http://youtube.com/watch?v=oXmYVRIpu2w&feature=related
So, this girl sold her image (voiceless as it was) eight years ago, and now that the stock footage is being used for what it was intended for (stock usage) she’s suddenly not okay with the currently applied message.
Is it fair for her to have expected that the only uses of her footage would be for nightclothes and cough syrup?
Is it fair that now that the footage is being used creatively (as its intention) that she is offended that it negates her current opinions and beliefs?
What if she was a Hillary supporter?
Ah-well, as Obama so eloquently put it, seems she’s giving her all at being that “just another white person.”
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
something to cry about
I just watched Shea Craig's performance tonight and it really stayed with me- more than just the scent of onions that clung to my eyes and clothes. For those of you that missed it, Shea diced onions for one hour in his installation piece this evening. A lot of onions. 10 pounds if I remember correctly, just one of the three bags he brought with him. When I first heard that he would be cutting onions, I was intrigued, but wasn't sure how long I could watch it before losing interest.
Then as soon as he started, I knew I was going to be there until he ended. For a while I didn't even have any idea why, and for the most part, I still don't know why and I'm okay with that. He was on his knees in front of an overturned wooden crate dicing onions meticulously. He would pause as he picked up each new onion and hold it before slicing off the top of the bulb. He looked so meditative and contemplative-purposeful that for a moment, cutting onions was almost a prayer. He set the tops on the side of the board as a record of what he'd accomplished. He diced the onion by cutting it into halves, slicing each half horizontally and then chopping the rest.
I was painful to watch almost, not only because I knew the chemicals he was surrounding himself with were going to cause the liquid on his eyes to convert to sulphuric acid, but because of what the rest of us were doing. Shea was sitting in a shanty- barely a shelter, someplace the homeless would live and he was cutting onions. Everyone else was wandering around, chatting and enjoying free coffee and food.
The act of cutting onions was brought to the center and set against the rest of us in our comforts. I sat there watching and felt horrible eating my free brownie.
After a while, his technique began to give out- there was now no pause, the tops were flung away with the skins, no longer a record and just in the way. the horizontal slice was gone and the end bits weren't chopped but discarded. He began to eat one like an apple, his face red and wet. He cut his hand and ignored it.
For the most part, I stopped trying to analyze just why I was feeling the way I was and just took it as just as valid in not having an answer. Cutting onions could make me feel something and I don't know why or how or really what I even was feeling. the specificity perhaps that Danielewski suggested?
Then as soon as he started, I knew I was going to be there until he ended. For a while I didn't even have any idea why, and for the most part, I still don't know why and I'm okay with that. He was on his knees in front of an overturned wooden crate dicing onions meticulously. He would pause as he picked up each new onion and hold it before slicing off the top of the bulb. He looked so meditative and contemplative-purposeful that for a moment, cutting onions was almost a prayer. He set the tops on the side of the board as a record of what he'd accomplished. He diced the onion by cutting it into halves, slicing each half horizontally and then chopping the rest.
I was painful to watch almost, not only because I knew the chemicals he was surrounding himself with were going to cause the liquid on his eyes to convert to sulphuric acid, but because of what the rest of us were doing. Shea was sitting in a shanty- barely a shelter, someplace the homeless would live and he was cutting onions. Everyone else was wandering around, chatting and enjoying free coffee and food.
The act of cutting onions was brought to the center and set against the rest of us in our comforts. I sat there watching and felt horrible eating my free brownie.
After a while, his technique began to give out- there was now no pause, the tops were flung away with the skins, no longer a record and just in the way. the horizontal slice was gone and the end bits weren't chopped but discarded. He began to eat one like an apple, his face red and wet. He cut his hand and ignored it.
For the most part, I stopped trying to analyze just why I was feeling the way I was and just took it as just as valid in not having an answer. Cutting onions could make me feel something and I don't know why or how or really what I even was feeling. the specificity perhaps that Danielewski suggested?
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Western World's Burden
Consumerism is an animalistic force not to be reckoned with. It comes in with a new name, which in affect changes the value of everything around it. Sneaking in with Western Industrialization, consumerism has consumed people for the greater part of a century with advertisements, products and services. And in this "Utopian society" we call America the stretch between social classes grows wider apart with every new product we give birth to. For every consumer tainted by "Totalitarian Consumerism" we lose another body in a sea of products.
We are slaves to our own creation
British/Sri Lankan Mathangi Arulpragasam "M.I.A." singing "Paper Planes." The lyrics say it all and the visual helps too.
We are slaves to our own creation
British/Sri Lankan Mathangi Arulpragasam "M.I.A." singing "Paper Planes." The lyrics say it all and the visual helps too.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Begotten
Watch it if you dare... I mean it.
This might actually give you nightmares. I just got hold of this whole film and I'm still wondering if I should watch it at night.
While the movie is not easily approached—lacking both dialogue and discernible cultural symbols—it does contain references to various religious and pagan myths. Relatively obvious Christian myths are present in the impregnation of Mother Earth by God, akin to the impregnation of Mary by the Holy Spirit. The same myth is partly present in ancient Egyptian mythology, where Isis impregnates herself with the penis of the killed god Osiris and gives birth to Horus.
This might actually give you nightmares. I just got hold of this whole film and I'm still wondering if I should watch it at night.
While the movie is not easily approached—lacking both dialogue and discernible cultural symbols—it does contain references to various religious and pagan myths. Relatively obvious Christian myths are present in the impregnation of Mother Earth by God, akin to the impregnation of Mary by the Holy Spirit. The same myth is partly present in ancient Egyptian mythology, where Isis impregnates herself with the penis of the killed god Osiris and gives birth to Horus.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Samurai Champloo: Postmodern Anime
The anime Samurai Champloo is totally Postmodern.
Even the word "champloo" used in this instance means "a mixture of" or "something mixed". Meaning they combine Edo period events with contemporary sensibilities. Such as the following!
-Stylized graffiti, guns, rapper hand gestures, beat-boxers, guys walking around with wood over their shoulders like boom boxes, obvious gang-warfare (or, in Japanese, yakuza). The producers are well aware of the mixing of time periods and address it at some points with statements along the lines of "We know. We're doing it for a reason. Just go with it."
-The main characters MST themselves in the beginning. Mystery Science Theatre 3000 (1988-1999). Also self-referencing the show and the storyline. Metanarrative!
-This particular episode (18: "War of the Words") is about language/interpretation of language/learning of language. Mugen, one of the main characters, can't read. While they're in a city, he's basically kidnapped by a drunk schoolmaster and put through language bootcamp where he learns to read *Hiragana. It is also about image and image through the shape of language. Mugen learns language, then creates his own symbol meaning "Mugen". Then there's the whole signifier/signified shabang when at the end of the episode, where he labels everything by writing on objects with their corresponding word. Meanwhile, there's a gang war going on where the competition consists of trying to out-do each other by graffiting or "tagging" the most dangerous spots around the city. Behold, the power of words as symbols carrying more meaning than the usually associated because of who painted them where.
(*Note that the Japanese have four different alphabets. Katagana, which is used for forgien words, Hiragana, mainly used for Japanese words, Romanji, or the Romanization of Japanese sounds, and Kanji, the complicated pictorial characters used to mean entire words or parts of words. Most of these were ganked from the Chinese alphabet. You could go all kinds of crazy with this, but I'm tired, so NO.)
Even the word "champloo" used in this instance means "a mixture of" or "something mixed". Meaning they combine Edo period events with contemporary sensibilities. Such as the following!
-Stylized graffiti, guns, rapper hand gestures, beat-boxers, guys walking around with wood over their shoulders like boom boxes, obvious gang-warfare (or, in Japanese, yakuza). The producers are well aware of the mixing of time periods and address it at some points with statements along the lines of "We know. We're doing it for a reason. Just go with it."
-The main characters MST themselves in the beginning. Mystery Science Theatre 3000 (1988-1999). Also self-referencing the show and the storyline. Metanarrative!
-This particular episode (18: "War of the Words") is about language/interpretation of language/learning of language. Mugen, one of the main characters, can't read. While they're in a city, he's basically kidnapped by a drunk schoolmaster and put through language bootcamp where he learns to read *Hiragana. It is also about image and image through the shape of language. Mugen learns language, then creates his own symbol meaning "Mugen". Then there's the whole signifier/signified shabang when at the end of the episode, where he labels everything by writing on objects with their corresponding word. Meanwhile, there's a gang war going on where the competition consists of trying to out-do each other by graffiting or "tagging" the most dangerous spots around the city. Behold, the power of words as symbols carrying more meaning than the usually associated because of who painted them where.
(*Note that the Japanese have four different alphabets. Katagana, which is used for forgien words, Hiragana, mainly used for Japanese words, Romanji, or the Romanization of Japanese sounds, and Kanji, the complicated pictorial characters used to mean entire words or parts of words. Most of these were ganked from the Chinese alphabet. You could go all kinds of crazy with this, but I'm tired, so NO.)
hard core logo, and music as a simulacrum
i don't know how many people have seen this movie or read the book, so maybe none of this will make much sense but i'll try to write it out. it's just something i've been thinking about. there'd been discussions in class especially around the subject of delillo's work that sort of tie in i think, and matt's presentation last week hit on some of these thoughts, too.
mostly the idea of image as reality, persona as reality when applied to people, shown (sort of) through music and the music industry.
i know, original, right?
hard core logo is a book by michael turner about a fictional defunct vancouver punk band named hard core logo who get back together to play a benefit show for a global awareness organization. the show goes so well that joe dick, lead singer, wants the band to reform and do a reunion tour of western canada. the story follows joe, billy tallent, pipefitter and john oxenberger along the tour, goes through the good shows and the bad shows, dealing with all the crap of the music industry and "selling out" and feeling like a has-been, aging punk at thirty-two, and follows through to the eventual, final disintegration of the band.
turner's approach to the way he writes is very postmodern, and hard core logo in particular is similar to house of leaves in that it's very unconventionally structured and it challenges the way a book "should" be written. hard core logo is made entirely of images. the story of this band is told through photographs, set lists, song lyrics, poetry, journal entries, letters, answering machine messages, receipts, posters, interviews, etc. rather than a narrative storyline. what we get from this is a look into the lives of these characters, small snapshots of their personalities and what makes up their lives-- a collection of crumpled gig posters and ratty old notebooks filled with lyrics; interviews with radio stations and articles in magazines; inventory lists, merchandise, road games.
the movie, shot as a mockumentary, is an image also. not only is it physically visual but it's a product of turner's original images; an image made from an image. it's a combination of the pictorial quality of the book and the tangible physicality of film. being able to put faces to the names on the page, to actually hear the songs that were only lyrics before, helps make the characters even more real than they started out.
the characters appear as images as well, and here is where i'll get to the persona as reality part. right off the bat, the name of the band is more of an image than a name, not even going so far as to provide an actual logo, just saying insert one here. joe dick, billy tallent and pipefitter are images themselves, smaller images making up the larger one of the band. they're nicknames and rockstar personalities. in the film version, john says that pipe doesn't even remember what his real name is, he's been calling himself that for so long. joe and billy gave themselves their punk handles when they were teenagers and still refer to each other by them. as the story progresses, joe begins to see "billy tallent" as an image billy is projecting to the world, this rockstar front. he thinks billy is getting too lost in the surreal world of The Rock Star, that it's becoming less about the music and more about the limos and the models and the fame. joe's worried billy is starting to buy into the hype about himself and believe he really is "billy tallent," famous lead guitarist of seminal punk band hard core logo. the name, the idea of billy tallent becomes much bigger than the man himself-- joe's best friend; the guy he's known since they were kids; the guitarist in joe's band; just billy.
another character in the story who becomes an image is bucky haight. he's a punk legend and joe's idol. bucky represents punk music for joe-- what it used to be, the essence of what it should be. none of the rock and roll, music industry problems that inevitably come with being famous. during the tour, the band spends a night at bucky's place in new york city, and instead of this great legend, all they see is a regular guy trying to live a half-way decent life after speeding through it too hard. in john's tour diary he says he "reckoned [bucky]'d be healthier, but he looked as bad as he did in the eighties" (140). bucky tells them stories from when he was first starting out as a musician, the trouble he eventually ran into with the industry and drugs and burning out too quickly, and it culminates in him finally saying:
"if i could give you all
one piece of advice:
ditch the band
and buy a farm.
it doesn't matter what you grow.
it's the fact that you'll see
whatever you do" (139).
to see his idol in this shape, to hear from him that the music really isn't worth it because everything that comes with it is shit and fake, joe's picture is totally blown-- not only of bucky, but of his own life, in a way, when he thinks about how much he's put into believing in music whole-heartedly. john writes: "we drove in silence down the highway. i could tell joe was really bummed. while billy and pipe were bemused by buck, joe grew more despondent" (140).
the idea of bucky haight became larger than life to joe. bucky's image started to mean more than the real thing. so when confronted with just the man, stripped down and human -- with the reality of what the music industry is and what it can do to people, with how bad it can get for people -- joe doesn't deal with it well. the idea of bucky had become more real than any physically real person could have been. it wasn't even necessarily the idea of bucky himself, but what bucky represented musically that joe is now not sure he can believe in as strongly anymore. when the band makes it to the gig in saskatoon, joe dedicates a song to "bucky haight, the legendary punk king who died last year in new york city" (143).
possibly the only character who isn't an image is john oxenberger. he's the only band member without a nickname, and more importantly the only one who sees the truth about the people around him while everyone else struggles with the representations of truth bombarding their lives. so much of the insight we get about the other characters comes from john's journal entries (in the book) and his narration (in the film).
i guess my wanting to write about this book for this blog came about because i started to think about the idea of the simulacrum in a more everyday sense; to wonder how i could put this into simpler thoughts i could wrap my head around.
much like how hard core logo the book is written (a big collection of images), and how the film version is put together (an image made from that big collection of images), the story parallels this structure through commentary on the music industry. the image of an idea is what consumes everyone rather than anything real or tangible, and even characters like joe dick who just want to be on the outside of it all, who fight against falling into that, are images themselves. music is reduced to appearance and managerial bullshit, essentially.
we see people as simulacra everyday, know people who have their own fronts and images they like to project, and for some that image may even go deeper than just surface value. because even as superficial as our outward image is when compared to the whole of an individual, it still gets so much meaning placed on it in society, whether it's an indication of socio-economic status or subculture; our symbolic value, as baudrillard would say. if reality is image and image is reality, then the image of the rock star is just as real -- if not more so -- than the actual person underneath all that; the person who grew up in the same neighborhoods we did, who has parents and siblings and a favorite breakfast food.
the example of music speaks strongly to the point delillo makes in mao when he says that the novel used to be what people found meaning in, that writing and writers used to be dangerous, and nowadays people need bombs dropped on them before they're affected by anything. we all know plenty of people who don't read for pleasure but i can probably count on one hand the number of people i've met who don't listen to music. music can be synonymous with reading in that it's something people find meaning in, something revolutionary that affects and inspires. if the images of bill and his novel become real in mao, the same can be said of one's favorite band and their music.
in the lecture on baudrillard monica gave us, it said baudrillard felt that "the postmodern human condition is a combination of 'fascination,' 'melancholy' and 'indifference.'" that cries so loudly for music. musicians say everything we feel better than we think we ever could and that gives the music dual meaning: it gives us something to hold onto, a sense of belonging where we feel like we aren't the only ones who feel or think the way we do; and it gives us a human something we feel we can connect with, the empathetic musician who speaks to me and knows exactly how i feel.
matt included this quote about bill from mao in his presentation: "a dream locus, a doubleness that famous places share, making them seem remote and unreceptive but at the same time intimately familiar, and experience you've been carrying forever" (120). haven't we all felt this way at least once before about a musician we really admire? they seem larger than life but it still feels like they're speaking directly to us. joe felt this way about bucky haight, i think.
at some point during the course of the experience, the reality of the musician- or author-the-person seems to fade away a bit and what we're left with is the impression the work has made, reduced to the words (the books or lyrics or sounds) themselves. it doesn't matter if we really know farrokh bulsara or the image of freddie mercury; the rockin' world still goes 'round and we're still a part of it. the person who created those words still exists, certainly, and we know that, but if the image of that person isn't in the forefront it's the new images they've created.
that was so long winded and i'm sure there's still more i could have said, i just hope it made some amount of sense. sorry for the probably too-specific example, again. :/
film trailer:
mostly the idea of image as reality, persona as reality when applied to people, shown (sort of) through music and the music industry.
i know, original, right?
hard core logo is a book by michael turner about a fictional defunct vancouver punk band named hard core logo who get back together to play a benefit show for a global awareness organization. the show goes so well that joe dick, lead singer, wants the band to reform and do a reunion tour of western canada. the story follows joe, billy tallent, pipefitter and john oxenberger along the tour, goes through the good shows and the bad shows, dealing with all the crap of the music industry and "selling out" and feeling like a has-been, aging punk at thirty-two, and follows through to the eventual, final disintegration of the band.
turner's approach to the way he writes is very postmodern, and hard core logo in particular is similar to house of leaves in that it's very unconventionally structured and it challenges the way a book "should" be written. hard core logo is made entirely of images. the story of this band is told through photographs, set lists, song lyrics, poetry, journal entries, letters, answering machine messages, receipts, posters, interviews, etc. rather than a narrative storyline. what we get from this is a look into the lives of these characters, small snapshots of their personalities and what makes up their lives-- a collection of crumpled gig posters and ratty old notebooks filled with lyrics; interviews with radio stations and articles in magazines; inventory lists, merchandise, road games.
the movie, shot as a mockumentary, is an image also. not only is it physically visual but it's a product of turner's original images; an image made from an image. it's a combination of the pictorial quality of the book and the tangible physicality of film. being able to put faces to the names on the page, to actually hear the songs that were only lyrics before, helps make the characters even more real than they started out.
the characters appear as images as well, and here is where i'll get to the persona as reality part. right off the bat, the name of the band is more of an image than a name, not even going so far as to provide an actual logo, just saying insert one here. joe dick, billy tallent and pipefitter are images themselves, smaller images making up the larger one of the band. they're nicknames and rockstar personalities. in the film version, john says that pipe doesn't even remember what his real name is, he's been calling himself that for so long. joe and billy gave themselves their punk handles when they were teenagers and still refer to each other by them. as the story progresses, joe begins to see "billy tallent" as an image billy is projecting to the world, this rockstar front. he thinks billy is getting too lost in the surreal world of The Rock Star, that it's becoming less about the music and more about the limos and the models and the fame. joe's worried billy is starting to buy into the hype about himself and believe he really is "billy tallent," famous lead guitarist of seminal punk band hard core logo. the name, the idea of billy tallent becomes much bigger than the man himself-- joe's best friend; the guy he's known since they were kids; the guitarist in joe's band; just billy.
another character in the story who becomes an image is bucky haight. he's a punk legend and joe's idol. bucky represents punk music for joe-- what it used to be, the essence of what it should be. none of the rock and roll, music industry problems that inevitably come with being famous. during the tour, the band spends a night at bucky's place in new york city, and instead of this great legend, all they see is a regular guy trying to live a half-way decent life after speeding through it too hard. in john's tour diary he says he "reckoned [bucky]'d be healthier, but he looked as bad as he did in the eighties" (140). bucky tells them stories from when he was first starting out as a musician, the trouble he eventually ran into with the industry and drugs and burning out too quickly, and it culminates in him finally saying:
"if i could give you all
one piece of advice:
ditch the band
and buy a farm.
it doesn't matter what you grow.
it's the fact that you'll see
whatever you do" (139).
to see his idol in this shape, to hear from him that the music really isn't worth it because everything that comes with it is shit and fake, joe's picture is totally blown-- not only of bucky, but of his own life, in a way, when he thinks about how much he's put into believing in music whole-heartedly. john writes: "we drove in silence down the highway. i could tell joe was really bummed. while billy and pipe were bemused by buck, joe grew more despondent" (140).
the idea of bucky haight became larger than life to joe. bucky's image started to mean more than the real thing. so when confronted with just the man, stripped down and human -- with the reality of what the music industry is and what it can do to people, with how bad it can get for people -- joe doesn't deal with it well. the idea of bucky had become more real than any physically real person could have been. it wasn't even necessarily the idea of bucky himself, but what bucky represented musically that joe is now not sure he can believe in as strongly anymore. when the band makes it to the gig in saskatoon, joe dedicates a song to "bucky haight, the legendary punk king who died last year in new york city" (143).
possibly the only character who isn't an image is john oxenberger. he's the only band member without a nickname, and more importantly the only one who sees the truth about the people around him while everyone else struggles with the representations of truth bombarding their lives. so much of the insight we get about the other characters comes from john's journal entries (in the book) and his narration (in the film).
i guess my wanting to write about this book for this blog came about because i started to think about the idea of the simulacrum in a more everyday sense; to wonder how i could put this into simpler thoughts i could wrap my head around.
much like how hard core logo the book is written (a big collection of images), and how the film version is put together (an image made from that big collection of images), the story parallels this structure through commentary on the music industry. the image of an idea is what consumes everyone rather than anything real or tangible, and even characters like joe dick who just want to be on the outside of it all, who fight against falling into that, are images themselves. music is reduced to appearance and managerial bullshit, essentially.
we see people as simulacra everyday, know people who have their own fronts and images they like to project, and for some that image may even go deeper than just surface value. because even as superficial as our outward image is when compared to the whole of an individual, it still gets so much meaning placed on it in society, whether it's an indication of socio-economic status or subculture; our symbolic value, as baudrillard would say. if reality is image and image is reality, then the image of the rock star is just as real -- if not more so -- than the actual person underneath all that; the person who grew up in the same neighborhoods we did, who has parents and siblings and a favorite breakfast food.
the example of music speaks strongly to the point delillo makes in mao when he says that the novel used to be what people found meaning in, that writing and writers used to be dangerous, and nowadays people need bombs dropped on them before they're affected by anything. we all know plenty of people who don't read for pleasure but i can probably count on one hand the number of people i've met who don't listen to music. music can be synonymous with reading in that it's something people find meaning in, something revolutionary that affects and inspires. if the images of bill and his novel become real in mao, the same can be said of one's favorite band and their music.
in the lecture on baudrillard monica gave us, it said baudrillard felt that "the postmodern human condition is a combination of 'fascination,' 'melancholy' and 'indifference.'" that cries so loudly for music. musicians say everything we feel better than we think we ever could and that gives the music dual meaning: it gives us something to hold onto, a sense of belonging where we feel like we aren't the only ones who feel or think the way we do; and it gives us a human something we feel we can connect with, the empathetic musician who speaks to me and knows exactly how i feel.
matt included this quote about bill from mao in his presentation: "a dream locus, a doubleness that famous places share, making them seem remote and unreceptive but at the same time intimately familiar, and experience you've been carrying forever" (120). haven't we all felt this way at least once before about a musician we really admire? they seem larger than life but it still feels like they're speaking directly to us. joe felt this way about bucky haight, i think.
at some point during the course of the experience, the reality of the musician- or author-the-person seems to fade away a bit and what we're left with is the impression the work has made, reduced to the words (the books or lyrics or sounds) themselves. it doesn't matter if we really know farrokh bulsara or the image of freddie mercury; the rockin' world still goes 'round and we're still a part of it. the person who created those words still exists, certainly, and we know that, but if the image of that person isn't in the forefront it's the new images they've created.
that was so long winded and i'm sure there's still more i could have said, i just hope it made some amount of sense. sorry for the probably too-specific example, again. :/
film trailer:
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Monday, March 10, 2008
The Little Prince
"If I've told you these details about Asteroid B-612 and I've given you its number, it is on account of the grown-ups. Grown-ups like numbers. When you tell them about a new friend, they never ask questions about what really matters. They never ask: 'What does his voice sound like?' 'What games does he like best?' 'Does he collect butterflies?' They ask: 'How old is he?' 'How many brothers does he have?' 'How much does he weigh?' 'How much money does his father make?' Only then do they think they know him. If you tell grown-ups, 'I saw a beautiful red brick house, with geraniums at the windows and doves on the roof...,' they won't be able to imagine such a house. You have to tell them, 'I saw a house worth a hundred thousand francs.' Then they exclaim, 'What a pretty house!'"
(Antoine de Saint-Exupery, Le Petit Prince, p. 10, English edition)
I don't really classify Le Petit Prince as a postmodern novel, but that statement reminded me of our discussions on language, and how, according to Derrida, we cannot escape it. But it seems that here, Saint-Exupery took the concept of language a step further and said that children and adults cannot communicate well because they speak in different languages. Children use words, and to adults, numbers have become the new way to communicate, and each side considers the other's way of communicating to be wrong and even laughable. Even the author (as the narrator), feels like he is falling between the two worlds of language, and doesn't seem sure which side he is supposed to take.
(Antoine de Saint-Exupery, Le Petit Prince, p. 10, English edition)
I don't really classify Le Petit Prince as a postmodern novel, but that statement reminded me of our discussions on language, and how, according to Derrida, we cannot escape it. But it seems that here, Saint-Exupery took the concept of language a step further and said that children and adults cannot communicate well because they speak in different languages. Children use words, and to adults, numbers have become the new way to communicate, and each side considers the other's way of communicating to be wrong and even laughable. Even the author (as the narrator), feels like he is falling between the two worlds of language, and doesn't seem sure which side he is supposed to take.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Delving into the PoMo of Tool's "10,000 Days"
Tool has proved to be one of the more enigmatic bands of the past twenty years, releasing albums sparsely, never known for being media spectacles, and when giving interviews, well, they constantly lie. An idea came to me in the car, where most of my ideas come from, while listening to their last release "10,000 Days" that not only was it a giant piece of trash, but it was severely Postmodern.
In 1992, Tool released their first official EP "Opiate" and quickly followed with the full length album "Undertow" the following year. It was three years later, and a giant shift in the musical dynamic when "Aenima" was released in October of 1996. The "sophomore slump" that many bands suffer–a term referring to a band’s second album not standing up to the acclaim that their debut album had–was entirely circumvented an "Aenima" put Tool on the map of progressive rock until this day. Three years in the industry sense between albums is not unheard of, nor uncommon or uncharacteristic, but many labels prefer a two year span between albums, especially when it is a big label pushing a band’s marketing hard. It was five years until Tool would speak of a new release, when in January of 2001 the band announced their new album "Systema Encéphale" and along with it, a 12 song set list. Bootleggers immediately rushed to begin printing up teeshirts, and file sharing networks filled with leaked song files, but alas it was Tool that had the laugh. "Systema Encéphale" and the 12 song set list was completely made up and in May of the same year "Lateralus" was released (with a 13 song set list), leaving many over-zealous fans stuck with a heap of unlicensed and bogus merchandise. Let me take this opportunity to pause the Tool discography lesson now.
In Don DeLillo’s Mao II character Bill Gray is a famous author who avoids any and all media attention. After publishing two very successful books, he finds himself in a period of editing, scrapping, rewriting, and editing the same book. Years go by with his fans desperately waiting for the release, and many fans plan search parties to locate Gray to see him after spending so many years as a recluse. Gray’s editor, Scott says that he does not want Gray to actually publish the book because the hype for it is so great that it could never live up to the standards that his fans have placed on it for so long. Scott and partner Karen also would rather Gray not have his photograph taken by photographer, Brita. The reasons for this privatization is to keep the power with Bill Gray. As soon as Gray has his photographs released then he is expected to live up to looking like those photographs. It is the same as when he releases his book then he relinquishes all power and the book that he wrote essentially becomes property of the public.
Now, unpause. After the wild success of both "Aenima" and "Lateralus" Tool toured and then faded away into the depths of their private lives. Vocalist Maynard James Keenan worked on starting his vineyards, and releasing albums with A Perfect Circle and the rest of the band did whatever the hell it is that they do. August 2004 brought about news that Tool was releasing a new album "within a half year" which actually seemed plausible, but as it happens many times in the Tool universe, it was just another untruth. That same news update paraphrased Keenan saying that new material was being worked on daily. The chatter began, the questions, the doubts, etc. Considering the huge shift in dynamic between the previous three albums, what would this one be? How would age factor into the new material? Constantly spanning out albums nearly five years apart, the guys get older faster–in some sort of weird timing if you go by album releases–and the creative parts of the brain start to dwindle. But many Tool fans had the faith that "Tool takes their time on their albums and does things right."
So "10,000 Days" officially was released on May 2nd of 2006, five years after their last album. Essentially, the "Bill Gray" of Tool had now died after a half decade of silence. So what about the hype? Did "10,000 Days" stand up to expectations? Absolutely not! The best review I read of the album called it "aural sloppy seconds" although the media giants considered it favorable; but hey that’s what giant label corporations do, pay media giant corporations to speak kindly about them. Hmm, that’s an interesting use of the word "corporation" it kind of reminds me of when Bill Gray tells Brita that all writers have now been "incorporated." But as a side bar, "10,000 Days" was leaked on the internet by a non-password protected FTP that allowed not only radio stations to download the album (the intended downloaders) but the entire internet. Some rumors have led some fans to believe that this was done intentionally by Tool to spite their label.
The big problems with "10,000 Days" was a lack of songs to speak of. At 11 tracks the album only actually has five tracks. Vicarious, Jambi, 10,000 Days (Wings pt. 2), The Pot, and Right In Two. Vicarious is a song that Baudrillard would be proud of. It deals with the Hype-reality and imagistic media-drive society we have become.
Lyrics to Vicarious
===
Eye on the t.v cuz tragedy thrills me.Whatever flavor it happens to be.(like)Killed by the husband...drowned by the ocean...Shot by his own son...she used a poison in his tea, Then she kissed him goodbye.That's My kinda storyIt's no fun till someone dies.Don't look at me like I am a monster.Frown out your one face but with the other youStare like a junkie into the t.v.Stare like a zombiewhile the mother holds her child. Watches him die.Hands to the sky, cryin' "why, oh why?"Cuz I need to watch things die, from a distance.Vicariously, I live while the whole world dies.You all need it too don't lie.Why can't we just admit it?We won't give pause till the blood is flowing.Neither the brave nor bold nor brightest of stories told,We won't give pause till the blood is flowing.i need to watch things die, from a good safe distance.Vicariously, i live while the whole world dies.you all feel the same so why can't we just admit it?Blood like rain come down. Drum on grave and ground.Part Vampire, Part warrior, Carnivore, and VoyeurStare at the transmittal. Sing to the death rattleCredulous at best, your desire to believe in angels in the hearts of men.Pull your head on out your hippy haze and give a listen.Shouldn't have to say it all again.The universe is hostile. so Impersonal. devour to survive.So it is. So it's always been.We all feed on tragedy. It's like Blood to a vampire.vicariously, I live while the whole world dies.Much better you than i.
====
"That’s my kind of story. It’s no fun till someone dies." Keenan sings. It is exactly the highlight of the era of Post-Modernity where reality is the image, and reality is just a simulation as dictated by the media and the television screen. Monica wrote "Baudrillard says the postmodern human condition is a combination of ‘fascination,’ ‘melancholy’ and ‘indifference.’" Highlighting any more of the lyrics to Vicarious would be useless, as it is all apparently fascinated and indifferent towards the images of death and horror. In that sense, one could couple this song with Stinkfist which uses the imagery of having an entire arm, up to the shoulder inserted into an anus just to create a feeling over the appalling desensitivity of the culture.
Lyrics to Right In Two
===
Angels on the sideline,puzzled and amused.Why did Father give these humans free will?Now they're all confused.Don't these talking monkeys know that Edenhas enough to go around?Plenty in this holy garden.Silly monkeys,where there's one you're bound to divide it,right in two.Angels on the sideline,baffled and confused.Father blessed them all with reasonand this is what they choose?Monkey killing monkey killing monkeyover pieces of the ground.Silly monkeys,give them thumbs they forge a bladeand where there's one they're bound to divide it,right in two.Monkey killing monkey killing monkeyover pieces of the ground.Silly monkeys,give them thumbs they make a cluband beat their brother down.How they survive so misguided is a mystery.Repugnant is a creature who would squander the abilityto live tonight in heaven,conscious of his fleeting time here.Cutting it all, right in two.Cutting it all, right in two.Cutting it all, right in two.Cutting it all, right in two.Fight over ground, over earth, over sky.They fight over life, over blood, over air and light,over love, over some, over none.They fight or they die, Over what?Over writing!Angels on the sideline again,Benched along with patience and reason.Angels on the sideline again,Wondering where this tug of war will end.Cutting it all, right in two.Cutting it all, right in two.Cutting it all, right in two.Right in two!Right in two.
=====
In the Postmodern sense with this track it could be said that this is a dystopian view on the world. It also goes back to the days prior to Modernism when the Age of Reason had come to be and subsequently failed with the World Wars, when people realized that people are arguably innately horrible creatures. I’ll also count it to be hypocritical of Keenan to be writing and singing about angels considering he is avidly against organized religion. See: A Perfect Circle’s "Judith" which is actually a reference to the subject of "10,000 Days" Judith Marie, Keenan’s mother.
The lack of songs on "10,000 Days" isn’t the only disappointment, it’s more the disappointment that the actual songs deliver. It seems as if Tool got stuck in their own language and couldn’t find new ways to express themselves. They’ve always been hailed for their technical ability, Danny Carey’s absolutely mind blowing drumming complete with odd time signatures, incredible accuracy, his unique style. Adam Jones’ scant guitar work that somehow always seems to be just exactly perfect for the song and never seems like too much or too little. Justin Chancelor’s driving bass lines that end up caught in your head on a continuous loop for days on end. Maynard James Keenan’s challenging lyrics that make any fan run to their local library looking up Saturn Ascensions and Bill Hicks, and his booming powerful voice. But on "10,000 Days" it seemed like everyone except Justin had showed up more than just physically. Adam Jones recycled riffs from the past twenty years to either create stunning rip-offs of himself, or use guitar warm up techniques as actual riffs. Danny Carey who I swear could have an epileptic seizure with drum sticks in his hand and still sound better than 65% of drummers ever worked with what he had been given by the guitars but even then seemed more interested in playing his mandalas–triggering sound effects–than creating the stunning mathematical masterpieces his drum beats are known to be. Justin Chancelor didn’t so much as disappoint, delivering his one-of-a-kind bass lines and at times creating some absolutely beautiful creative riffs, but considering the songs dragged on for so long at times (I’m looking at you "Wings For Marie" series) that his riffs began to become stale when played for 45 seconds at a time; and not in the good way like in Schism.
Maynard James Keenan was up to par with the rest of the band in being boring as well. The opening to The Pot actually is something unheard on all prior Tool releases, vocally, but quickly becomes the same exact vocal style that he had in every song on the "Undertow" album. Now don’t get me wrong, it was nice to bring back in some of that old style, but over six minutes of the same repeating and not so interesting verse/chorus routine, it made me remember why I hated "Undertow." Keenan got stuck in his own language barriers, be it vocally, or lyrically. The album opens with Vicarious which could easily be slid right into the track listing of "Lateralus" and nobody would ever suspect it didn’t belong there, save the lower diction lyrical content. Then after Vicarious there is Jambi which is an obscure allusion to something in Sumatara, one of those typical Tool type things to do, that makes a listener scramble to Wikipedia or the famous Tool FAQ. Nothing on the album was new, they weren’t saying anything different, and didn’t even seem to be trying. "The world is pretty saddening" was the basic gist of the album from Vicarious talking about the media, down to The Pot and hypocrisy, and Right In Two’s commentary on angels being confused about humanity. Everything that was done musically on the album as well was either a rip-off of "Undertow" or something that sounded like it belonged on "Lateralus" yet less interesting.
The track "Lipan Conjuring" is one of those examples of the Postmodern "borrowing." The whole track is just an Apache tribal chant. It actually deserves an award for serving no purpose on the album.
Now the title track 10,000 Days (Wings pt. 2) has a very connection with two other tracks. At 11 minutes and 13 seconds long it features a long build up without much action beside repetitive instrumental tracks and Keenan’s low vocals which actually come to the pinnacle of the album, a three part vocal harmony. The track prior to 10,000 Days (Wings pt. 2) is Wings for Marie, pt. 1 which is the first track I heard off of the album (I chose it at random from the internet leak and refused to listen to anything else). My initial reaction was "Wow. Nothing is happening!" until the four minute, twelve second mark when the guitar and the drums inexplicably pick up, and then stop seconds later. The track features mainly ambient noise and the same drum and bass lines as the title track. It does not serve properly as a lead in to the title track, nor does it stand up to be its own track at all. Odd. The last track of the album Viginti Tres is five minutes and two seconds long and features nothing but ambient noise that sounds either like wind, or television static. Now check this out. If one were to first put Viginti Tres then Wings for Marie, pt. 1 together and play them as one track without any gap in between then the length would add up to 11 minutes, 13 seconds. Play that couple over the 11 minute, 13 second song 10,000 Days (Wings pt. 2) then one song is formed. The ambient noise syncs with the other ambient noise, then the instrumentals start to sync, and at one point Keenan starts to do a call and response with himself on the combined track. How is that for anti-form? Take a song and then demolish it and make three unfinished songs? Wow, Tool. Raising the bar over their own heads now.
The track Intension sounds so much like the "Triad"–a coupling of three songs at the end of "Lateralus" Reflection, Disposition, and Triad–that it’s almost uncanny. It’s as if they mashed the "Triad" together with the next track, Right In Two together, and added in the same two note riffs that Jones plays at the beginning of 10,000 Days (Wings pt. 2). PoMo Alert! But an interesting fact about the word "Intension" that in referring to language without intension words have no meaning.
"10,000 Days" did challenge the notion of CD packaging with the award winning work that Adam Jones directed with Alex Grey. The cover opens three-fold, vertically. The top portion is a pair of 3D goggles that the viewer uses to look at the rest of the inner-packaging, creating 3D images of the band, as well any of the extra stuff in the booklet. In May of 2006 the band’s official webmaster said that the four individual photos of the band could be used in conjunction with another to used to create "pieces of a kind of puzzle." To my knowledge, what that is, has not been discovered.
Anyone who is a fan of Tool for long enough begins to look deeper into their work for things like 3D picture puzzles, hidden meanings of songs, etc. When I began to delve into this project of looking at things in the Postmodern sense, I didn’t know what I’d find, and I’m sure I could still find more. It all started with thinking of how it related to Bill Gray. My eyes hurt now. Any feedback is much appreciated, as well as suggestions of other things to explore/explain.
In 1992, Tool released their first official EP "Opiate" and quickly followed with the full length album "Undertow" the following year. It was three years later, and a giant shift in the musical dynamic when "Aenima" was released in October of 1996. The "sophomore slump" that many bands suffer–a term referring to a band’s second album not standing up to the acclaim that their debut album had–was entirely circumvented an "Aenima" put Tool on the map of progressive rock until this day. Three years in the industry sense between albums is not unheard of, nor uncommon or uncharacteristic, but many labels prefer a two year span between albums, especially when it is a big label pushing a band’s marketing hard. It was five years until Tool would speak of a new release, when in January of 2001 the band announced their new album "Systema Encéphale" and along with it, a 12 song set list. Bootleggers immediately rushed to begin printing up teeshirts, and file sharing networks filled with leaked song files, but alas it was Tool that had the laugh. "Systema Encéphale" and the 12 song set list was completely made up and in May of the same year "Lateralus" was released (with a 13 song set list), leaving many over-zealous fans stuck with a heap of unlicensed and bogus merchandise. Let me take this opportunity to pause the Tool discography lesson now.
In Don DeLillo’s Mao II character Bill Gray is a famous author who avoids any and all media attention. After publishing two very successful books, he finds himself in a period of editing, scrapping, rewriting, and editing the same book. Years go by with his fans desperately waiting for the release, and many fans plan search parties to locate Gray to see him after spending so many years as a recluse. Gray’s editor, Scott says that he does not want Gray to actually publish the book because the hype for it is so great that it could never live up to the standards that his fans have placed on it for so long. Scott and partner Karen also would rather Gray not have his photograph taken by photographer, Brita. The reasons for this privatization is to keep the power with Bill Gray. As soon as Gray has his photographs released then he is expected to live up to looking like those photographs. It is the same as when he releases his book then he relinquishes all power and the book that he wrote essentially becomes property of the public.
Now, unpause. After the wild success of both "Aenima" and "Lateralus" Tool toured and then faded away into the depths of their private lives. Vocalist Maynard James Keenan worked on starting his vineyards, and releasing albums with A Perfect Circle and the rest of the band did whatever the hell it is that they do. August 2004 brought about news that Tool was releasing a new album "within a half year" which actually seemed plausible, but as it happens many times in the Tool universe, it was just another untruth. That same news update paraphrased Keenan saying that new material was being worked on daily. The chatter began, the questions, the doubts, etc. Considering the huge shift in dynamic between the previous three albums, what would this one be? How would age factor into the new material? Constantly spanning out albums nearly five years apart, the guys get older faster–in some sort of weird timing if you go by album releases–and the creative parts of the brain start to dwindle. But many Tool fans had the faith that "Tool takes their time on their albums and does things right."
So "10,000 Days" officially was released on May 2nd of 2006, five years after their last album. Essentially, the "Bill Gray" of Tool had now died after a half decade of silence. So what about the hype? Did "10,000 Days" stand up to expectations? Absolutely not! The best review I read of the album called it "aural sloppy seconds" although the media giants considered it favorable; but hey that’s what giant label corporations do, pay media giant corporations to speak kindly about them. Hmm, that’s an interesting use of the word "corporation" it kind of reminds me of when Bill Gray tells Brita that all writers have now been "incorporated." But as a side bar, "10,000 Days" was leaked on the internet by a non-password protected FTP that allowed not only radio stations to download the album (the intended downloaders) but the entire internet. Some rumors have led some fans to believe that this was done intentionally by Tool to spite their label.
The big problems with "10,000 Days" was a lack of songs to speak of. At 11 tracks the album only actually has five tracks. Vicarious, Jambi, 10,000 Days (Wings pt. 2), The Pot, and Right In Two. Vicarious is a song that Baudrillard would be proud of. It deals with the Hype-reality and imagistic media-drive society we have become.
Lyrics to Vicarious
===
Eye on the t.v cuz tragedy thrills me.Whatever flavor it happens to be.(like)Killed by the husband...drowned by the ocean...Shot by his own son...she used a poison in his tea, Then she kissed him goodbye.That's My kinda storyIt's no fun till someone dies.Don't look at me like I am a monster.Frown out your one face but with the other youStare like a junkie into the t.v.Stare like a zombiewhile the mother holds her child. Watches him die.Hands to the sky, cryin' "why, oh why?"Cuz I need to watch things die, from a distance.Vicariously, I live while the whole world dies.You all need it too don't lie.Why can't we just admit it?We won't give pause till the blood is flowing.Neither the brave nor bold nor brightest of stories told,We won't give pause till the blood is flowing.i need to watch things die, from a good safe distance.Vicariously, i live while the whole world dies.you all feel the same so why can't we just admit it?Blood like rain come down. Drum on grave and ground.Part Vampire, Part warrior, Carnivore, and VoyeurStare at the transmittal. Sing to the death rattleCredulous at best, your desire to believe in angels in the hearts of men.Pull your head on out your hippy haze and give a listen.Shouldn't have to say it all again.The universe is hostile. so Impersonal. devour to survive.So it is. So it's always been.We all feed on tragedy. It's like Blood to a vampire.vicariously, I live while the whole world dies.Much better you than i.
====
"That’s my kind of story. It’s no fun till someone dies." Keenan sings. It is exactly the highlight of the era of Post-Modernity where reality is the image, and reality is just a simulation as dictated by the media and the television screen. Monica wrote "Baudrillard says the postmodern human condition is a combination of ‘fascination,’ ‘melancholy’ and ‘indifference.’" Highlighting any more of the lyrics to Vicarious would be useless, as it is all apparently fascinated and indifferent towards the images of death and horror. In that sense, one could couple this song with Stinkfist which uses the imagery of having an entire arm, up to the shoulder inserted into an anus just to create a feeling over the appalling desensitivity of the culture.
Lyrics to Right In Two
===
Angels on the sideline,puzzled and amused.Why did Father give these humans free will?Now they're all confused.Don't these talking monkeys know that Edenhas enough to go around?Plenty in this holy garden.Silly monkeys,where there's one you're bound to divide it,right in two.Angels on the sideline,baffled and confused.Father blessed them all with reasonand this is what they choose?Monkey killing monkey killing monkeyover pieces of the ground.Silly monkeys,give them thumbs they forge a bladeand where there's one they're bound to divide it,right in two.Monkey killing monkey killing monkeyover pieces of the ground.Silly monkeys,give them thumbs they make a cluband beat their brother down.How they survive so misguided is a mystery.Repugnant is a creature who would squander the abilityto live tonight in heaven,conscious of his fleeting time here.Cutting it all, right in two.Cutting it all, right in two.Cutting it all, right in two.Cutting it all, right in two.Fight over ground, over earth, over sky.They fight over life, over blood, over air and light,over love, over some, over none.They fight or they die, Over what?Over writing!Angels on the sideline again,Benched along with patience and reason.Angels on the sideline again,Wondering where this tug of war will end.Cutting it all, right in two.Cutting it all, right in two.Cutting it all, right in two.Right in two!Right in two.
=====
In the Postmodern sense with this track it could be said that this is a dystopian view on the world. It also goes back to the days prior to Modernism when the Age of Reason had come to be and subsequently failed with the World Wars, when people realized that people are arguably innately horrible creatures. I’ll also count it to be hypocritical of Keenan to be writing and singing about angels considering he is avidly against organized religion. See: A Perfect Circle’s "Judith" which is actually a reference to the subject of "10,000 Days" Judith Marie, Keenan’s mother.
The lack of songs on "10,000 Days" isn’t the only disappointment, it’s more the disappointment that the actual songs deliver. It seems as if Tool got stuck in their own language and couldn’t find new ways to express themselves. They’ve always been hailed for their technical ability, Danny Carey’s absolutely mind blowing drumming complete with odd time signatures, incredible accuracy, his unique style. Adam Jones’ scant guitar work that somehow always seems to be just exactly perfect for the song and never seems like too much or too little. Justin Chancelor’s driving bass lines that end up caught in your head on a continuous loop for days on end. Maynard James Keenan’s challenging lyrics that make any fan run to their local library looking up Saturn Ascensions and Bill Hicks, and his booming powerful voice. But on "10,000 Days" it seemed like everyone except Justin had showed up more than just physically. Adam Jones recycled riffs from the past twenty years to either create stunning rip-offs of himself, or use guitar warm up techniques as actual riffs. Danny Carey who I swear could have an epileptic seizure with drum sticks in his hand and still sound better than 65% of drummers ever worked with what he had been given by the guitars but even then seemed more interested in playing his mandalas–triggering sound effects–than creating the stunning mathematical masterpieces his drum beats are known to be. Justin Chancelor didn’t so much as disappoint, delivering his one-of-a-kind bass lines and at times creating some absolutely beautiful creative riffs, but considering the songs dragged on for so long at times (I’m looking at you "Wings For Marie" series) that his riffs began to become stale when played for 45 seconds at a time; and not in the good way like in Schism.
Maynard James Keenan was up to par with the rest of the band in being boring as well. The opening to The Pot actually is something unheard on all prior Tool releases, vocally, but quickly becomes the same exact vocal style that he had in every song on the "Undertow" album. Now don’t get me wrong, it was nice to bring back in some of that old style, but over six minutes of the same repeating and not so interesting verse/chorus routine, it made me remember why I hated "Undertow." Keenan got stuck in his own language barriers, be it vocally, or lyrically. The album opens with Vicarious which could easily be slid right into the track listing of "Lateralus" and nobody would ever suspect it didn’t belong there, save the lower diction lyrical content. Then after Vicarious there is Jambi which is an obscure allusion to something in Sumatara, one of those typical Tool type things to do, that makes a listener scramble to Wikipedia or the famous Tool FAQ. Nothing on the album was new, they weren’t saying anything different, and didn’t even seem to be trying. "The world is pretty saddening" was the basic gist of the album from Vicarious talking about the media, down to The Pot and hypocrisy, and Right In Two’s commentary on angels being confused about humanity. Everything that was done musically on the album as well was either a rip-off of "Undertow" or something that sounded like it belonged on "Lateralus" yet less interesting.
The track "Lipan Conjuring" is one of those examples of the Postmodern "borrowing." The whole track is just an Apache tribal chant. It actually deserves an award for serving no purpose on the album.
Now the title track 10,000 Days (Wings pt. 2) has a very connection with two other tracks. At 11 minutes and 13 seconds long it features a long build up without much action beside repetitive instrumental tracks and Keenan’s low vocals which actually come to the pinnacle of the album, a three part vocal harmony. The track prior to 10,000 Days (Wings pt. 2) is Wings for Marie, pt. 1 which is the first track I heard off of the album (I chose it at random from the internet leak and refused to listen to anything else). My initial reaction was "Wow. Nothing is happening!" until the four minute, twelve second mark when the guitar and the drums inexplicably pick up, and then stop seconds later. The track features mainly ambient noise and the same drum and bass lines as the title track. It does not serve properly as a lead in to the title track, nor does it stand up to be its own track at all. Odd. The last track of the album Viginti Tres is five minutes and two seconds long and features nothing but ambient noise that sounds either like wind, or television static. Now check this out. If one were to first put Viginti Tres then Wings for Marie, pt. 1 together and play them as one track without any gap in between then the length would add up to 11 minutes, 13 seconds. Play that couple over the 11 minute, 13 second song 10,000 Days (Wings pt. 2) then one song is formed. The ambient noise syncs with the other ambient noise, then the instrumentals start to sync, and at one point Keenan starts to do a call and response with himself on the combined track. How is that for anti-form? Take a song and then demolish it and make three unfinished songs? Wow, Tool. Raising the bar over their own heads now.
The track Intension sounds so much like the "Triad"–a coupling of three songs at the end of "Lateralus" Reflection, Disposition, and Triad–that it’s almost uncanny. It’s as if they mashed the "Triad" together with the next track, Right In Two together, and added in the same two note riffs that Jones plays at the beginning of 10,000 Days (Wings pt. 2). PoMo Alert! But an interesting fact about the word "Intension" that in referring to language without intension words have no meaning.
"10,000 Days" did challenge the notion of CD packaging with the award winning work that Adam Jones directed with Alex Grey. The cover opens three-fold, vertically. The top portion is a pair of 3D goggles that the viewer uses to look at the rest of the inner-packaging, creating 3D images of the band, as well any of the extra stuff in the booklet. In May of 2006 the band’s official webmaster said that the four individual photos of the band could be used in conjunction with another to used to create "pieces of a kind of puzzle." To my knowledge, what that is, has not been discovered.
Anyone who is a fan of Tool for long enough begins to look deeper into their work for things like 3D picture puzzles, hidden meanings of songs, etc. When I began to delve into this project of looking at things in the Postmodern sense, I didn’t know what I’d find, and I’m sure I could still find more. It all started with thinking of how it related to Bill Gray. My eyes hurt now. Any feedback is much appreciated, as well as suggestions of other things to explore/explain.
"Bill reminded himself to read the pavement signs before he crossed the street. It was so perfectly damn sensible they ought to make it the law in every city, long-lettered words in white paint that tell you which way to look if you want to live." (Delillo - 120)
I dont know, I'm doing that report thing and this kinda struck me.
whatever.
I dont know, I'm doing that report thing and this kinda struck me.
whatever.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Lecture on Baudrillard
Jean Baudrillard
1929-2007
French philosopher/sociologist/cultural analyst
Originally a Marxist, he was interested in analyzing consumer society after WWII.
He distinguished between three different values of objects in modern consumer society:
1) From Marx – “use value” – all objects have a use value (i.e. a pen is used for writing down stuff, a sweater is used to keep us warm in winter, a car is used to get us places)
2) Also from Marx – “exchange value” – under modern capitalism, objects have become more associated with their exchange value, or what they’re worth. So, a Prada purse has more exchange value than a Gap purse, but not necessarily more use value. A Lexus has more exchange value than a Toyota, but not necessarily more use value.
3) Baudrillard adds a third category – “symbolic value” – all consumer goods have a symbolic value because they symbolize social rank, taste, and identity
What does it say about your identity, social rank and taste if you drive a beat-up 1990 Honda Accord with 160,000 miles on it and buy all your clothes at the Goodwill? What image do you project to the world? What about if you wear lots of gold jewelry, carry a Coach bag, and drive a BMW? Many things we buy have “symbolic value.”
SO, along with Marxism, Baudrillard became interested in Marshall McLuhan in the 80’s and 90’s, particularly how the media affects our perception or reality and the world. He began to see that in the postmodern era (from the mid-50’s to the present), we have experienced the “death of the real” – the internet, TV shows, the news, video games, advertising, theme parks, which all make up a huge part of our lives – these are the things we connect to on a daily basis, but these are simulations of reality. Our reality has become dominated by simulation, by image. Therefore, reality IS image, reality IS simulation.
In his book The Ecstasy of Communication (1988), he says we are so seduced by images in the mass media that these images dictate our private desires and secrets. Since TV and computer images invade our private spaces, we identify personally with mass-produced images. Example: note how so many people become obsessed with a celebrity, or how we fetishize certain images that we might claim as our tags. Or, what do people claim to find sexually attractive?
The essay you read for today, “The Precession of Simulacra,” is perhaps his most famous, although he has made some really infamous claims elsewhere. For instance, he has said that the Gulf War in 1991 was a total simulation of a war. Lots of people really died, but for a simulated cause. That war was started with a clear picture of what the outcome was going to be; there was never any doubt how it would turn out, and all the images on TV of that war only made it seem like a “battle.” He thinks that war was completely staged, by all participating powers. Similarly, he has said about 9/11, “it was they who did it, but we who wished it.” Terrorist acts are destined to be absorbed by our system’s own narrative of history and neutralized by the mass media.
Anyway, Baudrillard says the postmodern human condition is a combination of “fascination,” “melancholy” and “indifference.” Here’s how we got to this place; he outlines a four-part history of the image:
Four Orders of Simulation
1) Ancient to feudal times
Signs, images, art are fixed representations of a profound reality that isn’t questioned. Fixed symbolic order.
The system is rigid and ranked - God, King, nobility, peasants. No one moves in social rank.
2) Early Modern Period to Industrial Revolution
This is the “First Order of Simulacra”
Images begin to mask reality. How images represent reality begins to be ambiguous. Images start to pervert the representation of reality.
Example: paintings begin to idealize Jesus and Madonna in an unrealistic fashion. Counterfeit paintings appear.
3) Industrial Revolution to 1950’s
“Second Order of Simulacra”
This is the age of mass production
Copies and replicas dominate the scene
Reproduced things are just as real as the original. Examples: cars, planes, clothes, books, PHOTOGRAPHY – copies are indistinguishable from the original.
The whole idea of a profound, underlying reality is thrown into question.
Modern thinkers:
Freud – behind all appearances, there lies the profound reality of the unconscious
Marx – behind the glittery exchange value of commodities, there is a fundamental use value
Saussure – behind all signifiers, there is an ultimate signified (origin of meaning)
These thinkers of the modern period critiqued appearances in order to point to a profound reality, a hidden meaning beyond imagery.
4) Present Day
“Third Order of Simulacra”
We live in a world of images that have no original or prototype
Images don’t refer to a reality, they are reality
Computers, cloning, Fox news, opinion polls – it’s the information age
Information replaces the machine as the basic mode of production
What is a simulacrum, anyway?
This word goes back to Plato. He used it to refer to a “false copy” of an Ideal Form (i.e., a beautiful woman you see on the street is a simulacrum of the Ideal Form “Beauty” that exists in the invisible realm beyond our bodily reality).
But for Baudrillard, the simulacrum undercuts the idea of a true or false copy because ALL WE HAVE NOW ARE simulations, copies, images. There is NO REAL. This doesn’t mean we don’t have real bodies and live among real objects. It means that we don’t have real meaning, only image/copy. When we see someone get mugged on the street, we might think “this reminds me of that movie when…” Reality starts to mimic imagery. Imagery is primal for us. Movies and the internet make more sense to us and are more familiar than what we see in the actual world.
What of maps? He opens the essay with a description of a Borges story, in which imperial map-makers make a map so large and detailed that it covers the whole empire. It’s a perfect replica of the empire. When the map starts to wear out and fray, the citizens of the empire mourn its loss, because they had come to mistake the map, or simulacrum, for the territory. Under the map, the real territory had turned into the “desert of the real” and the frayed map is all that’s left for the people.
So, in our culture, Baudrillard says we take “maps” of reality like TV, film, games, as more real than our lives. People become enamored with celebrities and TV characters, and they seem more real to them than their friends. Think about what we might do in a day:
- communicate by email, Myspace, Facebook, texting
- relate to video game characters, TV show characters
- shop in malls that offer endless amounts of identical, reproduced products
- listen to Ipods
- vote for ex-Hollywood actors for political offices
So you see, the hyperreal “map” that covers our land is more real than the land itself for many of us. So we need to take a walk in nature “to get away from it all” – nature (real) is the exception to what’s normal (the hyperreal). The map, the simulacrum, is primary – hence the title of the essay, “the precession of simulacra.”
Disneyland
Why do we need Disneyland?
“Disneyland is there to conceal the fact that it is the “real” country, all of “real” America, which is Disneyland…” Read from the middle of p. 352 to top of 353.
What is he saying?
We need things like Disneyland because if we make a make-believe place, then by comparison, the real world will seem more real. People are unsettled by the fact that we live on images, so we build lots of imaginary places like Disneyland and Las Vegas so that we can return to the “real world” and “face reality.” But he’s implying that the real world is also a simulacrum. America is one big Magic Kingdom, chock full of enchanting slogans and imagery. He’s also implying here that we need childish fantasies like Disneyland so that the world won’t seem as childish in comparison, but the truth is that our world is infantile. Why do you think he says the “real” world is infantile?
He uses Watergate to illuminate the same principle. In politics, true moral and political principles don’t exist. We have a mass proliferation of images of morality in politics (think of images of Pres. Bush with wounded children in Iraq). But the reality is that politics is driven by capital, and capital is “immoral and unscrupulous.” However, capitalism can only survive under the GUISE, the image, of moral scrupulousness: “All that capital asks of us is to receive it as rational or to combat it in the name of rationality…” So, he says politics needs scandal to “regenerate” a moral principle in politics. If everyone is scandalized at Nixon’s hiring of thugs to get secret info, then that automatically regenerates a moral/good image of how politics SHOULD be, and normally “is.” Thus, anti-politics proves the need for politics.
And what of reality TV?
Why is it so popular, according to Baudrillard’s theory? Especially, why do we adamantly insist that the results of reality competitions are fixed, manipulated by the networks??
Discuss!!
OK, I can't seem to embed this Youtube video.
But I wanted to post the opening six minutes of Natural Born Killers. Very Baudrillardian film. You can always go to Youtube and watch it.
1929-2007
French philosopher/sociologist/cultural analyst
Originally a Marxist, he was interested in analyzing consumer society after WWII.
He distinguished between three different values of objects in modern consumer society:
1) From Marx – “use value” – all objects have a use value (i.e. a pen is used for writing down stuff, a sweater is used to keep us warm in winter, a car is used to get us places)
2) Also from Marx – “exchange value” – under modern capitalism, objects have become more associated with their exchange value, or what they’re worth. So, a Prada purse has more exchange value than a Gap purse, but not necessarily more use value. A Lexus has more exchange value than a Toyota, but not necessarily more use value.
3) Baudrillard adds a third category – “symbolic value” – all consumer goods have a symbolic value because they symbolize social rank, taste, and identity
What does it say about your identity, social rank and taste if you drive a beat-up 1990 Honda Accord with 160,000 miles on it and buy all your clothes at the Goodwill? What image do you project to the world? What about if you wear lots of gold jewelry, carry a Coach bag, and drive a BMW? Many things we buy have “symbolic value.”
SO, along with Marxism, Baudrillard became interested in Marshall McLuhan in the 80’s and 90’s, particularly how the media affects our perception or reality and the world. He began to see that in the postmodern era (from the mid-50’s to the present), we have experienced the “death of the real” – the internet, TV shows, the news, video games, advertising, theme parks, which all make up a huge part of our lives – these are the things we connect to on a daily basis, but these are simulations of reality. Our reality has become dominated by simulation, by image. Therefore, reality IS image, reality IS simulation.
In his book The Ecstasy of Communication (1988), he says we are so seduced by images in the mass media that these images dictate our private desires and secrets. Since TV and computer images invade our private spaces, we identify personally with mass-produced images. Example: note how so many people become obsessed with a celebrity, or how we fetishize certain images that we might claim as our tags. Or, what do people claim to find sexually attractive?
The essay you read for today, “The Precession of Simulacra,” is perhaps his most famous, although he has made some really infamous claims elsewhere. For instance, he has said that the Gulf War in 1991 was a total simulation of a war. Lots of people really died, but for a simulated cause. That war was started with a clear picture of what the outcome was going to be; there was never any doubt how it would turn out, and all the images on TV of that war only made it seem like a “battle.” He thinks that war was completely staged, by all participating powers. Similarly, he has said about 9/11, “it was they who did it, but we who wished it.” Terrorist acts are destined to be absorbed by our system’s own narrative of history and neutralized by the mass media.
Anyway, Baudrillard says the postmodern human condition is a combination of “fascination,” “melancholy” and “indifference.” Here’s how we got to this place; he outlines a four-part history of the image:
Four Orders of Simulation
1) Ancient to feudal times
Signs, images, art are fixed representations of a profound reality that isn’t questioned. Fixed symbolic order.
The system is rigid and ranked - God, King, nobility, peasants. No one moves in social rank.
2) Early Modern Period to Industrial Revolution
This is the “First Order of Simulacra”
Images begin to mask reality. How images represent reality begins to be ambiguous. Images start to pervert the representation of reality.
Example: paintings begin to idealize Jesus and Madonna in an unrealistic fashion. Counterfeit paintings appear.
3) Industrial Revolution to 1950’s
“Second Order of Simulacra”
This is the age of mass production
Copies and replicas dominate the scene
Reproduced things are just as real as the original. Examples: cars, planes, clothes, books, PHOTOGRAPHY – copies are indistinguishable from the original.
The whole idea of a profound, underlying reality is thrown into question.
Modern thinkers:
Freud – behind all appearances, there lies the profound reality of the unconscious
Marx – behind the glittery exchange value of commodities, there is a fundamental use value
Saussure – behind all signifiers, there is an ultimate signified (origin of meaning)
These thinkers of the modern period critiqued appearances in order to point to a profound reality, a hidden meaning beyond imagery.
4) Present Day
“Third Order of Simulacra”
We live in a world of images that have no original or prototype
Images don’t refer to a reality, they are reality
Computers, cloning, Fox news, opinion polls – it’s the information age
Information replaces the machine as the basic mode of production
What is a simulacrum, anyway?
This word goes back to Plato. He used it to refer to a “false copy” of an Ideal Form (i.e., a beautiful woman you see on the street is a simulacrum of the Ideal Form “Beauty” that exists in the invisible realm beyond our bodily reality).
But for Baudrillard, the simulacrum undercuts the idea of a true or false copy because ALL WE HAVE NOW ARE simulations, copies, images. There is NO REAL. This doesn’t mean we don’t have real bodies and live among real objects. It means that we don’t have real meaning, only image/copy. When we see someone get mugged on the street, we might think “this reminds me of that movie when…” Reality starts to mimic imagery. Imagery is primal for us. Movies and the internet make more sense to us and are more familiar than what we see in the actual world.
What of maps? He opens the essay with a description of a Borges story, in which imperial map-makers make a map so large and detailed that it covers the whole empire. It’s a perfect replica of the empire. When the map starts to wear out and fray, the citizens of the empire mourn its loss, because they had come to mistake the map, or simulacrum, for the territory. Under the map, the real territory had turned into the “desert of the real” and the frayed map is all that’s left for the people.
So, in our culture, Baudrillard says we take “maps” of reality like TV, film, games, as more real than our lives. People become enamored with celebrities and TV characters, and they seem more real to them than their friends. Think about what we might do in a day:
- communicate by email, Myspace, Facebook, texting
- relate to video game characters, TV show characters
- shop in malls that offer endless amounts of identical, reproduced products
- listen to Ipods
- vote for ex-Hollywood actors for political offices
So you see, the hyperreal “map” that covers our land is more real than the land itself for many of us. So we need to take a walk in nature “to get away from it all” – nature (real) is the exception to what’s normal (the hyperreal). The map, the simulacrum, is primary – hence the title of the essay, “the precession of simulacra.”
Disneyland
Why do we need Disneyland?
“Disneyland is there to conceal the fact that it is the “real” country, all of “real” America, which is Disneyland…” Read from the middle of p. 352 to top of 353.
What is he saying?
We need things like Disneyland because if we make a make-believe place, then by comparison, the real world will seem more real. People are unsettled by the fact that we live on images, so we build lots of imaginary places like Disneyland and Las Vegas so that we can return to the “real world” and “face reality.” But he’s implying that the real world is also a simulacrum. America is one big Magic Kingdom, chock full of enchanting slogans and imagery. He’s also implying here that we need childish fantasies like Disneyland so that the world won’t seem as childish in comparison, but the truth is that our world is infantile. Why do you think he says the “real” world is infantile?
He uses Watergate to illuminate the same principle. In politics, true moral and political principles don’t exist. We have a mass proliferation of images of morality in politics (think of images of Pres. Bush with wounded children in Iraq). But the reality is that politics is driven by capital, and capital is “immoral and unscrupulous.” However, capitalism can only survive under the GUISE, the image, of moral scrupulousness: “All that capital asks of us is to receive it as rational or to combat it in the name of rationality…” So, he says politics needs scandal to “regenerate” a moral principle in politics. If everyone is scandalized at Nixon’s hiring of thugs to get secret info, then that automatically regenerates a moral/good image of how politics SHOULD be, and normally “is.” Thus, anti-politics proves the need for politics.
And what of reality TV?
Why is it so popular, according to Baudrillard’s theory? Especially, why do we adamantly insist that the results of reality competitions are fixed, manipulated by the networks??
Discuss!!
OK, I can't seem to embed this Youtube video.
But I wanted to post the opening six minutes of Natural Born Killers. Very Baudrillardian film. You can always go to Youtube and watch it.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Colbert and Stewart at the Emmys
This is a clip from last year's Emmy Awards.
So, at about 1:15, Colbert says, of reality TV, "It warps the minds of our children and weakens the resolve of our allies," and he says it, of course, as his alter-ego character, who everyone loves and tries not to take too seriously, and yet, somehow, people find actual truth in what he says. When he says this, the entire theater erupts in applause, and the camera pans to celebrities with very serious, "Yes, so true," faces. Because, hey, yeah, reality TV is stupid and annoying, right? They applaud him again when he refers to the Emmy as a golden idol.
And yet, when the nominees are shown, the audience applauds just as loudly, and of course, the clips picked are all of contestants crying, hugging each other, and being generally dramatic. So is it possible that *gasp* the audience actually likes reality TV after all? Were they just applauding Colbert because they thought he was being sarcastic? After all, they've come to the Emmys, the winners are probably not going to reject their award, and at some point, a group of people sitting around a table probably said to each other, "Hey, you know what would be hilarious? Having Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart give the reality TV award. They can talk about how stupid reality TV is and shit. People will eat it up."
So is it possible that, in fact, the audience can't help loving reality TV, even though they can't deny its stupidity and constant lack of actual reality, and therefore feel obligated to laugh when someone makes fun of it? Reality TV, after all, often admits right in the credits that some stuff had to be fabricated or re-enacted, and, in the case of competitions, fixed up to a point. Is anyone at the Emmys questioning why there's a reality TV award at all? Or at least how one goes about winning it?
So, at about 1:15, Colbert says, of reality TV, "It warps the minds of our children and weakens the resolve of our allies," and he says it, of course, as his alter-ego character, who everyone loves and tries not to take too seriously, and yet, somehow, people find actual truth in what he says. When he says this, the entire theater erupts in applause, and the camera pans to celebrities with very serious, "Yes, so true," faces. Because, hey, yeah, reality TV is stupid and annoying, right? They applaud him again when he refers to the Emmy as a golden idol.
And yet, when the nominees are shown, the audience applauds just as loudly, and of course, the clips picked are all of contestants crying, hugging each other, and being generally dramatic. So is it possible that *gasp* the audience actually likes reality TV after all? Were they just applauding Colbert because they thought he was being sarcastic? After all, they've come to the Emmys, the winners are probably not going to reject their award, and at some point, a group of people sitting around a table probably said to each other, "Hey, you know what would be hilarious? Having Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart give the reality TV award. They can talk about how stupid reality TV is and shit. People will eat it up."
So is it possible that, in fact, the audience can't help loving reality TV, even though they can't deny its stupidity and constant lack of actual reality, and therefore feel obligated to laugh when someone makes fun of it? Reality TV, after all, often admits right in the credits that some stuff had to be fabricated or re-enacted, and, in the case of competitions, fixed up to a point. Is anyone at the Emmys questioning why there's a reality TV award at all? Or at least how one goes about winning it?
Saturday, March 1, 2008
The Amen Break
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)