Conclusion!

In the conclusion Playing with the System, Playing with Fire, Gournelos discusses the realms of acceptable discourse, giving the example of Andrew Meyer, the student who was tased at a Kerry rally at the University of Florida. He explains how this shows the limits of discourse, in that Meyer wasn’t attacked because he was threatening, but because he was acting outside the “correct” modes as deemed by society. What I found most interesting about this conclusion was the section where the link between media and discourse was discussed. Gournelos states (referring to Eliasoph’s study) that most people feel uncomfortable speaking about broad topics because they don’t feel they have the expertise or knowledge to discuss something that lies outside their experience. Access to shared media creates a communal space in which people can engage in “symbiotic[ally] [engaged] conflict rather than consensus” (250), allowing a wider discussion of a topic. Gournelos discusses the role of the media as a way for people to talk to one another, to relate to each other, and as an indicator of what is “acceptable” to discuss in public. This idea made me think a lot about South Park, and other shows that discuss pressing social issues (albeit in a very different way), like Battlestar Galactica, which touches on highly debated political issues (like abortion, capital punishment, religion in politics) in an extreme, but still relatable setting. These shows present an idea to their viewers and into the public sphere, making it more acceptable to discuss these topics outside of a private setting. Gournelos also states that a show can gain cultural capital based on its oppositionality, such is obviously the case with shows like South Park, who turn their dissent and “rejection of political correctness” into humor.

Conclusion

In Playing with the System, Playing with Fire, Gournelos starts out with discussing his prior argument made about Andrew Meyer’s ability to demonstrate “the limits of the public sphere in the contemporary political landscape (247).” He talks about what is “acceptable discourse” and how he acted outside the norm of what the university and police sought out to be “correct.” I thought it was interesting how Gournelos mentions that it is not Andrew Meyer who defined the event, but it was the media who circulated his story, films, and videos. Gournelos then talks about South Park in being similar to the Andrew Meyer event in that it “demonstrates the implications of a convergence culture (247).”

The next few pages discuss the three oppositional tactics: the allusive, the responsive, and the disruptive. Allusive ontology’s being seen to spread the foreground for aesthetic modes of production. Responsive being drawn from the news and reintroduce a level of complexity by “engaging social norms in the terms by which they are negotiated in contemporary cultural events (248).” Disruptive ontology’s are seen to try to create room for silences or social constraints that were untouched by the responsive. It exposes frictions in contemporary society.

Gournelos then speaks about Nina Eliasophs study of apathy. Eliasoph argues “apathy is produced, not inherent, in communities, and that even activist groups are limited by what they deem is acceptable speech (249).” Gournelos brings about an important point that Eliasoph neglects to discuss the media. I found it interesting the way that Gournelos analyzes the use of media. “Communities, discussions, and relationships are formed daily on the basis of a shared knowledge of or access to the media (250).” This is very true and then he goes to mention that people connect to the media. They connect to films through memories and to discussions through memories of films. Media serves as a way to broaden terms of debate.

We Need Conflict

In the conclusion the idea that society revolves around conflict is taken for granted and I agree with that idea. Some people may say that society looks to resolve conflict and is uncomfortable with tension, however, I think that society is built on conflict. While society does frown upon people who create conflict simply for entertainment purposes and while it does try to end conflict that has turned into physical violence; conflict is necessary for growth. If no one ever questioned the status-quo, nothing would ever change, and it is obvious that our society changes all the time.

It isn't necessary for people to be tasered like Andrew Meyer or for people to act violently or radically. Conflict can be small, it can be meaningful. I think the discussion that happens in our class is conflict because it is disrupting the way we look at the media, society, and ourselves.

I'm posting the video of Andrew Meyer - I had never seen it and here it is in case you haven't!

Fighting Fire with Fire

The conclusion begins by discussing Andrew Meyer, as he demonstrates the limits of the public sphere and acceptable discourse. South Park is discussed, as in chapter 6, as a show that demonstrates the implications of convergence culture. Gournelos argues that by focusing on conflict rather than consensus, one should turn to dissonant popular culture, because it manifests the tensions of political instability. He charts popular culture’s negotiations of the political through the allusive, responsive, and disruptive—three oppositional tactics. Responsive onologies “reintroduce a large level of complexity by engaging social norms in the terms by which they are negotiated in contemporary cultural events” (Gournelos, 248). Additionally, treating concerns as surface-level issues implies the incapability to truly convey the depth of the political. Popular culture products that rely on the news react, as they cannot reinvent the structures of power themselves. Disruptive ontologies expand dominant discourse to provide possible alternatives to a dominant “ideology.” Sociologist Nina Eliasoph (shown below) concludes that apathy is produced in communities (rather than inherent), and that activists groups are limited by what they perceive to be acceptable speech. She claims the public sphere is an active process and suggests that people feel uncomfortable speaking their opinions about broad topics. She also emphasizes network communication and focuses her understanding on conflict rather than consensus, although she neglects the media as an important aspect of her topic. Media is important because it negotiates with the “common sense” understandings of what is acceptable to discuss. Media also is forced to acknowledge discourse outside the range of traditional or conservative politics, as it fights for audiences. Cultural productions like South Park see that communities are formed through a desire for opposition. Gournelos also argues that dissonant visual culture should be considered in relation to engagements with larger cultural politics, as people see politics in terms of which mode of cultural production might liberally counter banal politics. The conclusion ends with a call to those intrigued by progressive politics to “try to find ways to break the hold apathetic political formations have on contemporary U.S. social systems, and fight the fire of reactionary institutions with the fire of an evolving opposition” (Gournelos, 252).

Playing with Fire MWAHAHAH

Andrew Meyer demonstrates the limits of what is acceptable within the realms of protest, play and transgression. Also, demonstrates the act to question and discuss the limits of correctness he violates. South Park demonstrates "convergence culture" that combines different fields within cultural studies. Allusive ontologies are dependent on the techniques of evaluation along with the aesthetic. Responsive ontologies talks about issues that are "as the were" surface level interactions. South Park is not a very politically based show so it cannot fully get critical of the politics; they react rather than recreate. Disruptive attempts to create social restrictions untouched by the responsive to be apart of the political struggle; things are self-aware. In South Park audiences interpret it as a sitcom and not as a critique of politics; it's just viewed as funny. Episode interpretations can take shape of "something different," or the form of rejection of "political correctness" to be taken as "humor," but become popular so it can keep high culture capital.

A South Park Parade after 9/11

What I took away from the article was that South Park can sometimes be allusive and/or responsive to political activism that disrupts the discourse of America. South Park can be looked at deeper in a radically progressive and critically teaching texts. Baudrillard suggests that being witty is breaking a law of discourse and instead works through instant gratification that deconstructs of the dominant code. South Park does this by making lots of jokes that are racists and out of line to make a point about a dominant message or category in the show. South Park portrays the U.S. as white, which could be misleading dominant influence of cultural production. South Park focus is media and portrayal of reality but limits the conclusion of those realities. The events of the show are understood and the subjects become interrupted to become critiques. Once 9/11 happened the show was not in season, but once it was it was able to avoid gain of emotional distance and critical events. The South Park 9/11 episodes were not always narrated to talk about the issue. They would show images or have one-line quotes to make a point. The show relies on humor to mask fear and make jokes that are exchanged quickly back and forth about 9/11's "war on terror." The episode does not advocate the war on terror it just offers a different look about 9/11. For example, the Muslims did not hate the U.S., but once they invaded and started bombing Iraq that is when it became a problem for the Muslims. "Osama Bin Laden Has Farty Pants," goes through the allusive and responsive politics that disrupt the dominant around 9/11 in order to suggest a ontology. "A Ladder to Heaven," puts blast on responsive techniques of 9/11 and it reacts to the power that has made and guided interpretations. "I'm a Little Bit Country," does not discuss the war on terror.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hzf2G2iHYY8

i think you're gonn ahave to copy and paste the link cause it took too long to upload it. I think it's a good commentary on why they did the episode.

South Park

“A Neo-Con Parade: South Park and Post-9/11 Politics” was interesting to me because it discusses the irony and use of humor in the media about a situation which certainly was not humorous, such as 9/11. This chapter looks at the media, and especially South Park and how humor and irony is used maybe not to mock and current issue, but to inform society in a different way.

“However, it does not come to terms with humor’s potential to bridge social gaps or work through traumatic social changes, nor does it allow for humor, satire, parody, and irony to be mobilized as tools through which individuals or communities differentiate themselves from or negotiate the politics of the dominant (200).”

The chapter looks how humor can bind society together, along with other somewhat similar shows such as The Daily Show where they make very real problems in society into humor. I think it is important for shows like these to use humor to “bridge social gaps or work through traumatic social changes.” Although the show could be deemed controversial, it points out issues in society in a different way and through a different light from the media. In episodes regarding 9/11, although South parks humor could be interpreted in different ways, they inform the public about the issues at hand. South Parks humor could certainly interpreted in different ways, but overall South Park is able to use extreme irony and humor to poke fun at the issues and possibly bridge gaps in society.

Shows & Current Events

"A Neo-Con Parade: South Park and Post-9/11 Politics" discusses the uses of humor and irony in media and television shows that sparked after the period of immediate shock following the attacks on September 11Th. This chapter in particular focuses on the television show South Park. South Park is an animated sitcom that has become infamous for its crude, surreal, and dark humor that lampoons a wide range of topics and current events. The show took the events of 9/11 and tried to pull humor out of the politics and views of what was going on post 9/11. I think its important for shows like South Park, Saturday Night Live, and The John Stewart show to perform parodies or make jokes about current events because it allows our society to view it differently or be able to agree with how they are feeling.

South Park and Post-9/11 Politics

"A Neo-Con Parade: South Park and Post 9/11 Politics" examines the importance of understanding events such as the 9/11 attacks "beyond the constrains of the dominant, unified, or "rational" strategies of argumentation" (Gournelos, 197). South Park effectively disrupts this dominant discourse. Furthermore, the humor and irony in in the show affirms political ambivalence or ambiguity. The humor has different functions as well: to bind people together or differentiate individuals, all the while depending on audience interpretations of the humorist's intent. South Park retains a dissonant political ontology and involves the active role of the audience. There is also a debate about the politics of South Park; may it be conservative, liberal, neoconservative, reactionary, etc. Specific episodes are given to support such ideologies, for instance how "Rainforest Schmainforest," as well as the other anti-environmental episodes, displays conservatism. Ambiguity and self-critiques often characterize episodes, and "'Rainforest Schmainforest' is in the end not a critique of environmentalism itself but of the motives behind it" (Gournelos, 205). To illustrate these points, I have provided this particular episode, part of season three, below. Overall, the show does not fit any singular socio-political agenda. Gournelos also discusses the importance of dissonance and explains how a disruptive approach amplifies the responsive. He argues that in order to transition and come to terms with 9/11, the most recent limit event in U.S. history, a disruption is required in the form of proposals for alternative viewpoints. The second half of the reading expands on and illustrates these points mainly by examining the first South Park episode following the 9/11 attacks--"Osama Bin Laden Had Farty Pants." This episode "plays on various elements of 'war on terror' media discourse while retaining committed to engaging some of the more tangible elements of the contemporary political atmosphere" (Gournelos 207). It plays off of the absurdities of dominant structures, for example media-induced fear, and utilizes juxtaposition, critiques, and parody throughout. Together, the locations of acceptable speech are displaced, as the episode rejects the 'everything changed after 9/11' rhetoric, and instead proposes a new critical ontology. Other episodes such as "A Ladder to Heaven" disrupt media and government exploitations of the events and emotions surrounding references made to U.S. politics. It "amplifies the responsive technique through its engagement with the limit events of 9/11 and the war in Iraq" (Gournelos 216). Other episodes such as "I'm a Little Bit Country" are also analyzed, until Gournelos comes to the conclusion that the disruptive has the potential to be instructive as an ontology and not just a tactic.

To watch "Rainforest Shmainforest" go here:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s03e01-rainforest-shmainforest

(the embedded link could not be accessed)

Teaching Taboo

The animated American sitcom South Park represents all that is taboo. The show has become infamous for its crude (and dark) humor exhibited in portraying world events or topics and tainting with social satire. Furthermore, South Park’s use of humor is able to break boundaries, which restrict the public from the “dominant representations and rhetorical pathways [which] are seen as the only valid (or acceptable) discourse” (Gournelos, 197). For example, how open the show is with Mr. Garrison’s sexuality. Over the course of the show Mr. Garrison has undergone two sex changes, an alias (Mrs. Janet Garrison), and several different alterations to his character. The show has become famous, because of the bold messages encrypted within the story lines, giving viewers the real facts, in a comic light.

South Park's Humor = Ridicule or a Form of Truth?

I think its important to realize many of us tend to fall for or agree more with the dominant representations of things/events etc. that are a part of our society or that take place in our society. Many of us also fall in the trap of seeing rhetorical pathways coming from "experts" as the only valid or acceptable discourse as Gournelos discusses in Chapter 6 Neo-Con Parade et.al. It is crucial to step out of that bubble and see the many other forms of interpretation and reason for things. Shows like South Park serve as a great example of stepping away from the boundaries. Events proceeding 9/11 are extremely different from the talk of events preceeding the 9/11 terror attacks. In the case of South Park, this show "mobilizes the allusive (aesthetic) and responsive (critical) modes of political activism - this changes the commonly shared/accepted "pathways of U.S Politics". The show incorporates aspects of everyday life and merges the issues going on into that in order to break through the point. It doesn't matter what political party you favor, its good to take the time to see the concerns/messages being pointed out that is portrayed in a different light from the ever so common media form - the news. With humor as a big part of it, it depends on the audience's interpretation of that humor and because there are multiple reactions, there are multiple meanings from these parodies.

Postmodern Blackness

In this article, Postmodern Blackness, Bell Hooks discusses the relationship between the black experience and Postmodernism, providing the critique that postmodern discourse, despite its concern with "otherness", is conducted primarily by white males, who utilize a "coded familiarity". She describes the racism that is implied by the exclusion of the black community from Postmodernist discourse, as it is implying that they have no link to abstract thought and critical theory, only "gut level experience". Hooks describes how this alienates the black reader, causing them to question why they should be concerned with a discourse that does not consider them, especially black women. Hooks discusses how postmodernism leads to increased class differentiation, creating a sense of alienation and despair in the black community. This class division has created a black middle class, but has also contributed to the growing numbers of the black underclass, leading to insecurity and anxiety in the former, and destructive violent and addictive tendencies in the latter. In one of the many citations of Cornel West, a black scholar, West states that African-American intellectuals "diminish[es] their value to black resistance" because of their severed link to "black life". Hooks argues against this, stating that though the numbers of black intellectuals are few, they strengthen the consciousness of the collective community in order to provide meaningful resistance.

This article reminded me of an episode of 30 Rock that I watched recently, in which the two black male characters on the show, Toofer, a well spoken and educated black man, and Tracy Jordan, a wild, loud-mouthed black man, argue about the portrayal of black men on their show. Tracy wants to do a sketch in drag, stating that all the great black male actors do drag. Toofer disagrees, arguing that it emasculates black men, making them seem less threatening to white people. Later on in the episode its exposed that Toofer is concerned with Tracy's portrayal of black men in general, as his character is constantly saying ridiculous things, and acting outlandishly. This is representative of the insecurity and anxiety middle-class African Americans feel, as stated in Hooks' article. He expresses concern with the black identity as a whole and how the individual affects it, worries that this will cause society to see him as they see Tracy Jordan, a wild and often stereotypical black man.

Postmodern Blackness

Postmodern Blackness, by Hooks was interesting to me because it was written in a way that I could understand it. He is a black man that is dealing and questioning himself and our postmodern world. He is in the position that he knows that people may oppose what he is saying that that “his discourse has no ready audience, no clear listener, and that his voice may not be heard.” I found this interesting that he used the tactic of not just throwing a bunch of facts or opinions at the readers, but by stating his opinion and then stating that he may be wrong or not have ready listeners. I found it interesting that he placed himself in a lot of the stereotypes that he discusses, in particular when he says that he was the only other black man in the room. This particular example, of the “token black guy” has started to seep into our culture through media, movies in particular. Hooks explains how postmodernism has no relevance at all to African-American people, especially women. He describes how he feels as if he is an outsider when reading the conventional language that poster modernism is written it. He feels, along with other blacks, an outsider of the discourse looking in. I found it interesting how he described how poster modernism could be seen as people of elite or higher authority. This in turn, pushes minorities away and out of the picture completely. This connects with the idea that some white people, who absorb white supremacy thinking, don’t even notice black people and what they have done to be successful. The final point that I wanted to discuss was the aspect of music. It is concerning that this was one of the main aspects of the article that shed a positive light on something that African-American people have done. It is the cultural product that is most interesting and attractive to postmodern theorists.

Postmodern Blackness

Postmodernism for contemporary black experience vs. white onlookers are very different approaches with different concentrations, values, and/or concerns within our so called "diverse society". I think Hook makes a good point saying "apparently no one sympathized with my insistence (speaking in the presence of white onlookers) that racism is perpetuated when blackness is associated with the idea that there is no meaningful connection between black experience and critical thinking about aesthetics or culture must be continually interrogated". In other words Hook is saying, racism increases only because people (largely white) believe all black people are against the dominant (white) ways etc. And it is hard for Hook to explain further because his audience is majority white who share "white" ways of thinking and understanding: "I found myself outside of the discourse looking in". The hierarchy of postmodernism, according to Hook, blocks out (or forgets to give credit to) certain groups, especially those of color and particularly women (black women). Hook's overall arguement is that our current society fails to address a critical presence of blackness. "Differences and otherness" are topics of huge consideration now (as claimed) but is not expressed and included in the academy of our society. The black power in the modernist stage has died away a little in the now postmodern phase because the common audience and the common language have dominated. The contemporary discourse claims to recognize "others" but that is a lie. Blacks struggle to make their voices heard.

Comedic News and Entertainment

In Geoffrey Bayms article, "The Daily Show: Discursive Integration and the Reinvention of Political Journalism," he talks about how other sources of news are appearing. People seem to be more interested in watching a comedic form of news than the standard cable TV newscasts. He states that, "young people are turning towards another form of news and campaign information--late night television and comedy shows. The 2004 Pew survey found that 21% of people ages 18-29 say that they regularly learn news and politics from comedy shows such as Saturday Night Live, and 13% report learning from late-night talk shows such as NBC's Tonight Show with Jay Leno and CBS's Late Show with David Letterman." Jon Stewart considers his show as "fake news." What makes this pretty funny is that people tune into his show regularly, and it happens to be a huge influence with political communication. The Daily show is a form of entertainment that a younger generation tunes into regularly since it is on Comedy Central. The show has more of a liberal point of view, and when they talk about the Republicans, they do it in a comedic fashion. The article also explained that the Daily Show poses a threat to mainstream news media because it is more for entertainment.

"The Daily Show" as Sub-culture

In the Baym piece about "The Daily Show," the author points out how the show juxtaposes comedy and news reporting in a fresh way. It is the combination of these two seemingly incompatible aspects that makes the show successful. I was reminded of our class discussion the other day; we talked about appropriation andre-appropriation. It seems like "The Daily Show" is doing something similar to the sub-cultures we discussed, appropriating signifiers that don't fit its "class." We said that HipHop is associated with Escalades and Bentleys, also, diamonds, gold, and especially platinum. We also deconstructed Punk; Dock Martins, ripped jeans, clothes held together with safety pins. Both subcultures appropriated signifiers not associated with the class of the people who established the music around which the styles evolved. Just like Hip Hop and Punk, "The Daily Show" is appropriating signifiers of comedy shows as a means of forging a new identity and rebelling. On the surface, the show seems like it is purely comedy, but as the article pointed out, the news content really does a good job of relaying pertinent and critical information to its audience.

"The Daily Show's" Not-Just-Daily Influence

Geoffrey Baym argues that the nightly news is becoming less authoritative and that journalism as public inquiry is eroding. Less and less people are watching or learning from network news. As an alternative, young people are resorting to late night television and comedy shows such as “Saturday Night Live.” Baym praises the Daily Show for its combination of comedy, entertainment, news, and public affairs. While the host, Jon Stewart, claims he discusses “fake news,” evidence supports that viewers actually learn from this show, as often political figures are interviewed. The Daily Show is both an old kind of comedy and new type of journalism, as it cannot be labeled as “fake” for lack of a legitimate “real” comparison. In a world when media is becoming increasingly consolidated and integrated, The Daily Show can be seen as an alternative form of journalism that uses parody to critique news. An easily accessible, relatively unconstrainable informational environment is created by the “infrastructure” of political communication. While more media outlets are being created, a few media giants such as Viacom consolidate and dominate the industry. Cultural diversity allows the media to adopt blurred borders between editorials and business, and encourages innovation. The Daily Show exemplifies successful integration within media, due to its “hybrid nature.” The show blends nightly news with entertainment; humor with concern, in a complimentary, comic but informative way. The satire news updates illustrate comic news prevalent in other late night talk shows, as well. Stories switch between political references and jokes. The Daily Show is the most significant in terms of humor and political issues, as it often deals with highly concerning national and global issues. Soundbites from primary political actors are provided. The show’s content resembles main stream news media, without having to follow the journalistic rules. It rejects the standard conventions of quote selection and the mainstream media’s insistence on a dispassionate observation that elides the journalist’s subjectivity. While conventional news is monologic, The Daily Show’s news is vibrant with confrontation and dialogue. Satire is used to hold leadership accountable for both words and actions as it demands a measure of accountability. The Daily Show thus challenges mainstream news by approaching information in a critical manor and by utilizing parody news reports, which mock the genre of television news. This suggests that journalists are merely playing a role on TV and criticizes disinterest in fact. Politicians, journalists and commentators are guests on the show, and are again hybrids that combine pop culture and humor with serious underlying concerns through thoughtful, honest and democratic discussions. Political guests benefit from appearing on such shows, as it promotes their cause. Overall, The Daily Show is an experimental form of journalism that threatens mainstream media, and introduces the idea that a television newscast can be not only profitable but also substantive.

This corresponds to Jean Baudrillard’s Simularca and Simulationas because it too deals with hybridity, to an extent. Baudrillard argues that the ”real” and fantasy worlds have combined, providing Americans with a distorted perception of reality. Society often manipulates the media in a way that prohibits people from being able to distinguish between what is genuine and what is recreated or altered. This struggle is referred to as the hyperreal, which contains no origins. The Daily Show has also identified this tainted flow of information and perception as a problem. The show seeks to counteract the issue by providing open, honest discussions as opposed to discussions involving pre-planned questions and answers. Therefore, both authors call for the need to evaluate the legitimacy of what people see and hear, as things are often not as they are portrayed in the media. The video I chose interviews Jason Jones and Tim Greenberg from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on their trip to Iran. The video illustrates the combination of comedy and political content that makes the show so popular and significant. The men traveled to Iran to deny stereotypes about Iranians. They spend time with a family who they claim is very similar to any family in the U.S., with the same culture and everything. They also claim that their people are not very different from ours by poking fun of insignificant cultural differences, such as the bathrooms in Iran and the constant tea drinking. Other comic elements, such as when a little girl is handed a box of Marlboros, is purely for comic relief. Throughout the interview, an open and honest but nonetheless entertaining discussion is held.

"We are Lost somewhere between Ideal and Real"

In Jean Baudrillard's article "Simulacra and Simulations" he discusses the way in which our world has lost both it's sense of reality and it's sense of the abstract. He explains that in present day we have not only lost track of reality but, we have also lost track of the "magic of the concept" or "the ideal." Unfortunately however, Baudrillard goes on to say that both the "real" and the "abstract" have in recent years been replaced by what he describes as the "hyperreal." The "hyperreal" refers to all that is produced by complete simulation or the one-dimensional world that no longer has an "ideal" or a "real," but rather a system of "substituting signs."

In many ways I agree with Baudrillard's concept, I feel that we have all been born into a world that does not encourage or allow for an "ideal" or a "real." Instead, I believe that we have been born into a world that allows us only to "substitute signs" in order to become a product of the simulation of culture. Although, in the photoshopped images below the subjects are trying to appear "ideal" or "perfect," they are not, simply because we are all striving for the same image. We are all trying to appear the same using the same method, the "substitution of signs." Therefore, through this simulation the line dividing that which is "ideal" and that which is "real" is lost.

Distortion of Reality

In Baudrillard's article, Simulacra and Simulations, he discusses how a lot of things in today's world are distorted from reality. These distortions are especially used because of all the technological advances we have had in recent years, making it easier to transform real images into something they are not. We see advertisements that are highly photoshopped every day, but many don't realize it is not the actual picture. With the use of photoshop, models can be made to have flawless skin, be extremely skinny, and enhance desirable features on their body - somewhat raising the imaginary standard that all people should look like them.

Here we go.

The article by Jean Baudrillard, Simulacra and Simulations, is a short but sweet look into the construction of what is "Real." Obviously, from all the blog posts and discussions in class, models usually look very unrealistic and photo shopped. Another area I think is interesting goes into dreams and how they are associated into modern cinema. Some films include The Matrix, Inception, and Vanilla Sky. They all have plots that go into that area. I think the most interesting is The Matrix.

In The Matrix, characters can be "plugged in" to an alternate reality that is similar to a dream state. Characters have enhanced physical attributes, but the most important thing I believe is the physical perfection they achieve. People plugged into the Matrix wear designer clothing and suits, have perfect hair, and of course, nice sunglasses.

That sort of goes into what people in real life want to achieve, they want to be part of this ever growing obstacle of achieving this perfect, but the only way to do that is, literally, in your dreams.

Todays Reality

The article Simulacra and Simulations by Jean Baudrillard explains that in today's society our perception of reality is distorted and not real. Today many models bodies are reshaped or photoshopped in pictures to create an ideal figure made for people to compare themselves with. Though these models are incomparable because they are hyperreal or fake. Photoshop is used to hide imperfections on peoples bodies that everyone has. This creates eating disorders and expensive surgeries and products that people do or buy to achieve the images that are being photoshopped and labeled as perfection. Even most of the reality television shows we watch today are scripted and not real. So does this mean photoshop is the new reality? How far will photoshop go?

The Line Between Reality and Construction Has Disappeared

Jean Baudrillard explains in his essay Simulacra and Simulations, that nowadays we as humans are unable to distinguish between what is real and what is created/fake – the hyperreal. We have blended the line between what is true and what isn’t and can no longer find any trace of the line originally drawn. Much of this hyperreal is often seen in media today where models are excessively photoshopped as seen by the video Ilana posted and made to look real; but in reality that is nothing like what they look like in person. Nobody is as skinny and as flawless as a photoshopped image, yet when looking at magazines we are convinced that this hyperreal beauty is real and we want it. The difference between what is real and simulations has “disappeared.” As Baudrillard explains, “It is rather a question of substituting signs of the real for the real itself; that is, an operation to deter every real process by its operational double, a metastable, programmatic, perfect descriptive machine which proves all the signs of the real…” (146). Take a look at the picture of the Eiffel Tower below, many would look at the one where the background is not shown as the real Eiffel Tower in France. On the contrary, this Eiffel Tower is the one standing outside the Paris hotel in Las Vegas. The Eiffel Tower is made to look like an exact replica of the real but smaller. Through pictures, many would not be able to tell the difference and in reality some may prefer this constructed fake replica of the Eiffel Tower convincing themselves it is just like seeing the real one.

precession of simulacra

Jean Baudrillard explains how reality has become fake, or hyperreal in his Simulacra and Simulations article. Simulation is real, "real" is re-structed into something that is perceived to be reality, but really isn't. Hyperreal for example is a model in Vogue. Tall, thin, and flawless skin is what humans should look like, or hopefully one day look like. I know I catch myself every now and then trying to find ways to make sure my skin gets flawless fast because I convince myself that there are people out there with perfect skin and only perfect skin gets somewhere in life. But that isn't true. Hyperreal has sheltered the real and the imaginary.

This picture is hyperreal to the max and probably one of the dumbest mistakes to print in magazines. It just goes to show how fake the modeling industry is and how it distorts peoples perceptions of what is socially acceptable, which causes problems like eating disorders.
This Ad of Beyonce freaks me out because she legitimately looks like a Barbie here…plastic, fake, and what she put into her hair reminds me of those girly toy commercials were you can add sparkles to your dolls hair or even your own(like in the barbie picture next to her, you can sort of see sparkles too in her hair)! Beyonce must have felt her inner child come out.

Hyperreal Beauty

As Baudrillard explains hyperreal is the inability of consciousness to distinguish between fantasy and reality, especially in societies which are technologically advanced. Because technologies and the media have the ability to reshape what is real, the conscience may have trouble deciphering the original from the stretched or make believe. In particular, Baudrillard focuses on the idea that the world we live in has been by a “copy” world and that we seek is simulated and nothing more. This commercial for Dove Real Beauty is an example of hyperreality because this model does not exist in real life. Her image has been distorted and changed thus making her non-existent in this world rather the “copy” world. “It is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality: a hyperreal.” (145). In other words, the model’s appearance has been altered to look similar to all other models. “The real is produced from miniaturized units, from matrices, memory banks and command models - and with these it can be reproduced an indefinite number of times.” (146).

The Internet: Scary or Safe?

Richard Kahn and Douglas Kellner’s essay Oppositional Politics and the Internet: A critical/ Reconstructive Approach demonstrates the positives and negatives found with the Internet. As Kahn and Kellner state, “the Internet constitutes a dynamic and complex space in which people can construct and experiment with identity, culture, and social practices” (1). This is both interesting and scary all at once. Think about how many people create fake identities on the World Wide Web. Hackers who go on others Facebook’s and pretend to be people you actually know in need of help, and need to use your e-mail to send something. In reality, they just want to hack into your e-mail system, but how are you supposed to know if that is actually your friend Facebook chatting with you or a hacker. Online dating sites allow you to put up whatever lies you want to say about yourself (weight, height, hair color, etc) and whatever extremely photoshopped picture or a picture of someone else you choose to upload. No one knows who is standing behind the screen of that computer. As Kahn and Kellner state, the Internet has been shown “to retard face-to-face relationships” (1). As the cartoon below states, “On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.” This is a scary thought.

On the other hand, the Internet allows for information to be widely available to a greater number of people around the world. I personally do not see what I would do without the Internet. I use the Internet everyday of my life, whether it be on my computer or on my cell-phone. Another interesting point Kahn and Kellner make is that now the Internet is available to a greater number of people because of the invention of Wi-Fi. Many wireless networks are not secure with passwords; so people can use those networks if they are within the area, this makes hacking much easier (9). The Internet has also now allowed for many people to partake in online politics that before would never voice their opinions – “technopolitics.”

Our world is surrounded by the Internet and has turned all of us into Internet junkies. Look where we are today, not only do we now have online dating, but online classes where students can lay in bed in their pajamas, cheat off the internet, and pass courses. We can even read books online now without actually having to purchase a hard copy.

A Virtual Life

Danielles youube video stuck an interest in me about the obsession with virtual life’s on the internet. At first I though Danielles video was a joke till I noticed that this game is very much real. Richard Kahn and Douglas Kellner talk about “groups and individuals excluded from mainstream political and cultural productions” which have been active in the construction in the Internet culture. They talk about “communities of color, gay and lesbian groups, and man other under-represented communities which have set up their own e-mail lists, websites, blogs and are now a thriving and self-empowered force on the internet” This is similar to the imaged life such as “second life” where minorities create a place to express themselves.

It is amazing to me that someone can be so indulged and connected with another life, such as this one which they rely on this “imaged life.” It is scary to see that this virtual game can be so real and realistic, but at the same time so fake and imagined. I believe that people become obsessed and addicted to games like this because it takes away from their own lives and troubles and allows them to create a life that is perfect in their eyes, and where no one can judge or ridicule them. The video says, “Be yourself, be different, free yourself, change your mind, change your look, love your look, love your life.” This in fact displays an imaged life. They are portraying that you need to do all of these things in your virtual life through this game rather than in your real life and reality.

An article from guardian.co.uk titled, “Girl starved to death while parents raided virtual child in online game.” Tells a devastating and scary story about parents who become obsessed with raising a virtual child and neglecting their own child. --

According to the Yonhap news agency, South Korean police said the couple had become obsessed with raising a virtual girl called Anima in the popular role-playing game Prius Online. The game, similar to Second Life, allows players to create another existence for themselves in a virtual world, including getting a job, interacting with other users and earning an extra avatar to nurture once they reach a certain level

"The couple seemed to have lost their will to live a normal life because they didn't have jobs and gave birth to a premature baby," Chung Jin-Won, a police officer, told Yonhap. "They indulged themselves in the online game of raising a virtual character so as to escape from reality, which led to the death of their real baby."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/05/korean-girl-starved-online-game

Again, like the “second life” video, this article did not seem real to me at first. After reading it, it is in fact very real. These virtual games empowered through the internet create an imaged life for people, which allows themselves to become addicted to this “perfect” life, which is in fact fake, neglecting their reality.

Our Virtual Lives

In Richard Kahn and Douglas Kellner’s article, Oppositional Politics and the Internet, they discuss the growth of the Internet and how it is being used in several different ways – good or bad. There is so much power in the Internet; if one desires, they could find information about you in an instant. Billions of people use the Internet on a daily basis, whether it is for business reasons or personal. That being said, I really don’t know where my life would be without the Internet. It’s crazy to think that such a thing exists in my lifetime. I remember my dad explaining to me what the Internet was and what it was used for, and now I’m actually utilizing it. It’s really unbelievable how many important things you can find out on the Internet. I wonder what our world would be like without it…

World Wide Web

Kahn and Keller both argue that the internet is such a vital necessity that is used in everyday life. People can post anything they want and share what ever comes to their mind. It allows us to access more information quicker and more efficiently than ever before. Because of this, more people are able to view this information, and also there is a wider range of sources to information than previously. The internet has led to globalization that we have not seen before. We are able to share information quicker than ever with anyone around the world due to this technological advance. The other aspect of the internet is that the majority of people now own some form of mobile device that has the internet in their hands where ever they are in the world. Even when you are not by a computer, you are still able to access any information you want, in a small PDA. Besides for the positives of the internet, there are some negatives that the internet provides. People are able to hack information and computers all through the world wide web. The internet has made identify theft easier than ever.

I have noticed in recent years, how quickly information can go around. With the popularity of Facebook and Twitter, people are able to share personal information and current news, quicker than one could imagine. If one of your friends on Facebook goes on a trip and puts in their news feed that they are away, everyone of their friends whether they are close or not, knows instantly where this person is in the world. Similarly Twitter has evolved very quickly in recent years. For some reason, when something happens in the world, people feel like they need to tell the news, or Tweet to their followers. If you type in a topic on twitter, it is just amazing how many Tweets of that topic were posted within that last minute.

My conclusion to this idea of the internet is that we live in a world where we rely heavily on it. It is a hard thing to take the internet away from someone today, because so much of day to day activities and operations take place on the World Wide Web.

Hactivists …only the coolest word ever!

Oppositional Politics and the Internet basically talked about the world wide web creating identities and cultures for people. The internet is an amazing tool for communication now-a-days, with myspace and facebook anyone can find anyone and enter their lives. I never knew the word "Hackers" could be a positive term for people who innovate the computer by sharing researched material, communication, and construction of communities. But once the "war on terror" happened, many people associated hackers with terrorists. As a protest a group called "hacktivists" took a stand against it.

The internet used to coined as a geek machine but now a million different kinds of people use it, esp. women to activate their feminist movements. The Internet has undergone transformations to become more democratic.

World Wide Web

Kahn and Kellner argue in their article Oppositional Politics and the Internet: A Critical Reconstructive Approach the effects that the Internet has on culture and society. Clay Shirky argues different good and bad effects that they see important to society. They discuss the importance of the Internet and how they consider it better than sitting on a coach and watching television. I agree with this and think that doing things on the Internet allows for people to be more active in learning and exploring the endless opportunities that the Internet may offer. This idea is referred to as “cognitive surplus” which can be described, as “group action just got easier.” This means that the Internet with certain things such as blogging and facebooking, is eventually going to lead to an interest and noticeable increase in a humans ability to express themselves.

I cannot imagine my life without the luxury of the Internet. I know that I am constantly “googling” things or facts that I am curious about. I know that I use “wikipedia” for almost everything and I am aware that I use facebook everyday. The Internet is a very interesting, but wide topic and I think that the article covers a large majority of topics that concern the growing impact of the Internet.