Aesthetics, politics, images

I hope this post will be somewhat relevant...

The film that was running before lecture on the 28th (the Nazi Germany film - I've forgotten the title), reminded me of a book I read last year. Otohiko Kaga's A Summer Long Gone (Kaerazaru Natsu) is a Japanese novel about a boy in a military academy, leading up to the summer of 1945.

Anyway, the film reminded me of this novel due to the 'aestheticization of politics' as mentioned in class. For example, the exclusively male sphere of politics (in the film, there were speeches, marches, and scenes which I assume were depicting the daily lives of soldiers) emphasized a homosocial appeal with a certain type of White, Aryan masculinity. With the novel, I was drawn to the similarly exclusive male environment of the military academy. In both cases, the extensive attention paid to looks and appearance was striking, as the 'style' or 'fashion' of the politics was expressed in the physical, material sense, bordering on obsessive. Politics (and the army) was aestheticized as hyper-masculinity binds belief (politics) with a certain image, where politics becomes masculinity to an extent. I found it frightening, with both the film and the novel, because it was so rigid and strict and forced so that it almost felt like brainwashing. In the novel, it was worse, because you gradually synchronize with the protagonist's train of thought (a boy whose mind is completely taken over by Imperialist indoctrination over the course of the book).

I guess what this resonates with in life today is how the aestheticization of politics continues (Nazi uniforms seem to be quite a fetish market) as arenas for various art forms, whether it may be satirical or even pornographic. But in any form, it seemed to hint at a longing for characteristics such as heightened fashion style, the homosocial arena, and a distinct homosexual culture (which is rather explicit in A Summer Long Gone).

'Aestheticizing' politics and making it a 'style' or 'fashion', I think, means that the type of politics in question becomes attached to a certain set of images. Therefore it becomes something like a phase, fixed in a certain place, ideology and time so that people can go back and refer to it, literally, like a history of fashion trends. People can look back on the extremely stylized and fixed 'culture' of Japanese Imperialism and take that to different realms via reproduction, resurrection, and imagination. I believe the novel A Summer Long Gone is an example of such reproduction.

In that sense, it sort of ties back in to the idea of images (original vs replications and 'aura') as discussed during class and tutorials. In this case the 'original' form of politics (Nazi Germany, Imperialist Japan) cannot be truly resurrected because it was 'politics', not a concrete, visual image like the Mona Lisa, the original still intact today. But the material manifestations such as clothes can be regarded as 'art' (culture), since the sole existence of an army uniform, I think, can embody the stylized, aestheticized politics itself. So the original ‘art’ (ex. a uniform, or even architecture), is already very political in the case of aestheticized politics, such as the 'Fascist Chic'.

This is as far as I got... I just rambled on aimlessly, didn't I?

On a side note, A Summer Long Gone is a beautiful, haunting book which I highly recommend, but unfortunately I don't think it's translated in English. Such a shame.

As Per Our Class Conversation.....

I decided to write a brief blog following our class (tutorial) discussion on popular/famous art in relation to Benjamin's arguments.
Ever since the question in class was asked (along the lines of): "...any thoughts on a piece of art that has been seen and duplicated almost everywhere in our world?" the first response that came up was the Mona Lisa! Shortly after the professor added examples such as Che Guevara, Marcel Duchamp, The Shroud of Turin, etc. Personally, I would have added something like The Statue of David, Medusa or even The Pope (Just as a side, and too late for that now anyways!)
Since our discussion time ran out in class, we continued it over in the tutorial session and surprisingly enough we decided to stick with the Mona Lisa and center our whole talk around it. We then looked at the arguments by Walter Benjamin- where he stresses: a.) authenticity and b.) the only thing mechanical production does to a piece of work is the fact that it makes it stand out. While this is true, mechanical production/duplication/availability to the masses only makes that piece of work loose its 'aura' and perhaps even its 'value'. (Correct me if I'm wrong).
As the discussion carried on, we established that when a piece of work (or art) has its original 'aura', it is often like a cult, however, once it is mechanically produced or duplicated that object becomes political. So the class concluded that the Mona Lisa is a political thing now because it has lost its 'aura' due to the fact it is seen everywhere, even on key chains!
Fair enough! but there was a short discussion (we ran out of time) that went along the lines of: "everything ever produced has some sort of political attachment to it!" Can we really say that though?
I can understand a famous political figure like Che, for example, that wanted his image to be remembered in the political arena and in politics all around the world, for his efforts to achieve a goal. We also know he wanted to be known as a strong political figure because he says that many times throughout his life and even in his writings. But to say that even the thought to paint the Mona Lisa was political is a bit of a far stretch in my opinion! I don't think Da Vinci sat there thinking, Hmm, how can I make this painting political? What do you guys think?

What I can agree with is the fact that we (in contemporary society) turn things like the Mona Lisa, the figure of the Pope, or Medusa into something political! (Just the simple example that the Mona Lisa and The Pope were used in Hollywood movies like EuroTrip!) (Or how we used Medusa in political cartoons to symbolize political figures such as Bush or Bin Laden) But I don't think it is correct to say that everything (even before its creation) has to have some sort of political attachment!?

Ill ask:

Do you think feelings -(feelings that drove Da Vinci to paint the Mona Lisa or the creation of Medusa)- are always attached to politics?

Can we really conclude that everything ever produced was done with a political intention?

-Andrei

Authenticity of Art and its importance

Today in tutorial we had a long discussion about art and its originality in relation to the Walter Benjamin reading. We discussed in particular how the original is exclusive and authentic and how when it is mechanically reproduced it becomes political. This is indeed true and often when art becomes politicized in such a way that the original As Benjamin would put it, diminishes in aura, it loses its authenticity. My post here is to agree and disagree with Benjamin's statement. An obvious example supporting this idea that the aura diminishes which we used in class today was Marcel Duchamp drawing a mustache on a print of the Mona Lisa. Clearly this acts as a political statement of protest against the current conventions of art and after Duchamp's doing, several caricatures and phonies appeared which devalued the classic image of the Mona Lisa. originally this image was reproduced to democratically spread this exclusive image to the masses.... this too could devalue it's aura, however these images were still collected out of respect for a beautiful picture. those who treat these copies in the manner that Duchamp did, on the other hand completely change the manner in which a culture perceives a certain famous image. I know that I can find as many caricatures as I can find prints of this image. Although I find many of the caricatures to be funny and some to be quite artistic I must admit that indeed they distract society from the image's original purpose and thus it can diminish the aura of the Mona Lisa. It takes away from Da Vinci's original context and so diminishes the aura of the original in terms of society's perception of it. However I find this to be specific to the situation of making phonies as a political statement. Regular mechanically reproduced images exist in homes all over the world and they are convenient for reviewing an appreciated image. Correct me if im wrong but Benjamin claims that this fact diminishes the aura and destroys the authenticity of a work of art because it becomes politically aestheticized. to an extent I agree because mass producing anything will naturally create a cultural popularity for something, however I do not believe that this destroys the authenticity of a work of art. Perhaps the reproduced copies lack authenticity, but I feel as though the original cant lose its authenticity or aura so easily. I've studied art for about 4 years now and I lived in Italy for a year and while I was there I was fortunate enough to witness many works of art in their original, authentic context. I tell you truly that some of the most empowering emotional experiences of my life occured in rooms where I stood alone with a work of art. never did I feel like these beautiful works have had there authenticity destroyed.... or at least not while you experience it live.... there is something different about a live experience that takes one far beyond the realm of the print... you experience the intrinsic value that the artist sought for you to experience... you experience the passion that they laboured into it and for a moment you can even be free from political statements (although with some works this is very difficult). And now when I see the prints of these images, I can still appreciate them but I know these petty pieces of film do not do the original justice... it is the mechanically reproduced images themselves that lack authenticity... the originals maintain their aura . When you are in the room with these works you experience the artist's original intentions. Perhaps the Mona Lisa is not a perfect example for this second point as she is often crammed in a room with a ZILLION tourists... but if youve ever had an intimate experience with art in a chapel of a church or in an intimate gallery perhaps you know what I mean. Sometimes an experience with art can bring us beyond what we could have expected it to do when it is real, when it is live, when it is truly authentic.

Žižek reading (pgs 37-47) & Environmental "Feminism"

I was recently introduced to Žižek about a year ago, and since then I have been voraciously devouring his work non-stop. In fact, I chose him as a subject for the culture exploration team project. Anyway, after having completed the readings for his book “Looking Awry”, what particularly interested me was his argument that nature, traditionally conceived as a harmonious “natural” phenomenon, is in fact intrinsically turbulent, violent and chaotic.

Before this reading, I have noticed that there is a trend within environmentalist discourse to absorb a kind of pseudo-feminist (rather stereotypical, and even sexist) ideology, in that nature is characterized as a passive victim of violence perpetuated by culture, traditionally (and by that, I mean stereotypically) regarded as belonging to the domain of masculinity. I have overheard radical environmentalists claim, for instance, that humanity is “raping the earth.” We are thus urged to remedy this by becoming cognizant of our corrupt and violent behaviour. This reflects Žižek’s observation that humanity perceives nature as an idealized site of perfection in contrast to the inevitable corruption of human society. In fact, it contains a kind of spiritual nostalgia for a paradisiacal environment before the “fall of man.”

On another somewhat unrelated note, our views on the environment tend to coincide and/or reflect our conceptions of archetypes of women: e.g. woman as a generous/life-giving/domineering Mother figure, etc. Many other examples of these can be found in Simone de Beauvoir’s “The Second Sex,” specifically in the chapter entitled "Myths: Dreams, Fears, Idols (139-198)." These ideas are sometimes adopted by environmentalists in order to compel people to develop an emotional connection with the earth in order to inspire guilt towards our environmentally-unfriendly ways, e.g. “The earth is our home which welcomes us with open arms (generous Mother), however it punishes us for our irresponsible behaviour (domineering Mother) through natural disasters, etc.” This also reflects a particularly interesting passage from the Žižek reading:

"our knowledge of the universe, the way we symbolize the real, is ultimately always bound, determined by the paradoxes proper to language as such; the split into 'masculine' and 'feminine,' the impossibility of a 'neutral' language not marked by this difference, imposes itself because symbolization as such is by definition structured around a certain central impossibility, a deadlock that is nothing but a structuring of this impossibility. Not even the purest subatomic physics can escape this fundamental impasse of symbolization." (Žižek 47)

Anyway, I hope this somewhat disorganized post can spark some debate. Here are some questions related to the ideas of this post: 1) Do you notice any evidence of gender stereotyping in environmentalist discourse? If so, how are men and women conceived? 2) Do you notice any evidence of pseudo-spiritual ideals in environmentalist discourse? Does it contradict or complement the traditionally secular nature of liberal (left-wing) politics, which seems to have absorbed environmentalist ideals into its ideology?

Don’t feel like you have to answer only these questions – if you have a random thought related to the ideas I’ve posted, feel free to post them in the comments section.

P.S.: Being my first attempt at a post, I worry a bit that this post does not fulfill the requirements for the blog assignment - I know that the issues pertaining to environmentalism, i.e. it's discourse, the ecological crisis it seeks to remedy, etc. are more political than 'every day life', i.e. 'banal' or 'popular'. However, I thought it may be worth posting because of the recent and ongoing popularity of the 'green' trend, which seems to be influencing a variety of aspects of Western society, to the extent that, ironically, it seems to have been heavily commercialized/commodified. This latter idea is nicely elaborated on in one of Žižek's lectures entitled "First as Tragedy, Then as Farce" (argument begins at approx. 1:45) in which he explains how consumerism has exploited the philanthropic tendency of bourgeois society, i.e. through the purchase of a Starbucks coffee, you not only get a tangible product (the coffee) but a certain amount of your money goes towards a 'Save the Rainforest' charity (I don't actually know if this specific example is true, but there are numerous similar real life examples.)

Therefore, because this environmentalist movement has been significantly absorbed into 'popular/consumer culture,' what specifically interested me was how its conception of the world as a gendered space influences every day life for its citizens.

Sources:

de Beauvoir, Simone. 1952. The Second Sex. 139-198.
Žižek, Slavoj. 2010. First as Tragedy, Then as Farce.
Žižek, Slavoj. 1992. Looking Awry: 37-47.

Well, it looks like this blog is off to a good start! Zoe left an interesting comment on Prof Kalmar's introductory post, and I wanted to turn her comment into a full blog post to make sure that you all see it, because it raises questions about class, identity-formation and belonging (and the everyday!)

Zoe wrote:
"I found myself sitting on the couch with my laptop in front of me so I figured I may as well make use of this time! Since I am taking Prof. Kalmar's last sentence to heart, please forgive me for not writing a post on anything we have talked about. This thought has crossed my mind in the past and am hoping that others will have some comments or ideas on it. Do you ever notice that friends dress like their friends? Is it because we are drawn to people who are like us, and perhaps subtly understand those around us more who share our ideas in how to express ourselves? But then why do we make lasting friendships with people who are nothing like us? I hope this allows some kind of interesting discourse!"

I responded in the comments, so I'll repost that here as well, in hopes of kickstarting a discussion:

"...this fits really well with the recent discussion of class in lecture. There are probably many ways to think about why we dress alike, but the ideas of sociologist Pierre Bourdieu are a good starting point. Bourdieu wrote extensively about how our preferences are shaped by our social class. He argues that our sense of style and taste (and how we present ourselves)is inculcated early on through our upbringing and that these aesthetic choices help us fit in to our particular social niche. In Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, he writes that each class fraction "has its own artists and philosophers, newspapers and critics, just as it has its hairdresser, interior decorator, or tailor." (231-232).

I found this short paragraph that sums Bourdieu's thoughts up nicely:

"Bourdieu rejects the traditional notion that what he calls "tastes" (that is, consumer preferences) are the result of innate, individualistic choices of the human intellect. He argues that this "Kantian aesthetic" fails to recognize that tastes are socially conditioned and that the objects of consumer choice reflect a symbolic hierarchy that is determined and maintained by the socially dominant in order to enforce their distance or distinction from other classes of society. Thus, for Bourdieu, taste becomes a "social weapon" that defines and marks off the high from the low, the sacred from the profane, and the "legitimate" from the "illegitimate" in matters ranging from food and drink, cosmetics, and newspapers; on the one hand, to art, music, and literature on the other."

Source: Allen, Douglas E. and Paul F. Anderson. 1994. Consumption and Social Stratification: Bourdieu's Distinction. Advances in Consumer Research 21: 70-74.
http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/display.asp?id=7565

Also, check out this blog entry by a sociologist, based on her observation that many sociologists dress alike:
http://nortonbooks.typepad.com/everydaysociology/2008/07/do-sociologists.html

So, what do you think? Do you buy Bourdieu's assertions? Are we just playing out our class roles, or can we be fashion mavens? Are these ideas relevant in our present-day context?

Fascist Chic - a video of interest

Wee! My first post here! :) I want to share a video that I came across a few weeks ago, and in last week's class, when Professor Kalmar was talking about "Fascist Chic" (that he said we'll go into more next week), I was reminded of this video again. So here it is. It's a kind of an example of fascist chic, or of "aestheticizing politics", which Walter Benjamin talks about, as this video's main message is that Republicans are a better choice because Republican women are better looking (which is arguable in itself, considering the video's makers chose the most flattering pictures of Republican women and the most awkward pictures of Democrat women, including at least one doctored/photoshopped picture of Rosie O'Donnell's face imposed on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's body).


Here's the video I'm talking about:

Hello!

Welcome to the brand new ANT 323 blog. If you're in the course and haven't signed up yet, make sure you do so. You will soon get an email inviting you to join the blog. Make sure you respond to it, and please use an ID that allows us to recognize your name! We will then register you as a contributor. We're looking forward to your thoughts on anything that remotely relates to what we're doing in the course. And since we're dealing with everyday life, that really means ANYTHING!