Weekly Blog #5 Structuralism and Semiotics

Ferdinand Saussure talks about the relation of signs, composed of the signifier and the signified. When we look at different magazine ads, for example, we not only see, but we sense, due to our relation from the signifier. It is safe to say that every advertiser is involved in the art of this technique. Commercializing things is not as simple as showing a product, but is as difficult as trying to evoke some part of you, the viewer, that relates to a subject in the advertisement in which you decide it would be best to buy their product. While everyone is different, we can assume that the media is doing a good job of molding the general population’s desires, so that all they have to do is look to the popular desires and work with those to try to meet their usually impractical needs. But through persuading someone that they need this product or else they won’t be successful, or smart, or happy, or healthy, we have successfully slightly been brainwashed in order for a company to raise their revenue.
As signs can be used for good or evil in this way, we see that they are what evokes meaning in to our lives. If we pass by the beach and all we really think is, beach/sand/water/umbrellas, we most likely aren’t human, but instead we think freedom/joy/fun/family, etc. due to our experiences we had with the beach. If we come across a sign that we have never experienced before it might be blank, but we are soon to fill in the white space with movement and color and opinions, hence, again, we will know that we are indeed human.

Weekly Blog #4 Formalism

To sensationalize news is an interesting concept in which Shklovsky addresses in “Art as Technique.” We of course use art in most communication, but in the news it can be a touchy subject. For a news reporter to communicate their own personal opinion is out of context and frowned upon. When the Hindenburg went down and the reporter said, “Oh the humanity,” it would be considered “sensationalized.” Yet this is humane. When we watched the clip of a comedic scene in class where a news reporter was “sensationalizing” the news, it seemed inhumane however. We can see that he had no regard for the president that got shot, as he was trying to catch our attention through his acting like a game show host or sports reporter of some sort. In this way, he was acting, but in the case of the Hindenburg, he was himself. I would have to say that if the projection of thought, emotion or opinion is real, from the heart of the person, than it would be apropos, however if it was set up for the purpose of catching the audience’s attention, it would be a rhetorical device for the use of persuasion to a certain stance, which can be debatable on the ground of ethics.
Terry Eagleton was adamant that the discipline of literature not only a recreational device, but a means of sustaining the dominant social order. If we look at today, and replace “discipline of literature” with “media” we might be able to draw the same conclusion. What better way to influence the masses than by creating a movie, for example, that is not only viewed and accepted nationwide, but worldwide? A major concern and popular topic is subliminal messages in movies due to biased beliefs within the political system. This is how movies “actively produce ideology rather than merely reflect it,” as Eagleton says. They have been the source of people’s opinions changed or stances moved, values replaced and belief systems corrupted.

Weekly Blog #3 Enlightenment Theory and Criticism

Burke talks about the sublime as did Longinus, but he calls our attention to aesthetics. He says that we don’t give up acquired taste, but we need to in order to get back to our natural taste. This concept is interesting because, as we discussed in class, everyone has their own opinions as to what is beautiful, due to our experiences which form opinions which form natural tendencies to like or dislike something, calling it beautiful or repulsive, pleasant or unpleasant. He says “the power of distinguishing between the natural and the acquired relish remains to the very last.”
So as he implies there is a difference between our natural and acquired taste. But I would interject, is it even possible that we can perceive what our “natural taste” is since from the moment we are born, we start experiencing, and so forth? Also, since each person is unique, wouldn’t each person’s “natural taste” be different as well? Burke doesn’t think so. He says that “there is in all men a sufficient remembrance of the original natural causes of pleasure, to enable them to bring all things offered to their senses to that standard, and to regulate their feelings and opinions by it.”
Hegel talks about the master and slave concept. I would have to say that the way these two would be able to be on the same level of respect would have to be their relationship. If the master befriends the slave, would the slave not respect the master and therefore, if anything, work harder and enjoy his job a little more due to his care for his master? And wouldn’t the master grow compassion and enjoyment toward his slave, thus naturally treating him humanely?

Weekly Blog #2

     Aristotle was one to combat Plato without shame or timidity. He said a lot in his works, but I will focus on a few points and what came up in class. Upon watching the allegory of the cave in a new way, animated in a youtube clip, we experience the same idea as he was explaining. This “explanation” of his allegory is even twice removed from his text, as we have a narrator paraphrasing it, plus a pictorial depiction of it, which makes me wonder, as the prisoners might have wondered, what the real story was like when he told it.

     Longinus talks about the sublime, which is a concept we use in such a different way than what I think he meant. When we see something that is beautiful, we easily say it is “sublime.” But what do we really mean? We usually use it in such a casual way, with no rhyme or reason behind the moment other than chance, luck and happenstance. But Longinus advocates that “though nature is on the whole a law unto herself in matters of emotion and elevation, she is not a random force and does not work altogether without method,” so that even the things that are out of our control have some sort of method or reason to their being; their sublimity. Here is an example of an interpretation I would consider four times removed.

Reflection on my group presentation

     For my group presentation, we had a larger group than the others. In this way, it was harder to meet all at once, so we focused on emailing each other. We had a great powerpoint presentation with our individual notes submitted to one of the classmates. I enjoyed our presentation especially because I observed how six different theorists came together, or apart, all at once. It was good to be refreshed with information in a summarized way, and have the experience of teaching a whole class. It was interesting to speak out and hear so many different opinions and conclusions from both these theorists and the class all at once.
    Jean-Paul Sartre, the focus of my part in the presentation, was an interesting man to go in depth with. I realized, as did the people that study him, that he does not exactly answer his own question, "why write"? But instead he beats around the bush, lending to his purpose of having meaning end in the reader, not the author. In fact, this might be his subconscious effort to help us understand that we have to make the meaning "exist" by reading even his own open ended theory.
     One of the most interesting things I found is a point that Sartre makes about art and how he relates it to writing. He says that "we never receive from it that gaity of love. We put them into it," a subjective discovery. Since the art piece comes from the depths of our heart, we will never find anything but ourselves in it. He then relates it to reading in which "the author does not see the words as the reader does since he knows them before writing them down." He only "projects." This is an interesting statement to ponder.

Weekly Blog #1 Classical Literary Criticism

     It is interesting to see how Georgias of Leontini not only had a unique name, but had some unique views on speech. He differs from Plato's didactic view, which I found very interesting.  While most would look down upon wording ad phrasing that aims to persuade with no substane of truth, Gorgias praises it. He embraces rhetoric while Plato thinks it is utterly wrong. As he rose to be one of the most influential Sophists, we can see that there was definitely something approved and admired within his social construct and practice.
     How often do we hear that someone reads a poem and stands in awe; in agreement, but doesn't have a clue as to what it means? There is the same sort of appeal in the kind of speech pattern that Gorgias puts on a pedestal. Whether we admit it or not, there is a great commendation toward rhetoric; an approval and encouragement of it, because it has some sort of settling effect on us; a cathartic experience, and usually something to hold on to and root for at the end of a speech, for example.
      The diligent teacher is different then the great speaker. While both can collide, the teacher would have no place in rhetorical devices as a means to success, but truth revealed as a means to success. In the conviction, for example, of a stance in politics, he might spend more time researching and methodically revealing the information, while a rhetorical great speaker might spend more time on the wording and phrasing of the information, even if he had to say a speech on the spot, with little research done. He would use appeals to ethos, pathos, and logos for a strong argument, supporting what little solid facts he might have. In this scenario, the latter might easily be won by an audience of artists, but might lose in a group of politicians.
     In the case of Helen, not only do we have a speaker who is skilled with rhetoric, but a situation in which it is extremely unpolular and challanging to defend. The power of speech is highlighted here, however, to defend Helen quite eloquently.

Analysis #2 Structuralism

Structuralism is conveyed in this photo, taken by Dave Blumenkrantz, due to the juxtaposition of this soon to be mother and a machine for destruction. It creates a place to speak, to theorize, to investigate, instead of just gazing at the aesthetics. It decenters the individual portraying the self as a construct and a consequence of impersonal systems." They are not in control of their social existence, but "created by social and cultural systems, within which they are subjects" (Norton, 20) We focus on the internal approach here. What is this woman's life like? Why is a precious life about to be born next to a killing machine? What is she thinking? This evokes a string of conversation about the actual happenings within the picture, not just the composition of the picture. Rather, the composition evokes the structuralism therein. This picture poses a spectrum of possibilities as we realize the setting of her home.