Saturday, February 28, 2009
Hip-Hop and Rap from the 'Hood to Malibu
Myer and Kleck's conclusion that Rap and Hip-Hop lyrics changed after indie labels were swallowed up by four dominant corporate media conglomerates is correct. However, their belief that Rap and Hip-Hop music suffers when lyrics featuring profanity, violence, and the glorification of criminal elements in the 'Hood are cleaned up for mass consumption is more complicated. Suggesting yet another example of the corporatization of culture, Myer and Kleck voice disappointment that Rap artists such as 50, Kanye, and Diddy are no longer Rapping obsenities and degrading women in their lyrics, but is this really the genre to be waging war against the evils of capitalism? What about the impact of Jessica Simpson and Paris Hilton on the music industry - the former on music in general and the latter on anyone with ears, including animals? While it is true that censorship and its effects on civil liberties in a democracy are of great concern, the implications for corporate Rap and Hip-Hop moguls and their massified lyrics, on the contrary, appear only positive. Consider the economic spinoffs from Diddy's new cologne "I Am King", or Rapper T.I.'s contribution to gun control awareness, having recently missed the BET Awards Show after being arrested on machine gun charges. Ludacris, between downing bottles of champagne and chasing it with cognac at the MTV Music Awards after-party, was quoted as saying "if it wasn't for white people, I wouldn't be selling 2-3 million records."
The commercial success of Diddy inspired a generation of Rap and Hip-Hop artists, many of who were fortunate enough to make the successful transition to corporate mogul as well. Myer and Kleck may also have included the fact that the industry has experienced an influx of new Rappers inspired by the corporate successes of Diddy, 50, and Kayne. The fans who abandoned the new Rap and Hip-Hop moguls for losing street cred only open up space for struggling artists desparate to follow Diddy's path and escape life in the 'Hood. In fact, guys like Diddy have inspired far more Rap artists to dawn shades, a backward ball cap, and some bling for a shot at a corporate record deal. The fact that less than 1% will ever make it still leaves an influx of Rap and Hip-Hop artists into the genre that may never see the inside of an EMI corporate office, but will nonetheless more than satisfy fans seeking songs banned from airplanes and elevators.
However, the issue is not only Rap and Hip-Hop lyrics, but also society as a whole. While it is unlikely that Myer and Kleck reside in the 'Hood, the opportunity for Rap and Hip-Hop artists to be successful any way possible can literally be a matter of life and death. Signing with a corporate music label and cleaning up their lyrics may be for many the only option to not only escape the ghetto, but also for some, a revolving door of crime and incarceration. Every Rapper in the 'Hood has already decided the path they would like to take if given the opportunity. Cleaning up a few nasty lyrics is also a gift to the parents, who can now blast their son's or daughter's music for friends and neighbors. However, the real motivation is collecting a corporate windfall and living the American Dream, not in the 'Hood but in Malibu.
The commercial success of Diddy inspired a generation of Rap and Hip-Hop artists, many of who were fortunate enough to make the successful transition to corporate mogul as well. Myer and Kleck may also have included the fact that the industry has experienced an influx of new Rappers inspired by the corporate successes of Diddy, 50, and Kayne. The fans who abandoned the new Rap and Hip-Hop moguls for losing street cred only open up space for struggling artists desparate to follow Diddy's path and escape life in the 'Hood. In fact, guys like Diddy have inspired far more Rap artists to dawn shades, a backward ball cap, and some bling for a shot at a corporate record deal. The fact that less than 1% will ever make it still leaves an influx of Rap and Hip-Hop artists into the genre that may never see the inside of an EMI corporate office, but will nonetheless more than satisfy fans seeking songs banned from airplanes and elevators.
However, the issue is not only Rap and Hip-Hop lyrics, but also society as a whole. While it is unlikely that Myer and Kleck reside in the 'Hood, the opportunity for Rap and Hip-Hop artists to be successful any way possible can literally be a matter of life and death. Signing with a corporate music label and cleaning up their lyrics may be for many the only option to not only escape the ghetto, but also for some, a revolving door of crime and incarceration. Every Rapper in the 'Hood has already decided the path they would like to take if given the opportunity. Cleaning up a few nasty lyrics is also a gift to the parents, who can now blast their son's or daughter's music for friends and neighbors. However, the real motivation is collecting a corporate windfall and living the American Dream, not in the 'Hood but in Malibu.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Chasing the Sun
The American media's insistence that Barack Obama is a clone of Abraham Lincoln will nonetheless inspire more Americans than any other politician since Roosevelt. In fact, Obama's first Address to Congress ended with a crush of autograph-seeking congressmen acting like kids at a Miley Cyrus concert. The most significant sound bite from the Obama speech, however, was his promise to hold Wall Street accountable for their actions. Captain "Sulley" Sullenberger, who many consider a biocybernetic reproduction for landing an airliner on the Hudson River, is even more incredible considering how many financial high flyers, having steamrolled the world economy into the ground, are falling out of the sky over Manhattan. Like pengiuns on an iceburg heading for Maui, millions of investors simply baked in the sun and enjoyed the ride while it lasted.
With the economy in free fall, take the recent example of the hedge fund manager who, after defrauding investors of hundreds of millions and revealed only by a collapsing stock market, set his plane on autopilot and parachuted out in a bid to fake his own death and continue the fraud in another country.
Citigroup received 45 billion in taxpayer bailout money and like out of control lottery winners, went out and bought a 50 million dollar corporate jet. Citi people say the money will not be coming out of government bailout money, but rather shareholder funds now accessible because of government bailout money. Not surprisingly, the CEOs of the Big Three automakers are complaining the loudest, having been forced to trade in their corporate jets for domestic cars.
Consider the CEO of Merrill Lynch, who was handing out billions in bonuses to employees, while at the same time telling the U.S. government that he required an additional 20 billion of federal bailout money to stay afloat. Four billion in bonuses were given out in 2007, and his compensation package alone was worth 83 million for the year. Nonetheless, he still billed the company 1.2 million for renovations to his office while the company was losing billions and laying off thousands of employees.
The CEO of Leyman Brothers, under investigation for fraud and insider trading, "sold" his 50 million dollar Palm Beach mansion to his wife for one dollar to keep it out of the hands of regulators.
In light of the successful landing on the Hudson River, the CEO of American Airlines recently announced that he will equip aircraft flying over water with enough life rafts for all 236 passengers on board. This is up from the 228 they were previously able to accomodate. The CEO decided that in the case of a water landing, too much time would be taken up arguing over which of the 8 extra passengers end up going down with the plane.
Whether historical amnesia or deja vu, ten years from now another stimulus package surpassing the 787 billion of '09 will be chasing another iceburg full of penguins, baking in the sun and heading for Maui. Obama will no longer be in office to rescue colonies but according to the American media, there's always Lincoln.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Paris' BFF Show
Mtv's fresh reality show where Paris will select from a group of good looking girls, her new BFF! It's fun to see a group of strangers are competing for Paris' adoration. The contestants worship the ground Paris walks on, clearly a true BFF friendship cannot develop from such a relationship. This reminds me of Prof. Kalmar's lecture on celebrity and their auras. I do not believe these girls genuinely want to be Paris' friend if she was not a celebrity (perhaps I'm biased but it seems so). Paris possesses an upper-class aura and lives a glamorous lifestyle and these girls are attracted to that.
Full episodes here:
http://www.mtv.com/ontv/dyn/parisbff/videos-full-episodes.jhtml
The Age of Biocybernetics
In his chapter on biocybernetics, Mitchel links his notion of biocybernetics to Benjamin's mechanical reproduction through his proposition that the former replaces the latter . This triggered some questions for me. In The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, Benjamins contends that mechanical reproductions lack the 'aura' possessed by the original. So, working with Mitchel's proposition, do biocybernetic reproductions really have an aura considering they only look like and sound like the 'original'? Does the reproduction become its own original given its unique posssession of both the characteristics of the orignial and improvements? Perhaps, this latter questions gives rise to the pause/hesitation/consternation in answer to Professor Kalmar's question about whether we would clone ourselves. And, what are the implications of genetic engineering on the politics of recognition and rights. I realize that these question aren't novel. But, if we have actually moved beyond imagining and fantasy and are in fact, as Mitchel claims, in the age of biocybernetics during which we are (re)producing life forms or ways of life/being, for me, these questions move from the philosophical and ethical realm to the realm of immediate empirical relevance.
Ty
Ty
Friday, February 06, 2009
Personal Identity, Clones, etc.
For anyone who found the question of whether you would let yourself be vaporized in order to have a superior copy of yourself come into being as continually perplexing and intriguing as I do, Daniel Dennett's "Where Am I?" succeeds at making it still more perplexing: http://www.newbanner.com/SecHumSCM/WhereAmI.html
"Couple Loves Cloned Best Friend"
The discussion in class over the past couple of days about clones has been somewhat mind boggling to me. Not because I don't get it...I do (especially coming from a science background) but the proposal that Prof Kalmar presents us with (would you get a clone if you had to die immediately after it was made) doesn't appeal to me...and I don't see how it can appeal to anyone else. What did we just spend all last semester discussing? The art of replication, the 'aura', the Other, the Real etc. Well if you have a clone, no matter how much it looks like you and represents you, it's not you. The aura about you as a person is gone. Maybe others around you wouldn't know the difference but you would - subconciously, consciously, whatever...you would know. This replication of you has destroyed the aura, intruded on the Real and created an Other. The scary part is, as was mentioned in class, is what if we are all clones. What if we are being manipulated by some Other...but now we have to get into the idea of life on other planets, in other galaxies etc and to me, THAT is more frightening then clones.
Anyways, during my ultramode of procrastination I came accross this article from CNN which was published today about a couple who spent over $150,000 bucks to have their DOG cloned! (yes, there are SIX figures there) The best part of the article is the name of the pooch. Lancelot was the name of their old dog...lancelot ENCORE is the name of the clone. Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. However, aside from the name, that's where this story ends in brilliance (and of course the science but that's unimportant right now). They say they got their beloved yellow lab cloned (they had his DNA extracted five years ago when they found out this could be a possibility...great, give the dog a death timeline). So when lancelot died, a San Fran biotech company cloned their dog's DNA (in Korea). "Lancy" as they "affectionately" call him is apparently everything like lancy sr. Well except for the fact that he is a CLONE! How can you look at something that you know is not the real thing and pretend like it is?! When I read this story this is what it elicits in my mind.... lancy=clone=fake=robot=aluminum dog with controls, wires, short circuits, computer parts etc.
I just don't get it, do you? thoughts?...check it out for yourself. (The $150,000 still blows my mind)
http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/02/06/cloned.puppy/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
Anyways, during my ultramode of procrastination I came accross this article from CNN which was published today about a couple who spent over $150,000 bucks to have their DOG cloned! (yes, there are SIX figures there) The best part of the article is the name of the pooch. Lancelot was the name of their old dog...lancelot ENCORE is the name of the clone. Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. However, aside from the name, that's where this story ends in brilliance (and of course the science but that's unimportant right now). They say they got their beloved yellow lab cloned (they had his DNA extracted five years ago when they found out this could be a possibility...great, give the dog a death timeline). So when lancelot died, a San Fran biotech company cloned their dog's DNA (in Korea). "Lancy" as they "affectionately" call him is apparently everything like lancy sr. Well except for the fact that he is a CLONE! How can you look at something that you know is not the real thing and pretend like it is?! When I read this story this is what it elicits in my mind.... lancy=clone=fake=robot=aluminum dog with controls, wires, short circuits, computer parts etc.
I just don't get it, do you? thoughts?...check it out for yourself. (The $150,000 still blows my mind)
http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/02/06/cloned.puppy/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
High and Low vs. North and South
The compass in Chinese is pronounced zhi nan zhen. It literally means "a needle that points south". Not a big deal, I suppose: any straight rod that points North at one end would naturally point South at the other.
But it got me thinking. We follow European tradition with map-drawing: on two dimentional paper, North is "up" by default and South "down. Today we still say to travel "up North" or "down South". So if we extend the High and Low viewpoint to the world map, North is high, and South is low. With respect to Europe, pretty much every single country is south of them, and more south means nearer to the Equator. It is a sad fact that even today, the darker your skin is, the more racial prejudice you encounter.
Of course, it's not an excuse for racism. Katherine Hepburn puts it best in the classic 1967 film Guess Who's Coming for Dinner?
But it got me thinking. We follow European tradition with map-drawing: on two dimentional paper, North is "up" by default and South "down. Today we still say to travel "up North" or "down South". So if we extend the High and Low viewpoint to the world map, North is high, and South is low. With respect to Europe, pretty much every single country is south of them, and more south means nearer to the Equator. It is a sad fact that even today, the darker your skin is, the more racial prejudice you encounter.Of course, it's not an excuse for racism. Katherine Hepburn puts it best in the classic 1967 film Guess Who's Coming for Dinner? "We told her it was wrong to believe that white people were somehow essentially superior to black people. Or the brown or the red or the yellow ones, for that matter. People who thought that way were wrong to think that way. Sometimes hateful, usually stupid, but always wrong."
Monday, February 02, 2009
Post-modernism and the Penis
All this talk about the erect penis! I just couldn't help myself but to respond. I kid, but in all seriousness, I do have some thoughts. I'd have to disagree partially to what the previous blog writer has said (no offense) in that the erect penis is always pornography and not art. I do agree with pushing the envelope and making ourselves question what we consider to be art or porn, but isn't the gray area simply to broad to distinguish? I took an Ethnomusicology class on my abroad program in NZ. The professor, the first day, made us distinguish between what we considered was music or noise. The answer we came to was, it's all relative. If there is anything I have learned about being an Anthropology major is that some things are true some of the time and more over, cultural relativity plays a significant role in matters such as these. What one considers to be noise could very well be music to another. This goes for art as well. As someone once said (forgive me for I forget who), "the only difference between erotica and porn is the lighting." In a society such as ours, that of liberal capitalist, the omniprescent phallus need not prove its importance.
I also want to extend this to the fact that an image of the erect penis is the exact opposite of post-modern art or post-modern advertising. This image is anything but all encompassing or absorbing leaving no room for analysis or critique. It is a very explicit image that signifies anything but passivity- it is de facto active. There are no questions about what an erect penis means or why one is viewing it in such a way. It is obvious, harsh, anything but subtle. Regardless of one views of the erect penis as art or porn one cannot deny what it is that is being bought/sold, communicated/advertised, etc. Maybe this is also a reason as to why this kind of image is simply not applicable to the post-modern era.
I also want to extend this to the fact that an image of the erect penis is the exact opposite of post-modern art or post-modern advertising. This image is anything but all encompassing or absorbing leaving no room for analysis or critique. It is a very explicit image that signifies anything but passivity- it is de facto active. There are no questions about what an erect penis means or why one is viewing it in such a way. It is obvious, harsh, anything but subtle. Regardless of one views of the erect penis as art or porn one cannot deny what it is that is being bought/sold, communicated/advertised, etc. Maybe this is also a reason as to why this kind of image is simply not applicable to the post-modern era.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Offensive Images and Offensive Art.
I feel this post would have been better placed directly following the lecture on offensive images as it relates directly to the lecture and a thought provoked by it. Alas, time is rarely on my side it seems. So here it is now...When it comes to what we find most offensive (the penis) I think that Prof. Kalmar is probably quite close to the truth. The truth it seems rests in mass culture as was discussed. The Erect penis is almost completely absent, except for it seems in art. And this brings me to my thoughts from class. I felt that though I agree in theory that the penis is offensive in popular culture the representation of this in class was lacking. I undertstand why showing true pornography is perhaps uncomfortable for some, but I think when the alternative is works of "art" the impact of said offensive phallocentric object is lost on the audience.
Looking at Mapplethorpe's Penis/Gun piece I see only a work of art, especially because I have been told it is a work of art. I feel that as soon as we are told something is art it is normalized and more readily processed by our brains. The offensiveness of the erect penis and gun is washed away and we are left simply with "artistic" objects. One might argue that to some the image of the penis is "gross" or "repulsive" but I'm not so sure these characterizations necessarily coincide with "offensive".. a different gut reaction is produced. Repulsion can create a need to turn away because of fear though I think this is ultimately a temporary or a gut insitinct. I use this piece by H.R Giger (the famed artist responsible for the "alien" of hollywood notoriety) to illustrate that point (refer to image at the top). I have a feeling though this point may raise some arguments. "Offensive" images remain offensive in my thinking, particularly because offensive sexual images remind us of our own baser instincts that have no place in civilized society. But again the art object is different! It implies a different way of SEEING.
One needs only to look at the success of Nuit Blanche in Toronto to see the effect of calling something "art" and resituating its status. Duchamp knew this, Andy Warhol knew this too. I have seen this in my own personal experience as an artist/musician... the "band" robocopp (my "band") performs horrendous shows or performances where the subtle line between what is offensive or good and bad abject and horrible is tested all the while making use of a whole range of popular culture items. This is achieved both visually and sonically through gore and violence and horrible sounding music. But fundamentally at the end of a performance no matter how bad we've been we receive applause and kudos for performing such seemingly groundbreaking of an artistic endeavor.
So I'm suggesting here that to get a real appreciation for the shocking effect of the Penis Erect one needs to witness it as pornography, because pornography cannot seem to create itself as art, at least not without some undesired ironic effect. However I'd argue that in a hypothetical sitiuation an artist could remove pornography from its context through pastiche, as Duchamp removed the urinal, and make it art. Haven't seen this yet but I expect at some point it will happen, if it hasn't already.
A few more thoughts on taboo…
I am still a bit perplexed as to our understanding of why the penis is so taboo in western societies, why it is not to be represented. To be fair, Professor Kalmar makes the argument that it is not seen in soft porn, and although my repertoire of viewed soft porn is somewhat limited (I swear), I'm pretty sure that soft porn does not show outright images of vaginas or anuses, either. It was that thought led me to another: in a way, the penis is a organ that crosses the line between external and internal – it is just there, out in the open. We don't need a 'close up' to see it as we would with the analogous female organs.
Is this transgression part of the root of the penis taboo? I am taking a structuralist perpective here, one that follows a line of argument by Edmund Leach (expanding on a hypothesis by Mary Douglas). Leach notes than humans not only create classificatory systems involving, at the root, binary oppositions, but that we also avoid or taboo those things that fall on the boundaries between categories or names. In essence, we taboo those things that remain ambiguous and, I suppose, threaten the efficacy of our symbolic order.
Leach illustrates his point by noting Western taboos of meat consumption – that we don’t eat animals that cross various boundaries (reptiles and amphibians: land-sea, most birds that also swim: land-air-sea etc). This takes me to my point: the penis, in western culture, transgresses all kinds of common binary oppositions; it simultanously attracts and repels, elicits fear and fascination. I don’t disagree with the interpretation provided in class, that part of the erotic attraction/repulsion derives from the projections of upper class notions upon the lower body and its connection to the lower class, but I wonder if thinking in terms of the key oppositions embedded in the penis as sign might provide a complemetary understanding: it not only transgresses the external/internal, but life/death (gives life/takes life), benevolant/malevolent, nature/agency, drive/desire, and so on.
This view of taboo might also provide an understanding of why other items, specifically excrement, urine, mentrual blood, and saliva, are tabooed: they cross that line between belonging to the self/not the self. Perhaps the penis also can fit in the gradient between the self/not self category, as, in a way, it tends to 'have a mind of its own'.
Alright, that's enough penis talk for me today. Any thoughts?
