As I read Drucker's essay, "Art," I enjoyed her take on the place of art in western society from antiquity to the present. It's obviously a vast topic, which can't be easily distilled to a few pages.
I wondered if she isn't oversimplifying a few points. I think it's worth mentioning that there was a lot more going on with religious art than she eludes on page 4. My studies on this have identified a few more motivations than "the application of technical skill" which she discusses. Agendas were served and I think that ties into the concepts in all three essays.
Statuary and other iconography -- I can think of examples in both Christian and eastern religions that I've seen lately in museums -- often were produced to accommodate the populace to the preferred belief systems of those in power, when they differed from those of the masses. There are examples in early Christianity of Jesus figures adapting to styles that would have been familiar to the people. The recognizable characteristics helped the local people gradually adopt the new belief system by first incorporating it with the one they had. Further, despite his origins in the Middle East, Christ is depicted with distinctly European features in much renowned European art, another example of appealing to the audience and adjusting the image to one they already know.
Similarly, Hindu and Buddhist traditions blended in Cambodia, and an exhibit we saw recently contained examples of statuary and religious objects that bridged the two theologies through incorporating imagery associated with both traditions, reflecting religious practice in that particular locale.
In times of illiteracy, religious art mediated the religious experience for a populace that could not read and could not understand the words of religious ceremonies that they attended. Church windows, carved relief and statuary containing symbolism were tools of education, meditation and reinforcement in the time of the Latin Mass.
Is this what Benjamin meant when he wrote about how art can provide us with "distractions," in Section 15. The mediated experience of film, Benjamin says, makes the audience an "absent minded examiner." Are we not paying attention to the subtle bits of influence in our perceived "art experiences?"
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Benjamin: The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction
I really enjoyed reading this essay and taking apart the thoughts Benjamin expresses about technology and its role in shaping how society values a "created thing." I think parallels can be drawn between art objects and works of professional writing as well.
There's a school of thought in the professional and technical writing area that advocates for those of us practitioners and theorists involved to organize ourselves, hammer out a definition for the field and draw lines to determine what is, and what isn't, who is and who isn't in the club. They argue that defining something lends a little more prestige. If one's work can be described as the domain of a recognized, organized brotherhood, then it can garner more respect for the practitioners and their process of creation, and probably a higher price tag, too. The work of *Professional Writers* becomes a skilled craft, and not something just anyone can produce. There are, of course, implications about the way one uses his or her command of the language and understanding of audience to produce writing involved here, too, but it's the topic of dissertations, pedagogical stances and could fill volumes.
It seems like Benjamin is heading in a similar direction with his explanation of how the ability to mass produce changed how we value art.
I thought the passivity implied in Sections 8 and 9, where he discusses the screen actor's performance for the camera, rather than the audience, with whom a stage actor can maintain a kind of limited dialog during his or her performance. The audience is reacting to the end product of a long production cycle, not an immediate exchange. The actor interprets the character in short takes, the takes are selected by the editor and compiled into the final product, polished and finally trimmed with effects. The actor, when performing his or her lines doesn't know how they'll play to an audience, and so is only communicating with the camera.
I think the connection between the stage actor and the audience plays into the concept of the "willing suspension of disbelief." An audience approaches live theater and agrees to forego the realism possible through the technologies of film and television for the chance to be part of this production, at this moment. Props and stage effects aren't as dazzling as computer-generated imagery, but the actor has a chance to nuance his or her performance to the mood of this group assembled in the audience, which makes each experience personal. A film can't deliver quite the same experience, which elevates the original experience of seeing a particular performance to the level of "original artwork."
There's a school of thought in the professional and technical writing area that advocates for those of us practitioners and theorists involved to organize ourselves, hammer out a definition for the field and draw lines to determine what is, and what isn't, who is and who isn't in the club. They argue that defining something lends a little more prestige. If one's work can be described as the domain of a recognized, organized brotherhood, then it can garner more respect for the practitioners and their process of creation, and probably a higher price tag, too. The work of *Professional Writers* becomes a skilled craft, and not something just anyone can produce. There are, of course, implications about the way one uses his or her command of the language and understanding of audience to produce writing involved here, too, but it's the topic of dissertations, pedagogical stances and could fill volumes.
It seems like Benjamin is heading in a similar direction with his explanation of how the ability to mass produce changed how we value art.
I thought the passivity implied in Sections 8 and 9, where he discusses the screen actor's performance for the camera, rather than the audience, with whom a stage actor can maintain a kind of limited dialog during his or her performance. The audience is reacting to the end product of a long production cycle, not an immediate exchange. The actor interprets the character in short takes, the takes are selected by the editor and compiled into the final product, polished and finally trimmed with effects. The actor, when performing his or her lines doesn't know how they'll play to an audience, and so is only communicating with the camera.
I think the connection between the stage actor and the audience plays into the concept of the "willing suspension of disbelief." An audience approaches live theater and agrees to forego the realism possible through the technologies of film and television for the chance to be part of this production, at this moment. Props and stage effects aren't as dazzling as computer-generated imagery, but the actor has a chance to nuance his or her performance to the mood of this group assembled in the audience, which makes each experience personal. A film can't deliver quite the same experience, which elevates the original experience of seeing a particular performance to the level of "original artwork."
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Week in review
I'm continuing to struggle with the depth and breadth of theory required to process the readings in this class. I'm kind of wishing for some sort of theory primer to help provide a little more background for literary criticism and rhetoric. I know I didn't begin my graduate studies with a deep theoretical background, but it seems to be a little more difficult to grasp some of the more obscure references in the virtual classroom setting than the traditional setting in which I took a theories course. I miss the in-person give-and-take that's possible in class, but I do like that I can think about things a little more before I "respond" in the online communication channels. So that's nice.
I started thinking about some of the concepts recurring in my other courses in light of the work for Media Studies. If one considers audience identification as an important factor for a writer, I'm curious about whom the authors pictured when they began to write. Particularly, the authors of the textbook we're using for class. Are each of these references to theorists supposed to be shorthand for an intricately nuanced position articulated by each of the various references? If so, does the author limit his or her audience to the handful of academic peers that share his particular background in the field? I'm comparing the introductions to a few other graduate-level texts in my head when writing this. Would an introductory essay welcoming readers benefit from a different rhetorical stance than speaking to the in-crowd? I'm curious as to how the author regards the use of the introductory essay, both his own use for it as the compilation's editor and essay's author and the reader's use of the essay, as the consumer.
I started thinking about some of the concepts recurring in my other courses in light of the work for Media Studies. If one considers audience identification as an important factor for a writer, I'm curious about whom the authors pictured when they began to write. Particularly, the authors of the textbook we're using for class. Are each of these references to theorists supposed to be shorthand for an intricately nuanced position articulated by each of the various references? If so, does the author limit his or her audience to the handful of academic peers that share his particular background in the field? I'm comparing the introductions to a few other graduate-level texts in my head when writing this. Would an introductory essay welcoming readers benefit from a different rhetorical stance than speaking to the in-crowd? I'm curious as to how the author regards the use of the introductory essay, both his own use for it as the compilation's editor and essay's author and the reader's use of the essay, as the consumer.
Reviews: Reimer reviews Gripsrud and Mattson reviews Badaracco
I'm not sure where authors reviewing scholarly works are coming from, in terms of who the players are to the field and in what context the reviews are generated. I found a few interesting differences in the Reimer and Mattson reviews of scholarly works. Reimer's review began with an introduction to the author's work and the place within the field that his work occupies. He moves on to the organization of the book itself, and the perspective of the book within the field. The reviewer, who identifies himself as a fan of the author, finds most fault with the organization of the work, which are bookended by positive examples. Is this an honest opinion, or simply what happens when a more junior member of a group is asked to critique a more senior person's work? The identification of the author as a fan seemed out of place in the review, as it seems to challenge objectivity, but perhaps that's more common in the European academic circles.
By contrast, the Mattson review of Badaracco's collection of essays concerning religion in the media and culture, the author seems to be taking the author much more to task, using the works in the book as opportunities to try his own criticism of the topic and the works of his academic peers. He's not fond of Badaracco's essay claiming to have read it multiple times, and seems to question whether the work is too far-reaching in its diversity of content, and authorial points of view.
By contrast, the Mattson review of Badaracco's collection of essays concerning religion in the media and culture, the author seems to be taking the author much more to task, using the works in the book as opportunities to try his own criticism of the topic and the works of his academic peers. He's not fond of Badaracco's essay claiming to have read it multiple times, and seems to question whether the work is too far-reaching in its diversity of content, and authorial points of view.
Introducing: Critical Terms for Media Studies
I'm feeling a bit short on theoretical knowledge to thoroughly unpack the introduction to Mitchell and Hansen's collection of essays.
Should a reader takes these numerous references to the work of others as a rhetorical device establishing authorial expertise, instead of coded language directed at other members of the authors' peer group? The introductory essay seems to be functioning not so much as an overview or preview of the volume's contents, but a philosophical justification for including these (disparate?) works in the collection.
Judging from the reference to subjects such as taxonomies, and surface level assumptions surrounding the rise of Arnold Schwarzenegger to California governor, it seems that digging deeper and unearthing the less-obvious instead of opting for an either-or answer is a theme linking the selected essays. The grouping of terms into aesthetics, technology and society were organized differently than I would likely have done, if it had been my task, but the authors seem to think their word isn't the last on the subject. Regardless, it seems that relationships will be a recurring theme, with media or media technologies as one point of the (activity theory) triangle.
Should a reader takes these numerous references to the work of others as a rhetorical device establishing authorial expertise, instead of coded language directed at other members of the authors' peer group? The introductory essay seems to be functioning not so much as an overview or preview of the volume's contents, but a philosophical justification for including these (disparate?) works in the collection.
Judging from the reference to subjects such as taxonomies, and surface level assumptions surrounding the rise of Arnold Schwarzenegger to California governor, it seems that digging deeper and unearthing the less-obvious instead of opting for an either-or answer is a theme linking the selected essays. The grouping of terms into aesthetics, technology and society were organized differently than I would likely have done, if it had been my task, but the authors seem to think their word isn't the last on the subject. Regardless, it seems that relationships will be a recurring theme, with media or media technologies as one point of the (activity theory) triangle.
Comparison: Morris and Poster articles
In light of the recent global news events lately, I chose Mark Poster's "Global Media and Culture" and Nancy Morris's "Myth of Unadulterated Culture Meets the Threat of Imported Media."
Isolated cultures existed before mass media, but they are vanishing due to exposure from other cultures, is the central presumption, with which the authors begin.
Certainly contact with others does not leave the individuals unchanged, but this is hardly a new threat to civilization. There has always been contact between groups of people. Encounters led to the exchange of ideas, fostered empathy for other people, and technology and art was developed and shared. Even in instances of cultural influence, variants often exist locally, with people using different materials, changing the style, altering the techniques of production, or the subject matter of art to suit themselves.
I wondered about the "concerned voices" Morris referenced in her article. A man from the film industry in Quebec and a critic of American TV in Puerto Rico were worried about the affects foreign media would certainly have on their native cultures. The fact that both of these places continue to wrestle with assimilation and independence issues is notable. Even the people within the respective cultures disagree about separatism or unity, so it's not an issue that's been settled by those it affects, by any means.
Isolated cultures existed before mass media, but they are vanishing due to exposure from other cultures, is the central presumption, with which the authors begin.
Certainly contact with others does not leave the individuals unchanged, but this is hardly a new threat to civilization. There has always been contact between groups of people. Encounters led to the exchange of ideas, fostered empathy for other people, and technology and art was developed and shared. Even in instances of cultural influence, variants often exist locally, with people using different materials, changing the style, altering the techniques of production, or the subject matter of art to suit themselves.
I wondered about the "concerned voices" Morris referenced in her article. A man from the film industry in Quebec and a critic of American TV in Puerto Rico were worried about the affects foreign media would certainly have on their native cultures. The fact that both of these places continue to wrestle with assimilation and independence issues is notable. Even the people within the respective cultures disagree about separatism or unity, so it's not an issue that's been settled by those it affects, by any means.
Further, adoption of these new practices is not immediate or total, as Morris notes.
Just considering music technology, 8-track players, mini discs were essentially flashes in the pan, and some might suggest that CDs are becoming obsolete, too. Analyzing our music listening habits at the height of popularity for any of those technologies would provide a different picture than one might get observing from a different point in time. Similarly, culture isn't so much a photographic snapshot, but a mini-series. It's a summation of many factors, over time. Looking at the choices people are making at a single moment doesn't tell the whole story.
If changes are slowly happening, do we need to concern ourselves about the erosion of culture? Democratization of the culture is, according to Poster, a positive result of the proliferation of personal media. The means of production have become cheap and accessible, compared to the vast sums of money formerly required to make a feature film, publish a book or record and distribute music. Those activities are no longer the domain of a few wealthy corporations, but can be accomplished by motivated people with a few pieces of technology and a story to tell, from their own homes, dorms, or classrooms. Poster also acknowledges the existence of local variations among these independently produced communications. Local culture isn't dead, it's evolving.
But the evolution is threatened, both authors caution, by the tendency of large multinational corporations to attempt to buy, sell and control the media for profit, often using American copyright law. In earlier centuries, culture spread as an after-effect of profiteering. Corporations such as the Virginia Company or the British East India Company would spread culture in their quest for something else of value. Now, the drive to make a buck is still relevant, but it's selling the culture itself that's making the cash registers ring.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Branding and Events
We've been watching the Egyptian protests unfold over the last couple of weeks, waiting and wondering; conjecturing and comparing.
Reading the articles and commentaries about the "Twitter Revolution" and other quickly-branded events and phenomena made me wonder if the tendency to name these events is a by-product of the 24-hour news cycle.
News channels have even more airtime to fill with content than ever before. The pressure to analyze and speculate about an event's impact and meaning -- as the event is happening -- must certainly be increasing.
It seems to me that news media have been attempting to report the outcome, impact and lasting effects of these events -- sometimes in the very early days of a movement or economic trend. I noticed this with coverage of world events in recent years such as the "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine, as well as the discussion of the American financial situation and housing bubble, and now with the Egyptian protests. It's quite premature, especially in light of financial phenomena, which usually are best studied after they've been inactive for a few months at least.
NPR reported on the naming of revolutions recently. And they talked about the Ukranians actively seeking a good name for the movement and used the word "branding."
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/28/133293523/Name-That-Revolution
However, what I thought was most interesting about the segment, was the comment by a Tunisian resident at the end:
"We live inside, and for me it's just a Tunisian revolution. It's our revolution, Tunisia - not Jasmine or something else."
Does his statement imply that naming these events is an example our Western/imperialist behavior and attitudes? Are we attempting to understand and distill the experiences of some group of "other?"
Perhaps it supports an assertion Nancy Morris made in her article, "The Myth of Unadulterated Culture Meets the Threat of Imported Media;" that foreign media don't really have the influence on a grand scale that we are concerned of exerting.
I'm not saying that technologies such as Twitter, text messages and YouTube didn't play a role in the event. We can't remove them from the time in which we live, so it's impossible to say whether coverage of events in Tunisia influenced Egyptians to protest their own situation or whether the Egyptians would have found another way to organize supporters or share their experiences as participants.
Certainly these technologies have influenced communication between people, but I think their role in these movements is a lot more nuanced than the too-quickly-named event might lead one to believe. But we might have to wait for the results.
Reading the articles and commentaries about the "Twitter Revolution" and other quickly-branded events and phenomena made me wonder if the tendency to name these events is a by-product of the 24-hour news cycle.
News channels have even more airtime to fill with content than ever before. The pressure to analyze and speculate about an event's impact and meaning -- as the event is happening -- must certainly be increasing.
It seems to me that news media have been attempting to report the outcome, impact and lasting effects of these events -- sometimes in the very early days of a movement or economic trend. I noticed this with coverage of world events in recent years such as the "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine, as well as the discussion of the American financial situation and housing bubble, and now with the Egyptian protests. It's quite premature, especially in light of financial phenomena, which usually are best studied after they've been inactive for a few months at least.
NPR reported on the naming of revolutions recently. And they talked about the Ukranians actively seeking a good name for the movement and used the word "branding."
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/28/133293523/Name-That-Revolution
However, what I thought was most interesting about the segment, was the comment by a Tunisian resident at the end:
"We live inside, and for me it's just a Tunisian revolution. It's our revolution, Tunisia - not Jasmine or something else."
Does his statement imply that naming these events is an example our Western/imperialist behavior and attitudes? Are we attempting to understand and distill the experiences of some group of "other?"
Perhaps it supports an assertion Nancy Morris made in her article, "The Myth of Unadulterated Culture Meets the Threat of Imported Media;" that foreign media don't really have the influence on a grand scale that we are concerned of exerting.
I'm not saying that technologies such as Twitter, text messages and YouTube didn't play a role in the event. We can't remove them from the time in which we live, so it's impossible to say whether coverage of events in Tunisia influenced Egyptians to protest their own situation or whether the Egyptians would have found another way to organize supporters or share their experiences as participants.
Certainly these technologies have influenced communication between people, but I think their role in these movements is a lot more nuanced than the too-quickly-named event might lead one to believe. But we might have to wait for the results.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)