Roland and Tumblr

The studium that Barthes speaks of is the knowledge of what exists apart from the photograph that had a hand in its creation. Specifically, he wants to encounter the intentions of the artist in creating the image(s). I would argue that in an endless stream of images that you can find on Tumblr.com, the intentions of the photographers are nil. I can't make a blanket generalization for everyone, but due to the glut of images on said website, certain people I know scroll through their subscriptions at breakneck speed: This is good, this sucks, this sucks, this sucks, this is good... The studium doesn't seem to matter at all, all that matters are the images themselves.

Thin Blue Line, with it's meticulous reenactments strikes me as a biased camera masquerading as an objective one. The impressive camerawork in Children Of Men seems to be a disembodied character in the film, one who moves independently of the characters at times.

Moon and Blade Runner

Self-awareness is something artists must possess. In post-modernism, the artist delves inside to come up with inspiration. What if a person learned that they were not even a person at all? This is the premise to Moon and Blade Runner. Our protagonist is a clone or a robot that doesn't know what it is. Eventually, in the case of Moon, and arguably in the case of Blade Runner, our non-human protagonist develops the self-awareness it needs to act on behalf of it's own needs. The infererence of Scott's Blade Runner is that the main character, Deckard doesn't know he is actually a robot. All of his memories have been implanted in him by a corporate magnate. This in and of itself is a concept rife with meaning. Haven't we all been programmed since youth by commercials and other TV filler? Television is a rite of passage for kids; we all spend a great deal of time sitting in front of it. Some of us outgrow the tube and others don't. If we media-brats look back to our earliest, primordial memories we may find it difficult to separate what really happened to us with something we watched on television.

Marshall McLuhan

It seems to me that the world, at least in his time, needed to catch up to Marshall McLuhan. What enamored him to me was something that seemed to puzzle his interviewers: his appropriation of vernacular to suit his ends. He co-opted the terms "with it" and "hot" and "cool" to elucidate his theories. I find that extremely effective. When I listen to McLuhan's interviews he is so provocative that his interviewers get defensive and try to force him to explain himself. But I find that he what says, which may have seemed outrageous at the time, is actually very prescient. His use of the term "high definition" struck me as particularly prophetic. I can see why people would be skeptical of McLuhan though, because he really has little data to back up his theories. He has a vast knowledge of literature and a strong interest in popular culture from his professorial background. He uses examples from literature all the time in his writings, and these analogies make his ideas even clearer. But when it comes down to it, you either agree with McLuhan or you don't.

I prefer a naked girl in my bed to Dada

That humourous quote from Ben Vautier in Nicholas Zurbrugg's essay on Fluxus quite literally "clears the ground" with it's raucous humor. I find it to be a breath of fresh air in an otherwise dry, overly intellectual landscape. John Cage's playful experiments on 1960's TV are another fun exercise that also denotes the modus operandi of Fluxus. This refreshing movement has roots in performance and action. Wouldn't we all rather have fun than interpret and process dense ideas and texts? Ultimately, the Fluxus movement gets to have things both ways. Musical pieces by Cage or Beuys functioned as entertainment as well thought-provoking art. Warhol's work appealed to people's pop culture sensibilities but the more "intellectual" audience saw the irony and the statement in what he was doing.

All Social Life is Appearance

It is made clear to me after today's lecture how I have been participating in the proliferation of my social life appearance on Facebook. I hardly ever post any honest or painful emotions as my Status Update. In fact, I see that as a weakness or faux pas. All my updates must be upbeat. I don't want my remarks to stand out as being whiny in the News feed, where they are perpetually in a forced context of the thoughts of the hundreds of mutual friends I share. Facebook isn't real friendship, and so I protect myself from that judgment by keeping things nice and on the surface. If I am having real problems and need to confide in someone, I will do it face to face with that person. Facebook is a tool that I use to build popularity and support for me and my endeavors and to network with those who can advance my career. If I want friendship, I have email and a phone and a car and those are the things that take me to a third party destination that is not my home office, where I engage in socializing that is still an appearance of sorts, but not nearly to the degree in which social networking will forever be mired.

HAL 9000, Auteur?

We rely on computers for so much in life these days. We quite literally put our lives in the hands of pre-programmed machines. They are our security systems, our financial transactions, our communication between loved ones, our entertainment, our physical fitness, etc. Do we rely on computers for art? Lev Manovich is at work on a project where video art is assembled randomly by a computer and made available for the public. Databases are an essential product of computers, and the mechanical organization of keywords is a task well suited to be accomplished by a computer, whereas it would be tedious for a person. But art is something that begs to have a human creator. The "human touch" is something we all crave. It is a sensual feeling that we cannot get from computers. Databases belong in the realm of computers, but when said computers transform that data into a "creative work of art", I turn and walk off.