Žižek's Art in Travesty

Jean Baudrillard and Slavoj Zizek are theorists that focus on the concept of “reality” through the lens of terrorism. Terrorism is a triggered term and many people are uncomfortable with this specific term or anything associated with it. I will admit that when I hear words such as terrorist or terrorism, I do become a little uneasy with certain thoughts and memories. In both of the readings, the World Trade Center, also known as WTC, was mentioned quite a few times. Yes it was a tragic event that occurred in our country, but before the NYC terrorism incident, many people thought they understood the notion of reality. It was when the second plane hit the WTC when people’s reality became a “fictional reality”.

“. . . the WTC towers was the ultimate work of art: we can perceive the collapse of the WTC towers as the climatic convulsion of twentieth-century art’s ‘passion for the Real’- the ‘terrorists’ themselves did not do it primarily to provoke real material damage, but for the spectacular effect of it ” (Zizek 2002, 231). 

I first want to say that as I was reading through Zizek’s argument, I found his claim to be very offensive. The WTC terrorist attack was one that effected everyone in some way and changed the world’s perception of “reality.” Yet, I felt as if Zizek was desensitized to the entire incident. After reading through his argument, I decided to take a critical approach when discussing this topic and I found it to be quite beautiful. This past weekend my fellow classmates and myself saw an film called Under Fire: The Untold Story of Pfc. Tony Vaccaro directed by Max Lewkowicz. One of the challenges that Tony Vaccaro faced in the film was this essence of ethics in art.

 Art is quite amazing because it can bring so much conflict in one image, but that is the beauty in art. In the film, successful photographers discussed how sometimes when taking photos one will

face a situation in which they feel unethical when taking the picture. Tony Vaccaro had also experienced this ethical dilemma in deciding to take a picture of a rape victim. Vaccaro did take the picture because he was an artist and wanted to show the ugliness of war. He was showing the true reality of war. Unfortunately, he was and still is scared from this picture. The artist inside of him emerged in that moment and decided to snap the shot even though it went against his beliefs. When I saw the photo, I felt very uncomfortable looking at it because it is a dead woman in the middle of a ditch. Yes, the picture was very difficult to look at but I did understand what Vaccaro was saying about how it is art. Even though he didn’t want to snap the photo, he now has a piece of art that shows the brutality and ugliness of war. 

Zizek, like Vaccaro, also found art in a travesty and for Zizek that travsty was September 11th,  2001. Yes, many would disagree with Zizek and call him crazy, but in a sense the images of the WTC falling down on tv is a form of art. The images of the second plane going into the WTC brought out unexplainable reactions. The quote explains how the terrorists didn’t commit this incident to damage property. The terrorists did this in order to create a reaction, as Zizek would say “but for a spectacular effect” (231).  On September 11th, everyone was drawn into their TV from the images that were being displayed over and over again. This incident has been imprinted into our brains because of the constant abundance of the imagery shown on that day.  The constant imagery “entered and shattered our reality” (Zizek 2002, 234). Art brings out real emotion and thoughts, and that is exactly what happened on September 11th, 2001.  As Zizek says, “ We can perceive the collapse of the WTC towers as the climactic conclusion of twentieth-century art’s ‘passion for the Real’ ” (231). 

Under Fire: The Untold Story of Pfc. Tony Vaccaro : 

http://peacefilmfest.org/film/under-fire-the-untold-story-of-pfc-tony-vaccaro/

We need artistic experimentation 'bigly'

After reading Jean-Francois Lyotard’s piece tonight, I felt I had to watch the first Presidential Debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump before I could blog. I re-read the piece after the debate and its entire message came across to me as completely different.

Lyotard’s first few words in his first sentence of this piece were, “This is a period of slackening” (Lyotard 1979, 38). On that same page, he mentions Habermas’ stated opposition between modernity and neo-conservatism. And MAN is that relevant right now. In my blog entitled, “Modernity is dead,” I compared Habermas’ idea of anti-modernism to Donald Trump and sentiment around our country around ideology that, in my opinion, doesn’t want us to advance – or wants us to revert to old, less evolved or less considered, ways of doing things.

In that same blog, and the weekly reflection that followed it, I discussed the so-called ‘digital generation,’ and our responsibility to set the standard for the digital generations that follow. Trump’s anti-modern sentiment and our responsibility are inherently intertwined.

When Lyotard wrote this in 1979, like most of the theorists we’ve read, he had no idea of the digital revolution, and now political evolution, that has followed. Yet, he wrote this sentence: “But in the diverse invitations to suspend artistic experimentation, there is an identical call for order, a desire for unity, for identity, for security, or popularity” (Lyotard 1979, 40). The artistic experimentation, in my interpretation, is the advancement of society – those who experiment with the norms of society to advance us towards areas we may never have considered. Those things being called for by people who oppose such advancement – order [see ‘Law and Order’ – called for multiple times tonight], a desire for “unity,” identity [ego], security [a wall] and popularity [see Celebrity Apprentice] – are all ideas which Mr. Trump, a candidate for the highest office in our country, possesses.

And guess what? He is simultaneously calling for the suspense of artistic experimentation – otherwise known as, the suspense of the advancement of society, or the suspense of pushing boundaries we didn’t know were there.

I sometimes wonder what we, as a society, are doing wrong, that future generations will admonish us for. I would think, at some point, people must’ve thought it was alright to own slaves – now we would publicly shame someone for thinking such a thing. I think the fact that we would now do that is the result of artistic experimentation – where people open their minds to new ideas and push through their existing thoughts. This is exactly what Donald Trump is pushing against – more than any other candidate for President in history.

Meme Generated by: MakeAMeme.org, Created by me

Now, to move on to the other side of this argument – my generation, the ‘digital revolution,’ and what Lyotard calls, “slackening” (Lyotard 1979, 40). Lyotard uses said phrase in the context of art, but I think it applies ‘bigly,’ as Mr. Trump might say, in this argument. Here’s the quote that’ll show you how: “Artists, gallery owners, critics, and public wallow together in the ‘anything goes,’ ad the epoch is one of slackening” (Lyotard 1979, 42). Anything has gone in Donald Trump’s campaign this year. He has said one thing one moment and the complete opposite the next, yet people support him, often ignoring the reasonable signs to retreat and not support such instability in a leader.

Yet he has leagues of devoted supporters. Why?

I think it has a lot to do with the major theme of Lyotard’s piece. In our postmodern, digital, society, we’re all know-it-alls, whether we like it or not. For many, devices are attached to us 24/7, even while sleeping – and they can provide us answers we want – to fill in the knowledge gaps that may have been filled by critical thinking skills previously. Mr. Trump counts on this – and claims himself to be the ultimate know-it-all in many instances – like where he announced he knew “more than the generals” about defeating ISIS.

Taking a break from my admitted post-debate rant, Lyotard major theme is how he defines modernity: “to present the fact that the unpresentable exists” (Lyotard 1979, 42). We, and symbolically, Mr. Trump, try not to acknowledge the unpresentable anymore – we want to leave as little open-ended as possible – and we can, since our devices can tell us nearly anything we want to hear. Maybe this is one reason so many people feel compelled to support Mr. Trump – because he is a symbol of our society in a sense – moving away from artistic experimentation and critical thinking, in place of our own facts and realism to fill in the gaps.

Peace (is possible... seriously),
-UA191

Blurred lines

My Thursday class blog, entitled, “Modernity is dead,” challenged Habermas’ theory that we are still in modernity. I aligned modernity with another concept we’ve been talking a lot about, through the lens of other theorists: authenticity. In my mind, modernity and authenticity are implicitly interrelated – meaning, modernity is the inherently authentic and real, whereas post-modernity and anti-modernity are manufactured – or “reproduced.”

I remember a moment when I was maybe ten years old, realizing that every day I spent more time in front of screens than in front of faces or nature. Not realizing I was making a theoretical statement at the time, I went up to my mom and said “Mom, I think your generation will be the smartest one” – she looked stunned and asked why. I went on to say something along the lines of, “Your generation has seen the transformation from no technology – where you had to go out and play with real people – to constant technology – where you play with people through a screen.” The heart of what I meant: Your generation is the barrier between the drastically different old reality and new reality.

I realized at that age that my parents’ generation would likely be the last to live in that world – of focusing on what’s in front of you, living (at least someone more) within your means, and being genuine without trying. Now, in my generation, all of that is a challenge – which is why I did my CMC 200 research project on generational differences.

I was hopeful after reviewing existing literature that my generation could use our technology to build revolutions and make shit happen. And sometimes we do. But generally speaking, we feel like we can contribute to that revolution by simply “liking” something. And that was the overwhelming conclusion of my original research – that my generation is different from any other previously – and will be different from any other in the future. We’re the guinea pigs that will get to set the record for how to act in a digital world, where ‘reality’ and reproduction are one. The lines are blurred.

At the same time, I know that this blog (and a few of my previous blogs) have been pretty negative towards our era and pessimistic about the future. And although that’s an easy conclusion to make from my writing – it’s not what I think.

I think our era – whether you want to call it post-modernism or anti-modernism, or any other phrase – has the opportunity to un-blur the lines and create a new reality. But we can’t sit back and “like” what a small group of people are doing. We need to do it, too – otherwise the generations that follow us will feel alright doing the same – and anti-modernism, the rejection of advancement in my dictionary, will become the norm.

I think we can do that… there are young people around the world doing that. And guess what? They FEEL something from it. And isn’t that what we’re desperately looking for in this new reality? Something to authentically feel?

P.S. I think Habermas may be my gateway theorist. Or maybe my gateway to the gateway :)

Peace,

-UA191

Unfinished Business

Habermas has an interesting stance on postmodernism: he is not a fan. He places a notable amount of faith in modernity, modeling after enlightenment, claiming that modernity still has some unfinished business. He likes to pick at the neoconservatives who are not open to changes in society and tend to blame culture for all that is going wrong. Habermas argues that just because the avant-garde and surrealists may have not fulfilled modernity’s destiny, does not mean that it is no longer alive. The issue at hand may be that the capitalist agenda or neo-conservatism is hindering our creativity and evolution of our culture. While I am still trying to fully grasp what neo-conservatism is, I understand that neoconservatives aim to maintain the status quo and dispel anything that threatens to change it.

I can see how this is prevalent in the “three autonomous spheres” of science, morality and art. All of these dimensions are encouraged or even manipulated to adhere to capitalistic endeavors. During the enlightenment, the goal was to “develop objective science, universal morality and law, and autonomous art according to their inner logic.” It also was intended for the arts science to “promote not only the control of natural forces but also the understanding of the world and of the self, moral progress, the justice of institutions and even the happiness of human beings” (103). I hate to sound cynical but currently the majority of science, art, and morality do not seem geared towards these goals. At least, not the mainstream or what is intended for the larger public.

When I think of popular culture, it is very rare that any of it has concerns about moral progress or the wellbeing of humanity. Look at the majority of television shows and top music artists, and you will find themes of wealth, sex, and status. When popular artists do call attention to issues in our society (Beyonce in Formation) they are scrutinized and called back to their capitalistic purpose of keeping the public distracted and entertained. Meanwhile with art that is truly uplifting or “enlightening” tends to be “high art”, which alludes back to what we talked about it class about how there is low and high art. High art is usually only consumed by upper classes which results in the majority of the public being excluded from exposure to high art. I think Habermas is arguing that this is what capitalists want. They do not want to the masses being exposed to art that brings into question the greater good of humanity and moral evolution. We are encouraged to continue to inflate our ego with consumerism so that the sole objective of making money is never challenged.