LGBT Support

I am not gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender, but I certainly believe in supporting people who just want to be happy being who they are.  Today was a special day as it stood as a movement to honor those who have taken their lives because of being bullied as a result of their sexual orientation...by wearing purple one could stand today as a "safe zone" if you will (which the idea of a solitary safe zone is ludicrous-but that is another issue).  I am a huge gay rights advocate I guess you could say.  I feel that it is an individual right that we all have to pursue the things that make us happy and that are innate in our beings, as long as it does not cause anyone any physical harm.  I was proud to wear purple today as it represented something that should be acknowledged everyday.  No one should feel so cornered by society that they feel the need to take their own lives in order to free themselves from the isolation that our society makes them feel.  I truly hope and feel in my heart that someday, LGBTs will have their natural human rights-to marry, adopt with no issue, be proud to come out vs being scared-as all minority groups are held back somehow and then later (usually) released from oppression.  I hope that I live to see that day.  That is all.

Culture Jam

Porn As We Know It : Putting Porn In Perspective

            There are other forms of pornography, besides what it is known to be-sexually explicit material, that contemporary popular culture chooses to see as appropriate or normal when in fact it isn’t any more appropriate than the inside of Hustler Magazine.  Consumers are exposed to it through countless mediums, and society’s spectators choose not to see these very common images as pornography…the question is why not?  Why is a picture of a bloated, water logged Hurricane Katrina victim floating face down in the water, being rushed down what used to be a street by the current, acceptable to see on the cover of a news magazine?  Why is it ok to see pictures of Jessica Alba and her baby swiping her debit card in the grocery store as she is buying diapers and formula, when that is supposed to be her moment, vulnerable and striving for normalcy?  What makes these images any different from those that are kept hidden behind the checkout counter because they have Hugh Hefner’s newest set of girlfriends posing, scantily clad and provocatively, on the cover?  Is one worse than the other, and if so, why?  Who gets to make that distinction, and why do so many people choose to look the other way or to literally buy into this ideology that fuels the media to see these types of materials as acceptable and even worse, as profitable?

            In this “Culture Jam”, images that any member of the consumerist culture would see on a daily basis (of celebrities, natural disaster coverage, and sexually suggestive images) were selected and détourned in a way that would reflect the image being seen from different sets of eyes, in different perspectives, and how those different eyes and different perspectives represent smaller parts of a whole.  Although everyone is not always heard and not everyone always chooses to voice his or her opinions, every individual still represents a small part of the “whole” of society and every individual image chosen in this project is representative of that.  The images were mirrored against one another for the visually aesthetic aspect of the project, but the original images were also altered to embody the concept that nothing is as it seems, especially in the media.  The public rarely sees profound truth in any visual representation that the media chooses to unveil to the public.  The mirroring affect was also used to represent the instances that one may see the same image that another sees, and that while it holds a particular connection for one, another can foster a completely connection to the same material.  From the popular media’s perspective, consumers are simply bystanders who wait for media to feed them the smut that they selectively release to masses every second of the day.  The images chosen for this project were selected from the most prominent factions in media; images that are culturally relevant and that are responsible for the pornography that is globally ingested-images captured from natural disasters, paparazzi, and of course, good old fashioned, sexually explicit porn.  These three “factions” of the media were elected due to the idea that they are typically the most easily accessible and influential forms of media.

            This project particularly holds the significance as a criticism of pornography by seemingly mocking its definition.  Porn is defined by Merriam Webster’s standards as: “TV programs, books, or other forms of media, regarded to catering to a voyeuristic or obsessive interest in a specified subject.”  A voyeur is thereby defined as “a person who gains sexual pleasure or enjoys seeing the pain and distress of another, especially those who are naked” (http://www.merriam-webster.com).  One could see “naked” as being a term of endearment here, and that it can be left open for interpretation as someone who is vulnerable in any way can also be seen as being figuratively naked.  Détournement is defined by Tom Vague as “…. within the old cultural spheres…a method of propaganda, a method which testifies to the wearing out and loss of importance in those spheres,” (“The Boy Scout’s Guide to the Situationist International”).  In this project, the collection of already amended images that were then détourned, were used as a means of propaganda to signify the “wearing out” and desensitization that society has become accustomed to in viewing these images and automatically dismissing them.  The images have literally worn out their intended significance only to come to represent something else entirely, something that may not even embody the reality behind the intended meaning.  The media uses pictures of victims of 9/11 covered in soot and ashes, covered head to toe in scrapes and blood, wearing torn clothes and ultimately unrecognizable; they use these pictures to shape what is brought to mind when forced to recall the awful events that ensued that day.  Upon recollection, one doesn’t only think of the event itself, but instead they may associate that day with these images that represent the pain and suffering of all who endured loss on September 11, 2001. Although these people who were photographed (and thereby exploited) did experience trauma, it speaks on many levels that what is usually associated with the event itself are the images the media stamped into the minds of so many Americans.  What instantly comes to mind for most is not the fact that the day in question was an attack on American soil that founded a deep seeded hate U.S. culture has developed for not only the acts that were committed against the nation, but at an entire culture that seemed to be represented by the actions of the attackers themselves.  Pictures of Elin Nordegren are on any given day plastered all over the cover of People Magazine.  This is the medium for which she is seen as the victim of infidelities by one of the most famous golfers to ever live, rather than seeing her for who she really is.  If anyone wants to know why, it is because the media doesn’t care who she really is, and neither do consumers.  The media doesn’t care to represent her as a real woman but rather as a woman who is now a divorcee, financially set, a mother, and an ex-wife scorned and merely a headline maker.  She is their front cover story that will sell them millions upon millions of issues, making them more money than they could hope for.  Although celebrities do exploit themselves to some degree, the media has to be held responsible for their salacious misrepresentations.  They exploit people’s pain and distress so that all of the voyeurs in the world can sink their claws into the grueling anguish that the newest front cover personality is experiencing. Perhaps people buy into this type of “news” coverage because it is a distraction from their own pain or because they take pleasure in seeing someone else hit rock bottom; this way, they don’t have to face their own unattractive qualities.  It is a sick, twisted, and insanely coveted form of entertainment that is more perverse than anyone would like to admit. 

            The representations chosen for this assignment were seen as suitable because as Debord, a man truly ahead of his time, wrote in 1957, “We should not simply refuse modern culture; we must seize it in order to negate it,” (“Report on the Construction of Situations and on the International Situationist Tendency’s Conditions of Organization and Action”).  Here, the idea was seized, and it negated the illusion of tolerance and intolerance in the media by the means of mockery.  The images were not meant to attempt to revolutionize a spectator’s interpretation of the images themselves, but more so to alter one’s perspective as to what should and shouldn’t be seen as inappropriate, acceptable, artistic, and as graphical imagery or pornography and to leave the spectator to question why the media is given the power to decide what is visually appropriate.  The intent of this “Culture Jam,” was to bring awareness to the desensitization that global culture endures at the hands of tactless media outlets in terms of exploiting human emotion and reaction, along with seemingly intimate moments.  Debord wrote of revolution, “It must abolish the exploitation of humanity, but also the passions, compensations and habits which that exploitation has endangered.  We have to define new desires in relation to present possibilities…. We now have to undertake an organized collective work aimed at a unitary use of all the means of revolutionizing everyday life,” (Report on the Construction of Situations and on the International Situationist Tendency’s Conditions of Organization and Action).  If Hustler is porn, then Time, Newsweek, People, US Weekly, and all the rest of the smut-ridden magazines and news programs are in the same genre of publication; sex still sells.  Voyeurs are everywhere; it just depends on whose eyes one uses to view them.

            The détourned images used in this project were posted in two grocery stores, around the UTD campus, at St. Monica Catholic Private School in the foyer of the school’s entrance, and also at the Dallas Public Library locations on Preston and Royal and on Midway and Timberglen.  As had been suspected, the posts at the grocery stores and the Dallas Public Libraries got no noticeable attention, even staying posted for over a week and half.  This goes to show a demonstration of society’s desensitization to images like the ones used for this project, or the fact that no one pays attention to anything anymore.  In Texas, people pay attention to football, food, Republicans, the NRA, and border jumpers, so maybe one shouldn’t go as far as saying no one pays attention to anything anymore.  At UTD, the images displayed were immediately taken down, at least within a day or two…also as suspected.  At St. Monica, the posted image was actually written on and then moved to the very front bulletin board at the school.  “God bless you,” “good point,” and “Hallelujah,” were written in red marker on the bottom of the page.  Upon returning a week later, the image had finally been taken down.  Through what is defined as urbanism by Debord, in this “Culture Jam,” a medium of art was used to contribute to the composition of a view of society.  In terms of unitary urbanism Debord had this to say: “It must include both the creation of new forms and the détournement of previous forms of architecture, urbanism, poetry, and cinema,” (Report on the Construction of Situations and on the International Situationist Tendency’s Conditions of Organization and Action”).  It can be said this “Culture Jam,” accomplished both of those goals in unison.  In The Society of the Spectacle Debord noted, “The spectacle is not a collection of images, but a social relation among people, mediated by images.”  In this project, the spectacle is truly mediated by images, leaving this as a distinct example of the understanding behind Debord’s teaching of this case and point. 

            Societal views of how pornography is understood to exist will continually be debated being that the understanding of this medium depends largely upon individual interpretation.  Taking that ideology into account, in accordance with the fact that society will never completely agree with any one perspective and that the media controls most of what is exposed publicly, it can be said that porn as we know it is only truly understood by putting it into one’s own perspective.  Viewing media and categorizing it through graphical means is an individual as well as a collectivist responsibility, as is understanding the effects that such graphic representations have on culture as a whole.

Works Cited

Debord, Guy.  “Report on the Construction of Situations and on the International             Situationist Tendency’s Conditions of Organization and Action.”             www.cddc.vt.edu/sionline/si/report.html.  Situationist International Online. 

            June 1957.  20 August. 2010.

Debord, Guy Ernest.  “The Society of the Spectacle.”             http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/display/16.  Nothingness.org.  1967. 

            20 August.  2010.   

Vague, Tom.  “The Boy Scout’s Guide to the Situationist International.”  The Effect the             S.I. Had On Paris ’68 And All That, Through The Angry Brigade And King Mob             To The Sex Pistols.             http://sami.is.free.fr/Oeuvres/boy_scouts_guide_to_the_s_i.html.  Textz.com,             sami.is.free.fr.  2001.  20 August.  2010.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/

Ghost In the Shell....I think I did it wrong, but here goes nothing....

Ghost In the Shell Narrative – Short Writing #2

Gender Construction and Societal Implications

       In the film, Ghost In the Shell, the idea of “the self,” is thoroughly examined as the main character, Major Kusanagi, battles to define who and what she is or is not, while also dealing with the conflicts that plague her identity: character vs. self, man, society, and machine.  While the film as a narrative lacks coherence, it holds fidelity in understanding the moral implications that riddle the story’s foundation.  In Ghost In the Shell, Haraway and Silvio’s ideas that society constructs the elements of gender, are depicted accurately in the intimate construction of characters, including Major Kusanagi and Batou, while in a modern society, one struggles to define originality within the self when being besieged by societally and technologically manufactured ideas pertaining to sex, gender, and formal identity.  Can a post gender, post-modernistic world truly exist?

            In contemplating the feminine and masculine roles that society dictates so clearly, one can’t help but notice something said by one of the commanders talking to the Major in the opening scenes of Ghost In the Shell.  He says to her, “What’s with the noise in your brain today?”  Her response, “It must be a loose wire.”  This is an obvious comment to the way women’s thoughts are viewed by a masculine world and how it is acceptable for a man to speak to a woman in that way.  It is doubtful he would have addressed such a question to a male colleague.  In a patriarchal society, men thought women to have unorganized, meaningless thoughts, preferring them to be quiet, and this is how the comment made by the commander can be looked upon.  The simple fact that she has a lot on her mind, and those thoughts could be heard in the film rather than them remaining silent, indicates that in a man’s opinion there is too much going on in her female brain.  Haraway states, “The cyborg is a kind of disassembled and reassembled, postmodern, collective and personal self.  This is the self that feminists must code” (205).    This thematic element is highlighted throughout Ghost In the Shell, as the cyborgs, Major, and Batou, seem to be exactly that.  Major doubts herself, her existence, her relevance, and her validity in a scene where she is on a boat tossing back beers with Batou and they are discussing this exact premise.  Haraway also makes the statement “…gender, race, and class cannot provide the basis for belief in the ‘essential’ unity.  There is nothing about being ‘female’ that naturally binds women” (197).  This ideology lends truth to the argument that gender roles are socially constructed as in the scene mentioned previously, Major, who is a source of knowledge and power in the narrative and also holds a masculine position in her career, is sitting on a boat drinking beer with a male coworker.  This seems like something that would be a “manly” endeavor, yet in the film it is marked with a female shell.  Here lie some examples as to how the coherence of the film as a narrative did not hang together in a very constructive way.  Seeing as how the film was based on animated cyborgs fighting a technological crime, it is obviously far fetched.  The underlying theme of sexism, reliance on technology, and fabricated gender roles does hide underneath the fiction, just not on the surface. 

            As far as the fidelity behind the ideas that emerge in Ghost In the Shell, they ring true as there are good reasons to understand the moral implications that are conveyed in the story.  A cyborg is attempting to defend something they believe in, to fight for their survival, only to see in the end that what they were fighting may have been what they were actually seeking all along.  There is substantial value in the messages in the film and also in Silvio’s writing.  He makes a good argument to the role society plays in establishing gender roles and sexism by making clear that the film challenges the traditional role of feminism by depicting the extremes of both the masculine and feminine qualities in Batou and in Major.  By the end of the film, Major is less confined to her identity and eventually lets it go completely, while Batou takes the risk of offering what he has to give to Major-although she does not accept.  She speaks of the “sense of me,” which confines her within a set of limits she is not comfortable with in the beginning of the movie and also struggles with until the end.  At that point in Ghost In the Shell, Major is left with no specific role or identity, only the “self” that most struggle to identify with in reality, truly lending the narrative fidelity and truth.  She leaves behind the shell and the function it served to progress to a post gender, postmodern world with an understanding of her innate qualities as well as the social ideology defining gender.  It is typically not that simple in the “real world,” but more social implications define that simplicity.

            As a culture, the masses mostly depend on society to give instruction or to encourage direction in order to gain acceptance.  Social construction defines the identities that most harbor to be their own, original selves, and society depends on technology and outsourcing of information to define everything else that is seen as culturally relevant.  Haraway, Silvio, and Ghost In the Shell, confront the argument that gender roles are constructed, thus making it impossible to find a genuine, original self without the weight of normative societal construction manufactured by technology weighing down on a sole identity.  This idea thereby makes all who exist in society cyborgs-humans who act as robotic offspring to the overload of information available at their fingertips and the wealth of superficial ideas behind what it means to be masculine or feminine.  

Annoyances

I know that no one probably cares too much about what I am about to say, but I do, so I don't care.

I think of all the things in the world that really get under my skin, there is one thing that has to do with school that gets me the most....
you know when there is that one guy/girl that won't stop interrupting class to make "valid" points because they want to make themselves seem smarter than everyone else?  You know, "THAT guy/girl?"  It really makes me mad.  I understand that we all pay good, hard earned money to go to school-or at least most of us do-and we all have the right to interact and capitalize in the learning experience by participating, but there is a boundary that should be drawn.  When you argue with the teacher for 30 minutes of the class time that not only me, but 50 other people paid for as well, that is just down right disrespectful.  If you have a problem or question that you can't get your head around, that is not the class' problem and you should talk to the professor about it at a different time.  Everyone else is there for the same reason generally....to learn from the PROFESSOR, not from some twenty-something arrogant narcissist.  Just sayin....