The McDonough article analyzes situationist space reflected particularly through Debord’s piece The Naked City. McDonough deconstructs technical terms that are characterized in The Naked City and provides a discourse for enlightened interpretation of this disoriented and fragmented artistic guide of Paris. McDonough’s presents his main argument is presented in the following excerpt:
“The Naked City makes it clear, in its fragmenting of the conventional, descriptive representation of urban space, that the city is only experienced in time by a concrete, situated subject, as a passage from one “unity of atmosphere” to another, not as the object of a totalized perception” (64).
Here, McDonough seeks to win appreciation for situationist art by highlighting the assembly of context clues within the artwork that reference significant historic events and have been embedded into the psychogeographic value of the particular city.
The Naked City links various cut-out sites in Paris with uncoordinated arrows that create a map that is both lacks directionality and formality in analysis; McDonough informs us that this procedure is defined as “asyndeton”. In an effort to understand what the selective fragments on this “map” represent, during the period of post-Haussmannization, McDonough cites the artist’s own explanation, “[The fragments represent] the discovery of unities of atmosphere, of their main components and of spatial localization” (64). Then, McDonough argues that Debord’s The Naked City reaffirms Reclus’s concept of “social geography” which is defined by the fluidity of space as influenced by individual actions and social events.
Given that there is no formal method of interpretation for situationist art, I agree with McDonough when he claims that The Naked City “adamantly refuses the status of a regulative ideal, which is the goal of the cognitive map” (69). Despite the fact that this piece has no coherent representation of Paris, observers must recognize the level of relationship presented through the fragmented compilation of such sites, what Lefebvre termed “representational space”. However, I still fail to understand how the situating of a “dérive” is implemented into The Naked City. Who becomes such character, the artist or the observer? Furthermore, if the derive “attempts to suspend class allegiances for some time” how is it that the same artwork attempts to depict “the violence inherent in capitalism’s configuration” (69) as McDonough argues earlier in his article?
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Situationist Space
I thought McDonough’s essay Situationist Space did a great job analyzing Guy Debord’s map of Paris titled The Naked City. He first identifies that The Naked City was no ordinary map, this is obvious because The Naked City is a collage “composed of nineteen cut-out sections of a map of Paris printed on black ink…linked by directional arrows printed in red.” He argues that this map is figured as a narrative rather than a map used as a tool. McDonough compares Debord’s map with the famous map of the Plan de Paris to make his argument. McDonough’s essays sets out to prove The Naked City is not just “pure structure without individuation” as he used to describe the Plan de Paris map. McDonough made great emphasis on the fragmentation of The Naked City and how that created distinctions and differences within the city of Paris instead of having a homogenous space as seen in the Plan de Paris. These distinctions are important because he is arguing that these spatial differences are responsible for psychogeographic exploration.
McDonough essay seems to show the struggle Situationists had during the 1950’s in trying to restore the city’s fullness, richness, and its history that was eradicated due to the influence Haussmann had on Paris. He talks about Debord’s description of derive, which is a concept is meaning to drift. “Persons on the derive escaped the imaginary totalizations of the eye and instead chose a kind of blindness.” Again McDonough stress that the city of Paris should not be seen as a homogenous space, but instead, looking at the city in a new way.
Questions: what is McDonough talking about when he writes “a view that is more over genedered as masculine, from which a feminized space is perceived?”
Who exactly were the Situationists?
McDonough essay seems to show the struggle Situationists had during the 1950’s in trying to restore the city’s fullness, richness, and its history that was eradicated due to the influence Haussmann had on Paris. He talks about Debord’s description of derive, which is a concept is meaning to drift. “Persons on the derive escaped the imaginary totalizations of the eye and instead chose a kind of blindness.” Again McDonough stress that the city of Paris should not be seen as a homogenous space, but instead, looking at the city in a new way.
Questions: what is McDonough talking about when he writes “a view that is more over genedered as masculine, from which a feminized space is perceived?”
Who exactly were the Situationists?
Situationist Space
In McDonough’s article, the principles of Situationist thought are exemplified in a juxtaposition of Guy Dubord’s The Naked City and “the most popular map of Paris,” the Plan du Paris (62). Dubord’s piece is an unorganized, illogical fragmentation of the conventional Plan du Paris, calling for the breaking up of set routes and routines arranged by the capitalistic Haussmanization that we were introduced to in T.J. Clark’s article. Instead, Dubord seeks freedom from this, developing a map of Paris that links new “unities of atmosphere” through “spontaneous inclinations of orientation” (60). He believes that space is an element of society and social practice; he strives to reveal the hidden social hierarchy and violence that plagues the city due to Haussman’s capitalism.
The Naked City was meant to portray the movement through space as a narrative, as opposed to the resolute “timelessness” of the Plan du Paris. These “spatializing actions” (or derives), allowed for discovering and “inhabiting” freely, a rebellion against conventional ways.
Q1: What exactly does McDonough mean by “psychogeography” and what is its significance?
Q2: I was very confused about the word “flanerie”. What’s the difference between this and “derives”?
This article and Situationist thought in general reminds me of an art form called “free running” or “le parkour” or “the art of movement.” I don’t know much about it except that it originated in France, and is based on continuous movement, getting from point A to point B as fast and efficiently as possible. This includes jumping from building to building, jumping down many stories, and then continuing to run toward the final destination. The fragmentation of the Plan du Paris’s pre-arranged routes struck me as quite similar to the alternative direction taken by these free runners. Here is a video from YouTube to give an idea of what this looks like.
McDonough and the Situationist Space
In this article McDonough described Debord’s “The Naked City” and how it expressed the ideas of the situationists. Firstly, McDonough claimed that “The Naked City” is a narration instead of a description, just like Scudery’s “Carte de Tendre”. Its allusion to the film with the same name suggests multiple interpretations of path to follow unlike a normal, standard map. The arrows linking up unrelated pieces of the map leads followers to “experience the sudden change of atmosphere in a street, the sharp division of a city into one of distinct psychological climates…” (62) It makes one wonder if one is able to trace out a path, any one at all, on “The Naked City” by connecting the arrows.
This artwork is also an appropriation of the “Plan de Paris”. According to McDonough, the cutting of the original map into pieces and re-assembling it in a random order symbolizes what the social relations in this space has become, called “disentanglement” and “alienation” by the author. (70) I think it meant showing the city in an incoherent, messy manner because the existing “space” itself is contradictory, full of divisions (such as quarters) and fragmented.
McDonough also talked about Debord’s derive, stating its difference from flaneur, which involves removed observation unlike the “simultaneous fragmenting and disrupting” (74) of derive. I don’t quite understand all his arguments about what the derive is attempting to achieve, but it has to do with reconstructing the existing, contradictory social relations.
Q1) Was the city of Paris chosen as the map to be used in “The Naked City” because of Haussmanization? Or was there other reasons to why specifically Plan de Paris was used?
Q2)What is meant by “ludic-constructive behavior”?
This artwork is also an appropriation of the “Plan de Paris”. According to McDonough, the cutting of the original map into pieces and re-assembling it in a random order symbolizes what the social relations in this space has become, called “disentanglement” and “alienation” by the author. (70) I think it meant showing the city in an incoherent, messy manner because the existing “space” itself is contradictory, full of divisions (such as quarters) and fragmented.
McDonough also talked about Debord’s derive, stating its difference from flaneur, which involves removed observation unlike the “simultaneous fragmenting and disrupting” (74) of derive. I don’t quite understand all his arguments about what the derive is attempting to achieve, but it has to do with reconstructing the existing, contradictory social relations.
Q1) Was the city of Paris chosen as the map to be used in “The Naked City” because of Haussmanization? Or was there other reasons to why specifically Plan de Paris was used?
Q2)What is meant by “ludic-constructive behavior”?
Situationist Space
In his “Situationalist Space”, Thomas McDonough talks about Debord's The Naked City and it's relation with the Plan de Paris. McDounough argues that the Plan de Paris was a map which was the representation of the real city by mapping out the entire city with small details, including all the streets and places. On the other hand, The Naked City used only “spatializing actions/ derives”, a totally different approach from Plan de Paris. Therefore, The Naked City is not map, and McDonough argued that map is fragmented. He then connects this idea with Jameson, stating that the fragmentations of it enables the situationalist to vaster totality and ensemble the whole city's structure. Instead of using the space as context, The Naked City uses the space as part of “social practice”, which means the areas where social relations are produced and where people inhabit. I don't really understand the concept of “derives”. What I'm guessing is that derive is the people who are trying to figure out the meanings of life. In this sense, The Naked City is more vague in term of viewing at a map. I think this article was not hard to read, but since I didn't totally get the concept of derives, it is hard for me to understand some of the points McDonough is trying to make. What is derive? Why the Situationists don't want to locate cultural struggle within the city?
Situationist Space
Thomas McDonough compares two types of maps, The Naked City and the Plan de Paris; the first being fragmented, descriptive, social and concrete and the latter being being whole, descriptive, mental and abstract. The Naked City portrays real perceptions of space and direction with arrows and connected fragments representing 'unities of atmosphere' in the city. This map is representative of the fact that people never see the the entire city as it is displayed on the Plan de Paris. The new cartography challenges the strictness of the map and the homogenity of the urban system proving that maps should be mapped according to social relations. The real map reminds the McDonough of the Haussmannized Paris where class lines are drawn between the poor and rich. The Naked City shows these distinctions hidden by the homogeneity of the Plan map. This reminds me of Jameson's criticism towards periodizing and its habit of homogenizing society and art, not allowing diversity or the reader to debate and form their own opinions on the subject.
McDonough also talks about the different thoughts of geographers Vidal and Redal; Vidal creating an academic map and Redal a psychogeographic map. While Vidal believed that geography was permanent, independent of social relations, "constant and invariable" and Redal believed that geography correlated to society and its changes. He saw that geography was different everyday and altered according men's actions. Although Debord had the same intentions as Redal, he had a slightly different opinion. He believed that space changed, but it could also be moved around to form "new 'unities of atmostphere'". While The Naked City is free and open to expression, the Plan is restrictive and imposes one "correct" view on its readers.
Later McDonough begins talking about the Situationists and their 'theater of operations'. He compares the derive to the flaneur. According to the Situationists the derive was a walker that would take a journey that was niether dependent on "consumption of the city nor factors of chance" but rather the blindness of a everyday person. The gazer becomes a tourist without a map; he percieves and transforms his surroundings into his own meaningful spaces. While the flaneure does not fragment or disrupt the city and follows completely by chance. These two are similar in the fact that they both allow heterogenity to occur.
Questions:
What does the author mean when he says that the Vidal's map is more masculine than feminine? How is a "feminized space" perceived?
What is Debord's disagreement with the Surrealists? What does protests against means-end rationality mean?
McDonough also talks about the different thoughts of geographers Vidal and Redal; Vidal creating an academic map and Redal a psychogeographic map. While Vidal believed that geography was permanent, independent of social relations, "constant and invariable" and Redal believed that geography correlated to society and its changes. He saw that geography was different everyday and altered according men's actions. Although Debord had the same intentions as Redal, he had a slightly different opinion. He believed that space changed, but it could also be moved around to form "new 'unities of atmostphere'". While The Naked City is free and open to expression, the Plan is restrictive and imposes one "correct" view on its readers.
Later McDonough begins talking about the Situationists and their 'theater of operations'. He compares the derive to the flaneur. According to the Situationists the derive was a walker that would take a journey that was niether dependent on "consumption of the city nor factors of chance" but rather the blindness of a everyday person. The gazer becomes a tourist without a map; he percieves and transforms his surroundings into his own meaningful spaces. While the flaneure does not fragment or disrupt the city and follows completely by chance. These two are similar in the fact that they both allow heterogenity to occur.
Questions:
What does the author mean when he says that the Vidal's map is more masculine than feminine? How is a "feminized space" perceived?
What is Debord's disagreement with the Surrealists? What does protests against means-end rationality mean?
Situationist Space Post
In "Situationalist Space," Thomas McDonough discusses the differences between Debord's map of The Naked City and the Plan de Paris. McDonough argues that the Plan de Paris uses the discourse of "description" meaning that the map represents the city by mapping out the whole city with all the streets and places whereas The Naked City is unconventional approach to a map. Deboard takes the Plan de Paris and devides it into 19 black and white pieces and links the pieces by directional arrows printed in red. The Naked City does not function as an ordinary map. It is more like a narrative rather than a tool of "universal knowledge." It names the parts of the city instead of the whole.
McDonough compares the Plan de Paris to the track of a locamotive because although a person is self-propelled their path is determined within strict boundaries by the map. I think that The Naked City was intended to give the people of Paris the feeling of freedom from the distinct paths they should take. McDonough also says that the Plan de Paris is in a timeless present because it's omnivous view is seen from nowhere. McDonough also feels that Debord was unconsciously reasserting the goals of a social geography, the inseperable space from the functioning society.
I feel that McDonough's main argument is that divisions in social class are not eliminated by the newly designed Paris that is shown in the Plan de Paris; they are only hidden. The poor are still poor even if they are able to afford clothes to look otherwise and the middle class are no richer than before. The Naked City brings these hidden distinctions and differences out into the open, "the violence of the fragmentation suggesting the real violence involved in constructing the city of the Plan." (McDonough, p.65)
Questions:
1. What does McDonough mean by structuring the Naked City through synecdoche and asyndeton disrupts the continuity of the Plan de Paris?
2. Why was little attention paid to The Naked City when now it is an iconic image?
McDonough compares the Plan de Paris to the track of a locamotive because although a person is self-propelled their path is determined within strict boundaries by the map. I think that The Naked City was intended to give the people of Paris the feeling of freedom from the distinct paths they should take. McDonough also says that the Plan de Paris is in a timeless present because it's omnivous view is seen from nowhere. McDonough also feels that Debord was unconsciously reasserting the goals of a social geography, the inseperable space from the functioning society.
I feel that McDonough's main argument is that divisions in social class are not eliminated by the newly designed Paris that is shown in the Plan de Paris; they are only hidden. The poor are still poor even if they are able to afford clothes to look otherwise and the middle class are no richer than before. The Naked City brings these hidden distinctions and differences out into the open, "the violence of the fragmentation suggesting the real violence involved in constructing the city of the Plan." (McDonough, p.65)
Questions:
1. What does McDonough mean by structuring the Naked City through synecdoche and asyndeton disrupts the continuity of the Plan de Paris?
2. Why was little attention paid to The Naked City when now it is an iconic image?
The Naked City
McDonough’s Situationist Space analyzes the use of various types of maps to illustrate urban space. His most important point is his interpretation of Guy Debord’s The Naked City, in which McDonough sees a map that is meant to be a narrative rather than a tool for universal knowledge or direction. Debord’s version of Paris in his work emphasizes the psychogeography associated with Paris rather than accuracy of the locations within the city. It is clear that his map has other meanings behind it seeing as the fragments have no relation to one another and the distances and positions of each piece are completely inaccurate. Debord explains this logic in his theory of Derive. He describes each fragment as a “unity of atmosphere” whose most important goal is not to limit the subject who is using the map to the concrete architecture that is built within a normal map of Paris. Instead this concept of derive that Debord uses is meant to show that the “city is only experienced in time by a concrete, situated subject, as a passage from one unity of atmosphere to another, not as the object of totalized perception” (64). To him the map is meant to show that exploration should be the reality of actually inhabiting the environment by following the subject through the surroundings disregarding the connections in a map that usually govern how one moves through urban space.
McDonough also mentions that The Naked City is structured through synecdoche and asyndeton. I am not sure exactly what these mean but in the connecting paragraph McDonough seems to reveal that these attributes “open the gaps in the spatial continuum and retain only selected parts of it.” This is part of McDonough’s motivating question. He is interested in arguing why Debord chose to fragment and shape his map of Paris in The Naked City the way that he did, and he makes a very good point arguing that the Plan de Paris and similar maps only act to conceal difference and uniqueness because they are hidden in the “homogenous space” that is created from viewing the entire city laid out before the viewers eyes. The Naked City, however, “brings these distinctions and differences out into the open” (65), suggesting a realness in the fragmented piece. In this way, Debord’s map possesses social life and distinct character because it reveals the process of social groups inhabiting the space. In this way, McDonough believes that Debord’s map is itself a narrative that is open for interpretation and can have various meanings, but that the overall message shows a series of relationships between fragment and unity in various different ways.
1) What was the exact connection to the Situationist in this reading? Was it the use of derive?
2) What is the meaning and relation of the quote, “Both the flaneur and the person on the derive move among the crowd without being one with it. They are both ‘already out of place,’ neither bourgeois nor proletariat” (73)? How do these two terms relate to the social status of bourgeois or proletariat? From Debord’s map can we determine what and where these status’ lie?
McDonough also mentions that The Naked City is structured through synecdoche and asyndeton. I am not sure exactly what these mean but in the connecting paragraph McDonough seems to reveal that these attributes “open the gaps in the spatial continuum and retain only selected parts of it.” This is part of McDonough’s motivating question. He is interested in arguing why Debord chose to fragment and shape his map of Paris in The Naked City the way that he did, and he makes a very good point arguing that the Plan de Paris and similar maps only act to conceal difference and uniqueness because they are hidden in the “homogenous space” that is created from viewing the entire city laid out before the viewers eyes. The Naked City, however, “brings these distinctions and differences out into the open” (65), suggesting a realness in the fragmented piece. In this way, Debord’s map possesses social life and distinct character because it reveals the process of social groups inhabiting the space. In this way, McDonough believes that Debord’s map is itself a narrative that is open for interpretation and can have various meanings, but that the overall message shows a series of relationships between fragment and unity in various different ways.
1) What was the exact connection to the Situationist in this reading? Was it the use of derive?
2) What is the meaning and relation of the quote, “Both the flaneur and the person on the derive move among the crowd without being one with it. They are both ‘already out of place,’ neither bourgeois nor proletariat” (73)? How do these two terms relate to the social status of bourgeois or proletariat? From Debord’s map can we determine what and where these status’ lie?
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
In "Situationalist Spaces," Thomas McDonough writes about the new way the map of Paris is viewed by looking at the piece The Naked City. The Naked City is composed of nineteen cut-out sections of a map of Paris, printed in black ink. This piece was not like an ordinary map. "The Naked City denies space as context and instead incorporates space as an element of social practice. Rather than a container suitable for description, space becomes part of a process: the process of "inhabiting" enacted by social groups" (68).
The Naked City challenges the structure of the Plan de Paris. The Plan de Paris is structured in a way so as to describe. If the Plan de Paris is structured by description, then a something else structures The Naked City- "spacialized actions," which organize movements symbolically around psychogeographic hubs.
The Naked City doesn't cover all of Paris, as is expected of any "good" map and the geographical fragments have no logical relation to one another (not oriented correctly). This piece is based more on social geography than explaining spatial organization. "Reclus theorized space as a social product and thus as inseparable from the functioning of society" (66).
Space is a social construct and is very subjective. In The Naked City, because there is no spatial orientaion, we have to look at the piece with a different perspective and look at it in terms of society and social practice instead about geography and location.
What was somewhat confusing to me was the parts about capitalist in relation to the article and "spacial confusion" of the city. Also, the part about the postwar period. Discussing this would help me more.
The Naked City challenges the structure of the Plan de Paris. The Plan de Paris is structured in a way so as to describe. If the Plan de Paris is structured by description, then a something else structures The Naked City- "spacialized actions," which organize movements symbolically around psychogeographic hubs.
The Naked City doesn't cover all of Paris, as is expected of any "good" map and the geographical fragments have no logical relation to one another (not oriented correctly). This piece is based more on social geography than explaining spatial organization. "Reclus theorized space as a social product and thus as inseparable from the functioning of society" (66).
Space is a social construct and is very subjective. In The Naked City, because there is no spatial orientaion, we have to look at the piece with a different perspective and look at it in terms of society and social practice instead about geography and location.
What was somewhat confusing to me was the parts about capitalist in relation to the article and "spacial confusion" of the city. Also, the part about the postwar period. Discussing this would help me more.
McDonough's Situationist Space
McDonough's article explores social geography, reorganizing physical space into abstract space, and then further into social meanings. It contrasts Debord's The Naked City with Plan de Paris. Plan de Paris is presented from a bird's eye view, an impossible viewpoint that no person or subject see, thus making it strictly a functional document, with no feeling, presence, or being. It is also structured to give "false continuity" to the city, hiding the soul and culture of the actual city. McDonough describes The Naked City as a relief, a breath of fresh air, suggesting that its artistic fragmentation mirrors real violence in Paris's past and creation. (Haussmann's work) He argues that while at a cursory glance, The Naked City may look like a disjarred and fragmented image of the city it actually embraces struggle in the city by incorporated spaces, products of society. A lot of his points seemed to draw parallels to some of the themes we have been discussing in class.
I liked the last bit where McDonough points out that the new city is "evacuated" that its vitality and fullness no longer run through the streets but are actually tucked away in the residential homes, ever since the onset of "spectacle-culture". But the liveliness and richness of the city is actually killed, in its traditional sense, by spectacle-culture. What life and energy is there to a culture that is centered around passively watching?
Q1: Why only include the large and famous monuments (of both New York and Paris)? Aren't the unnamed and 'underground' locations what actually make up the flow and energy of a city?
Q2: It would be interesting to see this same concept applied to different areas of social relation building and inhabiting (where there are different "unities of atmosphere") , for example, institutions - schools, churches.. Has this been done before?
McDonough: “Situationist Space”
McDonough in describing and analyzing Debord and “The Naked City” makes reference to a few interesting subjects I wish to further explore. First, I really enjoyed this concept of a map as a “performance” – at once literally performing and asking of its viewer to perform with it. This at once reminded me of Borges and his critique of absolute exactness when he describes a map as being useless – “In time, those Unconscionable Maps no longer satisfied, and the Cartographers Guild drew a Map of the Empire whose size was that of the Empire, coinciding point for point with it. The following Generations, who were not so fond of the Study of Cartography saw the vast Map to be Useless and permitted it to decay and fray under the Sun and winters. In the Deserts of the West, still today, there are Tattered Ruins of the Map, inhabited by Animals and Beggars; and in all the Land there is no other Relic of the Disciplines of Geography” (“Exactitude in Science”). The relevance I find between Debord’s map and Borges’ map lies in this concept of “exactitude”. While a map should be “exact”, “precise”, and “accurate”, too much can at once undermine its purpose – a purpose that for Debord takes the meaning of performance, of an intimate interaction among city and city dweller – “freed from the ‘useful connections that ordinarily govern their conduct,’ the users could experience the ‘sudden change of atmosphere in a street, the sharp division of a city into one of distinct psychological climates (62).”
Also of interest is McDonough’s reference to Saussure’s idea of language when McDonough describes the traditional condition of the map as pure structure (“langue”) without individualism (“parole”). For Saussure, “langue” constitutes the whole system of language, while “parole” constitutes the concrete use of language or the utterances of language, i.e. words. It is interesting because McDonough suggests that a traditional map is all structure, all “langue”, but there is no individual interaction or that which gives the usefulness of a map its proper recognition, the “parole”. I wish McDonough would’ve continue with this idea of “langue” and “parole” because what is the purpose of a map if there is no one to read it, understand it, use it.
Lastly, I was also fascinated by this idea of “social geography” as a response to “academic geography”. Along with this notion of a map “performing”, Debord aggress with Reclus in that geography, like a map, is “not an immutable thing, it is made, it is remade every day; at each instant, it is modified by men’s actions” (66). This concept of “social geography” I see as the ligament between Saussure’s idea of “langue” and “parole” with Debord’s idea of a “performative” map. It ultimately takes men (and women) for a map to operate and perform just like it takes men and women’s utterances for language to exist – one can’t exist without the other in this reciprocal and mutual relationship.
If I had to pinpoint McDonough’s main argument I would say it lies in a map being able to perform and allow others to perform with it. This performance would at once amount to a greater sense of value when compared to map that just displayed a city but allowed to sense of interaction.
Question 1: What would McDonough, while thinking of Debord, think of this new GPS technology and being able to talk and be responded by 3D maps that now come standard in most new vehicles? Would McDonough agree that this is itself a performance?
Question 2: If “The Naked City” had no arrows, would viewers still get this sense of movement, of this spatial relationship between city and its inhabitants, of exploration?
Also of interest is McDonough’s reference to Saussure’s idea of language when McDonough describes the traditional condition of the map as pure structure (“langue”) without individualism (“parole”). For Saussure, “langue” constitutes the whole system of language, while “parole” constitutes the concrete use of language or the utterances of language, i.e. words. It is interesting because McDonough suggests that a traditional map is all structure, all “langue”, but there is no individual interaction or that which gives the usefulness of a map its proper recognition, the “parole”. I wish McDonough would’ve continue with this idea of “langue” and “parole” because what is the purpose of a map if there is no one to read it, understand it, use it.
Lastly, I was also fascinated by this idea of “social geography” as a response to “academic geography”. Along with this notion of a map “performing”, Debord aggress with Reclus in that geography, like a map, is “not an immutable thing, it is made, it is remade every day; at each instant, it is modified by men’s actions” (66). This concept of “social geography” I see as the ligament between Saussure’s idea of “langue” and “parole” with Debord’s idea of a “performative” map. It ultimately takes men (and women) for a map to operate and perform just like it takes men and women’s utterances for language to exist – one can’t exist without the other in this reciprocal and mutual relationship.
If I had to pinpoint McDonough’s main argument I would say it lies in a map being able to perform and allow others to perform with it. This performance would at once amount to a greater sense of value when compared to map that just displayed a city but allowed to sense of interaction.
Question 1: What would McDonough, while thinking of Debord, think of this new GPS technology and being able to talk and be responded by 3D maps that now come standard in most new vehicles? Would McDonough agree that this is itself a performance?
Question 2: If “The Naked City” had no arrows, would viewers still get this sense of movement, of this spatial relationship between city and its inhabitants, of exploration?
McDonough
McDonough's writing discusses a new perspective on the manner in which the city of Paris is mapped in Debord's The Naked City . McDonough's main argument here is that space is a social construct and the reproduction and illustration of space is subjective. The map became "illegible" as it arranged the city not just by physical space but also by "unity of atmosphere" and social contexts that contain the space. This piece falls into the category of a postmodern piece as it lacks emotion or expression. Due to the fact that the painting represents an image that no human can physically see themselves, the work lacks individualization and a subject. Additionally, there is no legend or scale to the sections in this work, further skewing and altering the actual representation of the city. As Reclus says "(social geography) was not an immutable thing. Is it made, it is remade every day; at each instance it is modified by man's actions" (66). Although, the work does include some arrows directing traffic flow from one section to the other, there really does not exist a subject. The piece challenges current means of thinking and allows for the people of the time to feel as though they are able to associate and categorize themselves as they desire. The omissions in the piece further prove that the situationists are not conerned with standard factual physical representation.
Questions:
1) What exactly is the concept of Derive?
2)What are the "exits and defeneses" (65) of each "unity of atmosphere" in the work?
Questions:
1) What exactly is the concept of Derive?
2)What are the "exits and defeneses" (65) of each "unity of atmosphere" in the work?
McDonough's Situationist Space
Unlike Jameson or Clark, McDonough seems more interested in explaining a work or body or work of art rather than absorbing a range of works into his own intellectual agenda. If he has a main argument, it is not "his" in the strictest sense, but more Guy Debord's. What, then, is Debord’s main argument? Although it is plainly stated (more or less), his goal still seems obscure to me. More of which later.
Debord’s The Naked City summarizes the central tenets of situationism; that an aerial city map view is not “objective,’ that it assumes, for example, the position of the viewer and the primacy and truth of geographic space, and that there are other, possibly better, approaches to the space we inhabit. Debord chose to approach space from a pschogeographical angle, by which he means that the city is composed of “unities of atmosphere” (65), places defined by their flavor rather than by their geographical location.
McDonough describes the Situationist project, “the exploration of psychogeography and the construction of spaces that accommodated difference” (70). A main element of this project was derive, the “drifting.” He drew an interesting parallel between the derive and flanerie. But what I found most interesting was the similarities he called attention to: the fact that practitioners of both “move among the crowd without being one with it. They are both ‘already out of place’” (73). But this is where the situationist project seems to break down.
If it is a revolt, or protest of sorts (ala Nouveau Theatre D’Operations Dans la Culture), what is its aim? For whom is Paris to be reimagined? If the derive is about reappropriating space, then for whom? McDonough suggests that the ultimate beneficiaries were to be “all participants in the ‘ludic-constructive’ narrative of a new urban terrain” (77). Although I got the sense that the space was to be reclaimed or reimagined for the benefit of the people who inhabit it, it seems like any impact would mainly (only?) be detected by those participating in the narrative, i.e., artists and intellectuals. And Debord’s attitude toward the city’s inhabitants is decidedly snobbish. He holds them at arms length: the derive practitioner is an observer, apart from the crowd, above the crowd. And if Debord considers “the crowd” to be a usefull narrative tool (at best), he is simply disdainful of that which is most popular among them: sports, tourism and conspicuous consumption. Killing all three birds with one stone, he wrote that tourism was that “popular drug as repugnant as sports or buying on credit” (76). Surely he leaves no place for the “everyman” in his project.
If Warhol’s postmodern pop art blurred the line between high-brow and common, Debord clearly redraws it in heavy ink. Also, unlike the postmodernists, he focuses on personhood and the subjective experience. There is no pschogeography without the psyche.
Question 1: Why does Debord critique the surrealists for having “insufficient mistrust of chance?” (74)
Question 2: What is meant by: “Situationist “experimental behavior,” their practice of “inhabiting,” were operations in dominated space meant to contest the retreat of the directly lived into the realm of representation, and thereby to contest the organization of the society of the spectacle itself” (70)?
Debord’s The Naked City summarizes the central tenets of situationism; that an aerial city map view is not “objective,’ that it assumes, for example, the position of the viewer and the primacy and truth of geographic space, and that there are other, possibly better, approaches to the space we inhabit. Debord chose to approach space from a pschogeographical angle, by which he means that the city is composed of “unities of atmosphere” (65), places defined by their flavor rather than by their geographical location.
McDonough describes the Situationist project, “the exploration of psychogeography and the construction of spaces that accommodated difference” (70). A main element of this project was derive, the “drifting.” He drew an interesting parallel between the derive and flanerie. But what I found most interesting was the similarities he called attention to: the fact that practitioners of both “move among the crowd without being one with it. They are both ‘already out of place’” (73). But this is where the situationist project seems to break down.
If it is a revolt, or protest of sorts (ala Nouveau Theatre D’Operations Dans la Culture), what is its aim? For whom is Paris to be reimagined? If the derive is about reappropriating space, then for whom? McDonough suggests that the ultimate beneficiaries were to be “all participants in the ‘ludic-constructive’ narrative of a new urban terrain” (77). Although I got the sense that the space was to be reclaimed or reimagined for the benefit of the people who inhabit it, it seems like any impact would mainly (only?) be detected by those participating in the narrative, i.e., artists and intellectuals. And Debord’s attitude toward the city’s inhabitants is decidedly snobbish. He holds them at arms length: the derive practitioner is an observer, apart from the crowd, above the crowd. And if Debord considers “the crowd” to be a usefull narrative tool (at best), he is simply disdainful of that which is most popular among them: sports, tourism and conspicuous consumption. Killing all three birds with one stone, he wrote that tourism was that “popular drug as repugnant as sports or buying on credit” (76). Surely he leaves no place for the “everyman” in his project.
If Warhol’s postmodern pop art blurred the line between high-brow and common, Debord clearly redraws it in heavy ink. Also, unlike the postmodernists, he focuses on personhood and the subjective experience. There is no pschogeography without the psyche.
Question 1: Why does Debord critique the surrealists for having “insufficient mistrust of chance?” (74)
Question 2: What is meant by: “Situationist “experimental behavior,” their practice of “inhabiting,” were operations in dominated space meant to contest the retreat of the directly lived into the realm of representation, and thereby to contest the organization of the society of the spectacle itself” (70)?
In "Situationalist Space," Thomas McDonough discusses the differences between The Naked City and the Plan de Paris. McDonough argues that the Plan de Paris uses the discourse of "description" meaning that the map represents the city by mapping out the whole city with all the streets and places whereas The Naked City takes a completely different shape using "spatializing actions" also known as "derives." The Naked City is not your conventional map. The map is fragmented; it has a different "unity of atmosphere" for each segment. There is no spatial orientation; everything is discombobulated which is reminiscent of Frederic Jameson's discussion on modern versus postmodern in which he describes postmodern art as fragmented and lacking meaning. Instead of looking at space as context, the Naked City skillfully uses space as an element of social practice, which means that instead of just being a description or a whole map, it breaks down the map into not just spaces but spaces that people inhabit. For me this takes post modern art to another level of meaning making me believe that unlike Jameson's claims, postmodern art too can produce a deeper meaning. This element of encompassing social groups into the map brings in the idea of derives. Although i am still not positive what a derive is. It seems that the derive is the people, and they are attempting to analyze the totality of life. The Naked City is a much more abstract way of looking at a map, which is why it is a lot harder for me to follow and understand this piece. With the derive, does this now mean that the people are the art? Or are we looking at the people in relationship within the city? And how are the flaneur and the derive different because to me they seem like they are very similar?
Paper #1 Assignment
DUE TUESDAY, 2/3
Gustav Caillebotte. Paris Street, Rain. 1877
Andy Warhol. Lavender Disaster. 1967.
Andy Warhol. Elvis. 1962
Edouard Manet. Bar at the Folies Bergère. 1881.
(All paintings listed above are searchable on artstor.org. I suggest using this site due to the high quality of the images, in contrast with many of the small and/or compressed results you’ll find from a Google image search.)
For Tuesday, please write an essay focused around a “descriptive argument”—about two pages long—about one of the above paintings. This two-page essay should describe key features of the work and offer an interpretation of what is happening in the painting, what issues the painting raises, and what social/political context the painting seems to be speaking about, based on your description and the details you have noticed. When analyzing your chosen work of art, look slowly and carefully at the details of the piece. You may use the readings we’ve covered in the class to determine what might be important details to emphasize, but I really want you to test your own eye—try not to just repeat points from lecture, but attend to the specificities of these particular works. Also, keep in mind it won’t work to just apply verbatim descriptions of paintings shown in class to those selected here. Don’t feel that you need to do outside research to interpret these paintings—I want to assess your CURRENT skill level at gleaning and interpreting information from visual clues at hand.
A few questions to think about as you plan your written analysis.
1. How does form (the technical construction of the piece) underscore or challenge narrative and/or content?
2. Are there points of inconsistency or tension in the work that destabilize a straightforward reading?
3. You may offer comparisons between these works if it helps you to advance your mini-argument.
The following is a brief set of guidelines taken from an informative UNC website. I do want you to learn how to translate from visual language into verbal language. However, please do not simply describe your chosen piece without also interpreting it. The description you offer, and the details you concentrate on in your description, should work in service of an argument in which you set out some (provisional) suggestions about what these formal details mean, and how you conclude that they mean what you think they mean. That is, don’t just say that these formal characteristics mean something, say how they mean—how do elements of the painting interact to produce a kind of visual argument?
(For additional information on making descriptive arguments, consult the assigned chapters from A Short Guide to Writing About Art, located in your reader.)
From http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/arthistory.html
1) Formal analysis
This assignment requires a detailed description of the "formal" qualities of the art object (formal as in "related to the form," not a black tie dinner). In other words, you're looking at the individual design elements, such as composition (arrangement of parts of or in the work), color, line, texture, scale, proportion, balance, contrast, and rhythm. Your primary concern in this assignment is to attempt to explain how the artist arranges and uses these various elements.
Usually you have to go and look at the object for a long time and then write down what you see. As you will quickly see from the page length of the assignment, your instructor expects a highly detailed description of the object. You might struggle with this assignment because it is hard to translate what you see into words—don't give up, and take more notes than you might think you need.
Why would your instructor ask you to do this assignment? First, translating something from a visual language to a textual language is one of the most vital tasks of the art historian. Most art historians at some point describe fully and accurately their objects of study in order to communicate their ideas about them. You may already have found this tendency helpful in reading your textbook or other assigned readings. Second, your instructors realize that you are not accustomed to scrutinizing objects in this way and know that you need practice doing so. Instructors who assign formal analyses want you to look—and look carefully. Think of the object as a series of decisions that an artist made. Your job is to figure out and describe, explain, and interpret those decisions and why the artist may have made them.
Ideally, if you were to give your written formal analysis to a friend who had never seen the object, s/he would be able to describe or draw the object for you, or at least pick it out of a lineup.
Gustav Caillebotte. Paris Street, Rain. 1877
Andy Warhol. Lavender Disaster. 1967.
Andy Warhol. Elvis. 1962
Edouard Manet. Bar at the Folies Bergère. 1881.
(All paintings listed above are searchable on artstor.org. I suggest using this site due to the high quality of the images, in contrast with many of the small and/or compressed results you’ll find from a Google image search.)
For Tuesday, please write an essay focused around a “descriptive argument”—about two pages long—about one of the above paintings. This two-page essay should describe key features of the work and offer an interpretation of what is happening in the painting, what issues the painting raises, and what social/political context the painting seems to be speaking about, based on your description and the details you have noticed. When analyzing your chosen work of art, look slowly and carefully at the details of the piece. You may use the readings we’ve covered in the class to determine what might be important details to emphasize, but I really want you to test your own eye—try not to just repeat points from lecture, but attend to the specificities of these particular works. Also, keep in mind it won’t work to just apply verbatim descriptions of paintings shown in class to those selected here. Don’t feel that you need to do outside research to interpret these paintings—I want to assess your CURRENT skill level at gleaning and interpreting information from visual clues at hand.
A few questions to think about as you plan your written analysis.
1. How does form (the technical construction of the piece) underscore or challenge narrative and/or content?
2. Are there points of inconsistency or tension in the work that destabilize a straightforward reading?
3. You may offer comparisons between these works if it helps you to advance your mini-argument.
The following is a brief set of guidelines taken from an informative UNC website. I do want you to learn how to translate from visual language into verbal language. However, please do not simply describe your chosen piece without also interpreting it. The description you offer, and the details you concentrate on in your description, should work in service of an argument in which you set out some (provisional) suggestions about what these formal details mean, and how you conclude that they mean what you think they mean. That is, don’t just say that these formal characteristics mean something, say how they mean—how do elements of the painting interact to produce a kind of visual argument?
(For additional information on making descriptive arguments, consult the assigned chapters from A Short Guide to Writing About Art, located in your reader.)
From http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/arthistory.html
1) Formal analysis
This assignment requires a detailed description of the "formal" qualities of the art object (formal as in "related to the form," not a black tie dinner). In other words, you're looking at the individual design elements, such as composition (arrangement of parts of or in the work), color, line, texture, scale, proportion, balance, contrast, and rhythm. Your primary concern in this assignment is to attempt to explain how the artist arranges and uses these various elements.
Usually you have to go and look at the object for a long time and then write down what you see. As you will quickly see from the page length of the assignment, your instructor expects a highly detailed description of the object. You might struggle with this assignment because it is hard to translate what you see into words—don't give up, and take more notes than you might think you need.
Why would your instructor ask you to do this assignment? First, translating something from a visual language to a textual language is one of the most vital tasks of the art historian. Most art historians at some point describe fully and accurately their objects of study in order to communicate their ideas about them. You may already have found this tendency helpful in reading your textbook or other assigned readings. Second, your instructors realize that you are not accustomed to scrutinizing objects in this way and know that you need practice doing so. Instructors who assign formal analyses want you to look—and look carefully. Think of the object as a series of decisions that an artist made. Your job is to figure out and describe, explain, and interpret those decisions and why the artist may have made them.
Ideally, if you were to give your written formal analysis to a friend who had never seen the object, s/he would be able to describe or draw the object for you, or at least pick it out of a lineup.
The situationist piece was an abstract discussion on the use of maps and clues in order to describe urban space. The article focused on the creation of the naked map in which none of the sites or locations on the map are mathematically in the right location nor relative. Rather, the map is a psychogeographical map the connects "unities of atmosphere". From what i understood, a unity of atmosphere is a location/region that has a particular vibe, like a certain subarb, a certain industrial sector, and more. the point of the map is not to show how to get to certain locations but rather to help describe the functions and utilities of urban space through psychological analysis rather then mathematical or universal geographical entities. The motivating question that gives rise to the creation of the naked map is basically how to describe urban space in a new way that allows for a different understanding of movement through a city.
I thought the theory of the derive was interesting when discussing the blind walk of pedestrians. I took a class on city development and urban planning last semester where we talked about the significance of the flaneur and the importance of the detached subjectie stroll that one can take while observing the different varying forms that urban space consists of. I thought it was interesitnf how the author described the derive and flaneur as different, in which the flaneur was meant to be observational, where the person on the walk was learning something and elaving himself alienated from all the people and places he visits, while the pedestrian on teh derive is not conscious of his objects or observations but rather walks and interacts with particular city life of his choice based on free will.
Q1: why dies Debord say that under capitalism everything that was directly lived has moved away into representation and how does that create the terms representational space and lived space?
Q2: what would Debord think about google maps in which a map can be seen from numerous angles and locations where everything is mathematically made to scale, but at the same time one can get close enough to look at real peoples homes and real streets from a pedestrian or camera point of view? also, what about the points on google map that can be clicked and viewed at from different views such as spiral jetty and other artworks that google have placed on their web pages.
I thought the theory of the derive was interesting when discussing the blind walk of pedestrians. I took a class on city development and urban planning last semester where we talked about the significance of the flaneur and the importance of the detached subjectie stroll that one can take while observing the different varying forms that urban space consists of. I thought it was interesitnf how the author described the derive and flaneur as different, in which the flaneur was meant to be observational, where the person on the walk was learning something and elaving himself alienated from all the people and places he visits, while the pedestrian on teh derive is not conscious of his objects or observations but rather walks and interacts with particular city life of his choice based on free will.
Q1: why dies Debord say that under capitalism everything that was directly lived has moved away into representation and how does that create the terms representational space and lived space?
Q2: what would Debord think about google maps in which a map can be seen from numerous angles and locations where everything is mathematically made to scale, but at the same time one can get close enough to look at real peoples homes and real streets from a pedestrian or camera point of view? also, what about the points on google map that can be clicked and viewed at from different views such as spiral jetty and other artworks that google have placed on their web pages.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Oops...
sorry for blockading your announcment, Ms. Hoy
link: http://fateofthepicture.blogspot.com/2009/01/presentation-schedule-student-led.html
or scroll down a bit...
link: http://fateofthepicture.blogspot.com/2009/01/presentation-schedule-student-led.html
or scroll down a bit...
Cultural (il)Logic
Jameson introduces postmodernism as being wrongly lumped by "periodizing hypotheses," his scornful contempt of such attempts being his motivation for highlighting the differences between modernism and its predecessor. The author is aware that with increasing capacity to differentiate between the two movements, there is a decreasing in logical placement of a piece in these two categories; yet, he attempts to reinstate his own method for categorizing the two post-haste. Perhaps by lessening his very argument with this paradox, he hopes for his piece to keep itself from becoming the "terrifying machine" of a total system of logic, thus using the winner-loses complex to win by losing... but I digress.
Postmodernism could followingly be described as such: it is a movement without movement, in the sense that it poses to natural disruption with the culture of its time. Though postmodernism my as well be a regurgitation of modernism (quite possibly analagous to how a machine regurgitates an image). The artform is no longer opposed as modernism was, and is instead accepted or even encouraged (An aside - Berkeleyans are known for their active protesting, but by protesting they are technically abiding by their own customs and thus not protesting the now-old novelty of protest...). Aluding to the previous reading of TJ Clark, industrialism was quite opposed because of its offensiveness to the eyes and so forth, but it has progressed into cultrual acceptance as we are further disposed to furthering ourselves in technology and efficiency (or perhaps reproduction and quantity as Jameson might have us belive).
Possibly erroneous contempt aside, Jameson has covered many views and (latent appeal to Jameson admirers goes here =).
Question One: Jameson says that Van Gogh's painting of the peasant shoes serves no meaning when taken out of context with the historical moment from which "the finished work emerges." So then why is it that such modern art is appreciated today if we do not live in such a historical context as would serve best for the understanding of such a piece? Is it as simple as saying possibly that living in that historical moment would have blinded us because of the cultural views of the time? In that case, how then did Van Gogh think to honor such a thing at such a time himself?
Question Two: What is the diffence between the artist Munch's model of "inside and outside," and between the Freudian model of "latent and manifest"?
Postmodernism could followingly be described as such: it is a movement without movement, in the sense that it poses to natural disruption with the culture of its time. Though postmodernism my as well be a regurgitation of modernism (quite possibly analagous to how a machine regurgitates an image). The artform is no longer opposed as modernism was, and is instead accepted or even encouraged (An aside - Berkeleyans are known for their active protesting, but by protesting they are technically abiding by their own customs and thus not protesting the now-old novelty of protest...). Aluding to the previous reading of TJ Clark, industrialism was quite opposed because of its offensiveness to the eyes and so forth, but it has progressed into cultrual acceptance as we are further disposed to furthering ourselves in technology and efficiency (or perhaps reproduction and quantity as Jameson might have us belive).
Possibly erroneous contempt aside, Jameson has covered many views and (latent appeal to Jameson admirers goes here =).
Question One: Jameson says that Van Gogh's painting of the peasant shoes serves no meaning when taken out of context with the historical moment from which "the finished work emerges." So then why is it that such modern art is appreciated today if we do not live in such a historical context as would serve best for the understanding of such a piece? Is it as simple as saying possibly that living in that historical moment would have blinded us because of the cultural views of the time? In that case, how then did Van Gogh think to honor such a thing at such a time himself?
Question Two: What is the diffence between the artist Munch's model of "inside and outside," and between the Freudian model of "latent and manifest"?
Presentation Schedule (Student Led Discussion/Images)
OK guys, here is the schedule for image presentations (please consult syllabus for clarification). If you do NOT see your name here, please talk to me before or after class to sign up for a date to present.
1/29 David Lander
2/5 Timaj Siraj
2/10 Ryan Berghoff
2/12 Kate Gorman
2/19 Brianna Bak
2/24 Mike Ardizzone
3/3 Audrey Lee
3/5 Anita Lay
3/10 Yiwen Fu
3/17 Sara Salas
3/19 Karen Hsu
4/2 Alfredo Ventura
4/7 Phyllis Fang
4/9 Sierra Knapp/Michelle Huang
4/16 ???
1/29 David Lander
2/5 Timaj Siraj
2/10 Ryan Berghoff
2/12 Kate Gorman
2/19 Brianna Bak
2/24 Mike Ardizzone
3/3 Audrey Lee
3/5 Anita Lay
3/10 Yiwen Fu
3/17 Sara Salas
3/19 Karen Hsu
4/2 Alfredo Ventura
4/7 Phyllis Fang
4/9 Sierra Knapp/Michelle Huang
4/16 ???
The Cultural Logic of "Postmodernism"
"The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism" by Jameson clearly is a piece that is intended to draw on the differences between modern and postmodern. Of interest is how Jameson decides to proceed in differentiating both terms, a difference that comes about culturally, aesthetically, mechanically, and politically. It is clear Jameson is not interested in typically defining the difference between two things in the traditional sense, “A” is larger than “B” for example, but Jameson instead thinks of this “break” as the “waning or extinction of the hundred year old modern movement.”
What I believe to be Jameson’s main argument is to prove to his readers through speaking about “postmodernism” culturally, aesthetically, as a means of production, and politically, that it is essentially a dominant form indicative of late capitalism. Dominant because of its gaining popularity and acceptance, and a “form” simply because it is a simulacrum that takes different shapes and can be seen across society in different situations. It is important to focus on Jameson’s terminology and his reference to “late capitalism”, not “modern”, “postmodern”, or “contemporary” capitalism.
If Jameson could propose one motivating question at the end of his piece I believe Jameson would desperately ask what exactly is the defining line between “modern” and “postmodern”. Or at what precise moment do we look at architecture, art, sculptures, and say that is “postmodern” when the “modern” period is so recent and fresh in everyone’s minds. The problem Jameson identifies is essentially how “postmodernism” has become a dominant form of late capitalism in which “form” takes the shape of culture, art, means of production, and politics. It is essentially a problem because it is redefining capitalism in every sense of the word without necessarily giving a glimpse of what the end result will be.
Question 1: If Jameson is not an art historian but instead a literary critique why is that he comes off as being anti-American in a piece that should solely center around a critique of postmodernism: “Yet this is the point at which I must remind the reader of the obvious; namely, that this whole global, yet American, postmodern culture is the internal and superstructural expression of a whole new wave of American military and economic domination throughout the world: in this sense, as throughout class history, the underside of culture is blood, torture, death, and terror.
Question 2: What would Jameson call today’s “modern” art if he was to think of “postmodernism” as only a short phase?
What I believe to be Jameson’s main argument is to prove to his readers through speaking about “postmodernism” culturally, aesthetically, as a means of production, and politically, that it is essentially a dominant form indicative of late capitalism. Dominant because of its gaining popularity and acceptance, and a “form” simply because it is a simulacrum that takes different shapes and can be seen across society in different situations. It is important to focus on Jameson’s terminology and his reference to “late capitalism”, not “modern”, “postmodern”, or “contemporary” capitalism.
If Jameson could propose one motivating question at the end of his piece I believe Jameson would desperately ask what exactly is the defining line between “modern” and “postmodern”. Or at what precise moment do we look at architecture, art, sculptures, and say that is “postmodern” when the “modern” period is so recent and fresh in everyone’s minds. The problem Jameson identifies is essentially how “postmodernism” has become a dominant form of late capitalism in which “form” takes the shape of culture, art, means of production, and politics. It is essentially a problem because it is redefining capitalism in every sense of the word without necessarily giving a glimpse of what the end result will be.
Question 1: If Jameson is not an art historian but instead a literary critique why is that he comes off as being anti-American in a piece that should solely center around a critique of postmodernism: “Yet this is the point at which I must remind the reader of the obvious; namely, that this whole global, yet American, postmodern culture is the internal and superstructural expression of a whole new wave of American military and economic domination throughout the world: in this sense, as throughout class history, the underside of culture is blood, torture, death, and terror.
Question 2: What would Jameson call today’s “modern” art if he was to think of “postmodernism” as only a short phase?
Postmodernism
Jameson's chapter starts off by basically arguing for how he sees "postmodernism" and it's place in history. He suggests that it be thought of as a period of "cultural dominance" where the basic features of postmodernism were widespread, and not as simply the "end of modernism" or a style devient of it. His main support for this is the way society accepted and embraced postmodernism, while modernism was at it's time not accepted or well liked at all. Jameson also mentions a point that he says is just a preview for a later chapter, but it seemed relevent anyway. He says that any position on postmodernism (and by this I assumed he meant how you see it's place in society) is also a political "stance" on mulinational capitalism. He also reminds us that postmodernism is largely due to the industrialization and "mass production" of american society, and that this would not have been possible if America hd not been so politically and militarily powerful.
Question 1: I was reading on page 2, "The postmodernisms have, in fact, been fascinated precisely by.....or fantasy novel: materials they no longer simply "quote" as a Joyce or a Mahler might have done, but incorporte into their very substance" and I was confused what/who the "they" refers to. I think the sentence meant that instead of simply witnessing the consumer socitey, the artists used these new characteristics as part of their art. But then I also thought that maybe it meantinstead of "quoteing" this characteristic of society, it's been overwhelmed by it and is no longer outside, but rather nothing but simply a product. If I knew who Joyce or Mahler were and what they were known for, this would have helped...
Question 2: My second problem while reading was that i don't know much about Marx or Freud or the other great thinkers of decades past. Freud is mentioned a few times in ways equivalent to saying "as freud would have said, '.......', except that he doesn't say how freud would have evaluated the situation, Jameson just assumes we know. Marx is mentioned in the same way, and even quoted but I can't understand the significance of the quote. Jameson even says the quote was in a different context without giving us that contxt, and so how can I possibly figure out why he put that quote there?
Question 1: I was reading on page 2, "The postmodernisms have, in fact, been fascinated precisely by.....or fantasy novel: materials they no longer simply "quote" as a Joyce or a Mahler might have done, but incorporte into their very substance" and I was confused what/who the "they" refers to. I think the sentence meant that instead of simply witnessing the consumer socitey, the artists used these new characteristics as part of their art. But then I also thought that maybe it meantinstead of "quoteing" this characteristic of society, it's been overwhelmed by it and is no longer outside, but rather nothing but simply a product. If I knew who Joyce or Mahler were and what they were known for, this would have helped...
Question 2: My second problem while reading was that i don't know much about Marx or Freud or the other great thinkers of decades past. Freud is mentioned a few times in ways equivalent to saying "as freud would have said, '.......', except that he doesn't say how freud would have evaluated the situation, Jameson just assumes we know. Marx is mentioned in the same way, and even quoted but I can't understand the significance of the quote. Jameson even says the quote was in a different context without giving us that contxt, and so how can I possibly figure out why he put that quote there?
The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism
In this article, Jameson emphasizes the differences and changes between the modern and postmodern art movements. He argues that postmodern art lacks depth and originality, being a product of capitalism and technology. The art in this era is characterized by an “utter absence of ‘personality’” (p 97) as the use of photography and film increases. Jameson compares relatively unemotional postmodern photography (using Andy Warhol’s Diamond Dust Shoes) with an example of a modernist painting (Van Gogh’s A Pair of Boots). There is a big difference in the expressivity of the latter; Van Gogh is able to portray the powerful emotions of peasant toil in his recognizable strokes, whereas Warhol’s piece “does not really speak to us at all” (p 87).
In reference to the postmodern attempt at “historicism,” Jameson calls this “’nostaligia’ art” the “random cannibalization of all the styles of the past” (p 96), claiming that these artists’ allusions to history are often inaccurate and inappropriate. Jameson then explains the idea of “pastiche,” the neutral, but experimental fragmentation that we see in many postmodern art forms, such as schizophrenic writing.
Jameson argues that the depthlessness and superficiality characterized by postmodern art stems from increasing capitalism and materialism. Just as mass production and consumerism lead to increasing anonymity and ambiguity, this consequently decreases the ability for personal expressivity and originality. His motivating question is to identify when these art forms become completely meaningless and cease to act as art. At what point does the depthlessness and superficiality become so prominent that a piece is considered futile?
Q1: What does Jameson mean when he discusses “cognitive mapping” near the end of the article? What does that even mean? This part was very confusing to me, as it seemed more conceptual.
Q2: The diagram on p 88 that compares Van Gogh and Warhol’s connection to “Magic Realism” and “The Realism of Old Age.” What exactly is magic realism? Is it like surrealism, such as in Magritte’s “Le modele rouge”?
Jameson's chapter
Very early in the chapter, Jameson reveals to his readers the motivational question of his essay. On page two of the chapter he asks “This list might be extended indefinitely; but does it imply any more fundamental change or break than the periodic style and fashion changes determined by an older high-modernist imperative of stylistic innovation?” Jameson is trying to determine whether Modernism and Post-modernism should be viewed as two completely different eras or periods of time. Jameson would not denied the fact that Post-modernism does contain its own changes styles and culture, but it seems that he is more comfortable agreeing that Post-modernism is “the more dominant culture” of the period from the start of Modernism to Post-modernism. It seems that Jameson tried to blur this idea into the readers’ mind by saying that all cultural analysis always involves some kind of buried or repressed theory of historical periodization. This seems to suggest that, yes, the branch into postmodernism may be influenced by the same way modernism started off. Modernism began because people were ready for a new way of life. Jameson suggests that the beginning of postmodernism came about because people were striving for something new again, but sadly this “new” falls in a less personalized and more commercial new as he describe with Warhol’s painting of the shoes. He writes that what was once modern was becoming “rather ‘realistic,’ and this is the result of a canonization and academic institutionalization of the modern movement” and that the younger generation now saw the modern movement as a “set of dead classics.”
This supports why he feels that postmodernism is just the more dominant culture. He does not look at the different styles of the two era but looks at more importantly at the reasons for the cultural changes. The phenomenon of postmodernism is do to the fact that modern has become the norm as suggested later on in the chapter when he describe the life of the stars. I think this following quote summarizes the idea of modern becoming norm very will. “Modernist styles thereby become postmodernist codes. And that the stupendous proliferation of social codes today into professional and disciplinary jargons is a political phenomenon.”
Questions: what is the meaning of the four fundamental depth models? And how does it relate to his overall argument of this chapter?
On page 16 he talks about how postmodernism loses it unique style and less personal, and then he starts talking but a parody from this event, what is this parody, or what is he talking about?
.
This supports why he feels that postmodernism is just the more dominant culture. He does not look at the different styles of the two era but looks at more importantly at the reasons for the cultural changes. The phenomenon of postmodernism is do to the fact that modern has become the norm as suggested later on in the chapter when he describe the life of the stars. I think this following quote summarizes the idea of modern becoming norm very will. “Modernist styles thereby become postmodernist codes. And that the stupendous proliferation of social codes today into professional and disciplinary jargons is a political phenomenon.”
Questions: what is the meaning of the four fundamental depth models? And how does it relate to his overall argument of this chapter?
On page 16 he talks about how postmodernism loses it unique style and less personal, and then he starts talking but a parody from this event, what is this parody, or what is he talking about?
.
Response to Jamerson and Postmodernism
Jamerson’s article on culture and capitalism proved to be a challenging read with a great number of terms filling up each of his sentence. It gets clearer when the author starts to describe examples. In earlier parts of his article, Jamerson argues for the distinctiveness of postmodernism as a period in culture. He talked about the problems with historical periodization and explains why he objects to it. Examples of Van Gogh’s “A Pair of Boots” and later Walker Evans’s “Floyd Burroughs’ Work Shoes” are compared and contrasted with Warhol’s “Diamond Dust Shoes” and later Magritte’s “Le modele rouge”. In particular, Magritte’s work feels like it belongs to the fantastic realm, giving off an eerie mood, even more so than the surrealism paintings that we are familiar with like Dali’s “The Persistence of Memory”. Jamerson then goes on to talk about postmodernism codify the styles of modernism. (17) He used Plato’s cave to describe how “we are condemned to seek History by way of our own pop images and simulacra of that history, which itself remains forever out of reach” (25). The argument here is that postmodernism reaches for symbols, mannerism and etc of the modernist period but lacks the social specification to make them work.
Q1) “Meaning is not a one-to-one relationship between signifier and signified, between the materiality of language, between a word or a name, and its referent or concept.” (26) What exactly is a material signifier? How does this relate to the psyche of schizophrenic?
Q2) Does the periodization of Mandel’s tripartite scheme of market capitalism, the monopoly stage and multinational capital correlates to Jamerson’s three stages of realism, modernism and postmodernism respectively?
Q1) “Meaning is not a one-to-one relationship between signifier and signified, between the materiality of language, between a word or a name, and its referent or concept.” (26) What exactly is a material signifier? How does this relate to the psyche of schizophrenic?
Q2) Does the periodization of Mandel’s tripartite scheme of market capitalism, the monopoly stage and multinational capital correlates to Jamerson’s three stages of realism, modernism and postmodernism respectively?
The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism
In Frederic Jameson's article “the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism”, he makes connections between capitalism and modernism/ postmodernism. He particularly focuses on the point that postmodernism is an expression of deconstruction. He claims that postmodernism lacks the social position part from the older modernism, in a sense that our society switched from a industrial production to a service economy. According to him, “postmodern culture is the internal and superstructural expressions of a whole new wave of American military and economic domination throughout the world: in this sense, as throughout class history, the underside of culture is blood, torture, death, and terror.” He also points out that another main difference between modernism and postmodernism is that modernism is characterized by a distinction between high and low art, while postmodernism is characterized by a blurring boundary of the two.
Due to this blurriness, Jameson claims that postmodernism lacks a personal style compared with modernism. For example, modernism is closely tied with a style. Modernism had a cultural and an aesthetic norm which helps to develop its personal styles. Postmodernism, however, lacks in a homogeneous culture, therefore it can’t follow the same rule of modernism in term of style developing. So it is in favor of things like form, surface, pastiche, mimicry and nostalgia. Jameson uses Andy Warhol's pop art as the example of postmodernism, the commodification of artistic materials usage.
To me, this article is pretty hard. I think postmodernism is very abstract and ambiguous. I think I would still prefer modernism over it.
Questions: The concept of the 4 fundamental depth models being repudiated? What would be his suggestions of postmodernism? How can we add style into it specifically?
Due to this blurriness, Jameson claims that postmodernism lacks a personal style compared with modernism. For example, modernism is closely tied with a style. Modernism had a cultural and an aesthetic norm which helps to develop its personal styles. Postmodernism, however, lacks in a homogeneous culture, therefore it can’t follow the same rule of modernism in term of style developing. So it is in favor of things like form, surface, pastiche, mimicry and nostalgia. Jameson uses Andy Warhol's pop art as the example of postmodernism, the commodification of artistic materials usage.
To me, this article is pretty hard. I think postmodernism is very abstract and ambiguous. I think I would still prefer modernism over it.
Questions: The concept of the 4 fundamental depth models being repudiated? What would be his suggestions of postmodernism? How can we add style into it specifically?
Schizophrenic Postmodernism
In his article, Jameson calls for the deconstruction of analysis in postmodernist art to a method of growingly piece-unique perceptions, which should be contrasted to works of the same period rather than seeking to find a degree of similarity between the two. Jameson urges observers and scholars to diverge from seeking compilation of postmodernist artwork based on similar techniques and overlapping subjects but rather appreciate individual images for their respective aesthetic signifiers and pseudo-factual formulations. Unlike modernist art, as well as that of earlier periods, contemporary art does not “fit neatly” into a particular theme or practice; instead it emerges into an “enormously complex representational dialectic” (54) which requires a digression from the existing approach to artwork analysis which has prevailed since the first observations and studies in Art History.
Given the high volume and scope of art pieces belonging to the postmodernist period, it is understandable that Jameson not expand his argument of fragmentary analysis to every existing painting and photograph; though, he does contrast homogeneity of modernist artwork to that of heterogeneous postmodernist pieces. This writer claims that postmodernism be seen as a cultural dominant rather than an artistic style in order to accede to the coexistence of a wide range of styles, features, and expression. Though at times overwhelming in aesthetic composition, postmodernist artwork embodies parallel dramatization of a society to that of pieces from earlier periods; a realization which observers oftentimes fail to grasp and, also, attribute to the respective image rather than the compilation of works from the postmodernist age. Essentially, Jameson’s argument is summarized in the following “this whole global, yet American, postmodern culture is the internal and superstructural expression of a whole new wave of American military and economic domination throughout the world” (5).
Throughout the article, Jameson makes the claim that art belonging to the modernist period and before, are characterized by hermeneutical interpretations by the vast majority of observers. He reaches this conclusion after providing the example of Van Gogh’s Der Ursprung des Kunstwerkes, “in the sense in which the work in its inert, objectal form is taken aas a clue or a symptom for some vaster reality which replaces it as its ultimate truth” (8). Though Jameson argues that Andy Warhol’s works do not generate hermeneutical analysis due to their minimalism in objectivity, he fails to describe why he finds Warhol’s relationship to hermeneutical descriptions as representative to all postmodernist art, especially after he encourages observers to refrain from assimilating artworks within particular artistic periods.
Given the high volume and scope of art pieces belonging to the postmodernist period, it is understandable that Jameson not expand his argument of fragmentary analysis to every existing painting and photograph; though, he does contrast homogeneity of modernist artwork to that of heterogeneous postmodernist pieces. This writer claims that postmodernism be seen as a cultural dominant rather than an artistic style in order to accede to the coexistence of a wide range of styles, features, and expression. Though at times overwhelming in aesthetic composition, postmodernist artwork embodies parallel dramatization of a society to that of pieces from earlier periods; a realization which observers oftentimes fail to grasp and, also, attribute to the respective image rather than the compilation of works from the postmodernist age. Essentially, Jameson’s argument is summarized in the following “this whole global, yet American, postmodern culture is the internal and superstructural expression of a whole new wave of American military and economic domination throughout the world” (5).
Throughout the article, Jameson makes the claim that art belonging to the modernist period and before, are characterized by hermeneutical interpretations by the vast majority of observers. He reaches this conclusion after providing the example of Van Gogh’s Der Ursprung des Kunstwerkes, “in the sense in which the work in its inert, objectal form is taken aas a clue or a symptom for some vaster reality which replaces it as its ultimate truth” (8). Though Jameson argues that Andy Warhol’s works do not generate hermeneutical analysis due to their minimalism in objectivity, he fails to describe why he finds Warhol’s relationship to hermeneutical descriptions as representative to all postmodernist art, especially after he encourages observers to refrain from assimilating artworks within particular artistic periods.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)