It's unbelieveable that the term is over and it's time for the final paper.
I've chosen two notions that I've discovered for myself in this course for the topic of my paper. I'd like to explore the relationship between defamiliarization and intertextuality as discussed in works by Shklovsky and Kristeva. I will also refer to other theorics to explain the relationship between the two concepts in literature.
till tomorrow
Monday, April 4, 2011
Monday, March 28, 2011
Subaltern studies
So I attempted to read Spivak's article, twice. It's definitely the hardest read I've encountered in this course. I know she is a very important figure in this field, but I can't understand what she's saying in this article. it is so dense, that I can't pick the imprtant point to concentrate on.
Something that I did understand at the beginning: Spivak states that a functional change ina sign-system is a violent event which can only be operated by the force of a crisis. Subaltern is the main figure of change: the subalternity turns things upside-down. I hope to clear some more things out for myself before tomorrow's class.
Something that I did understand at the beginning: Spivak states that a functional change ina sign-system is a violent event which can only be operated by the force of a crisis. Subaltern is the main figure of change: the subalternity turns things upside-down. I hope to clear some more things out for myself before tomorrow's class.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
What is an author? by M. Foucault
Foucault starts by saying that he is concentrating on thye relationship between text and author.
He states that "in writing, the point is not to manifest or exalt the act of writing, nor is it to pin a subject within language; it is, rather a quistion of creating a space into which the writing subject constantly disappears" (102). To me, this quote means that writing kills the author (maybe?). He often returns to the topic of death in writing, which of course, reminds me of Barths' "Death of the author". Although Foucault mentions that writing can also be a way of keeping the writer//his work from death, by leaving a legacy behind. He also discusses that we recognize an author by his works, since we can recognize his'her style of writing, which in turn makes the works original/authentic. In other words, we associate the author with is works and vice versa. Being an author of a work gives a special status to the discourse that is the written work. That is, his works are accepted differently from regular discourse (but what is the difference between a regular discourse and the one written my an author?)
An author function is given to the discourse by the existence and circulation in a society. This means that a writer is an author when his works are circulated among some group of people.
In the end, Foucault proposes that this function of the author will disappear, which will lead to the death of the author and his voice won't matter anymore. Rather, the influence on the reader and the meaning of the discourse will be more important.
He states that "in writing, the point is not to manifest or exalt the act of writing, nor is it to pin a subject within language; it is, rather a quistion of creating a space into which the writing subject constantly disappears" (102). To me, this quote means that writing kills the author (maybe?). He often returns to the topic of death in writing, which of course, reminds me of Barths' "Death of the author". Although Foucault mentions that writing can also be a way of keeping the writer//his work from death, by leaving a legacy behind. He also discusses that we recognize an author by his works, since we can recognize his'her style of writing, which in turn makes the works original/authentic. In other words, we associate the author with is works and vice versa. Being an author of a work gives a special status to the discourse that is the written work. That is, his works are accepted differently from regular discourse (but what is the difference between a regular discourse and the one written my an author?)
An author function is given to the discourse by the existence and circulation in a society. This means that a writer is an author when his works are circulated among some group of people.
In the end, Foucault proposes that this function of the author will disappear, which will lead to the death of the author and his voice won't matter anymore. Rather, the influence on the reader and the meaning of the discourse will be more important.
Monday, March 14, 2011
hooks, Butler, sexuality and performance.
Well, finally we're leaving behind marxism and moving onto sexuality and performance.
Paris is Burning...Is Paris Burning? I got to see some episodes of this documentary - very powerful, impressive, lots to learn...
I enjoyed reading the two analyses of this documentary by bell hooks and Judith Butler. Two women - different approaches. First detail that struck me - the name of the first author - why does she spell it with small letters? At first I though it was a typo, but apparrently not!
hooks starts with her own exprience as a black woman who used to picture cross-dressing of women into men as empowering, which represented moving from "powerlessness to privilege". For men to dress up and represent women was degrading to both men and women. She also brings up that especially black women were ridiculed in the "white machista society". The author agrees that impersonations of women were desempowering to both women and men.
From her point of view as a black female, hooks states in regard to Livingston's documentary: within the world of the black gay drag ball culture she depicts, the idea of womanness and femininity is totally personified by whiteness". White womanhood is the most sought after in that environment. That's why black gay men try to be like white women, not black ones. They hope being (acting) like white women will bring them closer to the white male, partiarch, which symbolises power and class.
In general, we feel a strong criticism from hooks towards Livingston for emposing her view on the black gay portrail. The film is clearly shaped by the perspective of the director although she tries to exclude the author. We hear her ask questions without seeing her. But the meer choice of questions giudes the characters in the direction that the interviewer wants. hooks compares Livingston's appropriation of black experience to Madonna's. hooks takes them out of the context of their lives by situating the documentary almost exclusively in the balls. "Certainly the degree to which black men in this gay subculture are portrayed as cut off from a "real" world heightens the emphasis on fantasy, and indeed gives Paris is Burning its tragic edge" (p. 154).
Butler presents another point of view on the documentary. Her article "Gender is Burning".
Butler starts by discussing the misconception/misinterpretation of drags and lesbians as based on misogeny (hatred of women) and misandry (hating men).
She talks about ambivalence which in this context can be both appropration and subversion of sex/race. Sometimes the tension between the two can be solved, sometimes appropriation takes over subversiveness.
I'd like to understand better what Butler says about denaturalization and the concept of performance.
That's all for now.
Paris is Burning...Is Paris Burning? I got to see some episodes of this documentary - very powerful, impressive, lots to learn...
I enjoyed reading the two analyses of this documentary by bell hooks and Judith Butler. Two women - different approaches. First detail that struck me - the name of the first author - why does she spell it with small letters? At first I though it was a typo, but apparrently not!
hooks starts with her own exprience as a black woman who used to picture cross-dressing of women into men as empowering, which represented moving from "powerlessness to privilege". For men to dress up and represent women was degrading to both men and women. She also brings up that especially black women were ridiculed in the "white machista society". The author agrees that impersonations of women were desempowering to both women and men.
From her point of view as a black female, hooks states in regard to Livingston's documentary: within the world of the black gay drag ball culture she depicts, the idea of womanness and femininity is totally personified by whiteness". White womanhood is the most sought after in that environment. That's why black gay men try to be like white women, not black ones. They hope being (acting) like white women will bring them closer to the white male, partiarch, which symbolises power and class.
In general, we feel a strong criticism from hooks towards Livingston for emposing her view on the black gay portrail. The film is clearly shaped by the perspective of the director although she tries to exclude the author. We hear her ask questions without seeing her. But the meer choice of questions giudes the characters in the direction that the interviewer wants. hooks compares Livingston's appropriation of black experience to Madonna's. hooks takes them out of the context of their lives by situating the documentary almost exclusively in the balls. "Certainly the degree to which black men in this gay subculture are portrayed as cut off from a "real" world heightens the emphasis on fantasy, and indeed gives Paris is Burning its tragic edge" (p. 154).
Butler presents another point of view on the documentary. Her article "Gender is Burning".
Butler starts by discussing the misconception/misinterpretation of drags and lesbians as based on misogeny (hatred of women) and misandry (hating men).
She talks about ambivalence which in this context can be both appropration and subversion of sex/race. Sometimes the tension between the two can be solved, sometimes appropriation takes over subversiveness.
I'd like to understand better what Butler says about denaturalization and the concept of performance.
That's all for now.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Grassi's rhetorical thought
Grassi starts by asking whether theoretical speech can be rhetorical. Since theoretical thinking is considered rational, and rhetoric thinking influences feelings, he conludes that feelings "disturb the clarity of rational thought" (p. 18).
Grassi shows that rhetoric is often perceived as secondary to philosophy, as a "technical doctrine of speech". Therefore, the author decides to "delimit the function of rhetoric" in order to find out "whether rhetoric has a purely technical, exterior, and practical aim of persuading, or whether it has an essentially philosophical structure and function" (p.19).
Theoretical speech is "figurative", "imaginative", "metaphorical" or "showing", i. e. "it shows something which has a sense, and this means that to the figure, the speech transfers a signification" (p. 20).
Rhetorical speech cannot have a rational character. "Rhetoric"assumes a fundamentally new significance; it's not and cannot be the art, the technique of an exterior persuasion; it is rather the speech which is the basis of the rational thought. Following this idea: "we are obliged to say that rhetorical speech comes before every rational speech, i. e. theoretical speech" (p. 20).
"The essence of man is determined both by logical and emotional elements, and as a result speech" has to appeal to both rhetoric and philosophy (p. 27).
I guess that's what we are doing: combining theory and practice/ theoretical texts which give us background knowledge and we read literary texts that demonstrate or illustrate what we learn from the theoretical texts (and thet's what many theoretical texts do by including literary examples to support their statements).
After giving the example of Plato, Grassi concludes that the true philosophy is rhetoric, and the true rhetoric is philosophy (one doesn't precede the other, rather, the two coexist) p. 32.
Metaphor is the basis of both rhetoric and philosophy. Metaphor by iteslf is metaphor since it's derived from a verb that meant "to transfer", which originally describes a concrete activity and now it's a "metaphorical" activity ("transposition of words").
These are some notes and ideas about Rhetoric based on the reading of Grassi.
Grassi shows that rhetoric is often perceived as secondary to philosophy, as a "technical doctrine of speech". Therefore, the author decides to "delimit the function of rhetoric" in order to find out "whether rhetoric has a purely technical, exterior, and practical aim of persuading, or whether it has an essentially philosophical structure and function" (p.19).
Theoretical speech is "figurative", "imaginative", "metaphorical" or "showing", i. e. "it shows something which has a sense, and this means that to the figure, the speech transfers a signification" (p. 20).
Rhetorical speech cannot have a rational character. "Rhetoric"assumes a fundamentally new significance; it's not and cannot be the art, the technique of an exterior persuasion; it is rather the speech which is the basis of the rational thought. Following this idea: "we are obliged to say that rhetorical speech comes before every rational speech, i. e. theoretical speech" (p. 20).
"The essence of man is determined both by logical and emotional elements, and as a result speech" has to appeal to both rhetoric and philosophy (p. 27).
I guess that's what we are doing: combining theory and practice/ theoretical texts which give us background knowledge and we read literary texts that demonstrate or illustrate what we learn from the theoretical texts (and thet's what many theoretical texts do by including literary examples to support their statements).
After giving the example of Plato, Grassi concludes that the true philosophy is rhetoric, and the true rhetoric is philosophy (one doesn't precede the other, rather, the two coexist) p. 32.
Metaphor is the basis of both rhetoric and philosophy. Metaphor by iteslf is metaphor since it's derived from a verb that meant "to transfer", which originally describes a concrete activity and now it's a "metaphorical" activity ("transposition of words").
These are some notes and ideas about Rhetoric based on the reading of Grassi.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Benjamin's technological reproducibility
I actually enjoyed reading this part of Benjamin's book. The goal of this piece was to study the impact of the reproduction of artwork and the art of film are having on art in its traditional form. He explains that a reproduction's shortcoming is its lack of "here and now" of the original work of art. This means the manual reproduction's lack of authenticity puts it below the original. However, when the technological reproduction appears, although it still lacks the here and now of the original, it is superior to the manual reproduction and to the original because technological reproduction can take the original further than it could ever get by itself. Besides, it is more independent of the original than the manual reproduction.
"By replacing the work many times over, it substitutes a mass existence for a unique existence. And in permitting the reproduction to reach the recipient in his or her own situation, it actualizes that which is reproduced" (p. 22).
Benjamin proposes that art should be politicized (as opposed to fascist idea of aesthecizing of politics).
The film is a form of art that contributes to expansion of art among the masses. According to Benjamin, "it is the artwork most capable of improvement. And this capability is linked to its radical renunciation of eternal value" (I understand its originality?) p. 28.
One of the crucial points in this chapter, in my opinion is the following quote:
"The technological reproducibility of the artwork changes the relation of the masses to art" (p.36). Masses exposed to the arts can be educated together (or brainwashed, I guess, too). By education of the masses a change can be made in the direction desired by the political leaders. That's exactly what the communists wanted and achieved to a degree.
That's all for now. Sorry for the late blog...
"By replacing the work many times over, it substitutes a mass existence for a unique existence. And in permitting the reproduction to reach the recipient in his or her own situation, it actualizes that which is reproduced" (p. 22).
Benjamin proposes that art should be politicized (as opposed to fascist idea of aesthecizing of politics).
The film is a form of art that contributes to expansion of art among the masses. According to Benjamin, "it is the artwork most capable of improvement. And this capability is linked to its radical renunciation of eternal value" (I understand its originality?) p. 28.
One of the crucial points in this chapter, in my opinion is the following quote:
"The technological reproducibility of the artwork changes the relation of the masses to art" (p.36). Masses exposed to the arts can be educated together (or brainwashed, I guess, too). By education of the masses a change can be made in the direction desired by the political leaders. That's exactly what the communists wanted and achieved to a degree.
That's all for now. Sorry for the late blog...
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Deus ex Machina
I agree with many posts that machines, discussed by the author, can influence the reader or can be interpreted by the reader in many ways (depending on the reader, context, situation, etc.). In contrast, the thesis of the writer suggests that artistic text is a machine working on the reader as a transforming device. I am interested in the different kinds of " machines": linguistic, information, magical, etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)