Jameson and a Postmodern Mona Lisa

Jameson would argue that this picture is a perfect example that reflects postmordern work. Postmodernism was created to act out against modernism and it would often target “traditional or classical elements of style” and rework it into a new image. In order to rework a new image one must start out with an old or original image or idea. This means that although the artist can be creative and use different methods to convey a certain message and meaning, it lacks originality since it is based off and in a way mocking the original picture. Here we see Matt Groening’s version of the Mona Lisa. Jameson would argue that this form of art has no depth- it lacks emotion and a narrative between the viewer and the creator which the original picture of the Mona Lisa (which is what this is obviously playing off of) has. This Simpsons character in place of the woman strips the aura and adds a new type of aura- a more bland one since it has taken out the history that was once written into the original painting. By doing this the meaning is more impersonal. Postmodernism is into popular culture and the cartoon character shown looks similar to those on the hit television show The Simpsons. The influence therefore is not high culture but it is instead a flashy pop culture look in which the subject’s depth and history is now striped from meaning. The picture was created with no sense of an individual, we do not see the presence of the creator in this replica and the picture is rather simple as far as the image’s aesthetic makeup however in the Mona Lisa we do see a relationship- there are very minute details and brushstrokes within the picture. The picture is clearly pastiche or a mixing of historical forms, periods, and a play with history. If it weren’t and the picture was just placed in this period without following da Vinci’s work, then there would be an even greater lack of meaning. Jameson would be very upset with this work and would think that we are moving into a world where we don’t have a value system because we have lost this history of the painting. People today look at both pictures with a different feel. The original Mona Lisa is very small and shows detailed work of an artist- it comes with a history and aura, this makes this piece or work exciting. Groening’s work is also exciting, it shows something that we are used to and are familiar with. It brings something foreign and out of date to become something recognizable. The picture is not as intense and gives off this relax, fun feel to it because of the random pop culture reference.

 

Public Sphere- Habermas and Daily Kos

The public sphere according to Habermas is “a realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed” and “access is guaranteed to all citizens”. The sphere is an area in social life where people can get together and “freely discuss and identify societal problems” and through that discussion “influence political action”. As Habermas puts it, it is a “discursive space in which individuals and groups congregate to discuss matters of mutual interest and where possible to teach a common judgement”. Usually the public sphere is seen as “a theater in modern societies” or a sphere of spoken words however there are public spheres that are formed through written word as well. We can find this especially on the internet and an example is the Daily Kos at http://www.dailykos.com/. This website is aimed at political issues and thoughts. Any one can participate in the discussions by creating an account. The information presented is not just opinion but includes a lot of information and facts through discussions, diaries, and comments. I do not know if the website takes down any comments or threads that they do not agree with. If that is the case then it is more of the sphere of public authority. The site shows a lot of ads which makes me think that is run under some type of authority or institution which will not allow anything someone wants to say, be said.

The page’s motto I believe is “The State of the Nation” which indicates people can get information of where our nation is politically at the moment. Currently there are 2.5 million visitors per month to the site and 215,000 registered users. Clearly the large number shows that is not a private sphere where it is “comprised civil society in the narrower sense, that is to say, the realm of commodity exchange and of social labor.” Not only are the underclass and middle class citizens of America writing on this site but also “on the site are President Jimmy Carter, Senator Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and dozens of other senators, congressmen, and governors” who talk about what they are doing. By having people in politics writing on this website it creates more of a public sphere which mediates between the “private sphere” and the “sphere of public authority”.

Anyone can comment on the website if they have an account however there is a set group of writers and editors. However I do believe this is a public sphere even though it has limitations. It can influence political action since politics use this website and in the influence is mentioned under the “About Daily Kos” section which states “Even more exciting than that however, are the hundreds of thousands of regular Americans that have used Daily Kos to shape a political world once the exclusive domain of the rich, connected, and powerful.” 

Rhetoric of the Image- Sopranos Ad

Barthes writes in his essay Rhetoric of the Image that in “advertising the signification of the image is undoubtedly intentional” and because it is intentional it ““straightaway provides a series of discontinuous signs.” The signs all come together by the viewer making meaning of it through denotative and connotative messages, which involve both the image and text. Therefore everything we see in the ad was not placed there because it looked nice or added flavor to the image but rather everything was chosen to be in a specific spot, be a certain height and color, because it has a larger meaning which develops through all of the signs being put together. For example, here we see the ad for the last episode of the Sopranos television show and by looking at this image through the lens of Barthes we can see how we can make meaning of the image therefore recognizing its “intentional” messages.

“Today at the level of mass communications, it appears that the linguistic message is indeed present in every image as title, caption, accompanying press article, film dialogue, comic strip balloon. Which shows that it is not very accurate to talk of the civilization of the image - we are still, and more than ever, a civilization of writing, writing and speech continuing to be the full terms of the informational structure.” Here Barthes notes that we should not separate the text from the image because they play off one another. Each tells us something that the other doesn’t. In the Sopranos image it says “The Final Episodes – APRIL 8^th, 9PM” where as the image does not give a time and date in fact the image is a picture that is taken in daylight not night and the text let’s the viewers know it is the last episode. Barthes says “there is a further information pointer, that which tells us that this is an advertisement… from the emphasis of the labels)”. Having APRIL and PM in capital letters suggests how important that part of the image is and it is the only part that does not appear through a symbolic image within the ad, it is just shown in the text. Under that line of text is another line of text saying “Made in America” in red letters. This clearly connects with the image since the viewers can see Ellis Island in the background which is New York City (America). With this viewers make a mental note that the television show is most likely not only made in America but is for Americans. The text is in English which adds more to this notion. Because of this textual information viewers can bring in their own experiences of what it means to be from America along with the background they know about Ellis Island and other cultural things. Foreign viewers may need to take into consideration this cultural impact or else they will not come up with anything near the same meaning. However since it is an ad the intentions for the meaning remain the same, the advertisers just want people to tune in to watch the show. 

Before going into the cultural impact of viewing an image lets take a look at what everyone no matter where they are located on a map, what the time period may be, or how old they are can all recognize the image to be the same. This Barthes describes is the denotative meaning where it has been “cleared utopianically of its connotations, the image would become radically objective, or, in the last analysis, innocent.” The image is only seen as the image with no meaning behind it. The first noticeable thing is the color, or lack of color. The ad is mostly in black and white. There are two lines of text on the top left corner. The text is bold and block like, the first line being in black and the second in red. In this ad we see a middle aged man with a suit more towards the right of the ad. He is balding and looking over his right shoulder. In the background on the man’s left there is some kind of island with a large statue, this image is relatively far away from the man. On the right of the man there are birds flying in the air in the direction away from him off the page but also more in the distant background. In this description of the ad, there is no meaning made of the images and text just what is literally there, the denotative message. Clearly this means that viewers make meaning of the signs bys relying heavily on the cultural impact that the viewer takes in with them while examining the ad.

“We may say immediately that the literal image is denoted and the symbolic image connoted.” The culture this ad was intended for is clearly Americans. Since the text is at the top left corner of the image we read this first. Shown through the text is “Made in America” and the image of it taking place in New York City. By placing who it was intended for the viewer can place that cultural influence in the ad and get the connoted message or symbolic message. The ad being in black and white suggests that it is something surreal and dreamlike since photographs and television today in the 21^st century are normally seen in color. The lack of color gives of a strange vibe that something is not right and by looking closer at the picture this vibe grows stronger. The look on the man’s face is one of interrogation, suspicion, or just simply thinking. Since he is wearing a suit the viewer can assume that this is a sign to let us know his occupation- a detective. By showing him without a full head of hair implies that he is older and therefore in our culture along with many others means wiser. Following his glare the viewer can see Ellis Island in New York City. This is a place where foreigners first came to America, the start of a new beginning with the Statue of Liberty showing this new beginning as something great- liberty and freedom. But there is clearly something wrong it is far off in the distance- not tangible to this man for some reason. The birds are in a group and look for the majority of them that they are flying away from this island that stands for something great. In America when there is some kintype of surreal picture being presented and the person is thinking, a classic show of an angel on one shoulder and the other shoulder holds the devil. This is suppose to represent someone’s conscious and the angel is on the right shoulder. In this surreal image the man is glaring at/ over his right shoulder and we see the Statue or Liberty and all these signs that in America represent great things. However with all of these signs and images coming together the viewer can imagine that something is distorted or corrupt in New York City. The water is choppy and what pops out the most is the second line of text in red “Made in America”. The people that came to Ellis Island were not originally from America that is why they came. All of these signs point out that something is wrong and this Final Episode we can assume will reveal not only what is wrong but how it is resolved since the “final” of something in America usually gives a solid conclusion.

Just like Barthes we have now “successively, then, we looked at the linguistic message, the denoted image,and the connoted image.”

Aura of Blair Witch Project

The Blair Witch Project is a 1999 film that presents itself as a documentary. In reality this film is just a narrative however it does have the power to convince its viewers that this story could be a documentary. The plot line of three people going into the woods, get lost while shooting their own documentary, and eventually killed while their equipment and tapes are found a year later makes the storyline believable. They went so far to try to capture reality that they made a website about these three characters, their make believe backgrounds, and interviews with their unreal family members as well. The mission of the film was to capture the aura of true reality taking place something that Walter Benjamin claims cannot happen in film. He writes “...for the first time – and this is the effect of the film – man has to operate with his whole living person, yet forgoing its aura. For aura is tied to his presence; there can be no replica of it. The aura which, on the stage, emanates from Macbeth, cannot be separated for the spectators from that of the actor. However, the singularity of the shot in the studio is that the camera is substituted for the public. Consequently, the aura that envelops the actor vanishes, and with it the aura of the figure he portrays” in his essay The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. He states that aura comes from the feeling of an original artwork making something the “one and only” opposed to mechanical reproduction. Having something be original and true (reality) gives power to whoever has it. By saying that the Blair Witch Project captures the aura of these people because it is seen by some of its viewers as a documentary would be false because it can be mass reproduced. However, I think if it were in fact a documentary that was captured it still would not present the aura that Benjamin describes in his essay. This is because no matter what, we do not see the entire story; things are edited from the film whereas a play even though it can be repeated the actor, if it is the same actor every night, changes even if it’s only a little his movement, facial expressions, not everything in the play being rerun is as solid as a film being rerun. Film captures aura in a dissected way through editing and changes things in a minute detail to capture a hyper reality. Although The Blair Witch Project was a good attempt at showing reality and capturing the aura and presence of real people it does not fully follow under the definition of Benjamin’s aura in which it is something that is original which gives a power relationship of those who have it and those who don’t. 

Ozu Vs. Hollywood Realism

Yasujiro Ozu directed this 1953 film called Tokyo Story which has been argued to be in the top 10 greatest films ever made . This film has a universal plot making realism its best quality. However the realism in this film is not the norm of the realism most of us see in Hollywood films. The film is about an older couple, Tomi and Shukichi who go on a trip to visit their children in Tokyo. When they arrive at each of the children's homes, none seem to acknowledge their company. The children spend little time with them leaving the couple disappointed in their children. It is only their daughter-in-law who makes time for them, leaving work early to show them around the city and spend time with them. The couple begin to feel that their visit is no longer welcome and decide to get back to their home. However on the ride back, Tomi, the wife, becomes deathly ill. Her children are called to be informed of her sickness. The children come to her side at her house for her death and when Tomi dies only the husband and the daughter-in-law show their sadness while everyone else is distant to the situation and even asking for her possessions as tokens of remembrance. 

 

This film has a very simple plot and the way it is filmed makes the film seem almost plotless because it is deemphasized. How Ozu portrays realism in the film is very different from classical Hollywood action-packed films with car chases and high intense drama. The hollywood norm of these fast paced films keeps the story going moving from one moment to the next by using a cause-effect chain reaction where one event leads to a cause and then an effect which becomes the next cause. This norm is Hollywood's narrative and how the viewer makes meaning through the film. In this way the viewer looks at the result of the chain, Ozu challenges his viewers by creating ellipsis in the film to make us look at the process of how someone got to a position. This can be shown throughout the movie where he completely drops scenes that classic hollywood films would put stress on to make the movie feel more emotional and plot driven: at the beginning we hear of the couples trip to their first child’s house but we never see it; in the middle we see the children talking about sending the parents on a trip but Ozu leaves out showing them getting ready and going to their destination but rather shows the older couple already at their vacation spot; at the end and the most noticeable part would be the mother’s death and how instead of showing her dying, Ozu focuses on the reactions of her children which makes the scene not as dramatic.

 

Editing and the use of camera movements are a huge role of building emotion and meaning in Hollywood films. Ozu's camera movements are few including no zooms, pans, or anything in between. He uses a steady camera at a low angle to the ground, as if he was sitting on a traditional Japanese tatami floor seats. He stays at this angle throughout the film unlike the norm of American films always moving around following characters and using zooms and fast editing cuts often. A lot of his shots are empty shots showing background and space more then the actual actors. And he breaks the traditional 180 degree rule by shooting the film in a 360 degree space using a variety of shots from every angle. This makes the film a little complicated to follow along with the ellipses, a viewer has to actively participate while watching the film although it may seem slow because of the lack of plot and movement within the film. The style of how it is made is complex because of shooting in 360 degrees. This makes me wonder how confused the editor must have been trying to pick out scenes and which shots should go where because they can't all line up in a norm of continuity because of the 360 degrees. The transitions from one shot to another are not as smooth as Hollywood films because we see the cuts whereas in Hollywood they try to hide them through editing a certain way and matching the screen direction. With Ozu there is no flat line therefore screen direction does not matter to him because he uses full circle. 

 

Robert Frank's "Charleston, South Carolina"

Robert Frank's photo taken in Charleston is one of 83 photos in a photojournal book called The Americans. Journeying across the US, Frank captured American citizens in the 1950s. His style of work differed from other 1950s photographers as he focused on class and race issues thriving at the time. Living in Switzerland during WWII, Robert Frank and his Jewish family saw oppression first hand. This background clearly directed him to a certain bleak stylistic approach seen in his photos. His picture taken in Charleston, South Carolina shows the subject of an African American woman holding a Caucasian baby (http://www.honoluluacademy.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/robert-frank-lapsenhoitaja.jpg). In interpreting artwork, there is no right or wrong because everyone takes his or her own background and experience to the piece. However there are different steps you can take when looking at art. David Bordwell and Kristen Thompson would argue that this picture’s emotion and feeling being brought out is because of its form and our expectations of a pattern that the art presents to us. The two people being different races and being close and unified, at first gives a calm and peaceful feel to the photo. The subjects are in focus and are in the foreground. The woman looks strong and in power as the baby shows the innocence in the picture. There is enough look space for the subjects making the image even. The photo is in black and white and although it seems as if the photo shows peace, movement and tenseness is trapped inside. The vertical lines of the wall the woman leans against are not straight up and down however they slant causing uneasiness in the picture. The two subjects are not looking at each other but into the distance; the baby looking out towards the viewer and the woman (wearing glasses) looking beyond the baby toward the out of focus side of the picture in a different direction. Both facial expressions are very stiff. The film is grainy and has a raw feel to it. By examining the photo and reevaluating it as more things are noticed, I am “actively participating” in the experience (42, Thompson). Looking at the woman she seems firm but her shirt brings fluid motion to her character with lines revolving in a maze pattern. This at first brings conflict to my initial thought of the woman being rigid. Bordwell and Thompson would say this form “worked to disturb my expectation” so that it would bring “tension” to the photo (43, Thompson). Seeing the form of the photo with the help of Bordwell and Thompson there is a torn tension between races and how the United States has this chilled perception of how races should live together in the 1950s. However by looking at Frank’s work with Sturken and Cartwright’s take on interpreting art, the photo would be less about form and active participation and more about Robert Frank and his intensions of what he wanted to get across. Through this mirror it is more important to find meaning through “when, where, and by whom” (46, Sturken). Because this photo was taken in a different generation, I take a completely different view to the photo than what the people who saw Frank’s work when it first came bring to the photo (47, Sturken). Sturken and Cartwright would also throw in ideology positions into play to help make sense of the artwork. Stuart Hall defines three positions that help make meaning of art. With this people can take Frank’s photo as it is in it’s most dominant meaning or by “dominant-hegemonic reading”- a woman holding a child on the streets in the 1950s. Or the second view as a “negotiated reading” which the person would take more notice of the fact that the woman is African American and the baby is Caucasian (57, Sturken). The last view that Hall notes is “oppositional reading” in which case the viewer goes in a complete opposite direction of the dominant meaning or the most biased view (57, Sturken). Here the viewer would say the picture has everything to do with the race of the people in the picture. This is not all we can look at Frank’s picture but also we can say that he was trying to make a political and cultural statement by using “appropriation” through using the different races of the people in a normal and calm setting (65, Sturken). Bordwell and Thompson see Frank’s work through picking apart the picture to make patterns, which give us an emotional response whereas Sturken and Cartwright think about the time convention and creator rather than the piece itself.