The Daily Show with Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
SeaWorld of Pain | ||||
|
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Hilarious Daily Show Segment
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Reflection on course goals, teaching, assignments, and readings
After class today, I started to think about why I decided to give you all such difficult, long, and obscure texts. As I have said several times, these texts are hard even for me with my extensive background in philosophy, cultural studies, literature, and to a certain extent, politics. Part of their difficulty, as many of you pointed out, stems from their length. I agree with all of you that it is more realistic (from a teaching/learning/pedagogy) standpoint to decrease the length of the readings per day, breaking them up or potentially omitting large sections that I can then summarize.
Allow me to think quantitatively for a minute, here. We have had approximately probably about 2 hours (maybe) to discuss each reading, if I give more time to the readings than say lecture or in class activities. While the blog posts (mine and yours) as well as my responses supplements this, I realize that this is not the same as "live" discussion. The Foucault, for instance, is probably about 30-40 pages of a "normal" book (even though its only about 25, give or take, in Ways of Reading).
In graduate seminars, we generally discuss a 250-300 page book in 3 hours. That said, we rarely cover the entire book in 3 hours, something that has frustrated me as someone who really enjoys discussing the little details of the book. Furthermore, its a graduate seminar, so most of us are expected to be able to discuss teh book as a whole.
But rarely do we discuss the particular "rhetoric" or "writing" of the book itself, which is ostensibly what 1102 is supposed to use the readings for.
So what is my point and why am I talking about my graduate seminars? My point is that the major reason I assign all of the text (and don't break it up) is to try and help you in your selections of information/citations and how to make it meaningful. When you do research, some research articles (at least peer reviewed ones) will be 20-25 pages long and if you have to cite 8 sources, that is 20x8 = 160 pages of material that you have to sort through to find a few points to include in your 2700 (10-12 page) research essay. If you use books, you need to try and wade through information/text in order to find a point that you can use to support your own argument. This is not easy I tell you, as someone who reads hundreds of pages a semester.
This process of selection, however, is not as difficult as wading through something like Foucault, a complex, abstract, philosopher/historian/theorist that I still have not "mastered" (nor ever will--no one has). Most books/articles will have indexes, abstracts, and sometimes breaks in the article indicated by section titles. These are tricks that you will need to learn in order to manage the amount of research necessary to produce your own work.
Furthermore, I recognize that the majority of us do not encounter such complex texts on an every day basis. The longest piece of writing we are apt to read nowadays might be a two-three page article on the huffingtonpost, but most of writing comes in headlines, soundbites, videos, images, or textbooks (a form of writing that is structured to help students understand meaning). Selection seems determined less by the complexity of the information and more by the amount of the information, each of it easily understandable--for the most part.
The texts that we have looked at disrupt our normal processes of interpretation of meaning and on could make the argument that they may not be rhetorically effective for even a general, educated audience such as yourselves and the public at large (I would include myself, but a lot of these texts fall under my academic specialty --theory/philosophy).
To recap, if we only have 2 hours (approx) that we can devote to an explication to these texts and they are not broken up into sections (such that then the questions might become: what makes this section of Foucault different from the section we discussed yesterday, last week, etc) and texts in the Ways of Reading complicate interpretation and are not representative of the type of research you will encounter and do encounter on a day to day basis, which is more 'accessible' to a certain extent, rhetorically speaking), then it would only be logical to conclude that the readings do not facilitate achieving the stated goals of the course in its title: Rhetoric and Academic Research.
In other words, first, if we cannot even understand the basic concepts we are working with, it is doubtful that we will be able to discuss the rhetorical choices of these authors nor will be able to discuss how you can "use" these rhetorical strategies in your own writing or how the rhetorical choices made by the author affect what he or she is trying to say. Second, if our readings are in both meanings of the term, the "exceptional" works (meaning, not the norm but also those that exceed the norm in meaning and richness), than the readings do not prepare you to encounter a typical academic research article.
If you were (or are) working in the realm of theories of power, Foucault is useful to know and indeed you may encounter his name again; if you are working with art criticism, history, and media theory, Berger is an essential voice in the field; but the sad (?) truth is that the complexity of someone like Foucault is greatly reduced in academic texts because they are, like you (and me) readers more often than producers of those "primary" texts that are so rich with meaning that people keep reading and re-reading them.
Very few of us will write like Foucault (including me) and many people outside academia find him, like you may have, impenetrable, dense, convoluted, overrated, obscure (pick your pejorative adjective), but some of us (me included) might write about Foucault or use/cite Foucault. However, that may not involve an explication of his texts, carefully constructing meaning (many people have already done this work).
This is what makes videos and images so great to teach. Still, we must balance this with a reading of written texts because it is necessary to integrate these written texts in order to support one's argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Possible strategies for future courses and/or later this semester
But it is hard to decide what "level" of texts to present. On the one hand, giving news articles only presents us with a journalistic style and rhetoric. op-ed articles are good, but in a way lack the complexity, depth, and breadth of research than an academic article. Academic articles tend to be specific to the academic discipline and address issues that may only be meaningful within that paradigm or if one is familiar with the more 'primary' texts of the field. More 'personal' essays (some of which are in Ways of Reading) may include elements that the writer uses skillfully that may not be acceptable in an academic article or that beginning writers may not use as effectively--perhaps this is why Bartholomae and Petrosky recommend imitating the style. Fiction, although it usually contains implicit arguments, can be even more ambiguous about its "meaning" or the argument its making than the theoretical work we have engaged in. Not to mention, many of you are not literature majors and this technically is not a "literature" class. I do not want this course to be a repeat of your high school literature and language courses and I'm sure you don't really want that either.
The honest truth is that you will learn about the conventions of writing in your discipline; I am not fluent in many of these conventions. These conventions would also lead to a construction of different assignments than analysis, synthesis, annotated bibliography, and research paper. Due to university/department conventions, goals, and restrictions, I am obligated to constrain myself to these major assignments. But more importantly, since many disciplines require data, experiments, illustrations, measurements--aspects of your discipline I am ill equipped to teach you--I cannot think of how I would construct such assignments that would fit our allotted time schedule.
And so perhaps this is why the course is labeled Rhetoric and Academic Research rather than Rhetoric and Academic Writing. While research processes may be similar (at least when one is researching textual sources, which, regardless of your discipline, you will have to do) the writing produced from this research has its own conventions for making meaning and displaying data.
Therefore, rhetoric can be explained through video clips, images, various different written documents. These should be texts with relatively clear arguments, 'ordinary' language (not necessarily colloquial), and of moderate length given the time we have in class to work on them. This could allow me to choose different articles that we have not discussed in class for our major assignments, but which are "comparable" to the genres and lengths of texts we have discussed in class. Of course, this risks the assignments having less to do with classwork and thus may provide less continuity and unity to the course as a whole (but perhaps this was always a forced unity). On the other hand, as long as these other texts were analogous in theme, it would seem less like the class exercises did not contribute to a larger understanding.
Perhaps introducing something new that we do not discuss in class in addition to 2 articles that we do discuss in class might allow for some tension to form in theses and in the essays in general. Perhaps the two articles in class can be shorter whereas the third one will be longer and more complex, forcing students to figure it out with one another--on the blog or otherwise. Perhaps this would help create tension in the thesis or in the interpretations of the articles. This would also free up more time for other activities besides discussion of texts.
Allow me to think quantitatively for a minute, here. We have had approximately probably about 2 hours (maybe) to discuss each reading, if I give more time to the readings than say lecture or in class activities. While the blog posts (mine and yours) as well as my responses supplements this, I realize that this is not the same as "live" discussion. The Foucault, for instance, is probably about 30-40 pages of a "normal" book (even though its only about 25, give or take, in Ways of Reading).
In graduate seminars, we generally discuss a 250-300 page book in 3 hours. That said, we rarely cover the entire book in 3 hours, something that has frustrated me as someone who really enjoys discussing the little details of the book. Furthermore, its a graduate seminar, so most of us are expected to be able to discuss teh book as a whole.
But rarely do we discuss the particular "rhetoric" or "writing" of the book itself, which is ostensibly what 1102 is supposed to use the readings for.
So what is my point and why am I talking about my graduate seminars? My point is that the major reason I assign all of the text (and don't break it up) is to try and help you in your selections of information/citations and how to make it meaningful. When you do research, some research articles (at least peer reviewed ones) will be 20-25 pages long and if you have to cite 8 sources, that is 20x8 = 160 pages of material that you have to sort through to find a few points to include in your 2700 (10-12 page) research essay. If you use books, you need to try and wade through information/text in order to find a point that you can use to support your own argument. This is not easy I tell you, as someone who reads hundreds of pages a semester.
This process of selection, however, is not as difficult as wading through something like Foucault, a complex, abstract, philosopher/historian/theorist that I still have not "mastered" (nor ever will--no one has). Most books/articles will have indexes, abstracts, and sometimes breaks in the article indicated by section titles. These are tricks that you will need to learn in order to manage the amount of research necessary to produce your own work.
Furthermore, I recognize that the majority of us do not encounter such complex texts on an every day basis. The longest piece of writing we are apt to read nowadays might be a two-three page article on the huffingtonpost, but most of writing comes in headlines, soundbites, videos, images, or textbooks (a form of writing that is structured to help students understand meaning). Selection seems determined less by the complexity of the information and more by the amount of the information, each of it easily understandable--for the most part.
The texts that we have looked at disrupt our normal processes of interpretation of meaning and on could make the argument that they may not be rhetorically effective for even a general, educated audience such as yourselves and the public at large (I would include myself, but a lot of these texts fall under my academic specialty --theory/philosophy).
To recap, if we only have 2 hours (approx) that we can devote to an explication to these texts and they are not broken up into sections (such that then the questions might become: what makes this section of Foucault different from the section we discussed yesterday, last week, etc) and texts in the Ways of Reading complicate interpretation and are not representative of the type of research you will encounter and do encounter on a day to day basis, which is more 'accessible' to a certain extent, rhetorically speaking), then it would only be logical to conclude that the readings do not facilitate achieving the stated goals of the course in its title: Rhetoric and Academic Research.
In other words, first, if we cannot even understand the basic concepts we are working with, it is doubtful that we will be able to discuss the rhetorical choices of these authors nor will be able to discuss how you can "use" these rhetorical strategies in your own writing or how the rhetorical choices made by the author affect what he or she is trying to say. Second, if our readings are in both meanings of the term, the "exceptional" works (meaning, not the norm but also those that exceed the norm in meaning and richness), than the readings do not prepare you to encounter a typical academic research article.
If you were (or are) working in the realm of theories of power, Foucault is useful to know and indeed you may encounter his name again; if you are working with art criticism, history, and media theory, Berger is an essential voice in the field; but the sad (?) truth is that the complexity of someone like Foucault is greatly reduced in academic texts because they are, like you (and me) readers more often than producers of those "primary" texts that are so rich with meaning that people keep reading and re-reading them.
Very few of us will write like Foucault (including me) and many people outside academia find him, like you may have, impenetrable, dense, convoluted, overrated, obscure (pick your pejorative adjective), but some of us (me included) might write about Foucault or use/cite Foucault. However, that may not involve an explication of his texts, carefully constructing meaning (many people have already done this work).
This is what makes videos and images so great to teach. Still, we must balance this with a reading of written texts because it is necessary to integrate these written texts in order to support one's argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Possible strategies for future courses and/or later this semester
But it is hard to decide what "level" of texts to present. On the one hand, giving news articles only presents us with a journalistic style and rhetoric. op-ed articles are good, but in a way lack the complexity, depth, and breadth of research than an academic article. Academic articles tend to be specific to the academic discipline and address issues that may only be meaningful within that paradigm or if one is familiar with the more 'primary' texts of the field. More 'personal' essays (some of which are in Ways of Reading) may include elements that the writer uses skillfully that may not be acceptable in an academic article or that beginning writers may not use as effectively--perhaps this is why Bartholomae and Petrosky recommend imitating the style. Fiction, although it usually contains implicit arguments, can be even more ambiguous about its "meaning" or the argument its making than the theoretical work we have engaged in. Not to mention, many of you are not literature majors and this technically is not a "literature" class. I do not want this course to be a repeat of your high school literature and language courses and I'm sure you don't really want that either.
The honest truth is that you will learn about the conventions of writing in your discipline; I am not fluent in many of these conventions. These conventions would also lead to a construction of different assignments than analysis, synthesis, annotated bibliography, and research paper. Due to university/department conventions, goals, and restrictions, I am obligated to constrain myself to these major assignments. But more importantly, since many disciplines require data, experiments, illustrations, measurements--aspects of your discipline I am ill equipped to teach you--I cannot think of how I would construct such assignments that would fit our allotted time schedule.
And so perhaps this is why the course is labeled Rhetoric and Academic Research rather than Rhetoric and Academic Writing. While research processes may be similar (at least when one is researching textual sources, which, regardless of your discipline, you will have to do) the writing produced from this research has its own conventions for making meaning and displaying data.
Therefore, rhetoric can be explained through video clips, images, various different written documents. These should be texts with relatively clear arguments, 'ordinary' language (not necessarily colloquial), and of moderate length given the time we have in class to work on them. This could allow me to choose different articles that we have not discussed in class for our major assignments, but which are "comparable" to the genres and lengths of texts we have discussed in class. Of course, this risks the assignments having less to do with classwork and thus may provide less continuity and unity to the course as a whole (but perhaps this was always a forced unity). On the other hand, as long as these other texts were analogous in theme, it would seem less like the class exercises did not contribute to a larger understanding.
Perhaps introducing something new that we do not discuss in class in addition to 2 articles that we do discuss in class might allow for some tension to form in theses and in the essays in general. Perhaps the two articles in class can be shorter whereas the third one will be longer and more complex, forcing students to figure it out with one another--on the blog or otherwise. Perhaps this would help create tension in the thesis or in the interpretations of the articles. This would also free up more time for other activities besides discussion of texts.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Panopticon--Foucault
Sorry for being so out of sorts today--I'd like to think it is because of my cold. I need to clarify a couple things about the Foucault--I was muddling some really key distinctions today.
1.) Foucault's example of the plague is not "opposed" to that of the leper. They are "different" projects but not incompatible ones (285). According to Foucault, they are coming together: "individualize the excluded, but use procedures of individualization to mark exclusion" (285). Thus, we divide people into binary categories: mad/sane, dangerous/harmless and then we brand them with one or the other, which then indvidualizes them. Thus, someone becomes separated from society due to their branding as 'abnormal' and then we decide we will try and make them 'normal' again through disciplinary techniques.
The model of the 'plague' gives rise to disciplinary mechanisms because discipline calls for a distribution and and ordering of any kind of disorder and confusion, which is the model of the plague. However, the difference between the 'plague' situation is that the plague is framed as an "exceptional" situation: "against an extraordinary evil, power is mobilized," but the panopticon is a "generalizable model of functioning; a way of defining power relations in terms of the everyday life of men" (292). This means that the power relations formed because of the plague, which separates into the "simple binary of life and death" is generalized to our every day lives. This is how power becomes productive.
This is what Foucault means when he says that the Panopticon has a role of amplification
Therefore, I need to return to Caroline's question today about the "two images of discipline." So the "one extreme" the "discipline blockage, the enclosed institution, established on the edge of society, turned inwards towards negative functions" is the schema of exceptional discipline--discipline is not the "norm" of this society, it is used in exceptional situations, like the plague. Discipline is only used, here as a kind of 'prevention' mechanism--for prisoners or criminals who are then isolated from society. The panoptic society, however has to improve the exercise of power by "making it lighter, more rapid, more effective, a design of subtle coercion for a society to come" (295). The shift is to a generalized state of society, regardless of who you are.
I hope this may help a bit. I'm gonna keep looking back at this text so we can have a good, in depth discussion on thursday. I hope you will too.
1.) Foucault's example of the plague is not "opposed" to that of the leper. They are "different" projects but not incompatible ones (285). According to Foucault, they are coming together: "individualize the excluded, but use procedures of individualization to mark exclusion" (285). Thus, we divide people into binary categories: mad/sane, dangerous/harmless and then we brand them with one or the other, which then indvidualizes them. Thus, someone becomes separated from society due to their branding as 'abnormal' and then we decide we will try and make them 'normal' again through disciplinary techniques.
The model of the 'plague' gives rise to disciplinary mechanisms because discipline calls for a distribution and and ordering of any kind of disorder and confusion, which is the model of the plague. However, the difference between the 'plague' situation is that the plague is framed as an "exceptional" situation: "against an extraordinary evil, power is mobilized," but the panopticon is a "generalizable model of functioning; a way of defining power relations in terms of the everyday life of men" (292). This means that the power relations formed because of the plague, which separates into the "simple binary of life and death" is generalized to our every day lives. This is how power becomes productive.
This is what Foucault means when he says that the Panopticon has a role of amplification
although it arranges power, although it is intended to make it more economic and more effective, it does not so for power itself, nor for the immediate salvation of a threatened society [this would be the situation of the plague] ; its aim is to strengthen social forces--to increase production, to develop the economy, spread education, raise the level of public morality; to increase and multiply" (294)
Therefore, I need to return to Caroline's question today about the "two images of discipline." So the "one extreme" the "discipline blockage, the enclosed institution, established on the edge of society, turned inwards towards negative functions" is the schema of exceptional discipline--discipline is not the "norm" of this society, it is used in exceptional situations, like the plague. Discipline is only used, here as a kind of 'prevention' mechanism--for prisoners or criminals who are then isolated from society. The panoptic society, however has to improve the exercise of power by "making it lighter, more rapid, more effective, a design of subtle coercion for a society to come" (295). The shift is to a generalized state of society, regardless of who you are.
I hope this may help a bit. I'm gonna keep looking back at this text so we can have a good, in depth discussion on thursday. I hope you will too.
Friday, February 10, 2012
More on Berger
This post will attempt to answer, in terms of Berger's essay, what are the effects of reproduction on artworks?
After Berger finishes with his dispute with the Hals art critic, and after he speaks of the mystification of the art object as something turned into a "holy relic," Berger reflects further on the meaning of reproduction. He writes that, in the age of reproduction "the meaning of paintings is no longer attached to them; their meaning becomes transmittable that is to say it becomes information of a sort [. . .] a reproduced image will be used for many different purposes" (153).
First, let us realize that the condition of Berger's criticism is such reproduction. Berger himself is using Hals' artwork in order to make a more general point about the mystified criticism of other art critics, critics that reduce the meaning of artwork to "personal meaning" and "human condition" rather than the specific institutional and economic conditions that structure experience. And this is fact is not lost on Berger: "In this essay each image reproduced has become part of an argument which has little or nothing to do with the paintings original independent meaning" (155).
But Berger also uses the reproduced images to illustrate ways that reproduced images can change meaning. One example is the cropping of a woman's face from Botticelli's Venus and Mars (see pg 153). Berger writes, "an allegorical figure becomes a portrait of a girl" (154). In addition to the cropping mechanism (something which photoshop and even in-browser technologies like facebook now allow us to do), when a painting appears in a film the painting is deployed as "material for the filmmaker's argument" (154). How many times have we seen scenes in films where the characters are in an art museum, where the character's reveal themselves as they ponder and discuss a piece of artwork?
Berger's main example has to do with the relationship between image and text. If we remember, one of his very first points in the essay regards the Magritte painting "The Key of Dreams" in which the text says something completely different from the picture above it.
Magritte also famously painted this piece:
The text is French and it says "This is not a pipe." As WJT Mitchell in Picture Theory has argued brilliantly, following Foucault's interpretation, this is actually a complex painting. "This" can refer to either the image of the pipe (which, is not a pipe, despite it's realistic detail indicating that we could hardly call it something else) or, indeed, the "this" could be referring to the text itself--the text is not a pipe. Glance back at "The Key of Dreams." Here we have words associated with incongruous pictures. How can a picture of a horse be "The door"? How can a clock be "the wind?"
Perhaps Magritte is playing on a Freudian dreamwork analysis, suggesting that dreams displace their meanings, such that, in someone's dream a horse may signify a "door" to somewhere--some sort of opening. Or perhaps Magritte is just trying to get us to think of the relationship between text and image and "referent" (in the pipe's case, it would be the pipe). We assume that the text is referring to the image because this is what our conventions tell us. But why do we assume such a relationship?
Ok, with the text-image relationship in mind, let's return to the picture on pg 155. This is a picture of "Wheatfield with Crows." Berger then asks us to turn the page, which now has appended the text: "This is the last picture that Van Gogh painted before he killed himself" (156).
All of a sudden, whereas the painting may have first evoked freedom of flight, the picture becomes about the flight of life--or something to that effect. The point is, the meaning changes as soon as text is added.
What has changed with reproduction?
Basically, Berger is saying that reproduction opens up many potential uses of images. The problem, as he sees it, is that
Kayla noted yesterday that with reproductions, artwork becomes available to the public. But Berger is telling us that there is a problem if we think that "nothing has changed except that the masses, thanks to reproductions, can now begin to appreciate art as the cultured minority once did" (160). Instead, Berger concludes:
After Berger finishes with his dispute with the Hals art critic, and after he speaks of the mystification of the art object as something turned into a "holy relic," Berger reflects further on the meaning of reproduction. He writes that, in the age of reproduction "the meaning of paintings is no longer attached to them; their meaning becomes transmittable that is to say it becomes information of a sort [. . .] a reproduced image will be used for many different purposes" (153).
First, let us realize that the condition of Berger's criticism is such reproduction. Berger himself is using Hals' artwork in order to make a more general point about the mystified criticism of other art critics, critics that reduce the meaning of artwork to "personal meaning" and "human condition" rather than the specific institutional and economic conditions that structure experience. And this is fact is not lost on Berger: "In this essay each image reproduced has become part of an argument which has little or nothing to do with the paintings original independent meaning" (155).
But Berger also uses the reproduced images to illustrate ways that reproduced images can change meaning. One example is the cropping of a woman's face from Botticelli's Venus and Mars (see pg 153). Berger writes, "an allegorical figure becomes a portrait of a girl" (154). In addition to the cropping mechanism (something which photoshop and even in-browser technologies like facebook now allow us to do), when a painting appears in a film the painting is deployed as "material for the filmmaker's argument" (154). How many times have we seen scenes in films where the characters are in an art museum, where the character's reveal themselves as they ponder and discuss a piece of artwork?
Berger's main example has to do with the relationship between image and text. If we remember, one of his very first points in the essay regards the Magritte painting "The Key of Dreams" in which the text says something completely different from the picture above it.
Magritte also famously painted this piece:
The text is French and it says "This is not a pipe." As WJT Mitchell in Picture Theory has argued brilliantly, following Foucault's interpretation, this is actually a complex painting. "This" can refer to either the image of the pipe (which, is not a pipe, despite it's realistic detail indicating that we could hardly call it something else) or, indeed, the "this" could be referring to the text itself--the text is not a pipe. Glance back at "The Key of Dreams." Here we have words associated with incongruous pictures. How can a picture of a horse be "The door"? How can a clock be "the wind?"
Perhaps Magritte is playing on a Freudian dreamwork analysis, suggesting that dreams displace their meanings, such that, in someone's dream a horse may signify a "door" to somewhere--some sort of opening. Or perhaps Magritte is just trying to get us to think of the relationship between text and image and "referent" (in the pipe's case, it would be the pipe). We assume that the text is referring to the image because this is what our conventions tell us. But why do we assume such a relationship?
Ok, with the text-image relationship in mind, let's return to the picture on pg 155. This is a picture of "Wheatfield with Crows." Berger then asks us to turn the page, which now has appended the text: "This is the last picture that Van Gogh painted before he killed himself" (156).
All of a sudden, whereas the painting may have first evoked freedom of flight, the picture becomes about the flight of life--or something to that effect. The point is, the meaning changes as soon as text is added.
What has changed with reproduction?
Basically, Berger is saying that reproduction opens up many potential uses of images. The problem, as he sees it, is that
reproductions are still used to bolster the illusion that nothing has changed, that art, with its unique undiminished authority, justifies most other forms of authority, that art makes inequality seem noble and hierarchies seem thrilling. (156)That is, even through reproduction should destroy such authority, the "powers that be" are still using reproductions to mystify our relationship to art. Berger describes this beautifully:
For the first time ever, images of art have become ephemeral, ubiquitous, insubstantial, available, valueless, free. They surround us in the same way as language surrounds us. They have entered the mainstream of life over which they no longer, in themselves, have power. (159, italics mine)They no longer in themselves have power. What does this mean for us? It means that we need to pay attention how images are deployed and used in order to further certain political or cultural ends, particularly when reproductions are used to try and preserve the old authority art used to hold. If images have now become like a "language" it means that we need to realize that we write with images just as we write with language and that an image serves particular rhetorical purposes.
Kayla noted yesterday that with reproductions, artwork becomes available to the public. But Berger is telling us that there is a problem if we think that "nothing has changed except that the masses, thanks to reproductions, can now begin to appreciate art as the cultured minority once did" (160). Instead, Berger concludes:
If the new language of images were used differently, it would, through its use, confer a new kind of power. (Berger 160)Notions about power will become very important in the Foucault piece, and, perhaps unintentionally, we must remember that we began our course with "Power"
Thursday, February 9, 2012
John Berger and Marxist Criticism
A good definition of Marxist criticism:
"Marxist criticism is a type of criticism in which literary works are viewed as the product of work and whose practitioners emphasize the role of class and ideology as they reflect, propagate, and even challenge the prevailing social order. Rather than viewing texts as repositories for hidden meanings, Marxist critics view texts as material products to be understood in broadly historical terms. In short, literary works are viewed as a product of work (and hence of the realm of production and consumption we call economics)." -- (http://bcs.bedfordstmartins.com/virtualit/poetry/critical_define/crit_marx.html). You can find more about Marxist criticism by clicking on the link.
While this definition speaks of "literary works," the same holds true for visual works/art. As we discussed, Berger's essay speaks of the "mystification" of certain artworks. Mystification happens, according to Berger, when critics obscure the social class roles of those involved in the production of the work. In the case of Hals, there were really only 2 actors: Hals and the people he painted, which represented the institution of the pauper's house, which engaged in public charity. By arguing that Hals was painting the "human condition" rather than actual people who he has a relationship with, Berger claims that the leading author on Hals ignores certain key aspects to understand the painting.
Berger claims that the reason we can "know the people portrayed" is not, as the one critic argues, that the painter "seduces" us into it, but because:
It is interesting that Berger does not offer an interpretation of the relationship between Hals and those who commissioned the painting. I would argue, due to Berger's Marxist background, that it is one of indifference and maybe even contempt. Instead of putting it into words himself, Berger says "Study this evidence and judge for yourself" --we are meant now to look at the pictures.
Compare the pictures of the Regents and Regentesses with this self-portrait of Hals:
Hals is not a rich man--his hat is side-cocked and he looks, in general, a bit disheveled. Even the painterly strokes gives him a "rough" look. Maybe he's drunk. . .
Which brings me to another point in Berger's analysis. Compare the above self-portrait with this extracted image of one of the Regents:
Turn to page 146 to see in detail the expression of the dude with the cocked hat. Berger comments on the critic's opinion that many critics have argued this guy is drunk. The critic with which Berger is arguing with denies this: "He argues that it i was a fashion at that time to wear hates on the side of the head. He cites medical opinion to prove that the Regent's expression coudl well be the result of facial paralysis" (146).
But Berger thinks this is all protesting too much. Maybe Hals painted the sumbitch drunk because that is how he "saw" the regents. Maybe he was suggesting that the Regent's are "human" too, but not in the context of showing our "common humanity" but in the sense that Hals saw them as ridiculous or pompous or even undeserving of their good fortune? Who knows? But the critic seems to want to explain away any suggestion that Hals could have been poking fun at the Regents or had a hostile attitude toward them. For the critic Berger is criticizing, Hals represented these men in the best of ways--it was a testament to his skill.
I'm not saying Berger is right, but he is attempting, valiently, to overturn a majority opinion of what these pieces are "about." Berger's arguments are hard to discern sometimes, but this is why these pieces (almost all of them in Ways of Reading) calls for active reading.
More on the "reproduction" section later. . .
"Marxist criticism is a type of criticism in which literary works are viewed as the product of work and whose practitioners emphasize the role of class and ideology as they reflect, propagate, and even challenge the prevailing social order. Rather than viewing texts as repositories for hidden meanings, Marxist critics view texts as material products to be understood in broadly historical terms. In short, literary works are viewed as a product of work (and hence of the realm of production and consumption we call economics)." -- (http://bcs.bedfordstmartins.com/virtualit/poetry/critical_define/crit_marx.html). You can find more about Marxist criticism by clicking on the link.
While this definition speaks of "literary works," the same holds true for visual works/art. As we discussed, Berger's essay speaks of the "mystification" of certain artworks. Mystification happens, according to Berger, when critics obscure the social class roles of those involved in the production of the work. In the case of Hals, there were really only 2 actors: Hals and the people he painted, which represented the institution of the pauper's house, which engaged in public charity. By arguing that Hals was painting the "human condition" rather than actual people who he has a relationship with, Berger claims that the leading author on Hals ignores certain key aspects to understand the painting.
Berger claims that the reason we can "know the people portrayed" is not, as the one critic argues, that the painter "seduces" us into it, but because:
We accept it in so far as it corresponds to our own observation of people, gestures, faces, institutions. This is possible because we still live in a society of comparable social relations and moral values. And it is precisely this which gives the paintings their psychological and social urgency. (Berger 146)Berger thus claims that it is not the painter's skill that allows us to somehow understand their relationship, but because we live in a world where the same sorts of relationships between the poor and rich exist. What is this relationship?
It is interesting that Berger does not offer an interpretation of the relationship between Hals and those who commissioned the painting. I would argue, due to Berger's Marxist background, that it is one of indifference and maybe even contempt. Instead of putting it into words himself, Berger says "Study this evidence and judge for yourself" --we are meant now to look at the pictures.
Compare the pictures of the Regents and Regentesses with this self-portrait of Hals:
Hals is not a rich man--his hat is side-cocked and he looks, in general, a bit disheveled. Even the painterly strokes gives him a "rough" look. Maybe he's drunk. . .
Which brings me to another point in Berger's analysis. Compare the above self-portrait with this extracted image of one of the Regents:
Turn to page 146 to see in detail the expression of the dude with the cocked hat. Berger comments on the critic's opinion that many critics have argued this guy is drunk. The critic with which Berger is arguing with denies this: "He argues that it i was a fashion at that time to wear hates on the side of the head. He cites medical opinion to prove that the Regent's expression coudl well be the result of facial paralysis" (146).
But Berger thinks this is all protesting too much. Maybe Hals painted the sumbitch drunk because that is how he "saw" the regents. Maybe he was suggesting that the Regent's are "human" too, but not in the context of showing our "common humanity" but in the sense that Hals saw them as ridiculous or pompous or even undeserving of their good fortune? Who knows? But the critic seems to want to explain away any suggestion that Hals could have been poking fun at the Regents or had a hostile attitude toward them. For the critic Berger is criticizing, Hals represented these men in the best of ways--it was a testament to his skill.
I'm not saying Berger is right, but he is attempting, valiently, to overturn a majority opinion of what these pieces are "about." Berger's arguments are hard to discern sometimes, but this is why these pieces (almost all of them in Ways of Reading) calls for active reading.
More on the "reproduction" section later. . .
A Response to your Responses about Pollan
Many of you chose to dispute the claim that Madsen made Pollan focuses too exclusively on "garden growing." There were two responses to this, each with different claims.
A few of you claimed that Pollan does mention alternatives: "Contrary to Madsen’s comment that garden growing is the only solution given in my article, I do also mention biking to work, turning the thermostat lower, hang drying laundry, buying a hybrid vehicle, and eating locally grown foods. There are many other ways to reduce our carbon footprint but perhaps garden growing is one that produces many positive outcomes “some of them directly related to climate change” (Pollan 93)"
Others of you would argue based on Pollan's main argument. For instance, one of you pointed out the different agencies necessary for gardening versus solar power:
"These two topics are on completely different magnitudes, and gardening is something that can be achieved at an individual level. Using solar power is something that we have no access of creating alone, and probably lies in the power of the government and electrical companies to decide upon."
If Pollan's main claim is that we should change our "habits of mind" (which, as I pointed out the other day, is not the main idea Madsen draws on in his summary), then alternatives that are unable to be enacted by a single individual are less effective. As another of you also pointed out, its not that gardening has to be the thing, but,
"The idea is to find one thing to do in your life that does not involve spending or voting, that may or may not virally rock the world but is real an particular.” This is what I hope readers took from my article, and I hope in this way they feel compelled to alter their lives minutely so that a collective change will take place"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Others chose to address the claim Madsen makes that his "angle of vision is too strong." Some of you argued that the alarmist language is persuasive and that is the point. This does not create much of an argument, however much it might be true.
One of you argued that the "alarmist" language is actually satirical:
"Just as Jonathon Swift suggest eating babies to ease the economic troubles of poor Irish families, I propose planting individual gardens to abolish the specialization in society in a somewhat of a similar satirical tone. The sarcasm is scattered throughout my article such as when I say, “Have you looked into the eyes of a climate scientist recently? They look really scared.” Or when I say “Will you get a load of that zucchini?!” This combination of satire and focusing on one complicated solution causes the audience to recognize the wrong in saying “why bother?”
I'm not sure its satirical, but I am intrigued by the argument.
Finally (although this by no means covers everyone), some of you chose to argue based on the context of the piece--the NY times:
"Pollan takes into account the demographic of the readers of the New York Times. The readers of the New York Times tend to be liberal and college educated. According to the New York Times media kit 56% of readers have a college or higher education. People who are liberal and have a college education are more concerned about climate change"
These were all good responses. I'm glad we focused on this piece.
A few of you claimed that Pollan does mention alternatives: "Contrary to Madsen’s comment that garden growing is the only solution given in my article, I do also mention biking to work, turning the thermostat lower, hang drying laundry, buying a hybrid vehicle, and eating locally grown foods. There are many other ways to reduce our carbon footprint but perhaps garden growing is one that produces many positive outcomes “some of them directly related to climate change” (Pollan 93)"
Others of you would argue based on Pollan's main argument. For instance, one of you pointed out the different agencies necessary for gardening versus solar power:
"These two topics are on completely different magnitudes, and gardening is something that can be achieved at an individual level. Using solar power is something that we have no access of creating alone, and probably lies in the power of the government and electrical companies to decide upon."
If Pollan's main claim is that we should change our "habits of mind" (which, as I pointed out the other day, is not the main idea Madsen draws on in his summary), then alternatives that are unable to be enacted by a single individual are less effective. As another of you also pointed out, its not that gardening has to be the thing, but,
"The idea is to find one thing to do in your life that does not involve spending or voting, that may or may not virally rock the world but is real an particular.” This is what I hope readers took from my article, and I hope in this way they feel compelled to alter their lives minutely so that a collective change will take place"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Others chose to address the claim Madsen makes that his "angle of vision is too strong." Some of you argued that the alarmist language is persuasive and that is the point. This does not create much of an argument, however much it might be true.
One of you argued that the "alarmist" language is actually satirical:
"Just as Jonathon Swift suggest eating babies to ease the economic troubles of poor Irish families, I propose planting individual gardens to abolish the specialization in society in a somewhat of a similar satirical tone. The sarcasm is scattered throughout my article such as when I say, “Have you looked into the eyes of a climate scientist recently? They look really scared.” Or when I say “Will you get a load of that zucchini?!” This combination of satire and focusing on one complicated solution causes the audience to recognize the wrong in saying “why bother?”
I'm not sure its satirical, but I am intrigued by the argument.
Finally (although this by no means covers everyone), some of you chose to argue based on the context of the piece--the NY times:
"Pollan takes into account the demographic of the readers of the New York Times. The readers of the New York Times tend to be liberal and college educated. According to the New York Times media kit 56% of readers have a college or higher education. People who are liberal and have a college education are more concerned about climate change"
These were all good responses. I'm glad we focused on this piece.
Excellent Student "Reflective" Response Essay Example
Below, you will find an excellent example of a "reflective" response essay. The student has essentially applied Geertz to a recent event involving Michael Vick, who was convicted of dog fighting. The essay succeeds on many levels. First, the author takes a risk in form, almost imitating Geertz, by mixing narrative and analysis. While the piece may be accessible, it rarely if ever slips into a colloquial tone without purpose. In other words, even though the piece may seem "colloquial," the piece reflects the control of the author.
Americans Unable to Ignore Animal Cruelty
A Response to Clifford Geertz
In April 2007 Michael Vick was indicted with felony charges for operating a dog-fighting venture. At the time I was a junior in high school watching in amazement as controversy erupted in Atlanta. As a child in Central Florida I learned from my family, friends, and community that animal cruelty is immoral. When the news broke that Michael Vick had taken part in the drowning, hanging, and electrocuting of dogs, my immediate environment howled with outrage and disgust. I assumed that everyone in the country shared these views excluding the very few that were committing these atrocious crimes. After watching ESPN’s “Town Hall Meeting” I realized that my beliefs were not as widespread as I had previously believed. The meeting was a racially charged disaster that drove one blogger to write, “ESPN reminds you, black and white people hate each other.” The argument: the white media and government were punishing Michael Vick for his “black culture”, which included dog fighting. Back then I scoffed at the idea that animal cruelty could be used as cultural expression. Today, I have to pause and think. In the essay, “Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight”, Geertz examines how cockfighting reflects the Balinese culture and way of life.
Clifford Geertz and his wife visited a Balinese village where they were, “invisible men.” The village ignored them and refused to acknowledge their presence. One day the couple joined the village in running from police after a cockfight and hid out in a local couples’ home. After this event the couple received acceptance from the entire village. The Balinese villagers were tickled by the Americans running from the police, and enjoyed listening to the story. Through this acceptance Geertz was able to start learning about how important cockfights were within Balinese culture. Balinese men have a, “deep psychological identification” with their cocks and the, “double entendre is deliberate.” The Balinese men spend enormous amounts of time with their cocks, feeding them, grooming them, or, “just gazing at them with a mixture of rapt admiration and dreamy self-absorption.” Animal-like behavior is considered repulsive and babies are not allowed to crawl. In the cockfights this, “animality,” and men meet and battle in a, “bloody drama of hatred, cruelty, violence, and death.” Geertz then shifts his essay to the rules and standard practices of cockfights. Cockfights are held in a ring and begin late in the afternoon and usually 10 fights comprise a program called a, “sehet.” The rules of cockfighting are written on palm-leaf manuscripts and have been passed down over the generations. Handlers tend to the cocks during the fight and will even resuscitate the bird. The umpire has absolute authority and Geertz never witnesses any villager complain or question an umpire’s judgment. Betting is also a very large part of the cockfights and can get very complicated. Geertz learns that the village always supports the local cock just as an American town supports the local football team. The cockfight embodies the culture, social networks, and rituals of Balinese life.
Geertz invites his audience into the Balinese world hoping we will take advantage of the easy access he has provided for us. Although Geertz successfully creates metaphors in which to help the audience identify with the Balinese Villagers he ultimately failed to connect me with his impassioned take on cockfighting. His failure results from his lack to realize that I, as an American, must first overcome my disgust for animal cruelty before I can begin to understand the depth of culture and meaning in Balinese cockfighting. The Michael Vick saga proves Americans and myself struggle to overcome this animal cruelty barrier, which is crucial to opening our minds and understanding the Balinese. "Everybody always told me all I had to do was go play football and be successful on the field and everyone will forget what I've done," said Vick. "I don't find that to be true." American minds trapped by this barrier will remain closed to any further interpretation of what they deem to be a vulgar act.
While reading “Deep Play” I realized that I am the tourist and Geertz is my guide. I ride along blindly on my tour bus and trust every word Geertz speaks into the intercom. He takes me along his practiced route so that I will experience Bali the way he has designed for me. Cockfighting is strange and exotic so Geertz tries to put it in a way I can understand. He describes villages going to, “away games,” where they root for their local cock. I easily relate this to the Atlanta Falcons fans and how they travel around the country to support their star quarterback. The cock and the quarterback both bring communities together and stir in them a want for excitement and victory. As the villagers will not remember the amount of money won in a cockfight neither will the Falcons fans remember the score of the game. It is the moments of nail biting excitement and victory that both communities will cherish for years. They are eager to return home with bragging rights, celebrating their champions.
I raise my hand and ask Tour Guide Geertz what happens to the cock if it loses? Geertz responds that in order to lose the cock must die and then he begins to explain the rules in a matter of fact tone. I immediately focus on the finality of death. This is no longer in the realms of football; this is a matter of animal cruelty and life. I envision blood spraying, feathers flying, and roosters screaming as their flesh are torn to shreds. As my face contorts due to the disturbing images, Tour Guide Geertz speaks into the intercom, “ and if you look to your right you will see my landlord with his t-shirt that reads, I am cock crazy!” Not once does Geertz take it into consideration that his audience is undergoing culture shock and I have started planning an escape.
In order to push the American Audience and myself over the animal cruelty barrier, Geertz should include all of the gory details of a cockfight. We Americans are hypocrites and will succumb to the temptations of the cockfight just as Geertz and the Balinese do. We are drawn to the dramatics and a battle to the death will make us salivate. Even though we may not change our view of it being wrong, our excitement and temptation will allow us to empathize with the Balinese and therefore overcome our animal cruelty barrier.
While Geertz is effective in providing ways for his audience to relate to the Balinese, asking Americans and myself to simply overlook our revulsion to animal cruelty is unrealistic and ineffective. Due to this barrier I cannot view cockfighting as anything more than a disgusting practice performed by a people too alien to understand. Therefore I cannot grasp nor connect with the impassioned Geertz on cockfighting in the Balinese culture.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Summary Comments of Summary Analysis
Ok class, so I just spent most of my afternoon grading your summary/analysis. There are a few things we need to think about.
Grade Reporting
First--and I will send an email about this/talk about it in class: PLEASE review your papers that I have attached to in the place of assignments and not just check your grade. Go into Sakai, Assignments, click on the relevant assignment, toward the bottom you will find a document that says "Blah blah Summary Analysis."
Second, if you look at most of your grade sheets (yes, I did use the sheets that I have you in class--scroll down to the bottom of your document), you will see that most of you are doing fine with the lower half, but the upper half we have some issues. This means that we need to work on paragraph structure, development, transitions, argument, and thesis. I frequently could not tell what the thesis of any of your papers was--what you were arguing. Even if you did have a thesis, sometimes the points you say you will address are out of order or part of a paragraph would go better with another paragraph, etc. etc. These are the issues I want peer review to focus on--we can all use Microsoft Word Grammar check to eliminate grammatical errors. I want you all in peer review to write on someone's paper "I don't get what you are saying here" or something to that effect (you will notice I have said that on some of your papers).
Argument
More than anything, you analyses frequently did not seem to make an argument about Geertz's piece, but contained more of an 'expanded' summary of the first summary. This makes the paragraphs read as summaries of each of Geertz's movements rather than your structuring of an argument. This is not easy to do, I know, but its necessary for you to be able to sort of re-piece together Geertz rather than just following his own argument.
That said, many of you referenced the text itself with quotations--which was good. A comment on citations (which we will review when we get to bibliographies):
Sentence Structure
Grade Reporting
First--and I will send an email about this/talk about it in class: PLEASE review your papers that I have attached to in the place of assignments and not just check your grade. Go into Sakai, Assignments, click on the relevant assignment, toward the bottom you will find a document that says "Blah blah Summary Analysis."
Second, if you look at most of your grade sheets (yes, I did use the sheets that I have you in class--scroll down to the bottom of your document), you will see that most of you are doing fine with the lower half, but the upper half we have some issues. This means that we need to work on paragraph structure, development, transitions, argument, and thesis. I frequently could not tell what the thesis of any of your papers was--what you were arguing. Even if you did have a thesis, sometimes the points you say you will address are out of order or part of a paragraph would go better with another paragraph, etc. etc. These are the issues I want peer review to focus on--we can all use Microsoft Word Grammar check to eliminate grammatical errors. I want you all in peer review to write on someone's paper "I don't get what you are saying here" or something to that effect (you will notice I have said that on some of your papers).
Argument
More than anything, you analyses frequently did not seem to make an argument about Geertz's piece, but contained more of an 'expanded' summary of the first summary. This makes the paragraphs read as summaries of each of Geertz's movements rather than your structuring of an argument. This is not easy to do, I know, but its necessary for you to be able to sort of re-piece together Geertz rather than just following his own argument.
As far as arguments go, I remember a few.
1.) Geertz's analysis of the Balinese culture is incomplete due to his explicit exclusion of women.
2.) Geertz's combination of narrative and in depth description may isolate either anthropologists (wishing for something more professional) or the general reader (due to the extensive analysis toward the middle and end of the essay).
3.) Geertz's treatment of the cocks reflects an unconcern for animal welfare.
However, I would say that the majority of you would say things about emotional, logical, and credible appeals, but without adequate support, detail, or framing such that most of your argument consisted in paraphrasing Geertz's own argument about the connection between society and the cockfight.
Citation and References
However, I would say that the majority of you would say things about emotional, logical, and credible appeals, but without adequate support, detail, or framing such that most of your argument consisted in paraphrasing Geertz's own argument about the connection between society and the cockfight.
Citation and References
That said, many of you referenced the text itself with quotations--which was good. A comment on citations (which we will review when we get to bibliographies):
- When you cite just one text and do not have to worry about "citation style" I want you to cite page numbers for each reference you make. The proper position of an in-text citation is after the end of the sentence, but before the punctuation mark. So your quotation should look like this:
"Before the cockfight commences bets are made depending whether it is a “deep” fight or a “shallow” fight (70).
Not this (although I'm happy that some of you put page numbers in at all):
Before the cockfight commences bets are made depending whether it is a “deep” (70) fight or a “shallow” (70) fight.
That is just academic convention--I didn't punish any of you for that grade-wise.
Related to citing, when you cite just one word, particularly if its a key word like "deep," you want to contextualize it. That is, you should explain what Geertz means by "deep play"--where he got the concept, etc. Some of you did, some of you did not.
Sentence Structure
Some of you need to think about varying sentence structure/combining sentences in order to make more complex sentences. This will create rhythm in the prose that is more pleasant to read.
The Good
There were of course good things about your papers. I rarely saw typos or grammatical errors. Rather, the concern was with clarity of style: eliminating unnecessary passive voice, eliminating unnecessary words by employing more powerful verbs, varying sentence structure and length. Furthermore, I could see that a lot of you put in effort to understand what Geertz was trying to say, which is good. This is not a simple and short article.
Anyway, I hope these general comments about the class are helpful to the class as a whole. Individual issues should be taken up with me in office hours by appointment.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
More on Occupy Oakland, etc.
So, interestingly, I may have been wrong about Fox News' reactions to Occupy Oakland. Rather than jump on the image of the burning American Flag, they actually played some of the footage showing the occupiers being attacked by the police; true, they also showed the aftermath of vandalism and interviewed the mayor (a "liberal" mayor--even a liberal is against them--they must have messed up) and then one person on the street who says, " "What they doin don't even make sense. Go home" I don't think its a coincidence that they chose one black woman's reactions to the events; I think, and this is a cynical take on this, that Fox thinks that if a liberal mayor and a black woman on the street thinks the movement is useless, that they are appealing to audiences that may be put off by the 'whiteness' of Fox--liberals and minorities. Maybe this is stretching it a bit--but they did have to select whose reaction to the events they were going to show. At the very least, we can point out that they did NOT get any perspectives of the protesters or sympathizers.
The thing I want to point out about this video is that rather than get up in arms about the movement's burning of the American Flag, the rhetoric Bill uses is that the movement is "finished" and "done," that they "blew it," and, even more surprising (to me) calling occupy wall street a brand. we can see here Bills' opponent talking about how the powerful thing about occupy wall street is that the message (the 'claim' in Fitzgerald's language) has made it all the way to the President; in a way, even if the individual occupations have disintegrated, it is clear that the movement has made the 1% visible--and this is half (or maybe more) the battle.
So this is why they don't go after the anti-American sentiment (although Bill mentions it once) to forward their argument--or at least why they do not have to-- and instead decide to encourage the reification of Occupy into a brand--a brand that the market has declared obsolete. Occupy, according to Bill O'Reilley and co. is now an off-brand, hanging tattered on a clearance rack.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)