Jameson and Groening's Lisa

Frederic Jameson would say without a doubt that this image reflects postmodern-ism. Let's discuss for a few moments why he would say this.

1. Postmodernism, by definition, is as follows:

“Of or relating to art, architecture, or literature that reacts against earlier modernist principles, as by reintroducing traditional or classical elements of style or by carrying modernist styles or practices to extremes.”

2. Postmodernist works, according to Jameson's own works, are concerned only with meaning on the surface; they are characterized by a flatness or lack of depth (he calls this "depthlessness"). This is not to say they are devoid of meaning but, rather, that the meaning is more impersonal.

2a. Jameson would likely argue that the artist behind the image of our discussion did not experience an emotional connection to his work anywhere close to the significance of da Vinci's connection with the Mona Lisa.

2b. And in terms of aesthetics specifically, the image is incredibly simple in comparison to the painting which it clearly references. It lacks the sort of aesthetic depth that often characterizes works of the modernist or earlier periods.

3. With Postmodernism we see a tendency to recycle the past, to use and reuse. Jameson says that pastiche––or mixture of historical elements––eclipses parody. “Pastiche is, like parody, the imitation of a particular or unique style, the wearing of a stylistic mask, speech in a dead language: but it is a neutral practice of such mimicry, without parody’s ulterior motive, without the satirical impulse, without laughter, without that still latent feeling that there exists something normal compared with which what is being imitated is rather comic.”

3a. Though it can certainly be argued that this image in particular is a sort of parody, it must be considered that it only has meaning because it uses pastiche. Standing alone, without clear references to the Mona Lisa and The Simpsons––or really Matt Groening's distinct cartooning style––this image lacks the emotion that we tie so closely with original works. Jameson describes this as "the waning of an affect."

5. Finally, we must consider Jameson's argument that with the passing of time, and with the progression of postmodernity, we see a rapidly increasing unavailability of originality in art. Soon it will be difficult, if even still possible, to create something that has not been already created. This is not to say the the image of our discussion was created for a lack of available originality, but that the unoriginality classifies it as postmodernist.

5a. But there is a fine line between creating work that has already been created and creating work that is original but inspired. In Jameson's mind, does inspiration characterize postmodernist works? And where is that line drawn?

5aa. And what would Jameson say about the difference between aesthetic and literary originality in film? Is a completely original film postmodernist because it uses one of the seven (or so) possible plots that exist in film? I'd like to get into this in the future.

-bag

sphere sphere

The public sphere is essentially a place where members of a society can convene and freely express opinions of any sort. As Habermas defines it, "By 'public sphere' we mean first of all a realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed. Access is guaranteed to all citizens. A portion of the public sphere comes into being in every conversation in which private individuals assemble for form a public body" (49). The footnote however states, "Habermas' concept of the public sphere is not to be equated with that of 'the public,' i.e. of the individuals who assemble. His concept is directed instead at the institution, which to be sure only assumes concrete form through the participation of the people. It cannot, however, be characterized simply as a crowd" (49).

The private sphere is the complement to the public sphere. It is the area of life in which a member of a society is free from the authority of institutions such as the government. It can be home or family life, for example.

Blog discussions, like the one at http://www.dailykos.com for example, are particularly interesting in this case. I would argue that the Daily Kos blog discussions do constitute public sphere, but that the nature of an internet blog changes the context of Habmermas' words. To elaborate:

The Daily Kos blog is a good example of public sphere. I'm not sure how writers are selected or permitted to post articles but it seems that the featured articles are written by members of site. The "Midday Open Thread" features bullet point summaries of various articles; clicking on one of the links brings you to the full article, usually hosted on another site. The articles themselves are not biased, but strictly factual. However, this sort of site is a good example of public sphere because anyone who signs up to be a member of the site can post comments on the thread of any article, and these can be totally opinionated. What is interesting about internet based discussion, though, is that any post can be written from within a particular author's private sphere, perhaps from the safe comfort of his or her own bedroom. In this sense the Daily Kos blog represents both the public and private sphere is certain ways. But, as is the case with any blog that claims to be factual, posting an article can mean that the author is subject to a certain set of rules or guidelines, and is therefore under the rule of an institution.

blog #4 - soprano et cetera

"...there are those who think that the image is an extremely rudimentary system in comparison with language and those who think that signification cannot exhaust the image's ineffable richness. Now even––and above all if––the image is in a certain manner the limit of meaning, it permits the consideration of a veritable ontology of the process of signification" (269).

Some may believe that images do not universally contain meaning, that relentless search of meaning can subvert the very essence of the image. Others argue, however, that images can contain meaning on the most basic level, and that the exploration of meaning cannot undermine the image itself.

"It can thus be seen that in the total system of the image the structural functions are polarized: on the one hand there is a sort of paradigmatic condensation at the level of the connotators (that is, broadly speaking, of the symbols), which are strong signs, scattered, 'reified'; on the other a syntagmatic 'flow' at the level of the denotation..." (283).

In other words, any element within the image can––and probably does––have two distinct simultaneous functions: that of its denotation and that of its connotation.

"At all events, the denoted image, to the extent to which it does not imply any code (the case with the advertising photograph), plays a special role in the general structure of the iconic message which we can begin to define: the denoted image naturalizes the symbolic message, it innocents the semantic artifice of connotation, which is extremely dense, especially in advertising" (279).

The denotative message not only is crucial in understanding the connotative message, but it serves to simplify and clarify the dense language and symbology that are inevitably present within any image.

~

With regard to the poster for The Sopranos specifically, I could argue that many––if not all––of the elements within the image support these claims. Let's take, for example, the fact that the image is black and white. Yes, this could be a stylistic choice on the part of the artist. But all we know on the denotative level is that it is black and white. We cannot infer as to the meaning behind it. This is where the connotation comes into play. We could argue, perhaps, that the aesthetic values of black and white directly reflect two sides of an inner conflict within our protagonist. We could support this with the inference that his line of eyesight is suggestive of doubt and suspicion. We could certainly refer to surroundings. The statue of liberty stands on the distant horizon behind Tony Soprano. What does liberty, or free will, mean in the world of our protagonist? We could go further and look at his clothing. He's wearing a dark suit and overcoat. The immediate image of a funeral in the rain comes to mind.

The opportunities for argument here are endless. Any element can be discussed in terms of its denotative message and its connotative message. But sometimes the symbology is incredibly dense; this is where we must step back and look at the image objectively, for its denotative message can be extremely useful in understanding its connotative message. If I were to explore this image further, I would next analyze the juxtaposition of the bright red text, "Made in America," with the rest of the black and white image.

Blog3_Blair Witch again_10/13

Two Quotes from The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction:

“...for the first time – and this is the effect of the film – man has to operate with his whole living person, yet forgoing its aura. For aura is tied to his presence; there can be no replica of it. The aura which, on the stage, emanates from Macbeth, cannot be separated for the spectators from that of the actor. However, the singularity of the shot in the studio is that the camera is substituted for the public. Consequently, the aura that envelops the actor vanishes, and with it the aura of the figure he portrays.”

“Magician and surgeon compare to painter and cameraman. The painter maintains in his work a natural distance from reality, the cameraman penetrates deeply into its web. There is a tremendous difference between the pictures they obtain. That of the painter is a total one, that of the cameraman consists of multiple fragments which are assembled under a new law. Thus, for contemporary man the representation of reality by the film is incomparably more significant than that of the painter, since it offers, precisely because of the thoroughgoing permeation of reality with mechanical equipment, an aspect of reality which is free of all equipment. And that is what one is entitled to ask from a work of art.”

-----

I think that these statements, when compared, have an entirely different relationship today than they would, say, seventy years ago (or earlier for that matter). The first quote seems to directly compare a unique, live experience--like theatre--with something duplicated and distributed--like film. The second quote, however, seems to compare visual art (actual tangible works) of two types: original and duplicated. I agree that there is a significant difference between owning an original work by Picasso and a DVD copy of Citizen Kane; but it must be taken into account that there is a fundamental difference in these two types of art. Today, at least, we recognize that many of the original works that we call valuable, are so because only one (or few) exists. Films are usually produced with the intent of being distributed, and so their value must be determined by some other factor(s).

In consideration of The Blair Witch Project, I think that while both quotes are pertinent, the second seems to have been written with the film in mind. From the first moments of the film we, as the audience, are told to believe that the footage was 'found' and therefore real. "Thus, for contemporary man the representation of reality by the film is incomparably more significant than that of the painter, since it offers, precisely because of the thoroughgoing permeation of reality with mechanical equipment, an aspect of reality which is free of all equipment." Essentially, the film was created with the intent of seeming 'real.' The footage was shot to look candid and honest. The story structure was written to seem spontaneous and unpredictable. The filmmakers wanted us to believe that the film was real. Had I been introduced to the film with no information at all (and told that it was truly 'real' footage), I'm sure that I would have been convinced. The statement at the beginning, though clearly false, does establish a sort of credibility that I believe was necessary in the film's success.

This discussion brings another example to mind:

The 1996 film by Joel and Ethan Coen, Fargo opens with a similar statement:

"THIS IS A TRUE STORY. The events depicted in this film took place in Minnesota in 1987. At the request of the survivors, the names have been changed. Out of respect for the dead, the rest has been told exactly as it occurred."

Ironically, the story is not based on true events. In an interview (included with the DVD), the Coen brothers admitted that the story was not based on facts. They did state, however, that many of the events depicted in the film were taken from other real cases, and that, therefore, they weren't entirely wrong in presenting the facts as truth. Joel Coen once said, "If an audience believes that something's based on a real event, it gives you permission to do things they might not otherwise accept."

I think The Blair Witch Project did just this.

Oct.4.2009: Realism

In order to compare Tokyo Story and a classical Hollywood film on the basis of realism, one must first define realism. This is difficult because the term realism can mean many things. It can refer, for example, to the aesthetic representation of a person, place, or time; or to the accuracy of the story. If the film is based on real events, how truthfully are they represented? If the film is fictional, do the events of the story represent things that can happen in real life? The factors involved in defining a term like realism, under these circumstances, are endless.

For the purpose of exploring the various definitions of realism, I will compare and contrast Tokyo Story with a Hollywood film that is entirely different, conceptually and aesthetically--let's use The Blair Witch Project--and I will discuss how realism should be defined differently for each film.

Tokyo Story follows two elderly parents during their trip to Tokyo to visit their children and the one granddaughter who still lives with them. The film is very simply as the director, Yasujiro Ozu, uses basic story-telling techniques to represent the calm and slowly paced lifestyle of his characters. The film is realistic in this sense; the characters are calm, collected, patient, practiced, precise in their actions. The subject matter is realistic. The story and the characters involved accurately represent a traditional Japanese lifestyle. They are believable, they are real.

The Blair Witch Project follows a group of documentary filmmakers investigating the legend of a local witch. They become lost, hunted by the witch, and eventually disappear. The story is told through their footage that was recovered some time later. In terms of subject matter, this film is unrealistic. It is clearly fictional, and as far as we know, witches don't exist. Regardless, the film still creates a sense of realism. And this is done so through aesthetics, camera work, etc. We, as the audience, accept that it isn't real, yet we find that it is an accurate representation of what it might be like to encounter inexplicable evil. In this sense, the film is realistic. If it were introduced to me as 'real' footage, rather than a Hollywood film, I would have had no trouble accepting it as truth.

Each film creates realism in a different way. While Tokyo Story does so through realistic characters and subject matter, The Blair Witch Project does so through creative (and aesthetically technical) storytelling. They are both realistic, but it must be taken into account that they each are defined by a separate type of realism.

BAG

Sept.28.2009: FA v. PL

The first fundamental difference that I noticed between Film Art and Practices of Looking was in their definitions of the term "meaning."

In Film Art, "meaning" is defined as an integral part of the overall system of the film. "... it may be useful to distinguish meanings as components within the film from the viewer's analysis of meanings, an activity usually called interpretation. This distinction will let us situate meaning within the overall system of an entire film." (34) It is important, in other words, to consider that particular meanings (or meaningful moments in a film) interact with other elements of the entire system to create a collection of important moments, rather than one singular meaning.

In Practices of Looking, "meaning" is looked at differently. It is defined by the social implications and reactions of the work of art and is not defined in the work itself. "Images generate meanings, yet the meanings of a work of art, a photograph, or a media do not, strictly speaking, lie in the work itself... Rather, meanings are produced through the complex negotiations that make up the social process and practices through which we produce and interpret images." (49) It is crucial to understand that meaning is not a part of the system of a work of art, but rather that it is generated through the interpretation of the audience.

In looking at the given photograph, the authors of each of these books would likely disagree on a fundamental level.

While both would presumably agree that the image has meaning, they might disagree on the origin and implications of its meaning. Film Art might argue that elements of the photograph (that being each of the subjects, the aesthetic values, etc.) are a collection of individually important parts that have relationships in the larger meaning of the work. Practices of Looking, on the other hand, might argue that the meaning of the photograph is largely the result of its relationship to society and the interpretations of it made by members of society.

BAG