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.

"Mommy I want that one!"

Walter Benjamin discusses the contrast of art versus cinema. He uses the term “sense perception,” describing the way we are taught to appreciate art—generally from a distance. The human sense perception may change over periods of history, according to Benjamin, but it is still a matter of teaching correct ways of appreciation. However, this is different for cinema because it allows us to assert a sense of agency in the way we perceive it. Today, this is also true of television as discussed by John Fiske in “Popular Culture.” He discusses how we can have agency in two ways: through popular discrimination choosing to not select the commodity and text or thorough popular selection by only selecting the functional elements—for a specific person or group of people—from the text or commodity. I find the latter the more interesting case because it shows the multitude of meanings and ideas that can be expressed within one movie or television program (hey, sounds like Mimi White). It exposes the slipperiness of meaning, resulting in contradictions and an infinite number of possible interpretations. How people choose to negotiate this slipperiness, by either extracting the bits and pieces they choose or by the ways in which they choose to interpret it, is what grants us agency.

However, as I do believe we have agency, I wonder how much agency we possess towards mass culture (producer of cultural commodities)? With commercials being so crucial for television production and promotion, advertising has now permeated television programming and cinema itself—product placement being the biggest example. Therefore, we are subconsciously saturated with products and lifestyle discourses outside of what we consciously consider commercial messages. Perhaps our agency is diminished in these instances? Are there not instances when, despite the fact that we are aware of advertising, we are still compelled to choose a brand of product over another—perhaps because we’ve connected it, subconsciously, with a film or television program we have recently experienced, thus linking to a specific lifestyle?

To 50 or not to 50!

I liked the idea we discussed in class briefly about the multitude of ideologies that intersect and at times (violently) clash. One of these instances is the situation of 50 Cent and his music. As a few people stated, they do find his music empowering. However, they also find their feminist ideologies screaming, "no, you can not enjoy this chauvinistic and insulting music.” It is this conflict and clashing of ideologies that strikes me. Since we are exceedingly permeated with numerous ideologies in our lives, we are bound, at times to be living in a state of contradiction. Generally, this feeling causes us to feel uncomfortable or apprehensive.

We tend to cling to our safe ideologies that set the guidelines for how we should think in certain situations. However, it can be powerful to recognize that things are not always so black and white and the way you feel one day about something might flip 180 degrees--given a change of circumstances or shift in ideology. We also need to recognize the hegemonic ideology that is constantly being filtered into our sub-conscious and thus altering our ideologies. Perhaps next time we find ourselves practicing our ideological contradictions we can put on our headphones and listen to some 50 Cent!

The Magic Bullet?

In the reading, "Ideological Analysis and Television," by Mimi White, she suggests that television is not monolithic, but a heterogeneous system, full of a complex web of meanings and contradictions. She discusses the theory of the ideological problematic, a complexity of representations and issues broadcast on television and the subsequent inclusion or exclusion of certain representations—either implicitly or explicitly. She argues that an ideological analysis of television needs to recognize this problematic and not attempt to find one specific message but rather recognize the complexity of messages and why certain messages are more dominant than others.

This theory can also be used for the analysis of female-orientated magazines. Magazines, like television, are a complex tapestry of representations that, on the surface, provide information, but when looked at closer show many contradictions—in this case, the implicit exclusion of female sexual pleasure. Cosmo magazine, for instance, is geared towards 17 to 25 year-old women and features many articles about sex. These articles regularly ignore female-oriented pleasure but rather describe male sexuality, offering tips on how to pleasure him. Titles like "Cosmo's map to top male pleasure," and "Three kinds of sex all men crave" are but two examples. On the surface, these articles seem like they are providing information about sex for women but more implicitly they actually provide instruction for a very specific kind of sex: heterosexual, male-dominated sexual activity with the woman as a submissive participant. Furthermore, in magazines such as Women’s World or Good House Keeping, women are exposed to a plethora of contradictions within one issue. These contradictions include the juxtaposition of articles on fast weight loss solutions beside articles on recipes for ridiculously fat-filled goodies. This implicitly sends a message to women to be thin while still maintaining a diet of fatty foods. It also reinforces the belief that a women’s place is that of a homemaker.

-S

Ambiguity of the Internet

The Internet allows for mass communication that is able to cross cities, countries, and continents. This blog (written by a computer illiterate) allows for my textual fingerprint to be imprinted and viewed by a wide array of individuals. As discussed in the essay "Substantive and Feminist Girlie Action" by Jacqueline Rhodes, the Internet allows for a large amount of ambiguity. This ambiguity is seen in both the unknown authorship and wide variety of information collected.
This ambiguity is exemplified in the recent news of a video blogger on youtube with a secret identity and cover up. If you are interested, see these links:


Mystery of 'lonelygirl15' captivates 'Net

or

lonelygirl15 revealed

This ambiguous authorship is not fixed thus allowing for an individuals identity to be more fluid. Thus, anyone, not considering socioeconomic status, can have published work on blogs and the Internet more generally. Academics and non-academics can congregate, creating a more collective and less exclusionary space. The idea of public access, as well as comment and link listing, allows for an easy means of information trafficking across borders.

Therefore, being that this is a pop culture class, what better way to participate than actively partaking in one of pop cultures machines? This blog allows for a flow of communication between myself and my peers which is often neglected in today's classrooms. On a larger scale, feminism as a whole can benefit from this information and communication resource. It allows us to gain insight into a variety of individual's situations and thoughts from more then just an academic standpoint.

- Sare