All right sports fans - it seems that my time in my present job is limited and that I will soon be getting the axe. Canned, 86'd - again. It's time to start the death watch. We can take bets (for entertainment purposes only) as to when my last day will be. It could be any day now, though I feel like it'll be sometime late next week. Any takers?
-cjfer-
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Friday, March 23, 2007
Interesting misspelling
go to http://www.theplanet2show.blogpsot.com/
it's sot not spot. Freaky
-cjfer-
it's sot not spot. Freaky
-cjfer-
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Happy Terror and Boredom
I know this is a little late - Those of you have seen Terror and Boredom know that it takes places some time in the future. Well, now, it takes places sometime in the past. The dates that it is set over - March 13, 14, 15 2007 have passed. Whooo! No blowed up! So, here we are, alive, making connections, etc. Just thought that was interesting.
-cjfer-
-cjfer-
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
On reading an abridged version of "the work of art in an age of Mechanical Reproduction"
I just finished reading a shortened, abridged version of Walter Benjamin's 1935 Essay - "The work of art in an age of Mechanical Reproduction." It's a wonderful essay, and I encourage anyone who can to read it.
Some of the things I took away from the essay were:
1. Art, unlike in the old days was made for ritualistic/spiritual reasons, and wasn't necessarily made for "art's sake." The mechanical reproduction of art allows for, and destroys the connection between the original use of the piece of art, and how we use it today. We don't necessarily take the same meaning out of ancient Greek art as the ancient Greeks.
2. The mechanical reproduction of art destroys authenticity or "aura." Because the event of viewing a piece of artwork is no longer singular, because you can buy a picture of the Mona Lisa anywhere, it destroys whatever value there was in the authenticity or aura in that piece of art. Insofar as those pieces of art are connected to the traditional, their meaning seems to change.
3. Fascism is bad. If someone wants to go more in depth on that front, I'd be interested.
Anytime something can be reproduced on a mass level, I think it has the possibility to destroy whatever meaning or value there was in the original art. It also is a way of comparing. You can have 1000 copies of the Mona Lisa and 1000 copies of a Thomas Kinkade. In this light, because anything can be reproduced so easily, it seems to equate the things and put them on the same level, when, perhaps they shouldn't be.
I would argue that people actually have a sense of history and aesthetics and they know, at least in some part, that Michelangelo is better than a cheap watercolor. I think giving people access to works of art that they wouldn't have otherwise - if they couldn't get to the work of art - but it also creates a reverences for the original object. Because of the mechanical reproduction of art, we know that the Mona Lisa has some sort of meaning. If we were to see the this painting in person, it would be a revered thing and it would engender an aesthetic if not emotional response from us. These pieces of art become things to be seen - and the actual object, the authentic object can retain it's aura because people know, to some degree, it's value. I don't think anyone actually mistakes a reproduction for the real thing, and it becomes an event to go out and see the real thing in person. Works of art become famous. They are important. Someone might not know about them otherwise, and if they didn't have a particular sense for art, they might not notice them the way they're supposed to be noticed. Without historical context, the David is just a statue, but it is people who give it meaning. While the context is different from the original context and perhaps we don't get the same meaning we might get out of these pieces of art as we would if were there when they were created (the David is no longer representative of a culture) they still do have some context and meaning and the thing itself, while not having cultural meaning, does represent something that is beautiful and therefore perfect. It's not like these famous works of art don't tell a story or have their own reasons for why they look the way they do. The David's ability to represent a figure at the moment before a great event (or after I forget) and insofar as it represents a reinvigorated sense of the human body is something that is always cool.
Don't let the bed drugs fright
-cjfer-
Some of the things I took away from the essay were:
1. Art, unlike in the old days was made for ritualistic/spiritual reasons, and wasn't necessarily made for "art's sake." The mechanical reproduction of art allows for, and destroys the connection between the original use of the piece of art, and how we use it today. We don't necessarily take the same meaning out of ancient Greek art as the ancient Greeks.
2. The mechanical reproduction of art destroys authenticity or "aura." Because the event of viewing a piece of artwork is no longer singular, because you can buy a picture of the Mona Lisa anywhere, it destroys whatever value there was in the authenticity or aura in that piece of art. Insofar as those pieces of art are connected to the traditional, their meaning seems to change.
3. Fascism is bad. If someone wants to go more in depth on that front, I'd be interested.
Anytime something can be reproduced on a mass level, I think it has the possibility to destroy whatever meaning or value there was in the original art. It also is a way of comparing. You can have 1000 copies of the Mona Lisa and 1000 copies of a Thomas Kinkade. In this light, because anything can be reproduced so easily, it seems to equate the things and put them on the same level, when, perhaps they shouldn't be.
I would argue that people actually have a sense of history and aesthetics and they know, at least in some part, that Michelangelo is better than a cheap watercolor. I think giving people access to works of art that they wouldn't have otherwise - if they couldn't get to the work of art - but it also creates a reverences for the original object. Because of the mechanical reproduction of art, we know that the Mona Lisa has some sort of meaning. If we were to see the this painting in person, it would be a revered thing and it would engender an aesthetic if not emotional response from us. These pieces of art become things to be seen - and the actual object, the authentic object can retain it's aura because people know, to some degree, it's value. I don't think anyone actually mistakes a reproduction for the real thing, and it becomes an event to go out and see the real thing in person. Works of art become famous. They are important. Someone might not know about them otherwise, and if they didn't have a particular sense for art, they might not notice them the way they're supposed to be noticed. Without historical context, the David is just a statue, but it is people who give it meaning. While the context is different from the original context and perhaps we don't get the same meaning we might get out of these pieces of art as we would if were there when they were created (the David is no longer representative of a culture) they still do have some context and meaning and the thing itself, while not having cultural meaning, does represent something that is beautiful and therefore perfect. It's not like these famous works of art don't tell a story or have their own reasons for why they look the way they do. The David's ability to represent a figure at the moment before a great event (or after I forget) and insofar as it represents a reinvigorated sense of the human body is something that is always cool.
Don't let the bed drugs fright
-cjfer-
Friday, March 9, 2007
Downright Freaky
I just had a conversation - well, I'd hardly call it that - with an automated voice machine. I called 1800-pick-ups - and a woman's voice comes over the phone. She asks you to say what you want. So i said "order supplies" to which she says, what kind of supplies, gives me options, and I tell her. Then I tell her the fax number, which she repeats back, and tells me that she'll fax me an order form.
What a world we live in where you don't even have to talk to actual people. You can talk to fake people, who are just as helpful and not belligerent.
It reminds me of a conversation when someone said that the Mcdonald's drive through window voice job was outsourced. Can you imagine talking to a guy who says his name is "Brian" in India, and telling him your order?
"Hello. This is Brian. Welcome to McDonald's, can I take your order?"
"I'd like a number 2, three number 3s, a number six...do you cheese on that...and a number 4 without cheese"
Pause
"How about you buy me a hamburger, fatboy. I'm starving here in India!"
-cjfer-
What a world we live in where you don't even have to talk to actual people. You can talk to fake people, who are just as helpful and not belligerent.
It reminds me of a conversation when someone said that the Mcdonald's drive through window voice job was outsourced. Can you imagine talking to a guy who says his name is "Brian" in India, and telling him your order?
"Hello. This is Brian. Welcome to McDonald's, can I take your order?"
"I'd like a number 2, three number 3s, a number six...do you cheese on that...and a number 4 without cheese"
Pause
"How about you buy me a hamburger, fatboy. I'm starving here in India!"
-cjfer-
what are u in 2?
Yes, Fine, Fine! I admit it. I write about what I read on the nytimes, because who cares about sports or movies...wait...we'll see. It's this.
Calvin Klein is trying to figure out what the next hip fragrance is to market to youth culture. They had fragrance and cultural hits in the early 90s - we may remember if only through some ancillary back of the head notion - the CK ads of marky mark if not the Lolita-esq Brooke shields of the late 80s. Back then, they were cool because they created, or at least tapped into something about the blow up - now they're trying to recreate that success by contriving a new fragrance meant to do the same thing it did 15 years ago. The difference is that instead of being on the leading edge of that culture, they're trying to hitch on the bandwagon. Calvin Klein, not even owned by Calvin Klein, is trying it's latest fragrance in2u. Because yup, that's how we talk and write. In fact, I don't even know why I'm bothering with sentences. Bro, r u crazy? Deh. Roo crazy? What bothers me about this, is two things.
1. The co-opting of youth culture by big corporations. Yes, youth culture is flawed and amorphous. Everyone has different likes and experiences, and no, it's not hard for us to imagine the CK brand marketing to urban 20 somethings, in the same Manhattan that hosts the CK offices. This generation, that the article lovingly describes as the millennials, or the technosexuals, is self described as being resistant to advertising. Yes, finally, out post modern senses allow us to resist ideology - corporate or otherwise. Back up a minute, Have we named our generation? Truly, the name technosexual was coined by the company to describe us. It's a marketing name that seems to have little to do with the reality. So, there's something weird about marketing to young people who describe themselves as being resistant to marketing. There's also something odd about a company that is not only trying to be in step with youth culture so that they can sell to youth culture - but at the same time is creating youth culture. Is it that out of the realm of possibilities - i have no sources here - to see a CK party hosted in a posh Manhattan loft, and featuring a lot of young, hipster, indie urbanites. The powers at be, be contriving a culture that young people are so resistant to - yet not totally unwilling to accept. After all, we're powered by coin.
1a. Do people even buy fragrances anymore? I mean, really? Especially young hipsters?
2. Problem 2 is that we actually talk like that. Well, you don't, and I don't - but the people of this generation - described as 1982-1995 do talk like that. The problem is that it gets worse the younger you get. There wont' even be language in 20 years. It will be like mike judges "idiocracy" - not a great film about the dumbing down of America in the future.
So, as I am working to defeat Emo, the question is, what do we do? Are we so resistant to any ideology that we ignore everything, or do we get sucked in and become patsies for the man? It's sad to think that there's no culture that exists anymore that can't be co-opted by a corporation. Ironically, even being resistant to being advertised to/being co-opted by someone, seems to be co-opted. If they can make some money off of it, they will sell it to masses. I think ultimately if you like something you buy it, if you don't you don't. It's a tough world we live in, where it's harder and harder to make what increasingly becomes a morally right choice. There seems to be a moral value in what you buy. Is the thing pro-environment, is it anti-corporate, is it green, free trade, is it trendy, is it anti-trendy, is it because you need it or because you want it, and whose side are you on? Hybrid drivers are liberal, gas powered car drivers are conservative.
There might have been more to this, but I was interrupted, so i don't remember.
-cjfer-
Calvin Klein is trying to figure out what the next hip fragrance is to market to youth culture. They had fragrance and cultural hits in the early 90s - we may remember if only through some ancillary back of the head notion - the CK ads of marky mark if not the Lolita-esq Brooke shields of the late 80s. Back then, they were cool because they created, or at least tapped into something about the blow up - now they're trying to recreate that success by contriving a new fragrance meant to do the same thing it did 15 years ago. The difference is that instead of being on the leading edge of that culture, they're trying to hitch on the bandwagon. Calvin Klein, not even owned by Calvin Klein, is trying it's latest fragrance in2u. Because yup, that's how we talk and write. In fact, I don't even know why I'm bothering with sentences. Bro, r u crazy? Deh. Roo crazy? What bothers me about this, is two things.
1. The co-opting of youth culture by big corporations. Yes, youth culture is flawed and amorphous. Everyone has different likes and experiences, and no, it's not hard for us to imagine the CK brand marketing to urban 20 somethings, in the same Manhattan that hosts the CK offices. This generation, that the article lovingly describes as the millennials, or the technosexuals, is self described as being resistant to advertising. Yes, finally, out post modern senses allow us to resist ideology - corporate or otherwise. Back up a minute, Have we named our generation? Truly, the name technosexual was coined by the company to describe us. It's a marketing name that seems to have little to do with the reality. So, there's something weird about marketing to young people who describe themselves as being resistant to marketing. There's also something odd about a company that is not only trying to be in step with youth culture so that they can sell to youth culture - but at the same time is creating youth culture. Is it that out of the realm of possibilities - i have no sources here - to see a CK party hosted in a posh Manhattan loft, and featuring a lot of young, hipster, indie urbanites. The powers at be, be contriving a culture that young people are so resistant to - yet not totally unwilling to accept. After all, we're powered by coin.
1a. Do people even buy fragrances anymore? I mean, really? Especially young hipsters?
2. Problem 2 is that we actually talk like that. Well, you don't, and I don't - but the people of this generation - described as 1982-1995 do talk like that. The problem is that it gets worse the younger you get. There wont' even be language in 20 years. It will be like mike judges "idiocracy" - not a great film about the dumbing down of America in the future.
So, as I am working to defeat Emo, the question is, what do we do? Are we so resistant to any ideology that we ignore everything, or do we get sucked in and become patsies for the man? It's sad to think that there's no culture that exists anymore that can't be co-opted by a corporation. Ironically, even being resistant to being advertised to/being co-opted by someone, seems to be co-opted. If they can make some money off of it, they will sell it to masses. I think ultimately if you like something you buy it, if you don't you don't. It's a tough world we live in, where it's harder and harder to make what increasingly becomes a morally right choice. There seems to be a moral value in what you buy. Is the thing pro-environment, is it anti-corporate, is it green, free trade, is it trendy, is it anti-trendy, is it because you need it or because you want it, and whose side are you on? Hybrid drivers are liberal, gas powered car drivers are conservative.
There might have been more to this, but I was interrupted, so i don't remember.
-cjfer-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)