Sunday 23 October 2016

Parody and Pastiche

Jameson claims that modernist styles become post-modernist codes. The postmodern parody is a blank parody, without bite or ulterior motives, just a result of cherry-picking the components. On the other hand, Hutcheon defends the parody as a self-reflexive practice and goes deeper with a diferentiation between parody and pastiche.

Jameson points out that the post-modern architecture lacks of principles and chases an over stimulation. For example, the retro style is a glossy hyperstylised way to enhance qualities and fashion attributes. All of this is a desperate attempt to make sense of an age that doesn't (Jameson, 1984: 16). There is no grand narrative, it is just a superficial recylcing of dead cultures (Jameson, 1984: 17) as a resignation, resulting in a depthless technologic reproduction weakening of historicity.

Hutcheon makes a difference between pastiche and parody pointing out first that all post-modern works are critical or ironic-reading parodies 'as a new model for mapping the relationship between art and the world' and as 'a dialog with the past' (Hutcheon, 1989: 180). The paradox of modernist parody is that despite of partially lacking of depth and meaningfulness, it actually has a vision of interconnectedness, and its ironic historical references are not nostalgia or 'cannibalisation' (Hutcheon, 1989: 182). Besides, this parody is not trying to escape from the historical, social and ideological contexts. In fact, the intention is to foreground them (Hutcheon, 1989: 183).

Jameson explains the parody of post-modernism in a way that despises the reasons behind this artistic movement following social and political interests, whereas Hutcheon points out this not only contradicting his arguments, but pointing out that it is an opinion coming from an anglo-white male from the western who rejects pluralism behaving like a snob.

Thursday 13 October 2016

Laura Mulvey - Visual pleasures: Triangulation and referencing

In order to do a precise triangulation and Harvard referencing it's important to identify at least 5 contextual facts about the writer, 5 key points in the text and 5 key quotes.


Contextual facts about Laura Mulvey

- Doctor in Law and Literature
- Feminist
- Avant-garde filmmaker
- Screen theorist
- Professor
- Lacan/Freud influences (Psychoanalysis)
- Written in 1975 (When sexual equality and women's lib were more controversial topics)
- Mulvey's most famous book


Key points in the text

- Phallocentrism of male character castration
- Scopophilia in film and audiences
- Ego-libido
- Fetichism
- How culture reflects society + its inequities
- Women as object (to-be-looked-at-ness)
- Male active, women passive
- Patriarchy
- Male gaze


Key quotes

'the woman as icon, displayed for the gaze and enjoyment of men' (Mulvey, 2009 [1975]: 22)

'fetishistic scopophilia, builds up the physical beauty of the object, transforming it into something satisfying in itself ' (Mulvey, 2009 [1975]: 22)

'She is no longer the bearer of guilt but a perfect product, whose body, stylised and fragmented by close-ups , is the content of the film and the direct recipient of the spectator's look' (Mulvey, 2009 [1975]: 23)

'the female image as a castration threat constantly endangers the unity of the diegesis and bursts through the world of illusion as an intrusive, static, one-dimensional fetish' (Mulvey, 2009 [1975]: 26)

Triangulation:

Mulvey breaks down the patriarchal subconscious that is reflected in films. The pleasure in looking (scopophilia) that the audience experiences is explained by the fetichism of having the privilege of looking at a woman in ways that in reality wouldn't be possible, being the woman the object to be look at and satisfy the male gaze. The woman is objectified, used for the visual pleasure of the men, showing parts of her body in close-ups. The man's troubles and desires are the main storyline, whilst the woman is only orbits around him in a passive role. He actively participates in the reality created in the film, where she is just an enjoyable distraction.

Storey is supporting Mulvey's statements about the activeness of the male in opposition to the women's passiveness. In the text, he explains the Oedipus complex makes impossible for the men to fulfil their lack. Far from contradicting Mulvey, he proposes a solution where the male can be visually pleased without objectifying a woman.

Dyer analyses the sexualisation of males in film. More particularly, William Holden in Picnic. Dyer claims Holden is sexualised by his athletic physique through feminine coded positions but telling heroic anecdotes. He also mentions the relation between males and females in film. There is a pleasure of masochistic relationship where the female is the star and fills male's ego. He observes that despite what Mulvey claims about the woman being the victim, she is the one retaining the control of this masochistic contract where he will never have her. Therefore the male does not just play a passive role, but an active one where, as Dyer says, he suffers as well.

Sunday 9 October 2016

The Ignorant Schoolmaster

The first lecture we've had this year, The Flipped Classroom, was about education from the perspective of the marxist Jacques RanciƩre.

I found this lecture very interesting, since I have personal interest in communist theories. How inverting the roles we have been using the last decades (if not right now) are actually in the opposite direction of the learning path of evolution. Is very interesting to see how all this started in France during the 60's to use this time as a reference if one day I need to look this up.

I also found very informative how the visual communication is a way of fighting against the world and how it was noticeable in that time. The problem is when a revolution is comercialised, like Che Guevara's face. Is at that point when we can say the revolution has failed. It also reminded me of movements like the punk or hip-hop, where their initial values seem to be dead and belonging to other times.

The School of the Damned is something I never imagined it could exist. It's important to have individuals in our society that constantly dare the current educational system by breaking the rules of teachers and students in order to thrive to a more intellect-sharing society rather than the one we are leaving in, based on hierarchies, control, indoctrination, selfishness and judgmentalism.