Brooke Bumgarner, Jencks

After reading Charles Jencks position on “Postmodern Poetics and the New Rules”, I was actually very intrigued. While some of what he proposes does still confuse me, many of his points made a lot of sense to me or at least sparked some desire to explore my initial thoughts and understanding. The first passage drew me in when he wrote, “Often in history there is a combination of continuity and change which looks perplexing because our view of both the old and the new is altered” (Jencks 1987, 281). I started thinking about how relevant this statement is, not only in the context of architecture and art, but really, in every aspect of life. Further as he elaborated about postmodern classicism, explaining, “the meanings, values and forms of modernism and classicism are simultaneously transformed into a hybrid combination” (Jencks 1987, 281) my understanding was tested.

In the past, the theories of modernism and postmodernism have perplexed me greatly. For me, the society I was living in was ‘modern’ never ‘postmodern’ because for me, I didn't understand how something could be 'postmodern' when we are living in a modern society. Yet, when I think about it now, I feel as if we can be living in a world that encompasses both. The theory of ‘postmodern classicism’, to me, are the ideas and ever changing fresh, ‘new’, and ‘modern’ approaches, paired with the styles and principles of ancient Greece and Rome, which is exactly as he states in the quote above, converging into a mixture.

Jencks proposes eleven significant rules or canons that accompany the theory of postmodernism, directly emphasized in architecture and art. These many rules seek to explain the mixture of ideas in an ever-changing world.

As I assess and consider the rules and sources of postmodernism, I try to put them into relatively simple terms to aid in my understanding; I would define or explain them as follows.

1. Beauty in ‘disharmonious harmony’. Put simply, beauty in complexity, even in what would originally seem contradictory or paradoxical.
2. The significance of cultural and political pluralism, or the theory that there are many principles to postmodernism. Thus, enhancing the ideas of eclecticism, in which countless historical styles are paired with equally modern styles and elements in essence to produce a mixing pot of elements.
3. ‘Urbane urbanism’ which can be understood as the sophistication and explicitness of all the different, yet specific parts of a city, which to some lends to creative cleanness and perhaps powerful nostalgia, for it is not as indefinite or ambiguous.
4. The prevalence and reliance on the verifiability of human form or anthropomorphism “as a valid departure point” (Jencks 1987, 286).
5. Concepts of nostalgia and amnesia, through the “historical continuum and the relation between the past and the present” (Jencks 1987, 286) which enhance recollection by anamnesis.
6. Again the ideas of pluralism, yet the reliance on previous content. However, such content continues to be understood as diverse and various, thus creating intertextuality and ‘divergent signification’ which allows for multiple understandings and significations.
7. The extension of “’double-coding’ use of irony, ambiguity and contradiction” (Jencks 1987, 288) from modern literature to art and architecture. The use of double meaning through the usage of ‘both’ and ‘and’, versus decisions reliant on ‘either’ or ‘or’ (Jencks 1987, 288) to enable the “validity or opposite approaches and different tastes” (Jencks 1987, 289).
8. The significance of ‘multivalence’ or the linking of three or more qualities. Specifically in art and architecture through “forms, colours and themes” (Jencks 1987, 289). Therefore, utilization of collaboration is possible.
9. The consideration of ‘tradition reinterpretation’ through utilization and emphasis on the past and the memories, anamnesis and continuance that it evokes. Through the idea of ‘tradition reinterpretation’ “old forms are given new meanings to justify their existence” (Jencks 1987, 291).
10. The invention of new (and in some cases improved) artistic forms, inventions and ‘new rhetorical figures’. 
11. “This return to the absent centre” (Jencks 1987, 292) is the idea that after all the modifications and adaptions of the previous rules and ideas, there is not one form significant enough and completely encompassing to stand for the center, middle or perhaps “heart” of postmodernism.

The theory of postmodernism is extremely interesting to me, not only in architecture and art, but also, in everyday society. If, as Jencks explains in his closing argument that “Postmodern then meant a culture that was post-Western and post-Christian: a culture that had a strong sense of its departure point but no clear sense of destination” (Jencks 1987, 293), postmodernism is indeed abstract and inclusive of many ideas though based off of a set of specifics that has the ability to be ever changing. This would make sense that postmodernism has a strong sense of where to begin, but as ideals and values develop, the destination becomes unclear and undetermined. With the idea that postmodernism architecture and art is indeed a “hybrid of dissonant beauty, or disharmonious harmony” (Jencks 1987, 282), it is acceptable that there is no clear destination, perhaps, because such disharmonious harmony seems to be ever changing because of the variability and differences it encourages. 

Ivan Moreno, De Saussure 9/11/14

Helping clear up the previous reading, during class we went in to the dual components of a sign: the signifier and the signified. The examples used in class included a stop sign, a red rose, and a white dress.While the signifier can be a logo or an emblem with an intended meaning, the signified is the interpretation that can vary drastically from one person to another.

The overall takeaway stated that interpretations were all different because of the previous experience that was used in order to further increase an understanding of the subject. Furthermore, we dove in to the idea that more complex ideas and theories exist because of a mutual understanding. By having a group of people agree on one thing a community can be created. "In language, there are only differences" (de Saussure 2004, 10). Languages/words in itself have no meaning but because several people agreed upon certain sounds belonging to certain ideas, that mutual agreement makes communication form and with time a community as well.

Kayla Salyer, De Saussure 9/11/14

"One can neither divide sound from thought nor thought from sound" (de Saussure 2004, 6). This quote sets up for much of the ideas put forth by de Saussure. From connecting material signs, to their meaning, to connecting thought to language it is interesting to view all of these in our own ways. Although much of this piece, and much of our class talks about the significance between signs and their meanings, I would like to think about the reliability thought has on language, or vise versa. Would there be no thought without the words to express it? These two things seem so very different, yet they are so deeply connected to each other.
Language gives a link between our thought and sound. Without one, the other could not exist. From my own experience, I have been able to touch on this idea very briefly. When I traveled to Germany at 15, I didn't know the language nor the culture. The longer I stayed the more confused my mind seemed to be in a culture in which I didn't speak the language. Every piece of me wanted to think, dream, and speak German, yet I was struggling to pick up the language. As time continued, my mind completely switched to German, yet my mind was limited because my vocabulary was limited. Although this is a very simple example, I think it touches on this idea. We need one to connect to the other.
Moving on to signs and their significance in our world, I find it interesting to look at different things and what they mean to separate people. Yes, we can look at a coin and see first what we can exchange it for, and how it can be compared to others (de Saussure 2004, 8), yet we may also look at what something will mean to each individual and how it can be manipulated to change the audiences view on things. For example, when we were shown the BP Oil symbol in class I actually didn't recognize it. Instead, I saw a bright green, earth-friendly, symbol of light. Although this lasted about 15 seconds before someone said the name and the reality floated back into mind. The symbol that I saw was not of death and destruction of the earth, but the complete opposite. I saw the bright happy colors and it instantly made me the of something good, green, almost innocent.
Looking at this from a different perspective, I think it is interesting to see how easily someones idea of something can be so easily manipulated. Too many times, the true meaning is lost by the manipulation of signs.

Semiotics and Signifciation... What What

Class on 9/11 got me thinking about a lot of things. I have thought about September 11, 2001 a great deal in my life. How it has affected this country and this world. How it has affected immigrants in this country and the view Americans have on the middle east. Semiotics can affect the way the people in this world view certain situations in this life. This really got me thinking on how semiotics have affected my life and the way I view things in this world.

 stole Brookes idea. sorry not sorry. www.google.com

The example we went over in class about Exon really stuck with me. An Exon sign can stand for gas, a bathroom, snack shop, beer, and can stand for the oil spill that we talked about in class. After class I really started to think about what signs have taught me to think through out my life and how somebody in this world created this sign to make me think this way. The people who create these signs are experts at propaganda. Haha. They make you think a certain way about the product or the company through the signs. When we talk about BP though, the media has had an affect on how we view BP because of how they have destroyed the Gulf. It is very interesting to me.

Also I really liked the example about the rose and the idea of signification. How in society did we decide that lobster is a food for rich people? It is funny to think that socially we have socially constructed the idea of lobster to be related with the upper class. Signification is an interesting idea. With signification, how do we know where the emphasis on certain objects in this world came from. In class, how has the red rose became a symbol of love. We just accept that is has been but we don't know where objects get their significance?

Context is Everything: BoredCaitlin 9/11

(Warning: this post contains spoilers for Agents of SHIELD. If you're wary of spoilers, proceed with caution.)

Our discussion of semiotics and signs in class on Thursday made me think about the importance of context when interpreting signs. For example, when we were shown the BP insignia, our minds automatically jumped to the infamous oil spill, an event that happened a few years ago and most of us were fairly familiar with. Oil spills didn’t cross our minds when we were shown the Exxon sign, because the Exxon oil spill happened before we were born. It was context that we didn’t have. After class, I was thinking about when you watch something you enjoyed as a kid, you tend to notice jokes and references that went over your head. Watching as an adult gives you more context that you didn’t have as a child. That led me to thinking about one of my favorite narrative conventions, the plot twist, and how often signifiers in a work can be re-contextualized when a well-executed twist is at play. Quite often, the reader won’t even notice any signs until they’re aware of the twist and they go back for a second look. For a specific example, let’s take a look at Agents of SHIELD. In episode 17 of the show, it’s revealed that one of the main characters had been a mole for Hydra the entire time. Upon first viewing, the twist will come as a shock. But if one were to go back and watch the earlier episodes with the twist in mind, it’s easy to notice signs and foreshadowing that didn’t cross the mind on the first viewing. The twist gives the viewer extra context and another lens through which to look at the earlier episodes. How much context a viewer has will greatly affect how they interpret a sign.

MC Guffee 9/11

“Are there books which say what they mean…without depending directly on other books?”

Leaving class on Thursday, I could not believe the depth at which intertextuality affects our entire lives. From books to movies, and magazines to television shows, the writers behind today’s media outlets are increasingly innovative. But in what sense? Barthes notion explains that all text is bolstered by that texts predecessors. Meaning, writers depend on previous writers to aid their production of text in order to produce valuable knowledge for readers.

This concept leads me to two questions: What does this notion say about the creativity of the writer? And how does an individual writer’s work feel original?

At first, this quote seemed to discredit the writer by saying their entire work is simply based on reinventing the old. All the life changing books we’ve read in our education aren’t original. They have taken bits of knowledge strategically from past writers to help convey their personal message. In a way this seems to tarnish the reputation of the writer as a mimic rather than creator. Thus, it brings me to question how a writer creates original work, and what about their work feels original when actually dependent on previous texts.

Further contemplating Barthes concept, I began to realize it is the challenge of creating an original work despite the influence of previous texts that makes the writer tick. Innovating a preceding narrative structure or interconnect new ideas into old manifestos to create revolutionary concepts, the writer strives to consider the old as they innovate the new. This shines light on the incredible adaptability of the writer to take into account every previous text, yet produce something that feels completely new.

After class I almost felt ashamed of my desire to become a screenwriter because so much has already been said and resaid on screen. Yet deeper reflection has renewed my aspiration in the sense that the challenge of writing is to produce something that both reads and feels unique despite whatever influence predated texts may have. That I believe constitutes original work in a career field of reinvention. 

Brooke Bumgarner Reflecting on 9/11 posted 9/13

After Thursday’s class, I left feeling like I had a lot to think about. Through our discussion of semiotics I started to really think about how vital signs are in language. In essence, we couldn’t have language, convey language, or interpret language without them. Essentially, one cannot convey thought without language, and language without signifiers and that, which is signified, is vague and has no meaning.

Thursday represented one of the United State’s most dreadful days in history, September 11th. As I read the news, many of my thoughts were enforced by words I read or pictures I saw in various media outlets. That’s when I started to think about how millions of individuals were thinking different things about the same event, at the very same time as I was. I thought about how, when reading certain articles, how I would have explained the same feeling that the writer was interpreting in such a different way. I could have explained the feeling of shock, terror and heartbreak in so many other words, perhaps, with feelings of confusion, trauma, fear, anguish and distress. So language really was arbitrary, wasn’t it? Perhaps I could be feeling the same way as my mother when she expressed how solemn of a day Thursday was, yet, through our language I detected many differences.

She felt terror, while I felt fear.

When someone says September 11^th, or 9/11, the initial image in my mind is that of the twin towers burning, with pieces of it missing.

 

(http://www.concertblast.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/towers_on_fire.jpg)

 
For me, this image is the ‘sign’ of 9/11. The sign itself is the burning towers. It signifies September 11th. But what is signified? Terrorism, fear and grief. At least, those are the thoughts, feelings and further words of explanation that such signification evokes from me.

Semiotics promise us though, that signs themselves can have more than one signification. Therefore, someone else’s interpretation of this event, and picture, may be completely different. Further, the thoughts and ideas of terrorism, fear, danger or tragedy may trigger different signs for many. For just as language is arbitrary, so is thought, and so is interpretation.