Month: November 2013

First, I would like to quote a paragraph that I would like to have a closer look at when in class on Tuesday:

“ the colonial presence is always ambivalent, split between its appearance as original and authoritative and its articulation as repetition and difference. It is the ambivalence that makes the boundaries of colonial “ positionality”- the division of self/other- and the question of colonial power-the diffrenciation of colonizer/colonized-different from both the Hegelian master/slave dialectic  or the phenomenological projection of Otherness. It is a difference produced within the act of enunciation as a specifically colonial articulation of those two disproportionate sites of colonial discourse and power: the colonial scene as the invention of historicity, mastery, mimesis or as the ‘other scene” of Entstellung, displacement, fantasy, psychic defence, and an “open” textuality. Such a dis-play of difference produces a mode of authority that is agonistic (rather than antagonistic). It’s discriminatory.” p.1171

And second, I would like to say what I understood of the “reality effect” concept, though not really sure of myself… any clarification any one???

Bhabha who is influenced by Derrida’s work The Double Session but wishes to focus on the “dividing practises” which construct the colonial space, defines the reality effect with the following terms:  “the reality effect” or “the effect of content” is the production “of “presence” as a certain quality of discursive transparency” (p.1172). To Bhabha, the reality effect which is the English book in his study, lies on a strategy of address: when the reader encounters the “English book”, it appears as real, under his gaze,  it is showed to him. There, in this effect of presence is engaged the question of authority. Through the book, we “encounter the structured gaze of power whose objective is authority, whose subjects are historical.” (p.1172) This book that everyone can see or picture, produces a moment of “discursive transparency”: we don’t need an explanation to know what it is, we understand immediately what it is and we don’t question it. The simple fact of using this reality effect is an act of authority in the colonial speech: we are not proposed the book, it is disposed on us and with it, the connotations that belong to it and that we don’t acknowledge. It appears detached from the source of enunciation that created it, and therefore, we don’t think of questioning it (why is it there? What is it? What doe it mean?)  The way the addressee receives the reality effect is characteristic of the “mode of governance” of colonialism, based on the confusion between “the sense of disposal, as the bestowal of a frame of reference” (which an authoritative discourse does in distributing positions relatively to the Other: in a colonial discourse, we are always the other of the other)  and “disposition as mental inclination, a friend of mind.” (the way an individual receives a message and perceives the world) (p.1173) We take as transparent or immediate our understanding, whereas it is actually the result of a series of mediation. In other terms, the colonial discourse hides the fact that our understanding of the Other is based on a construction and not on an immediate understanding. This proces shows in the way a reader reads the English book: we all understand what it is, we believe in it as an effect of real, and we don’t see behind it the construction of an ideology, and of a discourse of religious domination. The reality effect is a mask that covers the construction of the authoritative discourse and enforces its effects.

 

The massive reproduction of artwork has changed the nature of how an image is perceived by contemporary society. In a short essay by Walter Benjamin, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, the author explains that art has always been reproduced throughout history. However, the extent and methods in which it is mass-produced has changed the aura or authenticity of art; it has altered art’s social relations, historical and cultural rituals, and traditions.
In principle a work of art has always been reproducible but still, mechanical reproduction represents something new, as firstly the reproduction process is more independent from the original than manual reproduction. Secondly, technical reproduction can put a copy of the original into situations, which would otherwise be out of reach for the original itself. However, Benjamin believes that even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be.
The presence of the original is indispensable to the concept of authenticity, as authenticity is, according to Benjamin, linked to the essence of all that is transmissible from the object since its beginning and includes all the history that it has experienced. The reproduction, as offered for instance by a photograph, differs from the image seen by the naked eye. Uniqueness and permanence is linked to the second and reproducibility to the first. However, Benjamin does not see this a mere difference between the original and its reproductions, he argues that the “aura” of objects is destroyed by reproducing them. Think of the way a work of classic literature can be bought cheaply in paperback, or a painting bought as a poster. Think also of newer forms of art, such as TV shows and adverts. Then compare these to the experience of staring at an original work of art in a gallery, or visiting a unique historic building. This is the difference Benjamin is trying to capture.

I think even though I got from the text that Benjamin was seeing the loss of an aura as a negative thing, I think that through reproduction the “value” of the original is elevated. Indeed, the whole idea of reproduction, creates a big swift in art. Not only in relation to the work of art (that is not seen in relation to its cult significance but in relation to its exhibitional value) but also in relation to the audience.

In his essay, “The Work of Art In The Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, Walter Benjamin discusses the changes that took place in the interior of perception and its influence on the way we see the visual work of art. The shift in perception realized by the mechanical revolution is similar to the change done by psychoanalysis fifty years ago. Freud made his point in trying to give meaning to things that normally nobody noticed. On the other hand the whole philosophy of the twentieth century is a revision of the paradigm of communication and a shift towards the phenomenology of body. The Freudian theories situate the paradigm of body of language, whereas the anthropological communication talks about body as language. It is this change of paradigm that theorize Benjamin as well : we move from soul to body in order to explore its capacity to master the space around, and in this perspective the era of mechanical reproduction has its separate role. Benjamin says that just as in psychoanalysis, film theories explore a different spectrum of optical and acoustical dimensions that enlarged human perception. Perception itself has been transformed. And if we consider Merleau-Ponty and Michel Henry studies on body and perception, Benjamin theory becomes more clear. What film and photography emphases is a deep relation between the artistic value and the value of science. These revolutionary functions of the mechanics have been able to enrich human perception. While traditional art had what Benjamin calls an aura defined by authenticity and authority, the modern age through film and photography writes it of through the mechanical reproduction of art itself. A painting has an aura, meaning that it always going to have a rest that can not be reproduced, while a photograph does not. Even if potentially any work of art can be reproduced, it remains utterly original. It is not the case of a photograph which is the image of an image. What does this loss mean for contemporary art? Benjamin points out that the loss of aura is similar to the loss of authority within the work of art. The question that rises in this perspective is what is going to replace that concept? It is the role of the cameraman who is able to manipulate the eye of his viewer in ways a painter was never able to. The perception involved in these new forms of art create an esthetics of reception too. And this new eon of reception represents the space of a continuous interdependence between the viewer and the object of art. In that respect the loss of aura is a good thing for Benjamin because it offers a potential toward the politicization of art even if this new perspective can be arguable.

In his essay, “The Work of Art In The Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, Walter Benjamin discusses the changes that took place in the interior of perception and its influence on the way we see the visual work of art. The shift in perception realized by the mechanical revolution is similar to the change done by psychoanalysis fifty years ago. Freud made his point in trying to give meaning to things that normally nobody noticed. On the other hand the whole philosophy of the twentieth century is a revision of the paradigm of communication and a shift towards the phenomenology of body. The Freudian theories situate the paradigm of body of language, whereas the anthropological communication talks about body as language. It is this change of paradigm that theorize Benjamin as well : we move from soul to body in order to explore its capacity to master the space around, and in this perspective the era of mechanical reproduction has its separate role. Benjamin says that just as in psychoanalysis, film theories explore a different spectrum of optical and acoustical dimensions that enlarged human perception. Perception itself has been transformed. And if we consider Merleau-Ponty and Michel Henry studies on body and perception, Benjamin theory becomes more clear. What film and photography emphases is a deep relation between the artistic value and the value of science. These revolutionary functions of the mechanics have been able to enrich human perception. While traditional art had what Benjamin calls an aura defined by authenticity and authority, the modern age through film and photography writes it of through the mechanical reproduction of art itself. A painting has an aura, meaning that it always going to have a rest that can not be reproduced, while a photograph does not. Even if potentially any work of art can be reproduced, it remains utterly original. It is not the case of a photograph which is the image of an image. What does this loss mean for contemporary art? Benjamin points out that the loss of aura is similar to the loss of authority within the work of art. The question that rises in this perspective is what is going to replace that concept? It is the role of the cameraman who is able to manipulate the eye of his viewer in ways a painter was never able to. The perception involved in these new forms of art create an esthetics of reception too. And this new eon of reception represents the space of a continuous interdependence between the viewer and the object of art. In that respect the loss of aura is a good thing for Benjamin because it offers a potential toward the politicization of art even if this new perspective can be arguable.

In his essay, Walter Benjamin raised an interesting question: what happens to a work of art, or art in general, when it can be reproduced into numerous copies in our technical age? What changes could the technical reproduction bring to the work of art?
To begin with, there is the problem of the original. Once we were able to reproduce a work of art, the once unique and original copy loses its authenticity, as well as its authority. The reproductions hence detach from the tradition and lose the “aura” of the work of art. Of course when he wrote about art in his essay in 1935 Benjamin was thinking about art in a traditional sense, mostly painting. And the art in its tradition is essentially characterized by a ritualistic experience, which is shattered by the mechanic reproduction of art. The reproduction of art can therefore meet the “beholder” halfway, and this has profoundly reshaped the relationship between the work of art and its viewer (or listener). As a result of this change, the nature of art has suffered a transformation as well: it is from then on designed to be reproduced and it is measured by its exhibition values. The reaction of the masses toward art have also changed as a result: from the “reactional attitude” to a “progressive reaction”, a “direct, intimate fusion of visual and emotional enjoyment with the orientation of the expert”(1237). This analysis of the relation between the masses and the culture could be considered the predecessor of Horkheimer and Adorno’s examination of mass culture.
According to Benjamin, film is the form par excellence representing this renewal of art and our attitude towards it. Its ability to reach the public and produce mass audience response, is something a painting fails to do. The film provides a collective experience that happens almost simultaneously and without the hierarchical mediation. And another profound change brought by film, is its representation of the environment surrounding men: “by close-ups of the things around us, by focusing on hidden details of familiar objects, by exploring commonplace milieus under the ingenious guidance of the camera”(1238), the film extends our comprehension of the environment and introduces us to formerly hidden and unconscious optics in our lives.
This aesthetization of the environment, in Benjamin’s opinion, later extended to the aesthetics of the destructive power of the war and to the self-alienation of humankind.

In this weeks reading I found Walter Benjamin’s text to be very interacting. He starts by talking about the reproduction of art and how there is a difference between the reproduction and the original no matter how similar the two might be there is something missing. He mentions that “Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be. This unique existence of the work of art determined the history to which it was subject throughout the time of its existence.”(pg1235) There is something special about the time and space where art is created that is only carried by the original work of art. He later talks about mass production and when referring to this he talks about the lost “aura”. I’m not really sure what he means by aura but in my guess is that special property in the original, related to mystic associated with religious art. I’m sitting here in my room and I’m looking at Vincent van Gogh’s painting “The Cafe Terrace” that is hanging from my wall of course it’s a copy. But what makes it so different from the original? I think that is the direct connection with the painter. Benjamin mentions that “One might subsume the eliminated element in the term “aura” and go on to say: that which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art. This is a symptomatic process whose significance points beyond the realm of art. One might generalize by saying: the technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of tradition. By making many reproductions it substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence”(1236) mass production removes the aura from the work of art. What is mass production? Photos and movies produced with technology. l is negative about mass production. He later mentions when referring to photos that: “By close-ups of the things around us, by focusing on hidden details of familiar objects,by exploring commonplace milieus under the ingenious guidance of the camera, the film,on the one hand, extends our comprehension of the necessities which rule our lives; on the other hand, it manages to assure us of an immense and unexpected field of action.Our taverns and our metropolitan streets, our offices and furnished rooms, our railroad stations and our factories appeared to have us locked up hopelessly.” This reminds me of what we talked about in the beginning of the course in formalism how arts job is to deafamiliarize what is familiar and this is what photos and films do because they deafamiliarize everyday objects.
One last quote that also captured my attention is when Benjamin mentions that: “The camera introduces us to unconscious optics as does psychoanalysis to unconscious impulses” (1239) This is true because even though some optics might be available to us we can’t see it because it is too fast but by slowing the motion something not available to us before is visible similar to psychoanalysis.

This week’s readings centered around a pretty central theme for me: we are all being constantly manipulated to buy (an important one, in our happy capitalist tradition) behave, and believe a certain way.  For the most part, we do it unknowingly, but even so, it is a process that we do happily, based on our desire to assimilate into the preferred social group.  Fiske’s final article on television culture suggests that through various strategies (be it camera angles, make-up, setting, etc.) we are conditioned to want to be the “heroes” versus the “villians” in any given scenario.

As soon as I started to read this article, I had a certain movie in mind as an example that would potentially defy this principle.  Then, as I read the case study about Prisoner, the soap opera about the women’s prison, and its role in schools, it absolutely solidified my need to take a look at this film, because in my mind, this was one of the most classic examples where “school as a prison” was used as a way to promote rebelliousness and defy stereotypes, just as Prisoner did.  Maybe you’ve heard of it.

The Breakfast Club: a film infamous for showing that people, despite the way they’re stereotyped, can come together in the fight against adversity (otherwise known as “being stuck in detention.”) On the whole, they prove that stereotypes lead to people being vastly misunderstood, and that they are stronger in coming together and embracing each others’ differences.

I wanted to take a look at this through ‘Figure 1’ that Fiske outlines because I was so convinced that The Breakfast Club wouldn’t fit into this mold of the “codes” that govern the cultural world.  After all, there was no villain amongst them!  They all learn to love each other – hearts, flowers and happiness blossom at the end of this movie.  It was groundbreaking! … wasn’t it?  Here was my analysis:

Level 1: “Reality:” As the photo clearly indicates, everyone is certainly dressed to fit a certain mold. Their clothes, makeup, and personalities are reinforced strongly by each of the stereotypes that they perpetuate: “the criminal,” “the basket case,” “the athlete,” “the princess,” and “the brain.”  But as the movie moves on, their behaviors toward one another begin to change.  Instead of perpetuating stereotypes, they begin to understand one another.  Reality as we know it has been conquered.  So far, so good.

Level 2: “Representation”: I thought it was important to underline that since the setting of the school remains the same for the entire movie, it allows for the viewer to really focus on character development.  I was still stuck on the idea that their character development was purely based on their discussions with one another.  It was at this point, however, that I realized that there is, in fact, a villain in this movie.  This guy.:

It was then that I (devastatingly) realized that this movie fits perfectly into the mold for television codes.  I’d forgotten that nasty principal, keeping these students all locked up on a Saturday morning!  He serves as the dominator, the ‘powers that be’ keeping our protagonists trapped in the system.  Suddenly, the unlikely heroes have a mutual cause to fight against that binds them together.

Level 3: “Ideology”:  On an ideological level, here we have two different types of development.  1) The importance of individualism – their differences bind them together, and creates a lasting bond between them.  And, as already stated: 2) The fight against tyranny in the prison-like school environment, which they all conquer at the end of the film by ditching detention early, for which they receive no disciplinary action whatsoever (that we know of).

One more cultural consideration that I did not notice at all the first 800 times that I watched this movie: all of these characters are white.  Though it does become clear throughout the film that they come from a variety of social situations and backgrounds, the absence of racial diversity is an interesting component to this film that I was never previously aware of.  Yet another example of how we subconsciously accept this type of stuff without further thought.

Alas, The Breakfast Club did teach us some cool things about individuality.  But is it really any different from the formulaic “here’s what you’re supposed to be like” cultural phenomenon that we all embrace?  I am inclined to say no, and I am now inclined to analyze every single other piece of media that comes my way by the same methods.  So thank you, John Fiske, for ruining all of the enjoyment I used to get out of television.

(No seriously, thank you.  I think if we all examined culture in this way, humanity would make a lot of progress.)