Zinetacular!!

My oh my, I am so impressed at the awesome zines that everyone made! I think that it is really fabulous that we were able to actually put into practice all the theory we learned in class (especially after that midterm)! I found it interesting that the zines all turned out to be so unique and different being that we all had to use the same theory. We all fulfilled our role of “the people”, which Fiske discusses, because we were acting from our subordinate positions against dominant society and created our own popular cultural practice. I think that zines are a really awesome idea because “the people” are able to make a popular cultural commodity by exploiting mass cultures raw materials to produce a political or antagonistic commodity. Plus the fact that the zine “commodity” is sold for next to nothing or just traded between zine producers the capitalistic mentality is also broken down because there is no profit being made. I think that this zine assignment defiantly worked well, being that it was able to put into practice all the theorists used in class so well. So as this was my first attempt at making a zine I am very impressed at how it all turned out and have to say it was an empowering moment, both in making the zine, as well as seeing everyone present their zines!

Commodities up the ying-yang!

I thought that Benjamin’s idea of producing the “cult of the movie star” as a response to the shrivelling of the aura in cinema very interesting. He discusses how the screen actor’s aura is lost in translation, from himself to the audience, due to the use of a camera. Since the actor’s aura cannot be replicated, due to it being tied directly to presence in time, the actors “personality” is built up outside of the studio. Benjamin goes on to say that this is not actually replacing the aura of the actor but rather creating a fake commoditization of the actor. I think that this very representative of Hollywood today. We all gossip about the latest news surrounding our favourite celebrities and the ones we love to hate. We want to know and learn about these peoples personal lives and this marketing campaign does, at times, work to sell movies. The adage that no press is bad press can defiantly hold true in many situations; it always seems that when celebrity is set to release a new movie, personal news about them just happens to be leaked out to the public to create a “buzz”.
This commoditization of the actor can also be seen through advertisements and commercials. Mimi White discusses this in her article with the example of an actor who plays a doctor on television appearing in a commercial as himself to sell cough syrup. Another example would be the L’Oreal hair dye commercials which always use celebrities to sell the product (even though the celebrities themselves would not be using the 10 dollar hair dye). However, we are able to recognize and identify with the “spectacle” of the celebrity on the television commercial or advertisement and thus a personal spin is put on the product itself. Debord’s theory of the “spectacle” as the complete commodification of the image sphere is an interesting concept which can been seen throughout our culture today. As Mimi White discusses we, as viewers, are commodities for networks to sell to advertising companies, and celebrity personalities are produced to sell products therefore, producing a whole mass of commodities to be bought and sold.

Masculinity What?

I thought that it was interesting in the Fiske article where he mentions that “the ideology of patriarchy may work more effectively upon men then women” (328). I think that this is often an area not discussed in women studies programs but I think that it is an important thought to think about. I would not go as far to say that men are “more” affected however; I defiantly think that our patriarchal culture creates rigid gender boxes which work just as effectively on masculinities as on femininities. Now I recognize that the very nature of our culture is based on patriarchal principles which grant privilege to men over women I am simply saying, as Judith Butler states gender is performative without an original and thus is just a repeated copy of a copy of a copy.
Therefore gender permormativity works to normalize and naturalize masculine identities as well as feminine identities. Boys are taught to be strong, aggressive, to enjoy playing sports and most of all not to share their emotions. In “The construction of Masculinity and the Triad of Men’s Violence” Michael Kauffman discusses masculinity as a narrowly defined category which therefore requires a whole range of human emotions, needs etcetera to be repressed, which he calls “surplus-repression” (13). Thus in the Fiske article when the men in the Newly Wed game reply ‘yes master” they are performing their gender, which has been naturalized and normalized, to prevent them from actually relating to their wives this therefore perpetuates masculine stereotypes. As Fiske states this narrowly defined identity category of masculinity made it almost impossible for the men to reply in any other way, regardless of how they actually felt. I think that the effects of patriarchy on masculine gender performativity is an interesting and important area to be further explored. This can be done by looking at popular culture and the way it perpetuates these normalized guidelines preventing men from breaking free of their masculine gender box.

Go forth and rearticulate......!

In The article “Towards a Left Popular Culture” by Laura Kipnis, she discusses the idea of transforming capitalist raw materials and discourses (“disarticulation”) and reforming them into an antagonistic discourse (“rearticulation”). I think that this a very interesting idea and the emphasis on action rather then merely academic contemplation is also an important concept. I think that a really good example of this (creating antagonistic discourse through action) would be culture jamming (props to Courtney!).
Culture jamming is the act of taking existing mass media (commercials, billboards, magazine ads, and etcetera) and transforming them to alter their meaning, generally with a negative commentary about mass capitalist culture. Thus, people are forming interpellations with these antagonistic discourses disrupting their normal subject formations made through the dominant discourses. This disruption however, like Kipnis discusses, can (at times) be provisional, it only lasts until the ads are changed back or the billboards are replaced (like the stop sign). This provisionality is a very postmodern moment preventing the antagonistic discourse from being assimilated into the dominant discourses umbrella term of “difference”. However, as Kipnis states co-option by capitalist culture is inevitable and ads do now use this idea and almost “poke fun” at themselves in an attempt to sell their products. Regardless of this co-option the rearticulated ads do still work in jarring people from their normal media over load causing them to stop and think about the images and discourses which are being bombarded at them.