Chomsky and Castro

             Since our schedule got mixed up, I was not sure, which reading we would do tomorrow so I decided to write my blog on the reading that I most enjoyed. Herman and Chomsky’s “ A Propaganda Model” was written in the 80s and yet it is still relevant as ever. Their theory explores propaganda in mass media and how it functions to “amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society.”

According to Chomsky and Herman, there are five filters in which all content from mass media must go through: (1) Size, Ownership and Profit Orientation, (2) Funding, (3) Source, (4) Flaks, and (5) Anticommunism.

The last filter was one that came up over the weekend due to recent events.  As I am sure most of you have heard, Cuba’s revolutionary leader, Fidel Castro died a couple of days ago. As expected there were undertones of celebration and satisfaction in the media when announcing his death. They would discuss all the ways in which Castro failed to provide liberty and freedom for the people of his country, and that now that he is dead, Cubans will have the opportunity live freely as we do in the United States. As I went on other forms of media, such as Facebook and blogs, I found contrasting opinions in which people argued that in some ways Castro had been a true revolutionary. Cuba has the highest literacy rate in the western hemisphere (higher than the US) and an excellent healthcare system, yet rarely do we hear about these accomplishments. As stated by our authors, “It should be noted that when anti-Communist fervor is aroused, the demand for serious evidence in support of claims of "communist" abuses is suspended, and charlatans can thrive as evidential sources.”

We do not need concrete evidence of someone who has been labeled a communist as to why their actions fall in with communism. One they have received that label, anything that they do is automatically defined as communist and thus inherently evil and a threat to our nation. Now, I am not saying that we should not condemn some of Castro’s actions, but it is important to realize that not everything is as black and white as our media makes it seem. The media loves to put its own country on a pedestal and point fingers at everyone without realizing its own hypocrisy.  For example, we call ourselves champions of freedom, yet our country has one of the highest incarceration rates, which predominantly incarcerates people of color. Not a single nation is perfect, and it is essential that we recognize both the good and bad. We need to challenge our views on other countries as well as our own because what we hear from the media does not involve the stories from all sides.

(Late Pre-Class 11/22/16) A.O.: Foucault: Panopticons and the Ideologic Enforcement Machine

When I read Foucault’s piece on the Panopticon, my mind jumped to the way Ideology works in our society. While ideology does work in the way the Panopticon was proposed (The observer being the ruling class as Marx would put it and we the prisoners), the metaphor can be extended and become something else where we wouldn’t even have to be within the panoptic building but we would still impose rules on ourselves.

On page 98 Foucault says “Hence the major effect of the Panopticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power…in short, the inmates should be caught up in a power situation of which they are themselves the bearers.” In even shorter, the prisoner becomes their own guard. Going back to the ideology metaphor, we then inforce the ideologies of the ruling class in ourselves becoming our own keepers. Furthermore, because we inhabit the same society, it is safe to assume other people become their own guards and enforce the ruling class ideologies themselves. That being said, while ideology is Panopticon-esque we aren’t actually in the building, we are free to interact and converse with one another. This is where the self-appointed guard aspect comes into play.  

Since we live outside of the wall of a Panopticon but carry our ideology with us, and as such are our own guards, we live in this ‘ideological’ society that even if we don’t want to follow it there are those who will chastise us for doing so. It’s kind of like an inverted Panopticon, instead of one person observing many, it is the many observing the one and enforcing the ideals acting as the guard for any individual who steps out of line at any given moment. I first heard of this idea in a reading by Eric Dunning where he cites John Fiske who says:

 Sport…is an ‘inverted panopticon’ where fans whose behaviour is ‘monitored and totally known’ at work become monitors of the players who, through their ‘total visibility’, become ‘epistemological bobo doll(s) upon which the fans can punch away their frustration’ (Dunning 2001)

I don’t know the greater implications of this all yet, but I just think there’s an interesting connection between the two theories, even though Foucault says that this theory shouldn't be applied to anything in particular.

(Dunning: http://samples.sainsburysebooks.co.uk/9781134870141_sample_899095.pdf)

The Panopticon: My Subconscious Always Tells Me to be Skinny

In my CMC100 class, I actually wrote something about Bentham's Panopticon and how it is related to our daily lives. I wanted to share it with y’all because we are all in a CMC course and I thought it would give a different perspective to Bentham’s Panopticon. I put some more recent information from Foucault’s piece Discipline and Punish, so that way it was more up to date on what we are reading. I hope you enjoy my different outlook on Bentham’s Panopticon. 

Today in society, young girls and women around the globe, especially in America are being ridiculed for being over weight, when in reality they are not. Back in the 1980’s,  female models were applauded and encouraged to have thicker legs and a stomach, but models in today’s age reinforce a different norm (Croteau and Hoynes, 2014). If one were to flip through 2015 November Instyle issue, he or she would notice many of the female models bodies look very similar in that they are all very skinny. The new obsession about being thin and tall goes through the minds of many women across America because of how women are portrayed in media. Kilbourne makes it clear that no human can avoid advertisements. Kilbourne says, “To not be influenced by advertising would be to live outside of culture. No human being lives outside of culture” (Kilbourne, 2006). Every second of the day women are reminded to look a certain way due to how ads persuade and influence them to change their bodies and overall image. Young girls and women face the ultimate penalty of unconsciously being reminded to “be on a diet” because we are being compared to female models whether we like it or not. Kilbourne explains how the “self-esteem of girls plummets as they reach adolescence partly because they cannot possibly escape the message that their bodies are objects, and imperfect objects at that” (Kilbourne, 2006).

For example, take a look at the female model above. What do you notice about her? The woman in the AGJeans ad appears to have a very thin face that shows her prominent bone structure. Also, her neck seems oddly long thus creating an illusion that she is thinner than she appears. According to livestrong.com, on October 27th the update count of the average female American weighs 166.2 pounds and stands at 5 feet 4 inches (Cloe, 2015). The woman shown above does not appropriately represent the average american woman. No wonder women feel the pressure to become something they are not. Since I am a woman myself, I believe that I have the right to say that many women, including myself, have a little voice in their head that is continuously telling us to be skinny,  go on a diet, eat healthy and or workout. This concept of being thin or skinny has become so invasive to the average female american brain that one could almost compare it to Bentham’s Panopticon, where the inmates become their own guard due to the principles of power at play. 

In this analogy, the guard will represent the norm for being thin and the prisoners will represent all american females. The reinforced beauty ideal of being thin is constantly on our minds whether we like it or not because it is frequently in the grasp of our hands (i.e. a magazine), on television, on buildings, on buses and practically everywhere. Look at the model above. Yes, she is quite beautiful with her natural makeup look; her tall, thin body and her well-conditioned hair, but does she represent women of America? The answer to that question is no she does not! The blonde model not only represents AGJeans but she is reinforcing the underlying message of being thin. Women get caught up in the power of media of which we are all bearers. As Foucault says, “the inmates [i.e. the reader of media] should be caught up in a power situation of which they are themselves the bearers” (98). Media is so invasive because it is the enforcer of power, yet it is doing so silently. “Visibility is a trap” (97). We are unaware when media is being invasive on our brains. Media is visible yet its subliminal messages are unverifiable. 

As Foucault discusses Bentham’s concept of the Panopticon, she says, “[the Panopticon’s major effect is] to induce in the inmate [the reader] state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power” (98). 

As Foucault says, “ [We become] the principle of [our] own subjection” (Foucault, 1977. 3). The power at play is that media is visible to everyone yet unverifiable too. This not only creates issues within women, but false expectations with men and women. Bentham’s Panopticon principle may seem harsh but it is true. Whether women, and men, want to accept it or not, we are all blind to the fact that we all rely on and are shaped by media. The desire to be thin in society creates immense problems across many different media platforms of today’s world. As Foucault says, “A real subjection is born mechanically from a fictitious relation” (99). 

Side note: I also want to acknowledge that men are also stereotyped and are misrepresented in media too. For this blog entry, I wanted to focus on women because I myself am women. Sadly, we live in a world where misrepresentation lies around every corner. 

URL for picture: 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwi66LzJ7rrQAhUFWCYKHapFCFoQjxwIAw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmalendyer.com%2Fag-jeans-springsummer-2016-with-daria-werbowy%2F&psig=AFQjCNF58uemxki_alBkDESLpbMiIDwlyQ&ust=1479852560160970

Everything Becomes Commodity (Lyotard)

Since I am currently studying for exam two, I decided that I want to focus my blog post on Jean-Francois Lyotard’s piece “Answering the Question: What is Postmodernism?” I also want mention that I am still grappling with Lyotard’s critique and ideas, so stick with me through this post. 

Lyotard’s main argument is on how there should be an end to grand narratives and metanarratives. Our society should focus on more micronarratives, in order to to have more representative society. Sadly, metanarratives (i.e. the Enlightenment) diminish the existence of diversity in order to legitimize power structures. 

Lyotard says, “This is a period of slackening. . . “ (38). What he means by this is that our society today has been encouraged and urged to top experimenting due to these metanarratives. Lyotard wants us to wage war on totality (46) in order to restore triumph over identity. 

Unfortunately, since people are still following metanarratives, we now deal with the fantasies of realism. Realism can be problematic because it is subjective, thus meaning that it is too broad to be communicated.  Lyotard says, “Belief in the stability of the referent (as in photography and film) lead to ‘the fantasies of realism’”. Many people believe that art is perceived as stable, yet it really isnt. Media distorts our perception of reality and we see this in many films today (Matrix, Avatar, Truman Show, etc.)

Realism, “stands somewhere between academicism and kitsch” (41). As stated before, realism can be subjective. Realism proves a type of comfort for many people because realism conforms to metanarratives, appealing to the masses. Reality can be very upsetting sometimes, so realism in media can provide imagery that allows people to feel comforted. Lyotard describes how realism provides correct images, narratives and forms designed as the appropriate remedy for the anxiety and depression the public experiences (41). 

No one ever wants to go against metanarratives or the norm because everyone is content with realism’s rationality. Realism always pushes over experimental avant gardes. People demand unity, simplicity and don’t like to be different. When capital comes into the situation, then anything really goes because its focus is solely on money.  “Eclecticism is the degree zero of contemporary general culture” (42).

Since people don’t want to step outside of metanarratives, capital or anything, then this means that modernity has failed to show us the truth. Modernity has succeeded to show us the portrayal of the real is impossible. As Zizek would say, the image replaces reality. “So-called realistic representations can no longer evoke reality except as nostalgia of mockery” (40). 

As Benjamin would say, there has been a lost of authenticity. . . of aura due to capital (mechanical reproduction). Lyotard says, “Classicism seems to be ruled outing a world in which reality is so destabilized that it offers no occasion for experience but one for ratings and experimentation” (40).  Capital creates this feeling within a society that we have lost something, a type of aura. Capitalism takes away a sense of reality due to the mass production of photographic/cinematographic systems that whipped out the narrative/pictorial realism. Everything becomes commodification. At the end of the day, it is all about the big, fat green buckaroos. 

American Culture: An Industry

“The whole world is passed through the filter of the culture industry…the more completely its (films) techniques duplicate empirical objects, the more easily it creates the illusion that the world outside is a seamless extension of the one which has been reveled in the cinema”(45) - Adorno and Horkhemier

Culture can be defined as the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement, human tradition, and in biological terms, the cultivation of bacteria, tissue cells, etc., in an artificial medium containing nutrients. There are specific formations within every culture. This year we have discussed  how these different forms of culture and media shape identify and heavily effect us as human beings. 

What is American culture and how does it affect us? 

Adorno and Horkheimer are concerned about the deception involved within a culture industry. The most frightening part about this is that their work foreshadowed what we have today: an American Culture Industry. What we watch, read, and hear today change how we view the world and alters the way in which we live. 

We all know how heavily the Kardashians influence social media and reality television. In 2015 the youngest, Kylie, was ambushed by the media over her shockingly excessive augmentation surgeries. I mean, her lips are just HUGE. A year and a half later she created a "Lip Kit Empire". She earned 28 million dollars on lip merchandise and broke Google when she released her first kits. How? Everyone knows the severity of how fake her lips are? The constant photos shedding light on her "amazing" lips via social media, and being told that "you too could have lips like these" caused millions of young girls and women to fight online in the hopes of purchasing a kit and getting those lips. The truth is that you too would have to get surgery to make your lips appear the same way. Yet our consumer driven culture led people around the globe to pay Kylie $28 million dollars merely because she had multiple lip surgeries and convinced the world that they didn't have to get surgery to look like her....just buy her kit! How could that possibly happen? Well.....“The defrauded masses today cling to the myth of success still more ardently than the successful”(50) 

In a Constant Limbo with Habermas: (late sunday post)

I just realized that I didn't post last night! I'm sorry for the lateness of this blog post! :/


Since I started studying for the second exam, I wanted to go back to Jurgen Habermas' notion of modernity not being truly fulfilled. Habermas' critique is on capitalism, materialism and how we are still in the here and now of modernity.

Habermas says, "the idea of being 'modern' . . . changed with the belief, inspired by modern science, in the infinite progress of knowledge . . ." (99). 

I find this quote to be rather interesting to Habermas' argument because he is saying that because of modernity we have progressed in knowledge and our society has truly changed. But have we really changed all that much? We are under the impression that our society has been "enlightened" in so many areas, but sadly we have not changed that much. For example, America is still dealing with the issue of social and racial inequality. Yes, we do no approve of slavery anymore, but the amount of racial inequality that is embedded within American citizens is still present. Even though we don't have segregation or slaves anymore, doesn't mean we've changed that much as a society. We just have created new ways of dealing or getting away with things such as: police brutality and our incarceration system.

Habermas also discusses the loss of a historical reference and how we are paying for it now. Habermas says, "The relation between 'modern' and 'classical' has definitely lost a fixed historical reference" (99). Sadly, there is a loss of the past due to capitalism and materialism. This sounds very similar to Benjamin's argument in the rise of mechanical reproduction. Benjamin discusses how there is a lost of authenticity because of mechanical reproduction. We lose a type of aura to society because our society is so obsessed with this notion of the new.

If we can't touch back to our roots of history and from modernity, how will we ever know if modernity is complete? Habermas is uncomfortable with how things are being run because everyone now is so hypersensitive to everything. Our capitalistic culture is ruining our everyday virtues and conventions because there are all of these new obsessions. According to Habermas, we have a nostalgia for the past. If we don't go back and revisit the past, we may never know if modernity is truly complete. ~ So I guess for now we are all stuck in the limbo ~

All-out warfare

Reading what Herman and Chomsky wrote in 1988, yet again, I see extreme relevance with what’s happening in our system now.

After reading the first sentence of this piece, the first thing I thought of was the film Wag the Dog, a fictional story about the US government colluding with Hollywood producers to fabricate a war in Bosnia. Herman and Chomsky’s “propaganda model” is at the heart of this film – the message that the government, corporations and others with power are controlling what we see, and subsequently, the way we think about things.

But media has been rebuked time and time again since Chomsky and Herman wrote this controversial theory in 1988. The Internet and social media have changed the way media is consumed and produced. Nowadays, people can publish their own news stories, opinions and experiences, and consume those of others – directly from others. Herman and Chomsky’s idea as media equating to integration is now a theory widely acknowledged by all kinds of Americans.

As mentioned in my therapeutic blog reflection for last week’s classes, Donald Trump’s election is the epitome of America’s media rejection. Trump and his supporters continually bashed the media for inaccuracy and bias. So, on election day, while most networks gave 90-99.9% chances of winning the White House to Hillary Clinton, the base of people known for media-loathing proved them wrong by electing Donald Trump.

It’s the latest evolution of another communication barrier in our country: between the elite and the rest. They are seemingly at war with one another – not the ‘divorced parent’ kind of war I discussed yesterday – but all-out warfare.

Chomsky and Herman discuss in their theory a media trend that’s been present since before 1988: consolidation. Today, most major media organizations are part of a conglomerate of many companies – all tied into one – seemingly with the express purpose of consolidating power between outlets and firming up their side of the battleground. Totally non-media-oriented companies also desire to quite literally own the media – like General Electric, which owned NBC until a few years ago. Companies also have the goal of becoming classified as media. Google, for example, considers itself a media and technology company. By doing so, they desire to declare their technology has power.

The final of the five “filters” cited by Chomsky and Herman is “anticommunism” in the media. I think this term being located in communism is simply a remnant of the time period in which this theory was written. The significance I see in this phrase, however, is that the media consistently seems to take the moral “high-ground” outwardly. As I discussed in my blog post yesterday, this superiority only adds fuel to the flames of media hatred and division in our country.

I see this as the most unfortunate thing in our media landscape - that warfare with the media clouds trusting them when it comes to the journalistic checks and balances they were meant have on our society. As a result, we're left with "reality" shows as our pulse on society and their stars as our leaders.

Peace,

-UA191

Theory as (National) Family Therapy

To preface this, I want it to be known that I am not here to ask for you to indulge or accept my opinions, but instead, I’m asking you to see my experience of remorse over the last week – and how this course and its material has been more valuable than a psychiatrist to synthesize said experience.

The reading we had due on November 8^th (election day) was a chapter on hegemony by Dick Hebdige, written in 1979, nearly forty years ago. Here’s an excerpt of what he said:

“Subcultures represent ‘noise’ (as opposed to sound): interference in the orderly sequence which leads from the media. We should therefore not underestimate the signifying power of the spectacular subculture not only as a metaphor for political anarchy ‘out there’ but as an actual mechanism of semantic disorder: a kind of temporary blockage in the system of representation” (Hebdige 1979, 130).

I read this on November 7^th with an interpretation that saw this quote for my hopes: that the “subculture” developed by (then candidate) Trump’s campaign was simply a “temporary blockage in the system of representation” – and that it was nothing more than (unsubstantive) signifying power he was creating.

I read this today with a totally different interpretation. The heart of what Hebdige is trying to tell us, I think, is that we shouldn’t write off subcultures as a “metaphor for political anarchy ‘out there.’” Yet that’s exactly what I did for the entirety of this election. I wrote off Trump supporters as a subculture of people that thought uncritically and refused to look beyond their leader’s rhetoric. I, along with many Hillary Clinton supporters, thought I was “go[ing] high when [they were] going low,” as often said by First Lady Michelle Obama. But it’s clear that’s exactly what the problem was.

In attempting to “go high,” I took the route that many people, especially Liberals, and especially White Liberals, are criticized for taking: the route of moral superiority. The route of the “not-racist,” “not-bigot,” “not-xenophobe,” etc. Like others, I laughed with friends about how ignorant Trump voters were, and how they were “voting against their own best interests.” I unabashedly joined in on mocking mutual friends who were considering voting for Trump, sending them emails asking for thoughts on the latest scandal and sharing the results like sixth-grade playground gossip. My position of moral superiority and laughable polarization ended up being anything but “going higher.”

And yet I didn’t see it that way. I saw what could be summarized as shaming as the only reflexive way to cope with the messaging so opposite to my opinions. So in “going high” and taking what I thought was the moral “high-ground,” I was actually arming Trump supporters and undecided voters with more ammunition and frustration, more polarization. More reasons to vote against the Hillary Clinton, against Liberals and against those doing this.

The point of all this: Donald Trump’s election is a needed wake-up call. A desperate attempt for one part of the country – the part that many Hillary supporters would consider the ‘out there’ Hebdige talks about – to communicate with the other part of the country which refuses to even listen to its frustrations, simply because they’ve chosen to “go high” and categorize all-things-Trump as racism, bigotry, xenophobia and ignorance.

The real issue here? Our country can’t communicate. Our two Americas are like two parents on the brink of divorce – one is bringing up deep-seeded belief differences, struggles, and already-existing distance with the other, and the second is refusing to listen because of the way it’s being communicated. Trump’s America, the insulated parent who feels misunderstood, elected Trump as a radical “F-U” to the other parent and its family (ex. the media – who incorrectly predicted the election up until the last minute and the ‘political establishment’ – which has little idea what a Trump Presidency will look like)

The irony? Both parents are equally terrible at communicating. Our other reading due on November 8^th was written by Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno in 1944 – over seventy years ago. Here’s an excerpt I find solace in:

“Each branch of culture is unanimous within itself and all are unanimous together. Even the aesthetic manifestations of political opposites proclaim the same inflexible rhythm.” (Horkheimer and Adorno 1944, 53).

So, in the end, I hope this election helps us realize that our communication issues are one thing we have deeply in common – that many of us have carried that “same inflexible rhythm” over the last two years, whether we recognized it or not. Now is the time to recognize it (and possibly apologize for your part in it). Whichever parent you supported, it's time to to acknowledge the pain of the other and make an effort to communicate.

Also worth pointing out is the fact that three theorists, writing up to seventy-two years ago, during World War II, were able to synthesize this. Our issues are nothing new. We're just finding new ways to solve them.

Peace,
-UA191

AO 11-10-16: The Ideology of Being Free from Ideology

So, before leaving class Thursday, the question of if it was possible to escape ideologies was proposed to us. The answer is, in my opinion, no. The state apparatus (the plural of apparatus according to Bing that’s how its spelt) that have loomed over us for far too long that we really can’t escape their dominion. In my opinion, any ideas we have now are just reactions to the ideologies presented to us. I don’t really think actively disobeying an ideology would count as being free from it, as our actions still have their roots in the ideology in the first place, even though said actions are rebellious and counter intuitive to the ideology. Taking the hypothetical to a realistic and personal level, does the ideology of rebellion really count if we were made to question it in the first place by the Ideological State Apparatus that is our college? Alternately, though we may take steps to not follow the ideologies proposed by the ruling class, wouldn’t that just mean we have removed ourselves from their ideologies and put ourselves in an ideology constructed by and for us? It’s as Althusser said; “There is no practice except by and in an ideology; there is no ideology except by and for the subject” (C Book; Althusserpg.45).

Now interjecting some of my personal opinion into this, is living in ideologies that bad? Yes, the pursuit of the “real” is important but at the rate we’re going I don’t believe we’ll be finding the “real” anytime soon. So while you either wait for someone else to find the real or even pursue it yourself, what wrong with following some imaginary guidelines that establish our existence? In that sentiment I should be clear follow your OWN ideologies, not ones proposed to you. Although your actions are just a rejection to something else, maybe you could at least find some solace in the fact the actions have some semblance of being your own ideals. I find this option better than simply following the actions of someone else.

No Escape

Louis Althussers idea of the RSA and ISA shed light on the "conflicting" reactions toward the 2016 electoral results. The RSA consists of government, administration, army, police, courts, prisons etc. We are told that we accept these things because we see them as a way of ordering our lives. It serves almost as a safety net, whether we like it or not. On the other hand, ISA consists of religion, education, family, legal, political, media, and culture. We know these differentiating matters are ideological. Althusser argument is that these things make us ponder on how we, as social beings, are organized in our ideological sub positioning. We accept RSA because the repressive is simply a given so to speak.

In regards to the election, many have "accepted" the results because our president, whether we voted for he or she or not, is now the leader of our country and represents EACH of us...and that is simply "a given". However, what has sparked much controversy is peoples individual beliefs, or matters of ISA. Those who did not vote for Mr. Trump most likely did so because his beliefs went against their own ISA beliefs. It is hard to accept the singular, powerful aspects of RSA in this years election because of the conflicts with many Americans personal opinions and ideologies (ISA).

Many Americans have explained that this years results are "confusing". To those who want to flee the country and avoid all of controversial issues taking place post election....Althusser has something to say: "There is no practice except by and in ideology"(45). As much as you may want to get out....you simply can't escape.

I Blame Jameson for Losing My Train of Thought

I apologize in advance for anyone that is reading this because I think I’m in left field with this one. I had an idea that was circulating in my head for a very long time, but then I lost it as I was writing. I hate that when that happens!!!! Anyway, I felt that there was a relationship between on the Van Gogh section and the Bonaventura Hotel section, so if any of you have any input I would love some!

I would like to acknowledge that Fredric Jameson’s critique on capitalism is quite in interesting, but very dense. I enjoyed reading the section about the deconstruction of expression with Van Gogh’s and Warhol’s art because it helped be come to a clearer understanding about postmodernism in architecture. At first, I didn’t understand why Van Gogh was thrown into Jameson’s theory, but let me try to explain. 

For example, Van Gogh’s famous works of “Peasant Shoes” are all master pieces. Van Gogh took a concept from the world, such as peasant shoes, and decided to truly reveal them in his art. Jameson explains how Van Gogh would paint the most brutal and marginalized parts of our world and turn them into somewhat of a positive image, “a Utopia gesture.” This then creates an entirely new outlook on a work of art through a type of Utopian mimicry. 

Jameson says, “[the work of art is] part of some new division of labour in the body of capital, some new fragmentation of the emergent sensorium which replicates the specializations and divisions of capitalist life at the same time that it seeks in precisely such fragmentation a desperate Utopian compensation for them” (411). 

Jameson proposes the idea that we are in this postmodern hyperspace, meaning that we are in “the presence of something like a mutation in built space itself” (425). The Bonaventura Hotel, located in downtown Los Angeles, is a gigantic hotel covered in reflective windows. It is impossible for this hotel to not catch one’s eye. What I found most interesting about this section was the concept of a miniature city within a city. 

Jameson discusses the entrances of the hotel and how it imposes this new category of trying to separate the hotel from the city itself by creating a complete world within the hotel. There is a type of separation when one steps into this hotel. What is interesting though is that the hotel is trying to mimic the city itself with all its fallen city fabric. As well, the concept of elevators and escalators replace personal choice because these devices are moving you. This reminded me of Eco’s piece, when he mentions that people at Disneyland believe that they have choice when walking around the park and standing in line. In reality, you really don’t have choice because of the dynamic paths and narrative paradigms are designed to create specific movements with our bodies. We don’t really have any choice, and in the Bonaventura escalators and elevators replace moment by a transportation machine. 

Even if you think you have choice, one is still completely immersed in this hotel, or also known as hyperspace, up to their eyes and their body (427). The hotel is literally consuming everything that consists of their being. The way the entire hotel is constructed is to attempt to restore an older space, which is known as the “return of the repressed.” This causes us confusion because it almost feels as if we are in another world. Thus, once the human body becomes aware of its immediate surrounds one can then locate himself or herself. He or she will then be able to recognize where they are in an external world. 

Van Gogh’s painting and the Bonaventura Hotel both have something in common. They are both trying to take this space in our world and try to mutate it in their own way. Both the work of art and architecture transform a form of materiality in our capitalistic world. They attempt to restore the coordinates of an older space that once existed (427). 

Desert of Humanity

“Americans no longer talk to each other, they entertain each other. They do not exchange ideas, they exchange images. They do not argue with propositions; they argue with good looks, celebrities and commercials.” - Neil Postman, "Amusing Ourselves to Death" (1985)

I understand that this pre-class blog post is not relevant to the readings we were assigned, however, last  nights presidential election results has spurred me into connecting what we have been studying with our current political "situation". A celebrity known for hosting his own reality TV show, running a billion dollar real estate company, a man of a rather low moral character, has just been elected the 45th President of the United States. As if reality TV wasn't a desert of the real itself....we have now deserted America and ALL of its citizens as a whole. Benjamin stated, "The greater the decrease in social significance of an art form, the sharper the distinction between criticism and the enjoyment by the public. The conventional is uncritically enjoyed, and the truly new is criticized with aversion”(45). Now we see this issue of authenticity embroiled in the current issues of the political economy. Originality and creativity has become entirely about politics and commodity. The worlds markets are crashing. There are so many signs that are pointing in the wrong direction yet so many Americans chose to ignore reality and President Donald Trump is the end result. 

“….so-called realistic representations can no longer evoke reality except as nostalgia or mockery”(40). 

I currently find myself nostalgic for American politics before Trump. I am nostalgic for Bush vs. Gore....how can this be? Answer: I am nostalgic for some sort or realer "reality" where Donald Trump is not the future leader of my country. Today I genuinely had a difficult time living in the present moment. How do I deal with these anxious, depressed feelings? I read more...I distract more. Yet I found myself consuming more and more of the media that was hurting me in the first place. I didn't want to talk...I didn't want to argue. I didn't want what is currently happening to be real. Ignorance is bliss right? But the facts are clear and simple. Millions of Americans chose to ignore the face that Donald Trump is a racist and a misogynist and by voting for him children will suffer, women will suffer, the climate will suffer, the LGBT community will suffer, and the world will become an overwhelmingly more violent place. If you were one of the millions of Americans who ignored these facts...than you have deserted humanity as a whole. 

A.O.: 11-3-16: Brightside of the Feedback Loop of Fan Culture

I’m not quite sure what tone Jenkins is taking in his piece on participatory culture, but I would like to speak in favor of fan culture and the feedback loop it creates with mainstream industry. In a way this feedback loop reminds me of symbiotic relationships that occur in nature in that both parties, potentially, have something to gain from this relationship.

The media puts forth content which, in Jenkins words, the fans perceive as raw material for telling their own stories and making their own communities (457). They take these “materials” and alter and change different aspects leading to spin-offs, explanations, or just fantasies of fantasies of the stories that they have been told. The companies then see these fan folk works, admire their success, and then attempt to emulate them. In some cases, big companies take on the creators of these fan works to make sure that the corporations properly capture the essence of what they are trying to emulate.

In this relationship, the fan creator was able not only to garner attention and admiration for their work from peers but from the media’s officials as well. Should they be taken in they become official, working under those that the fan admired and can access far more resources. Granted this potentially removes the “folk” aspect from the work it isn’t to say that this is bad. Sometimes it’s nice to see the small indie media that you like have access to the resources and materials that the pros have that allows them to truly flex their creative muscles and make something truly amazing. On the media end of it, the corporations now have a new insight into what the fans want and can (emphasis on can, they might not always…) use the information to generate something different and new. These new media contents can be successful ventures and generate more profit (yes its quite a capitalist driven relation, but hey always look for the silver linings in the clouds).

Of course, this is all provided that the corporations that go out and observe these folk cultures are pleasant in nature. There are some corporations who would go out and adopt these fans offering to make their project big, but in doing so distort the project to make it more fitting for a consumer market, otherwise known as “selling out”. Or worse, if they can, corporations take legal action against fans for infringing on creative laws, sometimes rightfully, other times for the sake of removing competition.

Of course both of all of these instances are plausible but I just thought it would be nice to appreciate the positives of fan culture and how they have a chance at becoming something even greater.  

What’s the Difference

     While, this blog doesn’t directly reflect philosophical points of modernism or post modernism, I believed it was important to write for myself, and others. Last week while trying to discuss a situation I had at Target, I made the mistake of “othering.” This mistake, fueled an in class discussion that left me feeling upset and border line angry. I couldn’t understand what I had done so wrong in discussing how a foreign group was rude to me in the check out line at Target. But after leaving class I began to reflect on the situation, which led me to see the errors in my ways. My self reflection not only helped me see the error I had made, but also the error that many of us make when we quickly formulate words without thought. In my hasty judgment I generalized the individuals in front of me as being foreigners because of the way they spoke, dressed, and acted. The couple in front of me could have very well been American citizens just like myself, but I couldn’t see past what I saw as difference. Furthermore, the way I described the individuals in class made it seem like they were outsiders when in reality we probably had more in common than the small differences I saw. 

     We as people need to see others for our likeness instead of our differences. Color, race, and gender are only small blotches of difference on the fabric of human existence. Whether we knowingly or unknowingly make these utterances of “othering” they still have the same effect on us. Utterances of difference only cut our eclectic fabric at the very seems that hold us together, creating a larger divide. We must all be cognizant of what we say and how our words can be portrayed, especially when talking about people. Human existence is beautiful and should be celebrated for its richness of different people who bring about new ideas, thoughts and ways of life.