Daddy? Dorfman parent and child relationship... Que?

Through Disney we teach our kids the correct morals that as a society we believe are necessary to succeed or live. Is Dorfman agreeing with what Mickey Mouse stands for? Cause I think Dorfman can see positives, if Mickey can show his good qualities to kids through Disney. "Disney thus establishes a moral background which draws the child down the prper ethical and aesthetic path" (111). Is this something Dorman agress with, because if Disney can teach kids to being caring, thoughtful, and kind, then maybe it is not a bad thing to a certain point. Next Dorman says, "we children and grownups will have to get used to reading about our own society, which, to judge from the way it is painted by the writers and panegyrists of our age, is rough, bitter, cruel and hateful" (111). Is this sarcasm? I am confused that if Dorfman is against Disney because of quotes like this one above. I think that showing children life characteristics through animals is not the worst thing but the image that Disney paints that makes everything look happy is probably negative.

I have also tried to grasp this idea of the future is the child, the present is the father, which in turn, transmits the past. "The apparent independence which the father benevolently bestows upon this little territory of his creation, is the very means of assuring his supremacy" (113). Is Dorfman kind of getting at the fact that parents try to live through their children by implanting their ideas and views on the child. The first idea that comes to mind for me is how a father treats his son when it comes to sports. Playing sports my whole life I have come to cross paths with kids who have dads that have an affect over their kids even at the age of 21 years old in sports. I constantly hear some of my teammates make statements, "My dad is going to be pissed that I didn't get a hit" or "My dad is gonna yell at me when I get home for not doing well." This is the only real experience I can articulate of seeing in my own eyes that parents implant ideas into the child. I am trying to relate this to how parents stress juvenile literature or certain ideas growing up.

"Readers find themselves caught between their desire and their reality, and in their attempt to escape to a purer realm, they only travel further back into their own traumas" (113).

"The father must be absent, and without direct jurisdiction, just as the child is without direct obligations" (114).

Looking at my life, my parents stressed certain views on to me but left it to me to make my own ideas about them. My father was never one of those parents I mentioned above, and they never made me do something I didn't want to do. Sometimes they would because they knew I would like it. For example, riding a roller coaster or trying food. But literature and Disney has affected every young persons life to a certain point. "Juvenile literature is a father surrogate" (114).

Brooke Bumgarner, Žižek

Žižek begins his explanation with a simple comparison of everyday, well-known products that have been robbed of their malignant properties, such as beer without alcohol, what we commonly know as nonalcoholic beer. He further explains how “Virtual Reality simply generalizes this procedure of offering a product deprived of its substance: it provides reality itself deprived of its substance, of the hard resistant kernel of the Real…” (Žižek 2002, 231) which is a slight problem. The significance of this is that in essence, we understand virtual reality as reality, which it is not truly. This goes back to the big question, what is real? Žižek explains that “we begin to experience ‘real reality’ itself as a virtual entity”.

Žižek puts this notion of Virtual Reality into perspective by relating it to the World Trade Center (WTC) collapse. Media, specifically television and cinema, has been framed so that when watching a dramatic scene of action or terror, the audience’s reaction is that much deeper because the impending event feels “real”. When comparing the images we saw of the WTC, we realize it wasn’t that far off from shots we have seen before. Our obsession over the “real” in the twentieth-century was the perfect avenue for terrorists to manipulate. Žižek reasons that “the ‘terrorists’ themselves did not do it primarily to provoke real material damage, but for the spectacular effect of it” (Žižek 2002, 231). Indeed the terrorists did not fly the airplanes into the WTC to inflict actual physical damage on the buildings themselves, but rather, to elicit a response, create commotion and send a message.

What is important to understand is that Hollywood not only “stages a semblance of real life deprived of the weight and inertia of materiality… [But] Again, the ultimate truth of the capitalist utilitarian despiritualized universe is the dematerialization of ‘real life’ itself, its reversal into a spectral show” (Žižek 2002, 233). The problem doesn’t just lie in the way Hollywood stages or proposes the “real life” of America deprived of the true seriousness and weight of what it resembles, but simply, the reversal of what “real life” looks like, the misrepresentation of “real life” material.

Considering this notion of the ‘desert of the real’ we come to understand that the media images reflecting the WTC are in a sense a product or identifier with the many alarming and breathtaking scenes we have seen in many dramatic mediated scenes. It is then that we must assess the ideologies and fantasies the media has delivered us, and that which we have willingly consumed. While we panicked and were in shock, exclaiming that the unimaginable had happened, or that the impossible had occurred, we failed to realize one significant issue; “The unthinkable which happened was the object of fantasy, so that, in a way, America got what it fantasized about, and that was the biggest surprise” (Žižek 2002, 233).

Hollywood had been the proprietor of films and scenes of massive terrorist attacks and catastrophic events, while the news media was consistently filled with talk and threat of terrorism and potential attacks. On one hand, a mediated “reality” of fear was propagated as if it were not truly possible, thus, enjoyment was cultivated as citizens continued to view such scenes and encouraged it’s reproduction through consumerist actions. On the other, what was deemed as “real” became questionable and unknown, without anyone even noticing.

In the end, with no true “reality” Hollywood was asked to help address the collapse of the WTC and present it to the public. White house advisors and Hollywood executives aimed to present a collaborative war effort in the “’war on terrorism’ by getting the right ideological message across not only to Americans, but also to the Hollywood public around the globe—the ultimate empirical proof that Hollywood does in fact function as an ‘ideological state apparatus’” (Žižek 2002, 234). Once more, a concerning conclusion as the ideologies that Hollywood had perpetuated resulted in, not only ignorance but also the question of ‘what is reality?’ and how we are to act without stability of that which is real.

Žižek’s theory is best wrapped up in understanding that “it was before the WTC collapse that we lived in our reality, perceiving Third World horrors as something which was not actually part of our social reality, as something which existed (for us) as a spectral apparition on the (TV) screen – and what happened on September 11 was that this fantasmatic screen apparition entered our reality. It is not that the reality entered our image: the image entered our reality” (Žižek 2002, 234).

Habermas Reflection 9/28

Habermas says, "the projection of modernity has not yet been fulfilled." I understand that he is arguing that we are not yet in the post-modern era due to his opinion that we are still in the modern era. However, if modernity is about innovation and newness, I think that are past that point. It feels as if the world has already done everything that is viewed as 'new' or creative. Everything around us is just a spin-off of something that has been previously done. And if everyone is striving to be original, then it gets to the point where there IS no such thing as originality.

While reflecting on this, I couldn't help but think about the iPhone. With the iPhone 6 just being released there is copious amounts of media making a huge deal about the newness of this phone. What the heck is so new and great about it? Its essentially the same look and basically has the same functions. The only thing that's changing is the fact that it keeps getting longer and longer every time they release a new model.

And how much longer can they go before they can no longer alter the appearance by changing the dimensions? 

There is nothing unique or creative or new about this phone. It's the same phone that has the same functions as other phones. It's popularity is merely based off of a name brand. 

Habermas says that "post modernity definitely presents itself as anti modernity" (98). I do not fully agree with this assertion, being that it suggests that we are reverting backwards, but I will assert that post-modernity has been reflective of a universal stand-still.

Kayla Salyer, Habermas 9/28

"Modernist culture has come to penetrate the values of everyday life; the life-world is infected by modernism. Because of the forces of modernism, the principle of unlimited self realization, the demand for authentic self-experience and the subjectivity of hyperstimulated sensitivity have come to be dominant"(Habermas 98). At the end of class Dr. Cummings mentioned the idea of over-stimulation in our culture. It was definitely in passing, but it was one of the very few things I might be able to go into. The quote is a lot, but I want to try to break it up to see if I can have a better understanding of what is going on in the piece.
Beginning with the first sentence, the word 'infected' sticks out to me. The idea that modernism is not only present, but actually imbedded, or that it has taken over our world. The idea placed before this shows that it has reached beyond the tangible; our values. This first sentence definitely implies a negative towards modernism. It is showing that it has latched on like a bug, and taken over.
Moving on to the next section, stuff begins to get real. We can focus on the lack of authenticity which causes the need for our overstimulation. This actually makes sense to me. The fact that there is nothing original, or genuine, makes it necessary for us to search for more. People want to be original, we want to find ourselves in a world where we contribute in our own ways, where we can experie
nce something that is only for us. Because everything is copied and reproduced, we search for something so out of the ordinary that, even though it is a reproduced copy, it gives us a sense of 'out of the ordinary'. For example, movies go to extreme lengths to show ridiculous gore, over the top simulations, or terrifying images. These may be able to give us a sense of something that is original.
Although Habermas is not exactly easy, I am trying to simply take apart this section to get an idea. So, I hope this at least touches on some of his ideas.

Ivan - Response to "LYOTARD. Cheaaa" (by DJ SuSpence)

A slight response to a post by DJ SuSpence. (More of a complete tangent than a response)

I agree that going against the norm and against what is considered popular today is a risky gamble for artists who depend on their music for financial stability. In recent years, we have had an increase of people who have begun to promote music that is not mainstream simply because it is not mainstream. This counterculture mentality leads to sloppy music and art polluting what is truly good art. And unfortunately, the push for uniqueness leads once again to conformity. Because after all, when everything is unique, nothing is.

To add on to the "Totalizing Metanarrative" and our current situation. I believe a similar thing has happened to our current society now as it has happened to some of our art. Our drive to become more pluralistic is leading to everything being too pluralistic. There is a balance that needs to be struck in order give certain categories or titles a sense of importance, and with more people push to give off the illusion of being individual thinkers, there is an over saturation of "uniqueness." It is almost impossible now to have a truly unique thought and that shouldn't deter people from wanting to pursue that thought. It seems as though now if you have a similar idea as someone else you feel pressured to abandon that idea and keep searching.

Cooperation and teamwork, are equally as important as uniqueness and individuality.

L Y O T A R D. cheaaa

Artist who question the rules "are destined to have little creditability"; "They have no guarantee of an audience."(41).

Lyotard was talking about conformity. This quote goes for all productions of media whether it be film, art, or music. If you go against what the masses want you may not be accepted. This is very true in all of life. Certain music artists and film directors have challenged the masses and sometimes this is accepted but then sometimes it is not. When I hear of this I think of a rap artist like Flo Rida or Drake. Both of these artists only make music for what people want to hear. It is not real rap music but instead it is music with a catchy beat and catchy flow. I think art is a problem when it does not challenge the masses. An artist should make art or music or film based on what they think is interesting. The problem is the art may "have little creditability" and this can lead to not getting paid. Especially in rap industry the question is do I conform or do I make music the way I think it should be made? Right now the rap industry has way to many artists making music that sounds like pop or music that should be played in a club. I think artists need to make art and not be worried about "a guarantee of an audience," but it is easy for me to say that because I am the one who is not trying to make a living on make music, art, or film. I am simply the critic.

That is my little tiny rant on the rap industry and other forms of art. I really like music and I especially respect artists who make music of what they think music should be or challenges the culture.. It does not sound the same of everything played on the radio. The artists that I respect make songs that have lyrics that challenge society and talk about issues in it. Maybe I am different than the masses.

 I also believe that what Lyotard said about "Totalizing Metanarratives" is true. In our society today we do not believe in one big narrative that works for all. We have adapted over the last 40 years and have become a more pluralistic society.

MC Guffee, 9/25

Artists who question the rules "are destined to have little credibility"; "they have no guarantee of an audience"

Lyotard explains that the artist choosing to go against the conventions of society have no clue if their efforts will be a success or fail to catch ground. We also established that art can be extremely effective in transporting ideology. But how can an artist challenge society and cultivate an audience that shares this perspective? When challenging the norms of society, the artist must do so in spectacular form in order to garner emotional and intellectual intrigue from an audience. The avant-gardist is then creatively competing against the conformity of society and therefore, finding an audience is as challenging as it is satisfying once complete. By swaying an audience emotionally, and/or intellectually, an artist can offer a new perspective to which an audience is persuaded to accept.

Film scholar Bill Nichols observes that in society, “dominant values must struggle to remain dominant,” while “Alternative values must struggle to gain legitimacy” (Nichols 2010, 103.) However, in our society today, these dominant values are rapidly reproduced through the extensive media market. Force-feeding a seemingly unconscious audience with the concepts of the majority attempts to supplant a totalizing ideology over a pluralistic domain. The film The Cooler Bandits (2014) challenges the justice system's sentencing of four minorities who robbed restaurants as adolescents and spent over two decades into adulthood contemplating these crimes. Now it is extremely difficult to persuade an audience to undertake this same ideology towards crime, however, John Lucas, the filmmaker behind The Cooler Bandits (2014) expertly pairs a fluctuating pace and precise framing with a variety of perspectives to cultivate the film’s credibility as well as a sense of community between the audience and the Cooler Bandits. Lucas uses film as a medium to critique the just aspect of our justice system and through cinematic techniques and brilliant story structure, he is quite convincing.

In summation, art encourages the most creative artists to push the limits of society to resolve inequalities in societal standards through the spread of their artwork. In the example of John Lucas and The Cooler Bandits (2014) film provided this medium for him to reach a global audience. Lucas used his cinematic expertise for good, but unfortunately, not all artists are held to this standard. This very principle makes artists both incredibly brilliant and potentially dangerous.

Brooke Bumgarner 9/28 reflecting on 9/25

Jean-Francois Lyotard has been, by far, the most confusing theorist thus far. However, as we discussed his theory in class, I began to feel a bit more confident about what he was bringing to the table and about how I understood it. However, there is still a bit of confusion, as the theory is quite complex.

Essentially, what I understand is that Lyotard seeks to understand the ideas Habermas; sometimes having competing ideas concerning modernism and thus, postmodernism. Habermas has invented this sort of unitized ideal. However, Lyotard points out that “what Habermas requires from the arts and the experiences they provide is, in short, to bridge the gap between cognitive, ethical and political discourses, thus opening the way to a unity of experience” (Lyotard, 39). Lyotard identifies two different possibilities for Habermas’ idea of unity. One that is subject to a totalizing experience, and another that is subject to the ideas of realism. Lyotard notes that the second, must be submitted “to that severe reexamination which postmodernity imposes on the thought of the Enlightenment, on the idea of a unitary end of history and of a subject” (Lyotard, 39). In class we evaluated these two possibilities a little bit deeper. Lyotard assesses the ideas of realism, meanwhile considering the possibility of a totalizing metanarrative and we seek to understand these too.

In class as we spoke about what real is, it dawned on me that perhaps Lyotard had the right mentality. Just as we can’t define what is real, neither could he. At one point he explained that reality was not only destabilized but that the world was in an era of instability. Essentially what Lyotard seeks to convey to us is that reality no longer exists. Cognitively, ethically and politically, the rules are no longer the rules. The problem Lyotard explains is that a split is indeed emerging. While some artists will continue to follow the “rules” in desiring to produce and be apart of what is “real” others, will defy these “rules” that are no longer really rules, but yet be found to not be credible by those who do believe in a totalized unity, or what they term, reality.

Lyotards theory helps us to see that this idea of a totalizing metanarrative is not realistic. The problem being that there are competing narratives. There is a demand for “reality” or for “unity” in theory. However, it is simply not possible. There are a variety of values that butt heads, so to speak, that prevent unity from being the “reality”. When we consider art, the values are assessed on credibility and acceptance, but by what? The kitsch? Or monetary value? This is just one example that yields the downfall of a unitized reality. For one, a work of art may be valued by its aesthetic taste, yet, but another by the profits that it yields. So where Habermas has vouched for a theory of unity, it appears that this is not “truly” possible, because on one hand we cannot define the truth or reality, but also, on the other, there are many competing micro-narratives and not just one totalizing narrative.

EPCOT and Totalizing Metanarratives- Bored Caitlin, 9/25

Talking about totalizing metanarratives in class on Thursday got me thinking about why Lyotard believes they don’t work. In the article we read, he writes, “We have the Idea of the world... but we do not have the capacity to show an example of it... We can conceive the infinitely great, the infinitely powerful, but every presentation of an object destined to ‘make visible’ this absolute greatness or power appears to us painfully inadequate. Those are Ideas of which no presentation is possible” (43). What I think he’s saying here is that the world is too varied and complex to attempt to apply any broad totalizing ideas to. Everyone has different backgrounds and experiences. We all look at the world differently. As John Green would say, “the truth resists simplicity.” To say any one broad set of ideals will work for everyone would be grossly oversimplifying. Of course, this all made me think about a totalizing metanarrative from the realm of Disney, Walt Disney’s original idea for EPCOT.

 Originally, he wanted EPCOT to be a massive city, and a model for what all cities could be. EPCOT would demonstrate how innovative technology could be implemented to solve major problems big cities face. When Walt Disney died, the idea for the city seemed to die with him. Disney probably realized that the problems EPCOT purported to solve were too complex for a single totalizing idea to handle, and the concept was eventually reworked into a theme park.