First off, I would just like to say thank you to Ken Rufo for such an interesting post about Baudrillard.
I must say that I truly enjoyed this post explaining the various ideas expressed by Baudrillard. His real life examples and experiences, helped me get a better understanding of the concepts of simulation. simulacra, and the idea of the hyper-real.... or so I hope.
As I sat reading Rufo's example of Disney, it never really occurred to me that all of the countries or nations Disney puts on display in Epcot are actually this idea of simulacrum. Vacationers of Disney are supposedly "transported" into a place where they can travel around - country to country - and not have to leave the United States. Yet, according to Rufo, these nations are "so fake that they aren't actually copying anything, in fact they are making stuff up." For those of us who haven't been able to venture outside the US to experience these places first hand, what we see in Disney is what many of us may take as what the country actually looks like or what goes on within it.
How many times have we watched a movie or seen an image and thought, "Let's recreate that picture?" - Take for example, the image of the sailors kiss in Times Square. Many people have attempted for years to go to that same spot in NewYork and simulate that famous kiss. This simulation is what Baudrillard calls the hyper-real - "a simulation in which we filter our experiences though the simulation of that reality." Sure, its cliche, but we do it anyway because we assume it to be real.
The one point by Rufo/Baudrillard that I thought was interesting was the aspect of the
"integral reality" - which as Rufo explains that its a a state where the simulation never goes away - its everywhere. Rufo's example of a credit card, I could totally agree/understand because how often do we, as college students, resort to our credit card as a means of "having money." We never know how much we are spending, or paying for that matter for the desired object. This money that we believe to have doesn't exist yet it . The credit card simulation is everywhere because we are constantly using them in time when we are all strapped for cash -there is no way of getting around it unless we have some spare change lying around.
Again, I would like to thank Ken Rufo for his excellent and helpful post about Baudrillard. Maybe the next time we go to Disney, we will remember that it is all simulation and not actual reality. As Disney states, its "where all your dreams come true..." - but is it our dreams/simulations or reality?
until next time - -
pelipuff
Friday, October 31, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
You Think You Know... But You Have No Idea...
Foucault’s “What is an Author?” explains the idea of the significance of the author. In contrast with Barthes idea that the author does not exist, Foucault believes that the author does exists.
Foucault raises an idea that the “function of an author is to characterize the existence, circulation, and operation of certain discourse”, meaning the authors job is bring in an identity or meaning of some aspect into the text – whether it be literary or not. Depending on the authors discourse and writing style, the reader will be able to figure out a sense of who the author is and what he or she is like.
Upon surfing the web for a blog relating to Foucault’s theory, I stumbled upon Dr. Chris Chesher’s blog that talks about the idea of blogging and its crisis of authorship. Within his post, Chesher discusses how blogs carry on and in some cases “transform” the notion of authorship.
Despite my lack of blogging experience, blogs for others are the latest trend. More and more we are seeing blogs being used for journalism purposes, diary purposes, or even educational purposes. Given that blogs can be publicly personalized while remaining private at the time, Chesher believes that certain features bring up Foucault’s author function more effectively than other web technology. “The inverted narrative structure of the archive, the consistent voice, the time stamp that positions posts in a reference to a temporality shared with readers” reveals to many a sense of authorship in a different context.
When one writes a blog, they often create a name of which to go by in their posts. As they write, they bring a sense of style and voice as Chesher says to the blog. So as readers stumble upon the blog and read these posts, they have no idea who the “author” is. For the readers, they start to “attribute a text to an imagined writer.” Each post created by the name is supposed to reveal information about the supposed authors voice, personality, style, etc.
Which makes me wonder, after you have stumbled across this blog numerous times, reading my posts for class each week, do you feel as though you have me, the author, figured out yet? Am I living up to your expectations?
Foucault raises an idea that the “function of an author is to characterize the existence, circulation, and operation of certain discourse”, meaning the authors job is bring in an identity or meaning of some aspect into the text – whether it be literary or not. Depending on the authors discourse and writing style, the reader will be able to figure out a sense of who the author is and what he or she is like.
Upon surfing the web for a blog relating to Foucault’s theory, I stumbled upon Dr. Chris Chesher’s blog that talks about the idea of blogging and its crisis of authorship. Within his post, Chesher discusses how blogs carry on and in some cases “transform” the notion of authorship.
Despite my lack of blogging experience, blogs for others are the latest trend. More and more we are seeing blogs being used for journalism purposes, diary purposes, or even educational purposes. Given that blogs can be publicly personalized while remaining private at the time, Chesher believes that certain features bring up Foucault’s author function more effectively than other web technology. “The inverted narrative structure of the archive, the consistent voice, the time stamp that positions posts in a reference to a temporality shared with readers” reveals to many a sense of authorship in a different context.
When one writes a blog, they often create a name of which to go by in their posts. As they write, they bring a sense of style and voice as Chesher says to the blog. So as readers stumble upon the blog and read these posts, they have no idea who the “author” is. For the readers, they start to “attribute a text to an imagined writer.” Each post created by the name is supposed to reveal information about the supposed authors voice, personality, style, etc.
Which makes me wonder, after you have stumbled across this blog numerous times, reading my posts for class each week, do you feel as though you have me, the author, figured out yet? Am I living up to your expectations?
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
"Above all things, this story is about love....."
In the film, Derrida discusses his feelings about love saying, “It’s the most important thing in anyone’s life.” However, how do we know if we love someone? Do we love someone because they are a person, or do we love someone for their qualities – humor, caring, genuine, etc.? When falling in love with someone, there are usually certain aspects that attract us to him or her – their personality, their physical attributes, etc. These are the things that allow us to enjoy that person’s company, to want them around to make our lives more enjoyable. But, Derrida asks, what is it that we are falling in love with – the person itself, or these qualities?
If we say we are in love with their qualities, then we call into question Derrida’s idea of love being narcissistic because often the qualities that we are attracted to are the same qualities we find within ourselves – whether it be humor, intelligence, beauty, etc. Narcissism is the failure to see a separation between the self and others. Everything that we see in others is just an extension of ourselves. We can use the example mentioned in class regarding a baby. Way back many years ago (for some of us), when we were all small babies, unable to communicate with the world, we had narcissistic tendencies. In our eyes, our mothers were an extension of us. When she would walk away, we just thought ourselves as being extended because of the fact that we could not separate the idea of self and other.
We can relate this idea of narcissism back to love because Derrida states “all love is about projecting our own needs and desires onto the other person.” Our own wants and qualities are the things we look for in a person – it’s what makes us attracted to that person. Take for example the idea of a “money maker.” If we feel as though we need a lavish lifestyle filled with money and material things, then we are going to love a person who makes a significant amount of money and lives in a wealthy lifestyle. Our desire to have these qualities is being projected onto someone we love or are looking to love.
Derrida’s ideas on love are interesting to consider because how often are we battling our opinions on whether or not we love someone. Do we love them because they exist or because there are qualities within this person that we see in ourselves and enjoy? I feel as though when we look at love, we often chose the idea that love means to love a person’s qualities because otherwise we would be loving every person simply because they are a person –they are there. If we love someone for their qualities, there are only a certain amount of people that share the same qualities and values as us.
If, in my twenty years, I have learned anything from watching cheesy, cliché, romantic movies, it’s the fact that we all believe there is someone out there for all of us.
Until next time…..
pelipuff
If we say we are in love with their qualities, then we call into question Derrida’s idea of love being narcissistic because often the qualities that we are attracted to are the same qualities we find within ourselves – whether it be humor, intelligence, beauty, etc. Narcissism is the failure to see a separation between the self and others. Everything that we see in others is just an extension of ourselves. We can use the example mentioned in class regarding a baby. Way back many years ago (for some of us), when we were all small babies, unable to communicate with the world, we had narcissistic tendencies. In our eyes, our mothers were an extension of us. When she would walk away, we just thought ourselves as being extended because of the fact that we could not separate the idea of self and other.
We can relate this idea of narcissism back to love because Derrida states “all love is about projecting our own needs and desires onto the other person.” Our own wants and qualities are the things we look for in a person – it’s what makes us attracted to that person. Take for example the idea of a “money maker.” If we feel as though we need a lavish lifestyle filled with money and material things, then we are going to love a person who makes a significant amount of money and lives in a wealthy lifestyle. Our desire to have these qualities is being projected onto someone we love or are looking to love.
Derrida’s ideas on love are interesting to consider because how often are we battling our opinions on whether or not we love someone. Do we love them because they exist or because there are qualities within this person that we see in ourselves and enjoy? I feel as though when we look at love, we often chose the idea that love means to love a person’s qualities because otherwise we would be loving every person simply because they are a person –they are there. If we love someone for their qualities, there are only a certain amount of people that share the same qualities and values as us.
If, in my twenty years, I have learned anything from watching cheesy, cliché, romantic movies, it’s the fact that we all believe there is someone out there for all of us.
Until next time…..
pelipuff
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
When a train became a train....
How many times have we come across a word or any form of language and wondered where its meaning came from? Or why we call the object that word in general? Well Saussure followed through with this idea and came up with an interesting theory - that "signs function not through their intrinsic value but by the relative position."
Take Saussure's/Barry's example of a train. As many Boston residents travel around the city, we often jump on the T to get to one place to another. But while you're waiting at the platform, have you ever wondered why the train is called a "train?" According to Barry, one can't base a "train" on physical characteristics simply for the fact that they can change. Clearly you can't base the train on the time when it leaves, considering they run each at different intervals. However, let's pretend for a minute that we wanted to travel to South Station but due to rail maintenance the green line is down and we must use the red line between Park Street and South Station. With Saussure, the train is given its identity/meaning by "its position in a structure of differences" (43) - because we only know the red line train since it runs through these two stops thus making its identity purely relational to the stops we need to travel to.
For me personally, post structuralism helps me understand this statement better because the relationship between the red line and these stops is stable. Neither one is anything without the other - Park Street would lack meaning if it wasn't for the fact that I can jump on the red line. Yet, according to the post structuralism theory, to define a train simply by two stops is completely unreliable because it wants to define and reveal the center. Structuralism allows us to give a train its meaning because we are its center. We hold the meaning.
Take Saussure's/Barry's example of a train. As many Boston residents travel around the city, we often jump on the T to get to one place to another. But while you're waiting at the platform, have you ever wondered why the train is called a "train?" According to Barry, one can't base a "train" on physical characteristics simply for the fact that they can change. Clearly you can't base the train on the time when it leaves, considering they run each at different intervals. However, let's pretend for a minute that we wanted to travel to South Station but due to rail maintenance the green line is down and we must use the red line between Park Street and South Station. With Saussure, the train is given its identity/meaning by "its position in a structure of differences" (43) - because we only know the red line train since it runs through these two stops thus making its identity purely relational to the stops we need to travel to.
For me personally, post structuralism helps me understand this statement better because the relationship between the red line and these stops is stable. Neither one is anything without the other - Park Street would lack meaning if it wasn't for the fact that I can jump on the red line. Yet, according to the post structuralism theory, to define a train simply by two stops is completely unreliable because it wants to define and reveal the center. Structuralism allows us to give a train its meaning because we are its center. We hold the meaning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
