The Purple Rose of Cairo

A few days ago I was watching Woody Allen’s film, The Purple Rose of Cairo, and realized it fits in quite well with our ongoing class discussion of the ‘real’ and ‘reality.’ For those who have not seen it, The Purple Rose of Cairo is about a young woman, Cecilia, who is a waitress during the Great Depression. To escape the bleak life that surrounds her (poverty, an abusive husband, etc.) she goes to the movies as often as possible, particularly fond of the latest RKO blockbuster, “The Purple Rose of Cairo.” On one of Cecilia’s many viewings, the main character of the film, Tom Baxtor, begins to shift his eyes towards Cecilia, sitting in the audience, and eventually walks out of the screen to speak to her. Naturally chaos ensues for both the characters left stranded in the movie as well as in the real world, where a fictional character is running loose around town. You can find the trailer as well as the pivotal scene where Baxter leaves the screen on Youtube.

The film addresses the concept of the real and the reality on many levels. Take for instance the meanings held in the theatre arrangement alone. The dark theatre itself represents reality, much like the car in Jurassic park. However, within the theatre is the film screen, representing the real, which the theatre contains or confines. Eventually we see the real erupt out of its confines and into reality when Tom Baxter walks out of the screen and into the theatre.

Further, the film addresses Zizek’s notion of desire versus drive. He states that desire is shaped by reality and we see this clearly in Cecilia’s actions. Her reality is bleak and therefore her desire is to enter a world of luxury and happiness; she manifests this desire through the action of going to the movies, where she can escape in her fantasies for a few hours a day. Drive, on the other hand, Zizek states is connected to the ‘real,’ as it is independent of the symbolic and “makes no sense.” Tom Baxtor’s drive for leaving the film and being with Cecilia makes no sense as he is a fictional character and, for all intents and purposes, should not be able to have autonomous desires.

The only falling in this film’s pertinence to the real/reality theory is that the ‘real’ in this film would be representing the opposite of what we’ve seen it represent elsewhere in class. The way I understand it, the ‘real’ always seems to be an area that we cannot access, and fear accessing, because it reminds us of death and mortality. However, the reverse seems true in this film, because the ‘real’ is where we want to be, that is, a happiness that can only be found in fiction.

Even if this last point lessons the argument that the film is an example of the ‘real’ and ‘reality,’ I think it’s still well worth seeing (if you haven’t already) as it puts an interesting perspective on the concept, and how merely watching films is in a way connected to this real/reality idea. Also, it’s just a fantastic movie!

The Social Network

After yesterday's discussion of Facebook in class, I couldn't help but log on and do some exploring. What I discovered was so interesting ( at least to me)...All of the real people that were featured as character's in The Social Network who were snubbed by Zuckerberg's character ( the Winklevoss twins, Eduardo Saverin, Erica Albright) all had Facebook profiles. In fact, Eduardo Saverin's profile page was classified as "OFFICIAL". This to me spoke volumes towards the "pull" of Facebook. Despite offline relations ( lawsuits, stolen ideas,etc) Facebook has become this machine which has an ability to mediate communication and a desire to join because it is now considered necessary in today's society. That is, if your friends are on Facebook and you want to keep in contact with them, Facebook has become a necessity to do so. That being said, maybe those enemies of Zuckerberg are on Facebook because it allows a person on Facebook to choose who they want to be in contact with. That is, you have to accept a friend request. As such, friends in the Facebook world can be built around your reality in the offline world, or be different (dependent upon your current status in relationships- there's a button for that too!) I guess Facebook's ability to allow you to tailor your online world to your liking (like ordering a Starbucks latte) is what drives the desire to JOIN Facebook...or it could just be that communication is necessary....and well...Facebook is a communication MACHINE.

The Plight of the Coyote

While I was visiting Youtube the other day, I came across a clip from a Family Guy episode that relates to Lacan’s theory of drive and desire:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzK1aq5P6yw

Lacan suggested that there is a distinction between the goal and the aim, the former referring to the final destination, and the latter being what we intend to do in order to reach that goal. The purpose of drive is not to arrive at its goal, but to endlessly reproduce its aim; and the real sense of enjoyment lies in this constant repetition. Therefore, when we come too close to our goal (to the object of desire), our sense of enjoyment is reduced and we fall into a state of anxiety and confusion.

In this clip from Family Guy, the coyote finally manages to catch the roadrunner after trying for twenty years; his goal is ultimately reached, and the continuous reproduction of his aim comes to an end. Because he structured his life around capturing the roadrunner, this basically became his reality. Thus, when he finally reaches his goal his sense of enjoyment is lost, and reality as he knows it comes to an end. To cope with this loss of reality, he searches for new means of fulfillment, ultimately resorting to religious preaching.

Perhaps Seth Macfarlane was not thinking of Lacan when he wrote this parody, but I believe it is an example of the way human beings structure their reality around a particular aim whose ultimate purpose is to arrive at a goal; but once that goal is attained, the aim loses its function and reality –being shaped by the aim –disintegrates. This creates a dilemma: how can we possibly avoid a loss of reality if our reality is founded upon an aim that will ultimate result in this loss?

Mark Zukerberg and Cyborgs.

Maybe I’m creating my own perception about Mark Zuckerberg character, but I can’t be the only one who finds him in the Social Network to be a little bit creepy. Beyond the obvious lack of social skills and inability to hold a polite conversation, I find some characteristics about Mark Zuckerbergs personality to be unsettling. In the movie, he never seems to be satisfied over anything in his life, whether it is his relationship with Erica, the social recognition of from the elite, or the acknowledgment for his intelligence. This lack of satisfaction just reminds me in the oddest way of the cyborg shown in the Terminator clip. Think about it..… Throughout the entire movie, Mark Zuckerberg drive was to create this revolutionary social network in order to reach his desire of social acceptance. Ironically, as soon as he gets close to his desires, his focus changed and a new desire was created. For instance, in the first scene with Mark and Erica’s conversation, he makes it plainly obvious that he desires to get into the elite clubs, but the minute the Winklevoss twins give him some form of acceptance and recognition by involving him in creating their website, he avoids them, making excuse after excuse. His desires get larger and more unattainable and as he goes on, he continuously indulges in his drive, elaboration face book. Even when he become close to being worldly recognize, hitting over 1 000 000 hits, he still shows no true satisfaction, refraining from the celebration at the office.

Mark Zuckerberg character also lacks any form of normal social interaction. He’s so driven by his work, that he often disregards or cannot recognize the contributions of others when they don’t conform to his current desire and habitual drive. Mark continuously cuts off Eduardo whenever Eduardo wanted to talk about being punched or personal life, only giving him attention when it regarded Facebook or the expansion of Facebook. It’s not even the issue of jealously, his character is never truly happy or ecstatic. In fact, he’s never really even angry when he’s even supposed to be angry, such as when he’s blogging with Erica. He’s never fixated on an emotion, drunk blogging about her while continuously working on facesmash. He even seems to lack basics manners and ethics. What someone could argue as just immaturity can also be seen as Zukerbergs lack of social etiquette, belittling people whom in a normal situation would be respected. This is seen when he publicly stated that he the lawyer didn’t deserve his attention. When you think about these things as a whole, Mark Zukerman doesn’t truly seem human, but more like a cyborg,motivated by his drive towards this unattainable goal which he can never identity, doomed to continue on this path of habitual work with no true satisfaction.

Clones, ink, social networking

I actually found taking notes in the theaters a little difficult.

Anyway, The Social Network was definitely not something I had expected. In a good way. Watching it, the thing that hit me most was how the camera and the narrative was everywhere, it was literally a mash-up of time. Although the three timelines were in chronological progression (events of 2003-4, lawsuit with the Winklevoss twins, lawsuit with Eduardo), they were meshed together in a way that was reminiscent of what Mitchell had called a 'new sense of time' in the age of biocybernetic reproduction. The biocybernetic part comes to play with the nature of Facebook replacing face-to-face interaction (as discussed in class today) in a world of information technology.
The film is also related to biocybernetics to an extent, I thought, because the film is about a 'real person' and 'real events'. It is literally a recreation (and re-interpretation) of humans through digital means - somewhat like clones, but intentionally made to be a little different from the original (the film is 'fiction'). This would justify the 'new sense of time' in the movie, which jumps back and forth and all over the place.

On a side note, there was an interesting quote I managed to get down - "The internet is printed in ink" as said by Erica in accusing Mark about insulting her on his blog. The internet, the digital medium, *printed*, in ink? It could be referring to the increasingly internet-dependent nature of today's literacy, as it emphasizes how things published on the internet holds a lot more influence than it might have in the past. But considering the volatile nature of the material online (susceptible to updates and changes, and is more flexible), compared to the fixed nature of the printed ink on paper, it might also point out how the internet and its lack of stability (it has no physical form) is meshed with the material reality in an ironic way. This could be a comment on Facebook (digital) replacing, or interlocking with, the real-life relationships (material, physical).

Counting Replicas

As an experiment of my own, I decided to count how many replicas of the Mona Lisa (or Mona Lisa inspired images) I saw in one day. At first, I though perhaps this would be a futile exericise and that I wouldn't end up seeing any. However, by the end of the day, i had seen 4 replicas (one as a window decoration outside a Holt Renfrew, one in a poster store, a replica in a newspaper advertisement for marble countertops and one in my dentists office- although this one is altered so that the Mona Lisa is smiling broadly exposing a set of perfect teeth).
In retrospect, I realize that, in fact, I'm exposed to these replicas of the Mona Lisa's image daily but only realized this once I decided to pay attention.
I would suggest that all of you partake in this experiment and enlighten us with your own results.

Reproducing Art: Van Gogh 2.0

Earlier this month I found myself channel surfing and stumbled upon an infomercial. This isn’t an unusual occurrence, however, the content of the infomercial was laden with psychosocial undertones about art in a state of perpetual modernity and post modernity. The infomercial was selling an art kit; not just any art kit, but one that allowed the customer to reproduce the work of Picasso. “Painting by Numbers” is a simple concept – each painting was divided into colour slots, with each slot having a number that corresponded with a colour on the palette. The amateur artist then proceeds to paint by numbers, that is, fill in the colour that corresponds with the correct number on the palette. When all the numbers have been filled in, you have a perfect replica of one of Picasso’s famous works.

Upon seeing this, I was impressed, then immediately horrified. The act of admiring Picasso’s work is part technical, but part mystical as well; he was an innovator, an iconoclaste. To have his once seminal work reduced to a series of numbers akin to a logarithm, was (in my opinion) an insult to his contribution to the world of art, and devoid of any originality or creativity. This points to an interesting trend first identified by Walter Benjamin. Benjamin identified a trend in modern art with respect to reproduction – once a piece of art is reproduced it loses its essence, its originality and ultimately, it’s purpose. Now, as we enjoy the fruits of technology, art is being reproduced, reconfigured and ultimately degraded. Hindsight allows us to see how prophetic Walter Benjamin’s words were, and forces us to think critically about art an age of convenience.

"Dignified Death" as Oxymoron and Cartesian Mind/Body Dualism as Antidote

OED Definition of "dignity":
1.) the state or quality of being worthy of honour or respect
2.) a composed or serious manner of style
3.) a sense of pride in oneself

After leaving today's lecture, the notion of "dignified death" or "dying with dignity" struck me immediately. This of course extends beyond the tradition of burial, to our general conception of death and dead bodies as tranquil and peaceful. When coping with the death of a loved one, for instance, terms connoting peace are more favourable than those connoting violence. Suicide, often considered arguably (one of) the most violent and most tragic of deaths, is completely omitted in obituaries; people choose to ignore it. If the death is particularly brutal, like cancer for instance, the person is depicted as having attempted to "fight" the disease to the best of their abilities, thus the person maintains a sense of military pride in their last heroic actions.

The fact is there is no intrinsic dignity in death - dignity is an artificial, illusory creation that is imposed on the devastating instance of a person's death in order for the living to cope with the horrifying intrusion of the Real - that is, decay, vulgarity, mortality, etc. I am not saying that dead bodies are not worthy of dignity or respect, but merely treating dead bodies in a dignified manner is a custom invented by humans in order to cope with and to understand death.

This brings me to my next point, which is, that one of the most prevalent methods of coping with the notion of the body as fragile, vulnerable and mortal is the elevation of the importance of the mind over body, or interpretations of Cartesian Mind/Body dualism. Humans like to believe that the creative and spiritual capacity of the mind is evidence for a spiritually higher, less vulgar existence, either in this world or the next (e.g. heaven). However, ignoring our physical attributes leads us to only a partial understanding of ourselves, because our very raw physicality contributes so much to our existential condition - our physical interactions with the world, not just our rationalization of our interactions with the world, are just as significant as the latter (Young and Whitty 214). This is I think why images such as the one in this post of two skeletons from Pompeii seen in a kind of embrace gives us a sense of relief, because it suggests that "love" (considered a higher, spiritual experience and notion) continues on into death, even when our physical bodies have decayed. This very powerful image is a kind of triumph over death, or more accurately, triumph of mind over body.

*Random Tangent alert! - what follows is unorthodox cinematic treatments of death*

In keeping with our recent practice of examining the cinematic treatment of various theories explored in this course, I would like to bring up what I think is a very good example of how death is treated in a very "sacrilegious", unorthodox way through film. I am a big fan of Italian Cinema and have often observed in many instances that one of the reasons why many people find Italian films so jarring and vulgar, is due its common practice of juxtaposing the tragic with the comic in a very overt, unapologetic fashion. For instance, in "Roma, città aperta" immediately after a very disturbing scene in which a woman is tragically gunned down, the film continues to a very silly, slapstick scene in a which an old man is hit on the head with a frying pan. I saw this film in a class setting at UofT and many people thought that this was either just lazy film making due to the fact that there was no continuity between the two scenes in terms of mood or that it was just plain insensitive in ignoring the tragic death of the woman.

Examples of what a "respectable" cinematic treatment of death would be for scenes following the death depicted in the film to be coloured in some way by the tragic nature of the death. For example, the actions of the characters following the tragic scene would be without humour, or the mood of the scene would be slightly more sombre or serious, etc. Although this particular method of depicting death in cinema is perhaps more artistic in that there is a sense of continuity, it is not accurate. One of the most tragic aspects of dealing with the death of a loved one is the realization that life simply "goes on", as if the deceased individual had never existed. Traditionally, cinema thus functions as language to make sense or to make "proper" the problematic nature of death and dying; to prevent a full realization of the Real, whereas Italian Cinema often lets us view both the tragic and vulgar nature of death in its messy, unpredictable nature.

Sources:

Whitty, Monica T. and Garry Young. "In Search of the Cartesian Self: An Examination of Disembodiment within 21st-Communication." Theory & Psychology. 2010.
Roma, città aperta. 1945. Roberto Rossellini, dir.

Drive without Desire in Early Modern England

For the past few classes, we've been discussing the idea of drive without desire, focusing on the idea that drive lacks a symbolic/realistically-grounded object. The idea of drive without desire reminds me of Spenser's "Iron Man" in The Faerie Queene. We are told that "His name was Talus, made of iron mould, / Immoveable, resistless, without end".

Thus, Talus possesses an an endless drive for justice - one that is separated from any specific object. Throughout the poem's fifth book, he attempts to kill anyone who commits (or assists in) any crime or social grievance, and must often be stopped by his master, Artegall, who acts as an agent of mercy. Insofar as he wishes to enact justice, Talus is different from cyborgs or zombies, as he does not simply wish to kill everyone. However, I feel both possess a similar endless drive that is threatening because detached from humane reality.

The Mona Lisa

So continuing on with a previous lecture on turning art from cult like and religious to the political via replications, I was browsing around on youtube and thought about what we discussed in class. Interestingly enough I found a great example of art becoming something political:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk2sPl_Z7ZU

Essentially it is a replica of the Mona Lisa created in MS Paint. I'm pretty sure that almost everyone in class has messed around with MS Paint and has access to it at home. Assuming you are as good as this artist in MS Paint you could technically just sit at your computer and make your own Mona Lisa replica. I just found it interesting how technology was being used here not for mass reproductions, but for the individual creation of the piece.

My Trip to Queen St. East and Bertmount Ave.

Recently, I saw a photo of an interesting house downtown. And so I decided that I would go and take a look at it. I was hoping that my visit would help me answer the questions that were raised in the last tutorial. Why, for some reason, we often feel compelled to see the ‘original’.

Coincidentally, I had a friend who was paying me a short visit and since I knew he was a fan of new things, I asked him to visit the house with me. He hadn’t seen any photos of this house (in fact, I only told him that it was a house and nothing more), so I thought he could offer a totally unbiased opinion. After giving him probably what was deemed as an insufficient explanation as to why he had to drive all the way over to the East end of the city so I could see this house, struggling to locate in on his GPS, and taking twice the amount of time to get there (since his GPS indicated the trip would only take about 12 minutes without traffic) we arrived at Queen St. East and Bertmount safely.

The feeling of anticipation nestled in my stomach as I walked down Bertmount Ave, with my friend close behind. I told him, that he’d know what it was, when he saw it. You couldn’t miss it!

And so the house appeared before our eyes, with its army of dolls staring us down. My first thoughts of the ‘doll garden’ were that it was indeed a great collection, and the neighboring houses looked so plain next to it. But I had expected something that resembled more of an overwhelming mass of dolls… such that the house would be unrecognizable behind the crowd. And among the dolls, there were repeats, which seemed to take away from the garden’s uniqueness. This is not to say that I was disappointed. On the contrary, I enjoyed examining the garden closely and picking out dolls that I recognized. It was like being a little kid at somebody’s garage sale, and finding out that they also had some of the same toys.

On the other hand, my friend found it much less amusing. Their opinion of it was that it simply reminded them of Halloween and it seemed to provoke no more emotion than a yawn. Then again, I should keep in mind that this friend of mine is a minimalist in terms of emotional displays. In contrast, I am a more dramatic and emotional person. So his apathy was only to be expected, as I walked back and forth excitedly in front of the house, looking up and down their garden, expressing “ooooos” and “awws” as my eyes pored over the doll collection.

Did my viewing of the ‘doll garden’ in real life give me the feeling of “awe” as one would expect when they visit the Louvre to view the original Mona Lisa? Although I was very much intrigued by the display, my feeling of “awe” was smaller than I had anticipated. Indeed, the visual reality of the numerous dolls was there but there was no greater revelation than that.

However, I think the diminished or lack of an overwhelming feeling of “awe” is not necessarily due to the house, or in a more general sense, the Original’s uniqueness and “aura”. I think we have to consider ourselves as a factor, as ‘readers’ of the ‘text’. This relates back to what was discussed in class about Taste. If a doll enthusiast had seen both the photos of the ‘doll garden’ and in real life, I’m sure they would describe seeing the real doll garden as an eye-opening experience. Now, even though I’m not a doll lover, I still exuded more enthusiasm when I saw the garden. This was probably because I had built up a feeling of anticipation and had successfully persuading my friend to come with me. For my friend’s case, I take it that guys don’t like dolls so that would’ve accounted for the lack of interest.

So all in all, I think that the “aura” and feeling of “awe” that one yearns for when we search for 'originals’ will only be captured if there is an underlying basis for it. There needs to be a pre-existing relationship that the viewer and the ‘original’ have, such as an anticipation or a certain taste for it. I know that we may want to believe that it’s the Original’s innate “aura” and uniqueness that ignites the feeling of “awe” in us, but I think it’s like reading a different language. Something could be written very beautifully, but if we don’t understand the language, there will be no emotional experience.

(... I just realized that I haven't answered the question that I had asked myself at the beginning of this post... WHY we feel compelled to see Originals... >_<)

original/copy

Today in class we talked about a bunch of binaries that had to do with the life of images. That of religious imagery,the original and copy. As well as the creation of images that simultaneously cause destruction. But where does appropriation of many images come into play, the act of reusing existing images and giving them a completely new "body"?.

Todays discussion reminded my of this LCD sound system music video that portrays robots in a positive light.

LCD Soundsystem "Home" from FUNWUNCE on Vimeo.

"The Circular Ruins"

Today's discussion on cloning, specifically a clone realising that he or she is a clone, reminded me of this short story by Borges:

http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jatill/175/CircularRuins.htm

Art and Reproduction

Hey guys.

I've been reading up on art and its constant reproduction. I even found sites where you can purchase copies of some of the most world famous pieces of art for a pretty low cost. I personally think most people reproduce famous pieces of art for the purpose of making money. Think about it, where does the money go once you purchase a reproduced product? Can any of you think of why people reproduce art? Is it solely for people to gain equal access? I think this is a very interesting topic to discuss. Would you go see the real painting?

These are all great questions to think of when trying to understand reproduction!

PS -Try looking up some of your favourite pieces of art and you will notice the majority of them have been reproduced.

Holt Renfrew Display

Dog Photos, Punk Rock and the Queen - probably not a window display the founders of Holt Renfrew could have predicted. A few weeks ago, I was walking down Bloor Street and noticed how interesting this particular scene is, especially in relation to our class. The window in the photo is one in a series of "Icons" which spans the entire Holts building. Other of the iconic scenes include: a restaging of the American Gothic painting, some Andy Warhol soup cans, The Beatles' Abbey Road cover. This series seems parallel to what we have discussed in class(and will discuss) as its designers are truly perceptive of the “iconic” popular images of our time. The designers are using their analysis of commercial society to strengthen this society, rather than to form a resistance to its dominance. Each of the windows is interesting (and worth analysing) but this window in particular piqued my interest.

I have more questions than answers about what I think is going on in the window, sorry if this is scattered – I hope you will comment if you noticed the window independently or have any thoughts about it.

The juxtaposition of what appears to be a "punk rocker" sitting down to a formal tea with the Queen is politically loaded, especially in the context of promotion for a high-end department store.

How is it that Holts can appropriate the royal upper-class cachet of the Queen together with the anti-establishment anarchical politics of the Punk movement, then stick symbols of these opposing types in one window, wearing Holts clothing, to create something that would encourage people to invest in the capitalist system through the purchase of luxury goods?

Maybe the designers are consciously emphasising similarities between these two individuals - their obsession with appearance and authentically immersing themselves in every criteria of their social/cultural(?) class - similarities which could extend to the desired clientele of Holts? The Punk has blue hair dye to express his politics (albeit confused, as he displays the Union Jack unaltered) while the Queen has the “blue-rinse” to conceal her age, the Punk’s fingernails and eyelid are painted black while the Queen’s lips are painted red, the Punk has what I read as a deliberately aggressive posture, while the Queen sits with a straight back… If these similarities do exist, is it something particular to monarchy and anarchy, or just icons in general?

We talked in class about how after ripped jeans became trendy, stores began to sell pre-ripped jeans. Here Holts is creating a “punk” look with Burberry clothing – something I think is the ideological opposite of the origins of the Punk movement. Additionally, they are creating the impression that the store sells clothes fit for monarchy – as if and Holt Renfrew consumer could dress like the Queen. Neither of these recreations of these iconic types is authentic to the original. Do the real Queen and a real Punk (whatever that means), although not “art”, have auras which can be lost or altered in reproduction?

Some other interesting parts of the display:

- The Punk is holding a wallet with pound notes with the Queen’s face on them

- The table is filled with pictures of the royal family and dogs which connote lower class tastes

- Is the slogan in the window implying that Monarchy and Punk are some of the world's best creations?

See you in class!

Kate Morris

I know this is a bit late, but after our discussions in class about topics like taste, all I could think about was this scene from The Devil Wears Prada:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtNyUbgBDf0

I wasn't quite sure how to fit it into the blog but after going through and reading Zoe and Sharon's posts from just over a week ago, I thought this would be the perfect opportunity.

I just thought that it was an interesting way to think about our fashion choices, and that it's interesting that the perspective is so blatantly explained in this scene of the movie.

I feel like this in a way illustrates Bourdieu's point. The fashion industry, which many socially dominant people are involved with, has a major impact on the garments that are produced for the general public. In the movie, although Andy was attempting to resist this and trying to make an individualistic choice, Miranda explained that Andy's decision was ultimately chosen for her. Her decision reflects the choices and preferences of those who have more of an influence than her, even though it may be a sort of replication and of lesser quality due to the limited options available to her.

Wandering Around the Global Village

McLuhan and his global village—holy cow. I have just come home from watching “The Social Network” and boy oh boy, am I feeling inspired or WHAT?!

Right now a live cam of a birds-eye-view Times Square is playing in the background while this blog entry is being written. I can hear the white noise of Times Square in a distant wish-wash and I am just soaking in the phenomenon of today’s (altogether now) “GLOBAL VILLAGE!”

I thought originally, the moment I stepped into my front porch and gazed into the sky, that I would write some sci-fi thoughts and ideas for stories into my notebook. But then I immediately remembered this blog and that I must post to it. I thought, wow, this would be a far more productive idea. And so that is what I’m about to do.

I am going to apply my somewhat alien, far-fetched thoughts to how I feel about this very real, social network we are living. I came to earthcam.com after coming home from watching The Social Network, by looking for (out of my own curiosity) the top 100 websites existing currently. I briskly scrolled through the list and clicked Earth Cam which was described as, “Live online cameras are all over the world in fascinating and often unlikely places. Look through many windows on the world LIVE at Earthcam.com!”

It’s something beyond words that I am trying to describe here, but I am completely flabbergasted when I sit down and have a good think about it. We are connected in an amazing way. In this age we are enabled to see each other’s common friends, what we’re listening to, watching, interested in, and we can even take a quick gander at Times Square in New York City live, if we so please. I’m so excited to further discuss “The Social Network” movie, because the creation of Facebook has lead us to understanding social behaviour in a visible, documented way…

On that note, I’ll probably go write down some sci-fi thoughts now and do some creative writing…Hmmm… maybe clones of Facebook users attacking Facebook friends-in-common Facebook users? That’s too much.

I wanted to reflect at bit on the notion of social class... in particular, the bourgeoisie.

I want to share an experience I had as a cadet while attending a leadership seminar. This may seem a little off topic, but I will get to my main point. As a cadet, we were taught how to properly present yourself at a military mess dinner. Prior to this service, we were taught the essentials of mess etiquette. This entailed several ways on how to "perform" without showing any misconduct or disrespect, which of course could be very embarrassing considering there are high ranking officers lurking at the other side of the table. Anyways, what were we taught? We were taught how to use a different fork, spoon and knife for each meal, this in itself was extremely confusing considering the vast array of silverware on either side of your plate! We were told to never put your elbows on the table which clearly, as I had accidentally did so, realized that it was a sign of disrespect. Also we could never speak directly to the person you wanted to have a conversation with. For example, if you wanted to ask the person to your far left for the butter, you would have to pass the message along to the person directly beside you and then they will pass the message to the next person and thus the chain continues. However, this often took awhile and by the time you got want you wanted, you had already lost your appetite, well at least I did. Other etiquette's we were taught was to simply show respect to others and never create any bodily sounds...!
My main point here is that, I can only assume that this lifestyle was more or less a reflection of how the bourgeoisie lived. After all, they have to present themselves in a manner that is above the rest of society. Although this was a military mess dinner, A believe, and I stand corrected, that the same rules and regulations applied to the bourgeoisie class. Therefore, I just want to emphasize the stress and pressure this class may have went through in order to uphold a reputation that has been passed down through generations. Although the bourgeoisie is above the society, they are often misrepresented.

i just wanted to share this with you all....Rohan S