Jameson

During the class discussion on Jameson, we discussed schizophrenia as “the breakdown of the signifying chain.” By this, I think he meant that “schizophrenia” arises when there is a break down between Signifiers and the Signified. He says that the Signified is a creation of cultural inter-textuality between multiple Signifiers. When, for one reason or another, there is a break down, and the Signifiers do not add up to any specific Signified, schizophrenia occurs. He describes schizophrenia as a “heap of fragments,” or a bunch of stuff that doesn’t quite fit together. This notion works well with the notion of pastiche. Pastiche is imitation of an original without any particular motive. It is like parody, but without the motives of illuminating the original. The concept of pastiche reminds me of schizophrenia because pastiche is bankrupt. It is an imitation without a cause. Pastiche is a “heap of fragments” (of signifiers) that imitate those of the original, but they do not come together to signify anything. Pastiche uses signifiers of the original because they are familiar, and without a purpose. These two concepts definitely capture the notion that Post-Modern culture is moving from “depth” towards “surface.” By this I mean that without the connectivity between Signifiers and the Signified, we are losing a deeper level of understanding and we are moving toward sameness.

Ignoring the problem

I think one of the most interesting quotes from Jameson is where he says “the underside of culture is blood, torture, death and horror” (485). What I found so interesting about this is not its degree of negativity, but rather its reflection of reality. This is one of the major elements that plays into consumerism that most people don’t ever look at or think about. Think about the way that our goods are produced, and the way that they get into our hands. I’m not talking about the salespeople who you buy from, or even the truck drivers who transported the goods to the store, I’m talking about the people involved from the creation of the good, the originators. And I’m also not just talking about material goods, but ideological institutions as well. To feed the demand of a consumerist culture, the pressure on the supply is tremendous. Tie this in with the necessity to turn a profit, and one will find that democracy frequently yields neglect somewhere along its lifeline. A very basic example of this would be a sweatshop. Nike is the cliché example to use here so lets go with it; when one buys a Nike shoe do they look at it and wonder how the sole got stitched into the base? Or do they admire the fabric and colors as the new owner is strapping them on. Here comes the second reason for the affluence of what Jameson is talking about; ignorance. In a society so infused with the ideals of greed and selfishness, we are not taught to look deeper than the surface, or think about the negative result to us receiving something positive. We accept and move on, having paid $150 for a pair of Nikes that were made by a 14 year old getting paid below a percent of that per week. The demands of the well-off in the world are fed by the blood, sweat and tears of the exploited lower class…and this is not a recent development.

Butler "Gender Trouble"

Playing gender is concept we have discussed heavily in communications courses.  It is thought that we are not necessarily born with gender, but we learn gender.  Society holds certain expectations for how females are to act and look, as opposed to how a male is to act and appear, thus we learn to act our gender through hopes of upholding of societal gender norms.

Feminist theory would like to challenge this to some extent.  If society's beliefs help mold our "feminine" or "masculine" growth, we must make sure society holds acceptable and fair ideals of the female and male genders so that we can be influenced in a proper form.  Society has placed certain characteristics on the female gender that some deem unfair, thus projecting females to act out that form, and others to expect the same from them.  This influences occupation, salary, treatment, and all aspects of gendered life.  As we discuss in communications, feminists are not seeking female domination, but rather fair treatment for the sex.  Similarly, Butler states "although the claim of universal patriarchy no longer enjoys the kind of credibility it once did, the notion of a generally shared conception of  'women,' the corollary to that framework, has been much more difficult to displace" (193).  Women have had difficulty displacing their gender expectations in society.  Even though they have gained ground, and male dominance is not as present or strong as it used to be, women are still struggling to change societal norms.

Parody-Post Class

The images we viewed in class on tuesday were quite thought provoking.  We viewed some great works of art, such as the sculpture of the female form, as well as the painting of a worker's worn boots.  As Sydney suggested, they provoked a sense of wanting to know more.  We can admire the female, as well as ponder who's shoes those were.  Most, upon seeing the image, would want to know the hard working man and his story, behind the panting of the boots.

However, as we tend to recreate past, we have essentially created parodies to these finer ideas and pieces.  We see the beauty in the sculpture of the female form, and want to recreate it in a "modern sense,' or in a sense that perhaps we can relate to better.  Similar recreations were found in the Victoria Secret Angels and Britney Spears advertisement.  As both of these ads were difficult to place the product attempting to sell (VS doesn't sell most of those garments in the show, and Britney's ad was simply vague), they were meant to provoke a feeling the "original" or more historical pieces were able to draw from viewers.  I would argue that the feeling is not the same however.  Viewers might be attracted to the sex appeal of these "parodies," but very few will be able to see the artwork behind them.  Very few want to look further into the stories behind them.  They seem far more material.   Dare I say, they lost their aura.

The same applies to the  painting of the worker's old boots, and its comparative parody piece, Andy Warhols pop art painting of a few womens shoes.  We do not get the same feeling as the previous.  We are not provoked to deeper thought.  We essentially take it for what it is.

This is not to say that these news pieces are not to be enjoyed, as Andy Warhol is one of the most famous artists, as well as Victorias Secret is a highly successful brand, but they simply cannot expect to provoke the depth of thought as they seem to be targeting.

Parody "On Television"?

While reading “On Television” by Pierre Bourdieu, I wondered, what exactly would he consider “good” or even “decent” television to be? Bourdieu alludes to the possibility of a more critical thought employed in programming. He states that the television industry (especially the TV news programs) is a slave to viewer ratings and approval. Thus, the only topics to make it to the small screen are already understood by the masses or can be easily comprehended. The topics are light in the intellectual sense and are not trying to produce. I immediately thought of the floods of entertainment news programming, at topic that Bourdieu dabbles little in, surprisingly enough. Supposed “important” informative programs, like CNN and even now BBC are fraught with what Bourdieu deems as frivolous stories, like Presidents unproductive meetings, and now even Hollywood star stories once reserved only for the infamous pages of cheap grocery store tabloids see the prime time.

Bourdieu suggests the mindless programming be replaced with captivating, questioning, offending works. Are there such works on television today? To coincide with the week’s other reading by Jameson, I think that thoughtful programming does exist, however, it is in a sort of parody form of the other shows. For example, Comedy Central distributes a number of politically questioning programming, like The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Chocolate News, and even South Park. These shows make political statements and present unnerving scenarios. They often offend greatly, but some how receive audience approval as well. Through comedy, and the “laughter effect,” people can be stimulated by opinionated programming. If its all fun and games, how can it seriously offend? Perhaps the easily offended people do not watch these shows, or misunderstand the content’s paradoxical sense (as often is the case with the extreme right wing and The Colbert Report). Yet, perhaps even, it is because of their large differences with the “ordinary” shows, they have become a cultural phenomenon. Now the question becomes will this type of parody programming become the norm, and if so, will it then become the ordinary for Bourdieu as well?

Jameson- Post Class

On Tuesday we discussed Jameson. There were many parts of this discussion that I found to be very interesting. The Victoria Secret Fashion Show has been made to sell the brand. None of the outfits that the "angels" wear are actually for sale. These women are on display to the world so that Victoria Secret can get major publicity and keep selling products, which in turn promotes the idea of capitalism. Jameson would say that the actual look of the angels (skimpy lingerie with wings) is a pastiche of the way that romans used to celebrate women's bodies through the work of art. When we looked at the picture of the sculpture of the woman's body from an earlier period, it was obvious the artist was trying to represent how beautiful women's bodies are. The Victoria Secret Fashion show stole the idea of making a woman look like an "angel" and used this image to sell products. This idea of borrowing something from the past to sell products does not always work though. As we saw in class, Britney Spears tried to do this, but she ultimately looked like she was just playing around in her underwear. I guess we could look at this example and compare it to a parody (something that tried to mock the original but ultimately is funny). Everything we do is intertextual in some sense. It is crazy to think about all of the things we take from the past.

Jameson Post Class

Today in class we covered several terms that we read about in “Post-Modernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism”, by Frederic Jameson. Out of all of the terms that we talked about there was one in particular that interested me than the others; this term was nostalgia. According to Jameson, nostalgia is the representation of a historical past.
There are many films and some television shows that have been made in the past and/or present that represent a certain time period. These are meant to give the viewer a certain idea of what that time period was like to live in. Immediately I thought of the television show “That 70’s Show.” As stated in the title, this comedy portrayed the ways that those who were growing up in that time acted like and the things that they did.
We talked about this show in class one day as an example of representation of the old in the current day, and how its representation was a way for those of us who didn’t live in that time period to experience what it was like (according to the creators). When watching this show there are certainly situations between the group of friends and between the families that I can relate to. This is what makes the show so funny. A comedian Dane Cook said in one of his older skits that the things he says are funny because they are true. I completely agree with this. A lot of the times that I am laughing at this show it is because I can relate to what’s going on. This show holds a great nostalgia because its permission to relate to and laugh at its situations makes you feel like you could have been a part of this time period.