Benjamin 29

“The greater the decrease in the social significance of an art form, the sharper the distinction between criticism and enjoyment by the public. The conventional is uncritically enjoyed, and the truly new is criticized with aversion.” (Benjamin 29)

We never got to talk about this quote in class last week, and I wanted to touch on it because this idea came up in another class I had last week. Photography is a fairly new form of art that came about in the seventies. Photography was around long before that, however it was never really used, or perhaps accepted as an art form until then. Renaissance paintings are “uncritically enjoyed” because they were created by people we revere and consider masters of art. Art in this form is considered conventional. “The truly new [form of art; photography] was criticized with aversion” probably mainly because it was seen as something that anybody can do. Essentially anybody can take some snapshots and call them art, yet it is not solely the photograph that is the art. It is the vision and the creativity that went into taking said photo that makes it something that cannot be reproduced by another. A similar photograph can be taken, but never the same one. The image that appears through the lens can be duplicated, but what lies in capturing the image cannot.

On a similar note, going back to Benjamin’s idea of the original, in order to take a photograph one must look through the camera lens, (then depending on whether the camera is digital or not) take the negative and produce an image on paper. This is the third step in making a print. Depending on how that print is developed the end result will be a photo resembling what you originally saw through the lens. The print may be over developed, or underdeveloped, or otherwise altered at the time it was taken. So by the end of this process is your print really what was originally seen through the lens? Now if the photograph was taken digitally, that opens up a whole new box of options one can use to alter an image. My point is that to end up with a print the original scene has been altered and reproduced, so how can you end up with something that is original? I think maybe it is the idea that is what is original.

I know that Benjamin was refereeing to film here, but I thought that this still applies to photography…

Idea of Our Fantasy Becomming Reality

I found the readings in “A critical and Cultural Theory Reader” to be quite eye opening. The whole concept of, “where have we seen this before” held such power that it seriously made you think back and look at everything the media has thrown at as for the past ten years or so. Undeniably I think we can all say what a tragedy the attacks of 9/11 were, however, when this reading starting talking about the horrible images we saw on the television after the terrorist attack and linking those images with ones we have already seen it is then when I started to see the faults in our the idealism of our society. I remember looking at the images on the television on 9/11 and watching the debris fall from the buildings and contemplate the idea of whether or not they were people. The newscasters went on for hours talking about how every other second, bodies would hit the bottom of the ground, however, we were never actually seen these images. Yet then we get to see the images of the people of third world countries dying of starvation and those who have been victims of rape in multiple commercials asking for our help and our money. The whole idea/concept of reality was really made clear to me in this point. We see the images of those dying and do not fully become involved because it is unreal to us. The majority of us are not surrounded by people dying of starvation and those constantly being raped so we do not see this as being real. “Is this not yet further proof of how, even in this tragic moment, the distance which separates Us from Them, from their reality, is maintained: the real horror happens there, not here?”(232). And even with that idea, I now get the feeling that the horror, if any will happen in a major political city, not in Winter Park, Florida, yet this is the exact thinking in which got us and our media into trouble in the first place. The reading goes on to address how we had movies, like Independence Day and others that relate to the category of fantasy yet we’re shocked when something so catastrophic actually happens to us? I thought the question at the end of this reading was extremely significant, “Where have we already seen the same thing over and over again?” (234). this question ties in completely to what we have been discussing about the modern and the postmodern. Our culture is continually growing upon images or ideas or concepts that have already happened, they are simply being altered a bit to seem unique.

Covers

I started thinking about authenticity, and the Original and since we have been talking about mash-up I immediatly thought about song covers.

I have no problem with covers of songs. I am a huge oldies fan, and I love the upbeat and new take on the classic. My problem with covers is when people copy a classic... and some people don't know that its a cover. We credit these artists, in some cases, as being the creator.

The example I will use is "Can't Help Falling in Love." The song was written by George Weiss, Hugo Peretti and Luigi Creatore and was rewritten for Elvis in 1961.

Fast forward to 1993 and UB40 covered the song.

Then in 2003 Disney released "Lilo and Stich." Which had the Europop group A*Teens cover the song.

In 2007 America's Got Talent challenged competitor Cas Haley to sing the song.

While there have been many more covers of this song as well as covers of other songs do you think that in order to fully understand and appreciate the song that you must know the history?

I mean I think that many of the children watching "Lilo and Stitch," didn't say "Hey that is the A*Teens covering an Elvis song!"

Response to Thursday

During Thursday's class discussion there were words brought up that I went back home and looked up, to further my understanding. To help others in the class out as well I would like to post what I read about these particular words.
Kitsch was the first word I looked up. According to Wikipedia, "Kitsch /kɪtʃ/ is a term of German or Yiddish origin that has been used to categorize art that is considered an inferior, tasteless copy of an existing style." It also explained that "because the word was brought into use as a response to a large amount of art in the 19th century where the aesthetic of art work was associated with a sense of exaggerated sentimentality or melodrama, kitsch is most closely associated with art that is sentimental; however, it can be used to refer to any type of art that is deficient for similar reasons—whether it tries to appear sentimental, glamorous, theatrical, or creative, kitsch is said to be a gesture imitative of the superficial appearances of art. It is often said that kitsch relies on merely repeating convention and formula, lacking the sense of creativity and originality displayed in genuine art."
Another word, I do understand but wanted to get a clear definition of was Nostalgia. Wikipedia describes it as a longing for the past in often idealized form. A type of "homesickness" or a form of melancholy.
The last word I wanted to become more acquainted with is Bricolage. This word has a slightly different meaning dependent on what we are talking about, such as music, art, academics, technology, ect. In art, bricolage is a technique where works are constructed from various materials available or on hand, and is seen as a characteristic of postmodern works. In class we described it as a notion of bringing together different things, such as a collage.
In order to have a better understanding of what we go over in class I find it helpful to come home and look up these words we discuss in class. Although we come up with a definition in class, it helps to look it up and find out the background or a clear definition on your own time.

Music to Fill "The Gap"

In every class so far this essence of the gap has been brought up in conversation. I thought the idea we talked about the other day was quite intriguing. The idea that we choose art to fill in the gap that exists between the experiences we have is a concept that I feel truly relates to the modern and postmodern culture. I viewed our discussion the other day as something that we can all relate to. For instance, art in the form of music is a way to heal a person with a broken heart. The time period between the initial break up and the time it takes until the person meets someone new can be filled with the musical form of art and be used to heal the rough experience. It connects to modern and postmodern culture because we have been using music to fill the gap for years. Also the concept of music is a timeless form of art that can be heard and replayed and copied and changed to create some new form of music, which ultimately could fall under the category of postmodernism. In the quote, “Artists and writers need to be assigned the task of healing the community” I feel that in our culture and our world, everyone is assigned a task to do something. And through the feelings of finding our passion we continue to contribute to the postmodern and modern culture.

Classic Ties

In the Habermas article, Modernity - An incomplete Project there were a couple of quotes that stood out to me. The first one I understood, and then the second caught me off guard. First he says, "a modern work must be classic because it has once been authentically modern." (99) This quote made me realize that being "modern" can happen in many different time periods. people believed they were modern in the 12th century and some people still think they are modern today. I have a question, would McDonald's be modern because it was once the "new", modern restaurant?

Second, I got confused on the paragraph explaining aesthetic modernity. I think I understand that for something to be aesthetically modern, it has to do be "stylish", meaning that it cannot stand the test of time. “[M]odernity live on the experience of rebelling against all that is normative.” (100) I know normative and classic are not the same thing, but isn’t postmodernism non-normal? I feel as though I will not be able to fully understand other topics until I fully understand what is being said here.

purpose v art

In class we talked a bit about purpose, and its relation to art. Does have a purpose? If so can it loose it’s purpose? Does it need a purpose? Fundamentally, I can’t decide if art has a purpose or not. I think it certainly has a means, which can be considered a purpose, however that’s less concrete than an actually goal. Lets say an artists paints cause it makes him or her happy, and a singer sings for the same reasons. Both of these forms can be considered art, but they both have a purpose. On the same token art, in its most basic form, might only be art because its purpose is indefinable, leaving the question open; does art have a purpose. I think, that art can still be considered art, even with a definite purpose. However, then we get into the question of what makes art art? Cause once you get twice or three times removed from the art, the purpose can change and is up for interpretation. So then is it still art? Or is it simply an undefined form? I’m getting confused just writing this so let me clarify a bit. Lets say that art is only art without a purpose. Then the first person to create anything that could be considered an art for (which could really be anything), just did it for the hell of it? Or did they do it expecting something in return? Cause if the first caveman to mark a wall did it expecting to see a mark on the rock when he was done, then it has a purpose. As basic as you can possibly think of art, there is always a result intended or expected, therefore it has a means or a purpose. So….it’s still art? I think so.

Response to Tuesday's class

The quote that struck me the most towards the end of class was "capitalism derealizes familiar objects". This statement matches not only what Benjamin believes the postmodern consists of, but also getting at the roots to better under Lyotard's realism. Especially the quote "the so-called realistic representation can no longer evoke reality except as nostalgia or mockery". To realate it to 9/11, the images that the news played over and over again on 9/11 will always bring us back to the fear that was felt all throughout the world that day, especially for Americans. However, seeing it in repitition, especially years later, creates an illusion and loses the realness it brings to the audiences. We can all agree that we feel patriotic or in Lyotard's words, nostalgia with sympathy remembering those who were lost on that day. As well, as those who have died in the after math of war. But isn't this what our news media does today? It evokes fear in all of us by the use of repitition. The choices made of the imagery shown during a broading is done on purpose to create crisis. By doing so we become glued to it, to this constant state of fear.
This kind of repitition also creates us to not fear the actual event but rather our safety of the future making us even more blinded to our news channels, even though most news is not reality for most people in the world.
But realizing this constant state of fear will enable us to detach ourselves and hopefully put an end to capitalism taking away from realism.

Modernity-An Incomplete Project

"Modernism is dominant but Dead" This quote really stood out to me among the rest. In a sense I actually agree. Prior to this particular quote, the reading stated that Octavio Paz, a fellow traveler of modernity, noted in the 1960's that the avant-garde of 1967 repeated the deeds and gestures of those of the 1917. "We are experiencing the end of the idea of modern art." Isn't it true though, most things that are created as new, are recreations made better (Everything must be better,faster,stronger).
I'm not exactly sure if this would be a viable example, but we do pretty much recycle our fashion. That is not to say you should save clothing for years at a time, because that particular item may not come back in style. It may be an upgraded version of that item your tempted in keeping.
In the reading it asks the question "...Does the existance of post-avant-garde mean there is a transition to that broader phenomenon called postmodernity? Can someone clarify this for me, my idea of the avant-garde is experimentalist. The post-avant garde is said to be chosen to represent the failure of the surrealist rebellion. My idea of surrealist is also experimentalist, or perhaps extremist. But to answer this question I do think the idea of a post-avant garde could potentially mean there was a transition to the phenomenon of postmodernity.
The reading was a bit difficult for me to understand. I am not sure that Habermas is my transition into the idea of postmodernism. I think I was able to understand Benjamin's work and his idea of Postmodernism.

"Modernity- An Incomplete Project"

The reading, Modernity- An Incomplete Project, a specific quote really struck me. I wanted to discuss the quote by Daniel Bell, in his book called The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism. Bell argues that “The crises of the developed societies of the West are to be traced back to a spilt between culture and society… Modernist culture has come to penetrate the values of everyday life; the life-world is infected by modernism… Because of the forces of modernism, the principle of unlimited self-realization, the demand for authentic self experience and the subjectivism of a hyper stimulated sensitivity have come to be dominant”. I agree with him when he says modernist culture has come to penetrate the values of everyday life because everything modern does affect the values of everyday life. Just look at society so materialistic and striving for bigger, faster, and more while incorporating pornography into everything in the media. And, also our culture strives to attain the so called American dream, the notion that working hard guarantees success and with that comes large sums of dollars and prestige. Everything modern especially all the technology has sunk its ways in the values of some Americans. Watch TV and you’ll see distorted values in every TV show. Everything is focused on money, privilege, and sex. Plus, all of our media focuses on wealth and pornography as well. Sex sells and people strive for the American dream. The desire to be wealthy is so extreme in our society and sex grabs everyone's attention. So its no wonder why these two themes are incorporated into our media and have penetrated the values of everyday life.

I also wanted to note on the concept hyper stimulated. Our culture is hyper stimulated. There’s always so much to do, and so much going on. Sometimes I find it difficult to just relax in the day or take a minute to unwind. There are millions upon millions of distractions. All forms of entertainment plus all the stresses of daily life. In European cities people have two to three hour lunch breaks. They sit and enjoy time with family and friends while enjoying elaborate delicious meals accompanied with tasty wine. Whereas in America, most people get an hour lunch break in an entire work day. Modernity ways of living and thinking have become dominant in our culture and have penetrated into the values of everyday life.

"Let ys wage a war on totality" and Stereotypes

After today’s discussion in class regarding stereotypes I began thinking more about Lyotards quote. The quote, “Let us wage a war on totality”, really got my mind going. I’m glad we broke down the quote so we all could get a better grasp on it and understand more about the point Lyotard was trying to convey. We referenced the meaning of this quote to stereotypes in the Winter Park community as well as the Rollins community. The class determined that stereotypes usually route from something and then we set apart breaking down the ones about Rollins, the students, and the community of Winter Park.

The two main stereotypes associated with Rollins. We all have heard the usual one that Rollins is considered a country club and a four year vacation. I’m not going to deny it, our campus is ascetically pleasing, and outrageously beautiful. The amazing Mediterranean architecture surrounded by Spanish moss is extremely good looking. Our campus looks like a resort in the tropics featured inside architectural digest. In fact, the first time my best friend came to visit she told me she felt like she was at a Caribbean resort coming off the beach. Also, college here is by no means a vacation. If it was a four year vacation I would be relaxed all the time. In addition, there are many stereotypes surrounding the Greek life here especially amongst the different sororities and even my sorority Chi Omega.

Moreover, there are also stereotypes regarding the Winter Park community. First, the underlying drug association affiliated with Winter Park was one I heard about when I first got to Rollins a few years back. And, it was brought up again by some older people I know as well asking me if it was true that cocaine regularly floats around the college as well as the community surrounding it. I often hear, “it’s snowing in Winter Park and was fed the information about how the community was established by wealthy north easterners who spend a large portion of their time in doing cocaine.

It’s interesting because sometimes stereotypes aren’t always negative. It can help people or a community in terms of marketing. For instance, Winter Park benefits from the stereotype that it is affluent and attracts many wealthy individuals from the northeast. They are hosting this image of the community and that’s the message they are sending to the outside world. Winter Park wouldn’t be what it is without the expensive shops and upscale restaurants. They choose to package themselves this way. And, it’s a good device in attracting people to the area to spend lots of money. It’s founded on the capitalist idea of trying to sell. It all roots from the notion of branding. Our discussion of stereotypes helped me get a better grasp on Lyotard’s quote and I’m glad we broke it down to a level all of us could relate to.

Does Repetition of Image Derealize? 9/23

The question was brought up in class of whether or not the repetition of images derealize and desensitize them, specifically talking about the medias' constant 9/11 images. Personally I think that repetitive exposure to an image significantly desensitizes one to the reality and meaning of what they are seeing. An incredible mix of emotions overcame me watching the actual live coverage of the second plane crash into the World Trade Center tower. While the day continued on, and more information was divulged, and the coverage was practically on loop on every channel in the country, those images harbored more and more feelings and understanding. Yet, now when they are flashed on screen, my heart doesn't stop, my mouth doesn't gape, the reality of the situation isn't there. If I take the time to think about it, of course some raw emotion can be ignited, but its nowhere near the same as that day. I think a lot about the power of images can be said about the Vietnam War, when the media first displayed the gruesome reality of what was happening to the American public. There were riots. Literally. Overtime, as the media (news and entertainment) has turned this into a norm, it does not shock and awe the public, it is expected. If something that in the past could stop someone dead in their tracks now overtime has become something that is "normal", how can that not be "derealization" (if thats even a word, the red line underneath it says its not?).

"Gorillaz" and post modernity, 9/23

In the beginning of class today, we watched two music videos. One was Kanye West’s “Stronger” and the other was the Gorillaz’s “Feel Good Inc.” D.C. instructed us to look up and analysis the lyrics and determine their costiveness with postmodern thought. However, for the purpose of this post, I would like to discuss how the band “Gorillaz” is based entirely upon postmodern thought, regardless of their lyrics.

Lyotard states in his essay, “Answering the Question: What is Postmodernism?” a particular definition of post moderinity: “The postmodern would be that which… puts forward the unpresentable in presentation itself…” The “Gorillaz” band correlates and in fact embodies this definition. The “Gorillaz” is a virtual band. It is the unreal, and presented through music videos and the production of songs, a part of reality as well.

“Gorillaz” consists of four animated band members; 2D, Murdoc, Noodle, and Russel; that represent a multitude of artists and sounds. The music only has one consistent artistic contributor, Damon Albarn, but it also incorporates a wide variety of various collaborations.

The band integrates the concepts of what is real vs. a real reproduction vs. an authentic band. Is “Gorillaz” considered an entity in and of itself, or is it simply a metaphor for Albarn’s emotional expression? Both ideas can be easily thought of in terms of post modernity. A virtual entity interacting with the general acceptance of real “reality” is a perfect fusion of classical and modern. This dichotomy works in the opposite sense as well. Albarn, a part of “real” reality, translates himself into the virtual “unreality”, and thus is also an example of a classical and modern entanglement.

Is it possible for “Gorillaz” to be authentic, because it is an original reproduction? The answer to that question, like most other, depends on the definitions of the individual words involved, as discussed in previous classes, and also the very definition of reality. With that, I conclude with the question, is it possible to comprehend the postmodern without understanding reality, or is post modernity determined by the real vs. the unreal, as Lyotard somewhat suggests?

Stereotypes and Totality

In class we looked at the question “Let us wage a war on totality,” and applied it to stereotypes that we have from the Rollins community level to further. We established that there are stereotypes that range of everything, or the totality. The question was posed, “are stereotypes negative?” In my opinion I think it is based on your own personal beliefs and then you can categorize people. Unfortunately, people often accept the general stereotype of what they hear from other people to base what they believe a group or a person is. When Leyotard says, “let us wage war,” I believe he is saying let us go against and try to change these beliefs. This would be not categorizing people based on what greek organization they are live, or where they live determining who a person actually is. I believe that there is some truth in certain stereotypes, but it doesn’t necessarily take the meaning for everyone as a whole.

Clearing up reality?

Alright, I'm going to be the third one here to say I'm a bit confused. Before I read the last few posts, what I got out of the piece was that to be Modern, something has to be orderly and unified ("...call for order, a desire for unity...." (40)). So, postmodern, I believe is not orderly, as we have seen in postmodern architecture. By "not following the rules" something can also be postmodern. So this is kinda-sorta what I have gotten out of this.

Then, I came onto here and the latest blog stated, for something to be modern, it has to be postmodern first. I understand it the other way around...for something to be postmodern; it has to pretty much come from being modern. Maybe taking away aspects of the modern this makes it postmodern. Post modernity allows us to fill in gaps...Makes a little sense if what I am thinking here is right.

So, something that is post modern makes reality more clear to us by letting us fill in gaps by ourselves. By doing this, we understand the world around us better because we are solely educated? Am I way off or is this making sense to anyone else?

Lyotard

I read this assignment in the most post-modern way possible. The words turned into a blur that only marginally represented what they were supposed to in my head. I was seeing letters and shapes, not words. Not meaning. Hopefully this was Lyotard's point, to write about post-modernity to the point where it can only be read in a post-modern fashion.

I jest, but I third the motion that this was probably the most difficult reading so far. The quote I'll use is "What, then, is the postmodern? What place does it or does it not occupy in the vertiginous work of the questions hurled at the rules of image and narration? It is undoubtedly a part of the modern."

Modernity and Post-Modernity are binary opposites. However, it seems as though Lyotard is trying to say they are the same. This seemed similar to existential duality to me. The self is defined by two things, what it is and what it is not. We are equally what we are and what we are not. I am me because I am a cyclist and because I am not a quarterback. Me and the quarterback are the same because we are both defined by that one idea - our physical activity. The self is an illusion based on actions.

Post-modernity, it seems, is an illusion created entirely on the basis of modernity. Without the modern, there can be no post-modern. Post-modernity needs the modern in order to exist, and therefor it IS the modern. It is a function of the modern, it is a consequence.

Or maybe this text actually caused me to go crazy and find connections between my own loose understanding of existential theory and post-modernity. :D

Lyotard on Postmodernism

I second Taylor on the confusion.  I even attempted to read portions of the piece aloud on the telephone to my mother hoping that her attempts to grasp the concept would be a bit more successful than mine.  Postmodernism was finally making sense.  Through examples of architecture, to consumer goods, the term was becoming clear to me...until Jean-Francois Lyotard.

He offers a slew of definitions in this article, one important to understanding postmodernism is the term "modern" in itself.  He states "I shall call modern the art which devotes its 'little technical expertise' as Dederot used to say, to present the fact that the unpresentable exists" (43).  He refers to the example of modern painting to draw out the clarity in this definition.  A modern painting is stating a message that is not supposed to be clear to the eye, that one has to dig to find, and that is simply not visible.  Lyotard provides Kants take as something that is formless or something that has an "absence of form" (43).

In attempt to explain what is postmodern, Lyotard informs us that "a work can become modrn only if it is first postmodern" (44).  This concept seems simple enough to grasp as postmodernity is even further forward thinking than modernity itself.  Finally, he states in attempt to give us the clearest definition that he is willing to provide "the postmodern would be that which would make it possible to share collectively the nostalgia for the unattainable; that which denies itself the solace of good forms, the consensus of a taste which would make it possible to share collectively the nostalgia for the unattainable; that which searches for new presentations, not in order to enjoy them but in order to impart a stronger sense of the unpresentable" (46).

From the last quote, I gather that the distinct difference between what is modern and what is postmodern, according to Jean-Francois Lyotard is the deep sentiment that which is postmodern is capable of evoking.  Modernity brings in new ideas, but postmodernity has the power to bring in a profound passion and bond to the work.

SO confused!!

“Modernity, in whatever age it appears, cannot exist without a shattering of belief and without discovery of the ‘lack of reality’ of reality, together with the invention of other realities” (43). Now what the hell does that even mean. I am confused when he says there must be a shattered belief because in the passage earlier it says, “…the rule that there is no reality unless testified by a consensus between partners over a certain knowledge and certain commitments” (42). So does that not contradict his whole idea of the shattering belief?

“What doe this ‘lack of reality’ signify if one tries to free it from a narrowly historicized interpretation?” (43). My reaction to this statement is that there is a reality we are all trying to grasp from past experiences yet we can not define it and still we try to build and create more and more interpretations of the past and call it reality.

Then he talks about how we have no rules which helps us have experiences which helps us define whatever ideas we have so that we can formulate an the concept of postmodernity. But then we do not have “…the capacity to show an example” (43). So this relates to the “idea of the simple (that which cannot be broken down decomposed” (43). But we cannot present these ideas so there goes that tangent. And finally it then goes back to the concept that experience does not relate to reality? I am so confused. I did not understand this reading whatsoever.

SW Lyotard Inventing Reality

I was (I think) understanding Lyotard until page 43. “Modernity, in whatever age it appears, cannot exist without a shattering of belief and without discovery of the ‘lack of reality’ of reality, together with the invention of other realities.”

So after finishing the paper for a second time I came back to that quote. Trying to understand what exactly it meant. And this is what I came up with.

We don’t really know when we start going through a change such as modernity and post modernity. We don’t wake up one day and say, the modern era is over—onto POMO. It is over time in which we begin to expand and explore transferring society into a new era. Part of learning is knowing that you don’t know. The use of the word shattering was pretty interesting to me. I took it to mean something epic had to be discovered; something like discovering that the world was not the center of the universe or the world is not flat. And since at a time, we believed this to be our reality, at some point we came to learn it was not. And then Lyotard uses “invention.” I am confused by this still because to me invention means creating and how are we to create our own realities? I see realities and things that just are. We didn’t invent the sun rising or setting. It just happens and that is our reality.

So if anyone understood this differently/ better than I, I would appreciate your take. J

“Scarlett Wishes”

When the New Was New...

One of the biggest things that really stuck out to me about Lyotard's article was his questioning of how artists, experimenters, ect are questioned by authority and by society when they create something that is completely new. He says there is, "an identical call for order, a desire for unity, for identification, for security, or popularity." This makes me think about all the "new," but now old, ideas, inventions that have been introduced and were first rejected, but they eventually changed our society for the better. Over time we adapt these things into our culture and eventually they possibly become the postmodern. Lyotard uses the phrases "nostalgic" and the "missing contents" to describe the postmodern. I like this terminology because it shows that something that is postmodern is something from the past and its just changed from its first form.

sublime

I though this reading was more about honoring the avant-garde than explaining modernism and postmodernism. Lyotard talks about the difference between artists that follow the rules, "Those who refuse to reexamine the rules of are pursue successful careers in mass conformism by communicating, by  means of the 'correct rules'," and those who don't, "As for the artists who question the rules... they are destined to have little credibility in the eyes of those concerned with 'reality' and 'identity'" (41). It is clear that Lyotard respects these artists that are not afraid of the avant-garde, because those who question the rules, "have no guarantee of an audience" (41). Lyotard uses the word sublime frequently in this essay. The term comes from the aesthetic pleasure one gets from seeing something strange and different. He describes it as, "a strong and equivocal emotion: it carries with it both pleasure and pain. Better still, in it pleasure derives from pain" (43). Aesthetic, for him, is not "that of the beautiful" it is more the pleasure of experiencing something new (44). Lyotard uses this term sublime, to differentiate modernism from postmodernism. The difference has to do with nostalgia and the pleasure and pain that comes from viewing something postmodern as opposed to modernism which has a set of preestasblished rules. This whole concept is very difficult to grasp but i think understanding Lyotard's "sublime" helps explain modernism and postmodernism. 

Cont'd..

Just realized that only half of my blog got posted...I didn't mean to end with pieces created now will eventually all be antiques. However, this time period that we are in now will eventually hold it's own realm of antiques as time passes. 

This can be related to the production of art, in terms of an original piece of art these days, it seems to be extreme or often thought of as abstract. This is so, in my opinion, because in terms of creating something completely new, it just almost virtually impossible. Therefore, by either reproducing something or using extreme materials, artists must find new ways to express themselves. So, just like with the mash-ups, new songs are being created with already created songs to have an almost abstract new piece. 

Concept of Originality

In CMC 200 on thursday, the class discussion was the mash-up culture. As I am sure everyone remembers this from CMC 200, the question of originality and art came into the arguments. Naturally, those who had CMC 300 right after had Benjamin and the question of reproduction on mind. Taylor brought us the quote that Hope talked about her blog; "The presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity". In my opinion, understanding this quote opens the door to understanding Benjamin's theories of the postmodern world. In terms of mash-ups, which is a song created with snippets of many other songs. Some argue it is not an original piece of music because the creator has taken another artist's work. However, just like the reproduction of a famous piece of art, something new has been created. So the prerequisite has already been created, and there lies the concept of authenticity with the newly created piece of work. 

Also, as I was looking for more information on Walter Benjamin, I came across an interesting fact that I thought I would share. After Walter's father ended his career in the banking world in Paris, he later become an antique dealer in Berlin. I thought this was significant with his ideas on antiques. Obviously, in today's world everything is made for speed and the "now". However, as time passes pieces created now will eventually be made into antiques. 

The "Unarmed" Eye

Ben and I were given a quote on Thursday which talked about the idea of a person creating something and then how another person may interpret that creation. There is this idea that no one will never know what a creator meant while coming up with their product, so to speak. This makes sense because no one is inside that person’s head. Ben and I came up with the idea that the “unarmed” eye views something such as a picture or writing, differently from the original person who created it and the original idea of that person. This is comparable to the regular public viewing advertisements in magazines. They are meant to sell clothes or a certain product, however there are underlying meanings in these photos which reinforce the hegemonic views that our society holds. Some of these views consist of male domination over females and how having money to buy designer products is important in order to have a higher social status. Not all people would choose to look at an advertisement this way, however being trained through the CMC major to analyze these things, it is hard for me not too. Now whenever I read a magazine or am watching TV all I notice are these underlying meanings in every advertisement that I see. The advertiser may not intentionally mean for these thoughts to come about because these values are so strong in our society, but they are there.

McDonalds, "Antiques made to order", and Teamwork

The first idea we generated Thursday's class was the business of McDonald's. I think everyone made valid points concerning the idea affiliated with it and the how others perceive it. I think McDonald's, is a good business. The business itself has survived in the face of competition, ie Burger King and Wendy's and so many other fast food franchises that have tried to re-create the idea of McDonald's but have not succeeded in overtaking McDonald's at all. And, McDonald's is still the dominant, most successful fast food business. However, I have noticed and experienced the stigma attached with this business overseas in Munich, Germany last summer.
I was walking around the city with my friends and some Germans passed us, laughed and said McDonald's. Experiencing that I realized, but already knew, how America is associated with McDonald's and not in a positive way. It's been the signature of our country for a long time. It has such negative connotations affiliated with America so I wasn't surprised or shocked when I heard the Germans mocking us to our faces. Our country feeds on desire and indulgence which is taken over with consumerism. This idea is apparent amongst those from other countries because it is highly emphasized in our media. America is such an over indulgent, affluent country and it's known to other cultures. This goes along with with the ideas I discussed in my first Blog, Re-Invention about how America runs on the notion of faster and bigger. Everything is quick, no one in our society wants to wait on anything. Hence, the reason for fast food restaurants, FedEx, Ti-Vo, Iphones along with many other quick fixes and tools. There's very little patience. Consumerism and the idea of quicker both make up the idea of United States.
I also wanted to comment on the quotes that every group discussed and evaluated. The first quote, "Antiques made to order" generated an interesting argument. I interpreted it as antiques can't be reproduced but in modern times anything can be reproduced. And, how everything in our society is mass produced but not antiques. However, my ideas were quickly shut down. The class decided that yes antiques can be reproduced and just because they are old doesn't mean more of a product cannot be found in other stores.
I really enjoyed working with groups and hearing the interpretations. It was a great way to discuss and actively get involved with our reading. Also, teamwork is always a great device. Teamwork is extremely valuable in business and is a great way to gain new perspectives and generate new ideas concerning advertising, marketing and even sales. Plus, it's always important to get feedback from others on specific topics and run ideas of off others. Two minds are better than one in every scenario. Not one person has all the answers and good ideas. Teamwork in business, school or anything else is definitely found on the road to success and is something that is not emphasized or practiced enough in college.

Authenticity

As Lindsey and I were discussing the two quotes that we had from the book, we talked a bit about distance, and its relevance to authenticity. Our point was that the further something is from the original, measured by reproduction, yields less authenticity. A good example would be art, so lets use the Mona Lisa. The original Mona Lisa is authentic. And professionally painted interpretations and copies can also be authentic in their own right, but in respect to the regional they loose some authenticity. When you move into prints and posters, the only authenticity that these pieces have is what they represent (an idea that was once original and is authentic), however they in themselves are not authentic. The further away that you move through reproduction from the original, the less and less authenticity any piece can claim. You can get an authentic printed baseball with a print of Babe Ruth’s signature and it may be called authentic, but it only gets that title due to the signature. No other part of the ball, in fact no part of the ball is authentic, it just has a connection to something that IS authentic.

Another thing that I found interesting about our discussion in class what when we talked about antiques, and I think that this plays in really well with this idea of distance. Just because something is antique doesn’t mean that it’s original, it just normally means that it’s old. This does however, generally yield a greater amount of authenticity to things that are antiques. An antique is simply a word that we use to describe things that are old, or timeless, but is often interchanged with original as the same thing.

"Antiques made to Order"

One of the first quotes we dissected in class on Thursday was, "Antiques made to Order".  I thought it was such a simple quote, thinking "Antique's can't be made to order". Antiques are old, if you make them now that defeats the purpose. I can't remember who said it in class, but It could make sense that this quote meant that they are creating what will be antiques and your very own. I guess its true when we are old and can't walk anymore what is new to us now will eventually be antique. That is a funny concept in itself, that means new technology such as ipods will eventually be antique. I asked my boyfriend what he thought about this quote, and immediately responds with "That's dumb, antique's can't be made to order". 

     The whole point of this simple quote and my blog is to say, everyone seems to dissect text in a different manner. We all have our own thought processes, some may agree with others. While looking at these quotes in class on Thursday paired in different groups, I realized that often the groups had different ideas on what that particular quote meant. There were instances where we agreed, but I found it interesting how everyone looked at the same quote and came up with different meanings. We all eventually came together agreeing on one true meaning.

     I really enjoyed Thursday's class and I feel that dissecting the quotes helped me better understand Benjamin and his concepts and ideas. 

What is Postmodernism according to Lyotard?

In “Answering the Question: What Is Postmodernism?” Jean-Francois Lyotard discusses the conceptualuality and reality of post modernity. At the apex of his essay, Lyotard states, “The postmodern would be that which, in the modern, puts forward the unpresentable in presentation itself…” (46). He theorizes postmodernism to be a part of the modern. Instead of thinking of postmodernism in the chorological time sense, Lyotard thinks under the condition of the “future past” or what “will have been done”.

His interpretation of post modernity relies entirely on the representation of how the unrepresentable lack the ability to be represented. Lyotard lists three examples of the unrepresentable. The first is that of the world (in its entirety), the second the simple, and the third the infinite. He discusses how we have the ability to conceptualize and image these concepts as possibilities, but lack the ability to physically prove and contrive a definite example. Because we cannot represent these concepts accurately, Lyotard describes the ability to display the concepts as definable yet indefinable, reality yet not, as Postmodernism.

As I read through his examples, I wallowed on the thought of simplicity. We use the term simple very often in normal discourse, but what do we mean by “simple”? Certainly, we do not use it as defined by Lyotard. Something can always be broken into smaller pieces. Even the atom, which is derived from the Latin term “atomus” meaning undivided, can be broken down into smaller parts. Even their smaller parts, the electron and the proton can be broken into smaller parts. Theoretically, those smaller parts have the possibility of being further divided. We can conceptualize this “simplicity” but not fully grasp it, for we cannot give a definite example.

I came away from the reading with the understanding that postmodernism is the grasping of the things we cannot find definite examples for. However, I am still in preponderance of what can non-ambiguously be considered Post-modernism by Lyotard’s definition.

sept. 18th class discussion continuation: singular v. plural "authentic" examples

In class last Thursday, we were asked to analyze quotes from Benjamin. A very interesting quotation brought up was: “The presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity.” We were asked to take apart the sentence, and use intrinsic definitions of words and word phrases to be able to define the quote as a whole. For the purpose of this blog, I have researched the definition of the “concept of authenticity”. I have come to the conclusion using the definitions of Webster’s dictionary and dictionary.com that the term is ubiquitously ambiguous. Even the definitions of “authenticity” and “authentic” must be interpreted, and can consequently be applied to a multitude of situations in a multitude of ways.

The word “concept” is defined as “a general notion or idea” and “an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars; a construct” (dictionary.com). With the thought that a concept is a construction, it can therefore be assumed to have no natural and physical backing, is open to interpretation, and is ultimately a reference to the currently accepted chain of thought. For example, the concept of “righteousness” is continually changing depending on varying moral values. The “concept of authenticity” can be thought of as constantly changing depending on what the accepted definition of authenticity is.

“Authenticity” is defined as “the quality of being authentic or of established authority for truth and correctness” (dictionary.com). To further understand the previously stated definition, a proper meaning of the root word, “authentic” is necessary. According to Webster’s Dictionary, something is “authentic” if it has “a genuine original or authority, in opposition to that which is false, fictitious, counterfeit, or apocryphal; being what it purports to be; genuine; not of doubtful origin; real; as, an authentic paper or register.” According to these combined definitions, for something to be authentic, it must be “a genuine original” as well. According to this thought, Benjamin’s quote can be interpreted as for something to be “authentic” it must have some value of originality as well.

The problem here is how much of a “presence” or how much of the original value must coincide with something to have the ability to withhold the label of “authentic”. In some cases, the popular conception of “authentic” would equivocate with the popular concept of “original”. This mirrors my example of the shroud in class. For the shroud to be considered “authentic”, or for it to have any “truth” associated with it, it must also be the original. This could be because of the shroud’s questionable background, and the fact that the shroud is a singular object, without room for multiplicity.

Another example brought up in class is that of the Rolex. The conception of the Rolex differs from that of the shroud because it is a brand or stamp that can be applied to multiple objects. This example fits well with the interpretation of an “established authority” as “authentic”. The stamp of the Rolex signifies the object (or watch in this case) has the approval of the authority, and thus it has a mark of the “original” and is comparatively, not a counterfeit.

The quote, because of its ties to conception and constructions, can be interpreted in a number of ways. This could be determined on the basis of what is the popular thought of the time. Also, whether or not the object in question is singular in being and must be the original, or can be grouped and signified by the original can determine the interpretation of the quote.

SW Reproduced Art still art?

Class was fantastic on Thursday. It was a great way to figure out what Benjamin was saying. It gave me a chance to work with someone who I hadn’t worked with before. It was nice to talk things through—see where they came from.

This exercise helped me figure out how to attempt to understand some of the heavier readings we have. How to approach a thought and to break it down.

Is reproduced art still art? Can it still hold onto that aura? I think that it can…in certain situations. In my house the family room and living room are full of art. My mom had the pleasure of representing an artist when I was younger. So we have originals, lithographs, screen prints, and prints. I know which are real and which are real copies, but because I have a personal relationship with them, I know the artist, I have lived some of his art, even though I am looking at a print I can feel the celebration in his art.

I have stood at the modern art museum in DC and not been affected by certain “original” paintings. So I think aura is dynamic. Aura for me-- to this day I look back on a ski trip my dad took my best friend and me on in high school during spring break. We went to Whistler, British Columbia, Canada. There is a ski run called 7th Heaven, and the pictures do two things. They remind me of the pure brilliance of snow capped mountains, the feeling of being on top of the world. But when I look at these photos I don’t struggle to find my breath as I did on the run. But I don’t think the aura is absent.

But to me these pieces of art or my photos, even on a computer screen I feel their realness. Perhaps this is because I am connecting it with a feeling and experience versus just as art.

"Scarlett Wishes"

metonymy.

One of my favorite concepts we discussed in class today was that of metonymy. I wasn’t familiar with what this meant, but once examples were given, of course I realized our culture is full of metonymy. We talked about how in Postmodern Society the parts stand in for the whole. Instantly my mind flew to Current TV. If you scroll through the TV guide, they randomly label their shows, since essentially there is no difference from hour to hour (excluding specials). Titles include Slices of Life, Sum of the Parts and Parts of the Sum. Each title hints at multiple ideas. On the surface it’s means all the mini-films by random people come together to create a show, or in this case, network. Then it could also hint at the parts (2D films on screen) standing in for the whole (3D actions in life). Either way, Current TV comes to represent a very Postmodern expression.
Another very interesting concept, which constantly needs to be considered in life, is film as manipulators. We spoke of how film is made by the creator in a certain way. Their cinematic choices shape how we understand the scene. For instance, there are so many films on Africa with dreary and dull colors. (Lindsey and I were actually discussing this today…) We are drawn into this very sad and negative view of the continent. Then, you have “The Water Carriers,” (Yip! Yip! GPFF!) which uses very vivid colors throughout the film, and as a result, we walk away with a more hopeful point of view. The film made me laugh and made me smile! Anyways, we like to feel like we are part of the production of a film, and I think this allows us to take things in more easily, without really critiquing what we are ingesting. So oftentimes even though we could be critic, we just take what is before us and internalize it (or at least I did before CMC got a hold of me).

Kelsey. 9/18.

Authenticity

During class today, discussing authenticity and originality immediately made me consider postmodern architecture as we discussed it in class.  My mind stuck on the form (I am currently off campus without notes) that tries to blend in as if it has always been there.  This new building is made to duplicate past structures in attempt to bring them back aesthetically, but can also be used to remodel a town needing a newer structure to blend in with the old.  In essence, these new postmodern buildings are replications.

What I struggle with is this difference between authenticity and originality.  I understand originality entirely.  Authenticity however, is a struggle.  I have always thought of something authentic as simply something real, perhaps only truly using the term when referring to material goods.  In the case of a design watch or a designer purse, it is clear to understand that authentic is referring to the coveted brand or a "true" object.  Possibly and object truly being what it claims to be.  However, considering other goods, what makes something authentic? As with the tex-mex example, authentic tex-mec would not stray from what we all perceive it to me, although it is not THE original place that started tex-mex.

Now this brings me back to postmodern architecture.  Just because it was not created in the time it wants us to think, is it not authentic.  It may be built out of the same materials, utilize the same trends, and essentially, be the same building only built centuries later.  So is it not authentic?  If before, it made sense that tex-mex could be considered authentic as long as it followed the original guidelines, as long as it was what we perceive tex-mex to be, then is a postmodern structure also authentic if it comes out how it should.

Essentially, I wonder if a recreation be authentic?

authenticity

I had trouble today in class with the difference between original and authentic. The rolex and Tex-Mex examples helped a lot but i still didn't fully understand what made something authentic. And can something be a little authentic but not completely authentic? Original means by definition "that from which a copy, reproduction, or translation is made, or a work composed firsthand." Authentic means "conforming to an original so as to reproduce essential features." So does this mean any replica that conforms to the original is authentic. That would mean that even the Walmart copy of a rolex would be authentic. But the definition also says "made or done in the same way and the original" and "not false or imitation." The first quote makes it seem like a Walmart rolex could be a little authentic because it has the essential features of a rolex, but according to the second quote it cannot be an imitation. I feel like the third quote contradicts the first two because anything that is not an original is some kind of imitation or replica. It seems by this third quote that the only thing that can be authentic besides the original is something that comes with a name. Again using the rolex example, all rolexes are bases on an original design but they are still authentic rolexes. An object then, it seems, must come with a name or a special genuineness in order to be considered authentic. For example a designer bag is always authentic as long as it carries a brand name. A Picasso is always authentic as long as he painted it himself. So a replica can always be authentic as long as it isn't a knock off or imitation.  

(definitions taken from Merriam-Webster online)

Orignality and Postmodernity

The feeling I got from our class discussion today was that the relationship between the original and the reproduction of the original essentially emphasizes the concept behind postmodernism. Like our architecture discussion, buildings and designs are constantly being tweaked to appear original but share common characteristics with buildings that were previously built. Everything had to begin someone and postmodernity is the stage where we continue to build upon the original foundations with more and more details and design factors. Postmodernity is a shift in understanding and culture that allows humanity to continually change overtime yet go back and reflect on old concepts and ideas. For example, Benjamin talked about actors and the differences the actors have from performing on a stage to those actors who perform on screen. Acting began as a fundamental idea of putting people on an elevated platform and entertaining an audience and has conformed to actors putting on a performance with a camera and relaying entertainment to the audience. Film is simply what has evolved over the years from the original theater.

Modern Technology and Third World Countries

I think Aubrey was hitting a really valid point with her modern example in regards to Benjamin’s piece on “The Work of Art”. She stated, “This may be a stretch of a modern example, but it relates to those of us in the U.S and other wealthy countries that have so much access to modern technology… Most people you run into have an iPod, a computer, a flat-screen TV and so on. These luxuries seem to be common to own for all of us…We see them everywhere and so many people have them that it doesn’t seem normal not to own these objects". I couldn’t agree more with Aubrey. America is extremely technologically advanced. Not as much as Japan but we are still the current dominant superpower in the world. Everyone you know popularly has an iPod and other materials goods which are unknown to many cultures. There are so many luxuries that many take for granted everyday. And, here in America we live in a consumer culture that motivates people to buy and continuing buying in order to satisfy desires rather than needs. This generation we are living in is a generation of desire which fuels from advertising, marketing and consumerism. It influences and drives us to indulge.

Moreover, Aubrey’s quote continues and she states, “If you go to a third world country seeing these items like iPods and computers would probably cause people to be in a state of awe” This statement is true and I have seen it firsthand. During the summer going into my senior year of high school my best friend and I lived and worked in Alto Choco, a small poverty stricken village, located in northern Ecuador. My best friend Cary and I along with twenty five others lived in cabins in the mountains. Everyday we would get up at 5 am, trek four miles down to the village and paint and restore the school house and the church. They needed our assistance to paint and restore the school house and church because it was damaged and needed some construction and painting Our other days were spent in the forest macheteing brush and other forestry in order to clear paths for the people of the village to hunt.

The Ecuadorians didn’t have TVs, or iPods, or cars. There was city bus that came every four hours or so. But, they barely ever had enough money to take the bus. So, they never left Alto Choco. The Ecuadorians lived a pretty simple life without the common luxuries we have in the United States. They weren’t distracted by the hustle and bustle of everyday life like here in America. The Ecuadorians barely had anything but they were so happy and content with life. They were hardworking individuals who lived pretty minimalist lifestyles and survived off the basic necessities. They lived off what they farmed and could kill. Imagine seeing a chicken run past you and the next thing you know it’s on your plate for lunch. That’s honestly how it was. It was fascinating.

Painting and restoring the school house and church was an enlightening experience. Through it, I gained a new perspective on life and people. Living in Ecuador opened my eyes to the fact of how much we take for granted here in America. From something as simple as taking a hot shower, to going out to dinner, or any leisure activities people engage in on a daily basis. We all aren’t worried where are next meal is going to come from. It’s intriguing to think how people around the world live such drastically different lifestyles in different countries. The experience really put things in perspective and opened up a clear realization about American culture to me.

film is to benjamin as video games are to us?

In the essay, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, Walter Benjamin analyzes the art of film. In his arguments four and five, he describes how the actor’s aura is lost in the mechanical transaction of the camera. He states that it is “not the unique aura of the person but the ‘spell of the personality,’ the phony spell of a commodity” (27). He relates the composition of the image on the film is no longer genuine, and thus the art form for goes reality.
There is a complicated relationship between the art and reality. The film is an imitation of reality. As I read Benjamin’s essay, I could not stop relating the idea of a replica of reality to live-action video games. Live-action video games can be related to our millennia as film was related to Benjamin’s. The video-games compound the imitated reality in films.
In film, images are meant to be seen and heard as an outside entity. Where-as in live-action video games are meant to be experienced. The gamer can create their own reality, or their own sub-life, as in EA’s the Sims. The gamer creates a persona and decides what they want to look and be like, and consequently, live like. They create another version of themselves to interact with other digitized, fantasy people. These computer people have no set “aura”. They have nothing to indicate any originality or truth what-so-ever. However, people interact through these personas and form relationships via computer personas.
In the future, it could be possible that much more than a simple life game could be virtual, ala The Matrix or WallE- just as films have moved far beyond the limits of replicating reality (ie my example films), and into replicating and even creating imagination.

"The Age of Mechanical Reproduction"

In my Visual Culture class with Dr. McLandon, we read and discussed Benjamin's theories on the mechanical reproduction of art. Dr. McLandon pointed out that teaching art using slides of famous paintings is less affective than actually teaching about art in front of the art itself. So, what he did to help us understand this was every friday he taught class in Cornell Museum, to help us learn and experience real art in person. This helped to understand and put to practice the vernacular when describing artwork. I was able to experience exactly what Benjamin wrote about in which "mechanical reproduction of art changes the reaction of the masses toward art" (29).

Much like the arts, I would like to raise a point about the fashion industry. To me, fashion is wearable art. Many designers create elaborate pieces that do in fact look more like art, than wearable clothes. However, those pieces of art that are created by famous designers are these days being reproduced by the likes of stores such as Forever21 and H&M. These articles are created for the masses at a cheaper price with cheaper materials. These clothes are so similar to the eye that it is hard to tell the difference original work and a copy. This is has become a problem for some designers who have taken note, because these stores are stealing from their own creative work, without giving any recognition. For instance, Gwen Stafani has sued Forever21 for replicating her clothes. 

For me, this is similar to that "essence" one gets from seeing a famous painting in person. While a reproduction still looks the same, and as Benjamin points out it still "represents something new", that aura is taken away. For me that "aura" that Benjamin describes is the realness of the painting. Being able to see the brush strokes, and the other details that a real painting allows you to see. Where as, a reproduction such as a print enables one to visually see the image but not the essence behind it.

Art.com

A few weeks ago, I was starring into the empty space of depression that is my wall space, I decided that I HAD to get some art. Not like paintings, more like prints. I have a painting, but I just don’t have enough money at the moment for another one. So, there I went to Art.com, and probably spent over 2 hours looking through 500,000 prints of art and photos, to pick the ones that I wanted to put on my wall. Needless to say, it was quite the experience, which culminated with a 20% off sale; leading me to buy 4 prints when I only had room for 2. Once I got the prints in the mail, framed them, and hung my favorite two up, I found something that really bothered me. The one is a print of a photo, and looks great. However, the other is a print of a painting, and doesn’t look like anything but a few colors in a black box on my wall. The conclusion that I came to was that it had no character, no essence. It was simply a copy of essence. Sure it looks a certain way and evokes certain feelings, but that’s about it. When you look at a painting you look at everything; the strokes, detail, globs of paint. But when you look at a print its like staring at a computer generated photo, it just lacks the excitement. I look at that print and see a piece of paper, but when I look at a painting I see the time, meaning, and art of the piece. Its kind of like looking at a handwritten letter vs the text inside of a card; you can feel the difference. Art.com is a perfect example of taking something original, commercializing it, and loosing the meaning.

Needless to say, ill be returning the other two prints, and im trying to find an artist desperately in need of money to paint me a new piece for my wall.

Benjamin Reading

After reading Walter Benjamin’s, “The Work of Art,” I could absolutely see why Dr. Cummings enjoys him so much. His connection between art, mechanical reproduction and film was very intellectually stimulating. He opened my eyes with his vast amounts of examples of how the two worlds of art connect and disconnect. Benjamin’s description of authenticity was amusing. I especially enjoyed the way he described the differences between the unattainable aura the original beholds as compared to something that has tried to reproduce it. This notion reminded me of the painting, “The Mona Lisa.” There is a specific feeling you get when you actually go and stand in front of the original as opposed to simply seeing it duplicated in a book. “The authenticity of a thing is the essence of all that is transmissible from its beginning, ranging from its substantive duration to its testimony to the history which it has experienced” (pg 21). I thought that this quote summed the essence of authenticity up perfectly.

The other thing that stood out to me in this reading was Benjamin’s way of explaining the differences an actor entails on a stage as opposed to an actor performing for a camera. “The stage actor identifies himself with the character of his role. The film actor very often is denied this opportunity” (pg 26). Benjamin talks about how film “…responds to the shriveling of the aura with an artificial build up of the ‘personality’ outside of the studio” (pg 27). I got the feeling that Benjamin valued the art of theatre over the art cinema at this point. I felt that Benjamin tried to relay the message that film is merely a mechanical reproduction of theatre and therefore cannot necessarily hold the originality or aura that one might expect from theatre.

The Value of Art

In the article, “The Work of Art”, by Walter Benjamin, on page 23 there is a quote that says, “Today the cult value would seem to demand that the work of art remain hidden.” It continues on to talk about how they believe that there are certain pieces or art works that are meant only for the Gods or for priests to see. They mention how Madonnas remain covered nearly all year round. It seems that they believe certain pieces of art are meant to serve one purpose and no other. If these pieces of art are seen by those who are not meant to see them then they may lose their value.
This may be a stretch of a modern example, but it relates to those of us in the U.S and other wealthy countries that have so much access to modern technology. Most people you run into have an iPod, a computer, a flat-screen TV and so on. These luxuries seem to be common to own for all of us. We see them everywhere and so many people have them that it doesn’t seem normal not to own these objects. However if you go to a third world country seeing these items would probably cause people to be in a state of awe.
This relates back to the pieces of art that the cult believe should remain hidden to the majority of the world’s population. If someone creates something meant only to be seen by a certain person or group of people then it should remain only for them because as with the case of modern technology, if it’s everywhere then it will lose its’ meaning. Creativity is an important thing to have and not many people are lucky enough to have that characteristic. So for those who do they should be able to decide who gets to appreciate it.

The Loss of "Aura"

"In principle a work of art has always been reproducible." -Walter Benjamin
He also says that "Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, it's unique existence at the place where it happened to be."
This concept is one in which I've read previously by Walter Benjamin in cmc100. The article explained how paintings are often reproduced, but it is never quite the same as the original. It loses it's "aura" or in other words it's uniqueness.
This article expressed the same ideas yet with different examples, such as films and photographs. It is true that when you take a photo the actual picture does not depict what the naked eye saw. In fact the picture may reveal images that were unseen by the "unarmed" eye. Unless you are actually there when the picture is taken, again that "aura" is lost in the reproduction of the picture. It lacks the presence in time and space. I found it interesting that he brought up the fact that you are able to retain the negatives to you photographs, but it is pointless to ask for the original. What is the original, thinking as Walter Benjamin, the original photograph is unable to be obtained it was in the photographers sight at the time of the photograph.
He goes on to explain this concept in film. When attending a play, the audience is able to experience the "aura" of the actors because they are in their presence. When a movie is being shot, the "aura" of the acting is lost in the camera. It is not the same when you are there to see the performance. The camera has different views it is able to show. Such as close-ups, and different angles. The "Aura" is that of the camera and not of the acting.
The "aura" is a sense of presence, a uniqueness as I stated before and Walter Benjamin states in his writing. In this "Age of Mechanical Reproduction, The Work of Art" is unable to posses that "Aura" the original does. Whether it may be in a painting, a photograph, or a film, the reproduction is never the same.

Benjamin- Actors/Camera

I think the most interesting concepts in Benjamin’s “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” were those relating to film. His thought that “for the film, what matters primarily is that the actor represents himself to the public before the camera, rather than representing someone else” (26). I kind of took this idea a million different ways. After first reading it, I thought about how when you watch anything you erase the fact he/she is an actor and concentrate on their character. You let yourself forget that its Jason Schwartzman and he is Max Fischer or Albert Markovski or Jack Whitman. He becomes the character. However, as I kept reading deeper into this concept that “what matters is that the part is acted not for an audience but for a mechanical contrivance” (26). I took this to mean that the actor is acting to a mechanical device, in this case a camera, which is responsible for sending the information to an audience. The camera is the eyes of the audience; a representative of such. Therefore, the camera is our eyes. When we view a film, we take the camera to be our eyes and the films progression to be our viewing. Somehow in our minds we delete the mechanical-ness or thought there is something between us and the scene. The camera then is able to go beyond our normal visions by using “the close up” where “space expands” and “with slow motion, movement is extended” (31). The camera is our advanced eye that shows us how to view the scene. I remember the first time I saw I Heart Huckabees and the objects on screen were split and reconnected. Schwartzman’s face was divided into boxes and Hoffman’s too. All their little pieces came together and somehow the camera showed me the point of the movie. Everything is connected. The camera is the engaging eye that dissects and that which the actors perform to, knowing it represents the audience. At least I think.

Benjamin. Kelsey Pike.

Reaction of the Masses

The part that stuck out to me the most in the reading on Mechanical Reproduction was on page 29. Throughout the whole reading i wondered if Benjamin had a negative opinion about film or art which did not posses Aura. On page 29 he discusses the different between the reaction of the masses towards art. He says, "The greater the decrease in in the social significance of and art form, the sharper the distinction between criticism and enjoyment by the public. The conventional is uncritically enjoyed, and the truly new is criticized with aversion" (29). He uses an example, comparing a Picasso painting to a Chaplin film. I think he is saying that a Picasso can be looked at by an individual without criticism, while a Chaplin film will be enjoyed but not without criticism. I disagree with this point because i know that there is critical discussion about all paintings, not only Picasso paintings. Also an uneducated viewer could see a Chaplin movie and enjoy it without thinking critically. Benjamin then goes on to talk about individual response in comparison to group response. He says, "With regard to the screen, the critical ad the receptive attitudes of the public coincide. The decisive reason for this is that individual reactions are predetermined by the mass audience response... The moment these responses become manifest they control each other" (29). Benjamin is saying her that the audience thinks in a way as a whole, that their reactions are determined by the group. I agree with this to some extent, peoples opinion will influence others, but it is possible to not be effected by those around you. Benjamin says the same will  happen with a painting and he disagrees with the way art is sometimes viewed, "Painting simply in in to position to present an object for simultaneous collective experience" (29). He believes that viewing paintings should be and individual experience in order to keep from a similar mass opinion that film receives.