Just Looking ...

I’ve been trying to connect notions of Zizek/Lacanian Real/reality in some way to what I’m learning in my animal cognition seminar. Essentially, the main theme in the seminar is whether or not animals have theory of mind – are they able to attribute intentions in other individuals, are they able to take their perspective, know what they think, etc. This sparked a huge debate between two main schools of thought. On one hand, the behaviourists have trouble accepting that animals may exhibit any semblance of theory of mind. On the other, the 'mentalists' believe that the easiest way to explain animal behaviour is that they are indeed able to 'get into the minds' of other animals. Seemingly deceptive behaviour may illustrate this distinction. Male baboons are known to do much of the hunting for meat, and do not typically share. One female edged up to the male, and groomed him until he laid down on the ground, at which point she grabbed his antelope carcass and ran. Mentalists would suggest that the female baboon had a clear intention to deceive the male, that she meant to 'mislead' the male. However, behaviourists would name many other alternatives. It could've been a coincidence that she was grooming him, then grabbed the carcass after noticing it. More likely, she had some prior associative learning where she may have had multiple attempts to steal food disregarding the conspecific's posture (so she most likely failed on these attempts). Then finally by chance, she succeeded in stealing food when the other baboon was lying down. She could've formed an associative relation between snatching food and award, which is most likely activated by the sight of an animal that is lying down on the ground.

I think I've gone a bit off topic. But the key points of interest here are the motivations behind these two intellectual groups. Is this an example of a group of people, the behaviourists, being fascinated by the Real? Are animals, to them, objet petit a? Perhaps they are so devoted to their research because of a suspicion that underneath it all, we are exactly like animals. Their desires may be coordinated by the Real, such that they want to return to the Real stage where we are 'at one' with the world, where we are ultimately the same as animals, where 'ultimate happiness' may be, like for the baboon, simply a matter of finding a piece of meat. At the same time though, this notion may be terrifying. The possibility that we are merely automatons, without intention, may be what is driving the mentalists to seek out evidence that animals have theory of mind.

This is starting to sound overly speculative and I may be misapplying the concepts here...so please feel free to add anything or to correct me.

The Dove Campaign for Real Beauty began to help young girls increase their self esteem and overcome the delusional ideas they have of “real beauty”. These ideas have for years been a result of the media and the influence it has had on our perception of what or who is considered beautiful. I’m sure most of you have seen the Dove Evolution film, either on TV or YouTube. If not, enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U

Putting loads of makeup on someone, taking their picture, and photoshopping it to the point where the person is almost unrecognizable is an example of hyperreality. In fact, almost all pictures we see on TV and in magazines are examples of hyperreality. These images are a combination of reality and fiction. Reality being the fact that an actual person is used in the picture. However, that person is altered to look “far more beautiful”, which is what causes the image to be somewhat fictional. The people we see in the final results do not really look like that in reality, yet we do not consciously distinguish between the two.

Out of curiosity, I clicked on the Dove Evolution Parody in the related videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-kSZsvBY-A&feature=related
Although the complete opposite message is being portrayed in this video, ("Thank God our perception of real life is distorted”), this again is another example of hyperreality.

Before leaving for class today I happened to glance at the front page of the Toronto Star and what I saw was on the border between interesting and disturbing. It was a picture of seven babies, only two of which are real, the others 'reborns' or extremely lifelike dolls.

This is a perfect example of Baudrillard's first level of simulacra. The baby dolls are definitely a fake or counterfeit version to real babies. Reading the article the artist brings up an instance of a special request for an infant to be made in memory of a 30-year-old daughter who had died and for some of her ashes to be put inside to represent her heart. I wonder if wanting the doll to not only look real but to actually represent something very real such as a lost child or in place of a baby for whatever reason make these items of the second simulacra? It was brought up in lecture that robots having human emotions and desires could make it of the second level but we did not go too indepth becuase of the trickiness of it...is it possible to apply that simulacra to the item in this way?

Personally the dolls kind of scare me...

In last week's lecture, we discussed about the Simulacrum. In lecture, we learned that the Simulacrum is a fake replica, replacing a real thing, and the "fake" Moraco in Disney World was given as an example.I wanted to discuss more about the Simulacrum and wanted to look for other examples.

In my dictionary, Simulacrum is defined as: "something that looks like somebody/something else or that is made to look like somebody/something else"

Therefore, I came up with a caricature as the perfect example for Simulacrum because the caricature is "fake" replica of one individual's face. It is not a real face, but the sketch is filled with one individual's detailed facial features, replacing a real face.

Wikipedia defines Caricature as:"either a portrait that exaggerates or distorts the essence of a person or thing to create an easily identifiable visual likeness, or in literature, a description of a person using exaggeration of some characteristics and oversimplification of others"

When an artist start to sketch a caricature of one person, a random observer might find it quite difficult to identify and match the sketch with the actual face. The sketch might look pretty similar and resemble to anybody. However, as a caricaturist start to exggerate the face features and emphasize more details then the actual face, the observers find much easier to catch those details and they are able to identify the subject, although the caricature has much less resemblance to the actual face of the subject.

Take a look at the caricature I attached above. We right away know it is Einstein. It is not the actual photograph of Einstein, but with the exggerated details of his face, we can immediately guess it is Einstein.

　　　The United States is facing a huge financial crisis these days. This is a serious issue not only in the U.S. but also all around the world since the United States is the most powerful and the leading economic force in the world, and thus affects the foreign currency and trading markets.

　　　The World’s greatest concern today is how the President-elect Barack Obama will tide over the present recession. It was announced that the Obama government will unfold a large-scale market maintenance policy. The basis of Obama’s economy policy is focused on increasing the quality of the life of working class who takes up the majority of American society. The Obama government is planning to reduce tax for the low-income group while raising the tax for the high-income group, and to create millions of new job positions because the unemployment rate is expected to increase in next year.

　　　However, my opinion is that even though the regime is going to be changed very soon, it will not make a noticeable difference in terms of the economy and finance situation of the U.S.. Beside the fact that he is to be the first black president in the history of the United States, what makes him particular is that people expect on him to be a special person who can solve this current crisis. Although he is proposing many new policies in order to overcome this situation, the thing is that he will not be able to make much difference.

　　　This is because the problem going on today will not be solved that simply. According to my research, stagnation of the real estate causes the banks, which lent or invested their money, to fall down. As the banks become fragile, the family buget also becomes weak, and it causes the decrease in consumption. Thus, corporations will collapse because of depression in selling. This credit loss of banks should be revived by giving a huge amount of money to the banks. Therefore, the nation's money will be tied to the banks and the U.S. will suffer extreme depression even more.

　　　My conclusion is that it is impossible to expect Obama to solve the financial crisis in a short-term period. His new policies don't seem to succeed and the class struggle in the U.S. will get more severe. He cannnot make any immediate changes and we should not expect too much on him. He is not a superman.

# posted by SeulkiLee:) @ 7:30 PM 0 comments

A few of my friends took me out a few weeks ago for some “real” “authentic” sushi, which besides being an absolutely amazing (and delicious) experience, I also found it to be pretty surprising. I actually felt a little uncomfortable while I was there which I didn't anticipate, especially considering I am pretty food neophilic, so I began to question why was it that I was feeling rather out of place beyond my initial “it just must be that I am trying something new” instinctual reaction that I had. I starting thinking that I had taken for granted my knowledge, my cultural capital, of the rules governing how to eat in Canadian contemporary culture and reflected upon how the ways in which one eats, what one eats, the table mannerisms surrounding how one eats or even the very contrast between whether one uses a table and cutlery or not reveals the great power behind discourses on food and its symbolic use in both differentiating oneself from others as well its use as a means to identify with others in order to belong to a particular group (for example, to a class, ethnicity or religion). Even while writing this, I realize that what I wrote above regarding my attitude towards trying new types of food is really a means of using food and my relationship to it to define my “self” and thus a way of individuating myself from others, which I did not really think about while I was typing it initially.

But, going back to my first “real” sushi experience, what I had noticed during my lunch hour was that I clearly was not familiar with the “rules” of sushi eating and that a change from my usual methodology of eating (as in from a fork and a knife to chopsticks) as well as a change in the context in which I was eating (from say a Western restaurant for instance to a sushi bar) was making the underlying power of food and the social rules surrounding it quite apparent to me. I was really struggling to use chopsticks (which my friends used with such ease that it was really kind of frustrating) and about midway through our meal my friends had to go get me a fork and a knife because I was “eating way too slowly” since I was pretty unsuccessful at getting the food to my mouth that is. Although it was pretty funny to us how poorly I was using the chopsticks, when my friend did go ask the server for some cutlery the servers reaction was sort of a combination of a frown and head shake and the fact that she had to search a bit for some alternative eating utensils really made it apparent that in this context I was clearly using an “improper” and perhaps less “sophisticated” method of eating. I did notice here how variable the signification of what you eat with is – i.e., the use of chopsticks in a Western context previously has been considered as an “uncivilized” means of eating or in the very least as unusual and could look pretty funny at say a fast food restaurant for instance. However, in the context of a sushi bar the signification of the same signifier, the chopsticks, changed from being an “improper” means of eating to the more “proper”, “elite” and even more “civilized” method of eating where the inability to appropriately use them is, well not necessarily “bad” behavior, but certainly not looked upon favourably.

Although food is a very complex indicator of many facets of contemporary culture this really showed me that beyond eating as a means for survival a very complex language exists underlying food and its uses that we often just take as common knowledge and conform to automatically without really thinking about it. This language is neither always explicitly stated nor obvious but it is pretty interesting to really feel how the rules we learn regarding food and proper eating etiquette are really quite influential in directing our behavior which I found especially evident to me in my experience in not being equip with the necessary cultural capital to behave in a "proper" manner at the sushi bar.

An aside note though, my friends told me that only men were allowed to make sushi since women are considered bad sushi makers because their hands are warmer (although I’m not really sure why that makes sushi bad?). I was just interested if anyone knows whether or not this would have any implications, i.e., is the role of the sushi maker revered or not?

Okay, so I was thinking about double articulation after our tutorial today. And, I wondered if 'sound bites' or slogans could also serve as double articulation. In tutorial, we deconstructed TD Bank's green armchair. This had me thinking about Scotia Bank's new slogan "You're richer than you think." I find the slogan suggests that ones ability to save or have 'more' money is a matter of perception and that saving money is simply a matter of agency and creative or strategic money managment. In applying Barthes double articulation, the words "richer" and "think" is the signify 'the possiblity of more' and 'able to rethink' or 'view circumstance differently.' Together they signify the myth of financial success through personal agency and ingenuity. The slogan obfuscates or exnominates the economic variables and principles that impact ones life such as competition, free and global markets, wages, and cost of living.



Ty

Las Vegas, Nevada is a city of simulacra. Why go all the way to Egypt, when you can simply go to Las Vegas?

The gambling capital of the world specializes in simulation. Each casino on the famous strip presents a different themed environment, recreated like an adult Disney World to provide a simulated experience of fantasy and wonder. The Luxor Hotel impossibly transports us in space and time, back to ancient Egypt. It allows us to step into a pyramid, to meet a Pharaoh in person, and to unravel the mysteries of this ancient culture. You can travel down the Nile without leaving your hotel. A motion simulator disguised as an elevator uses film images and special effects to create the illusion that participants are plunging into an archeological dig of a pre-Egyptian civilization, 1,000 feet below the the earth. Another simulator then makes it appear that they are flying back to the surface, dodging particle beams and other dangers along the way. Luxor uses all these special-effects in an attempt to elicit the unknowable mysteries that have always been attached to ancient Egypt, of transcending the mundane world and knowing what cannot be told. But the Luxor casino merely simulates magic and mysticism; in the end, the only mysteries it has to offer are special effects provided by technology. According to wikipedia, The Luxor is seen as one of the best examples of 1990s Postmodern architecture, and it was featured on the cover of renowned architecture scholar James Steele's book Architecture Today.

By Juliana Vegh

Labels: Las Vegas, postmodern architecture, simulacra

A recent visit to my parents’ small lakeside town, just north of Toronto, and its’ local bar reminded me of our lecture discussion on class and culture (though that’s quite a few weeks ago now), and the question of whether the working class have a culture and if that culture is disappearing.

Most of the 5000 residents in the town are either retired or work physical labour jobs – and from one step into the only local bar, it’s not difficult to perceive what some may imagine as the stereotypical image of the working class. Most of the people drinking are regulars; beer is the drink of choice; $200 black heels (as seen on every other club going girl in Toronto) are replaced by work boots; while pool and cigarettes are the game and distraction of choice. A hint of an untraceable accent can by heard in most of their voices that which can only be compared to the American “hillbilly” drawl. It is certainly not Toronto’s entertainment district, or what you might describe as “classy” or of bourgeois taste, but it is the culture of the largely working class town.

This might suggest to some that although the working class culture may seem to have disappeared almost entirely in the cities, it may still lay stagnant in Ontario’s small towns. This would be easy to argue if I hadn’t also observed the transformation of this town over the past few years in a process of embourgeoisement that Barthes would have despised.

As stagnant as some elements of the working class culture seem to have remained in the town, it has just as quickly and readily adopted elements into the town that are distinctly prestigious, exclusive, fashionable – as a very bourgeois reflection and often very direct result of the wealthy and middle to upper-class tourists and summer residents who flock to the town in the summer months. As far as I can perceive, there has been very little resistance to the sudden eruption of expensive spas, gourmet coffee shops, and boutiques which have replaced family-run shops and the like – despite the fact that most of the locals in the town don’t have the expendable income to afford these places. In fact, there seems to have been no resistance at all, aside from a few overheard remarks from older residents resentful of the too-sudden changes.

It seems to me to be a clear example of the demise of the working class, and very much so an example of the bourgeois imposing their culture on the lower classes. Afterall, it is a town very much reliant on tourism and profits from the town’s wealthy summer visitors and residents – so it has been forced, or at least is remotely convinced that it must keep up with and embrace the bourgeois paces and tastes in order to keep them returning every summer. Although the truth of the matter is, though rich, most of the residents and tourists have been coming for generations and would likely have continued to do so with or without the changes.

Aside from this, it will be interesting to observe how the recent economic situation will affect this domination of the bourgeois over the working and middle class. Will the working class reemerge and be forced to resist bourgeois culture as a necessity to survive a recession?

Have you ever wondered why communist nations still exist these days? The fall of Soviet Russia and East Europe has come to the truism that communism won’t work in this world. It is very likely that the people in the current communist nations are aware about this. So the question is how these people with such awareness make sense of their status quo under the illegitimate rules.

Before I talk about savvy reflexivity, please allow me to talk a little bit about some basic facts I know about the People’s Republic of China. As I had been living in China until just three and half years ago, my experience of the state propaganda before I left is still the way it is in today’s China. The state-owned televisions and newspapers are always vigorously promoting the positive image of the Chinese government. Back in the 1960s to 1970s, many Chinese truly believed in communism, so the government could implement a series of maniac campaigns, such as the Five Antis, the Cultural Revolution, the Great Leap Forward, and so on. Now Chinese people (I mean the majority of mainland Chinese people who are not the beneficiary of the dictatorship rule.) have long been disillusioned about communist party since 1980s. The explicit state propaganda (there are other implicit propaganda), used to be quite motivating, now become a mere formality both for those in power and the recipients. The Chinese people know very well that they are mostly lies. Almost no one would take it seriously of the headlines about the percentage of GDP growth, or individual stories of personal life benefited from government policies. They know quite well that governmental statistics are exaggerated; stories are fabricated so as to provide a false image of progression, so as to maintain social stability. Most importantly of all, they all know that they are being fooled in some way, although they may not quite sure about the reality.

However, despite of this awareness, the Chinese people are still doing what the governments want them to do. Many young people want to work for the government, although they verbally repudiated it a million times. Despite of their criticism of the unfair social system, they try to make the best out of it instead of changing it. People are very contradictory. I know this is a complicated matter and there are many reasons in play here, but I want to single out the savvy reflexivity as one of the reasons, here is how savvy reflexivity works:

Chinese people somehow believe that the alternatives for the current economic and political system can not work better than the current one. There are some concrete common beliefs to support such notion: 1) the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) has caused so many social problems that no democratic government can solve these problems, and any change of the society would cause the eruption of social crisis and everyone would be negatively affected. 2) large population, hard to manage, Western democracy might cause chaos; 3) the long feudal past have deep rooted influence in people’s mind which prevent them from collectively accepting democratic ideas; 4) Although their current lives are bad, they worry that any change would make life even worse: given the fact that Russia suffered economic turmoil because of the radical political change. All these reasoning are convincing some time (of course not for me), but not always. When very bad situations happen, for example the recent poisonous milk that has caused many children ill and even death, people began to question the system again. The Real sets in to repudiate the symbolic. People do not know what to believe. They know CCP cannot be trusted and things have to be changed, but they do not know how. They can not see any alternative that can guarantee a better future. (The majority do not get access to important modern humanity knowledge because of censorship) The ambivalence and disorientation have incapacitated their reasoning and as a result, they keep doing what they are doing without questioning it any more.

This can partly explain why Chinese people seem to be immune to Western democratic ideas, including those who get the chance to study or work in Western countries. The massive anti-Tibetan protest in Western countries before the Beijing Olympic Games is quite surprising to many Westerners. Why would these oversea Chinese irrationally embrace their government? Have any Western education exert any positive influence on them at all? I think savvy reflexivity plays a big part. These people knew quite well the Chinese government was bad and human right/democracy was good, but they embraced the Chinese government anyway.

That is what I mean for the dark side of savvy reflexivity.

One last thing I want to point out is that: we see capitalism as a system that we cannot see through and we are not sure if any alternative would work. This is quite similar to the system in China as I mentioned above. We know from the Western perspective that democracy is a common value for human kind. This is the alternative for today’s China. But Chinese people cannot see the alternative. They are not able to see clearly how democracy works. They doubt it, at least for the short term. So, I think savvy reflexivity work only when we cannot see alternatives. It does not mean that the alternatives are not there. Similarly, the fact that we cannot see the alternatives for capitalism does not mean there is no alternative.

Earlier in the blog there was a submission on the value of diamonds in our society. I stumbled on an advertisement reflecting this in a magazine -the ad shows a couple in romantic embrace with the caption claiming “Monogamy: Every Hearts on Fire Diamonds is cut and polished to the 100X magnification to guarantee a life of intensity”. It seems to imply that with this diamond comes committed intense love. The work of Baudrillard on representation discusses three types of representations. This ad seems to demonstrate representation in the form of masking and perverting reality. It portrays a certain lifestyle choice but viewers still respond and recognize the diamond’s association with committed romantic love. I think it is an entertaining association because the people are not wearing the diamond ring – but rather portraying what we might read as “a life of intensity”. It is also interesting that suddenly monogamy is something that can be bought.

I am not sure if this ad fits neatly into any of Baudrillard's three categories. I think it goes somewhere between his second and third categories, the "masks/perverts" and "masks absence of reality" ones. It is like the CK Obsession ad shown in class, except this has a tiny smidge in the bottom right that shows the product. I start to think that these sorts of ads don't actually try to advertise the product, but instead tell us that the corporation remains. I'm not quite sure how to argue this: it was suggested in class that we know companies use sex to sell and we continue to buy things. Perhaps that familiar set of images communicate immutability. I personally don't find this too far fetched. Religious communities often have a markedly distinctive language used by insiders, and this sort of language bubble has an inculating effect. Perhaps the same can be said with images (Barthes' myth?).

But suppose it is the case that ads such as this is about the ontological superiority of the corporation. If we situate this in the context of capitalism, I wonder if it can be said to reflect reality--a reality where money is the essence of life.

I see the image every where- Che Guevara's face on a pin, on posters, and most frequently, on t-shirts. The fact is that iconic figures throughout history are constantly referenced and replicated by contemporary societies be it through literature, theater, film, the fine arts, fashion, etc. This reminds me of our lecture on Walter Benjamin and the mechanical reproduction of art for when considering the matter of artistic reproduction, there is always an engagement with the notion of the "original"; there is always a starting point from which all deviations, intentional or not, are made.
Surrounding an iconic figure, there is a certain aura that Walter Benjamin explains as a phenomenon of distance, authenticity, and authority. This aura surrounding the "original" is powerful, though through technical innovations the "aura" of an object can be changed to "image". Specifically, Benjamin argues that in mechanically reproducing the original the aura is destroyed.
However, there is still much debate to be made surrounding the subject of aura, icons, replications, and the distribution of power- for in transferring from the original to the reproduction is there not also transfer of power? Is the aura inherent to the icon or does it lie in the eye in the eye of the beholder?

So, the other day I was searching for good horror movies to watch, since I was inspired by our discussion of zombie movies in class, I stumbled upon the Guinea Pig Films (please google with caution). I am a big gore/horror movie fan and I have seen it all, Saw, Texas Chain Saw Massacre, the Grudge… you name it, I’ve seen it, but this is something that I’ve never encountered before. The films comprise of 6 individual movies with individual story lines. One that is of particular interest is The Flowers of Flesh and Blood. The movie revolves around a man dressed in a samurai outfit who drugs and kidnaps a woman and goes on to dismember, disembowel and finally decapitates her in an all-too-real fashion. This particular film caused actor Charlie Sheen to call the FBI because he suspected that it was a real life snuff film. It was reportedly serial killer Tsutomu Miyazaki’s favorite film from the series and served as one of the primary "blueprints" for his murders.

Flowers of the Flesh and Blood and The Devil’s Experiment (where 4 men torture a woman to see the human body’s capacity for pain) show the cruel and curious side of human nature. The men tortured the woman just to see what would happen, they just wanted to know how much they have to subject her to before she dies. There were no restraints, and they just did whatever they could think of; without the boundaries that our society set for us.

“Would you kill if you will never get caught?” How many would answer yes even though you would never admit it to others? We only know what is right or wrong because we are taught that way, through rules and punishments. The law states that we can never kill under any circumstances, and almost everyone agrees with that. But if someone killed your mother, your father, or one of your best friends, isn’t your first instinct is to kill them, to avenge their deaths? And aren’t we always happy when the protagonist in a movie gets his/her revenge? I’m sure not many of us can go through with that thought (myself included) because we are conditioned to believe that killing is wrong, and we must deal with vengeance in a civilized manner, partly due to the fear of getting caught. But if we won’t get caught…who knows what will happen.

Back to the Guinea Pig Films, they are not for those with a weak stomach, but they are one of a kind, uncensored, Holy Grail for the gore fans, a portrait for all the violence in the human mind.

www.guineapigfilms.com

Labels: death, killing, The Guinea Pig Films

Earlier this year, the Governor of New York resigned after it was discovered he had been involved with an “escort”, a euphemism for a prostitute. Now that it is clear that Eliot Spitzer won’t face any criminal charges for the incident, the woman he hooked up with, Ashley Dupre, has given an interview to the media. The interview is particularly interesting and relevant because it involves the notion of social class, a subject written on by Richard H. Anderson.

The angle that ABC News approaches the interview from centers on the fact that Dupre comes from an “upper middle class” background, her step-father being an oral surgeon. What the interview perhaps does not stress enough is that Dupre did not experience downward mobility (a sociological term) when she became a prostitute. Dupre, who has since quit “escorting”, was an “upper middle class” prostitute. She was paid so well by the “company” she worked for that she did not have to work daily. A night with her cost Spitzer $4,300 in case you were curious.

Anderson would have to place Dupre in the same category with step-father, an oral surgeon, despite her lack of education and profession that is typically associated with those who are poor and struggling to survive. Ironically she is “upper-middle class” in the sense that she served or aided the “upper class” though not at all how Anderson envisioned. Overall, this case shows how class boundaries are not so rigid.

Check out the interview and be sure to read the user comments on pg. 3: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=6280407&page=1

Labels: social class

The meaning we deduct from things in society is what Roland Barthes calls myth. What I think has become a perfect example of myth in western culture is the symbol of a diamond. The dictionary definition of a diamond is an extremely hard, highly refractive crystalline form of carbon that is usually colorless and is used as a gemstone and in abrasives, cutting tools, and other applications. If a diamond is just a rock, why is there so much meaning placed on the diamond as a symbol of everlasting love, what makes it so special? The connotations that are attached to certain objects in pop culture are unexplainable for the most part, and the example of a diamond gives a perfect example. Why not use an emerald, or topaz to signify the union between two people? We take for granted the symbol of a diamond as a representation of marriage, never questioning it. Perhaps it is purely a marketing scheme to create more sales for jewellery stores. Who wouldn’t, if given the chance, try to buy love, or at least a mere symbol or token of a fragment of what it stands for?

Inspired by the previous post on 'Bear' I thought I'd share this with everyone.

The first ever reality TV show, to the best of my knowledge, was called "An American Family" which Wikipedia describes as:

" an American television documentary shot in 1971 and first aired in the United States on PBS in early 1973. The show was twelve episodes long, edited down from about 300 hours of footage, and chronicled the experiences of a nuclear family, the Loud family of Santa Barbara, California, during a period of time when parents Bill and Pat Loud separated and Pat filed for divorce. In 2002, An American Family was listed at #32 on TV Guide's 50 Greatest TV Shows of All Time list."

Baudrillard had some interesting ideas about this show in his essay Simulations (Trans. Paul Foss et. al. 1983 Semiotext[e])

"The End of the Panopticon

It is ... to this ideology of the lived experience, of exhumation, of the real in its fundamental banality, in it radical authenticity, that the American TV-verite experiment on the Loud family in 1971 refers: 7 months of uninterrupted shooting. 300 hours of direct non-stop broadcasting, without script or scenario, the odyssey of a family, its joys, ups and downs - in breif, a "raw" historical document, and "the best thing ever on television, comparable, at the level of our daily existence, to the film of the lunar landing." Things are complicated by the fact that this family came apart during the shooting: a crisis flared up, the louds went their separate ways, etc. Whence that insoluable controversy: was TV responsible? What would have happened if TV hadn't been there.

More interesting is the phantasm of filming the Louds as if TV wasn't there. The producer's trump card was to say: "they lived as if we weren't there". An absurd, paradoxical formula- niether true nor false: but utopian. The "as if we weren't there" is equivalent to "as if you were there". It is this utopia, this paradox that fascinated 20 million viewers, much more than the perverse pleasure of prying." (49-50)

This brings to mind 'The observer Effect' which I believe was first used in physics in relation to Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty, but has implications in psychology and information technology as well, both entirely relevant to communication media. It states that the act of observation changes the nature of the observed, effectively meaning that one can only ever observe what was there when one looked, not what is there after looking, the observed having been changed by being observed.

Perhaps this is the nature of the paradoxical involvement Baudrillard describes above. The truth about this 'TV-verite' is that we consume it because we are involved in it and would rather view actively than passively.

Of course modern reality TV is much different than An American Family. The circumstances of modern shows are much more contrived, the production values much more in line with flashy modern tastes etc, but the mechanism is the same as it was with the Loud family. After 60 years of passive viewing the public is demanding to participate in the media to a greater extent. This can also be seen in the internet. Perhaps the ever-more ridiculous and sensational premises of reality TV shows are a response to the economic gravity of the internet, a last ditch effort to save TV from a population that is tired of having no power over its programming.


A documentary, An American Family Revisited is available to be viewed on Youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DZauMwxOrw

Labels: Baudrillard, Loud family, reality TV

Man vs Wild is a reality TV show on Discovery where a man, Bear Grylls and his camera man is dropped into exotic locales as he braves the elements and try to survive in the 'untamed' wilderness. Having the bare essentials with him, Bear must exercises his intuitive subsistence knowledge and experience to survive in no man's land.

This relates to realism and reality TV. Reality TV is said to bring its audience back to the Real. Bear Grylls epitomizes the traditional woodcraft camper. He goes in with next to nothing and fashions what he needs from nature. In reality, such hikers are scarce to nonexistant because modern technology and conveniences are so rampant. Flashlights, knives, binoculars, lighters, etc are small, compact and easily carried everywhere so people do not need to rough it with 'the Bear' essentials.

Also the locales Bear is dropped in is supposedly uninhabited, exotic locales that is far from civilization. The entire world is mapped out nowadays. Few domains are truly unoccupied by residents and many places have roads running through them. It is never truly only man vs wild anymore.

The link is a video showing how in the reality show, the adventurous Bear is presented to be exploring new uncharted territory alone in the barrens where no help is quickly forthcoming if should he get injured, yet just around the corner are people, cars and a road. Quite funny the first time i saw it:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UpSlpvb1is

When I first saw this ad, I was reminded of the political poster with the African child wearing a beret, Professor Kalmar had spoken about in class. I am glad i finally chanced upon something to post. This is an example of Roland Barthes' signifier, signified and sign idea.

This Benetton ad depicts a Tibetan monk along with a soldier of the People's Republic of China. In eastern cultures, bowing denotes reverence and pacification, they are greeting each other as such. At face value, they represent Tibet and China (the signifier) they are bowing to each other with respect (the signified) which propagandizes that the two are peaceful with one another. This is at the language level. On closer examination at the myth level however, there has been armed conflict between the faction ever since the invasion of Tibet by the Peoples Republic of China dating back to the mid 1950s.

I posted a second photo to show the irony that the propaganda photo shows the union to be so peaceful and agreeable, yet in reality the issue is much more violent and opposing.

Labels: 2008, Beijing, China, Olympics, Tibet

The image in this anti-smoking ad demonstrates Roland Barthes’ concept of “double articulation” of language and myth. The ad exhibits knowledge of signs— in this case, of a cigarette and fingers and their literal significance— and how to manipulate these signs to extend their referents in order to effectively communicate the intended meanings. In other words, there is a denotative meaning associated with the two fingers and the cigarette, but there are also many connotations purposely coded into the image to convey a message in a persuasive manner.

At the language level, there are two fingers (the index and the middle) and a cigarette between them. The literal meaning is about as far as denotation goes in this ad; the rest of the meanings are to be found at the level of myth. Both the fingers and cigarette possess specific literal signified meanings, but they are positioned in a way to connote “legs” and a “penis”. Furthermore, the text in the ad acts to reinforce the connotative meanings of the image, clueing the reader in terms of what the two fingers and cigarette represent; thus, the text works with the image to make more explicit the connotations of the ad.

I found this article in adbusters (magazine) about virtual reality and morality. Basically the writer of this article posses the question, where do we draw the line? Most video games you’ll find now days have real life graphic, and stimulations to the point that the gamer is immersed into the game. What I found really interesting about this article is that it problematizes the liberty given to the video gamer, allowing them to experience their desires and fantasies even though it neglects morality- you leave that out-side the door. Some would goes as far as arguing that morality should be excluded from these virtual domains, allowing the gamer to experience his/her fantasy or desires for as long as the game lasts. I know some will argue that a game is just a game- it is simply stimulation. My only concern is, how are we ( as a society) suppose to deal with issues of gun violence and rape and other social ill’s when we permit the use the of violence ( physical and psychologically) in virtual reality.
Do you think that morality should have a place in the virtual world?
Read this article it does a better job in engaging this topic.
http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/80/virtual_morality.html

Labels: fantasy, morality, reality

Sorry, I thought I would be able to edit the post later even if I went ahead and clicked 'publish post.' Turns out that I can't!

Anyways, so in addition to the previous post I just created...

In contrast to the "OBSESSION for women" ad which "masks the absence of a basic reality", this image rather "masks and perverts the basic reality" in the presence of it. The basic reality, the perfume bottle, is present in the ad; however, the overall constructed image is masking and perverting the Reality of it. The marketing tactic utilized in this advertisement is therefore more 'traditional' and less 'postmodern.' Unlike the "OBSESSION for women" image which is widely open for many interpretations while still ensuring a strong visual impression of the advertisement and creating a unique brand image, this advertisement seems to have been designed for a narrow range of possible interpretations....

Why do you think there are such differences between these two advertisements?

I came across this advertisement, Calvin Klein's "OBSESSION for men", and wanted to share it with you all. This advertisement was produced as part of the same Calvin Klein Ad campaign for the "OBSESSION for women" shown in class, yet it seems to utilize a completely different marketing approach.

First of all, unlike the "OBSESSION for women", this advertisement includes an image of the perfume bottle and thereby directly refers to the product; the product is not absent. What is most important in comparing the two ads is how each of them treats the 'nude' image of Kate Moss. Unlike the naked image of Moss conveying an almost contemplative, neutral tone in the ad targeting female consumers, this nude image incorporated in the"OBSESSION for men" is definitely more explicitly sexualized. Here, Moss is lying down on her stomach on a couch and is gazing directly at the viewers, appearing as if she is attempting to seduce the viewers (who equals possible consumers of the product). The ultimate purpose of the advertisement indeed is to seduce the viewers and turn them into the product's consumers.

In the "Uncanny Capitalism" section of Andrejevic's article, he writes that our savvy awareness of contrivance in reality TV has caused us to "demand more and more punishing contrivances in the hopes of squeezing out a bit of authenticity......". The way I see it, we are pushing boundaries to introduce greater and greater eruptions of the Real into our realities.

I am reminded of a song, Anything Goes, written by Cole Porter in 1934. Here's part of it:

In olden days a glimpse of stocking
Was looked on as something shocking
But now God knows, anything goes

Good authors too who once knew better words,
Now only use four letter words
Writing prose, anything goes.

Anything Goes: no boundaries, no limits, no differences. Anything goes.

We've come a long way since 1934; revised lyrics today could go like this:

In olden days a glimpse of nipple
Was something quite abominable...." and so on.

The way I see it, savvy reflexivity is not confined to reality TV, which can be seen as an eruption of the Real over the Reality of scripted TV. Also, before reality TV, increasing levels of sex and violence (and blood) throughout the decades in scripted TV and movies have also been signs of eruptions of the Real. After all, who doesn't know that "it's just a movie" and "movies aren't real"?

While we are on the subject of not-real-yet-not-unreal, consider a situation when a man and woman connect on a dance floor. In 19th century (Industrial Revolution) England, the Waltz was a "scandalous" dance, because the man and woman embrace each other on the dance floor. The Continental Europeans scoffed at Puritan England: "It's just a dance". In other words, it's not real. Fast forward 200 years later (today). I readily admit to being a bit of a prude, but I have seen some salsas and tangoes that are so suggestive, I wonder how people can watch their significant others dance with other partners, and still say "It's just a dance". Regardless, isn't it interesting that the Waltz is now considered high culture, and salsa (a nightclub dance) popular culture?

I think I've degenerated into rambling. So I end by noting that there seems to have more and more of an "Anything Goes" mentality in our music, art, television, films, etc. Are we then slowly moving from the Symbolic, back to the Mirror, and finally the Real?

Today's lecture discussing both Barthes's ad Andrejevic's conceptions of reality and Professor Kalmar's interesting association with reality TV and capitalism provoked me to think about computer and video gaming. Personally, I am not a follower of one or the other but I couldn't help remember feeling so disturbed seeing a bunch of YouTube videos of intense gamers, of all ages cursing and screaming at the computer or television because they were so enraptured in the game they were playing. Gaming is certainly not a new phenomena but it seems with the advancement of computer technology, the ability to create a 3D virtual simulation that is vivid and "real" has created a fascination and absorption with video games unlike before. After watching these videos one can only deduce these gamers are taking these games very seriously, that in some way they appear to be submersed into the reality of the character they are controlling. As a non-gamer however, it is hard for me to imagine that they believe somehow that the game is real or even represents reality in some way, as a simulacrum of some kind. The issue of gaming has gone so far that Dr. Phil has episodes where a husband and wife are divorcing and people are refusing to get jobs because they are fixated on gaming. A couple of weeks ago a child ran away from home (because his parents were concerned with his gaming) only to be found dead days later. Is gaming the new reality of our time and the non, gamers haven't 'clicked' in yet? Is our generation the true progeny of capitalism that we need to be competing at all times? Or are graphics so refined and detailed that people cannot help but escape?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTwgNhX4BSo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-u15om2udjE

Labels: capitalism, gaming, reality, simulacrum

Labels: assisted suicide, crypto-christianity, polysemy

I snapped this picture using my cell phone at a local gas station in central Pennsylvania... I couldn't help but chuckle to myself at Lipton's shameless advertising campaign. Are YOU young enough to drink green tea? Are you pure enough to sip on white tea? Purchase your self identity! For only $1.69 you can be a healthy, fit and in vogue member of society (...or at least appear as one). I see images of a trendy soccer mom keeping up with her four kids and still managing to attend yoga classes three times a week... A man who needs no supplements or outside help to maintain his young physique... The poster is also non-discriminatory, inviting anyone with visual access to the poster to consume green tea. You! Yes... YOU! YOU are worthy of the question posed. I've noticed YOU... YOU matter. YOU are part of our demographic. It becomes a private conversation between consumer and advertisor. It singles out each consumer and forces them to reflect on their consumption identity.

Related to the idea of consumption identity... Has anyone noticed the new Glad commercials? They promote the "high classness" of their scents... One women (lying in her bathtub at home with a new Glade candle) tells her friend she is at a fancy spa - when her husband's voice becomes audible she lies and says its her masseuse. In another, a woman hosting a yoga session with 3 girlfriends secretly uses a cheap Glade plug-in and makes up some story about the expensive product she's using, her friends catch her in her lie and laugh at her... The status symbolization is so regular that lying about product consumption becomes a joke. All the women come up with elaborate lies to hide their low culture consumption (i.e. buying Glade products). Glade has cleverly advertised their low prices (associated with low culture products) while surreptitiously noting their ability to mask low culture qualities (via its fancy smell). The commercial comments upon the class identity attached to consumption in our society.

Anyone else have any rants about commercials these days?

This video is a clip of 2 otters in a Vancouver zoo holding hands. It was made very popular through youtube. I believe it was a teacher taking her kids on a field trip to the zoo and she caught this occurrence on tape while visiting the otters area. She posted it on youtube for fun, but it ended up to be a crazy internet phenomenon, with record-breaking views. It was so popular, that it even made it to CBC news!

In the clip, you see two otters holding hands, floating around in their little aquarium. And then at one point one of the otters let go, and then float away, but end up floating back to the other otter and they held hands again.

During the entire clip, you hear the crowds going "awww, that's so cute" or "omigosh, they're adorable". I thought this clip and the entire event it records is a very good example of the idea of "idiotic enjoyment" that Slavoj Zizek talks about, something discussed in class last week. When we look at the otters holding hands, we do not really think practically and critically about what they are doing. In a way, we know that what we see is manipulative and useless, but regardless, we enjoy it. Realistically and practically speaking, as the CBC news had mentionned, otters hold hands for survival reasons. When they are out in the wild, swimming and floating through running rivers and lakes, they hold hands in order to stay together and not get lost. They need each other to help with the food hunting and family raising. And with this in mind, the meaning that is behind otters holding hands is quite different from when we humans hold hands. It is like when we see pictures of babies or young kids kissing. We say they're cute and in love, but really, we know it is fake and that they are not really feeling the same emotions and passions when adults kiss. This bourgeois concept of romantic love that we fantasize and commonly relate to is not as common and natural as we think. Likewise, this bourgeois concept is reflected onto cute animals too. Although we know the otters in the clip are not really in love, we still enjoy watching them hold hands, thinking they're so cute, and they're in love, and they can't be without each other. (and this is obviously evident with the popularity of the clip, with more than 11 million views in total since it was posted!!. Zizek's notion of idiotic enjoyment is extremely evident and applicable in this clip. Watch the clips and see for yourself! :)

To watch the original "Otters holding hands" video, click here:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=epUk3T2Kfno


To watch the CBC report on the popular and silly clip, click here:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=tWu5ggvRDSw