mrt, Adorno and Horkheimer, 10/31

     I was looking through my notes from last Thursday's class on Adorno and Horkheimer and came across a line that said "mass culture gives tragedy permanent employment as routine" and for some reason, it really caught my attention. I think it's interesting to consider this point through the lens of modern news coverage, especially in the United States. I would say it's almost impossible to go on social media for more than a couple of minutes without catching wind of some horrific story that will be hugely talked about while it's "trendy" and then largely forgotten by mainstream media. I think people are almost addicted to the terror. Why else are our feeds so saturated with death and tragedy.

    It is almost like the car wreck you can't look away from. You know its going to be gruesome, but you can't help but slow down and stare as you drive by. As sad as this is, I think the resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement last year is a great example of this. People loved to talk about and share videos of the real-life trauma black people actually have to live with on a day-to-day basis and then a few months later it seemed like mainstream media had completely forgotten about it and moved on to the next tragedy. I think it's horrible that these awful events that have affected real people are used almost as clickbait and then completely disregarded when they've lost their 'appeal'. Gabby Petito is another interesting example of this, for weeks I couldn't go on my phone without seeing some breaking story about her case (missing white woman syndrome was definitely partly the reason for this but I'm not even going to get into that) and I feel like lately, I've seen virtually nothing about it. But, the coverage of Gabby Petito's story hasn't stopped, I found 2 stories from the last 24 hours, but now that it's not trending it's only shown to those who go looking for it--I find that odd. It's really scary how pain and tragedy are used as entertainment and a way for these huge media conglomerates to get even richer. 

Just as an experiment I wanted to go on Twitter and see how long it took me to come across coverage of a tragedy. I came across a link to this story in under 10 minutes.  link to media

annaiswriting, 10/26

        During class on Tuesday, we discussed Louis Althusser and his analysis of ideology. While talking about his work, I found the concept of an ideology being an imaginary relationship between individuals and their real lives intriguing. I immediately thought about the concept of the American Dream because this dream seems to be an ideology that dominates many people’s lives in this country. Due to the overarching idea of the American Dream in our culture, many people believe that they can be successful as long as they work hard. Even though hard work can pay off, and it is possible for a person to earn more than their parents made, the different social classes that individuals are born into give some people an immensely high chance of achieving the American Dream, while also giving some people a low chance of achieving this dream. The American Dream is a dominant ideology in the United States of America because people believe that hard work will guarantee success. Rather than criticizing how capitalism makes it difficult for people from lower-income backgrounds to move up in social class, many people continue working hard in the capitalist system because they want to believe that if they work hard they will achieve the American Dream, even though that is not always the case.

        While reflecting on and criticizing the dominant ideology of the American Dream, I thought about the song “American Dream” by MKTO, as it demonstrates how artists have used their talents to criticize dominant ideologies, such as the American Dream. The song begins with the words, “do something with your life,” showing the importance of career success in the United States of America. MKTO sings, “and we don't want two kids and a wife, no I don't want a job, I just want a life” criticizing the common idea in the American Dream that getting married and having children is a necessity for happiness and success. MKTO also criticizes the idea of career success being the only way to live a happy life. This song has a catchy tune that keeps the audience listening to the song on repeat, allowing the audience to hear MKTO’s critique of American society and the dominant ideology of the American Dream. 

Link to the Music Video of “American Dream” by MKTO 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPLeuBXoPXI

annaiswriting, Horkheimer and Adorno, 10/27

        In The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception by Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno, Horkheimer and Adorno write about the way in which producers of films, radio, television shows, and many other forms of media, push dominant ideologies onto their audiences. Horkheimer and Adorno describe how filmmakers create films with predictable plots based on many other movies, such as the male and female protagonists falling in love at the end, or the hero saving the day. They write about how producers of music also fall into this pattern of predictability by how catchy songs seem to all have similar musical structures. Horkheimer and Adorno criticize this sameness with, “to be entertained means to be in agreement. Entertainment makes itself possible only by insulating itself from the totality of the social process, making itself stupid and pervasively renouncing from the first inescapable claim of any work, even the most trivial: in its restrictedness to reflect the whole” (Durham, Kellner, 2012, p. 64). Those who are consuming entertainment are agreeing with these recurring themes within entertainment. Entertainment moves away from the social process because it does not reflect the lives of everyone, as it predominantly represents those subscribing to the dominant ideology of being white, straight, rich, and able-bodied, likely due to the vast majority of media producers holding privileged identities. It makes itself stupid because it does not address deep societal issues, likely to maintain their privileged audience. These powerful identities that white, straight, cisgender filmmakers hold prevent them from understanding marginalized experiences, causing them to avoid representing those experiences in their art.

        While enrolled in my Critical Media and Cultural Studies introductory class, and my Introduction to Sexuality, Women, and Gender Studies class, we discussed the role of identity in film, specifically the lack of women directing, writing, and acting in films. In the majority of films, women do not have as many lines as men, and even when they do have lines, many of those interactions between female characters revolve around men. If more women directed and produced films, it would disrupt this “agreement” in entertainment about women, and challenge the dominant narrative that a woman’s goals and dreams solely revolve around a man. I have attached a link to an image that demonstrates how little progress has been made in increasing the number of women behind the scenes of famous films, and just how outnumbered they are in the industry by men. Being aware of these disparities in media production can help us to understand Horkheimer and Adorno's criticism of dominant ideology within art and entertainment.


Link to image:

https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/16579.jpeg

References:

Kellner, D. M., Durham, M. G., (2012). Media and Cultural Studies Keyworks. Wiley-Blackwell.

annaiswriting, 10/24

 I found our Thursday’s class discussion about participatory culture incredibly fascinating because of how participatory culture decreases the gap between famous directors and inspired fans, as the fans produce their own films inspired by well-known films. While reflecting on this discussion I noticed some parallels between Jenkin’s understanding of participatory culture and Macherey’s idea of intertextuality. Similar to how written texts take inspiration from one another, films take inspiration from one another. During class, I learned how one hundred years ago, celebrities signed and mailed autographs for their fans, and that was about as far as fan culture went. Now, however, fans can interact with their favorite celebrities by messaging them on social media, where they get some insight into their lives. In class, we discussed how the film 50 Shades of Grey took inspiration from Twilight. This made me think about a film that I saw that did not take inspiration from another film necessarily, but it instead took inspiration from a fanfiction written on a platform called Wattpad. This platform gives people the ability to not only write their own stories about fictional universes, but they can write stories about their favorite celebrities. Most writers on this platform just write stories for fun with no intention for these stories to become famous. However, an author named Anna Todd wrote a fanfiction love story on Wattpad with Harry Styles. This fanfiction story then became a book called After. I did not personally read the book but although the plot of the story could remain the same, Anna Todd had to change the name of the male love interest. This book then turned into a movie. Although the name of the character had to change, it was changed from Harry to Hardin, which still has the first same letter. It also still reflects the idea of participatory culture because the story that eventually became a popular book and well-known movie came to life by participation in fan culture.

Link to film trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPTf0Gw5-Bg

[Tarynaholenspacetime] 10/21

Henry Jenkins' "Quentin Tarantino’s Star Wars?: Digital Cinema, Media Convergence, and Participatory Culture" was quite the enjoyable read. The content resonated deeply with me. Although the piece was long, it was not a hard read. A quote I find highly important from Jenkins stated the following: "People who may not ever meet face to face and thus have few real-world connections with each other can tap into the shared framework of popular culture to facilitate communication," (457). 

This piece was written in 2003, yet still works perfectly to describe our modern society. People all over the world connect through fandom using social media platforms and the internet. I can say with full confidence that I would not have as many friends as I do now if the internet did not exist. The ability to connect with people through interests first has made it easier to find a sense of community. 

Personally, I have created entire storylines and campaigns based around online games. Not only that, but I made a custom soundtrack and audio effects to accompany my visuals. I admit that inspiration was taken from mainstream franchises, but the end result is so far removed from the original. It is my belief that work falls outside the area of simulacrums and imitations.

[Tarynaholenspacetime] 10/19

During our Tuesday class, October 19th, we discussed "The Disneyfication of Reality" in great detail. Listed below are some of the quotes that had the greatest impact on me as well as my understanding of them.

“Disneyland tells us that technology can give us more reality than nature can,” (203). In class, Dr. Cummings shared a story of how people were more satisfied with a fountain show than Yellowstone because the fountains actually went off when they wanted. In the moment, their statement seems reasonable, but when one views this situation with a critical eye, it is clear how silly this expectation is. Despite how much as modern society will argue otherwise, nature does not bend to our will. 

“Disneyland is also a place of total passivity. Its visitors must agree to behave like robots,” (205). In modern society, we often engage in passivity. Waiting in line at Disneyland is one example of this, but we often subscribe to behavioral norms in our day-to-day life. Think about driving in lanes down the road. What about walking through a mall? Have you noticed people mimic the traffic lanes when walking from store to store? Society is a very controlling environment. Passivity doesn’t just exist just at Disney. 

“Disney has been exalted as the inviolable common cultural heritage of contemporary man; … Disney is the great supranational bridge across which all human beings may communicate with each other,” (110). This had to be the most interesting quote we discussed during class. In part, the intrigue lies within the dual interpretation of this quote. To some, this quote is a highlight of hope. They see words with positive connotation, such as exalted, and believe this quote is crediting Disney for their impact on society. To critical thinkers, this quote is unsettling as it points to a worrying truth. Disney’s size and reach has made it near impossible to avoid coming into contact with their metanarrative. A single organization has a metanarrative that influences how a large portion of the world views women, romance, class, as well as many other areas of our modern life.

mrt, Poster, 10/20

          In our discussion about virtual realities and escapism yesterday, Dr. Cummings made a point that for some reason really stuck with me about people experiencing depression and anxiety after watching James Cameron's Avatar and realizing they would never be able to experience the world for themselves. And while yes, this is really interesting in itself, I couldn't figure out why I was so attached to this idea and why it felt so familiar. And then I remembered the 'shifting' craze that was circling the internet (particularly TikTik) a few months ago. 

    If you're not familiar with the concept of shifting, it's basically the belief that one can leave their current reality and enter a designated reality of their choosing through extensive scripting and some sort of lucid dreaming. I don't know all of the mechanics behind how this supposedly works, but when I first started seeing videos about it online I was fascinated. I am a big fan of Harry Potter, and for a good three months, my for you page was dominated by people reality shifting to Hogwarts. I don't necessarily believe in reality shifting, but I find the idea of it so interesting. The number of people who were posting videos of how they spent years at Hogwarts in their designated reality during one night of sleep in the real world was mindblowing to me. And even more intriguing was the real-life effects they seemed to face after returning. Videos describing the horrible anxiety they felt about returning to their real lives, or the debilitating depression they felt upon leaving and missing their friends along with the feeling of isolation from their physical body as they had apparently spent years living as a different version of themselves was insane. I have a bit of an escapism problem myself and would be lying if I said I didn't see the appeal in being able to abandon my actual life to frolic around Hogwarts, but the aftermath seemed brutal. The cynical part of me has trouble believing that any of these stories of shifting are actually true and that they were made up chasing some sort of delusion or even internet fame, but the pain these shifters were feeling seemed weirdly genuine. 

        As I've made clear throughout this post, I find this really interesting. But, I also find it kind of scary. What does it say about the state of our actual world that people are so desperate to escape they will (depending on your beliefs around shifting) either literally shift realities or create these elaborate delusions through maladaptive daydreaming. If virtual reality technology keeps advancing to the point of being able to foster shared experiences with realistic graphics will people choose to live out their lives in these virtual worlds rather than face reality? 

        When I was in middle school, I read a book called Ready Player One. It's set in 2045 and features an extremely elaborate and immersive virtual reality system that the majority of people spend most if not all of their time in. At the time I remember thinking it felt almost post-apocalyptic and like something that would never actually be our reality. Now I'm not so sure. As the shifting craze demonstrates, people are so desperate to escape their reality that they will literally attempt to shift worlds. If a virtual reality system like the one in Ready Player One actually existed, I think it would be horrifying to see how many people would choose to live as a virtual avatar rather than continue as their physical being. I can't say that I wouldn't at least try it. When the question was posed in class about if virtual reality was better than reality I was quick to think the answer was no, but if the option was placed in front of me would I be able to say the same thing? I don't know. Is it possible that virtual reality will become our actual reality even further blurring our idea of what is real?

Nihao, 10/19

 In today’s class we talked about Zizek, Eco, Dorfman and Poster’s theory. Eco’s view of Disney as a place of total passivity reminds me of memories that I thought were scary but did not ponder because “it is just Disney”. When I visited Disney during the summer, I went to one of the rides that automatically take pictures. I did not swipe my pass or anything that could indicate I went to that ride at that time. However, five minutes later there is a notification on my phone (the Disney app), sending me the watermarked photo and ask me if I want to purchase it. I remember me stopped walking and looked around as if I can check what tells Disneyland that I just went to that ride. I still have not figured out but I intentionally stopped thinking about it at the park because I did not want to start a rabbit hole of how might Disneyland was surveilling me. When we were discussing about the quote from Eco, this memory suddenly came to me and I realized that like Eco suggests “Its visitors must agree to behave like robots”, I did agree to behave like robots because I did not want to ruin the fantasy. If incidents like this happened anywhere else than Disney, I would feel terrified and aversive. However, because it happened at Disneyland, I actively chose to soothe myself and act like “robots”. Therefore, Disney did not create the fantasy world single-handed. By believing it and conforming into its ideology, every consumer helps Disney to create this fantasy city that feels so real to us. Doesn’t any ideology or religion work this way? This thought channels me back to a quote we read last week – “Disneyland is presented as imaginary in order to make us believe that the rest is real.” If Disney make people believe it is real by creating powerful ideology, any ideology and religion could work and might already work this way.

mrt, Eco, 9/18

      "Disneyland is really the quintessence of consumer ideology" (Eco, U., 1986, p. 202)  

          This excerpt from Umberto was packed with so many potent observations about the American obsession with Disney and other similar theme parks. On page 201, he discusses how these spaces "blend the reality of trade with the play of fiction" by allowing one to participate "in the fantasy because of his own authenticity as a consumer" (Eco, U., 1986). I've never really thought about it, but besides the attractions themselves, the only real thing to do at Disney is to buy things (in addition to the money already spent on the admission ticket). But, we allow ourselves to justify these purchases because they allow us to immerse ourselves even deeper into the fantasy laid out before us. I don't think I've ever been to Disney without at least purchasing something. I really enjoyed the way he described this compulsion to shop on page 202 when he said, "the Main Street facades are presented to us as toy houses and invite us to enter them, but their interior is always a disguised supermarket, where you buy obsessively, believing you are still playing" (Eco, U., 1986).  

            In a previous blog post in which Artemis discussed Dorfman, they made a connection to the 'hidden' capitalist messaging in Disney's media. After reading Eco, I would argue that this propaganda extends beyond their media into every aspect of the simulated 'cities' they've built. When we enter the parks, our role is that of a consumer, not simply that of a visitor. On page 203, Eco states that "Disneyland not only produces illusion, but-- in confessing it-- stimulates the desire for it" (1986). I would argue this is one of the reasons the parks are so successful. Upon entering Disney, guests don't want something that reflects reality, they want a version of 'reality' in which everything is perfectly curated to continue the narratives Disney spreads. Take the Bibbidi Bobbidi Boutique for example. Spending $450 on a princess makeover will not actually transform you into a Disney princess. But it's not about reality, it's about continuing and furthering the illusion that takes place within the parks. 

              After last Thursday's discussion of Baudrillard, I probably would've classified the Disney parks as an example of sorcery. But, as Eco remarks, Disney confesses to their production of illusion rather than claiming a reproduction of reality. So then would Disney fall be considered evil or simulacric? I think there could be interesting arguments for both and don't know that I necessarily have an answer-- But it's definitely something to think about. 

         

                   

                    

             

 

 

 

annaiswriting, 10/16

        During class on Thursday, we discussed the concept of a simulation that Baudrillard addresses in his work, The Precession of Simulacra. He writes about Disney, which prompted us to discuss the ways in which Disney World provides a false sense of reality. We first discussed why a family would be willing to pay such a high amount of money despite how immensely expensive a trip to Disney World is. A classmate brought up how the fantasy of Disney gives people an escape from reality, which I definitely agree with. Since the attractions and scenery in the Disney parks are filled with scenes from Disney movies, such as the boat ride in Epcot that puts me into the beautiful snowy scenery of Frozen, and Peter Pan ride flying me along the adventure of the movie, it allows for Disney fans to put themselves into their favorite movies. Since Disney movies, provide many people and families with an immense amount of joy from the fantasy of the films, they want to spend a week in a place where they are constantly immersed in these worlds. Growing up as a huge fan of the Disney princesses, I always loved being able to meet them while in Disney.

        In class, we discussed Bibbidi Bobbidi Boutique, which is a salon for young girls where stylists give these girls makeovers to look like Disney princesses. My favorite princess as a child was Belle, and I was excited to get a makeover and get to be like her when I went there.  This salon was able to manage such a successful business because of the many young girls who wanted to be just like their favorite Disney princess! I found a blog titled “Bibbidi Bobbidi Boutique Packages and Details” by Mandi Middleton that showed the prices and details of the packages offered there. The cheapest package offered was about sixty-five dollars, for hair, makeup, nails, a sash, and a tote, and the most expensive package offered was four-hundred-and-fifty dollars, which includes a high-quality Disney princess gown and a high-quality tiara. Even though going to Disney and partaking in the experience with a trip to the boutique are incredibly expensive, the obsession with the simulation of Disney, and the fantastical experience surrounding it encourage families to keep coming back.

References: Middleton, M. (2019). Bibbidi bobbidi boutique packages and details. Walt Express.

Retrieved from 

https://waltexpress.com/why-you-should-go-to-the-bibbidi-bobbidi-boutique-at-w

alt-disney-world/

 

Artemis 10/14 - Jean Baudrillard

    In today's class discussion, we went over a few phases of the image and looked at examples while trying to identify which picture fit where. We focused heavily on images connected to the USA Military, so I wanted to explore different avenues and focus a little more on the topic of reality TV as we touched on in class. I found it interesting and slightly frustrating that reality TV could be seen as both evil and sorcery. It's just something else about Baudrillard's theory that is so complex. However, in taking a bit more time to think this over I've found that it's starting to make more sense to me.

    In the reality TV show "The Bachelor" we see women competing with one another to win the love of a single man. Throughout the season we see the performed version of each of these women and the bachelor himself. This, along with the scripting and editing that goes on behind the scenes contributes to the denaturing of reality. They are masking anything authentic and tailoring their behavior and language into something they think is more profitable. I think that the aspect of sorcery, or masking the absence of reality, comes in with the overall messaging the show is portraying to its audience. For most women, they are not going on group dates to fight for the partner they want, neither would they live in a house with the people who are their competition. However this is how the show operates, and in the end, there is only a single rose to give out, and in theory, they'll go on to live a happy life together. This succumbs to the same trap Disney produces in its earlier princess films. That once you've got a man (or a partner in general) you've finally won at life and everything will be good from then on out. Perpetrating this ideology as a reality TV show is masking the absence of reality because not everyone can achieve love through the show and everything isn't magically perfect in either contestant's life now that they have officially gotten together.

I'm still not confident that that fully encompasses what Baudrillard is trying to communicate but I plan to try watching a few episodes of reality TV this weekend to see if I could distinguish any examples as I'm watching. 

mrt, Poster, 10/11

     I really enjoyed this reading. I not only found it fairly easy to digest but more applicable to my own life than some of our previous readings as we are currently in the second media age Poster describes. I was also intrigued that he was able to reframe aspects of the internet in ways that I hadn't previously considered-- which I would definitely classify as a feat considering there is a constant dialogue surrounding media and its uses. A quote that really stuck out to me was on page 445 in which he said, 

 "the dominant use of English on the Internet suggests the extension

of American power as does the fact that email addresses in the US

alone do not require a country code. The Intenet normalizes

 American users" (1995).

        While I'm sure the fact that I live in America and that the algorithm is somewhat regionalized has something to do with this, it is interesting that I struggled to name more than a handful of popular influencers or content creators that aren't American or don't currently live in America. I'm assuming that other countries have their own popular influencers that are nationally renounced, but all of the globally dominating media figures are American. In the text, Poster made connections between his theories and those of Lyotard-- I think that the quote above also provides an interesting connection. Could American culture be a totalizing metanarrative on the Internet? I think there's a good argument for Western pop culture being a dominant cultural ideology, and I think the global reach that the Internet provides is definitely one of the reasons for this. 

    This really changed my perspective of the Internet, I've always considered it as a place for individual narratives because it provides everyone with access to it the ability to share their experiences and opinions. And while I'm aware that the algorithm typically does boost the reach of those who subscribe to dominant ideologies (namely white, straight, cisgender individuals), my personal experience on the Internet is fairly diversified (or so I thought before I considered the lack of non-Americans) so I thought that there was ample way to avoid these totalizing narratives. Now, I am not so sure. 

    

Nihao, 9/30

 9/30

In today’s class we continued the conversation on Lyotard. As we were discussing the concept of realism, I could not help but thinking of the name “reality shows” and the irony behind it. As we began the discussion with the “before and after” photoshop picture of the female news anchor, my mind wondered to the studio of a cooking show where I spent a lot of time in during my childhood. People would probably not associate a cooking show with photoshop or image control and alteration, but I witnessed professional makeup artist put on and fix makeup on the chefs, who in my opinions do not need to look “attractive” for a cooking show. The female host who supposed to taste and evaluate the food, only chews the food in front of camera and when the director shouts cut, she would spill out the food so she does not “gain weight”. The amount of “fakeness” I witnessed in this show as a kid makes me suspicious of any image I see on media. It also makes me wonder if a mere cooking show has this amount of alteration, narrative and intentional design, how much alterations would there be if it is a reality show where beauty and appearance is the first and foremost thing producers consider.

In a way, media did not “alter” the reality. Rather, media (especially cinematographic media like Lyotard suggests) creates a parallel reality, which has its own narrative, morals and structure. 

I really like Lyotard’s definition of realism that suggests that it “stands somewhere between academicism and kitsch”. It puts realism on a spectrum of “realness” with academicism and kitsch, which helps me understand why some constructed reality seems more “real” than reality. Academicism shows reality in data, science and evidence, which offers no escapism. Kitsch is the exaggerated version of reality that it highlights the constructive nature of reality, which makes itself apparently “not real”. However, realism, lying in between the two, can disguise as reality and have audiences temporarily forget about its constructive nature. That is where any non-fiction novel or “reality” TV shows stand. Although they still construct the reality, they certainly appear “realer” to the eyes of audiences.

annaiswriting, 10/2

         During Thursday’s class we saw an unedited image of a woman on one side, and then a thinner version of the same woman on the other side. This led to a conversation about how often images of women are manipulated by Photoshop or other editing techniques. Even though we are aware of how unrealistic the beauty standards perpetuated by the media are, it feels nearly impossible to be completely immune to their harmful effects. We discussed the Dove commercials that demonstrate how even models completely different in real life than they look in magazines. After class, I was inspired to rewatch one of these Dove commercials. The most popular example of this is the video “Dove Evolution” directed by Tim Piper and Yael Staav, in which they first show the model without her hair or make-up done. Then, the directors show the time-lapse of the stylists putting on her makeup and styling her hair. It then goes into photographers taking pictures of her until they get the perfect shot. This “perfect shot” is then photoshopped. This image is then displayed on a billboard as an advertisement for a makeup company, spreading the idea that if women buy the company’s makeup products then they will look like the model, which is untrue because the model was heavily photoshopped. The directors then close the video out with the quote, “no wonder our perception of beauty is distorted.” Our perception of beauty is distorted because most of these beauty ideals are not based on what real women look like.

In addition to the ways in which beauty ideals are unattainable, there are many unattainable ideals of realism perpetuated in society. In class, we discussed how certain ideas of realism are unattainable such as the American dream that everyone has the opportunity for success if they put in the effort. We also discussed some big ideologies such as love and romance and how the way we see love and romance in the media, such as in Hallmark movies where there is always a happy ending, is not always an accurate depiction of reality. It is important to understand that realism does not necessarily mean real. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U