognize, accept, and celebrate those differences.” During a feminist conference, she gave the address “The Master’s Tools will Never Dismantle the Master’s House” in which she argued that white feminists were using the same tools of the patriarchy to oppress women of color. She stated that in order to achieve true equality women needed to recognize their differences and learn how to make them strengths. So when Lyotard asserts, “let us wage a war on totality” I understand what he means. By recognizing our differences in regards to race, ethnicity, sex, gender, sexuality, ability and other identities, we may able to dismantle the inequalities and injustices that  are both systemically and socially pervasive in our society. Lyotard’s final words also resonate with me: “let us be witnesses to the unpresentable; let us activate the differences and save the honor of the name.”

A.O. 10-20-16: Modernity, Politics, & Cycles

“When power assumes the name of a party, realism and its neoclassical compliment triumph over the experimental avant-garde by slandering it and banning it – that is, provided the ‘correct’ images, the ‘correct’ narratives, the ‘correct’ forms which the party requests, selects, and propagates can find a public to desire them as the appropriate remedy for the anxiety and depression that public experiences” (41)

According to Lyotard, if I’m understanding this right I suppose this is a way of looking at how society is right now and may provide a new perspective as to whether we may be in a modernist or postmodern society. After reading this line, I was reminded of politics, especially by using words like “power” and “party”. Political parties rise up, assume their powers and provide what those involved perceive as the “correct” images and narratives (their policies and campaign platforms) to the people in place of a “reality”, just as Lyotard describes (I’m not sure yet what our real “reality” is yet, but that may be for another post). Following the metaphor these policies would serve as a remedy to people’s anxieties and depressions stemming from the absence and desire of “the real” (41).

The metaphor is a bit interesting however in that there are individuals who reject these ‘correct’ narratives and images and wait for their chance to disregard and banish them. Following the political metaphor, I would say this is represented by the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Even in our current political race the tensions and rejections of these ‘correct’ narratives are now more apparent than ever, especially when certain individuals will say “wrong”, the opposite of “right” / “correct” in the midst of their opponent’s speeches in belief that their messages are right. But as we discussed in class one can only be so suspicious and question narratives before they ultimately lose credibility and their following.

In an earlier post I said modernity perhaps has the chance of a comeback as we have certain modernist tendencies in our society now, and having given it a bit more thought, I’m sure it will definitely have a second wind. I can’t say when, how or what form it will take but I’m sure it will happen again. Lyotard might even agree with me in saying “A work can become modern only if it is first postmodern. Postmodernism thus understood is not modernism at its end but in the nascent state [starting to show signs of future potential], and this state is constant." (44)

Revisiting My Good Ole Friends Sir Macherey and Sir Benjamin

I, unfortunately, have not been able to take the first exam due to a family emergency. (on a more positive side note everyone is doing fine for now :) ). Over the last week I have been diving deeper into Walter Benjamin’s work on authenticity and art in the age of mechanical reproduction. I remember sitting in class discussing Walter’s theory with my fellow classmates and was quite confused on his notion of the camera being a manipulative form of media. Since I have not taken the exam yet, I want to revisit Walter’s mechanical reproduction theory for this particular blog entry on this fine Sunday afternoon. I hope you all don’t mind me exploring on an older topic about the camera, the camera man and how we all believe we are experts. 

Our world today is focused on reproduction and copies. When Walter was writing this piece, his world was quite different on a technological sense. After reading through Walter’s theory for the second time, I really found that authenticity today is in crisis. The authenticity of art isn’t just the only problem but media today is very invasive on everyone’s mind. The camera is a very powerful and manipulative tool that strictly prohibits its viewers to the whole picture. In a sense the viewer has no control because the camera is only showing you what it wants you to see. As Walter says, “The camera need not to respect the performance as an integral whole” (42). 

Media today, especially news outlets, permits its viewers to obtain the information that they are explaining, whether or not it is true. People sit around and watch their televisions, and are told information about a certain event. After learning information on one topic, people believe that they know everything about that specific topic, but do we really know if the facts that were said were true? Walter says that we, as in all the human race, believe that we are experts today. “Everybody who witnesses its accomplishment is somewhat of an expert . . . At any moment the reader is ready to turn in to a writer” (44). Unfortunately, not many people are not fortunate enough to be taking a Critical Theory class in college. If I had a solution for this madness I would turn to Macherey’s concept of perversion.

Macherey in A Theory of Literary Production theory, describes the concept of intertextuality. When interpreting media, information, a piece of writing or anything, one must consider the work in its entirety. In order to fully understand, one must move outside the work that is presented. As Macherey would say, “What is impertinent in the work is what it does not say” (18). Now this may seem like a simple solution, but I know that many people would never move outside of the work because it makes people uncomfortable to do something different. 

Media is manipulative, whether you want to admit it or not. Camera’s only show you what they want you to see. They unconsciously control you and your thoughts. In my opinion, there are two sides to every story. Camera’s only show you one side of the story without any physical contact or any other evidence saying different. Walter says, “[the camera] permits the audience to take the position of the critic, whiteout experiencing any contact with the actor” (42). In order to be critical of events, media and information, one must step into the shoes of Macherey. As Macherey would say, one never knows when “. . .there remains the possibility of saying something else” (15). 

WELCOME TO REALITY. . . 

Pure Sorcery

“To dissimulate is to pretend to have what one has. To simulate is to feign to have what one doesn’t have. One implies a presence, the other an absence.” (389)

In todays class we discussed Buadrillards main ideas, specifically the precession of simulacra and the desert of the real. Immediately following class I sat at a study table with friends who had been discussing the outrageous photoshopping of two Kendal Jenner and Gigi Hadid in the latest issue of W magazine. Kendal and Gigi are two of the worlds most famous young models in todays day and age, and W magazine wanted them to be featured in their tenth anniversary special edition. As soon as the issues were released people quickly jumped on the fact that the two models had been edited to the point where they no longer had knees. There was enough controversy for a spokes person for the magazine to come out with the following statement: “The images of Kendall and Gigi are part of a project by artists Lizzie Fitch and Ryan Trecartin, who are known for their deliberate use of digital technology, combining distortions with makeup and prosthetics.”

Here we see a perfect example of the "desert of the real." Both models emulate societies idea of beauty. The tampering with this seemingly natural, perfect beauty can call into question the possibility of simulation, or the possibility of feigning to have beauty that one doesn't actually have. If Buadrillard had to comment on current heated altercations against the magazine, he would most likely note that the edited photographs mask and denature reality. Then again, the two models are pictured with the total absence of knees....sorcery? Maybe these photographs also mask the absence of reality. I mean...what human doesn't have knees?

Is the Mouse Raising Our Kids?

My mothers always brings up how as a kid I would watch Winnie the Pooh films and say “again!” after each time they finished so that I could rewatch them. Disney was undeniably a significant influence on my childhood as I grew up three hours from Disney, owned an annual pass, and regularly consumed Disney media.

I am a first generation American whose parents hailed from Chile, the country where Dorfman and Mattelart were political émigrés. I unfortunately confess that growing up, Disney and its capitalistic agenda ensnared me to the point were I knew more about the fantasyland of Disney than of my motherland, Chile. Both my parents grew up during the dictatorship of Pinochet, which was facilitated by the American government, due to America’s fear of socialist president Salvador Allende. Dorfman and Mattleart wrote this article before the military coup of 1973, so I find it interesting to see the ways in which American imperialism was already infiltrating different nations and cultures, through something as “pure” and “innocent” as children’s literature and comics.

Dorfman and Mattleart state that Disney and its characters invite us “all to join the great universal Disney family, which extends beyond all frontier and ideologies, transcends differences between peoples and nations, and particularities of custom and language” (110). Considering that at the heart of Disney and its stories lie capitalist ideologies and American values, I would agree with the authors that this is not the case. In fact, a medium that is as innocent seeming as Disney is the most dangerous because it convinces us that we do not have to think critically when consuming any of it’s entertainment. Many would argue that “any attempt to politicize the sacred domaine of childhood” engenders a perversity in which happiness, imagination, and innocence are lost (111). What is scary about Disney though is that it is politicized it is just invisible. Consequently, we believe children naturally behave in these ways or have a particular imagination when in reality they are just emulating the traits of characters they see in Disney.

I have always wondered, who really raises children? Parents or Disney?

Unfortunately, the Director Doesn't Always Yell "Cut"

Both Baudrillard and Zizek mention words such as “reality,” the “unimaginable,” “violence” and “cinema.” In many ways, I think that these words all relate with one another, especially in the world of Hollywood film. Hollywood is known for making the unimaginable possible. From action movies to romantic comedies, Hollywood has got film techniques down to a science. For this blog entry, I want to discuss the irony in people’s reactions when Hollywood disaster truly becomes our reality. 

Everyone thats 18 years or older has heard of films such as The Titanic, Escape from New York and Independence Day. What do all of these films have in common? They all have some type of disaster. Titanic has the boat sinking with thousands of people dying and Independence Day has this unknown powerful source that wants to annihilate anything and everything in our world.  Hollywood, like I said before, is very good at making the impossible become possible on the big screen, especially with our new advancements in technology. Zizek points out that watching the World Trade Center, also known as WTC, collapsing seemed as if it belonged in a Hollywood movie. 

Zizek says, “for us, corrupted by Hollywood, the landscape and the shots of the collapsing towers could not but be reminiscent of the most breathtaking scenes in big catastrophe productions” (Zizek 2002, 233). 

I find this quote rather fascinating because he makes a very valid point. When people were watching the WTC on the television screen, it almost seemed at any moment the director would step in front of the camera and yell “cut.” Unfortunately, that wasn’t the case. Baudrillard explains how whether we like it or not, images are our primal scene. We can’t escape from the images being shown on media outlets, especially if they are images that are unfamiliar to the human eye. Humans are fascinated and find pleasure out of images that we have never seen before. It’s because we are becoming aware of something new and unknown, but in the WTC event was it something really new to us?

Zizek explains in his reading that Americans should not be surprised about the WTC collapsing due to all the disaster fantasy movies that Hollywood has embedded into our brains. American’s shouldn’t be utterly shocked about these acts of terrorism because they somewhat relate to some large Hollywood films. Zizek says, “[T]he unthinkable which happened was the object of fantasy, so that, in a way, America got what it fantasized about, and that was the biggest surprise” (Zizek 2002, 233). For years, people have been watching films like Independence Day, Titanic, Twister, The Day After Tomorrow and so many others. The reactions that are shown inside the theater when something is eliminated or collapses is completely different when it comes to real life disaster.

Before the WTC terrorist attack, Americans had this preconceived notion of what reality really was in society due to the separation of America and other countries. We used to blame others for violence and acts of terrorism, because in America we are better than everyone else (not really but this is typical American behavior). Media creates this distance by separating third world countries and other countries from our American reality. It turns into this “Us versus Them” phenomenon, especially when watching the news. News media creates a large distance between our country and other countries because, as Zizek says, “the real horror happens there, not here ” (Zizek 2002, 232).  

When the WTC collapsed, American’s reality shattered because what was seen in corny Hollywood disaster films came to life in the streets of New York on September 11th, 2001. Every news media outlet was covering live footage of the second plane crashing into the WTC center. We weren’t watching something that was happening in a Third World country. Instead, every American was glued to their tv screen that day because the horrors of terrorism were occurring in our beautiful country.  Zizek says, “what happened on September 11 was that this fantasmatic screen apparition entered our reality. It is not reality entered our image: the image entered and shattered our reality: (Zizek 2002, 234).  

Here is a picture that I drew when I was little of the WTC collapsing. It truly shows how invasive media can be on young minds. (If you look closely you will be able to see people jumping out of the building with sad faces).