Monarchy to Democracy

"The ideas of the ruling class in every epoch the ruling idea i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, consequently also controls he means of material production." This quote seemed pretty simple to me, meaning that the upper class who has the money to control material production  also decides what material will be available and so is the ruling intellectual force. However, the quote became more complicated when we started to talk about the colonization of america and monarchy and democracy. If "each new class puts itself in the place of the ruling class before it" how is it that a change in government can occur. I thought maybe in this case it was because the monarchy of England was so far removed form the colonies that the colonists were able to see a problem with the system.  Also both the colonies and England had control over making necessities for each other; both were dependent on one another. I think that this special situation is what made it possible for the transition from the colonies to go from the class dominated by England's production to the one ruling its own ideology and production. It is true to say that material things affect out ideologies and so the production of a ruling class is bound to control the dependent class. I thought it was interesting that there is a way around this like in the case of the Revolution. 

"It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being which determines their consciousness" I thought about the ideology of the American Dream when reading this quote. When you are born there are certain situations that you are born into that are out of your control- ultimately affecting how far and what experiences you will have in life. If you have a positive social atmosphere growing up, your experiences will be completely different and your potential future will and can be determined. In this case, the commentary above agrees with the quote that your social being- who you are developed from experiences and life chances determine who you are. The conscious is developed from prior experiences. An online definition of conscious is Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts. These sensations, and thoughts differ from person to person and sensations change as well from person to person- therefore it is your personal experience with an event or sensation that determines how you will think about the situation or experience.

Who's Driving?

I chose this quote to write about for one main reason, and that is its insight into the damaging control that media and consumerism have on the human mind. “The withering of imagination and spontaneity in the consumer of culture today need not be traced back to psychological mechanisms. The products themselves, especially the most characteristic…cripple those faculties through their objective makeup. They are so constructed that their adequate comprehension requires a quick, observant, knowledgeable cast of mind but positively debars the spectator from thinking…” (Horkheimer & Adorno, 44)

It resembles a car in my mind, however the owner’s always sitting in the drivers seat. Where is our direction? How can we be so overcome by something exterior to us, that we loose control of ourselves. And the worst part is that the situation becomes exponentially worse as it progresses. There’s this much more drama, and that much more excitement, but before we know it there will be nothing left to entertain us. I mean look at the news today, as cliché of an example as that is, it’s true. Death and destruction; simple. The brain is a muscle, and the only way muscles grow and become stronger is by pushing the limits. However, when there are no more limits to push, what are we left with? Maybe I’m being super cynical and ridiculous here with this post, but it honestly is ridiculous how submissive we are to culture. The margins of interest are much greater in the corporations that run mainstream culture than in the personal well being of individual people when it comes to consumption. I’m not saying capitalism or consumerism are evil plots by a select few people in this world to take over the minds of all humans, trust me this is no conspiracy theory. I’m just saying that it seems as if we have lost sight of the steering wheel.

Response to Aubrey's Post

I really enjoyed Aubrey's post on Repetition. I would like to note on her discussion of materialism and consumerism in contemporary American society. She discusses advertising and quotes " We are so fascinated and/or distracted with images that we don’t take the time to notice perhaps why we are buying these products of which pictures of are being thrown at us all day everyday". I must say that many people I know especially my friends are avid consumers. And, they are so distracted by everyday advertising from TV, the radio, magazines and all other outlets of media that they never take note why they are buying them in the first place. She discuess Andy Warhol and how he incoroporates simplicity in his artwork. Her paragraph rings true in contemporary society. She states....."It can be compared to the psychological idea that if you repeat an activity enough than it will become a common habit for you, or if you see something and are trained to react a certain way when seeing that image than that reaction will become normal for you as well when seeing that image..... We can relate to this in America today with all of the advertisements that one person views everyday, as well as the product placement in movies and television shows.....If someone sees a certain product a considerable amount of time and told that it will work well etc than that person will be likely to go and purchase that product...... The simplicity of repetition is very effective in the media"... I agree with this paragraph because simplicity of repetition is often seen in the media and it is very effective.

Ideological State Apparatuses

I recall reading about the ideological state apparatuses last year in CMC100. A specific definition for apparatuses in the online dictionary that I though might relate is: The totality of means by which a designated function is performed or a specific task executed, as in a system of government.

As Althusser explains we should not get the ideological apparatuses confused with the repressive which consists of the government, the administration, the army, the police, the courts, the prisons and also more. The repressive apparatuses functions by violence, whereas the ideological state apparatuses does not. The ideological state apparatuses present themselves in the form of distinct and specialized institutions, such as the religious ISA (church), the educational ISA (school), the family ISA, the legal ISA, the political ISA (includes the different parties) and more. I know it say exactly this is the reading, but as I said before I remember reading this last year in CMC100. Before even reading about it, I could picture the repressive state apparatuses and what institutions were included and what institutions were included in the ISA. 

Breakdown:

ISA- Private Domain- the institutions are generally private

RSA- Public Domain=Repressive (use violence)

  

That was a review for my self as well as the class.

 a quote that stood out to me in Althusser was on page 44 his original thesis.

"it is not their real conditions of existence, their real world, that 'men' represent to themselves' in ideology, but above all it is their relation to those conditions of existence which is represented to them there."

what I believe this quote is saying is that it is not the men them self that create their ideologies, it is the conditions in which they live that create the ideologies for them. 

I'm not sure if that is exactly what they are saying, but it is a start. If anyone wants to offer their own opinion on what Althusseur is trying to say, please reply. Help me understand, or go off of what I've already said. 

subculture

The emergence and incorporation of a subculture is an interesting idea and one I think we all can relate to. Hebdige says, “it is the subculture’s stylistic innovations which first attract the media’s attention” (154). I think whatever is the most odd or non-conventional thing we see in society, we are drawn to it. We may be repulsed or intrigued, but we Other and critique. We want to understand this subculture, and most of all we want to define the subculture and place it into understanding of the world/social systems. So, as Hebdige and Hall argue, “the media…not only record resistance, they ‘situate it within the dominant framework of meanings” (155). We always have to define.
Hedbidge says the first characteristic of recuperation is “the convention of subcultural signs into mass-produced objects” (155). The best way I can understand this is when reflecting on the indie subculture. Since before I could drive, i’ve been making my way to random concerts around Orlando. It was always interesting to see who would show up to shows, and also what they would be wearing. Back in the day, people I saw sported thrift store clothing and grandma-looking apparel. Maybe 2 years ago, I was in a store that sold shirts made to look thrift store-ish. Complete with tiny holes, a worn look, and maybe even bleach stains the shirt was priced at $20. Here, a company/society saw a subculture and attempted to market their fashion to a wide audience. The store still sells clothes and has pretty much become the indie kids designer. So, now you can look old school indie/hip without tearing through a thrift store. The problem is (or maybe it isn’t a problem… I think it is) there is a disconnect between the original clothing and the reproduced grandma style apparel. Maybe the aura is lost? Maybe it just bothers me that people try so hard to make themselves look thrifty? But I think when Hedbige said “it is therefore difficult in this case to maintain any absolute distinction between commercial exploitation on the one hand and creativity/originality on the other” it could apply to this example (155). The original wearers of the fashion actually had to be creative and rummage for an outfit. Now, you can walk it, check out a mannequin and fit in to the style of the subculture. Maybe its not even a subculture anymore since the style has been instilled in popular culture?

Kelsey. Hebdige.

From Culture to Hegemony

I found Hebdige's set up of culture to be interesting.  As with later sections in his article which he related to other great postmodern thinkers, he connected his section on culture to Raymond Williams who coined the "Culture and Society" debate.  Through this, Hebdige informs us, the idea of an "organic society" was largely kept alive (145).

Hebdige explains and "organic society" as "an integrated, meaningful whole" (145).  Now this, if anything, has to be an idealistic image of a society.  Especially in todays times, we are having such difficulty coming together and functioning as a who, much less an "integrated, meaningful whole."  While I agree that ideally, a society should work together in such a manner, it seems slightly unrealistic at the same time.  Further Hebdige presents the notion of a "harmonious perfection" when discussing the role of culture in an idealistic societal setting.

It is said that society plays a vastly large role in determining their culture.  As culture has been looked upon as "high society," or representation of the best, it is important to note the manufacturing in image that is being presented by a society as its culture, as its best form.

After reading that piece earlier in the semester on reality and what it truly takes to be real, or even to be considered an original, I cannot help but relate every reading since to that.  Im still messing with the concept of what it truly takes to be real.  If culture is a product of society, a formed ideal and image, then can it be entirely trusted?  Sometimes I try hard to present myself in the best way possible, but is that really me?  Perhaps, just an idealistic form.  As long as we believe ideology can become reality.

Repetition

Frederic Jameson talks about the work of Andy Warhol, a popular artist in the sixties known for his Campbell’s Soup Can piece where he showed 32 soup cans repeated as one image. Jameson says that this specific image as well as many others created by Andy Warhol, “explicitly foreground the commodity fetishism of a transition to late capital, ought to be powerful and critical political statements” (M488). This is a strong statement that seems to be true.
In a society that focuses on materialism and mass production, the work of Andy Warhol did a great job of mocking them. By repeating the image of a product for sale in a collage of the exact same picture of that product, like the Campbell’s Soup Can piece, he is showing the consumers as well as the advertising agencies how obsessed with consumption we are. We are so fascinated and/or distracted with images that we don’t take the time to notice perhaps why we are buying these products of which pictures of are being thrown at us all day everyday.
Andy Warhol used simplicity in his artwork in order to get a simple but important message out to his audience. His works demonstrated that if you see something enough than it becomes something normal to you and something that you have to have. It can be compared to the psychological idea that if you repeat an activity enough than it will become a common habit for you, or if you see something and are trained to react a certain way when seeing that image than that reaction will become normal for you as well when seeing that image. We can relate to this in America today with all of the advertisements that one person views everyday, as well as the product placement in movies and television shows. If someone sees a certain product a considerable amount of time and told that it will work well etc than that person will be likely to go and purchase that product. The simplicity of repetition is very effective in the media.

class reflections from jenkins

In last Tuesdays class we discussed Jenkin's concept of how the internet and technology has changed our social networking and how the internet creates a tool where people can talk without having to meet face to face. An example of this would be Rollin's newest social phenomenon "Juicy Campus" which goes beyond the networking and socializing tool of facebook, into a completely anonymous website where anyone can write and discuss anything about the Rollins community or many other colleges. The biggest thing I got from our class conversation was how "bullying" and talking about people has become digitized. While Jenkin's glorifies the anonyminity of the internet and its benefits, we now have websites like Juicy Campus that can talk about anyone and anything viewable to anyone with access to the internet. Anyone can create a post and a topic about someone that it completely false, and people may believe it. Overall our class attitude towards the site was mainly negative and confused as to why it has become so poplular. What I have to ask Jenkins is when does anonyminity and the internet go to far?

ideology and althusser

Althusser states the thesis that “ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their conditions of existence.” He mentions several times that ideologies are representations of what we really think things mean. I believe that this is true. From early on we are taught what’s right and what’s wrong. Listen to these people, be polite,
do your homework, clean your room, are all examples of concepts that we are told when we are young that somehow become standards of our daily life. We do things like this without questioning them, simply because we are told they are right. In this case here I believe that things like this are the “imaginary relationship” or the “representations,” simply because there are no enforces laws or rules that tell us we have to do these things, we simply just do them like a conditioned response. I feel what Althusser is saying here is to look at ideology as something that is naturally understood as what you do or what you think, because you have been told to think this way.

The False Ideology of wealth and appearance

In accordance with the reading “Ideology” and also with the excerpt from Karl Marx and Friedrich Engel’s The German Ideology, I immediately thought of the capitalist conception of consumerism and the large push by our media to denote a person’s value from the price of their lifestyle. I especially found the term “false ideology” present in the dealing with consumerism. In reality, the idea of a person’s worth has nothing to do with the price of their clothes or the extent of their vacation travels. However, the messages we receive from our media include people with nicer, more expensive clothing are more adapt and personally put together. This idea also coincides with the appearance conundrum. If at first glance a person is appealing, we have the idea they are a better, more personable person than someone who is not clean-cut, dressed to the nines with a large, kind smile.

It is also emanated to us that wealthier people are stronger, more apt people. The idea is a person has worked hard at getting or keeping their wealth. A lazy, idiotic, and unintelligent person would not be able to amount and retain wealth. On the apposition, there is the idea that poor people, people on welfare for example, actually prefer to be dependent. Those people want to milk the rich for all their worth and hard work, and want nothing to do with making themselves better people. However, this simply is not the case. Many people on welfare are born into poverty, and do not want to depend upon someone else for their well-being. It is a false ideology that wealthier people are “better” than poor people. Another interesting aspect of this is the fact that wealthier people are less likely to donate a larger portion of their wealth to charitable causes than people that are not as well off, a fact that turns the wealth ideology on its nose.

participatory media the sports industry

In relation to our class discussion last Tuesday (Oct. 21st) and the class reading by Jenkins about participatory and interactive media, I thought of the impact of the sports industry. It is one of the most diverse media industries in that it is found in every aspect of media possible. Sports themes are relevant in everything from film to fashion to home goods. A huge part of the industry is video games, in which fans get to play mock games with their favorite teams and players. Also very popular, is the idea of fantasy leagues. Fans pick certain players and teams and try to predict how they will play. Fans add the players to their “teams” that virtually are put up against other people’s “teams” in sort of leagues online. Whoever’s players play best gain points and head in their league. The fans feel as if they are participating in the league its self.
Another way sports consumers consider themselves participating is in the devotion and “support” for their teams. The fans participate when they go to games decked in their team’s regalia and when they cheer in front of their television sets. The adoption of competitive feelings feeds the industry as buying products ranging from jerseys to lamps display the fan’s level of loyalty. The industry has converted feelings into a community.
An interesting note is the way the sports industry participates in other aspects of life, like our politics. The presidential candidates and vice presidential candidates petition the feelings of a certain team to a certain area (i.e. around the World Series Tampa v. Phillies) in order to connect with the people living there. The feelings extracted by the sports teams are so important and strong they manage to wheedle their way into the back of fans minds. At least superficially, fans of the same team instantly feel they share a certain connection, and thus feel more comfortable.

participatory media: the sports industry

In relation to our class discussion last Tuesday (Oct. 21st) and the class reading by Jenkins about participatory and interactive media, I thought of the impact of the sports industry. It is one of the most diverse media industries in that it is found in every aspect of media possible. Sports themes are relevant in everything from film to fashion to home goods. A huge part of the industry is video games, in which fans get to play mock games with their favorite teams and players. Also very popular, is the idea of fantasy leagues. Fans pick certain players and teams and try to predict how they will play. Fans add the players to their “teams” that virtually are put up against other people’s “teams” in sort of leagues online. Whoever’s players play best gain points and head in their league. The fans feel as if they are participating in the league its self.
Another way sports consumers consider themselves participating is in the devotion and “support” for their teams. The fans participate when they go to games decked in their team’s regalia and when they cheer in front of their television sets. The adoption of competitive feelings feeds the industry as buying products ranging from jerseys to lamps display the fan’s level of loyalty. The industry has converted feelings into a community.
An interesting note is the way the sports industry participates in other aspects of life, like our politics. The presidential candidates and vice presidential candidates petition the feelings of a certain team to a certain area (i.e. around the World Series Tampa v. Phillies) in order to connect with the people living there. The feelings extracted by the sports teams are so important and strong they manage to wheedle their way into the back of fans minds. At least superficially, fans of the same team instantly feel they share a certain connection, and thus feel more comfortable.

“Media audiences must not simply buy an isolated product or experience but rather must buy into a prolonged relationship with a particular narrative universe, which is rich enough and complex enough to sustain their interest over time and thus motivate a succession of consumer choices” (Jenkins 553).

This quote struck me because I am one of the many audience members that does buy into this prolonged relationship. I will my love of the “Harry Potter” story as an example. I read the first book shortly after it came out due to hearing through word of mouth etc how good it was. After I read the first page of the first book I was hooked. I could not put the book down and could not wait until the following ones in the series came out. Now I didn’t stand in line at midnight the day of a new book’s coming to stands, but I did buy it within the first day or two of its premiere. Then the Harry Potter movies started to come out and so of course I had to go and see them. Same thing happened with the movies; I was hooked after the first five minutes and needed to see the next one immediately. The media did a great job of having a cycle going with the advertisement of the books and the movies. The timing worked out well because the books usually came out in the beginning of the summer and the movies came out right around Christmas time. People were not having to wait too long to get what they wanted, but they had to wait long enough that they would get a little antzy and the media’s solution to this was to sell little souvenirs in this time gap.

The media wants their audience to always be thinking about what’s coming next and to want to hold onto that through buying things to “tide them over” until the big show comes on. Pointless items such as t-shirts with characters from the movie on it, or boardgames that are still the same except they have these character’s pictures on them. They always need you thinking about what you’re going to buy next and make you believe that even though it may be overpriced, or a waste of money it’s okay because it’s part of the experience.

BG 10/25 Marx/Althusser

In the Marx and Althusser readings, I came across a few concepts that I found particularly interesting.

From Marx: “Just as our opinion of an individual is not based on what he thinks of himself, so can we not judge of such a period of transformation by its own consciousness; on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained rather from the contradictions of material life, from the existing conflict between the social productive forces and the relations of production.” (pp. 37)

This quote gave me a different perspective on the various ways one can approach the study of postmodernity. Rather than just attempting to define the postmodern era in and of itself, it is easier to observe the “conflict between the social productive forces and the relations of production.” This may be a stretch of those terms, but rather than trying to define an entire cultural era, we can attempt to observe prevalent ideological conflicts and the contemporary hegemonic power structure (and how various sects of this structure interact), and then identify trends and patterns within these systems. These trends and patterns would thus characterize the period in which we live and lead us close to a way of defining and describing our spot in history.

From Althusser: “…ideas…which seem to make up ideology do not have an ideal or spiritual existence, but a material existence… an ideology always exists in an apparatus, and its practice, or practices. This existence is material.” (pp. 45)

This is a concept that I missed when we read Althusser in CMC 100. The notion that ideology exists in a very real and tangible form changed my perception of what ideology is. Before I thought of ideology as ideal and thought-trends that established and maintained hegemony; I did not fully make the connection between ideology and ideological state apparati. Now I understand that ISA are the physical manifestation of ideology and thus ideology is material. This concept of ideology as material makes Althusser a lot less depressing. ISAs are tangible and thus mutable. It is still very difficult to change the way a culture is structured and ordered, however, a physical and tangible oppressor is easier to combat than one that exists purely in an ideal state (ingrained in our brains, and fully outside of our control).

BG 10/21 participatory culture

One of the key concepts from the Jenkins reading is participatory culture. Jenkins said that participatory culture was one of the two models of media in transition. Jenkins states:

“Patterns of media consumption have been profoundly altered by a succession of new media technologies which enable average citizens to participate in the archiving, annotation, appropriation, transformation, and recirculation of media content. Participatory culture refers to the new style of consumerism that emerges in this environment.” (pp. 554)

This section on participatory culture made me think of Roland Barthes’ Pleasure of the Text. It seems that participatory culture is just jouissance (the pleasure derived from filling in the gap) taken a few steps further. Barthes viewed the pleasure of the text as the joy we get from inserting our own experiences in the middle of a text to create personal meaning, whereas in Jenkins participatory culture, audience members not only inject meaning into the text, but they take it upon themselves to extend the text to create a personal meaning and share it with others.

This concept of altering the text itself and reproducing it is much like Barthes notion of the perversion of the text, but taken a step further. Rather than just perverting the text in one’s own mind, individuals pervert the text and then produce a new text to reflect this perversion. It really is no longer the process of tmesis because audience members are not only interjecting something in the middle of the text, but they are creating entirely new texts within the realm created by the original.

Criticism is an act of tmesis, but participatory culture (for example fan fiction) is not just criticism of the original, it is the creation of an entirely new text or a modification of the original. This new tmesis is different from the old because one is analysis and the other is synthesis.

This whole process is enabled by technological innovation. Technology enables fans to not only record fan fiction (with a video camera), but it allows them to produce it (with video editing software), and more importantly, technology enables citizens to share what they have produce (with utilities such as YouTube).

Facebook and Cultural Expression

I thought my remarks on cultural expression today in class regarding the notion of participatory culture and cultural expression were right on target. I discussed Facebook as major communication outlet. Facebook is a form of cultural expression. Facebook started out small solely for college students and now has become a major communication outlet that reaches everyone. It has become a huge part of our culture. My friend’s parents who are not even up to snuff with modern technology even have Facebook. People have moved from being just a spectator of media such as the internet to an actual participant ie participatory culture. Anyone can broadcast their lives on the internet now thanks to Facebook. Back before Facebook, some individuals were just observers of media and the internet. Now we can actually utilize this media outlet to see what people look like, who they are associating with, where they have been, where they are going, and even a current status of what they are doing at the present time. Facebook can depict a lot about a person’s social life, indicate the various activities an individual is engaging in, and indicate various aspects about an individual's hobbies. It connects people who have similar interests in clubs and organizations.

I used to be a spectator and now have evolved to a participant since I am a user of Facebook. Facebook is advertised everywhere and has become so huge over the past few years. Facebook highlights political views, relationship status, personal information, contact information, as well as photographs of the individual. It’s a great social networking tool and actually does connect you connect with the people around you via school or location. It really helps with personal connections. Our society is culturally dependent on the internet as a resource tool. And, Facebook has contributed to this because it connects people all around the world.

Internet vs. Life

I think it is true that we are all more brazen when we have a screen in front of us and not a person. It is easy to peck away angrily on the keyboard and it gives you the medium to say exactly what you want to say. For me, I never say exactly what I mean; however, when I have time to type it up and reread it, I know my meaning is being sent. But even in this way you lose the voice, the intonation that perhaps carries as much meanings as the words themselves. For some reason talking to people has never been a strength of mine. These situations just bring anxiety. So for me, I realized that I started using the internet/texting as a crutch. I didn’t have to make myself deal with social situations, because I could just handle it through written word. Now, I’ve tried to revert back to the discomfort of human interactions, recognizing that these social interactions are necessary.
We tend to think that just because we say something anonymously, if we are talking about Juicy Campus here, we are not responsible or accountable. And I think this is a horrible misconception people have about the impact their words. Or perhaps people just don’t care about this impact and are missing the essential elements that make them human beings. I don’t know, I’m not going to try to guess the psychology behind an angry blogger. What I thought was interesting in class today was people’s connection of Rollins and high school. For me, Rollins is whatever you make it. Of course if you buy into Juicy Campus and try to see what everyone is saying, it’s going to feel like high school. I don’t know.. if you buy into the blogospheres social constructions Rollins might just turn out to be the immature scene tied to high school.

Kelsey. october 21.

Frrom Culture to Hegemony

This reading recognized how the media has become such a dominant group in our culture by defining some very key terms. Ideology was one of the first key terms addressed. Louis Althusser points out that, “Ideology has little to do with “consciousness.” He goes on the address that ideology evokes a structural hierarchy that imposes views and beliefs via our subconscious. The media, in essence, plays heavily off this concept by inserting messages into advertisements or television shows, that the audience is mostly receiving unconsciously.
The reading then goes into the concept of hegemony, which is when one social group has “total social authority” over another. Looking back, media has constructed many traditional gender norms that ultimately represent the men as the dominant social group over women. Another example would be the white race dominating the black race by placing white people in police roles (in essence the good guy) and black people in roles where crime is involved (the bad guy.) Through the decades, people have been fighting to break these hegemonic trends and have been encouraging media to represent people of different genders, races, ethnicities and sexual orientation in a more equal light.

Jenkins and Participatory Culture

Jenkin’s piece discusses the concept of audience participation in media. He describes it as, “a succession of media technologies which enable average citizens to participate in the archiving annotation, appropriation, transformation, and recirculation of media content.” I really like his ideology on this subject because it describes the cycle of how so much media content is produced and what it creates. In CMC 200 I recently gave a presentation on “Mash-Up” culture, a new form of music that is created by artists using computers to use samples of many popular songs to produce a new song, that demonstrates this concept. A lot of theory behind its creation is based on the idea that the people creating this form of music are doing it as a rebellion against the mainstream media. There has been a lot of controversy over this genre because it uses something that has already been created and is labeled as being new, and it also goes against a lot of media producers and corporations. Jenkins says, “Media consumers want to become media producers, while media producers want to maintain dominance over media content.” So many great products come out from new media forms being produced and there are many new styles that are created from these “consumers” that challenge the norm. Since the audience is the one who controls what becomes popular, I think that it is important to study what happens when they challenge what they see.

Poster

Poster tackles the flow and distribution of information, as a sense of creating or falsely creating reality.  One of the news issues he brings to light is the fast growing superhighway.

"Information superhighways are being constructed that will enable a vast increase in the flow of communications" (535).  This is already a reality facing us today.  We are capable of sending anything, almost anywhere if the technology is present.  Further relating to this, he states "the metaphor of the "superhighway" only attends to the movement places, work areas and electronic cafes in which this vast transmission of images and words becomes places of communicative relation" (535).

In a sense, this raises the issue of whether the information being transmitted through the "information superhighways" can be reality.  While they are replications, technology in todays age has allowed such a high level of "replication" that it could almost be reality.  Further, something created using high levels of technology or computers create the image/program within.  For instance, if you created an graphic using a computer, and you print a copy, then you have the original.  But what about the second copy (if image was not altered)?  There is nothing separated it from the first, other than the known fact that it came to the "real life" a few minutes later.  Can that be another copy of he original?  Can we have more than one?

I think here is another example of how technology confuses our perceptions of reality, along with mechanical reproduction.   Technology has created such a thin line between the original and replication, but how far (or how close) can it bring us.  Almost sounds a bit like cloning.

Continuing on Poster

At the end of Poster's thoughts in Postmodern Virtualities, he brings about two questions of multiculturalism. The first being "what is the relation of the second media age to ethnicity? And is the relation between the multiculturalist critique of modernity and the challenged to it by the second media age? The fist question he answers very brief, but raises the point that the "new technologies, even after two decades of the new social movements, are likely to have been conceived, designed and produced by white males." He then gives the example of the video game, but not going any further because Poster believes that this second media is still being constructed. The second question I think is very relevant because as we have discussed in class what modernity is thought of, and concluding that the ideologies of white masculine males are the elite or have the power and material wealth. But with the raise of the second media that Poster talks about, how does this fit in with post-modernity, and this notion of focusing on social and political changes, all that seem to me to bring about diversity, or at least should. The medium theorists, McLulan said that technology would bring about a "global village". I'm a little bit more pessimistic then he, but at the same time I think is rings about some truth. I think technology does create social classes based on those who can afford say the internet and those who can't. But, in terms of 'global village' the 'communication superhighway' does allow for people from all over to not only communicate but exchange information. This is important because this can be a stepping stone for as Poster says "as these technologies emerge in social space the great political question will be what forms of cultural articulation they promote and discourage. One needs to keep in mind the enormous variability of the technology rather than assume its determining powers". This is what we need do to with the power of the second media and emerging technologies to avoid a Marxist world. 

virtual reality

continuing o the discussion in class about virtual reality, Poster says " One participant argues that continuous participation in the game leads to a sense of involvement that is somewhere between ordinary reality and fiction. The effect of new media such as the Internet and virtual reality, then, is to multiply the kinds of "realities" one encounters in society." I thought this was interesting because one may know that an internet game or virtual reality game is fake, but through repetition this knowledge becomes distorted. With "continuous participation" the mind begins to become so engaged with it's interactions that the line between reality and fiction becomes blurred. I found it harder to understand what Poster meant by multiplying realities, but I think what he's getting at is how virtual reality multiplies the truths that we can perceive in actual reality. This might occur when someone "walks" through a virtual reality world that was build based on reality to look exactly the same, when the person then walks through this space in reality, he may remember multiple images of the space, without remembering what was a virtual memory and what is real. 

Technology and the Lack of Social Baggage

“People connect with strangers without much of the social baggage that divides and alienates. Without visual cues about gender, age, ethnicity and social status, conversations open up in directions that otherwise might be avoided” (Poster542).
Some may believe that quote represents a good way to communicate because it allows people to have no boundaries and be who they really are, which many people do not do to a full extent when they are talking to someone in public. Without any knowledge about the person with whom you are communicating with except for their personality and views on things, a stronger bond may be able to be formed. However, even though technological communication has become a very popular to communicate with strangers, it has become an even more popular way to communicate with those who we are already acquainted with, and this is where concern comes in.
In today’s society we have new technological devices and upgrades thrown at us every day. Each time this happens we become less adaptable to actual social situations which involve talking to someone rather than texting them. My dad talks about this every time that my brother and I are home and says how terrible he thinks this world is becoming. He finds it pathetic that “a person can’t even call someone anymore and have an actual conversation; it’s all about texting which is about as impersonal as one can get.” In some ways I agree with him. However, sometimes it is easier to let your guard down through text messaging as it is when you are talking with somebody online. There is no worry of a person’s reaction to what you’re saying because they will have time to think about a response instead of being put on the spot if you’re talking with them on the phone. Another reason that text messaging is convenient is if you are in a place that you are unable to talk, but you need to get a message to someone immediately. Despite my father’s views, which I do agree with, I now have him hooked on text messaging. It’s hard not to fall into the norm, especially when it consists of doing something new and convenient.

Merging Teachnologies in the Superhighway

“[S]ocialist or radical democratic control of the media results in more freedom, more enlightenment, more rationality; capitalist or centralist control results in oppression, passivity, irrationality.” (537)
This quote was one of a few in this article that caught my eye. It is true, that if the government lets it’s people have freedom in their media, the people are better educated about things and become enlightened. If a government restricts what their people can learn through different forms of media, it makes the people less powerful and oppressed. Who has the right to restrict things any way? Are we not all equal people who have rights to see and learn things that are true? Even if things in the media are not necessarily true or “good” for us, who has the right to take that freedom away?

It was also mentioned that the FBI was insistent “on building surveillance mechanisms into the structure of the information superhighway.” (537) I do not agree with this one bit. Ok, well, maybe I agree a little for national security purposes, but it is not a far-fetched thought to think that the FBI will abuse this power. This type of surveillance reminds me of the book 1987 and the show Big Brother. Not natural in any way, shape or form and I personally do not believe in spying on others.

Lastly, it was also mentioned that there is a vast inequality among the users of the internet. It does not surprise me that the greatest amounts of users are white males, we learn in many classes that this is the dominant group in our society. Although this article says that the internet is relatively cheap, it takes skill and an educated mind to browse through the internet. Finding educated people in third world countries does not come easy and thus, this is why we have an internet inequality.

values

“If modern society may be said to foster an individual who is rational, autonomous, centered, and stable (the "reasonable man" of the law, the educated citizen of representative democracy, the calculating "economic man" of capitalism, the grade defined student of public education), then perhaps a postmodern society is emerging which nurtures forms of identity different from, even opposite to those of modernity.”

This quote really struck me because I’ve noticed a change in the behavior of people today, and what I know of the ways people behaved in the past. Values have changed. And I’m not talking like changed year to year, I mean more in the sense of the difference between generations. Respect, honor, diligence, loyalty, trust and nobility; these are all values and characteristics that come few and far between with people in my generation, and when they are apparent, they are minimal in respect to the importance which these values held to our parents generation. Why is that? Why has society changed so much? Poster would argue that its because of technology and communication which drains the physical emotions of reality from us, leaving us to build our character on pre-constructed pictures, videos, music and text. Our society today yields every new generation of children to be further and further separated from these values. Is it intentional? Debatable (conspiracy theory much?). But one thing is for sure, that some of the values ‘we as a society’ believe to be so strong have been and are continuing to be lost in the translation of what Poster would call ‘The Communications Superhighway”. Either way you cut it, its certainly noticeable. They scary part however, is where we will be in 100 years if this continues? Will we be so removed from reality that responsibility and accountability will be things of the past?

possibly

The Communications "Superhighway"

A reoccurring theme we have seen throughout this class is that we are always searching for bigger, better, faster technology. The Communication "Superhighway" is just that, they are being constructed to enable a vast increase in the flow of communications. As stated in the article, "The telephone and cable companies are estimating the change to be from a limit of 60 or so one-way video/audio channels to one of 500 with limited bidirectionality." As we all know, our government controls most of what we see in the media, they are capable to hear our phone conversations, and even track our internet visits. The idea of the "superhighway" is creating the ability to stream videos to anyone anywhere in "real time." The one thing that stuck out to me the most while reading this article is the question of "Who controls the switches." Poster states in the article that the FBI is insisting on building surveillance mechanisms into the structure of the information "superhighway."
When I read this I immediately thought of the movie Minority Report. In Minority Report in order for John Anderton to escape the very own agency he worked for, he had to have his eyes removed and replaced with others to cover his identity. As eyes were constantly scanned throughout the movie, the government was able to keep track of who was where. This idea of surveillance in the communication "superhighway," in my opinion correlates with the surveillance in the movie Minority Report. Only time will tell when our every move will be watched. With the creation of this technology and if the FBI does build surveillance, we are slowly losing our privacy and government is slowly taking complete control.

Postmodern Virtualities

As Mark Poster was writing his "Postmodern Virtualities" in the 1990's, he definitely saw where technology was going and how fast it was going to affect our society. While learning about the revolution of communication that the mobile phone has done for many different cultures in my International Media class, here it relates to what Poster describes as "the Communication Superhighway". The mobile phone, as well as internet and various other technologies, have been able to not only connect people across the globe, but also give much needed information to different societies. In my International Media class, we learned about mobile phones used in rural parts of Africa as means of acquiring fish sales or other means of their markets. The ability to receive information that fast for those people as changed a lot aspects of their lives. One thing that must be brought to the attention though, is that for places such as rural parts of Africa, their infrastructure is not as stable or a powerful as say ours. Therefore just giving them technology does very little in helping them achieve the kind of technical world in which we all live in today. 

Relating this back to Poster,  he speaks to the dominant class having the means to obtain all the power and material wealth. This reality has been made to strive for the next faster, better, more gadgety way or communicating or accessing information from anywhere. All the while new gadgets are coming out daily, therefore relating it to the movie we watched last year- the Ad and the Ego, you the consumer are not okay if you don't purchase blank. I think we do have to be careful of imposing these ideologies on not only our society but other countries has well. In some cases helping out rural parts of the world by giving them computers and such, does more harm then good by the fact that our new technologies creating ideologies of the elite having the power. 

SW Poster v Benjamin

When I started reading the sub-heading of “Reality Problematized” I made a direct connection between Poster and Benjamin. Poster suggests the idea of “duplication” on page 539. Now if we parallel this idea along with virtual reality and the Aura, then consider Google Map. There are many cities, our very own Winter Park for example, in which you can “walk” down the streets (Street View), looking in every direction and see real buildings, cars, even people. While these people do not move in real time, Google Map is a duplication of earth. So I relate this to Benjamin because there is a loss of Aura by using this. I could “walk” up and down the streets of Manhattan using Google Maps, but there is no way I could claim to have been there.

Picture courtesy of Google Maps http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl

This made me think of Grand Theft Auto ( I don’t know which one) but my boyfriend has been to New York and it is so funny to hear him say, oh I know what road this is, or this restaurant/club/hotel/theater is on this street while we play the game (more like he plays and I watch cause I can never get the damn car to drive straight!), but even though we know it is not real, it duplicates-copies the original—in a way that one day technology could perhaps make seem real (virtual reality).

Another way to think about virtual reality is the Nintendo Wii. I often hear my parents talking to friend about going bowling or playing tennis, yet they really just stand in front of the t.v. swinging their arms and mocking one another after a bad play. Wasn’t there a time when you went outside to play baseball?

I agree technology is great, but we need to be careful about what we lose by promoting this idea of bigger, better, faster…..

Picture courtesy of Google Maps http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl

"Scarlett Wishes"

Material aspects of society and the economy crisis

What caught my attention in the reading for this week was a long statement Marx and Engels made on page 39. They stated "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas; ie the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force... the class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it" (39). I found this interesting because in American society the dominant social classes ie the upper class have all the material means and status. Therefore, the dominant class dictates the perspectives of our culture. Therefore, they are having control over the mental production of others. The social hierarchy sets this up in our society and it is seen all over the media. Expensive cars, clothes, houses etc. Anything that represents status and wealth. Since the higher social classes has the power in the material aspects of society. And,the media knows this and uses all this and tries to exemplify it as the American dream. In conclusion, I think these economists conclude that those who aren't in control ie. the lower classes are disposed to all the materialism that this culture represents and encompasses. And since they don't have any control over any power in society they are absorbed by all the ruling ideas and mental production of the high social classes in this society. All and all I thought this was interesting especially since worldwide we are in a economic crisis and now hardly anyone has any control over the ruling material force of societies since the world economy is at an all time low. Economists suggest since home values have decreased substantially over the last twelve months that people are spending less money on material goods. As a result, the stock market is going down because companies are not making as much money because people are not spending money in this economy. And, now our society is in a recession since people are not spending money. Only today economists suggest that we are in deed in a recession. Everyone is being affected by this and losing money. At some point , the economy will level and increase when people feel more comfortable and secure spending their dollars on goods and services. Then, the stock market will go up once the flow of spending increases. When households increase their spending that will boost the economy and stock market. This will happen slowly and will likely take six months to eighteen months occur. Our federal reserve chairman spoke today to an economic group in New York stating it will take time for the economy to grow again and positive results will occur. Hopefully sooner than later.

Poster

While reading “Postmodern Virtualities” by Mark Poster I found his emphasize on the communications “superhighway” pretty interesting. “Information superhighways are being constructed that will enable a vast increase in the flow of communications” (535). In postmodern culture, we are constantly building our abilities to communicate by inventing new technologies that permit greater and more diverse communication. Poster begins by commenting on the single use of a telephone as a great invention in 1876 and then moves to the postmodern equivalent of the telephone, the internet. Then he gets into the concept of the media conglomerate that is taking over the means of communicating by merging different technological advances. “…the new technology will force the merger of television, telecommunications, computers, consumer electronics, publishing and information services into a single interaction information industry” (1993: 52-3) (536). A recent example of this is Microsoft’s construction called, “Microsoft Surface.” The concept behind this is that Microsoft takes the modern concept of a computer and connects it with two other communication mediums such as the cellular phone and the digital camera. Microsoft has invented a type of communication technology that takes three communication devices and turns them into one. This, I think, is a great example of what Poster is trying to get at, which is we take the modern ideas and turn them into postmodern through the invention of new communication technologies.

Realism of Reconstruction

In “The City of Robots,” Umberto Eco uses the phrase, “the realism of reconstruction,” to describe places like Disney World and Knotts Berry Farm and how they reconstruct things to look authentic and how they think people going to these places will see them. The best example that I can think of this happening is Epcot at Disney World. In the one theme park guests can visit America, France, Japan, Germany, Mexico, Norway, Italy, China, and Morocco for only the park fee of $60. Why ever travel to any of these places when you can just go to Disney and see all at once? In each “country” guests can sample authentic cuisine, shop for gifts from these places, see the main sites of the country, and interact with locals, or the costumed workers who hail from these countries. A lot of what each country is based on reinforce the stereotypes of these places. For example, if you went to “France” in a few hours you can see the Eifel tower, eat French cuisine, shop for French perfume, and see mimes. This creates the idea for some people that since Disney gives us these things, there must be nothing else to know or see in France? Eco says that “once the total fake is admitted, in order to be enjoyed it must seem totally real.” What I have to question to Disney is that they run a theme park whose majority guests are young and do not know the difference that these places are fake, and they reinforce the stereotypes of these countries for them. The idea that what they see in Epcot is really how this country is keeps getting perpetuated.

Realism of Reconstruction

In “The City of Robots,” Umberto Eco uses the phrase, “the realism of reconstruction,” to describe places like Disney World and Knotts Berry Farm and how they reconstruct things to look authentic and how they think people going to these places will see them. The best example that I can think of this happening is Epcot at Disney World. In the one theme park guests can visit America, France, Japan, Germany, Mexico, Norway, Italy, China, and Morocco for only the park fee of $60. Why ever travel to any of these places when you can just go to Disney and see all at once? In each “country” guests can sample authentic cuisine, shop for gifts from these places, see the main sites of the country, and interact with locals, or the costumed workers who hail from these countries. A lot of what each country is based on reinforce the stereotypes of these places. For example, if you went to “France” in a few hours you can see the Eifel tower, eat French cuisine, shop for French perfume, and see mimes. This creates the idea for some people that since Disney gives us these things, there must be nothing else to know or see in France? Eco says that “once the total fake is admitted, in order to be enjoyed it must seem totally real.” What I have to question to Disney is that they run a theme park whose majority guests are young and do not know the difference that these places are fake, and they reinforce the stereotypes of these countries for them. The idea that what they see in Epcot is really how this country is keeps getting perpetuated.

Poster and Youtube

It is important to note while discussing Mark Poster’s essay, “Postmodern Virtualities,” that it was written in the mid-nineteen nineties. I found many interesting references to the future (that is currently being enacted), to which we have a much different prospective than the essay.

First, one of the most striking example of the essay’s age was found in a quote from Philip Elmer’s Time article discussing the “forecast” of new media technologies: “The same switches used to send a TV show to your home can also be used to send a video from your home to any other- paving the way for video phones….The same system will allow anybody with a camcorder to distribute videos to the world…” (536). We now can see that although we have the technology for both, one has substantially changed and affected our lifestyles, while the other has yet to become popular.

Through Youtube, home-videos and produced videos can be viewed anywhere through a computer connected to the internet. Anyone has the ability to make a film establishing any opinion and have the potential for international recognition (like the “Obama girl”). Some Youtube home videos have become so popular; they are being broadcast by private television companies. The videos have the ability to be posted from one site to another, furthering their communicative reach.

Also, as expressed later in the essay, the Youtube phenomenon has spread panic through the ranks of produced videos with ownership rights. Television shows and movies that would otherwise require a fee can be viewed on Youtube for free. Even though the web site has tried to establish a way to stop people from pirating and using the copyrighted videos in other formats, they are still available for external use because of the evasiveness of the technology. For instance, one can still copy a movie from Youtube to a DVD in a rather simply process by reformatting the “copy-free” format.

Although the technologies have advanced, the ideas Poster discusses of the governmental v. personal agency remain. The realm of communication as certainly changed, and consequently compounded many of Poster’s ideas of the lines between “realities.”

POMO virtualities?

Poster says, “Virtual communities derive some of their verisimilitude from being treated as if they were plain communities, allowing members to experience communications in cyberspace as if they were embodies social interactions” (543). As soon as I read this line, I thought about the game of World of Warcraft. Although I have never played, I have witnessed others playing and watched the South Park episodes’ critique of it. In the game players become a character in this world and join guilds and go to battles. Each person within the world has a nickname and talks to others using that name. This allows users to dive even further into this virtual community and treat it as real. They actually lose their identity and come up with another. Seemingly, they go through their days with dual identities, and these identities are very real to them. The guilds and battles then become social interactions of their feigned identities. Their character, and by extension themselves, are involved in this world as if it were reality.
Poster continues that, “Just as virtual communities are understood as having the attributes of ‘real’ communities, so ‘real’ communities can be seen to depend on the imaginary: what makes a community vital to its members is their treatment of the communications as meaningful and important” (543). The bottom line then comes down to how the interactions in this community are viewed. Although W.O.W. is a virtual community, its members develop a meaningful and important understanding of it. Its an interesting argument that since virtual communities have real community attributes, real communities would have virtual attributes. I can almost grasp this concept but still am a little confused. I understand that in life our imagination is at work, but I’m not sure if this is the kind of “imaginary” Poster was speaking of. Or at least if this is the imaginary that real communities depend on??? I can see clearly that virtual depends on the knowing of the real and the presentation of the virtual as the real to pass… but it is hard to understand the opposite? Anyone?

Kelsey. Poster.

How can we put value on "realities" and why do we need "real reality"

My point in class today was not whether or not “tainting” reality was bad, our discussion preconceived this in relation to Baudrillard’s successive phases of the image (reflects reality (good), masks and denatures reality (evil), masks the absence of reality (sorcery), no relation to reality (simulacric)). Rather, how can one interpretation of reality be deemed better than another and why does that matter? First, the consideration of a work to “mask and denature reality” is completely arbitrary because, as discussed in previous classes, the notion of reality changes from perspective to perspective.

The “United” film’s goal was most likely to interpret and reflect reality, not mask and denature it. Just because there were elements of “fictional” reality in the film, does not necessarily mean it wants to toy with reality because in the premise of that film, some parts of the reality are never to be known, and the movie does not commit “sorcery” because it announces the “possible” attributes. Technically, the film, as any fictional narrative, could be interpreted at reflecting reality, and be considered “good”. Some may disagree with the film’s notion of reality, but how is the film’s notion any less valid than any of our notions? None of us were on that plane; none of us had a first hand account. How can we say what did and did not occur any more than the film?

My second argument accepts the idea of a higher valued “reality” and asks, why does the value matter? This is similar to the theme of Momento. Why does “real reality” matter? Presumably it would be to live out the “truth”, but we make our own “truth”, so how is this even possible? Is it, as I suggested in class, that we prolong the idea of the real reality for other generations or people who may have no knowledge of it? Why else does “real reality” matter, at least in terms of putting it into our movies, if not to spread its “truth”?

(By notion and interpretation, I am referring to the image of reality)

Perception = Reality

I really enjoyed class on Thursday because it made me think a lot about the things that we all know, or think we know. Closer to the beginning of class we talked about fact, and its place in history. Dr. McClendon talked about how we assume fact based on repetition. That’s how history is created. When an event occurs and the event is repeated on a large scale over a period of time, then it becomes fact, and a place in our history. The interesting thing to me though was when we started to talk about how fact is formed. We began talking about perception, and this really struck me. Perception is how the brain processes an event. 100 people could see the same thing and yet have 100 different perceptions of what actually occurred. Thus, if humans created fact, and the facts that we believe come from human minds and experiences, then fact is based on perception. Fact is the basis of history, thus history is based on perception. This is a pretty large ideal to tackle in my mind.

If all of our history is based on perception, then what are we missing? The worlds history could have occurred far differently from the way we believe it to have been, and this is where the erasure of history comes into play. Certain facts have ended up missing the ‘history train’ when they are undesirable. In class we talked about the way the Germany discusses World War 2, and the way that the U.S. talks about the Japanese containment camps in the western part of the country. The details in world history that could have been missed due to perception or erased by their originator(s), could blow our minds; but we never think of that, at least I don’t. I think it’s an interesting thing to think about, and helps to keep me in perspective about the things that I think I know, and about how much I don’t.

Beauty, Wealth and Power in American Society

I agree with Scarlett on the ideas of beauty, wealth and power are the main ideals people try to attain in contemporary American society. And she poses a good question for each of these ideas. What is beauty, wealth and power? Beauty has definitely been defined as tall, blonde, and skinny. Any individual with good symmetrical features and who is easy on the eyes. Our society defines what beauty is on a constant basis due to our hyper stimulated media that shoves images of beauty from all directions. Females especially witness it a lot from the media and the definition of beauty is always changing due to a new tv/ movie star and then what’s considered beautiful and sexy is altered.

In addition, I think power is defined as having the ability to possess certain things and do whatever he/ she wants. Also, power is seen as having the ability to influence others. Power and wealth are equally associated. If an individual possesses wealth then he or she has power to do whatever since money allows for luxurious freedoms.
I agree with Scarlett when she says “Wealth I think is too often thought of as a direct link to happiness, as well as material possessions”. In our capitalistic society our media conveys the message to individuals that money buys happiness and this is a direct result from our heavily influenced advertising which everyone encounters on a daily basis in the United States. I often hear from my peers “I need some retail therapy since I am upset”. Or, “I just want that new Audi or Range Rover” and I will be happier if I get a new car. It’s interesting because as a consumer in this society I am encouraged as well as everyone else to buy, buy and buy. The media is extremely manipulative in that sense because people are influenced to spend money simply by the TV, internet, advertising and all other media outlets which reach millions everyday. We are told to be beautiful, powerful, and wealthy. And, these ideals are seen everywhere in America. And we are often told we acquire find love and happiness as well. And love and happiness are achieved by consumerism which is what our society tells us. So, Scarlett is completely right when she says the idea of bigger, faster, and better will get us in the end since many are trying hard to achieve the ideals of American society. But, I have met a very select few who do not conform to American standards and strive to attain these ideals. But, it’s hard to find in a materialistic society that pushes people to act, look, and be a certain way in society.

Reality or Not?

The class lecture on thursday was quite enlightening and entertaining.  It is always nice to get another individual's opinion and perception especially when dealing with such thought provoking material as Baudrillard.

What I found interesting was when we discussed reality and if the character was able to create a TRUE reality through his writings and pictures.  Simple because he was not able to 100% check his accuracy of the information he was able to obtain, he could not be absolutely certain that they were correct.  He could not be certain that another reality did not exist.  I guess, because "he did not live those realities."  This applies to everyone however, as our past, our world's past, our families past, and any past that we can think of have only been taught to us through writings.  We, ourselves, did not live those realities that effect us, but we believe them to be realities in trust with what has been written down for us.  So if we cannot be certain that the character found his true reality, can we be certain of our own realities?

Further, I found the discussion on Disney World to be quite enlightening.  It has always annoyed me that Disney World has received such criticism.  I understand that it is a highly fantasized world, but as we concluded, nobody would want to visit the REAL world on a family vacation.  The visiting professor summed up the true issue with the Disney world.  He said that he does not believe Disney World has to include everything in their presentation of history, but that they should not blur the reality.  This, I entirely agree with.  If they are attempting to be a credible source for children to learn of their countries history, then they should not fake reality.  They should not glorify events that they add.  The should simply be removed.

Reality is an interesting concept.  Far more complicated than I would have imagined prior to this course.   It seems that even fewer truths exist in this world than I had thought.

Momento Response

When I first watched the movie, Momento, I found it incredibly exciting, but as Professor McClendon stated, extremely thin in plot line. I was fascinated with the flashing images, backwards clockwork, and shifting scenes. However, I was a bit let down by the shallowness of the characters and their additional lack of traits. It was not until this past class discussion that I realized the movie might have deeper implications in the post-modern thought of “creating” fact and ultimately creating reality. (Even after the initial class screening on Tuesday, I was unsure of why D.C. had selected this movie.)

Professor McClendon was very good at relating the movie to the postmodern thought of the unreal as real and vice versa. His example of our differences in the remembrance of history really brought the point home. How do we know that the US is the righteous, greatest nation of them all? Because we have told ourselves these things. We have created the thought of our system of government and democracy as factually being the best. The state-selective versions of history have proved not only to be debate-worthy, but have also shaped international relations and the very shape of the global society. We, as westerners, tell ourselves we have the best way of life, we create that reality. Then, we also try to impose our reality on others, however confrontational the act is, and regardless of the realities of the other countries.

One solid example of this could be our occupancy in Iraq. We feel we know what the best way of life, belief system, and ultimate “reality” is for the Iraqi people. We act as if our knowledge is fact, and is worth living and dying for. As the movie suggests though, people must create their own realities, for that is all we have, and they are the reason to live.

SW Simulacra

I liked having a new prospective in class on Thursday with Professor McClendon.

When he brought up the notion of reality I started to think the reason we have the knowledge we do is because we have accepted it as being real. Sure mathematically there are many things we can prove, but what about things that are less scientific.

The ideas of beauty, power, wealth are often things people strive after in our society. But what is beauty? What is power? What is wealth? We define beauty as a certain look (of course this changes depending on what culture you are surrounded by) be it by to tone of your skin—tan versus pale—color of you hair (blondes have more fun?), eyes, height, weight and so forth. I think power is often thought of being able to get people to do what you want. And wealth I think is too often thought of as a direct link to happiness, as well as material possessions.

When in fact when we look at beauty do you always define a beautiful person based on the ideologies of the society in which you were raised? Every single time? Does a beautiful person have every feature that parallels the ideal beauty? A select few, yes, but this is far from the majority.

Power—it isn’t seen as a good thing, unless you are the one with it. But why is power seen as a bad thing in most cases? Perhaps it is because those in power do not choose to do something positive, or for the good of the people. We are taught that those with power get to make the decisions, and those decisions don’t have to be good.

Wealth. I’m not saying don’t go out and buy your BMW/Mercedes SUV.. okay, don’t buy the SUV.. get a sedan(I am so on the environmental train..)… but why do we have so many people in debt? Facing foreclosure and bankruptcy is all too common in America today. All to keep up with the Jones’? When you are 70 are you really going to look back and say, “I am so glad I drove an expensive car, had all the right clothes, the right house. The right whatever I was told I needed to have in order to be happy? Well if you are like many American’s you will still be working when you are 70. Because instead of investing and padding your bank account you went out and tried to prove to the neighbors that you have money(which you very well may have), and are somehow worthy of their envy. Just because you have money doesn’t mean you need to spend it…. WHAT A CONCEPT!

We are told to be beautiful, to be powerful, to be wealthy. Yet how often are we told to love. To find happiness. Or to sit back and enjoy life? Oh we hear it but by the time we listen it is often to late. The idea of bigger, faster, better—will get us in the end.

None of these things are real. And they are not the hyperreal. Sure they are imagined.. but we can’t have the hyper with the imagined. So having no real, and the imagined leaves us with…? Simulacra. We have constructed this reality we want to believe in.

"Scarlett Wishes"

Reality Through Writing/ Reality Through Imaginary

I thought our guest speaker today did a great job pulling together the themes of “Memento” and our reading. I especially liked how he connected the idea of reality and where we think we got it to how the main character, Leonard, perceives his reality. I thought the guest speaker put a lot of emphasis on writing and the process of putting things down on paper and then trying to determine fact from fiction and having that become the reality. For example, we talked about how Leonard obtained meaning from the pictures he took by writing something about them below to the image. We linked his process of writing meaning down to our society’s process of writing meaning down. We have been writing things down for years. From laws to historical events to scientific data, we base our reality on these writings. I also found it interesting when we discussed Baudrillard’s theory on page 454 which talks about how we find our real through the imaginary. His whole construction of this idea is based on that binary we talked about and that is we have the real and we have the imaginary, without one or the other we have nothing to compare the other against.

Perfect Reality?

I found it difficult to agree with Eco's statement that, "Disney is more hyperrealistic the wax museum" (202). He explains that this is, "because the latter still tries to make us believe that what we are seeing reproduces reality absolutely, whereas Disneyland makes it clear that within its magic enclosure it is fantasy that is absolutely reproduced"(202).  I see what he is saying because some of the things inside Disney cannot be found in real life, and so cannot be reproduced since they are only an imagination. According to Eco an imagination or fantasy can be produced perfectly. However, not everything in Disneyland is meant to be purely fantasy. Eco uses the example himself of Disney's reproductions of presidents. I don't see how Animatronics of the past presidents are any different that wax-sculptures of them. And just because these moving sculptures are more realistic than any still sculpture, it is possible that Disney's characters could become even more realistic. I don't believe that "it [animatronics] demonstrates all it's miraculous efficacy. Humans could not do better" (204). If actors would not make a difference, then how would anyone know that these characters weren't real? My point is that Disney does create perfect images of fantasy, but how could animated statues be more realistic than actors, such as those Eco explained from Berry Farm?

"THE APEX OF FANTASY"

The hospitality business is an indispensable industry in the United States, with most of its success dependent upon Disney. In specific, I would to like comment on one quote by Umberto Eco, who talks about Disney Land in his piece. He states on page 204: “The Pirates and the Ghosts sum up all Disneyland, at least from the point of view of our trip, because they transform the whole city into an immense robot, the final realization eighteenth-century mechanics who gave life to the Winter of Nechael and the chess playing Turk of Baron von Kempelen.”
Disney’s popularity and fortune in the theme park business comes from the company’s ability to attract masses of people through their use of electronic robots that help define the mystical experience these visitors encounter. Here, people go to escape, to be taken from their everyday lives and problems. This magical journey has all been made possible through the Auto-Animatronic technique used in creating the illusion. In this transcendence, Disney has been able to transform fantasy into a world beyond reality with these “masterpieces of electronics” (Eco, 203).

Disney's Power

"Children's comics are devised by adults, whose work is determined and justified by their idea of what a child is or should be" (125).

"Thus, adults create for a childhood embodying their own angelical aspirations, which offer consolation, hope and a guarantee themselves of a "better," but unchanging, future" (126)

Several quotes like these caught my attention throughout this piece.  Disney, and any other company catering to children, are created by adults.  The ideals they project are those projected by adults, the products the make are thought of by adults.  The messages sent, and those that adults deemed appropriate.  In today's society, in any society, even in the past, adults have held out to be morally superior to minors.  If this ideal is correct,  then their creations, both mentally and physically, should be deemed appropriate and acceptable.

Essentially, Disney is intending no harm upon those it reaches, which is nearly every soul on this or any other possible planet.  Its only dream is to create an idealized version of the past, and a picture perfect hope for the future.  They want us to see the good and the positive that have happened, and to dream of the amazing things that we can and will do.  Disney wants to inspire its youth and its old, and inspiration starts with positivity.

So what if Disney neglects the negative aspects, or decides to portray them through happier cartoon animals.  We would be nowhere if we dwelled on the past instead of focusing on how to change the future.  If we did not relay knowledge and important messages to children through manners of interest to them, perhaps animals, then what would we be doing for their own positive growth and more widely, for the growth of out world?  I think that Disney allows one more tool of communication between the adult and the juvenile world, and that alone is something incredibly positive.

9/30 classic/modern

I think an interesting quote we discussed was Habermas' notion that "a modern work becomes a classic because it has once been authentically modern" (99). My understanding of this led me to think that something has to be noticeable and have an impact to be remembered. Usually, to do this, it must be modern (on the cutting edge/new/etc.). Once it has made an impact, it becomes worthy of remembrance. When The Strokes released their debut album in 2001, everyone thought they were doing something new, they were the reinventors or rock, and they sparked a new musical awakening. For this, everyone since has been compared to them. Just as they are compared to The Velvet Underground. In this, they become classic (or will), because they are remembered for their distinction and ingenuity. Also, we talked about what has happened to culture and who is in control of it. Feeding off of The Strokes some more, they say “Whose culture is this and does anybody know?” They recognize like others that we don’t really control this culture. Higher powers impose a certain culture which we conform too. They sell culture to us.
I also think Habermas' statement that "the idea of being modern changed with the belief, inspired by modern science, in the infinite progress of knowledge and in the infinite advance towards social and moral betterment" is alluring (99). I always think the idea of "infinite progress of knowledge" is great. I would never question that our society has an increase in data/information/etc, but certain knowledge has been lost. So how do we account for this? Orr in "What Is Education For" would argue that we lose knowledge of our land and the knowledge we think we have has unplanned consequences and does not guarantee decency.

Kelsey. 9/30.
The Strokes. Whatever Happened?
Orr. "What Is Education For?"

zizek!

I'm tired of my blogs getting deleted. Microsoft has even turned on me!

When Zizek compared and contrasted the images that bombarded us after 9/11 and those that bombarded us after natrual disasters/horrendous events in third world countries, it made me think seriously. Media never shows gruesome images from 9/11 or other natural disasters in the US, but is all over those occuring elsewhere. We tend to respect the dead and their families; We don't want to plaster images all over TV. However, why don't we have the same respect for those of other countries? And I think it is a little bit of "well, no one HERE is going to know those THERE," but it also completely animalizes the others. They become things instead of people and we remove ourselves from their situation. There is a song by Kimya Dawson where she sings, "we'd have 12/26 tattoed across our foreheads if something this atrocious happened on our coast instead. well, a tragedy's a tragedy no matter where it happens." We have publicized 9/11 and everyone keeps reminding us to REMEMBER.. we as Americans have some highly selective memories.
Another interesting point is when he talks about how on 9/11 "it is not that reality entered our image: the image entered and shattered our reality." We have seen atrocious and gruesome images similar to those of the WTC's collapse, but it was always outside our reality. We have these images and something similar to them happened to play out and reconstruct our reality. I think it is interesting that he says we should have thought, "Where have we already seen the same thing over and over again?" Its not that we can't imagine such an attack its just that these images (for us) live outside of what we think will actually occur. They are the work of television and movies, not the work of actuality.

Kelsey. Zizek.
Kimya Dawson. "12/26." Remember That I Love You.

vegas

At the beginning of his article Eco talks about Las Vegas, and its purpose as a city. He claims that it is indeed a real city, though it may have been created for other reasons. He goes on to note that it is a changing city; moving parallel with its gambling and entertainment heritage, its sprouting a residential, and business community as well. This growth and expansion therefore makes it absent from the list of “absolutely fake cities”. Now, had I have not traveled to Las Vegas this summer, I would probably disagree with that statement, however I have a different take on it now that I’ve been. On the Sunday morning when the only thing I wanted to do was crawl into bed and sleep for days, I found myself sitting next to a man on the plane who actually lives in Las Vegas. When he said that, I was astounded. “How could you possibly live here” I said, and he replied, “the part of the city you were in is the fake part, there’s another part of Las Vegas that outsiders don’t ever see”. So taking this experience into context and relating it to Eco’s work and descriptions of ‘fake cities’, I would have to say that he may have missed the point in Las Vegas. There is EVERYTHING fake about the strip, in fact most things that people think are real aren’t, the only measurable thing could the be emotion, but that is getting away from the point. It’s a perfect example of consumerism throwing a vail on democracy. Marx would love Vegas….

Reconstucted Truth

In the Reading City of Robots a particular quote stuck me more than others. "Disneyland tells us that technology can give us more reality than nature can."
It recreates a reality in which amuse people. Such as animals that can be found in particular places. You will always find that animal at Disney (it may be a constructed robot), but you will not necessarily see that same animal outside of Disney. Disneyland can create a reality in which people want. As it said in the article, Disney is an amusing carousel of fantastic journeys that take the visitor into a fantasy land.
As we know upon entering Disney that it is only a park for amusement, but I believe this article is trying to express that we become so engulfed in our surroundings while visiting, that in a sense it becomes a reality.
This idea of "reconstructed truth," brought up towards the end of the article, reminded me of a cmc200 article where Disney takes the past and reconstructs it so that the bad in our history is left out. Those who have not read this article may find it very interesting, it also illustrates how Disney creates this sense of need for technology. Technology is what has bettered our future and present day.
Disney reconstructs a better reality for its visitors though this idea of technology. Who would not want to visit such a fantasy land.

The City of Robots

Our society has a fascination with virtual reality. We have many parks which display this fascination. One of the main examples used in the reading “The City of Robots” was Disneyland/World. They talked about how much work goes into making this “world” seem like reality. Disney has characters walking around in the streets there, some of which are cowboys who are wearing jeans which look like some of the paying customers, and they will randomly start a gun fight with another cowboy to make it seem more real and exciting for the visitors. There was one quote that struck me in particular because I believed it to be true, “Disneyland not only produces illusion, but-in confessing it-stimulates the desire for it: A real crocodile can be found in the zoo, and as a rule it is dozing or hiding, but Disneyland tells us that faked nature corresponds much more to our daydream demands” (203). Although the realisticness of the surroundings and characters within the scenes in Disney make you feel like you are actually experiencing what is happening, you know in the back of your mind that it is not real. Another important thing that was said in this reading was, “Disneyland tells us that technology can give us more reality than nature can” (203). I believe this quote to be true as well because no one can experience as much as they can when it’s all in one place even if it is fake. There are so many things in life that one wants to experience, or would want to know what it would be like to experience them, and a place like Disney gives you that opportunity, but without all of the risks that come with them. So we are able to have our desires to experience the unknown fulfilled without having the risks that come along with these dangerous adventures.

Hyperstimulated Sensitivity.

One of the phrases that Habermas uses that we discussed in class is the term “hyper stimulated sensitivity.” I really like this phrase because it really does describe how our world today is so faced pace and we are always go, go, go that we never get to actually sit down and really look at our everyday life. I think sensitivity is all of the things we are told to censor, and just not talk about because popular belief tells us not to. Habermas says we are subjected to a “hyper stimulated” sensitivity because in our world the main goal is be authentic, have your own self-experience, but almost do this within limits and with morals. We referred to this in class as being “politically correct.” Being a senior in college now and trying to figure out what to do with my life I see what he is talking about. We are always told to explore our interests and find out what’s best and makes us happy in college, but do it within reason. Find out what kind of job you would want to take, but make sure its something you will be able to support yourself on. Things like these are almost societal standards, or “sensitivity” or the “rational conduct of life.” I believe that Habermas wants us to look at why we have these unspoken rules and if they are necessary.

Critique of Momento

Overall, I found the movie "The Momento" to be interestng, but also a little disturbing. One of the biggest things that I liked about this film was the use of tatoos and words to tell the story, instead of mainly naration. I also liked how the film showed most of the after events, then showed the before. I think this is a huge part of what we study in media studies and also looking at postmodernism. We look at whats given to us now and put that into perspective, then we have to study and watch what happens before to lead up to that idea. One of the best ways that this film was done to show this was the cinematography and it seems like they changed the colors from black and white for the present to colors to tell the story in the past. This movie really shows how to look at signs, pictures, words, and symbols and question everything. A lot of the plot is very unexpected, and you have to watch every detail from the begining to really get its meaning. Overall, I though it was a good film.