Sorry if I missed this...but where do we find the articles we were assigned to read? (By Eliot, Pound, and Hitchcock?) Do we just track them down at the library?
You can find your artciles at the following link: http://web.nmsu.edu/~jalmjeld/online_publishing/schedule.html. The articles are set up as hyperlinks. You will see the articles higlighted in light blue, simply click on the artcles you wish to read.
I checked out Din past issues and they are fun and interesting. I really like the idea of promoting local artist and start up artist. I would be excited about doing the same again, Din Sum more."I crack myself up." I am not sure why I associated Dim sum with breakfast or tea But the on-line magazine could be a play on words Din Sum Breakfast Club or Din Sum Tea Time. Each dim sum dish could be a portal. Just an idea to savor a bit and see how it taste.
Walter Benjamin’s “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” was an engaging reading that overlaps with my research in film and cultural studies. I was particularly intrigued with the analogy Benjamin provides of the painter, magician, surgeon, and cameraman. In section XI of this article, Benjamin posits that the painter and magician are comparable—representing a totalizing relationship—where each are able to maintain “a natural distance from reality” (8). We see that the cameraman and surgeon are comparable in their juxtaposition to the painter and magician—they produce a fragmented relationship that becomes “assembled under a new law” in which the distance between the agent and subject (or art) dissipates into an essentially mediated version “reality” (8). Thus the agent (the cameraman) becomes an invisible agent and the agency of his (or her) “mechanical equipment” goes unseen to cause a more significant and impressionable “representation of reality” through film (8). In contrast, we see that the painter’s paintings are less significant and less impressionable for consumers because the agent is not hidden—thus the product (the painting) signifies a clear reproduction and re-interpretation of the real (8).
To propel this discussion further I would like to offer up the following metaphors which help to explain Television and Film’s presentation of external reality as mediated. Fiske (1987) proposes the following:
Television is seen either as a transparent window on the world or as a mirror reflecting our own reality back to us. It is significant that both these metaphors invoke a sheet glass as an impersonal, noncultural medium of reproduction—the human or cultural agency in the process is masked this means that the finished representation is naturalized, that it is made to appear the result of a natural rather than cultural processes, it is taken away from the realm of history and culture and moved towards that of the universal truth (17).
These two metaphors may help us propel our discussion further in terms of culture and Benjamin’s ideas of reproduction in the mechanical age. It provides stronger ethos for his assertion that “Mechanical reproduction of art changes the reaction of the masses toward art” (8). I invite a discussion of this idea and its relationship to media, film, and contemporary culture. How do you see Benjamin’s statement and Fiske’s metaphors illuminated in your own relationships to film and the media? Do you agree with Benjamin, Fiske, and myself that media and film acts as an invisible agent—producing a mediated version of reality? Please explain why you agree or disagree.
I am not exactly sure where you are headed with this but it seems as if there are at least two versions of a truth you feel are represented in the media and film. This is at least true to cultural interruption as it is with any faction. The media and film are a culture of their own with sub-cultures within. I also see U-Tube and social networking sites changing the scene. This new equalizing media allows the “have-nots” to rise to the level of the “haves.” I believe that the field of popularity and art is changing as we speak. The opinion of the population can be taken with the “like” button on facebook and a common person can get a million hits by the beat of a drum and rise to popularity. What will this do to the pop culture scene? I am particularly interested in mechanical reproduction as an art form. On one hand there’s nothing like the original and the ability to own something unusual or “one of a kind;” on the other hand it’s a selfish thought to have. I have an appreciation for screen printing and each reproduction is unique though I can’t tell the difference without an obvious flaw. I hope I was not too far off from the points you were discussing.
Thank for your comment Bill! You raise good points about media cultures and subcultures. Consider ideologically the impact of so-called new equalizing mediums of media—perhaps allowing "‘have nots’ to rise to the level of ‘haves’". Could this just be another way of co-opting subordinates cultures and subcultures cooperation and consent within the system of the dominant culture? With this statement, I agree that subordinate cultures are progressively more visibly represented through new forms of media. However, let’s also consider that this may be part of the plan of the dominant, controlling culture. By inserting (and encouraging) subordinate cultural views into the systems and institutions (the media) that the dominant culture ultimately controls—the dominant culture gains the subordinate culture's cooperation and consent to ultimately control the media. Thus the subordinate culture is not confronted with a holistic and unequivocal pure class rhetoric of the dominant culture—the subordinate cultures see their voices and ideas being acknowledged within the dominant system (and unconsciously accept their subordination under and within the ruling cultural system). Ideologically, this idea of "have-nots" rising to the level of "haves" through new media or any media outlet is troubling for the following reason that Stuart Hall (1982) can articulate better than I:
"The work of reality construction is 'profoundly unconscious' and is ideological because it 'does not adequately grasp all the conditions which make [its own reality claims] possible' and because 'it offers a partial explanation as if it were a comprehensive and adequate one—it takes the part for the whole (fetishism)’" (qtd. in Allen 110)
Reference: Allen, Kenneth. The Meaning of Culture: Moving the Postmodern Critique Forward. Westport: Praeger, 1998. Print.
So excited for this! See everyone soon!
ReplyDeleteThis is going to be an adventure!
ReplyDeleteOkay I did it! How exciting. Now what?
ReplyDeleteNow you start posting!
ReplyDeleteHad no troubles signing on...can't wait to start posting!
ReplyDeleteSorry if I missed this...but where do we find the articles we were assigned to read? (By Eliot, Pound, and Hitchcock?) Do we just track them down at the library?
ReplyDeleteYou can find your artciles at the following link: http://web.nmsu.edu/~jalmjeld/online_publishing/schedule.html. The articles are set up as hyperlinks. You will see the articles higlighted in light blue, simply click on the artcles you wish to read.
DeleteCorrection: they're actually highlighted in light green, not light blue. Hope this is helpful!
DeleteThanks Robyn!
DeleteI checked out Din past issues and they are fun and interesting. I really like the idea of promoting local artist and start up artist. I would be excited about doing the same again, Din Sum more."I crack myself up." I am not sure why I associated Dim sum with breakfast or tea But the on-line magazine could be a play on words Din Sum Breakfast Club or Din Sum Tea Time. Each dim sum dish could be a portal. Just an idea to savor a bit and see how it taste.
ReplyDeleteInvisible Agency—What Are Your Thoughts?
ReplyDeleteWalter Benjamin’s “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” was an engaging reading that overlaps with my research in film and cultural studies. I was particularly intrigued with the analogy Benjamin provides of the painter, magician, surgeon, and cameraman. In section XI of this article, Benjamin posits that the painter and magician are comparable—representing a totalizing relationship—where each are able to maintain “a natural distance from reality” (8). We see that the cameraman and surgeon are comparable in their juxtaposition to the painter and magician—they produce a fragmented relationship that becomes “assembled under a new law” in which the distance between the agent and subject (or art) dissipates into an essentially mediated version “reality” (8). Thus the agent (the cameraman) becomes an invisible agent and the agency of his (or her) “mechanical equipment” goes unseen to cause a more significant and impressionable “representation of reality” through film (8). In contrast, we see that the painter’s paintings are less significant and less impressionable for consumers because the agent is not hidden—thus the product (the painting) signifies a clear reproduction and re-interpretation of the real (8).
To propel this discussion further I would like to offer up the following metaphors which help to explain Television and Film’s presentation of external reality as mediated. Fiske (1987) proposes the following:
Television is seen either as a transparent window on the world or as a mirror reflecting our own reality back to us. It is significant that both these metaphors invoke a sheet glass as an impersonal, noncultural medium of reproduction—the human or cultural agency in the process is masked this means that the finished representation is naturalized, that it is made to appear the result of a natural rather than cultural processes, it is taken away from the realm of history and culture and moved towards that of the universal truth (17).
These two metaphors may help us propel our discussion further in terms of culture and Benjamin’s ideas of reproduction in the mechanical age. It provides stronger ethos for his assertion that “Mechanical reproduction of art changes the reaction of the masses toward art” (8). I invite a discussion of this idea and its relationship to media, film, and contemporary culture. How do you see Benjamin’s statement and Fiske’s metaphors illuminated in your own relationships to film and the media? Do you agree with Benjamin, Fiske, and myself that media and film acts as an invisible agent—producing a mediated version of reality? Please explain why you agree or disagree.
I am not exactly sure where you are headed with this but it seems as if there are at least two versions of a truth you feel are represented in the media and film. This is at least true to cultural interruption as it is with any faction. The media and film are a culture of their own with sub-cultures within. I also see U-Tube and social networking sites changing the scene. This new equalizing media allows the “have-nots” to rise to the level of the “haves.” I believe that the field of popularity and art is changing as we speak. The opinion of the population can be taken with the “like” button on facebook and a common person can get a million hits by the beat of a drum and rise to popularity. What will this do to the pop culture scene?
ReplyDeleteI am particularly interested in mechanical reproduction as an art form. On one hand there’s nothing like the original and the ability to own something unusual or “one of a kind;” on the other hand it’s a selfish thought to have. I have an appreciation for screen printing and each reproduction is unique though I can’t tell the difference without an obvious flaw.
I hope I was not too far off from the points you were discussing.
Thank for your comment Bill! You raise good points about media cultures and subcultures. Consider ideologically the impact of so-called new equalizing mediums of media—perhaps allowing "‘have nots’ to rise to the level of ‘haves’". Could this just be another way of co-opting subordinates cultures and subcultures cooperation and consent within the system of the dominant culture? With this statement, I agree that subordinate cultures are progressively more visibly represented through new forms of media. However, let’s also consider that this may be part of the plan of the dominant, controlling culture. By inserting (and encouraging) subordinate cultural views into the systems and institutions (the media) that the dominant culture ultimately controls—the dominant culture gains the subordinate culture's cooperation and consent to ultimately control the media. Thus the subordinate culture is not confronted with a holistic and unequivocal pure class rhetoric of the dominant culture—the subordinate cultures see their voices and ideas being acknowledged within the dominant system (and unconsciously accept their subordination under and within the ruling cultural system). Ideologically, this idea of "have-nots" rising to the level of "haves" through new media or any media outlet is troubling for the following reason that Stuart Hall (1982) can articulate better than I:
ReplyDelete"The work of reality construction is 'profoundly unconscious' and is ideological because it 'does not adequately grasp all the conditions which make [its own reality claims] possible' and because 'it offers a partial explanation as if it were a comprehensive and adequate one—it takes the part for the whole (fetishism)’" (qtd. in Allen 110)
Reference: Allen, Kenneth. The Meaning of Culture: Moving the Postmodern Critique Forward. Westport: Praeger, 1998. Print.
My first blog, yay...
ReplyDeleteSince I have been researching feminist pedagogy, I am beginning to understand certain components of the course such as discussion board. Nice idea!
ReplyDeletehmm...blogging...Not really for me, but I'll give it a try.
ReplyDelete