AD603 Critical Theory

The Marco Polo Syndrome

While it is would be difficult to dispute the Phenomena of Euro-centrism, or perhaps more accurately in the realm of the art world Manhattan-centrism, it seems to me this academic observation is trumped by the related effects of globalization and that trends of consumption effect aesthetics at every level.  Aesthetic awareness and self-awareness becomes that of the dominant western perspective, which all else is discussed and considered relative to. It seems to me that the aesthetics of the West have become dominant through global consumption without necessarily considering deeper or historic effects of euro-centrism.

Regarding All-Owning Spectatorship

Trinh T. Minh-Ha’s writing on the All-Owning Spectatorship seems to elaborate (expound, lucubrate) on the concept of context and relative meaning along with the altered perceptions that result from relative positions of power. 

Mubridge Photo Study

See link regarding Muybridge and his “scientific” photo studies.

http://www.kingston.gov.uk/em1053.pdf

Okay, this week, in particular, summarizing and keeping this short could oh so easily be a problem, so I am not going to go over every point of interest in the entirety of the readings.

My first reaction to the whole of Walter Benjamin’s “The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility, and Other Writings on Media” is in regards to his way of declaring a concept and coming to a point within it. I felt it started fairly clear, describing the emergence of different means of reproducibility and those means that took over after the next (lithography, photo, film, sound film) and I was with him in stating the consideration of the effects that art reproduction and film (as the latest of the progression of technological reproduction) have on traditional art forms is important to explore.

From here on out, for me, his conclusions upon the concepts he begins to draw are often unclear and portions of the essay seem to be more of a stream of thoughts that don’t conclude clearly. It’s not so much that he contradicts himself as I am always waiting for the final punch line, so to speak.

He discusses that reproduction of art work meeting the audience half way, so it is accessible to a multitude of people that would otherwise not be able to interact with the art at all, which as a printmaker, has always been a large concern of mine. But he also states that the authority of the an art work and the “weight it derives from tradition” is put in peril by reproduction; which I read as a negative in his writing. I grasp that the original, in it’s place of originated intent and the “reality” of its media is only most “true” when observed in person… but the meeting “the recipient halfway” wins out for me in the sense that it can not be experienced in any means at all for a vast majority in it’s original form. This of course brings up questions of the artists original intent of it’s viewing and the diminishing of the quality of a piece when shifted in scale or color. To these questions I can’t give a blanketed good or bad to the whole idea of reproduction, and perhaps that is a bit of why Benjamin doesn’t seem to in the writing either (well at least, as I read it).

As a film lover (as it was the first “art form” to be introduced to me early on and often) I was more than a bit… let’s say surprised by some of the things Benjamin had to say about the act of creating a film and the role the actor plays in this art form. Such statements as “The Film is… the artwork most capable of improvement. And this capability is linked to it’s radical renunciation of eternal values.” gave me a whole lot to chew on. It’s true that once an ancient Greek sculpture was created, it didn’t necessarily lend well to adjustment or improvement, as a film can; but I suppose I always thought the fact that the Greeks continued to create more and more sculpture working further toward bettering their ability to depict their “eternal values” was in itself a form of improvement (even if not so changeable in one piece, there where shifts from one piece to the next). So, I didn’t find his example of contrast between film and Greek sculpture to be as clear as it was to him.

Introducing the idea of the actor as a parallel to the sportsman in that their performances were “test performances” was quite an interesting concept that I most certainly never came close to considering before. He lays out the idea that the actor is fighting to retain his humanity in front of the technological apparatus and the audience is there to observe his struggle. I am split in regards to considering this due to having acted (if you can call it that) in a few college films, as well as on stage. I can relate to the feeling of struggle with each take in front of a camera, in contrast to the absorption of what he calls the “aura” as one assumes a role for an entire tale from beginning to end in front of an audience (no chance for improvement until the next performance). But for me the struggle, in front of the camera, was more so to harness being in that “aura” on demand, off and on and yet returning to myself between those takes; which I found far more jarring than leaving the stage at end of a act to return later and re-assume the “aura” of the character. I understand what he is driving at, but I still want to buck against the idea that the film actor is less of an artist or part of creating an art, because the struggles inherent in the creation of a film are different from that of stage.

Well this has gone on too long and I didn’t even get into the whole concept that the audience is a “quasi-expert”, maybe we will talk about that in class and I can chime in then. The clip I want to add today is of a group of people attempting to orchestrate a film scene (unfortunately the clip has very little information of who was making it or what the film even is, so I have no real note of authorship other than the youtube user who posted it, Unclechikenguy). This clearly isn’t a major studio production, but I think one can only imagine how many more voices and “experts” would chime in from one scene to the next if it was. This relates to another parallel Benjamin draws between sports and film: “the intervention in a performance by a body of experts”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAsjE1mW3-w

Adorno’s “Aesthetic Theory: On The Relation Between Art and Society” and “Culture Industry Reconsidered” ask courageous, much avoided questions in regards to high art and it’s “enemy,” low art. We consider the purpose for creating art in the first place and what our hopes are for the work we produce. Then, we consider how culture industry, or that which is a poor substitute for art, pollutes the mind and destroys all hopes for intellectual development. Although they shed light on the corrosive forces of cultural industry, these articles don’t challenge artists to be more accountable for their products in their relationship to the consumer. Adorno, in short, does not bestow enough responsibility on the masses but condemns the industry, which sees a demand for “goods” and is simply supplying them in exchange for other “goods”. In response, the masses can and should exercise discernment when confronted with cultural industry.

He begins by encouraging the idea of art works having a life sui generis, that is, of its own. Works have an inner constitution, a soul—this is why they can exist on their own and produce infinite amounts of meaning. The life sui generis is evident in the way works of art can communicate what we, humans, simply cannot. A turn off to some, the idea that art works can “supposedly” elevate and do a bunch of other glorious things is difficult to understand because those glorious things are never tangible, verifiable, observational or empirical, as Adorno would say. Adorno offers this: “art seeks blissfully or unhappily, to seclude itself from the world.” The irony of art (and the reason why it is so incredibly beneficial to humans) is that it must remove itself from the realms of the rational and empirical, the real, to passionately dive into the deliciously inexplicable realm of unseen truth. It teaches us how to get the most out of existing in the world: we must stand back sometimes but also jump into the uncomfortable. In the end, we must have something to say. Art is subjective and objective at the same time.

Adorno brings up teleology, the idea that everything that exists, including humans and art, moves unconsciously toward an end at which self-actualization occurs. He explains that productive forces of labor and art have the same teleology, that is, they both move toward self-realization—a greater good. However, he continues in “Cultural Industry Reconsidered”, cultural industry acts as hindrance to that movement because it limits intellectual development instead of elevating it.

Cultural industry, what I understood to be the industry that responds to culture by accommodating its needs but not necessarily considering ultimate, teleological, goods, is bad, according to Adorno. It is bad because it brings up issues of efficacy, calculation and technique—all which, according to Adorno, dismiss all that is “good” about high art.  Adorno describes at great length the pernicious, abominable forces of  “pocket novels, films off the rack, family television shows, horoscopes,” etc.

While I agree that these exist and they do hinder our progress as a human race, Adorno’s comments are too all-encompassing and declarative.  At one point he announces that conformity, which he’s assumed applies to everyone, “replaces consciousness.” This is a bold statement considering that consciousness indicates awareness which is the basis for existence.  He is correct in pointing out the damaging effects that cultural industry has on art and humans but he does not mention our intellectual accountabilities. We have the ability, neigh,  responsibility, to discern.

We can choose what to absorb and what to reject. Adorno does not push for that enough. We are not as “condemned,” as Adorno describes because we occasionally watch a B movie, or momentarily dance to stupid music, or cease to live up to our intellectual standards for 15 minutes. On the other hand, we do have a responsibility to use our education to its full potential and exercise discernment and selection. And, yes, we should do it a lot more often lest “superman that hoe” becomes an acceptable idea and Soulja Boy’s dance replaces a potentially rich heritage and culture.

In case you are not familiar with Soulja Boy and his dance I have posted a video. Yes, Soulja Boy is actually a legitimate musical artist in his genre. More importantly, I thought it would be interesting for you to see how Urban Dictionary describes the phrase “superman dat hoe.” Urban Dictionary is an online, collaborative dictionary that defines slang terms that are not found in actual dictionaries. If anything, the information posted on this website reflects the intellectual activity of a great number of both educated and uneducated persons. Most 8 year olds that live in downtown Lafayette are familiar with this phrase and dance and it is frequently incorporated into their daily routines. By the way, this particular genre, is by no means the only genre that is guilty.

Crank That by Soulja Boy

Urban Dictionary