Some further questions to possibly consider:
Does Visual Communication, or design more generally, bear responsibility for a particular position within capitalism and the spectacle?
Is 'Fine Art' somehow freed from this responsibility, or is this perceived autonomy simply and finally illusory?
If design is (as many theorists and commentators have suggested) inextricably linked, to a greater degree than the other arts, to capitalism, consumption, and the spectacle, does this mean that design and designers are limited to serving and reproducing these conditions?
Or is there room for critique or change from within the spectacle?
You might also consider the following (highly provocative, to my mind) exchange from an interview with Matt Soar, a Canadian academic and working graphic designer:
Q. (Klik magazine)
You’ve disagreed with the notion that the world would begin to change if ten thousand designers would finally decide to change the way they work. I’ve read that Canadian designers were thinking about going on strike, back in the seventies, because of their dissatisfaction with their status and working conditions. Croatian theoretician Goroslav Keller once wrote: “Can we imagine for all designers in the world to go on strike for indefinite time. How would this result in a world, would there be any damage? Cynics might even say that society at the end might even prosper.” Can you imagine a world without designers?
A. (Matt Soar)
I think there are several questions here. For me, it’s highly unlikely that ten thousand designers would suddenly decide to change the way they work because, barring a real social or political revolution, that kind of thing simply doesn’t happen overnight. It’s an entirely different question to ask whether such a change would have any effect on the world. ‘Changing the way you work’ could mean using a computer instead of a pencil, or it could mean working exclusively for ethically sound organizations and actively working against all the others. To paraphrase a famous German philosopher, ‘we make history but not in conditions of our own choosing.’ This is true for designers in particular, but it’s something they generally don’t understand or don’t want to hear. Designers are middle-men; intermediaries. They generally mediate between their clients and the expectations of their clients’ audiences. In strict terms, they’re not producers or inventors or creators at all.
The rest of the interview is available here.
- Keith
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Ok, enough already. a message from your instructor
Dear all:
As you are no doubt aware, a recent post by Jeremy Jeresky on this site regarding the complicity of VC students vis-a-vis the spectacle has prompted a good deal of commentary. It should be said that not all of this commentary has been against his initial opinion, and some of it (both for and against) has been genuinely reflective (thanks Connor and Jen, among others), often to a greater degree than the original post. It should also be said that Jeremy has posted a kind of apology/retraction in a comment on his original post, something which seems to have escaped the attention of some later post-ers.
It's true that Jeremy's initial post was inflammatory and unjustified in its sweeping characterizations about Visual Communications. But much of the best - and worst - writing on art and design seeks to provoke or challenge, and while aspects of the original post are, indeed, regrettable, it has generated some interesting discussion, and thoughtful response by some students in this class. What does bother me, is the extent to which other posts have devolved into personal insult and attack, often posted by students who fail to sign their posts.
So, please, stop with the personal attacks, jibes and insults. If you want to address this post, or the thread and later entries that take it up, I want you to do so in a substantive way that engages with the concepts, and not with the individual who posted it.
Thanks,
Keith
As you are no doubt aware, a recent post by Jeremy Jeresky on this site regarding the complicity of VC students vis-a-vis the spectacle has prompted a good deal of commentary. It should be said that not all of this commentary has been against his initial opinion, and some of it (both for and against) has been genuinely reflective (thanks Connor and Jen, among others), often to a greater degree than the original post. It should also be said that Jeremy has posted a kind of apology/retraction in a comment on his original post, something which seems to have escaped the attention of some later post-ers.
It's true that Jeremy's initial post was inflammatory and unjustified in its sweeping characterizations about Visual Communications. But much of the best - and worst - writing on art and design seeks to provoke or challenge, and while aspects of the original post are, indeed, regrettable, it has generated some interesting discussion, and thoughtful response by some students in this class. What does bother me, is the extent to which other posts have devolved into personal insult and attack, often posted by students who fail to sign their posts.
So, please, stop with the personal attacks, jibes and insults. If you want to address this post, or the thread and later entries that take it up, I want you to do so in a substantive way that engages with the concepts, and not with the individual who posted it.
Thanks,
Keith
More Familiar Heterotopias.
In last class I when we were discussing heterotopias I thought it was interesting that our own school was brought up. One thing I’ve always noticed at my time here were communities generated within the school that have their foundations in false pretence and insecurity that we are all guilty of.
These heterotopias are brought about by the clustered and un-intimate nature of the current environment. It relies on individuals creating areas were they belong, to essentially make everything right in their world out of the terror that who they are is not special.
A prime example of this would be the tendency of our students to degrade the life of anyone willing to attend Sait. To most of us, it seems that a career in art is the only sound and noble choice to make in life. It’s apparent to most that choosing a career in say, welding, or automotives is for a lower type of person. What they seem to forget is that one of the true necessities we actually have his nutrients, and obviously we use money to buy food. Food is far more important than the pursuit of intellectual gain in the arts, so how can someone simply trying to have a job and survive be deplorable? Because how else would art students justify their own existence? How would we be so sure that our choice is the right one if we don’t shit on any other choice? These are a sort of psychological heterotopias, they are associated with physical boundaries but rely on personal instinct.
Even more absurd is the heterotopias generated by the factions of visual communications and fine arts. Everyone knows there are these generalized and crass outlooks coming from either side, and again they have their roots in personal indulgence and ignorance.
Further down on the post you can see that Jeremy Jeresky made a statement that clearly outlines his heterotopia of choice.
“But it should be questioned and even assulted ( subverted or even completly obliverated and reconstructed) and of course it is up to us artists to do the job, not visual communications majors, because they are just slaves, hopelessly abducted to the ever so sofisticated system, but real fine thinking artists, ......yep. ( Dont get me started about VC students, hopeless slaves, articulating their masters demands........?....$$$$$$$$$$$$$) _Okay so lets spend the next couple of days plotting and hatching and studying and free thinking and reading and thinking and obsorbing and looking and listening and thinking and hatching and talking about...”
“It is a tight game, and yet, a loose engagement... between the conglomerate who produce, and market,..and those who partake and subsist..... I personally don't give a shit. I don't watch TV, I Don't really go to "popular movies" , I go to artsy cool movies,.. which anyone with a bit of a brain would'nt really normally go to.”
I should start by saying that all of this could just as well be a joke for his own amusement, in which case it’s admittedly funny (the irony of spelling sophisticated wrong is not lost on me), because believe it or not, there are human beings with fully functioning motor skills going to this school that actually have these beliefs.
This is a heterotopia of the privileged, self-endowed, free thinking individual that you could say is a product of the system of higher education. We all do this, through our long hours and empty pockets have an overwhelming sense of accomplishment.
In the rare case of our school we see another sub-culture of arrogance beyond that of higher learning. Despite the fact that art is a completely abstract and subjective term, we find people strictly declaring what is right and what is wrong with no ground of previous experience or accomplishments to stand on. For Jeremy to have said those things he so eloquently put would be the same as a VC student declaring that anyone who used money to enroll in classes in the fine arts department are unmotivated hippies who’s only ambition is to be poor and have cooler hair than you. Obviously, this is not the case, as anyone with unobstructed observations skills can see there are some extremely talented people in Fine Arts, just as there are in Visual Communications.
What Jeremy has generously provided is a perfect example of how heterotopias are real, and are generated not just by our physical surroundings, but more importantly by the continuously adapting psychological state of it’s inhabitants.
-Connor Willumsen
These heterotopias are brought about by the clustered and un-intimate nature of the current environment. It relies on individuals creating areas were they belong, to essentially make everything right in their world out of the terror that who they are is not special.
A prime example of this would be the tendency of our students to degrade the life of anyone willing to attend Sait. To most of us, it seems that a career in art is the only sound and noble choice to make in life. It’s apparent to most that choosing a career in say, welding, or automotives is for a lower type of person. What they seem to forget is that one of the true necessities we actually have his nutrients, and obviously we use money to buy food. Food is far more important than the pursuit of intellectual gain in the arts, so how can someone simply trying to have a job and survive be deplorable? Because how else would art students justify their own existence? How would we be so sure that our choice is the right one if we don’t shit on any other choice? These are a sort of psychological heterotopias, they are associated with physical boundaries but rely on personal instinct.
Even more absurd is the heterotopias generated by the factions of visual communications and fine arts. Everyone knows there are these generalized and crass outlooks coming from either side, and again they have their roots in personal indulgence and ignorance.
Further down on the post you can see that Jeremy Jeresky made a statement that clearly outlines his heterotopia of choice.
“But it should be questioned and even assulted ( subverted or even completly obliverated and reconstructed) and of course it is up to us artists to do the job, not visual communications majors, because they are just slaves, hopelessly abducted to the ever so sofisticated system, but real fine thinking artists, ......yep. ( Dont get me started about VC students, hopeless slaves, articulating their masters demands........?....$$$$$$$$$$$$$) _Okay so lets spend the next couple of days plotting and hatching and studying and free thinking and reading and thinking and obsorbing and looking and listening and thinking and hatching and talking about...”
“It is a tight game, and yet, a loose engagement... between the conglomerate who produce, and market,..and those who partake and subsist..... I personally don't give a shit. I don't watch TV, I Don't really go to "popular movies" , I go to artsy cool movies,.. which anyone with a bit of a brain would'nt really normally go to.”
I should start by saying that all of this could just as well be a joke for his own amusement, in which case it’s admittedly funny (the irony of spelling sophisticated wrong is not lost on me), because believe it or not, there are human beings with fully functioning motor skills going to this school that actually have these beliefs.
This is a heterotopia of the privileged, self-endowed, free thinking individual that you could say is a product of the system of higher education. We all do this, through our long hours and empty pockets have an overwhelming sense of accomplishment.
In the rare case of our school we see another sub-culture of arrogance beyond that of higher learning. Despite the fact that art is a completely abstract and subjective term, we find people strictly declaring what is right and what is wrong with no ground of previous experience or accomplishments to stand on. For Jeremy to have said those things he so eloquently put would be the same as a VC student declaring that anyone who used money to enroll in classes in the fine arts department are unmotivated hippies who’s only ambition is to be poor and have cooler hair than you. Obviously, this is not the case, as anyone with unobstructed observations skills can see there are some extremely talented people in Fine Arts, just as there are in Visual Communications.
What Jeremy has generously provided is a perfect example of how heterotopias are real, and are generated not just by our physical surroundings, but more importantly by the continuously adapting psychological state of it’s inhabitants.
-Connor Willumsen
Luke, I am your father.
People may be interested in a series by photographer Cedric Delsaux , which features Star Wars characters in urban settings. I was reminded of this when we discussed Star Wars in class the other night. Though it's not by any means a new idea, I find the juxtaposition of pop culture and art to be extremely interesting. Plus, who's not a fan of Star Wars? That image of the red guards is my favorite: the red is beautiful and it just pops out of the sterile grey environment.
I'm not sure if this would be considered a heterotopia or not. In a way, it breaks down the typical heirarchy of space by placing fictional characters from the future (actually a long time ago in a galaxy far away, but whats the difference) in contemporary settings. Is it a heterotopia though?
-Justin T
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Couple of Articles - Visual Culture in the News
“The Biggest Outdoor Media in the World”
Ad-Air is negotiating with major airports in the US, Europe, and Asia to place 5-acre ads where passengers in airplanes can see them as they take off and land.
While the advertising company’s website boasts it as “ground breaking,” I’m sure its no surprise to any of us. TVs in the back of airplane seats are becoming almost standard, running ads before and during many of their in-flight features. The people in airplanes can afford to travel, and hey, they’re not going anywhere. Now, ads are going to invade that very special time when seats are brought to their full and upright position and TVs need to be switched off, and there’s not much else to do but look out the window. It was only a matter of time before someone tapped into that slim margin of opportunity.
And just wait a few years; another company will probably do one better--or bigger.
It’s also interesting to note that they’re not looking to sprawl advertisements alongside Canadian runways just yet.
Original source: Calgary Herald
Disney’s America--Very Friendly
Disney has developed a video to make entering the US feel more friendly. Featuring US landmarks and smiling Americans saying, “Welcome,” the brief movie is to be played in consular offices and US customs areas of several airports. The project was conceived after a decline in tourism was noted following 9/11, presumably due to the feeling of mistrust among Americans towards foreigners. This film is supposed to make visitors to the US feel wanted and accepted.
It is interesting that they expect seven minutes of footage set to music to be so powerful as to circumvent such deep-seated, visceral emotions. And who else but Disney could hope to make the process of traveling into the US more pleasant? The video reflects a lot of that same “old time America” discussed in class regarding Disneyland and Celebration, Florida--which is certainly not reality anywhere in the world.
(Maybe they should just try training customs agents to smile... )
See the video, “Welcome: Portraits of America” here.
Original source: Calgary Herald
Chelsea Schulz
(Sorry they’re both travel related. Blame it on the day job.)
Ad-Air is negotiating with major airports in the US, Europe, and Asia to place 5-acre ads where passengers in airplanes can see them as they take off and land.
While the advertising company’s website boasts it as “ground breaking,” I’m sure its no surprise to any of us. TVs in the back of airplane seats are becoming almost standard, running ads before and during many of their in-flight features. The people in airplanes can afford to travel, and hey, they’re not going anywhere. Now, ads are going to invade that very special time when seats are brought to their full and upright position and TVs need to be switched off, and there’s not much else to do but look out the window. It was only a matter of time before someone tapped into that slim margin of opportunity.
And just wait a few years; another company will probably do one better--or bigger.
It’s also interesting to note that they’re not looking to sprawl advertisements alongside Canadian runways just yet.
Original source: Calgary Herald
Disney’s America--Very Friendly
Disney has developed a video to make entering the US feel more friendly. Featuring US landmarks and smiling Americans saying, “Welcome,” the brief movie is to be played in consular offices and US customs areas of several airports. The project was conceived after a decline in tourism was noted following 9/11, presumably due to the feeling of mistrust among Americans towards foreigners. This film is supposed to make visitors to the US feel wanted and accepted.
It is interesting that they expect seven minutes of footage set to music to be so powerful as to circumvent such deep-seated, visceral emotions. And who else but Disney could hope to make the process of traveling into the US more pleasant? The video reflects a lot of that same “old time America” discussed in class regarding Disneyland and Celebration, Florida--which is certainly not reality anywhere in the world.
(Maybe they should just try training customs agents to smile... )
See the video, “Welcome: Portraits of America” here.
Original source: Calgary Herald
Chelsea Schulz
(Sorry they’re both travel related. Blame it on the day job.)
Thursday, October 25, 2007
New blog Jeremy Jeresky
I think that the recent blog by Adrian, Leroy, Justin, Janet and Micheal was quite interesting. Particularly the ad campaign "Real Beauty" by Dove wherein they show the process involved in creating a hyperreal "beauty" , yet it is , as the group mentions, a spectacle within a spectacle to advertise DOVE products. Hey, thats smart, and that is advertising. smart. compact and tight. Yep.
I think that they also summerized the spectacle or simulacra as not reality but rather an interpretation of reality. Pretty vauge statement!!!and not very challenging either. Every thing is an interpretation of reality, assuming we can establish a concrete definition of reality, which clearly this gruop did'nt really do. Which is fine, because how can any one really do so.
There are some things i know about hyperreality and the spectacal. It is all pervasive. TV is the prime example...it is all hyperreality, the same goes with the cinema too. Literature, through out the ages is an example of the spec and the hyperR,.... just look at fiction. As i realized today in Chris Frey's class, fiction is a copy of a copy with a sense, but mabey not a true sense of reality.
A world of signifieds with out signifiers is now so common place. Images without meaning freely rangle about? Is this part of a mono cultural prevelanceof free market capatalism? Eclecticism is the zero degree of contemporary culture. One listens to reggae, watches a scifi, eats Mcdonalds food for lunch and local cuisine for dinner, wears Paris perfume in Tokyo and "retro" clothes in Hong kong; knowledge is matter for TV games.
And it is the same in art! kitsch, confusion and anything goes. In the absense of any real aeshetic criteria, money is the only yardstick.
All taste, like all needs are attended by the market.
I have news for all of you. THERE IS NO REAL , AND REPRESENTATION IS UP FOR SUSPECT , in other words, even though reality can't be linchpinned, and can never really be, ...representations role should and probably always has been questioned, subverted and used. But it should be questioned and even assulted ( subverted or even completly obliverated and reconstructed) and of course it is up to us artists to do the job, not visual communications majors, because they are just slaves, hopelessly abducted to the ever so sofisticated system, but real fine thinking artists, ......yep. ( Dont get me started about VC students, hopeless slaves, articulating their masters demands........?....$$$$$$$$$$$$$)
Okay so lets spend the next couple of days plotting and hatching and studying and free thinking and reading and thinking and obsorbing and looking and listening and thinking and hatching and talking about...
I think that they also summerized the spectacle or simulacra as not reality but rather an interpretation of reality. Pretty vauge statement!!!and not very challenging either. Every thing is an interpretation of reality, assuming we can establish a concrete definition of reality, which clearly this gruop did'nt really do. Which is fine, because how can any one really do so.
There are some things i know about hyperreality and the spectacal. It is all pervasive. TV is the prime example...it is all hyperreality, the same goes with the cinema too. Literature, through out the ages is an example of the spec and the hyperR,.... just look at fiction. As i realized today in Chris Frey's class, fiction is a copy of a copy with a sense, but mabey not a true sense of reality.
A world of signifieds with out signifiers is now so common place. Images without meaning freely rangle about? Is this part of a mono cultural prevelanceof free market capatalism? Eclecticism is the zero degree of contemporary culture. One listens to reggae, watches a scifi, eats Mcdonalds food for lunch and local cuisine for dinner, wears Paris perfume in Tokyo and "retro" clothes in Hong kong; knowledge is matter for TV games.
And it is the same in art! kitsch, confusion and anything goes. In the absense of any real aeshetic criteria, money is the only yardstick.
All taste, like all needs are attended by the market.
I have news for all of you. THERE IS NO REAL , AND REPRESENTATION IS UP FOR SUSPECT , in other words, even though reality can't be linchpinned, and can never really be, ...representations role should and probably always has been questioned, subverted and used. But it should be questioned and even assulted ( subverted or even completly obliverated and reconstructed) and of course it is up to us artists to do the job, not visual communications majors, because they are just slaves, hopelessly abducted to the ever so sofisticated system, but real fine thinking artists, ......yep. ( Dont get me started about VC students, hopeless slaves, articulating their masters demands........?....$$$$$$$$$$$$$)
Okay so lets spend the next couple of days plotting and hatching and studying and free thinking and reading and thinking and obsorbing and looking and listening and thinking and hatching and talking about...
Monday, October 22, 2007
HEY LOOK AT ME! A Discussion of Spectacle
Both Baudrillard and Debord discuss the idea of spectacle or simulacrum, in which some thing that is being viewed is not reality, but rather an interpretation of reality. In these situations, there is no way to know, with certainty, if you are being presented with reality or conceived reality. The spectacle, is something we are constantly engaging in. We ourselves are presented as spectacle when we interact with others; we present ourselves in certain ways to achieve different purposes.
In our capitalist society, everything that involves the selling of any product or services relies on spectacle. Advertising, as a principle, is an extremely biased source of information and is designed to highlight only the good points of the product/service. We participate in the spectacle every time we engage with an ad, whether we believe it or not. Our reactions and interactions fuel the spectacle.
Click link if video doesn't work.
The recent “Real Beauty” campaign by Dove speaks to the falseness of current standards of women’s beauty. One example is their video showing the makeup and digital effects in a typical ad.Though this is an excellent message, Dove is still using it to sell their own products. By aligning themselves with “real” beauty, they are creating a spectacle by exposing another spectacle.
Like the movie “The Matrix”, it is very difficult to separate ourselves from the spectacle, or to even concretely define its boundaries. Perhaps the most important thing for visual artists is to understand the existence of the Spectacle and find ways to use it to our advantage.
Follow the crowd: Tom Vanderbilt on new-model flash mobs
ArtForum, Summer, 2004 by Tom Vanderbilt
Our discussion in class about the Situationist International artists raised the issue of the current trend of the ‘flash mob’. Tom Vanderbilt in his article describes a flash mob as a group of people who communicate via email, agree to meet at a specific location, and perform a set of instructions. These people essentially become spectators for an unsuspecting public. A trend that began in
New York and spread across the globe, flash mobs seem to relate directly to our discussion about the Situationists. In this article about the flash mob, ‘Bill’ (the originator of the first flash mob) says, "It's a spectacle for spectacle's sake--which is silly, but is also, as I've discovered somewhat to my surprise, genuinely transgressive, which is part of its appeal…People feel like there's nothing but order everywhere, and so they love to be a part of just one thing that nobody was expecting." Bill’s comment is in line with our class discussion of finding ways to place a cog in wheel of our social norms. The article discusses the social/legal effects of a crowd mysteriously appearing, acting out an absurd performance, and dispersing within a few minuets. Vanderbilt discusses the potential of the flash mob as a political movement. Can flash mobs be serious activism for the future? This may be unlikely, due to the anonymity of the members of the email network. If anybody can be a part of the network, it becomes possible for ‘authorities’ to infiltrate a potential happening. Still, the flash mob is a product of our contemporary environment and relates to our readings and class discussions.
What are your ideas on the flash mob as 'spectacle'?
Are flash mobs more in common with Situationists ideals of detournement?
By:
Leroy O
Janet M
Adrian V
Michael F
Justin T
In our capitalist society, everything that involves the selling of any product or services relies on spectacle. Advertising, as a principle, is an extremely biased source of information and is designed to highlight only the good points of the product/service. We participate in the spectacle every time we engage with an ad, whether we believe it or not. Our reactions and interactions fuel the spectacle.
Click link if video doesn't work.
The recent “Real Beauty” campaign by Dove speaks to the falseness of current standards of women’s beauty. One example is their video showing the makeup and digital effects in a typical ad.Though this is an excellent message, Dove is still using it to sell their own products. By aligning themselves with “real” beauty, they are creating a spectacle by exposing another spectacle.
Like the movie “The Matrix”, it is very difficult to separate ourselves from the spectacle, or to even concretely define its boundaries. Perhaps the most important thing for visual artists is to understand the existence of the Spectacle and find ways to use it to our advantage.
Follow the crowd: Tom Vanderbilt on new-model flash mobs
ArtForum, Summer, 2004 by Tom Vanderbilt
Our discussion in class about the Situationist International artists raised the issue of the current trend of the ‘flash mob’. Tom Vanderbilt in his article describes a flash mob as a group of people who communicate via email, agree to meet at a specific location, and perform a set of instructions. These people essentially become spectators for an unsuspecting public. A trend that began in
New York and spread across the globe, flash mobs seem to relate directly to our discussion about the Situationists. In this article about the flash mob, ‘Bill’ (the originator of the first flash mob) says, "It's a spectacle for spectacle's sake--which is silly, but is also, as I've discovered somewhat to my surprise, genuinely transgressive, which is part of its appeal…People feel like there's nothing but order everywhere, and so they love to be a part of just one thing that nobody was expecting." Bill’s comment is in line with our class discussion of finding ways to place a cog in wheel of our social norms. The article discusses the social/legal effects of a crowd mysteriously appearing, acting out an absurd performance, and dispersing within a few minuets. Vanderbilt discusses the potential of the flash mob as a political movement. Can flash mobs be serious activism for the future? This may be unlikely, due to the anonymity of the members of the email network. If anybody can be a part of the network, it becomes possible for ‘authorities’ to infiltrate a potential happening. Still, the flash mob is a product of our contemporary environment and relates to our readings and class discussions.
What are your ideas on the flash mob as 'spectacle'?
Are flash mobs more in common with Situationists ideals of detournement?
By:
Leroy O
Janet M
Adrian V
Michael F
Justin T
Sunday, October 21, 2007
New blog Jeremy Jeresky
Okay, last class, on the 15th we talked about The Society of The Spectacal, Simulacra and Hyperreality. And, in actuality it is, of course, so fitting that a copy of a copy of a copy is hitherto sent to all of you regarding my thoughts, which are esentially a copy of a copy hitherto.of ....mine.... Therefore the referent is......nonexziztent.,.. which is good, actually., because that would be keeping in line with the sensiblility of last class.
Yes we live in a society of proliferated imagery, we all know this. TV, The News, Popoular Cinema, the internet, Mass media, Magazines, Zines, everything and of the above. For the most part most people with half a brain can see and acknowlegde that there is a game going on, ...being played by the producers of image and commoditiy, and those who choose what ever cost they may deem fit or sutible.....depending on their stakes, or gamble. The game is open....
It is a tight game, and yet, a loose engagement... between the conglomerate who produce, and market,..and those who partake and subsist..... I personally don't give a shit. I don't watch TV, I Don't really go to "popular movies" , I go to artsy cool movies,.. which anyone with a bit of a brain would'nt really normally go to. And most of the time, for fun I try to spit on people from my seventh story belcony, it gives me a ten second sense of power, one which no one will ever be able to take away from me.
Actually, I don't even go to artsy movies.....because they are too damn artsy, and pretty much too damn hyperreal. I Hate that about artsy movies.....they try to shove an ideal real down your throat,...even though the real is maybe, hopefully, centered around you. Around the feeling that there could be a suspection or surcumvention of primordial perception.
The hyperreal is the hyperreal, the simulacrum is the simulacrum, and the society of the spectacle is................
we do not need a history lesson. what we need is some straight up therory. Some thing down to earth to bring us young students to-ge-the-er.
let therory, technical exchange and collective maluability be the genisis within this evolutional partition.
Yes we live in a society of proliferated imagery, we all know this. TV, The News, Popoular Cinema, the internet, Mass media, Magazines, Zines, everything and of the above. For the most part most people with half a brain can see and acknowlegde that there is a game going on, ...being played by the producers of image and commoditiy, and those who choose what ever cost they may deem fit or sutible.....depending on their stakes, or gamble. The game is open....
It is a tight game, and yet, a loose engagement... between the conglomerate who produce, and market,..and those who partake and subsist..... I personally don't give a shit. I don't watch TV, I Don't really go to "popular movies" , I go to artsy cool movies,.. which anyone with a bit of a brain would'nt really normally go to. And most of the time, for fun I try to spit on people from my seventh story belcony, it gives me a ten second sense of power, one which no one will ever be able to take away from me.
Actually, I don't even go to artsy movies.....because they are too damn artsy, and pretty much too damn hyperreal. I Hate that about artsy movies.....they try to shove an ideal real down your throat,...even though the real is maybe, hopefully, centered around you. Around the feeling that there could be a suspection or surcumvention of primordial perception.
The hyperreal is the hyperreal, the simulacrum is the simulacrum, and the society of the spectacle is................
we do not need a history lesson. what we need is some straight up therory. Some thing down to earth to bring us young students to-ge-the-er.
let therory, technical exchange and collective maluability be the genisis within this evolutional partition.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
No Class Monday Oct. 22 (but, a lecture!)
Hi everyone,
I just became aware of a lecture taking place at the same time as our class next Monday (Oct. 22) at the U of C, that I'm recommending everyone attend if you can. In order to make this possible, I'm cancelling our class meeting this week. The group that was to prepare questions for this week will send them to me, and I'll make copies available for the class next time we meet.
The lecture is entitled "Limits of Visual Studies" and the speaker is James Elkins, from the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. For the past decade, James Elkins has been at the forefront of the development of Visual Studies (or Visual Culture studies), authoring more than 20 books on vision, visibility, and art. I think this lecture presents a great link with our class, and I hope you'll try to make it. I will be posting a short writing assignment related to the lecture in the next couple days; for those of you who do not attend the lecture, I will come up with another (likely much more onerous) assignment to fill the 10% assignment listed on our syllabus.
Limits of Visual Studies
Lecture by James Elkins
Monday, October 22, 2007
7:00 PM
Boris Roubakine Hall (Craigie Hall C105)
University of Calgary
FREE AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
Visual studies is expanding rapidly, with new programs being developed throughout the world. At the same time, it is not expanding into the generalized study of visuality that it was initially imagined to be. Instead it is condensing around a small number of images and theorists, and is being read by an increasingly constrained community of scholars. This talk reviews some strengths and weaknesses of visual studies, in anticipation of the 2011 conference called "Farewell to Visual Studies."
I just became aware of a lecture taking place at the same time as our class next Monday (Oct. 22) at the U of C, that I'm recommending everyone attend if you can. In order to make this possible, I'm cancelling our class meeting this week. The group that was to prepare questions for this week will send them to me, and I'll make copies available for the class next time we meet.
The lecture is entitled "Limits of Visual Studies" and the speaker is James Elkins, from the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. For the past decade, James Elkins has been at the forefront of the development of Visual Studies (or Visual Culture studies), authoring more than 20 books on vision, visibility, and art. I think this lecture presents a great link with our class, and I hope you'll try to make it. I will be posting a short writing assignment related to the lecture in the next couple days; for those of you who do not attend the lecture, I will come up with another (likely much more onerous) assignment to fill the 10% assignment listed on our syllabus.
Limits of Visual Studies
Lecture by James Elkins
Monday, October 22, 2007
7:00 PM
Boris Roubakine Hall (Craigie Hall C105)
University of Calgary
FREE AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
Visual studies is expanding rapidly, with new programs being developed throughout the world. At the same time, it is not expanding into the generalized study of visuality that it was initially imagined to be. Instead it is condensing around a small number of images and theorists, and is being read by an increasingly constrained community of scholars. This talk reviews some strengths and weaknesses of visual studies, in anticipation of the 2011 conference called "Farewell to Visual Studies."
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
We Like to Watch - Jen Konanz
Since there looks like an interest in the American Apparel ads, here are links for some of their commercials
http://blog.searchanyway.com/2007/05/viral_video_nitty_gritty.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-fkVvNxV9Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxyJSfdsGCI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wAbG2-vpCI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzcKmn5gB78
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpS4-dJJfvg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Cl_qFMZK0
All the video commercials (except the first one)have a real visual slickness to them whereas the print ads do look pretty gritty - as in low quality, out of focus, amateur. Some of them are also formatted as personal ads so that ads another layer of "factualness" to them. Here's a few more of the particularly amateur looking ads:
http://blog.searchanyway.com/2007/05/viral_video_nitty_gritty.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-fkVvNxV9Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxyJSfdsGCI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wAbG2-vpCI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzcKmn5gB78
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpS4-dJJfvg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Cl_qFMZK0
All the video commercials (except the first one)have a real visual slickness to them whereas the print ads do look pretty gritty - as in low quality, out of focus, amateur. Some of them are also formatted as personal ads so that ads another layer of "factualness" to them. Here's a few more of the particularly amateur looking ads:
We Like to Watch - Jen Konanz
Since the "africam" was mentioned in our reading for last week, I thought I'd post the link for it. If somebody actually sees a live animal I would be surprised though. There are highlights of video footage on the main page though which is more efficient than sitting for hours waiting for something live. Does seeing it live really feel different than watching the highlights though? When we were discussing in class how easily it would be to put up fake web cam feeds it really makes you think...
The apparent purpose of posting the highlights is for convenience - so that you don't have to sit in front of the live cam for hours for the chance of seeing an animal. Or, the highlights will make you want to watch the live cam in hopes of catching something similar to what the highlights promise. Hypothetically, if the rhinos had been wiped off the planet, this site could replay highlights from months, years ago and nobody would know. Even though that's unlikely, it raises questions about the truth of any kind of surveillance cam. How easy is it to manipulate surveillance cams that are used for evidence in criminal acts?
http://www.africam.com/wildlife/index.php#
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The apparent purpose of posting the highlights is for convenience - so that you don't have to sit in front of the live cam for hours for the chance of seeing an animal. Or, the highlights will make you want to watch the live cam in hopes of catching something similar to what the highlights promise. Hypothetically, if the rhinos had been wiped off the planet, this site could replay highlights from months, years ago and nobody would know. Even though that's unlikely, it raises questions about the truth of any kind of surveillance cam. How easy is it to manipulate surveillance cams that are used for evidence in criminal acts?
http://www.africam.com/wildlife/index.php#
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
The Apparel ads
I checked out the American Apparel ads on youtube and I have to say that I didn't find them to be all that gritty. My first thought was that they were in reference to music videos. This was evident by the treatments with the in/out focus of the lense as well as a preocupation with form of the body. The models were also constantly looking at the viewer. There was quite a bit of high contrast and clarity, I was expecting some cheap digital camera or cell phone footage. I actually didn't have sound when I was watching them but I could imagine hearing Brittney Spears singing in the background. I dont' know, mabye my comment says more about the commercialization of music rather than anything about the Apparel ads...
Adrian V.
Adrian V.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Oct 01 post Jeremy Jeresky
Todays visual culture class was pretty interesting. I thought Ali, Jennifer, Alex and Koren did a great job in researching and developing questions based on this weeks reading.
A particular aspect that I found interesting, and one that related to my semiotic ad analysis, was that of the authentic as it pertains to visual quality. This was question no.2 of the group discussion. What does visual quality suggest to viewers about the truth?
This sets us up for the aesthetic criticism; If something is highly produced (glossy, high production cost) is the reality striped from it? and is "grittiness" considered more truthful/ direct/ authentic?
I analyzed an American Apparel ad for my semiotic analysis assignment, and while I did'nt comment on the low budget or homemade (gritty) aesthetic ( the particular ad I chose did'nt exactly denote or conotate this sign) I did notice that many other American Apparel ads use this styalistic stratagem.
I believe we talked about this for a brief moment in class as well when we were discussing question 2. The question is why? American Apparel is a $200 million/year company. And you can bet that they spend a lot of $ on advertising research and development.
As a young and progressive company , they have qued into the fact that their target market (20's) is underestimatedly sophistocated and media suave. And using this low budget, quasi porn style most likley does invoke a strong sense of immediacy and rawness.These ads are edgey and fast, like the culture they are targeted for. This is an advertising statagey that I believe is pretty ground braking and I would say, highly innovative. I really havent seen a series of ads like this before, or to the extent that it is so provocative.
Right or wrong, exploitive or gregarious, they are very successfull in terms of what an advertisment's objective is. The question remains weather this style of "grittiness" will evolve or push further boundries of provocation. How will this stratagem be used by other advertisment agencies and in what further form will it take?
I could probably go on, but it's late , I'm tired, but if any one wants to add somthin, please do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)