For my final post, I have decided to do something fun. Not that my other blogs weren't fun, but I think that this post will be far more entertaining. One of the options for the final in my class was to create a playlist. Each song on the playlist would represent the works and/or ideas of the theorists discussed. And, I have done just so! For seven of the theorisits we discussed, I have selected songs and music videos that I think reflect some of their key ideas. My descriptions, since a blogpost cannot be too long, won't be as in depth as in a research paper. However, I will include anaylsis and comparison for each piece and their assigned theorist. Track One: Meghan Trainor meets Stuart Hall For my discussion response on Stuart Hall (my class wrote discussion responses throughout the semester), I wrote about his key concept that dominate cultures have a tendency to re-educate and reform women within. Specifically, I used the example of posture contests in the 1950s- which were regulated and determined by men. These contests were channels for men to determine what women should look like. In other words, they gave men the power to determine how women should be shaped and to promote a beauty standard amongst women. Posture contests, much like beauty contests, not only hinted at what women "ought" to be, but was a way in which the dominant members of the society, men, could "reform" women to their liking. Today, however, especially amongst women, there is a growing sense of resentment to standardized beauty and to what women "should" look like. From Dove (the soap brand) to Barbie, more and more campaigns have begun to promote beauty as being individually unique, as something not dependent on sameness. There is a reform, or "re-teaching" in allowing and insisting upon women being beautiful no matter their size, skin color, or general looks. Thus, I selected the one and only "All About that Base," by Meghan Trainor: Not only is Trainor "all about that bass," but she is all about self confidence being beautiful. I mean, look at her, nothing is stopping her. She is contributing to the yearning amongst many women, of all shapes and sizes, of equality and originality it beauty. What would Stuart Hall think? Well, frankly, he could probably write a twenty-plus paged essay on this one video. (This also weighs heavily on Hall's reference to Bordo's body studies). Track Two: Shock? What Shock? It's a Little Blurry So Walter Benjamin wrote in a completely different time from know. Time had literally just become a thing, with the creation of factories, life became scheduled, clocked. He wrote a whole essay on the poet, Baudelaire, discussing the "shock experience" stemming from the elevation of time. It freaked Baudelaire out, and it could be seen in his collections of lyric poems (you've probably heard of it- it's a big one): Les Fleurs du Mal. Now, putting Benjamin aside, does shock still exist? It's debatable, especially considering that a majority of what is seen on TV today would have been ultimate scandal in Benjamin's day. However, it can be argued, that we have become immune to shock. In my class discussion response on this topic, I brought-up that shock is more based on commodity today. However, while watching music videos that have been produced over the past few years, I remembered on in particular that struck me as being truly shocking. I remember all of my girlfriends being disgusted, outraged, not because of the going-ons in the video, but because of its message (particularly to young men). Before I discuss it further, take a look for yourself: The women, the prance around with the same blank and emotionless gazes as the sheep the hold throughout the video. Thicke is praising the grace "of blurred lines," AKA the uncertainty of consent and the thrill he receives from it. Then there are the mentions of "plastic." After years of feminists proving women to be something more than animals or sex toys, as well as the multitude of growing sexual assault cases on college campuses, this video created an angry shock. Not as angry as the shock that came over many when Trump was elected, but there was a tempest. Thicke's own wife (says the word on the street) divorced him shortly after the video was released. The shock, came from the realization that women still have (and had) a lot of work to do. So what does that say about shock today? Since we haven't had to undergo the amount of change our ancestors did, and much of what would have "shocked" them is now desensitized, shock may be stimulated more by societal issues between genders, religions, and ethnicities. Track Three: Lorde VS Bruno Mars- who gets Culture as industry the best? I'm going to say it now, Lorde! Though she herself is a bit of a celebrity, she knows what she is talking about in her song "Royals." I want you to listen to it first, then to Bruno's, and then re-listen to it. With "Royals” Notice the complex, but yet fluid and simple song rhythm and video as a whole. Listen to the lyrics and how she decodes what is promoted to be "culture". Now, do not forget any of what you have seen a heard. Here is Bruno's take on culture via, "24K Magic": Alright, so what does he do when he gets his paycheck? Flies to Vegas, spends, and feeds into what could be a product of culture as industry. Versace, yes, the high-brow fashion brand, dressed the WHOLE cast in the music video. Do you know how much a shirt is from them? (Google it, I don't dare utter it here). They too, are feeding into the commercial delight that has become a large part of a culture. Just like at Vegas, culture is being dispensed via money and expense. The party life is promoted by artists such as Bruno and, what one would think of as "high-culture" fashion brands. The glamor of Vegas and of appearing in this light is the focus, not the history of the products, or of Vegas, but of the commercial pleasure it all provides. Did you listen to "Royals" again? If you haven't, do so now. Every "song is like good teeth," "trashing the hotel room" and "tigers on a golden leash" ...did we not "every song" in "24K Gold"? Lorde sees the history beneath "that fantasy" and, I think, sees the fantasy of those driven by the culture industry. Track 4: Meet the Modern-day Not-so Tiller Girls (and guys!) Now, and as Siegfried Kracauer could point-out if he was still here with us, Tiller Girls still exist today, in their various forms. However, I am proud to say, that though this video has gone under its own criticisms, Taylor Swift has shown the world that there has been a great growth in the world of dance and performance. The Tiller Girls? They're boring, and "vanilla" compared to what you are about to see: So, the song itself might not play into all or much of any of old SF's theory, but on a simplistic level, it debunks the Tiller Girls. This song is about variety, originality, dances moving at their individual rhythms with or without ornament or spectacle (i.e. the simplistic style of the modern dancers VS the gymnasts). The music video and expression of the song oppose the sameness and "unity" behind the Tiller Girls. I will not say that Mass Ornament isn't present, but the presence of the song's message, i.e. the ability to express and live one's like without society ruling it, is stronger. Track 5: No Trace of Harm This next song might be a bit of a stretch. In his essay, Wine and Milk, Roland Barthes discusses the custom and tradition of wine drinking in France. The harm or effects of it on the human body, of little consequence. I have applied that last thought to this specific song and video. The song celebrates making, selling, and taking drugs. If the lyrics were absent from the music video, one would have little to no idea of the drug references. One would have to look for it, see the signals and signs. Otherwise, the drug business is celebrated, and the harm that occurs to people from drug dealing goes unmentioned, as well as the negative effects of taking drugs. Unfortunately, and dramatically put, in some parts of the world and in some cultures, taking drugs is as much of as "tradition" as drinking wine in France- though of course, on a completely different level. And now I present the piece to you," Paper Airplanes" by M.I.A: Track 6: Punk's at the Thriftshop The next theorist, who I am matching with song, is Dick Hebdige. Though this next song as little do with Punk, in fact it has hardly anything to do with Punk, it too investigates using style as a statement. You probably know this song very well, for it even started a trend: "Thrift Shop", by Macklemore (Warning: Macklemore has a love for some special kinds of words). Like the Punks, M-man has a reason behind dressing in “your Grandpa’s style.” He is commenting on the obsession with brand names, of feeding into cultural industry. He is rejecting and recycling, cutting and pasting his style from clothes he finds at the thrift store (whether or not he does this, I don’t know, but it’s a cool statement with him being a celebrity and all). PS If you watch carefully, you may catch some "Punk ware" floating around. Track 7: Venturi's Las Vegas Captured So here is the end of the playlist. I thank you for staying with me for this long! Here goes the last bit! Initially, for discussing Learning From Las Vegas and Venturi's (etc.'s) theories, I was going to use Katy Perry's "Waking up in Vegas." But, then, I cam across this: The signs!! The road!! The presence of cars!! The lights!! The neon!! The Golden Nugget!! Almost everything Venturi and Co. discuss is there. Though the storlyine has little to do with Learning from Las Vegas, the signs and architecture are there- the key pieces that make Las Vegas are there. And that's all I really have to say about this last video. Unlike the others, I do not have any critique, other than personal feelings towards it (honestly, I think it's a bit creepy). I do think however, that an entire paper could be written on this specific piece in relationship to Learning from Las Vegas...if there was room and time.
THE END So, as and ending note, I hope that this blog created discussion and provided some ideas about "Sprawling"- in other words, how we have made ourselves fit across cultural and physical space. Though I did not always discuss topics on current Popular Culture, I think that its history is just as important and interesting. This is going to be my last post for now, but who knows, I may deeide to build on it someday. Thank you!
0 Comments
Today's blog post is inspired by one short section in Learning From Las Vegas, by Robert Venturi (Denise Scott Brown and Steven Izenour), a book we just read in class that, simply, defends the architecture and sprawl of the Las Vegas Strip. (Side Note 1: I am copying my Professor and just referencing Venturi, since come on, those last names are a mouthful). I don't think you will be surprised when I say that the inspiration of this post stemmed from this small section's," Vast Space in the Historical Tradition and at the A&P," (pg. 13), small reference to....wait for it....Versailles! History? FRENCH history? Pleasure palaces? I'm the first in line for discussion! In the section, Venturi argues that parking lots, which separate one from road and building, is a use of vast space to indicate direction. He states that the parking lot of the A&P is a specific example of "the evolution of vast space since Versailles," (pg. 13). It is not the actual parking lot that gives direction however, just like at Versailles, the use of fountains, lampposts, urns, etc. are used to indicate. This is an example of when "Symbol dominates space." Picture Caesars Palace, with its centurions, statues, the "classic" Greek columns- all things that indicate that Caesars Palace is an "ancient Roman experience" one can have and have pleasure in. At least for the Western world, I think the use of vast space and the idea of symbols dominating space really did start at Versailles. (Side Note 2: for the International Baccalaureate (I.B.) program's Extended-Essay (thesis equivalent), I wrote on Louis XIV's building of Versailles and how he used it to show his power and domination over the nobles and his subjects. Thus, I am truly nerding-out here). I am going to start with the biggest “vast space” and symbol within that space dominating it…Versailles’s “Golden Gate.” Here is a picture I took on my trip to Versailles in 2014: Notice the ornamentation on top of the gate: the encircled fleur de lis with the crown on top. This is a symbol in itself and indicates that Versailles is the seat of the French crown. Which, from Louis XIV to Louis XVI, it was. On the sides of the gate, above the stone blocks, are other ornaments. These, are the symbols of Louis XIV, the "Sun King" himself. You cannot see, but they depict the "Apollo" in the center of a golden sun. In front of this gate however, is an extensive stone courtyard, a statue of Louis XIV in the middle, leading from the road. Then, behind the gate, as you can see, there is another stone courtyard. It leads to another gate. Then behind the palace of course, there are the 1,976.84 acres of gardens, fountains, Marie Antoinette's "Hamlet," and the Trianons. Louis XIV converted the palace from a hunting lodge (where he pursued romantic, extramarital, affairs) to a pleasure palace (where he set ridged rules of etiquette and entertained the nobles, all to ensure his dominion). Space, was important. The key factor. A mighty king would not dwell in a small, cramped, humble abode. Oh no. Especially not this king. Versailles equated space and that space had to be brimming with symbols of the king’s power as well as pleasure to keep his courtiers there (and really, away from reality). So, how does this relate to the Las Vegas Strip again? Well, think about the length of the strip, how it stretches on and on. Before it was a pedestrian space, it was an automobile space. Visitors had to see the casino signs before reaching the casinos- from billboards to the parking lot signs- to remain interested and to yearn for the promised pleasure. Just, really, like at Versailles in its "golden age." Louis XIV's idea of providing "pleasure" was spectacle, fire works, nightly gambling, and of course, allowing nobles to watch him rise and perpare for the day (sounds crazy? for more information, read this: http://en.chateauversailles.fr/history/versailles-during-the-centuries/living-at-the-court/a-day-in-the-life-of-louis-xiv ) One building that was strikingly “Versailles” like to me, was the 1950/60s rendition of the Golden Nugget casino. Though it is supposed to be “Western,” I found that it held some Baroque (the initial style of Versailles under Louis XIV) similarities. Do you see the size? The immensity of the signs? The golden lights? The samount of space surounding it for traffic? And more importantly, do you see the ornamentation framing the “Golden Nugget: Gambling Hall” sign? It is not similar to that first gate at Versailles? With the ornamentation and the literal symbolized golden nugget hovering above the lettering? That golden nugget is to the sign, what the sun is to the gate at Versailles. If anything is similar between the Versailles and Las Vegas Strip, it is that both were built for pleasure, for one to be taken out of "real life." The spacing, as Venturi stated, is certainly true. I think in this post, I have at least contributed to that idea! REFERENCES Websites http://en.chateauversailles.fr/history/versailles-during-the-centuries/living-at-the-court/a-day-in-the-life-of-louis-xivhttp://www.humanitiesresource.com/baroque/articles/king_gambling.htm http://www.livescience.com/38903-palace-of-versailles-facts-history.html Books Rattenbury, Kester, and Samantha Hardingham. Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown: Learning from Las Vegas. Abingdon: Routledge, 2007. Print. What does it mean to be a Punk? Or rather, what did it mean? Well let me tell you, the answer is long enough that a book or two has been written about it. In class, we have been discussing “Punk” and the theories behind Punk’s predecessors and it’s own existence. The aspects I have been most attracted to are first, its purpose of inspiring shock and second, the codes interwoven in the style that indicate meaning to those interacting with it. Strangely enough, as we were reading Dick Hebdige’s, Subculture: the meaning of style, I was taken back to the French Revolution. Which was, in its entire purpose and action, shocking. The French Revolution was shock in itself- of the human condition, in response to both revolutionary and aristocratic behaviors, as well as the violence within the thing itself. However, just like with Punk, and more apparently and consciously, there was philosophical meaning behind it all. The Style of the revolutionaries (the style focus here, will be women), matched their developing philosophical and economic beliefs within the subculture. By the beginning of the revolution, tall and elaborate wigs were already going “out” in the dominant culture, however, the revolutionaries took to sometimes chopping-off their all together, and more regularly, to leaveing it natural, powder-less, and tied back in a “neoclassical” style. Wait? What? An art and philosophical movement seeped into women’s (and men’s) hairstyles? Yes, yes it did. Just like Punks, these hairstyles, and ways of dress, directly correlated with their resistance to the dominant (then the aristocratic culture) and was built on the revolution’s shock. Before I begin showing, comparing, and analyzing, I would like to clarify what neoclassicism is. Have you ever seen a Jacques-LouisDavid painting? I’m sure you have (think, The Death of Marat and Napoleon Crossing the Alps). If you haven’t, look him up, because his paintings define neoclassicism by their existence. Basically, the French revolutionaries believed that France needed to revert back to the classical era, politically and culturally. Neoclassicism opposed the dominant culture of the time- it worked against the idea of Divine Right, Catholicism, and the values economic and cultural values of aristocracy. The new philosophy demanded a cutting and pasting of classical culture (think ancient Rome & Greece) and the relevance of the day. Just like Punks, revolutionaries stitched together a culture from material ideals with what was available to them. Alright! So, take a look at the this: This is a political cartoon, a very finely drawn one too. On the left, is a couple wearing early revolutionary dress. Together, they are mocking the aristocratic couple on the right. Take a look at what the women are wearing. The "femme révolutionnaire" is wearing a simple gown, her hair is simply done as well- simply adorned. The aristocratic woman, is her opposite. She is attired in the formal court attire- something you would see everyday down the halls of Versailles. From head to toe, she is inauthentic via, her hair and face powders, her wig, the mole (which is probably fake, that's just what they did then) on her upper cheek, and not to mention the hoops of her skirt (which implies large hips and money). Her component, is completely sans make-up. This look, however, was only the beginning. The image above is a fashion template. It is pre-neoclassical, but much like the Punks initiated a code in their dress, so did women pre and during the Neoclassical movement. The woman third from the left for example, her jacket or bodice, reassembles a soldiers'. Then there are the colors of what is now the French flag (the French flag of today originates from the revolution), which indicates patriotism. Simply, these colors and traits imply rebellion for their country, that they are revolutionaries. Also, do not forget, their look completely contrasts that of the aristocratic woman (who would have been part of the dominant culture) above. The template is an example of the transformation that would lead to the more intensified revolutionary "punkism" of the French Revolution. As things moved, literally downhill, and Robespierre was being overwhelmed by his own revolution (in case you didn't know, he was the one who lead it, until his followers got tired of killing and decided to execute him by his own devices, Madame Guillotine), and the leadership of Napoleon was on the rise, the people began to drink-up neoclassicism. The aforementioned David, and several other artists, were immensely popular. The dresses above, when they first began to appear, were shocking. Their predecessors (in the fashion template earlier), had been shocking by their message, but they weren't totally shocking. These, at first, were deemed immodest. A woman's form was not only obvious, but sometimes to very hidden (which come on, the aristocratic women had dresses with cuts that went nearly down as far as their belly- not really- but really). However, the gowns portrayed simplicity and the hunger for a classical revival (i.e. the nostalgia of toga/stola wearing). Colors and army-like cuts were replaced by the copying and pasting of history and realpolitik (figuratively) instead. Make-up? There was hardly any, before the look was popularized, normalized, were given variety, and adapted by surrounding countries (i.e. England. Wearing these empire-waisted gowns would be any Jane Austen fan's dream). This image, however, portrays a slightly darker side of the neoclassical "Punk like" movement. On the left if Marie Antoinette, and on the right is woman who was painted by Louis-Léopold Boilly (1). The woman had been a noble woman, who somehow survived the Revolution. Like her, many that did survive, cut their hair to that length, and as seen in the painting, and stripped themselves of any extravagance. This response was a revolt within the revolt. By the cropping of their hair and consuming the look of a révolutionnaire, they were coping and pasting the original new look and giving it a new meaning: mourning their murdered family and perhaps, dramatizing their survival (who wouldn't?). This behavior (hair cropping, etc.) was adapted into the revolutionary flow, the code, perhaps, the meaning only being known to the disguised noble women. Here is an example of the code, most likely unknowingly, being adapted by the wife of a Napoleon supporter (also note that she is wearing a cross- what could that mean in the "Punk world" in relation to the downfall of the Catholic Church in France and the rise of Napoleon?) (2): She, and those who followed this fashionable trend, is an example of the Neoclassical movement's rebellious style, being translated into high fashion and the new dominant culture. It was in terms of the day, commodified. Just like Punk.
So, this ends rather simply. However, I do find it interesting. Obviously, the shock, encoded, and "copying and pasting," that is found so clearly in Punk, is perhaps a very old tradition. The only flaw in this comparison, is that Punk really belonged to the youth, whereas the neoclassical style was used by women (And men) of all ages. Perhaps, more heavily by the youth though, since the youth tend to be more involved in revolutions. This example is very old and dates back to a very, differently, violent time, but does it not resonate? Is it perhaps, an ancestor of Punk? REFERENCES (1) http://barbaraanneshaircombblog.com/2012/02/10/creative-museum-the-riches-of-the-french-empire/ (2) http://www.napoleon.org/histoire-des-2-empires/tableaux/portrait-de-madame-fouler-comtesse-de-relingue/ http://thehistoryofthehairsworld.com/hair_18th_century.html http://world4.eu/fashion-under-the-french-revolution-1789-to-1802/ Images http://www.punk77.co.uk/welcometopunk77.htm In light of the blog post I made earlier today, I have decided to make my own piece of "detournement." In the September 2016, National Geographic issue, the article Why Fur is Back in Fashion, by Richard Conniff, went into depth on the animals that are used for leather accessories in fashion. The conditions of the animals was gut-turning, however, it was the death of the animal that was the most sickening. Unnecessarily harsh, and sometimes simply cruel. The most disgusting of all however, was the economic gain of big fashion companies in acquiring the leather. After reading the article, my mom and I decided that we would "lightly boycott" companies that use animals unfairly at all. We have tried our best to avoid leather in clothing and makeup/cosmetic products. You would be surprised at how many "Big Brand" companies treat animals inhumanly (CoverGirl, Chapstick, Head&Shoulders, Revlon, etc.). The target today, however, is Estée Lauder: Okay, maybe it's a little cheesy and a little extreme, but I put a lot of thought in it (at least my mom says it's good and her opinion is the only one that matters, right?). Also, it's a perfume add, which I do not know if Estée Lauder tests their perfumes on animals or not. However! It is that fact that the company uses animals to test on in general that is under question. I have caged Kendall Jenner in with the rabbits and the rat, to symbolize that she is part of the system. By being the the covergirl, she is feeding into the company. Her presence, being a famous one, attracts her fans to the project she sells. Unknowingly or not, those fans buy the product, thus endorsing Estée Lauder and their testing on animals. The motto of "Modern Muse" perfume is: Be Daring. Be An Inspiration. I find this ironic, since the perfume that is intended to make you feel "daring" and to "be an inspiration," is essentially a product of animal testing and being such a thing, is not daring and is not an inspiration. I chose this photo, not only because it had a perfect ledge to put the rat on, but because of its coloring. The red and dark green hues indicate a "daring" sensuality and will to be confident. Also, the Modern Muse being "Le Rouge" (the red) indicates all of that as well. This coloring and the coordination of "Le Rouge," is of course, intended by Estée Lauder as a sign to the customer. However, the red in my so-called piece of art, could allude to the blood spilt by the mistreating of animals used for chemical (yes, "chemical" meaning the properties of makeup and perfume) testing. I am not saying that this is a good piece of Detournement, but it does reroute the initial intentions of the add. if anything, it at least contains the spirit of Detournement. I feel like I have properly hijacked the add and have copied and pasted a new and critical meaning on it. To compare my work of Detournement with the original add, if you wish to, here it is: Also, here is a link to Why Fur is Back in Fashion: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/09/skin-trade-fur-fashion/ REFERENCES Image http://hollywoodlife.com/2015/06/10/kendall-jenner-modern-muse-le-rouge-estee-lauder-fragrance/ Detournement. A fancy French word, yes. But also, a movement in theory and art. Originating in the 1950s, from groups like the Situationists, Detournement was a form of art that literally “hijacked” another piece of art. Not only the reproduction of the piece, but of the piece’s original meaning. Frequently, usually, the hijacking artists copied the piece and pasted a new meaning into, which correlated with commentary on culture, commerce, social injustice, and war. This is one example we studied in class: It’s a known image: the innocent Vietnamese man captured milliseconds before his death by the shot of a government official. In its day, the image sparked outrage alone. Now however, applied to a Coca-Cola ad, the rage has shifted from the war between government and people- social injustice- to the war on capital and commerce on people, which effects, to some are not too different. This image, is an example of Detournement, of the art form’s focus on hijacking, and nearly militaristic warfare on society. There’s an artist today who is well versed in Detournement. Perhaps you know his name? It’s Banksy, the graffiti artists. His graffiti is known for taking existing art pieces and transforming them with new meaning. He is also known, at least in his graffiti and artwork, for criticizing social commentary. Here are two examples: The first piece, Jack Vettriano 's : "The Singing Butler", is incorporated with cleaning an oil spill (I think- I also see a Breaking Bad scene- but I think it's safe to assume the two men in hazard suits are NOT Jessie Pinkman and Walter White making meth). This could be commentary on the higher class, the 1%, and their concern for frivolities and "high-living" over the consequences of what's brought them there, i.e. oil companies and drill sites spilling, as well as a lack of concern for environmental issues, i.e. oil spills. That's my reading. The second piece mimics the Coca-Cola image above. The picture incorporated is called the "Terror of War" or "The Girl in the Picture," by Nick Ut. It too, was taken in Vietnam. In my reading, the corporations of Disney and McDonald's replicate the horrors the girl was running from, though here they hold her captive. What does that say about the two corporations and their relation to childhood? And children in general? And us? Well, it's not good. The focal piece of the post however, is an exhibit that Banksy held in 2015. It was held in a "Dystopian" theme park named "Dismaland." In other words, he took Disney theme park attractions and distorted them. I think he was doing more, however, than showing an opposite to Disney's false "Utopia" (please, any motto that says "where dreams come true," is implying that it is a place of magical perfection- a Utopia of wishes granted). Here is Banksy's take on Sleeping Beauty's Castle and Ariel's watery home: REBy taking the art of Disney and Disneyland, especially these two images, I think that there are two pieces of obvious commentary. First, with Sleeping Beauty's Castle, Banksy is speaking to the fact the Disneyland is not a Utopia. In fact, it is a corporation. The castle, is made of materials which rote and must be maintained. Thus, it is truly Disney the corporation that provides your "dream come true." They do that, by making you pay for entrance, your overnight stay, and by providing you with the props to dwell your dreams of a happy, perfect, and magical world. Ariel, and her watery home being a polluted and sickly body, I think indicates the priorities of Disney as a corporation. They will give you the plastic Ariel, regardless of the material she is made of and how the factory in which she was made, has polluted bodies of water. The Ariel statue is the brightest object that the eye can see. She is the illusion, the plastic distorted image of your dream becoming true. If Banksy did not distort her body, the mass market that she belongs too, would not be seeable. If he had left her be, what her plastic body stands for, wouldn't be visible. This exhibit on a whole was a form of live Detournement. The iconic forms were hijacked from Disney and literally twisted to show the truths behind Disney as a corporation. It is live, because of the interaction the viewer must of required. Walking amongst the exhibit was the object, the experience necessary to understand the art and oppose it to the art of Disneyland. My apologies for being morbid, perhaps, in my obvious opinions of Disney and large corporations (I think my class is starting to get to my head). We all have the option to ignore the truths and keep seeking our fanciful dreams...or do we? REFERENCES Books Debord, Guy. The Society of the Spectacle. New York: Zone, 1994. Print. Websites "Welcome to Dismaland: A First Look at Banksy's New Art Exhibition Housed Inside a Dystopian Theme Park [Updated 8/22]." Colossal. N.p., 2015. Web. 04 Nov. 2016. "The Girl in the Picture." CBSNews. CBS Interactive, n.d. Web. 04 Nov. 2016. Speaking of toys (from yesterday’s post), let’s talk about Barbie. Recently, Barbie has had a renowned makeover. There are Barbie dolls that have curves, a variety of ethnic backgrounds, and are different heights. “Barbie” Barbie, still exists, she is still slender, blond, tall, and of course, is addictively stylish. In my class a few weeks ago, we were focusing on Theodor Adorno’s theory on the culture industry, how the making of products is translated into our culture. From the rhythm of the machines to the making of equal parts to create equal wholes, as well as how: “the schematic nature of this procedure is evident from the fact that the mechanically differentiate products are ultimately all the same,” (Adorno, 2). In other words, like the T-Model Fords, parts are made in the same way, and they all look the same, and then when put together, the parts make cars that hardly differ. In fact, they all look the same. Barbie, I think, is the perfect example of industry seeping into our culture. Think about, in the Barbie factories, all the arms and legs and busts being produced. Then when put together, the same doll is created and put into a variety of outfits. Under her clothes, however, she is the same. The doll we know today, was a product of the 1950s- the age in which, women were being advised to return to their homes post their WWII debut as a working force, and be average housewives. According to the Barbie industry, Barbie was inspired by a mother, Ruth, who “watched her daughter Barbara playing with paper dolls. Barbara and her friends used them to play adult or teenage make-believe, imagining roles as college students, cheerleaders and adults with careers,” (1). Despite this alleged history, the “mass” claims differently. How many times have you seen on Facebook, heard from feminist friends, and perhaps from your own mother, that Barbie provides a bad message for girls, that she is not focused on careers, but rather vanity, sameness, and a tradition of femininity that has lost its popularity? In July of 2013, three years before Barbie released its infamous makeover of diverse Barbie body types, Claire Groden at TIME magazine explored the “Average Barbie.” Artist Nickolay Lamm was the first of many to compare Barbie’s dimensions to the dimensions of the average teenage girl. Lamm found that Barbie was not only anorexic, but, as Groden says in her article, “may be even more influential to girls’ development of body image standards,” (2). Lamm argues that Barbie, may be more influential in this arena than models in media. Which, I think is valid. Barbies can be handled, touched, and played with- Barbie’s figure is tangible, where as models are only images. Our culture, has, as Adorno argues, responded to the “clock” of industry. American culture is dependent on schedule, time- sameness in our daily schedules and lives. This has carried over to our expectations of beauty. We see beauty as something every girl must obtain. Beauty, however, cannot be diverse, it must be equal, it must match the rhythm in which we work. All parts of a female body must equate to an equilibrium that society defines as attractive. Not only has the “Barbie image,” created tension between young girls and their bodies, but has contributed to the loss of general aura and “uniqueness” in our culture. Like the introduction of mass made clothing and sizes during the Civil War, Barbie has created a factory of the body. Her dimensions, made in a factory, have spread from plastic parts to real parts- which are perhaps, are even seen as plastic. Honestly, because we are all hypocritical, I do not completely dislike Barbie. I think that the Mattel Company has made progress and is attempting to match the new cultural mood of individuality and accepting each other as we are. Also, perhaps mothering is important- if a mother or father can detach their child from the idea that Barbie is an influence, to think instead of Barbie as merely a toy, individual cases of Barbie love would differ. Also, I follow Barbie on Instagram. Who doesn’t? The artsy photos of mini outfits are too cute to miss-out on. Also, she travels to Paris on the fly...who would think I would ever be envious of a doll? REFERENCES Websites (1) http://www.barbiemedia.com/about-barbie/history.html (2) http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/07/09/barbie-meet-average-barbie/ Essay Adorno, Theodor. The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception. 1944. Photos 1.http://metro.co.uk/2015/11/16/the-incredible-transformation-of-barbie-over-the-last-56-years-5505021/ 2.http://ladies-trends.com/2013/10/29/new-real-barbie/ 3. http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2016/02/03/barbie-ken-mattel/79713914/ Last weekend, I went to dinner on a double date at one of Salt Lake’s best pizzerias, Setebello. Sitting at the table to our left, was a family. By the way they were dressed, it was easy to say that they had a lot of money. Their children, though young, seemed exceptionally quiet, well behaved and listened to their parents. Or so we thought. Not once, during our meal, did we hear complaints, tantrums, or even general conversation. Curious, I looked over, several times and found that the children’s parents had set-up the family iPad. They sat, silently nibbling their food and sipping their drinks, absorbed by a “My Little Pony” episode. That took me back several years when I had been babysitting a little boy named Everett. At two, he could show me how to play Angry Birds on his parents’ iPad. Before he could speak in complete sentences, Everett could play and win, digital games on a technology that had been something of a Si-Fi fantasy when I was his age (as well as my parents). In his essay, Toys, Roland Barthes said these foreshadowing words: “contemporary toys are made of unpromising materials, products of chemistry, not of nature, (Barthes 60)” and “the child cannot constitute himself as anything but an owner, a user, never a creator,” (Barthes 60). Though, in this essay, Barthes discusses the downfall of the wooden and natural toys and rise of the chemically produced toys that prepare children for adulthood (i.e. his example of a doll that cries and pees, preparing girls for “household causality”), his thoughts and logic are truth and have further developed in the age of digital toys. My generation, me being at the literal tail-end of the “Millennials,” may have been the last to have wooden letter blocks and the encouragement from our parents to play outside. There were, with no doubt, many of the chemical toys- plastic toy kitchens, baby dolls, mini-plastic cars that involved peddling. Yet, we had other options- we grew-up in a fusion of the age of wooden and plastic toys. Now, however, children play with both: the plastic, and the new “unpromising materials,” that are iPads, etc. If anything, more with the latter than the prior. The iPad, iPod, and “child sized” laptops, seem to be growing more and more dominant as forms of entertainment. How many mothers have you seen give their child the iPad to calm them down from a temper tantrum, or to distract them while they engage with their own devices? On these devices, the child becomes a literal user. The child has access to a platform that merely requires swiping, tapping, and wiping, and all on their command. Unless, like so many of my generation, the child becomes enslaved to the technology. Think, “Pokemon Go.” “Pokémon Go” is an example of this collision. When I was a child, my friends and I would spend hours swapping cards and imagining the Pokémon, catching them with our pretend Pokéballs. “Pokemon Go,” however, was made to draw children outside and away from being on their devices indoors. To me, this logic is ironic. The day it came out, I saw young people, even of my age, playing “Pokémon Go” heads-down and unaware of their surroundings. In the very game, the child replaces their imagination, the ability to create in the world around them, with the digital world provided for them to use. What would our friend, Barthes think? Probably that the children were at risk to following a “Pokémon” off of a cliff. Not to be cruel. Or to speak for him (I don’t know him very well). I would also like to speak of the material used in these devices, or rather, “toys.” They are made of precious metal (yes, there is gold in your iPhone). So the question becomes, what happens to these materials after you buy and update and get rid of your old device? Barthes would be alarmed. Toys have moved from plastic, a recyclable product at least, to containing rare-earth materials- which once used, are not easily recycled. I would like to quote Barthes in my conclusion. For he says so much so eloquently: “Wood is a familiar and poetic substance which allows the child a continuity of contact with the tree, the table, the floor. Wood neither wounds nor goes to pieces; it doesn’t break, it wears down and can last a long time, can live with the child, gradually modifying relations of hand and object; if it dies, it is by diminishing, not by swelling, like those mechanical toys…” (Barthes 61). There is great nostalgia in the passage, that I greatly admire. For the toys “of old” grew with the child. Unlike the devices used as toys today, they were meant for the imagination, for the child’s self learning. There is a sensuality between the child and the toy that has diminished. Who will the children at Setebello become? What will their imagination gain from watching “My Little Pony” on their iPad during family dinner? What will the children who play “Pokémon Go” see of the outside world when their heads are bent downwards? What indeed, happens to the toys when the children are done playing them? What will be written about iPads as toys in fifty years? And the children who used them? Not to end on a pessimistic note… REFERENCES Barthes, Roland. Mythologies: Toys, (pgs. 59-60.) Hill and Wang. New York, 1957. IMAGES http://thegreenleaf.staradvertiserblogs.com/files/2011/12/plastictoys.jpg http://funkyretro.net/toys-from-the-past/ http://www.vishwagujarat.com/lifestyle/apple-ipad-best-sedative-kids-surgery/ 9.24.2016 “The Trop of Our Culture” Dear Readers, Some of you may by foreign to this, but in Salt Lake City there exists a satirical trop- in every sense of the word. Saturday's Voyeur was established by the Salt Lake Acting Company (SLAC). It is an annual satire on local and national politics, as well as of the culture of Salt Lake City's society (if not primarily so). A little bit of slapstick and ridicule, it truly is a harmonious collage of all that is wrong with Salt Lake City. Ironically (and you'll see this as ironic if you live in SLC), the show is held in what was a Church- forty-five years ago and before. This year, I had the privilege of seeing a showing of Saturday's Voyeur with a group of friends. The week after, "trop" was discussed in my class and all I could think about was the portrayal of Donald Trump as God in the show...and "dirty sodas" being truly dirty... not just Pepsi's with three shots of vanilla (a common beverage tradition amongst the LDS youth). You may be wondering, if especially you are not from Utah or Salt Lake City, why this matters? The idea of a "trop" was brought-up in class during the discussion of Walter Benjamin's examination of Baudelaire's motifs in Les Fleurs du Mal. One of the primary topics discussed was the issue of “aura” and the “authentic” in the reproduction of objects and in copies. How does trop fit into this? Well, picture yourself as a woman during the Industrial Revolution working at a machine all day. Then, imagine the loss of the familial and cultural traditions you once had, due to the rhythm of the machine and the rhythm of society it introduced you to. How would this make you feel? Not good- most likely. Satirical tropes come from a long history of subordinated peoples attempting to find a form in which they could ridicule, and literally make fun of, the dominating culture. As long as you use metaphor to display your problems with society and those “above” you, you’re safe right? Think of Horace and his satirical plays and writings during the age of the Roman Empire. A satirical trop, is “others making at others,” (as said in class). There are other forms of doing so, but doing so in drama intrigues me...or did intrigue me the minute Saturday's Voyeur ended. Not too long ago, Saturday’s Voyeur could have easily been titled “low comedy.” In other words, had I attended (being the young women that I am) one-hundred years ago, and let’s say I was part of the upper class, I would have caused a scandal. My parents and all of the members in "society" would have disapproved- for the show would have been considered a thing for the slums and for tasteless "uncivil" people. As I watched the show, however, the audience was diverse. Men and women of varying classes and ages were in attendance. Thus, it was a bringing together of like minded people- rather than only the subordinated. The show, this year, was about the son of a gay LDS couple. Or couples rather, for a set of lesbian mothers and gay fathers raised him together. The son, was prophesied to save Utah from electing Donald Trump as the President of the United States. Trump, in this case, was God, as well as the wife of Heavenly Mother (the equivalent of the Virgin Mary and responsible for producing all the souls on earth- in other words, she supposedly gives birth to everyone before their own mothers do). The son, was in charge of making-sure that Heavenly Mother would not become impregnated with future Republican voters. One of the other key figures, was Joseph Smith. Who down in the real world was portrayed as “Joey”, a future RM (returned missionary), who owned “his own mini van” (and of course, was addicted to porn). Naturally, he opposed the son and was on Trump's side. All of these, were tropes- every character was a statement and satire on the dominating culture in Salt Lake City. My main objective behind this discussion, is to display my own sense of shock. Throughout the show, I felt an array of feelings. Not being LDS myself and having lived in a society that is heavily LDS, I enjoyed the commentary. I also enjoyed the belittling of Donald Trump. However, I also felt confused- for I did not enjoy all of it, though I thought I should have. I do not think that it was just being unaccustomed to slap-stick. It was the idea that the “dominance” of a culture and such crude copying of that culture existed still, and in a new but ancient form. By the end of the show I was angry. It has caused me to think about the case of Baudelaire’s motifs and how they still exist- though in different forms. There is another reason too. The information fed to me, by scene and the actors, was a copy upon a copy upon a copy. The events were true- the subjects the show covered had occurred. They were then twisted and turned, into satirical text, and then, produced in live-action via acting and drama. The performance I saw was a copy itself- it was a copy of the previous performances I had not attended. At this realization, I felt as if I had been the subject of word problem (and I greatly dislike word problems). In the end, I concluded, the show was an outlet of modern day shock. The shock that Benjamin said was a part of the experience of the moving crowd, a product of the loss of aura and authenticity. That is what the show was ultimately saying, is it not? By showing the issues in the society and culture of SLC through satire, the moving crowd of SLC and the overshadowing/dominance of the LDS culture are momentarily belittled. By grouping like-minded individuals to assist in such belittlement, the feeling that one still owns their sense of individual culture still exists. For a moment, one becomes dominant and feels unaffected- and all because of a satirical trop, which in itself , is inauthentic. Dear Readers, It isn’t as beautiful as Keats’s Grecian Urn, but perhaps in several centuries, someone will have written a poem just as beautiful about it. “It” being…the Mason jar. The poem however, won’t be examining the jar’s painted sides, but rather what it once contained. Today, on apps such as Instagram and Pinterest, or at a friend’s home, one might see one of these: So? People use Mason jars for decoration, what does it matter? It’s just a fad. It matters because the use of Mason jars reflects the want for “the craftsmen’s touch” on products by people in their homes; and by doing so, contributing to the rejection of mass-production. First of all, I think that corporations advertising their products with traces of their “maker”, has influenced decorating with “practical things” such as Mason jars. In response to Benjamin’s, On Some Motifs in Baudelaire, my class discussed how after the Industrial Revolution, corporations started to attract costumers to their mass-produced products by “leaving traces of the craftsmen.” That method is still present today, if not especially so. Here is an example: The Snapple (or the Snapple Company rather) is attempting to look homemade. The old man making the Snapple, suggests that the Snapple is made from decades old recipes. The plaid curtains and old-school kitchen implies that the old man lives on a farm, and thus, the ingredients in the beverage are natural or homegrown. The mixing of flavors and bottling done by machines in factories, is well hidden from the fleeting eye. The Snapple thus appears to be artisan. The mark of the craftsmen, is the presence of the “craftsmen” himself in the add.
After this long rant, you may be wondering, how does this apply to Mason jars? Well, let me tell you how. The Mason jars are full in the images above (^^^ way above), but they are not filled with what they once were. Believe it or not, Mason jars were at one time, not filled with flowers or Leonardo DiCaprio's urine [The Aviator (2004)]. In her article, “The Mason Jar, Reborn,” Ariana Kelly, presents her reader with the image of her mother spending months in their garden- bending over herbs and vegetables to prepare them for canning. This image was taking place in the 1970s and was not uncommon. Due to multiple wars creating food shortages and advancing food preservation technology, canning became a household norm. Mason jars were everywhere, post 1858. That is, until corporations started producing canned goods (in literal cans) and selling them at chain grocery stores. Now, here is a little (VERY little) history on the Mason jar: Mason jars were invented by John Landis Mason in 1858 (1). His invention was a product of a newly developed canning technology called "heat-based canning," (2). Thus, they were glass. According to Kelly, “Mason jars, with their pleasing shape and transparency, suggested a kind of wholesome luxury.” It is the glass that has made Mason jars retain an appeal through the decades. The can, became what was bought, and the glass jar stayed at home as a relic- a reminder of a domestic and artisan past. Which is why, she thinks, they are still a commodity and have transformed into decorative pieces (for the majority of those NOT using them to preserve food). However, Mason jars do have another appeal- besides looking pretty to a society dependent on the mass production of food and preservation technology. Kelly’s statement that they “suggest resistance to the mass production of food and culture; [that] they emphasize the values of self-sufficiency and community,” is true to my agreement, if not the key component. Ever heard the term “hipster”? I’m assuming so. Today, using a mason jar to actually can food, comes with a societal image. For one, Mason jar users are seen as “foodies” (3), or one going against the mainstream…a hipster. For another, users are seen as promoters of using sustainable materials- they probably also ride their bikes to work (which of course, if you can, please do!). So if one who actually uses Mason jars is seen to be “against the grain,” can those who decorate with them be seen that way too? Well, they want to adapt that image. Like the Snapple aid, those decorating their homes with Mason jars are attempting to create the “against the grain” image. (Or simply, a “I am artsy and good at DIY” image…depending on the perspective). The Mason jar has shifted through the crowd and has become a symbol of the rustic. The one who does not buy from the market of mass produced products, but finds means of using and reusing practical objects, has become a societal ideal. Perhaps then, people will be writing poems on Mason Jars…poems about the life style they once encompassed. REFERENCES (1), (2), (3): http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/09/mason-jar-history/403762/ Also, Benjamin's: On Some Motifs in Baudelaire. Dear Readers, For this first blog post, I am going to discuss.... zombies. Well, how zombies have become a “fetish” and a part of Popular-Culture. Writing on this topic came to me during the first week of class. Unfortunately, I did not write down what initially inspired my want to examine a "fetish", but my incorporation of the “zombie,” is entirely new to it. Yesterday in class, I used zombies as an example of an object in Popular-Culture taken from a subordinated group (Haitian/Voodoo). So that, I believe, is what has led me here today. So, what is a fetish? The sexualizing of an inanimate object that leads to an unrequited obsession? The passionate worshiping of idols believed to answer prayer? Is it both? Or, could it be the relationship of ideologies to material objects? In researching “fetishes” (since I only knew the first definition I’ve mentioned above), I discovered a theorist named William Pietz (1). Here is a summary of what I think he thinks: Pietz believes that the origin of the “fetish,” began when Europeans crossed paths (or rather took over paths), with West Africans in the sixteenth century (2). The Europeans saw the West African tribal peoples as simply primitive- their religious performances as sorcery. The natives, did not use the term “fetish” in describing their practices however, in fact, Pietz claims by breaking down the word’s roots, that it is purely a European word created to describe what the Europeans thought they saw: ideologies of a religion expressed onto material things. Though they did not even know that- they were too caught-up in how native culture differed from theirs. This is one scenario that shows how a “dominant” culture translates what they see in the culture they are dominating, and transcribes it into their own. What a “fetish” was to the Europeans was the normal practice of the West African religions. A “fetish”, today, is somewhat of a taboo or a joke. A “fetish” is a heightened version of an “obsession.” Now what about, Haitian Voodoo... ….the culmination of European beliefs, Catholicism, West African beliefs, and the beliefs of the native populations in Central and Southern America. I think that it is safe to assume that almost everyone knows the basics of Voodoo- Voodoo dolls, magic, and spirits. ….and the origin of what we know as "zombies" today. It seems that societies always need a monster. The zombie, however, is a special case. Zombies do not have a cannon (3)- like vampires inspired by Dracula. The history of the zombie is an oral one- it is Haitian folklore and was at one point- and probably still is to some- a valid thing to be afraid of. In the early nineteenth century when the word “zombie,” (4) first started to appear in European and Western vocabulary, it was tied with the slave groups- the workers and the indigenous. To “High Society” the word was associated with the witchcraft of what they may have considered, the lowlifes, the "low culture". Today, however, that has completely changed. Zombies have been drawn and redrawn, given new traits, and most importantly, have become a commodity. They are part of TV shows, movies, Halloween costumes, themed marathons, mobile games, and images on T-Shirts…the list goes on! Why is this? Well, I think it is, as I have mentioned above, society’s need of a monster. There is an obsession with projecting national fears onto monsters- fears such as: the loss of identity, a pandemic, hiding and surviving terror. Due to the lack of canon, the zombie is adaptable to represent all of these fears. I think that the idea of a zombie form has spread over the centuries, among the subordinate groups. I think it is the dominant group that is responsible for capitalizing on it- turning the zombie fetish into the mobile games, the TV series, and the themed marathon runs. The ideology of the zombie has become material. It is a modern day fetish because of this. The ideology of the national fears mentioned above, have found a place on material things. It is hence, a part of Popular-Culture. REFERENCES (1), (2): Pietz, William. "The Problem of the Fetish".https://www.scribd.com/document/29068721/William-Pietz-the-problem-of-Fetish. September, 8th 2016. (3), (4): Platts. "Locating Zombies in the Sociology of Popular Culture." Image A: http://blog.zombiesrungame.com/post/135190577154/the-spring-2016-virtual-race-is-here Other Sites: http://www.religionfacts.com/voodoo. |