Month: November 2013

I say this every November and April, but I can’t believe that it is already the end of the semester! I learned a lot in this course – I have never done a “just theory” course and my favourite part was to learn about how theorists interact with each other; a lot of their work establishes a dialogue between each of their separate arguments, either by the way some expand on other’s work and include other perspectives, to moments of complete disagreement. The most interesting – and difficult – part for me was to develop my own critical stance as I read these discussions, either for the purposes of writing the two assignments of the course or when reading each week’s readings and trying to synthesize them in my notes or simply trying to state my own argument of the week’s theme in my own words. I think this is something that will always be the hardest part for me, and something to work on especially as I work on my thesis.

My favourite weeks were the ones that discusses film studies and cultural studies – I can’t tell for sure if I liked these most because they are the ones that are on my mind a lot as I’m writing my thesis (and these topics are very relevant for that purpose) or because it is that I find film and culture studies interesting that I chose to do my thesis in that area; this is a the-chicken-or-the-egg problem that I’m not too concerned about because at the end of the day it has led to me having more readings and perspectives to consider as I’m writing my thesis and in my books, that is a great thing. My research project analyzes the representation of the figure of the child and/or adolescent in works of literature and film that are set during the time of the Spanish Civil War literature but published or released between 1992 and 2013. I chose this time period as there are some very interesting discourses coming out of Spain in regards to how the Civil War should be examined and seen especially during and after the financial crisis of 2008 and I am very interested in these discussions. Thus, film studies as well as cultural studies represent an integral part of my project and I am very happy and grateful that I got the chance to deepen my knowledge of these topics, as well as many others of course, in this course. It was great to meet with  you all every week and go on this journey of exploring theoretical concepts together, and my thanks to all of you for the wonderful and stimulating discussions and to Prof. Beasley-Murray and Prof. Freilick for leading us through it all. A special thank-you to Prof. Beasley-Murray for the week on film, so interesting and useful!  

1. In the first entrance in this blog I said my relationship with theory was not the best since I always have felt it cold and distant, and it did not gave me the warm sensation that literature gives me. Well, today, three months later, I think that some of these fast brushstrokes of theory are still cold. Some of them are also distant. But not all of them. I have found some authors really inspiring and warm: Lorde, Anzaldua, Fanon, Morrison, Barthes, Foucault, Thiong’o, Bakhtin, Schlovsky, inter alia. Also when I read Friedberg and Fiske I also noticed that television its a really interesting topic. Even thought in this very moment I will not able to remember all their definitions and terms, some of their ideas still resonates in my head.
2. Lorde, Anzaldua and Thiong’o made me think about how a theory or theoretical reflection could be proposed from a personal perspective, with an emotional ingredient which remembers a little the sense of literature. When I read them I thought: “It is possible create and the same time theorize! There is an alternative and it not contradicts the academy!” I actually felt very excited. However, when I asked in class if is possible to write down a paper in this way, from the first person who elaborates academic reflections based on personal experiences, the answer was negative. I felt disappointed. Well, it was explained to me that it is possible to write some papers, perhaps for conferences where you can make performance-papers, but not for academic work, nor for a thesis. So, maybe is a contradiction that we read alternative models for creating theories but we are not able to apply those models in our work, right?
3. In that order of ideas, I think, also, the alliance between arts and theory should be accepted in our programs. Is part of making real the interdisciplinary studies. When I watched “Blow Up” by Antonioni (I know this is not part of the readings, but we should watch it for our second writing assignment) I asked myself if a work of art, a film in this case, is also understandable as a analytical reading for a short story. I think the film is: Antonioni offers a point of view, and highlights what he thinks is the most important of the short story. However, I am not completely sure if a student of our programs would be allowed to present a film, a painting, a novel or a group of poems as a thesis. Maybe is possible if the student argues with a solid theoretical frame, but I am not sure if the academy will validate it. Maybe. Maybe not. I do not put much hope on that.
4. The course more than answers, give me questions. One of them is how to put in practice these theories, not only in an article or essay but in the “real” world. If we are learning to deconstruct, an idea that for me is still ethereal, how can we teach or apply this concept to our societies; how to use deconstruction in a practical way, linked to the problems of our countries, to our works. I have to think more about this.
5. I also asked myself which one of this theories could be useful for my thesis research. So far, I am not sure. Maybe a combination of concepts/authors could work: Said + Fanon + Thiong’o? Perhaps. I think I have to read them more profoundly and see how to use them. But I least I have an idea for where to begin with.
6. Last, but not least, I think the blog is an useful idea. I understood better some concepts here than in the readings! When someone explains tricky ideas in a simple way it was really helpful. Thanks to everybody! Sometimes this blog was a space for dialogue, for thinking in different ideas, and it worth it. However, in several occasions I felt frustrated because the authors we talk about here in the blog were not discussed in class. Anyway, is a great space but it deserves a better connection to the class.
7. Gracias. Merci. Thanks.

1. In the first entrance in this blog I said my relationship with theory was not the best since I always have felt it cold and distant, and it did not gave me the warm sensation that literature gives me. Well, today, three months later, I think that some of these fast brushstrokes of theory are still cold. Some of them are also distant. But not all of them. I have found some authors really inspiring and warm: Lorde, Anzaldua, Fanon, Morrison, Barthes, Foucault, Thiong’o, Bakhtin, Schlovsky, inter alia. Also when I read Friedberg and Fiske I also noticed that television its a really interesting topic. Even thought in this very moment I will not able to remember all their definitions and terms, some of their ideas still resonates in my head.
2. Lorde, Anzaldua and Thiong’o made me think about how a theory or theoretical reflection could be proposed from a personal perspective, with an emotional ingredient which remembers a little the sense of literature. When I read them I thought: “It is possible create and the same time theorize! There is an alternative and it not contradicts the academy!” I actually felt very excited. However, when I asked in class if is possible to write down a paper in this way, from the first person who elaborates academic reflections based on personal experiences, the answer was negative. I felt disappointed. Well, it was explained to me that it is possible to write some papers, perhaps for conferences where you can make performance-papers, but not for academic work, nor for a thesis. So, maybe is a contradiction that we read alternative models for creating theories but we are not able to apply those models in our work, right?
3. In that order of ideas, I think, also, the alliance between arts and theory should be accepted in our programs. Is part of making real the interdisciplinary studies. When I watched “Blow Up” by Antonioni (I know this is not part of the readings, but we should watch it for our second writing assignment) I asked myself if a work of art, a film in this case, is also understandable as a analytical reading for a short story. I think the film is: Antonioni offers a point of view, and highlights what he thinks is the most important of the short story. However, I am not completely sure if a student of our programs would be allowed to present a film, a painting, a novel or a group of poems as a thesis. Maybe is possible if the student argues with a solid theoretical frame, but I am not sure if the academy will validate it. Maybe. Maybe not. I do not put much hope on that.
4. The course more than answers, give me questions. One of them is how to put in practice these theories, not only in an article or essay but in the “real” world. If we are learning to deconstruct, an idea that for me is still ethereal, how can we teach or apply this concept to our societies; how to use deconstruction in a practical way, linked to the problems of our countries, to our works. I have to think more about this.
5. I also asked myself which one of this theories could be useful for my thesis research. So far, I am not sure. Maybe a combination of concepts/authors could work: Said + Fanon + Thiong’o? Perhaps. I think I have to read them more profoundly and see how to use them. But I least I have an idea for where to begin with.
6. Last, but not least, I think the blog is an useful idea. I understood better some concepts here than in the readings! When someone explains tricky ideas in a simple way it was really helpful. Thanks to everybody! Sometimes this blog was a space for dialogue, for thinking in different ideas, and it worth it. However, in several occasions I felt frustrated because the authors we talk about here in the blog were not discussed in class. Anyway, is a great space but it deserves a better connection to the class.
7. Gracias. Merci. Thanks.

When “Culture” came up, I used to feel perplexed about the immense broad sense of this word. I thought it comprehends everything about art for sure: painting, music, film, architecture… and other aspects of human behavior that could distinct one culture from another. But after reading the introduction of the Culture Studies, I found that “culture” actually possesses a much broader sense which “ includes language and the arts”, as well as “the regularities, procedures and rituals of human life in communities”.  No wander that culture tainted with political color, because politics also compose an indispensable part of culture. And it’ll make sense that Walter Benjamin had politics and art forms like painting, photographs and films connected in the extensive realm of culture.

The main conflict that Benjamin displays is the incompatible relationship between “mechanical reproduction” and the “actual work of art”. In summery, there are several qualities that are absent in the reproduction art : “presence in time and space”; “the original”; “the authenticity”; “the aura”; and “the fabric of tradition”. He points that the existence of the work of art with reference to its aura is never entirely separated from its ritual function. Ritualistic basis is stressed in the cult of beauty, however, it runs to crisis after the Renaissance and even get denied with the doctrine of “l’art pour l’art”. But in the era of mechanical reproduction, it emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependance on ritual and changes the reaction of the masses towards art. Film, as the most powerful agent of mass movements and result of the development of technology, decisively sways the individual attitudes by mass audience response. By introducing the freudian theory which makes unnoticed thing perceivable, Benjamin says that film too, enriched our field of perception.

Last but not least, the author explains “the logical result of the Fascism is the introduction of aesthetics into political life”. Fascism seeks to give the masses an expression rather than their right and thus has property preserved. War is the culmination of this political aesthetic. “War and war only can set a goal for mass movements on the largest scale while respecting the traditional property system”. In this sense, war is worshiped by Fascism and is expected to supply the artistic gratification of a sense of perception. Considering the background in which the author situated, one could not neglect two most significant features of that period: the innovative production of film and  the horrible warfare pushed by Fascism. Although nowadays few people  connect film with war, and the relation of the two seems quite farfetched, it’s totally understandable in the context of that peculiar history.