9/30 "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction"

Though Benjamin’s piece, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” was published in 1969, it is extremely prescient in regard to just how documented the world has become. “Any man today can lay claim to being filmed” was in reference to the film industry, but with social media, this statement is even more true. People are able to document their lives in video more easily than ever, catching not only themselves on camera, but other passerby who did not consent to being captured. While most people in the background are just that, the unpredictability of the internet can cause someone to become an overnight sensation if they were in the right photo at the right time. While the incident has long faded from memory, the debacle of Alex from Target comes to mind. Photographed during his work by a customer who found him attractive, his image soon blew up on social media, with people starting a hunt for him. As with any social media trend, the frenzy died down within a week, but it remains a prime example of social media’s attention imperative and the disappearance of privacy that goes with it. The “spell of personality” and the personality that actors would create and ship out for consumption by the masses is done by everyone who has ever posted on the internet. Though an obvious example would be influencers whose whole job is to form parasocial relationships with their audience in order to sell products, it can happen to anyone with any following of any size. It is easy to feel as if you know someone on the internet through posts without truly knowing the person. One time, perhaps two months ago, I was told by a stranger on the internet that they idolized me, and while they (hopefully) mean no harm, its hard to believe that anyone thinks that highly of me without even knowing what I look like. “At any moment the reader is ready to turn into a writer,” and just as I consume others posts on my feed, others are consuming mine, forming an image of me that is just as divorced from myself as the images of the Old Hollywood actors that Benjamin spoke of. 

9/29 Ashlynn Yvaine

When doing the reading for class I was having a hard time picturing several of the terms which Jencks mentioned. After the discussion in class, my struggle turned to trying to figure out what was appealing about the various stylistic qualities of postmodern architecture. I am one who enjoys older styles of architecture, feeling drawn to the quaint qualities found more often in small, sometimes rural, towns. However, my partner has a very different architectural taste.

As I was driving to my partner's apartment in Baldwin Park after class I began to notice the urbane urbanism that we had discussed and remembered a conversation my partner and I had recently. They were commenting on the fact that they hated Florida as a state unless it was fake. Places like Baldwin Park, recently developed suburbs, or gated communities where everything has a place and is maintained were preferable in their mind. As I drove through Baldwin Park I could see the allure, there was an overwhelming feeling of sameness but it was almost calming how cookie cutter everything seemed. One could get lost in the uniformity for years, never craving anything else because of how picturesque and convenient the neighborhood is.

Baldwin Park

I have also found comfort in environments like that, there is no other word for them other than pleasant. However, I enjoy the oddities that come from older and quainter towns. It may be a divergence in aesthetic as I am just not a city person and many of the examples that were mentioned happen to occur in city contexts but I just am not sold on the postmodern look.

Mast General Store Boone, NC

The Sea Hagg Cortez Fishing Village, FL

Savannah, GA

9/29 After Class Post -- N.S.

 After digesting our class on 9/29, the linkage between Jencks' thoughts and connections between architecture and the postmodernist realm are deeply clear. As we scrolled through all the images and looked at how the world has adopted and created so many architectural phenomenons, so much inspiration has come from exactly what Jencks' has understood before many people following. One piece of information said by Jencks truly clicked with the revolutionary inventions and innovations surrounding transportation. 

"The most commonly-held aim of postmodern architects is to achieve an urbane urbanism. Urban contextualism gains near universal assent. New buildings, according to this doctrine, should be both fit into and extend the urban context, reuse such constants as the street, arcade and piazza, yet acknowledge too the new technologies and means of transport. This double injunction amounts to a new rule, as clear and well defined as any tenet of Canonic Classicism. Furthermore, there are those such as Leon Krier who would argue for an optimum relationship between all the parts of a city, what I have called the 'proper balance' between essential elements: public to private, work to living, monument  to infill, short blocks to city grid, foreground square to background housing" (Jencks, 1987, p. 285). 

This is a great explanation and incredibly detail oriented layout of how cities are so meticulous and how this emerged from postmodern thought. The idea that Jencks states derives from urbane urbanism comes from inspiration and advancements from eighteenth century European cities, villages, and towns. These advancements and improvements have come a long way and I do feel curious in the sense that there will be so many for postmodern inspirations for advancements in urbane environments. It is so much more lively to be able to be in an urban area where all of the things that Jencks is talking about is happening before your eyes. Building placement, stylistic choices, and the flow of the environment is all so well detailed and planned. The framework changes! 

 A useful link!

http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/~raha/700_701_web/BarthesLO/readerly.html

Jane Denson, Jencks

        Jencks' discussion of Postmodernity and its correlation to art and architecture struck me as an enlightening analysis of the very idea that everything with our Modernist movement is connected (think of intertextuality) and falls into place together, never apart. As I read his theoretical perspective on the matter, I was constantly applying his notions and various dissections of art and architecture to the realm of theatre and specific theatrical productions I have either seen or read. What is interesting is that Modernity and Postmodernity are still relevant to this day and possess a multitude of both internal and external connections that leave humanity with a desire to engage with the subjects of whatever is being presented. In theatre, whether we are a spectator, performer, playwright, director, etc., we are always forced to rethink the socio-cultural paradigms we are so greatly accustomed to, which includes the ones of both the past and present. Essentially, theatre, like Jencks' discussion of emerging canons in Postmodern Classicism, demonstrates values of the movement that have contributed to our sense of Postmodernism in an ever-evolving world. As I unpacked Jencks' insightful theory surrounding this topic, one passage struck me rather strongly regarding how theatre factors into this equation of humanity.

"Another credible subject is the historical continuum and the relation between the past and present. This has led to an outbreak of parody, nostalgia and pastiche -- the lesser genres with which postmodernism is equated by its detractors -- but has also resulted in anamnesis, or suggested recollection. In a post-Freudian age, the unconscious is often invoked as the source of anamnesis, and it works characteristically with the juxtaposition of related and opposed fragments. Ann and Patrick Poirier have captured this logic of dreams in their fragmented constructions which combine archetypes, half-remembered myths and miniature landscapes...The enigmatic allegory makes use of dissociated and partial memories and, at best, creates a simulacrum of meaning where the overtones combine and harmonise. It is this harmonious aura which becomes the subject matter of this paradoxical genre -- a narrative without a plot. Anamnesis is one of the oldest rhetorical tropes and today has become a goal in itself" (Jencks, 1987, p. 286-288).

Once I digested Jencks' words, I was able to connect my experience with theatre text to his ideas surrounding the enigmatic allegory embedded within the relation between the past and present further within the art of a theatrical piece. The most prominent example of a dramatic text in theatre that heavily relates to these notions is Jean-Paul Sartre's French play entitled No Exit. The best way I can apply Jencks' theory here is by recognizing and further scrutinizing the highly engaging ethical dialogue between the characters. Since the play revolves around the notion of our three main characters being in hell (and also being each other's own personal hell), the piece needs to rely on what in their past brought them to hell and what they must (collectively) do in their present condition there to accept their own fate. Not only that, but the play consists of a great deal of anamnesis (suggested recollection) of the events that transpired in the characters' lives prior to their deaths. This, in turn, is layered on top of the enigmatic allegory regarding human ethics and morals because as we learn from being the reader, none of these people were virtuous by any means. The narrative has no plot, but is filled with the type of fragmentation discussed by Jencks in a manner that certainly echoes the ideas manifested by Postmodern Classicism.

Pre-Class Thoughts-Abbey 9/28

         Charles Jencks writes about eleven values that stand out in postmodern art and architecture. The value I connected with the most was the idea of “dissonant beauty” or “disharmonious harmony.” I understood this value to mean the postmodern art went away from what was considered normal and embraced imperfection especially on a social platform. Last year for my final project in CMC 100, I created a documentary centered around the societal beauty standards that are put on women. Throughout the making of my film, I learned so much about what society deemed the ideal women to look and act like. Cosmetic and clothing brands encourage women to want to improve or change themselves to reach an impossible standard of beauty. Women should feel comfortable being themselves without the pressure to change their appearance with makeup or buy just the right outfit. The postmodern idea of dissonant beauty brings the idea that “the universe is evolving” meaning the world is becoming more accepting of people in all forms. The art representing these ideas “has a new social and metaphysical basis.” Art has an impact on people and can help to bring change to the world.  I recently watched the documentary, Can Art Stop A Bullet? After viewing this film, I had a new understanding of how art can play a key role in the fight for social justice. It’s a form of communication that can be understood by young and old and can truly bring awareness to social injustices and unfair social standards. Art can lead to acceptance and truly make a difference in how people view other people. Every person on this earth is unique and should not be made to conform to what society deems as “perfect.” I think Jenks would agree. How has art influenced and/or changed how you view yourself or the world around you?

Pre-Class Thoughts Jencks 9/29

 Postmodernism and Theatre

Throughout the Jencks reading, I found myself thinking more about then just architecture within the frame of postmodernism. The quote I feel ecompasses my thoughts from this reading is this: “This form of double-coding allows us to read the present in the past as much as the past in the present, as if history proceeded by a gradual evolution of a permanent forms rather than a succession of revolutionary styles each one of which obliterates is predecessor” (Jencks, 289).

This passage, taken from the Jencks reading for today’s class, highlights for me one of the more important takeaways of postmodernism: the lack of one true way of thinking or multiple truths within the world. The way we constantly view our past within the present is always changing   Though this article was talking specifically about architecture, I found many similarities between contemporary theater and contemporary architecture. Much of theater coming out today reconciles with our past but also is framed in the present in many ways. A good and popular example is the Broadway musical Hamilton (2015). Thought it explores America’s past and the revolutionary war, it also changes that past to reflect our current race and gender politics. Thus, it represents America’s past and present at the same time, while also commenting on that past and present. The musical, in essence, brings together contemporary and old America without differentiating the two strongly as the musical progresses through the plot.

(picture is of Hamilton and the other “founding fathers” of the country)

Besides Hamilton, there are other pieces of theater that represent this concept of “multiple truths.” For example, in the play The Humans (which was performed in the Annie Russell Theater in 2019), the audience follows the story of a family having a thanksgiving dinner, which ultimately unveils the secrets they have been holding from each other. The way that the playwright frames each character is that their perspective of the other is not necessarily wrong; it is based on their own experiences which have framed their truth within their world.

9/24 After Class Post: Noah

9/24 After Class: Barthes & Saussure 

This week's reading from Barthes & Saussure proposed quite macro topics and ideas that help give insight into linguistics and communication. First, Saussure identifies a linguistic theory that helps give background to the much larger topic at hand, "(1) that it can be exchanged for a fixed quantity of a different thing, e.g. bread; and (2) that it can be compared with a similar value of the same system" (p. 8). To me, the meaning of this quote is to say that within a language and the world around us, we can assign value and meaning by comparing and addressing the intertextuality much beneath the surface level. This can be applied to many patterns and disciplines in life. This is an overwhelmingly wide and broad topic to digest off of the first read, but when truly analyzing the way in which words are processed through the brain, we find connections in language and cultures globally. To connect this to a personal real-life example, I would connect these theorist's thoughts to the language I am currently learning, German. I am in the second semester of my foreign language studies. Within German, there are many more rules and tenses than the North American English language. Word order is not even close to the same, and often the direct translations do not sound grammatically correct in English. The other day I was thinking to myself, how do non-English German speakers process thoughts? This is a question for primary German-speaking individuals. As an English speaker I know I process thought and the voice in my head is doing the thinking in both words and pictures. The process of thought is something that can be directly referred to Saussure's thoughts, "language has neither ideas nor sounds that existed before the linguistic system" (p. 10). As stated, an idea or sound must be heard and linked to another system before it makes sense. Otherwise, sounds and words that have never existed will never make sense. Things need equal values. Lastly, I will conclude with a very powerful quote from Saussure: 

¨Everything that has been said up to this point boils down to this: in language there are only differences. Even more important: a difference generally implies positive terms between which the difference is set up; but in language there are only differences without positive terms. Whether we take the signified or the signifier, language has neither ideas nor sounds that existed before the linguistic system, but only conceptual and phonic differences that have issued from the system. The idea or phonic substance that a sign contains is of less importance than the other signs that surround it¨ (Saussure, 1916, p. 10). 

9/24 Post-Class Blog

Barthes Mythology made me recall the studies I have done of the Bible in the past. While it is a record of a mythology in the traditional sense, collecting creation stories and parables meant to instruct the reader on the universe, the Bible itself also has the mythic meaning Barthes discusses. Without looking at the actual content of the book, there are already numerous meanings we can extrapolate from it. We swear on the Bible (as if that will make us more honest), we see how small the text and how thick the book is and assume it’s impenetrable except to a select few, children in Bible studies classes may think of it as little more than a brick, not yet able to understand what they’re reading.

The Bible has been used to justify wars, discrimination, abuse, and countless other things that seem to contradict its message. But, did its actual message ever really matter? In the hands of those who use it to justify oppression and violence, the symbol of its authority is what matters. The Bible is understood as an authoritative text, and if you claim to understand it, then its authority flows into you as well. Combined with the idea of Christian supremacy and Christian culture’s promotion of proselytizing (both ideas from select Biblical passages), you can invoke the Bible, The Word of God, even without really knowing what the words inside the book say. I doubt most Christians have actually read the Bible beyond what they hear in church, and I suspect its luster would wear off if they did. If you believe in the authorities that claim to understand the Bible and claim to be telling you its intended message, then what’s the point of reading it if you can’t possibly understand it, with its small text and high page count? Christianity is a religion obsessed with symbols, and the Bible is only one of them, but also one of its most powerful.

9/24 De Saussure and Phonetics

 After sitting through our class, I now have a better grasp of structuralism within semiotics. I honestly was quite confused when I first read through the reading. The quote “Without language, thought is a vague, uncharted nebula” from Saussure I feel like encompasses my whole thoughts on the readings. I took a speech class last fall, and though we focused on the sounds of each word, we had some discussion about language and why we assign certain words to certain objects. In particular, we talked about the cultural differences among English speakers and how there are different terms for the same symbol. For example, the term “soda” is used heavily within the south and the western United States. However, in the northeast, the term” pop” is used to describe the same symbol. Why is there that difference? This question dives into what de Saussure and the other structuralist were talking about in reference to semiotics.

(picture of common phonetic symbols)

The most eye-opening part of that speech class was when my teacher decided to show us the universality of phonetics. One of my classmates asked my professor if phonetics can be used for other languages. In response, my professor took a french phrase and wrote it in phonetics. Thus, if I need to use phonetics to learn how to speak another language, I could. To me, this relates to what de Saussure was saying. Though all languages use different words to describe things (which we have assigned to them), but we use universal sounds to convey these objects. I could take any phrase in another language and learn how to say it through phonetics. I won’t understand the meaning behind the phrase itself, but I  can learn how to say the words that represent the symbols in the phrase. Thus, my phonetics class discussed some of these important issues.

Jane Denson, 9/24

        Last class' discussion of both De Saussure and Barthes helped me apply their theoretical ideas into my own life. While reading their works and unpacking the various material presented, I made some observations concerning linguistics and the way text is digested. In regards to De Saussure, I found his theory quite redundant, yet tactical in terms of his approach to supporting his perspective on linguistics. From what I came to understand, language as human beings is based on past experience, which, in my eyes, makes a great deal of sense, especially since I am bilingual. Due to the fact that I speak both English and Spanish (primarily English), I am better able to recognize the signifier and signified concept that De Saussure discusses. Additionally, both languages feature words that are nearly identical with their spelling and meaning, but obviously divergent with their pronunciations. However, there are words in Spanish, for example, that look like they mean one thing in English, but actually mean something else. An example of this would be "los parentes," which is Spanish for "relatives," but falsely appears to mean "parents" from an English perspective. Not only that, but this particular theoretical work made me realize how linguistics vary with their effect on each unique language. I know that simply because in Spanish, everything is more concise and specific, whereas in English, words can be much more general or broad. A prime example of this would be using "you" in both languages. In Spanish, there are different conjugations based on how the word "you" is used. "Tú" is informal, "usted" is formal, "vosotros" is plural (and only if you are in Spain), and "ustedes" is also plural. On the other hand, when we say "you" in English, we say that same word for all purposes.

        After analyzing Barthes' theoretical presentation of texts of pleasure and texts of bliss, which essentially relates to the idea of having readerly texts and writerly texts, I was able to further grapple with the manner in which humans consume the texts they are exposed to in their lives. Readerly text is considered passive and doesn't require the reader to go to great lengths in order to properly digest the information given to them. Writerly text is best described as one that forces the reader to go between the lines and fill in the gap they have in their minds, which Barthes calls tmesis. It is this notion that indeed reminds me of CMC 100 when we discussed and covered the notion of closure, as well as how its relation to comic (book) panels indicates the idea that we fill in the missing action in-between said panels. Therefore, it should be known that Barthes' theory can be translated to various types of texts, including literary and cinematic ones.

Post Class Thoughts-Abbey 9/24

        During class today, we discussed language. We explored the inner-workings of language and how it fits into our society. I really connected with and was intrigued by Ferdinand de Saussure’s idea that in order for language to have meaning it has to be shared. I want to connect this to a reading in my RFLA 200, Picturing Place. The article was about the meaning home in terms of the ideas of place and community. The author explains to find your place in the world, you must observe the history around the physical place you are in. The author then poses the question that if some piece of history does not have someone to pass it down is it forgotten? Has it lost its meaning? Is it not real? This begs the question that if something is not amplified someway in some form of language does it exist? I have no idea if this question can be answered or explained because it is so complex. I do believe that in order for something to have meaning it needs to be shared with a community, so it can become a fixed value. I also believe that somethings are personal only to be shared with oneself, so aren’t individual thoughts a language too? I think in a way I disagree with de Saussure because I don’t believe everything has to be shared in a language to have meaning. I believe that my feelings cannot always be expressed in an accepted language of society, but they still have meaning to me even if not a single other person on the earth can understand. I think as long as a person can understand oneself, one’s own language has meaning because it has meaning to oneself. I think it is kind of like not needing to rely on other’s validity to ensure one’s thoughts or feelings have meaning. I know this is a big concept, but I felt it was important to explore the counter-argument to Ferdinand de Saussure’s theory that language must be shared to have meaning. Wouldn’t it be sad to think our lives no longer had meaning when there was no none to remember us?

Evie 9/24

    Barthes argues that there are two kinds of texts: a writerly text and a readerly text. The more common of the two, readerly text, can be described as familiar and traditional. This text is linear with a pre-determined meaning. In other words, the meaning is purposefully singular and the reader simply collects the information. In contrast to this commercialized text, there is writerly text. The writerly text is basically what is unsaid about the readerly text. In this text, the reader is in control of the meaning and acts almost as the writer. Reality tends to blur as the reader becomes invested in the text. 

    Barthes describes this investment as tmesis. Tmesis is a phenomenon where our mind actively fills in a gap. As we talked about in class, people tend to find pleasure in reading when one can create their own world or fill in what is unsaid. In the writerly text, the meaning is fluid and the reader has the ability to form one's own opinion and reality. Students mentioned that they are drawn to Harry Potter because they can imagine Hogwarts in their mind. Harry Potter is a prime example of writerly text because the meaning is not fixed and the reader has control to create their own interpretation of the words written in the book. 

    Barthes defines two kinds of texts in his writing, “Text of pleasure: the text that contents, fills, grants euphoria; the text that comes from culture and does not break with it, is linked to a comfortable practice of reading. Text of bliss: the text that imposes a state of loss, the text that discomforts (perhaps to the point of a certain boredom), unsettles the reader’s historical, cultural, psychological assumptions, the consistency of tastes, values, memories, brings to a crisis his relation with language” (p. 110). When I read these two definitions, my mind goes back to the writerly text and the readerly text. I see the text of pleasure as synonymous with the readerly text as they are both comfortable and to the point. I also see the writerly text connecting to the text of bliss; writerly texts push the reader out of one's comfort zone as the text of bliss does. 

    I would love to know what you guys think, are these sets of texts connected/the same? 

Jane Denson, De Saussure, Barthes, and Macherey

A Commentary on a Passage from Roland Barthes' The Pleasure of the Text (1973)

"Text of pleasure: the text that contents, fills, grants euphoria; the text that comes from culture and does not break with it, is linked to a comfortable practice of reading. Text of bliss: the text that imposes a state of loss, the text that discomforts (perhaps to the point of a certain boredom), unsettles the reader's historical, cultural, psychological assumptions, the consistency of his tastes, values, memories, brings to a crisis his relation with language" (Barthes, 1973, p. 110).

Barthes' theoretical analysis of how one (a reader) derives pleasure from a text, whether it be out of some erotic perversion or narrative satisfaction, elucidates how the reader understands their own cultural composition. In this passage, Barthes discusses texts of pleasure and texts of bliss. Regarding texts of pleasure, Barthes unpacks the notion that text can grant a sense of euphoria to the reader that is derived from the culture it is a part of and adheres to its values. It appears that with this idea brought forth from Barthes, he is alluding to a deeper notion that suggests that texts of pleasure do not challenge a reader and their potentially fragile (world) perspective. In other words, these works excite a reader's imagination or psyche by playing on or catering to what is socially accepted, e.g. the norms, (collective) ideals, laws, etc., then present that information in a way that almost seduces the reader's attention, which can be done through a sexual or erotic manner. Barthes' discussion of a text of bliss is essentially described as the opposite of a text of pleasure. Here, he examines how these works provoke the reader's imagination using an approach that is meant to challenge and unsettle them, which may invoke a sense of boredom. In other words, Barthes is attempting to convey the notion that these texts take the reader's set of pre-existing assumptions or beliefs, and flips it around on them in order to, in essence, shock them into making an epiphany or rethinking their own socio-cultural norms, which they are most likely accustomed to in their daily lives.

The closest connection I can make to Barthes' theory comes from a piece of surrealist cinema, titled L'Age d'Or, which was directed by Luis Buñuel in 1930. What's interesting with this film is the overtly sexual manner of the characters presented and how it embodies Barthes' notion of a text of bliss, to a certain degree. While yes, the film is a satirical comedy that reflects Buñuel's trials and tribulations with Franco Spain's harsh censorship, it does indeed echo what Barthes discusses in regards to pushing the boundary and causing audiences to think more critically of their own (bourgeois) society. The work is brilliantly crafted to unsettle viewers with the erotic dream-like scenarios the main couple finds themselves in and simultaneously call out the bourgeoisie's flawed ideologies through various juxtapositions of images. Since the content was so flagrant at the time of the film's conception and release, it was eventually banned by the Paris police and suffered from many ordeals pertaining to said censorship. The reason audiences might have perceived this work as boring is because it featured heavily charged cultural criticism in its underlying fabric. Therefore, it is without a doubt that the correlation between Barthes and Buñuel's works is quite clear, especially since Barthes' theories can be applied to the cinematic world as well.

Ashlynn Yvaine, De Saussure, Barthes, and Macherey

In Barthes' writing on The Pleasure of the Text, there is a particular paragraph which stands out to me in its description. It reads:

Now the subject who keeps the two texts in his field and in his hands the reins of pleasure and bliss is an anachronism subject, for he simultaneously and contradictorily participates in the profound hedonism of all culture (which permeates him quietly under cover of an art de vivre shared by the old books) and in the destruction of that culture: he enjoys the consistency of his selfhood (that is his pleasure) and seeks its loss (that is his bliss). He is a subject split twice over, doubly perverse. (110)

This paragraph grabbed my attention in particular as over the six long months I was in quarantine (my household was especially careful of exploring the outside realms) I experienced a longing for hedonism. In fact, I found a commentary on Plato and his teachings on contemplation which turned me on to my road of hedonism. The fact of the matter was needing to remain indoors and isolated from my peers for the better half of a year was something which Plato never needed to experience. He was free to roam the earth and discuss thoughts with his fellow man which was a luxury I was no longer afforded. Without the contact and free discussion with my peers, I could no longer retain the stomach for simple contemplation. Contemplation made me seize in anger because I so desperately needed the pleasure and bliss of hedonism to fill the hole in my humanity that had been bored by the virus that ravages the world.

While Plato may not have supported hedonism, I believe I can use his own work against him in The Allegory of the Cave. If one only searches out the texts of pleasure or the texts of bliss without any overlap then they are as blind as those who only know that which lies within the walls of their cave. The true mark of leadership is one who will act hedonistically as Barthes describes, because they have the knowledge to wield both sides of the story and thus have the ability to lead both sides.

It is okay to be a hedonistic in your tendencies, especially as it applies to text. Pursuing that enjoyment in understanding both sides of an idea will show your true leadership potential and it might just save you from going insane in isolation.

 Welcome, fall 2020 theory enthusiasts! I look forward to an engaging semester ~ DC