Alright, better late than never. Now that I finally know what I want to say, here are some theories about House of Leaves, La Strada, and mythology.
Let's say Zampano, for the moment, is Theseus. He takes Gelsomina away from her home, and all that she knows, under the guise of giving her a better life. Gelsomina, then, is Ariadne, who helps Theseus thinking it will make her own life better. Of course, it doesn't, because in the myth, as in La Strada, Theseus/Zampano abandons Ariadne/Gelsomina as she's sleeping.
So, in the myth, Ariadne is made into the wife of Dionysus, who finds her sleeping on the island after she has been abandoned. In the movie, the abandonment drives Gelsomina crazy. We might say that the two outcomes are different, but consider one thing. Dionysus had followers, called the Maenads. They were crazy followers. I'm talking batshit-insane-will-tear-your-arms-off-because-they-feel-like-it crazy. And since Gelsomina goes insane, perhaps, if we want to follow the myth, we can say that it does, if Gelsomina becomes a follower of Dionysus, and loses her mind.
Something has been bothering me about all this, however. I keep wondering who The Fool is in all this, because I want to assign him a mythological character very badly, but am I trying too hard? I think the most logical choice would be Dionysus, because he wants to keep Gelsomina safe from Zampano. Of course, The Fool dies, but this could either prove or disprove his role. Since he's dead, we can say he can't be Dionysus, because he's not there to find Gelsomina and save her. But we can also say that he had to die in order to be elevated to the position of a god. And while we're at it, if we're liking Pelafina to Gelsomina and Johnny to The Fool, consider what Pelafina writes on page 592:
"I dreamt about you last night. You had long hands which glistened in the starlight. There was no moon, yet your arms and legs seemed made of water and changed with the tides. You were so beautiful and elegant and all blue and white and your eyes, like your father's eyes, were infused by strange magic.
"It was comforting to see you so strong. Gods assembled around you and paid their respects and doted on you and offered you gifts your mother could not begin to imagine let alone afford.
"There were some gods who were jealous of you, but I shooed them away. The rest kept close to you and said many great things about your future."
This presents a slight problem. If Pelafina is also Ariadne, what does that make Johnny in this context? His mother is elevating him to the position of god, which we could interpret to say that Johnny is Dionysus. Zampano of House of Leaves could also be Theseus, because if we say that he is Johnny's father and Pelafina's old lover or husband, it might be that he abandoned Pelafina in the mental hospital, especially since Pelafina seems to know who Zampano is.
So, is The Fool/Johnny Dionysus? It's difficult because of the family tree involved. For Johnny to be Dionysus, it would mean that he both Pelafina's son and lover, but from the Whalestoe Letters, where Pelafina says a lot of rather inappropriate things to her son, that doesn't seem like a huge stretch. Freud would love this one.
Who is who here? There's more than one correct answer, I'm sure, but this is just my take.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
film update
OK, I decided on the film we'll be viewing the last week of classes.
We're going to watch Eraserhead, David Lynch's first feature-length film. This is perhaps the most disturbing thing I've ever seen. But that's not the point necessarily... what we're going to do is watch the film and then I will have you write a response about it in class, and your task will be to consider, is this a postmodern film, or a modernist (surrealist or expressionist, perhaps) one? So brush up on your knowledge of the differences between modern and postmodern art and prepare to be unsettled.
We're going to watch Eraserhead, David Lynch's first feature-length film. This is perhaps the most disturbing thing I've ever seen. But that's not the point necessarily... what we're going to do is watch the film and then I will have you write a response about it in class, and your task will be to consider, is this a postmodern film, or a modernist (surrealist or expressionist, perhaps) one? So brush up on your knowledge of the differences between modern and postmodern art and prepare to be unsettled.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Ok, I know we're technically done with Zampano...
BUT! I though this was interesting:
"Both the body of need and the body of drive are real insofar as their source (Quelle) is in the body, but whereas need involves the inside of the body, the inner organs (the stomach, intestines, and other vital organs), drive involves the surface zones of the body and the erogenous openings. (The eye is a special case in terms of source in that it is an organ which is half inside and half outside, rather than a hole, as the mouth and ears are.) The openings are vanishing points where the inside meets the outside. The two bodily zones, though distinct, interface. They are superimposed and connected via the figure of interior 8. The continuity and connection of the zones makes transgression possible. The interior 8 writes or draws one body upon the other as in a palimpsest or pentimento... Perhaps it would be well to say that the old conception, replaced by a later choice, is a way of seeing and then seeing again." (From Reading Seminar XI - The Demontage of the Drive, p. 120) (My emphasis in blue and red)
I was just thinking that this seemed interesting in terms of Zampano's blindness, and the idea that replacement with a later choice might be a way of seeing again. What does that say about the minotaur, or perhaps Zampano's decision about the children's fate, which, if you read the image on the front cover-ish insert thing, talks about how perhaps he'll kill them. This idea of the drives as holes, or holes - houses? - and the eye as being half inside and half outside makes me wonder about Zampano's drives vs. his needs: If his organ which is able to straddle both worlds is blind, then is he in neither?
"Both the body of need and the body of drive are real insofar as their source (Quelle) is in the body, but whereas need involves the inside of the body, the inner organs (the stomach, intestines, and other vital organs), drive involves the surface zones of the body and the erogenous openings. (The eye is a special case in terms of source in that it is an organ which is half inside and half outside, rather than a hole, as the mouth and ears are.) The openings are vanishing points where the inside meets the outside. The two bodily zones, though distinct, interface. They are superimposed and connected via the figure of interior 8. The continuity and connection of the zones makes transgression possible. The interior 8 writes or draws one body upon the other as in a palimpsest or pentimento... Perhaps it would be well to say that the old conception, replaced by a later choice, is a way of seeing and then seeing again." (From Reading Seminar XI - The Demontage of the Drive, p. 120) (My emphasis in blue and red)
I was just thinking that this seemed interesting in terms of Zampano's blindness, and the idea that replacement with a later choice might be a way of seeing again. What does that say about the minotaur, or perhaps Zampano's decision about the children's fate, which, if you read the image on the front cover-ish insert thing, talks about how perhaps he'll kill them. This idea of the drives as holes, or holes - houses? - and the eye as being half inside and half outside makes me wonder about Zampano's drives vs. his needs: If his organ which is able to straddle both worlds is blind, then is he in neither?
Postmodern fonts
Found this today in a book my design prof wants me to read:
POSTMODERNIST (late 20th & early 21st century): frequent parody of Neoclassical, Romantic or Baroque form: rationalist or variable axis; sharply modelled serifs and terminals; moderate aperture.
Postmodern letterforms, like postmodern buildings, frequently recycle and revise Neoclassical, Romantic and other premodern forms. At their best, they do so with an engaging lightness of touch and a fine sense of humor. Postmodern art is for the most part highly self-conscious, but devoutly unserious. Postmodern designers -- who frequently are or have been Modernist designers as well -- have proven that it is possible to infuse Neoclassical and Romantic form, and the rationalist axis, with genuine calligraphic energy. (p. 15, 135 "The Elements of Typographic Style" by Robert Bringhurst)
These are the two examples they give in the book:
http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/agfa/itc-esprit/
http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/berthold/nofret-be/
Basically all the jargon up there has to do with the design of type faces. Basically they take bits and pieces from other, traditional fonts and stick them together to form Postmodern ones. Most of the snitching is done with serifs (the little feet thingies at the bottom and tops of letters) and they change how the font tilts on the page. If this isn't making sense, I can do a demo or something in class if people are really, REALLY interested. Just something small and kinda interesting to consider, especially given the amount of time we spend talking about language and how much it fails at being anything more than signifers. This is proven even more by the fact that type faces can be changed like this and give something a completely different feeling and message than just the words themselves. You can give a text an entirely look and it changes your intent and how the audience feels when reading it. Fonts can make you look pretentious, peaceful, studious and matter-of-fact, or like a dumbass making a parody of something serious. Generally the job of the designer or typographer is to pick a font and arrange the text that best portrays what said text is about. In this, typographers and designers author what the writer has already written.
Take the design of this blog, for instance. It's a set default layout which is used a bizillion other places, most of which are simple blogs about people's lives, but mostly their egos at work needing to express themselves. The fonts they use are legible, which is important, but also casual. You don't feel like you're reading a textbook or an official document by any stretch when you see this page. Certainly there are people out there who use blogs, similar layouts and fonts and, I'm sure, post amazingly thought-out things. Unfortunately, one must wade through lots of "i fUcKeD dis chic tday" or "OMG my 'rents SUCK", therefore a blog generally carries the stigma of informality and fluff.
POSTMODERNIST (late 20th & early 21st century): frequent parody of Neoclassical, Romantic or Baroque form: rationalist or variable axis; sharply modelled serifs and terminals; moderate aperture.
Postmodern letterforms, like postmodern buildings, frequently recycle and revise Neoclassical, Romantic and other premodern forms. At their best, they do so with an engaging lightness of touch and a fine sense of humor. Postmodern art is for the most part highly self-conscious, but devoutly unserious. Postmodern designers -- who frequently are or have been Modernist designers as well -- have proven that it is possible to infuse Neoclassical and Romantic form, and the rationalist axis, with genuine calligraphic energy. (p. 15, 135 "The Elements of Typographic Style" by Robert Bringhurst)
These are the two examples they give in the book:
http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/agfa/itc-esprit/
http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/berthold/nofret-be/
Basically all the jargon up there has to do with the design of type faces. Basically they take bits and pieces from other, traditional fonts and stick them together to form Postmodern ones. Most of the snitching is done with serifs (the little feet thingies at the bottom and tops of letters) and they change how the font tilts on the page. If this isn't making sense, I can do a demo or something in class if people are really, REALLY interested. Just something small and kinda interesting to consider, especially given the amount of time we spend talking about language and how much it fails at being anything more than signifers. This is proven even more by the fact that type faces can be changed like this and give something a completely different feeling and message than just the words themselves. You can give a text an entirely look and it changes your intent and how the audience feels when reading it. Fonts can make you look pretentious, peaceful, studious and matter-of-fact, or like a dumbass making a parody of something serious. Generally the job of the designer or typographer is to pick a font and arrange the text that best portrays what said text is about. In this, typographers and designers author what the writer has already written.
Take the design of this blog, for instance. It's a set default layout which is used a bizillion other places, most of which are simple blogs about people's lives, but mostly their egos at work needing to express themselves. The fonts they use are legible, which is important, but also casual. You don't feel like you're reading a textbook or an official document by any stretch when you see this page. Certainly there are people out there who use blogs, similar layouts and fonts and, I'm sure, post amazingly thought-out things. Unfortunately, one must wade through lots of "i fUcKeD dis chic tday" or "OMG my 'rents SUCK", therefore a blog generally carries the stigma of informality and fluff.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
another postmodern approach to film making: the tracey fragments
bruce mcdonald's (hard core logo) latest film, the tracey fragments, offers a new look at film making and (possibly) a new way for people to think of file sharing and the spread of media on the internet.
the movie stars ellen page (who i'm sure everyone now recognizes from juno) and follows tracey burkowitz, a 15 year old girl searching for her lost younger brother.
what i think is really cool about what mcdonald did with this film was that after he shot and edited the whole thing, he uploaded hundreds of hours of raw footage, the soundtrack (by broken social scene) and the script to the internet for people to download, with the idea that they could then re-edit the material and make a new project of their own -- "a new feature film, rock video, trailer or personal manifesto."
each scene is shot from multiple camera angles, and many of the frames have a fragmented collage of multiple shots and perspectives, which allowed people a lot of options when re-editing the footage.
i think, aside from being a really fun & interesting idea on mcdonald's part, putting up the footage on the internet is forward-thinking and a bit avant-garde as well. especially considering how much in our lives is connected to media, entertainment, and the immediacy in which we're able to get it. not only is he making the media readily available, he's putting it out there with the intent that people will download it and make their own art out of it. going back to the isolating feelings of a postmodern society, media culture, etc, in a small way mcdonald is promoting something interactive, creative and personally meaningful with this project. (this could also point back to what i mentioned in the four eyed monsters post.)
the trailer and the re-fragments are up on the film's website.
the movie stars ellen page (who i'm sure everyone now recognizes from juno) and follows tracey burkowitz, a 15 year old girl searching for her lost younger brother.
what i think is really cool about what mcdonald did with this film was that after he shot and edited the whole thing, he uploaded hundreds of hours of raw footage, the soundtrack (by broken social scene) and the script to the internet for people to download, with the idea that they could then re-edit the material and make a new project of their own -- "a new feature film, rock video, trailer or personal manifesto."
each scene is shot from multiple camera angles, and many of the frames have a fragmented collage of multiple shots and perspectives, which allowed people a lot of options when re-editing the footage.
i think, aside from being a really fun & interesting idea on mcdonald's part, putting up the footage on the internet is forward-thinking and a bit avant-garde as well. especially considering how much in our lives is connected to media, entertainment, and the immediacy in which we're able to get it. not only is he making the media readily available, he's putting it out there with the intent that people will download it and make their own art out of it. going back to the isolating feelings of a postmodern society, media culture, etc, in a small way mcdonald is promoting something interactive, creative and personally meaningful with this project. (this could also point back to what i mentioned in the four eyed monsters post.)
the trailer and the re-fragments are up on the film's website.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Wizard People, Dear Reader
First, a brief introduction to what you are about to see, because if you haven't heard of "Wizard People, Dear Reader," you will probably not have a damn clue what's going on.
This is the creation of Brad Neely, who you may also know from his work on Superdeluxe.com (he created the Professor Brothers and Baby Cakes shorts), and helped write three episodes of South Park last season (The List, Imaginationland Part II, and Le Petit Tourette, if that means anything to you). The clip that basically follows is the first chapter of his work, which is a redubbing of the first Harry Potter movie. In a voice that is oddly reminiscent of both Peter Lorre and Clint Eastwood, he re-narrates the entire movie in the style of a drunk beat poet. Let's watch.
Now for discussion.
This project, of course, has caused controversy. Warner Brothers considers it a copyright violation, but supporters of "Wizard People" believe that it's a work in and of itself, and is, in fact, a new form of art. I can see both sides of the fence here, but I would much rather see it as art, especially as a postmodern work, because it takes something that already exists, that isn't even that old or dated, and reworks it for a different kind of audience. But this is subjective, so, as Kathy Acker called her own work plagiarism, but others disagreed, you can decide for yourself: illegal or art? Or illegal art, as it is on a website with that name. Perhaps even you'd consider this little more than crude parody.
A lot of people are saying that this is a new art form, but if it is, that means it should theoretically work with other movies, but it seems that choices are limited, because the form is really only relevant to the audience if the audience is already at least semi familiar with the movie they're seeing. Would this work with a movie like Lord of the Rings? What about with something lesser known, or as widely liked, or even a movie that nobody knows, like a Bollywood film? Does the film have to be serious for the result to be funny?
This is the creation of Brad Neely, who you may also know from his work on Superdeluxe.com (he created the Professor Brothers and Baby Cakes shorts), and helped write three episodes of South Park last season (The List, Imaginationland Part II, and Le Petit Tourette, if that means anything to you). The clip that basically follows is the first chapter of his work, which is a redubbing of the first Harry Potter movie. In a voice that is oddly reminiscent of both Peter Lorre and Clint Eastwood, he re-narrates the entire movie in the style of a drunk beat poet. Let's watch.
Now for discussion.
This project, of course, has caused controversy. Warner Brothers considers it a copyright violation, but supporters of "Wizard People" believe that it's a work in and of itself, and is, in fact, a new form of art. I can see both sides of the fence here, but I would much rather see it as art, especially as a postmodern work, because it takes something that already exists, that isn't even that old or dated, and reworks it for a different kind of audience. But this is subjective, so, as Kathy Acker called her own work plagiarism, but others disagreed, you can decide for yourself: illegal or art? Or illegal art, as it is on a website with that name. Perhaps even you'd consider this little more than crude parody.
A lot of people are saying that this is a new art form, but if it is, that means it should theoretically work with other movies, but it seems that choices are limited, because the form is really only relevant to the audience if the audience is already at least semi familiar with the movie they're seeing. Would this work with a movie like Lord of the Rings? What about with something lesser known, or as widely liked, or even a movie that nobody knows, like a Bollywood film? Does the film have to be serious for the result to be funny?
no one else? seriously? okay: dibs.
La Strada, ending scene:
So, I am all for buying that Fellini's Zampano is not represented or alluded to in House of Leaves, but that the Zampano is in Danielewski's work is the same as in La Strada. They do have a great deal of similarities in personality as discussed in the article given in class, but also I just can't find a good reason for it not to be the same person (I say person and not character because prefer to lend Danielewski's work more realness than other books for the reason that it so questions and acknowledges its own layers of falsity). For a book presented by a "real" man, compiled by a (fictional?) mad young man, the work written by a (fictional? imagined by fictional character? = fiction X 2) blind man about a film he "saw" about another man (fictional? or is it fiction X 2?), the use of a dichotomy of real and unreal is a complete oversimplification. With all of these layers, I find it much more interesting to simply "just go with it" (quote not to be ironic just quoting).
While I can understand that interpretation, I much prefer to conclude that Johnny has not invented Zampano and additionally that Zampano (or Johnny)has not invented the Navidson Record. As my copy's personal author, that is how I author it. The strange parallels, slip ups, and-oh- the blind man describing a film, doesn't mean it all can't be real within the book. To me, that is much more interesting than one man having psychotic delusions of his deteriorating self. It's a little too M. Night Shyamalan to me.
The article states that if Zampano is the same in La Strada as in House of Leaves that we must automatically assume that all of Johnny's narrative is imagined- "even in the sense of the imaginary 'real' posited in most works of fiction." My response is: What? and No. First off if we are going to work off the fact that there is already a "real" in the fictional realm that that should be enough to solve the argument. Why is it that the real of the book cannot be connected to the real of other pieces? Zampano being shown in a different work does not detract from his reality in Danielewski's work because it is all the same level of real.
Finally, I posted the last scene because besides being an incredible moment, if you watch from 45 seconds in to around 1:25, Zampano looks blind. When he is looking down, the angle and tiredness in his face, make his eyes look like hollows and then when you can see his eyes they look dead as though they are seeing nothing. He raises his head and stares at the sky (presumably just a large blackness) and the sight comes back to him, his eyes travel and he collapses clawing at the sand.
To end on a funny note: La Strada was made into a musical which premiered on Broadway in 1969. It closed after one performance. thank the gods.
So, I am all for buying that Fellini's Zampano is not represented or alluded to in House of Leaves, but that the Zampano is in Danielewski's work is the same as in La Strada. They do have a great deal of similarities in personality as discussed in the article given in class, but also I just can't find a good reason for it not to be the same person (I say person and not character because prefer to lend Danielewski's work more realness than other books for the reason that it so questions and acknowledges its own layers of falsity). For a book presented by a "real" man, compiled by a (fictional?) mad young man, the work written by a (fictional? imagined by fictional character? = fiction X 2) blind man about a film he "saw" about another man (fictional? or is it fiction X 2?), the use of a dichotomy of real and unreal is a complete oversimplification. With all of these layers, I find it much more interesting to simply "just go with it" (quote not to be ironic just quoting).
While I can understand that interpretation, I much prefer to conclude that Johnny has not invented Zampano and additionally that Zampano (or Johnny)has not invented the Navidson Record. As my copy's personal author, that is how I author it. The strange parallels, slip ups, and-oh- the blind man describing a film, doesn't mean it all can't be real within the book. To me, that is much more interesting than one man having psychotic delusions of his deteriorating self. It's a little too M. Night Shyamalan to me.
The article states that if Zampano is the same in La Strada as in House of Leaves that we must automatically assume that all of Johnny's narrative is imagined- "even in the sense of the imaginary 'real' posited in most works of fiction." My response is: What? and No. First off if we are going to work off the fact that there is already a "real" in the fictional realm that that should be enough to solve the argument. Why is it that the real of the book cannot be connected to the real of other pieces? Zampano being shown in a different work does not detract from his reality in Danielewski's work because it is all the same level of real.
Finally, I posted the last scene because besides being an incredible moment, if you watch from 45 seconds in to around 1:25, Zampano looks blind. When he is looking down, the angle and tiredness in his face, make his eyes look like hollows and then when you can see his eyes they look dead as though they are seeing nothing. He raises his head and stares at the sky (presumably just a large blackness) and the sight comes back to him, his eyes travel and he collapses clawing at the sand.
To end on a funny note: La Strada was made into a musical which premiered on Broadway in 1969. It closed after one performance. thank the gods.
bleh
i was surfing myspace somewhere around 4am when i found this
http://elperritovive.blogspot.com/
apparently he starved a stray dog to death as part of an installation. i guess i just wanted to see if anyone had heard anything about it/what everyone thought.
also it kind of relates to the whole recurring stray dog thing in molloy and don quixote. maybe? i don't know.
peaacee.
http://elperritovive.blogspot.com/
apparently he starved a stray dog to death as part of an installation. i guess i just wanted to see if anyone had heard anything about it/what everyone thought.
also it kind of relates to the whole recurring stray dog thing in molloy and don quixote. maybe? i don't know.
peaacee.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Blog tally and grading your blogging
Hi.
So, here are my tallies for who has done how many posts.
Please note that not all blog entries are created equal.
Some of you have posted amusing little tidbits.
Others have done some serious thinking, writing or creative posting (poems, video).
To the amusing little tidbitters: you may want to go over 10 of you're interested in a good grade for this portion of the course.
To the really serious posters: if you've posted a few really long, brilliant ones (coughcoughryanmaggie) rest assured that each one of those can count as two in the end. Remember, the instructions were to write about a page's worth, so a really long post is about two pages.
You will receive a grade and written "critique" at the end of the semester for your blogging.
OK, here's what I have. I count comments as posts. Let me know if you think I'm in error.
Maggie - 7
Ryan - 8
Laura - 4
Jeff - 4
Davyn - 2
Kelsey - 9
Blake - 0
Erica - 1
Leah - 1
Ben - 9
Julian - 0
Matt - 4
Rachel - 6
Marie - 8
Kristen - 4
Jess - 6
C'est tout.
Oh yeah - if anyone posts (substantially! no amusing tidbits here!) on either La Strada or the movie we watch at the end (TBA), that will count as two posts. BONUS!!
So, here are my tallies for who has done how many posts.
Please note that not all blog entries are created equal.
Some of you have posted amusing little tidbits.
Others have done some serious thinking, writing or creative posting (poems, video).
To the amusing little tidbitters: you may want to go over 10 of you're interested in a good grade for this portion of the course.
To the really serious posters: if you've posted a few really long, brilliant ones (coughcoughryanmaggie) rest assured that each one of those can count as two in the end. Remember, the instructions were to write about a page's worth, so a really long post is about two pages.
You will receive a grade and written "critique" at the end of the semester for your blogging.
OK, here's what I have. I count comments as posts. Let me know if you think I'm in error.
Maggie - 7
Ryan - 8
Laura - 4
Jeff - 4
Davyn - 2
Kelsey - 9
Blake - 0
Erica - 1
Leah - 1
Ben - 9
Julian - 0
Matt - 4
Rachel - 6
Marie - 8
Kristen - 4
Jess - 6
C'est tout.
Oh yeah - if anyone posts (substantially! no amusing tidbits here!) on either La Strada or the movie we watch at the end (TBA), that will count as two posts. BONUS!!
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Simulation. Has it gone too far?
I'm finding it difficult to write about these things. Postmodernism is so broad and expansive it's hard to really pin one thought down without another one fluttering in and giving its opinion. Maybe that's the point. Who knows.
There was one thing I wanted to mention. Anyone ever heard of the game Second Life? It scares the crap out of me because there are real people out there who basically live their entire lives in that game. They make a little person they can play as, have social interactions, buy and sell virtual real estate (using real money) and so on. In my curious gamer nerdy-ness I gave the thing a try.
The game itself barely even qualifies as a "game." It's not like EA's the Sims where you control a character that is unrelated to you and interacts with simulated people, nor is it anything like any MMORPGs (Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games) where your character has objectives to achieve for imagined points or simulated rewards. Second Life basically gives the users the capacity to create their own realities, and users will buy and sell things with real money in order to advance their character.
It's hard to really fully explain this monstrous thing, so here's the website. http://secondlife.com/
My question is, what's next? Thousands of people already devote their entire lives to this game. How long is it until we're all just walking simulations? Or are we all just simulations already? Ach. I think it's time I simulate myself some sleep.
There was one thing I wanted to mention. Anyone ever heard of the game Second Life? It scares the crap out of me because there are real people out there who basically live their entire lives in that game. They make a little person they can play as, have social interactions, buy and sell virtual real estate (using real money) and so on. In my curious gamer nerdy-ness I gave the thing a try.
The game itself barely even qualifies as a "game." It's not like EA's the Sims where you control a character that is unrelated to you and interacts with simulated people, nor is it anything like any MMORPGs (Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games) where your character has objectives to achieve for imagined points or simulated rewards. Second Life basically gives the users the capacity to create their own realities, and users will buy and sell things with real money in order to advance their character.
It's hard to really fully explain this monstrous thing, so here's the website. http://secondlife.com/
My question is, what's next? Thousands of people already devote their entire lives to this game. How long is it until we're all just walking simulations? Or are we all just simulations already? Ach. I think it's time I simulate myself some sleep.
A picture is worth a thousand words... and a wookie on drums
Leia singing, Luke, Han Solo and Vader on guitars. Wookie on the drums. Commentary on the characters as modern-day rockstars? YOU BE THE JUDGE.
Fun To Imagine
I recently found one of these at a thrift store and bought it with the intent of using it for my final project. Nicole was fascinated by it and plugged it in. Lo and behold, the damn thing still works.
The postmodern part: Imagine rap music and Finger 11 coming out of this thing.
This Blue World - A Theory
In order to speculate the meaning of the word "house" appearing in blue in the book, we must first consider a phrase often used in the book: "out of the blue." According to Goenglish.com, the phrase means "sudden, unexpected, unprepared for." Reading further into this, "out of the blue" can also mean to come out of nothing. The house is, essentially, "nothing" therefore everything not blue is outside of the house.
In an alternate view, one must consider the phrase "this blue world." Why is the sky blue? Why is the ocean blue? Because blue is the shortest wavelength in the color spectrum that our eyes can see. Circling back to the previous theory, the color blue stands for both the ocean and the sky, both of which are infinite to the human eye, and both of which are are forever changing, expanding or contracting.
Oh look, granola bars!
In an alternate view, one must consider the phrase "this blue world." Why is the sky blue? Why is the ocean blue? Because blue is the shortest wavelength in the color spectrum that our eyes can see. Circling back to the previous theory, the color blue stands for both the ocean and the sky, both of which are infinite to the human eye, and both of which are are forever changing, expanding or contracting.
Oh look, granola bars!
V for Vendetta
I kept flashing on V for Vendetta when we were talking about Mao II. Lots of the same themes. A different look at terrorism, the use of symbols, war, the authoring of a new future for a nation of people. If you haven't seen it or read the graphic novel, you get to get with the times, man.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
postmodern modernism
stan douglas is an artist from vancouver. though a lot of his work deals with subjects that have a modern sensibility, he approaches it in a decidedly more postmodern way.
with his installation win, place or show (1998), he addresses the issues of the transformation of public space that occurred in postwar north america, specifically the urban renewal that was happening in canada in the 1950s. a grid of apartment blocks and row houses was slated to be built on what was left of one of vancouver's poorest neighborhoods after all the original buildings were torn down. douglas's piece, a looping, six minute film about two dock workers who share an apartment in one of these new buildings, expresses the isolated, agitated feelings of people during this time from a modernist perspective. the film "chronicles an antagonistic conversation that flares up on a wet day off. After erupting into physical violence, it then lapses into weary irritation, only to be rekindled into a smoldering verbal friction."
douglas presents these modern ideas postmodernly: during the exhibition, the video, shot from 20 different camera angles, loops in real time but each time in a different combination of cuts, so that what the viewer gets in an endless, fragmented series of images from many different view points. each time a new montage of cuts plays, there's a new version of the story. "In this way Douglas not only deconstructs the conventions and values integral to the style, the genre, the medium, and even the art form he employs but, by highlighting devices of disidentification, foregrounds the conditions and terms of spectatorship and, by extension, indicts as false any encompassing ideology."
douglas says of his own work that "it is less concerned with the narration of the event than with the space of its unfolding," which i think relates back to what postmodernists were trying to do in finding a new way to express something that couldn't be expressed without language. playing with the idea that since everything's already been done, all you can do is find new ways to do it.
(quotes from this article by lynne cooke: stan douglas and douglas gordon: double vision)
win, place or show (1998)
also connecting back to postmodernism, stan douglas has been influenced a lot by samuel beckett's work. one of his early productions called monodramas (1991) was a series of 30- to 60-second micronarratives that were shown during commercial breaks nightly for three weeks. the videos were made to mimic commercials but were actually fractured bits of a narrative that never came together. douglas also worked as a curator on beckett teleplays (1988) which focussed on beckett's work that dealt with how to produce for television. by considering these two works together, douglas presents himself as the "artist as producer," and shows how the two seemingly-separate roles can actually work well together in order to challenge peoples' ideas on how one can practice art. with monodramas and teleplays, douglas "defines...a syntax constituting and articulating culture and society in terms of difference and representation, where the notion of identity is constantly refracted through an engaged multi-cultural media perspective of the 90s." (source)
one of the videos can be seen here: http://www.mediaartnet.org/works/monodramas/video/1/
with his installation win, place or show (1998), he addresses the issues of the transformation of public space that occurred in postwar north america, specifically the urban renewal that was happening in canada in the 1950s. a grid of apartment blocks and row houses was slated to be built on what was left of one of vancouver's poorest neighborhoods after all the original buildings were torn down. douglas's piece, a looping, six minute film about two dock workers who share an apartment in one of these new buildings, expresses the isolated, agitated feelings of people during this time from a modernist perspective. the film "chronicles an antagonistic conversation that flares up on a wet day off. After erupting into physical violence, it then lapses into weary irritation, only to be rekindled into a smoldering verbal friction."
douglas presents these modern ideas postmodernly: during the exhibition, the video, shot from 20 different camera angles, loops in real time but each time in a different combination of cuts, so that what the viewer gets in an endless, fragmented series of images from many different view points. each time a new montage of cuts plays, there's a new version of the story. "In this way Douglas not only deconstructs the conventions and values integral to the style, the genre, the medium, and even the art form he employs but, by highlighting devices of disidentification, foregrounds the conditions and terms of spectatorship and, by extension, indicts as false any encompassing ideology."
douglas says of his own work that "it is less concerned with the narration of the event than with the space of its unfolding," which i think relates back to what postmodernists were trying to do in finding a new way to express something that couldn't be expressed without language. playing with the idea that since everything's already been done, all you can do is find new ways to do it.
(quotes from this article by lynne cooke: stan douglas and douglas gordon: double vision)
win, place or show (1998)
also connecting back to postmodernism, stan douglas has been influenced a lot by samuel beckett's work. one of his early productions called monodramas (1991) was a series of 30- to 60-second micronarratives that were shown during commercial breaks nightly for three weeks. the videos were made to mimic commercials but were actually fractured bits of a narrative that never came together. douglas also worked as a curator on beckett teleplays (1988) which focussed on beckett's work that dealt with how to produce for television. by considering these two works together, douglas presents himself as the "artist as producer," and shows how the two seemingly-separate roles can actually work well together in order to challenge peoples' ideas on how one can practice art. with monodramas and teleplays, douglas "defines...a syntax constituting and articulating culture and society in terms of difference and representation, where the notion of identity is constantly refracted through an engaged multi-cultural media perspective of the 90s." (source)
one of the videos can be seen here: http://www.mediaartnet.org/works/monodramas/video/1/
Mad Men
"Mad Men" is a show that I started watching a year ago on AMC. It's set in 1960 Manhattan and is centered around the main character who is an executive at an ad agency. Every episode quips at the underlying theme that the only thing they sell is an image, or an illusion, to create desire. For example in the pilot the main character, Donald Draper, struggles to overcome the recent discovery that cigarettes are in fact bad for you and advertising otherwise is now against the law. In a brilliant advertising coup, Draper comes up with the slogan "It's Toasted" for Lucky Strike cigarettes which is still the slogan used today. The idea is that because all the other tobacco companies have the same problem, advertisers can say whatever they want to set their client's products above others.
Another recurring theme in the show is the way that most of the characters live double lives. Draper has a nice suburban home with two kids and a beautiful wife, but he also has a mistress in Manhattan. Draper himself is really not who he says he is, since that isn't even the name that he was born with.
Anyway, I thought that the show was pertinent to our Postmodernism discussions. If any of you have seen the show feel free to comment, but if you haven't you should really check it out. It's very rare for there to be actual thought provoking shows on regular cable TV.
Another recurring theme in the show is the way that most of the characters live double lives. Draper has a nice suburban home with two kids and a beautiful wife, but he also has a mistress in Manhattan. Draper himself is really not who he says he is, since that isn't even the name that he was born with.
Anyway, I thought that the show was pertinent to our Postmodernism discussions. If any of you have seen the show feel free to comment, but if you haven't you should really check it out. It's very rare for there to be actual thought provoking shows on regular cable TV.
postmodern film: four eyed monsters
from the production notes:
"Four Eyed Monsters is an autobiographical film about how Arin Crumley & Susan Buice met in 2002 and really didn’t speak for the first 4 months of their relationship. They treated their relationship as an experiment to learn what love is, document their experiences and then present their findings."
and from arin:
"We made a feature length film called Four Eyed Monsters. The film tells the true story of how Susan and I met online and I stalked her at her work and then we ended up dating but with a rule to never speak in person. Then our lives and minds begin to meld and our fantasies and fears manifest as we become a living breathing Four Eyed Monster."
we live in a society now that's so media and technology-based, and a lot of what we've read/discussed in class about postmodernism sort of sees that as a negative thing, and i suppose in a lot of ways it can be. what four eyed monsters does is show us that there can still be something beautiful in all of it, something small and passionate and extremely artistic. the film shows this through the story of arin and susan's relationship, while aspects of media culture are used not only to bring the film to the audience, but in a very true way this relationship happened because of the culture we live in. the film makes us take a new look at art, people, relationships, communication, connection, sex, love, and what we thought we knew about any of it.
the entire film & accompanying podcasts are up on the film's website and myspace. everyone should check it out if they have the time and want to see it, it's really adorable. i'm happy i was shown it.
http://foureyedmonsters.com/
http://www.myspace.com/foureyedmonsters
Friday, April 11, 2008
Nothing in Nothing
Stand aside and let words dissolve in water.
Back up and lean against walls made of nothing,
and fall forever and not even care.
For every step forward,
you are actually not walking at all.
If you are walking forward you are falling,
and if you back up you dissolve.
For now stay still and take in
all of life's rarest sweetest things.
Because it is okay not to understand,
as long as you just are.
DJ Shadow - Midnight in a Perfect World
Back up and lean against walls made of nothing,
and fall forever and not even care.
For every step forward,
you are actually not walking at all.
If you are walking forward you are falling,
and if you back up you dissolve.
For now stay still and take in
all of life's rarest sweetest things.
Because it is okay not to understand,
as long as you just are.
DJ Shadow - Midnight in a Perfect World
Thursday, April 10, 2008
film showing end of semester
So, the last week of classes, we'll have some time to watch a postmodern film.
I will take recommendations, of course. So far, I've come up with the following possibilities: Bladerunner (seems too obvious, maybe?), The Saddest Music in the World, a David Lynch film (like Eraserhead or Mulholland Drive), Adaptation... I mean, I love Donnie Darko, but hasn't everyone seen that?
Thoughts?
If you want to recommend something, make sure it has postmodern features, and isn't just something you like!!
I will take recommendations, of course. So far, I've come up with the following possibilities: Bladerunner (seems too obvious, maybe?), The Saddest Music in the World, a David Lynch film (like Eraserhead or Mulholland Drive), Adaptation... I mean, I love Donnie Darko, but hasn't everyone seen that?
Thoughts?
If you want to recommend something, make sure it has postmodern features, and isn't just something you like!!
Holy shit, more Garfield.
http://garfieldisdead.ytmnd.com
You all should have one immediate reaction to the first strip like I did.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
im so post modern with my myspace info
http://www.myspace.com/thebedroomphilosopher
listen to the song i'm so post modern. it's cute, until you realize it's 5 and a half minutes long.
(i didn't intend to give a shout out to house of leaves there, it's just long...and i went ok ok, and clicked out of it before it ended)
listen to the song i'm so post modern. it's cute, until you realize it's 5 and a half minutes long.
(i didn't intend to give a shout out to house of leaves there, it's just long...and i went ok ok, and clicked out of it before it ended)
Some Thoughts on Pelafina
So I was thinking about what we talked about in class a few meetings ago, about how Whalestoe is slang for camel toe, which seemed really silly at the time. But the more I thought about it, the more things started to makes sense, once I got past my third-grader response of giggling over bathroom humor (not that there's anything wrong with that). Anyway, I got to thinking that since it's a camel toe we're talking about, it's very clearly a vaginal image - and of course, the Whalestoe houses Pelafina, Johnny's mother. So that's a connection right there - the mother is a vaginal image. From here, I started thinking in Lacanian terms again (please bear with me):
If the letters were supposedly hand written, but we only receive them as typographical works, could we then read them as Johnny's work? If Johnny wrote the letters, or even if Johnny only altered them, perhaps he is trying to retrieve the Phallus, which the Mother is lacking. Perhaps the letters are an attempt to get at truth and thus, some modicum of power, for his mother. If Johnny wrote the letters, is this a way to connect to her, giver her some sort of existence? Without the Phallus, she is a lack, and if she possesses the Phallus, she is a lack, but if Johnny can "author" his mother through these letters, he can (attempt to) make her into the Phallus, which is, of course, impossible. But through this attempt to "author" a mother through these letters, he might be attempting to find some Truth, which is also impossible, though tempting to believe.
If the letters were supposedly hand written, but we only receive them as typographical works, could we then read them as Johnny's work? If Johnny wrote the letters, or even if Johnny only altered them, perhaps he is trying to retrieve the Phallus, which the Mother is lacking. Perhaps the letters are an attempt to get at truth and thus, some modicum of power, for his mother. If Johnny wrote the letters, is this a way to connect to her, giver her some sort of existence? Without the Phallus, she is a lack, and if she possesses the Phallus, she is a lack, but if Johnny can "author" his mother through these letters, he can (attempt to) make her into the Phallus, which is, of course, impossible. But through this attempt to "author" a mother through these letters, he might be attempting to find some Truth, which is also impossible, though tempting to believe.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Calvin and Hobbes
You can never have too much Calvin and Hobbes. Let's take a look at a couple of strips.
This raises an interesting question. Do we have to like art if we're going to look at it? Calvin is trying to create a sort of Emperor's New Clothes situation here, where he will create art that no one understands or particularly likes, but they will pretend to like it and understand it in order to avoid being classified as "the lowbrows who can't appreciate great art like this."
If it's okay to not like art and still appreciate it, or rather, to not find it aesthetically pleasing, maybe that means that great art shouldn't fit society's definition of beauty at all. Maybe the greatest kind of art is the kind we can't understand and don't think is particularly pretty.
Still, the question remains, would you pay to see a deformed snowman in an art gallery setting?
Alright, one more.
So here's something that's very different from anything Calvin has ever made, because Calvin doesn't want to do what everyone else does. But when he gets tired of not conforming, he finds a new way to be avant-garde: be ironic by giving the public exactly what they want while simultaneously making them think they don't want it and therefore, they will want to want it. If Calvin gives them a nostalgic image in a modern setting, his theory is that his audience will love it, either because they're nostalgic themselves or because they believe nostalgia is avant-garde.
This raises an interesting question. Do we have to like art if we're going to look at it? Calvin is trying to create a sort of Emperor's New Clothes situation here, where he will create art that no one understands or particularly likes, but they will pretend to like it and understand it in order to avoid being classified as "the lowbrows who can't appreciate great art like this."
If it's okay to not like art and still appreciate it, or rather, to not find it aesthetically pleasing, maybe that means that great art shouldn't fit society's definition of beauty at all. Maybe the greatest kind of art is the kind we can't understand and don't think is particularly pretty.
Still, the question remains, would you pay to see a deformed snowman in an art gallery setting?
Alright, one more.
So here's something that's very different from anything Calvin has ever made, because Calvin doesn't want to do what everyone else does. But when he gets tired of not conforming, he finds a new way to be avant-garde: be ironic by giving the public exactly what they want while simultaneously making them think they don't want it and therefore, they will want to want it. If Calvin gives them a nostalgic image in a modern setting, his theory is that his audience will love it, either because they're nostalgic themselves or because they believe nostalgia is avant-garde.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
I guess we should be happy?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=KdB5FcGh7Ks
So, I heard this on the radio (not my radio, my friend’s…) and before I could discern any real words being spoken (almost to the rhythm) I caught on to the roadrunner sound-blip. Then I deciphered the word Roadrunner and realized yes, he is actually singing about the Roadrunner… the Warner Brothers’ cartoon bird that is always escaping the Wily Coyote.
This is not something I expected from Kiss 108… (while I was listening to it… in my friend’s car.) Sex, drugs, fellatio, bling, and more sex… yes. But cartoons? When did cartoons become gangsta?
I played the song for my father and posed this same question, tailed by, “we should be happy it’s not about sex then right? Then it’s okay for the younger masses to overplay?” to which he responded with a raised brow and sly grin:
“Yeah… and yet somehow I still don’t feel socially redeemed.”
Has the rap community depleted its resources for covertly beating the censors and singing freely about sex and drugs? When I first heard Akon’s “Smack That” (by someone else’s request at a club) I remember being actually shocked (which was weird because I consider myself generally desensitized) and thought to myself “wow, they’re not even being coy and trying to blatantly hide the message…maybe this is the end, maybe the well of sex is try—or at least chafed” and now I hear this Roadrunner song…
Of course, I suppose Roadrunner may just be a metaphor for having sex while taking speed…
So, I heard this on the radio (not my radio, my friend’s…) and before I could discern any real words being spoken (almost to the rhythm) I caught on to the roadrunner sound-blip. Then I deciphered the word Roadrunner and realized yes, he is actually singing about the Roadrunner… the Warner Brothers’ cartoon bird that is always escaping the Wily Coyote.
This is not something I expected from Kiss 108… (while I was listening to it… in my friend’s car.) Sex, drugs, fellatio, bling, and more sex… yes. But cartoons? When did cartoons become gangsta?
I played the song for my father and posed this same question, tailed by, “we should be happy it’s not about sex then right? Then it’s okay for the younger masses to overplay?” to which he responded with a raised brow and sly grin:
“Yeah… and yet somehow I still don’t feel socially redeemed.”
Has the rap community depleted its resources for covertly beating the censors and singing freely about sex and drugs? When I first heard Akon’s “Smack That” (by someone else’s request at a club) I remember being actually shocked (which was weird because I consider myself generally desensitized) and thought to myself “wow, they’re not even being coy and trying to blatantly hide the message…maybe this is the end, maybe the well of sex is try—or at least chafed” and now I hear this Roadrunner song…
Of course, I suppose Roadrunner may just be a metaphor for having sex while taking speed…
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Group Project - PoMo track list
Yep, you guessed it. Self-referential music, either about playing an instrument, singing, playing or writing it. Something like that. This is what I have so far. Feel free to add to it! I feel like there's a shit ton I'm missing...
"I Play Bass" by Sack Trick
"Story of A Girl" by Nine Days
"Click Click Boom" by Saliva
"Sing" by The Dresden Dolls
"Art Is Hard" by Cursive
"We Call Upon The Author" by Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds
"Pon de Replay" by Rihanna
"I Play Bass" by Sack Trick
"Story of A Girl" by Nine Days
"Click Click Boom" by Saliva
"Sing" by The Dresden Dolls
"Art Is Hard" by Cursive
"We Call Upon The Author" by Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds
"Pon de Replay" by Rihanna
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
'Nough said. Monty Python mixes contemporary humor with medieval aesthetic to create a satire of the times. See also the interjection of present-like scenes, especially when the British cops get involved trying to find out who slew the narrator guy. What's interesting is they're not just making fun of it, they're do so intelligently. All the members of the cast have some sort of history degree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)