Tuesday, 31 July 2012
Success
Just heard that I passed the Course. Apparently I was top of the class but this was rather tempered by the fact that I was the only one being assessed this time! Score of 68 which is most pleasing.
Sunday, 20 May 2012
Retrospective
Now that I have come to the end of the Course and awaiting my Tutor's comment on my last Assignment it seems an appropriate time to try and evaluate what I have gained from the Course.
It is difficult to make a definitive statement because I believe that the benefits will only be apparent as time goes on and I realise the impact it has had on my thinking. However there are some clues. Recently a photograph sold for roughly £3m. It was shown on television and first impressions were not good. It seemed to be four stripes of colour and was entitled 'Rhine'. Before the Course I would have dismissed it as being part of the sometimes crazy world of art. On this occasion I approached it differently and saw the very simple way the photographer had depicted the Rhine. The stripes were the sky, the bank, the river, and the opposite bank. All the information was there in a minimalist way. Whether it was worth £3m is not a real question because that is the value that someone placed on it and it follows that that is its worth until the picture comes on to the market again.
Other clues lie in the way that I now analyse images (my major is photography) and seek the signs within the image that provides the information about the photographer's thinking at the time he completed the image. I make the distinction here between the taking of the image and its final form because of the almost infinite number of chances there are to change the initial shot before creating the final image. It is interesting to work out what is included and what has possibly been left out. Of course there remains the problem of whether my interpretation is close to the intent of the photographer. The change is significant because my approach prior to the Course to any photograph was solely on its technical merits and the use of tonal values and composition.
It would be true to say that this was one of the most difficult Courses I have ever taken which given that I have a BA Hons and an MA degree says something about the content of the Course. Looking back I believe that many of the difficulties arose because of my previous learning and my natural inclination to use an analytical approach. The philosophy I studied earlier was primarily analytical whereas the Course offered the continental approach and the thinking of Marx, Lacan, Derrida and others. I found this approach unsatisfactory and confusing. It seemed to be a series of statements the validity of which was questionable and apart from Marx, whose work is set in the stone of his death, the views changed over time occasionally reaching the point that they made very little sense. There was a need to take things at face value and not question too deeply the underpinning thinking. It was made more difficult because in researching the background it was very easy to find scathing criticism of any particular approach/idea that was not solely the usual venom found in academic work designed to discredit a rival academic.
There was also the problem of unfulfilled expectations. When electing to take the Course I assumed, without any grounds at all, that there would be some discussion and examination of the individual and his/her interpretation of the world as each of us see it. I can see the attraction of lumping together huge groups of people under one title such as Western Culture from an academic point of view but I feel that such an approach misses the richness and diversity within that Culture. It was of interest that when visiting an exhibition with tutors and students from the OCA and taking the opportunity to listen to the conversations and group discussion the variety of opinions that were expressed by what one would have considered to be an homogeneous group. The underlying approach of the Course is collectivist based on Marxist theory and followers of such thinking. So be it and I do not doubt the validity of such an approach but perhaps an examination of the way that Marxist theory has been used in the real world would suggest that the collectivist approach may not be the most illuminating way to think about Visual Culture.
Perhaps the final word should go to my wife who when told that I had submitted my final assignment responded "You will miss it". I will because it was not only difficult but stimulating forcing me to challenge long held assumptions.
It is difficult to make a definitive statement because I believe that the benefits will only be apparent as time goes on and I realise the impact it has had on my thinking. However there are some clues. Recently a photograph sold for roughly £3m. It was shown on television and first impressions were not good. It seemed to be four stripes of colour and was entitled 'Rhine'. Before the Course I would have dismissed it as being part of the sometimes crazy world of art. On this occasion I approached it differently and saw the very simple way the photographer had depicted the Rhine. The stripes were the sky, the bank, the river, and the opposite bank. All the information was there in a minimalist way. Whether it was worth £3m is not a real question because that is the value that someone placed on it and it follows that that is its worth until the picture comes on to the market again.
Other clues lie in the way that I now analyse images (my major is photography) and seek the signs within the image that provides the information about the photographer's thinking at the time he completed the image. I make the distinction here between the taking of the image and its final form because of the almost infinite number of chances there are to change the initial shot before creating the final image. It is interesting to work out what is included and what has possibly been left out. Of course there remains the problem of whether my interpretation is close to the intent of the photographer. The change is significant because my approach prior to the Course to any photograph was solely on its technical merits and the use of tonal values and composition.
It would be true to say that this was one of the most difficult Courses I have ever taken which given that I have a BA Hons and an MA degree says something about the content of the Course. Looking back I believe that many of the difficulties arose because of my previous learning and my natural inclination to use an analytical approach. The philosophy I studied earlier was primarily analytical whereas the Course offered the continental approach and the thinking of Marx, Lacan, Derrida and others. I found this approach unsatisfactory and confusing. It seemed to be a series of statements the validity of which was questionable and apart from Marx, whose work is set in the stone of his death, the views changed over time occasionally reaching the point that they made very little sense. There was a need to take things at face value and not question too deeply the underpinning thinking. It was made more difficult because in researching the background it was very easy to find scathing criticism of any particular approach/idea that was not solely the usual venom found in academic work designed to discredit a rival academic.
There was also the problem of unfulfilled expectations. When electing to take the Course I assumed, without any grounds at all, that there would be some discussion and examination of the individual and his/her interpretation of the world as each of us see it. I can see the attraction of lumping together huge groups of people under one title such as Western Culture from an academic point of view but I feel that such an approach misses the richness and diversity within that Culture. It was of interest that when visiting an exhibition with tutors and students from the OCA and taking the opportunity to listen to the conversations and group discussion the variety of opinions that were expressed by what one would have considered to be an homogeneous group. The underlying approach of the Course is collectivist based on Marxist theory and followers of such thinking. So be it and I do not doubt the validity of such an approach but perhaps an examination of the way that Marxist theory has been used in the real world would suggest that the collectivist approach may not be the most illuminating way to think about Visual Culture.
Perhaps the final word should go to my wife who when told that I had submitted my final assignment responded "You will miss it". I will because it was not only difficult but stimulating forcing me to challenge long held assumptions.
Friday, 18 May 2012
Assignment 5
Just sent my final assignment to my Tutor. Await his comments with interest and in the hope that I can submit all my work for assessment in July 2012.
As I was doing the research and writing I found myself thinking that the Course tended to deal with people as a large homogeneous mass who, having been raised in a large group such as Western Culture, would see the world in much the same way. I have very serious doubts that this is the case. If we look at groups that have been raised say just in Great Britain we know that there will be differences both large and small even within similar communities. Leaving aside the class divide that remains a significant part of the world in which we live we only have to consider the effects of different educational experiences from the under-performing school in a deprived area to the highly regarded school in an affluent area.
I have the feeling that Visual Culture as an academic exercise is somehow missing the point by concentrating on the differences between Western/Eastern culture or using such large groups as women or men to make what are supposed to be learned pronouncements. For those of us who experienced the Feminist rhetoric from its strident beginnings to its more reasoned approach as seen now it is only too clear that there was a desire to jump on the band wagon of the work of Lacan and others and to produce not well thought out theories that were not only rejected by men, as would be expected, but also the vast majority of women.
It seems that Visual Culture is based on a number of different and sometimes conflicting theories whose base was originally another discipline. For example Lacan was a psychoanalyst and his trying to make sense of the world was centred around the individual. Derrida introduced the idea of deconstruction and whilst this has relevance to visual culture studies it was more concerned with the wider philosophical field. Foucault was a historian and philosopher primarily associated with structuralism and post-structuralism. Although, again, these ideas can be useful in the world of visual culture that was not their original purpose and there has been some 'stretching' of them to make them more relevant and sometimes the stretching causes a tear in the fabric. Althusser concerned himself with the works of Marx and his impact on our way of thinking. Inevitably his approach is that of the collectivist that has its place in visual culture theory but fails to take account the differences of the individual that underpins the diversity and richness of all cultures. Saussure offered remarkable insights into linguistics although his work is now criticised 'for being of its time' i.e. it has become outdated as the studies of linguistics has moved on as the use of language changes.
Like physics there is no Grand Unifying Theory (GUT) that underpins studies of visual culture so that the practitioner is able to pick and choose methodologies and theories that best suit his personal point of view. Whilst this can make for exciting discussion it necessarily leads to unresolved differences with and rejection by others in the field. Perhaps this is no bad thing but it does leave the discipline apparently thrashing about in the dark with no clear idea of where it is going. The strong message I got from Terry Eagleton's book after theory is best summed up by the book description in the Kindle library:
As I was doing the research and writing I found myself thinking that the Course tended to deal with people as a large homogeneous mass who, having been raised in a large group such as Western Culture, would see the world in much the same way. I have very serious doubts that this is the case. If we look at groups that have been raised say just in Great Britain we know that there will be differences both large and small even within similar communities. Leaving aside the class divide that remains a significant part of the world in which we live we only have to consider the effects of different educational experiences from the under-performing school in a deprived area to the highly regarded school in an affluent area.
I have the feeling that Visual Culture as an academic exercise is somehow missing the point by concentrating on the differences between Western/Eastern culture or using such large groups as women or men to make what are supposed to be learned pronouncements. For those of us who experienced the Feminist rhetoric from its strident beginnings to its more reasoned approach as seen now it is only too clear that there was a desire to jump on the band wagon of the work of Lacan and others and to produce not well thought out theories that were not only rejected by men, as would be expected, but also the vast majority of women.
It seems that Visual Culture is based on a number of different and sometimes conflicting theories whose base was originally another discipline. For example Lacan was a psychoanalyst and his trying to make sense of the world was centred around the individual. Derrida introduced the idea of deconstruction and whilst this has relevance to visual culture studies it was more concerned with the wider philosophical field. Foucault was a historian and philosopher primarily associated with structuralism and post-structuralism. Although, again, these ideas can be useful in the world of visual culture that was not their original purpose and there has been some 'stretching' of them to make them more relevant and sometimes the stretching causes a tear in the fabric. Althusser concerned himself with the works of Marx and his impact on our way of thinking. Inevitably his approach is that of the collectivist that has its place in visual culture theory but fails to take account the differences of the individual that underpins the diversity and richness of all cultures. Saussure offered remarkable insights into linguistics although his work is now criticised 'for being of its time' i.e. it has become outdated as the studies of linguistics has moved on as the use of language changes.
Like physics there is no Grand Unifying Theory (GUT) that underpins studies of visual culture so that the practitioner is able to pick and choose methodologies and theories that best suit his personal point of view. Whilst this can make for exciting discussion it necessarily leads to unresolved differences with and rejection by others in the field. Perhaps this is no bad thing but it does leave the discipline apparently thrashing about in the dark with no clear idea of where it is going. The strong message I got from Terry Eagleton's book after theory is best summed up by the book description in the Kindle library:
- The golden age of cultural theory (the product of a decade and a half, from 1966 to 1980) is long past. We are living in its aftermath, in an age which, having grown rich in the insights of thinkers like Althusser, Barthes and Derrida has also moved beyond them. What kind of new, fresh thinking does this new era demand? Eagleton concludes that cultural thinking must start thinking ambitiously again - not so that it can hand the West its legitimation, but so that it can seek to make sense of the grand narratives in which it is now embroiled
The book 'After Theory' was published by Penguin Books 2004. The Kindle edition is obtainable from Amazon Books. The quote is from the 'Book Description' provided by Kindle.
Saturday, 12 May 2012
The Gulf War did not take lace
Baudrillard made a prediction that the Gulf War would not take place on the eve of the start of the war. He believed that the simulations played out by the generals of both sides would show that to proceed would be a mistake. The simulations would have replaced the 'real' war where actual people were killed or maimed. His belief that simulations had replaced would have been dramatically proved. However it could be argued that this, as with all simulations, was a specific case. There is little doubt that simulations that were played out during the Cold War to ensure that the launching of nuclear missiles would result in the annihilation of the initial aggressor enforced an uneasy peace at the global level. At the smaller conflict level this was not the case and the number of conflicts where the superpowers, through proxies, fought for domination in a particular area of the world were a constant part of the latter part of the 20th Century.
Baudrillard ignores the personalities of those involved (the military can only justify its existence through involvement in battle so have a pre-conditioned response to any perceived threat and the politicians know that to win a war is to ensure increased chances at the polls so the major deciders have an interest in going to war). In a world where logic and clear thinking rules war would be impossible - it is the vagaries of the human population that seems intent at some point in time in destroying itself. That Baudrillard was wrong was proven the very next day.
Having lost the first argument he then moved on to suggest that what was happening was not a war and that the Americans were not fighting to win a quick and decisive battle but to demonstrate to onlookers there considerable might. His argument is based on the lengthy air war before the ground war began. Although bombs were being dropped and cruise missiles were destroying their targets together with anyone in the area what was happening was no doubt real to those in the firing line the Americans were not really fighting so spectators were experiencing a simulation.
It is necessary to first accept that the Americans were not really fighting but this is to misunderstand the nature of modern war. Baudrillard argues that the relatively small numbers of casualties compared with previous wars made it difficult to see this war as a real war. He does not state what level casualties have to reach to make something real because to do so would make obvious the weakness of his argument - is 500,000 death enough or must it exceed say a million. Does the death of one individual mean less than the death of hundreds of thousands? By Baudrillard's standards the Second World War was not a war because by comparison with the 1st World War the number of deaths was small. Generals in the 1st World War saw the death of thousands of men in one day as an unavoidable price to pay to make the most paltry of gains. Seen as a totally unacceptable view, Generals in the 2nd World War tried to reduce the number of casualties by dominance of the air and preventing the enemy from mounting an appropriate response. Heavy reliance was placed on technology and fighting at a distance and this can be seen in other conflicts.
Aware of the unpopularity of the War at home the American Generals used their supremacy in the air to ensure that when the ground battle began casualties would be as low as possible. They were successful but they had still fought a war - not least because war had been declared.
I find it difficult to take Baudrillard seriously despite his earlier work on simulations. He took up more and more extreme positions - even to the extent that he proposed that in future there would only be simulations and that simulations can never be detected - and when challenged by events such as the Gulf War invented his own simulated world in which he was never wrong. However one should never throw the baby out with the bath water and he has a great deal to say on other topics that seem well grounded in the real world or perhaps I only see the simulation.
A major source of information for this piece was the article at
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/9/2/raffel.html
Baudrillard ignores the personalities of those involved (the military can only justify its existence through involvement in battle so have a pre-conditioned response to any perceived threat and the politicians know that to win a war is to ensure increased chances at the polls so the major deciders have an interest in going to war). In a world where logic and clear thinking rules war would be impossible - it is the vagaries of the human population that seems intent at some point in time in destroying itself. That Baudrillard was wrong was proven the very next day.
Having lost the first argument he then moved on to suggest that what was happening was not a war and that the Americans were not fighting to win a quick and decisive battle but to demonstrate to onlookers there considerable might. His argument is based on the lengthy air war before the ground war began. Although bombs were being dropped and cruise missiles were destroying their targets together with anyone in the area what was happening was no doubt real to those in the firing line the Americans were not really fighting so spectators were experiencing a simulation.
It is necessary to first accept that the Americans were not really fighting but this is to misunderstand the nature of modern war. Baudrillard argues that the relatively small numbers of casualties compared with previous wars made it difficult to see this war as a real war. He does not state what level casualties have to reach to make something real because to do so would make obvious the weakness of his argument - is 500,000 death enough or must it exceed say a million. Does the death of one individual mean less than the death of hundreds of thousands? By Baudrillard's standards the Second World War was not a war because by comparison with the 1st World War the number of deaths was small. Generals in the 1st World War saw the death of thousands of men in one day as an unavoidable price to pay to make the most paltry of gains. Seen as a totally unacceptable view, Generals in the 2nd World War tried to reduce the number of casualties by dominance of the air and preventing the enemy from mounting an appropriate response. Heavy reliance was placed on technology and fighting at a distance and this can be seen in other conflicts.
Aware of the unpopularity of the War at home the American Generals used their supremacy in the air to ensure that when the ground battle began casualties would be as low as possible. They were successful but they had still fought a war - not least because war had been declared.
I find it difficult to take Baudrillard seriously despite his earlier work on simulations. He took up more and more extreme positions - even to the extent that he proposed that in future there would only be simulations and that simulations can never be detected - and when challenged by events such as the Gulf War invented his own simulated world in which he was never wrong. However one should never throw the baby out with the bath water and he has a great deal to say on other topics that seem well grounded in the real world or perhaps I only see the simulation.
A major source of information for this piece was the article at
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/9/2/raffel.html
Thursday, 10 May 2012
Saturday
Just finished reading the Kindle version of Ian McEwan's Book "Saturday" Vintage 2006 for the second time. One of the delights of Kindle versions is that you can annotate the material as you go along which lessens the number of times you spend looking for a passage half remembered which has taken on significance for whatever reason. The book was recommended by my tutor as one that offered a number of ideas around the theme for assignment 5.
One strong impression left with me was the possibility that the book is a recollected dream. There is a definite denial of this in the narrative but how do we distinguish between our waking experiences and our dream world whilst we are in the dream world. Simple denial is not enough because dreams can be only too real and close to our conscious world. Why do I think that it matters? Apart from trying to distinguish the two states one of which would be considered 'real' (the quote marks indicate my scepticism about what is and what is not real) and one a false world of events. We are probably safe in assuming that the dream world is more open to interpretation as a better reflection of the person than the carefully constructed world when we are awake. Yet to be decided but I may pursue this line of thought in the assignment.
If what is recorded is a dream we can draw the reasonable conclusion that the events in the dream have meaning to the dreamer. In the case of 'Saturday' the main character is a neurosurgeon called Perowne who is at the top of the tree in his profession. The main events in the narrative are an incident in which he is assaulted by a man called Baxter; a squash game with a colleague and Baxter's invasion of Perowne's house seeking revenge all of which occur on the Saturday of the title. It could be argued that these three events reveal much about Perowne - his retreat deeper into his own world when that world is attacked; his underlying aggression revealed in the squash game that is normally not evident and the ambivalence and repressed feelings towards his family (his wife is held captive by a knife wielding Baxter and his daughter is forced to strip under the threat of the death of her mother. Freudians would have a field day with this scenario which is so reminiscent of the early stages of sexual development as described by Freud). If it were a dream then Baxter, a violent and aggressive person, could be seen as Perowne's alter-ego; a part of him that he keeps repressed. By passing the unacceptable parts of his nature to 'an other' he can retain his self image that is so much part of his persona.
Just because I would like it to be a recollection of a dream this does not make it so. It can be read as a straightforward narrative of a day in the life of Perowne. I think that from an analytical point of view this makes it less interesting but wishing does not make something real. Or does it??
One strong impression left with me was the possibility that the book is a recollected dream. There is a definite denial of this in the narrative but how do we distinguish between our waking experiences and our dream world whilst we are in the dream world. Simple denial is not enough because dreams can be only too real and close to our conscious world. Why do I think that it matters? Apart from trying to distinguish the two states one of which would be considered 'real' (the quote marks indicate my scepticism about what is and what is not real) and one a false world of events. We are probably safe in assuming that the dream world is more open to interpretation as a better reflection of the person than the carefully constructed world when we are awake. Yet to be decided but I may pursue this line of thought in the assignment.
If what is recorded is a dream we can draw the reasonable conclusion that the events in the dream have meaning to the dreamer. In the case of 'Saturday' the main character is a neurosurgeon called Perowne who is at the top of the tree in his profession. The main events in the narrative are an incident in which he is assaulted by a man called Baxter; a squash game with a colleague and Baxter's invasion of Perowne's house seeking revenge all of which occur on the Saturday of the title. It could be argued that these three events reveal much about Perowne - his retreat deeper into his own world when that world is attacked; his underlying aggression revealed in the squash game that is normally not evident and the ambivalence and repressed feelings towards his family (his wife is held captive by a knife wielding Baxter and his daughter is forced to strip under the threat of the death of her mother. Freudians would have a field day with this scenario which is so reminiscent of the early stages of sexual development as described by Freud). If it were a dream then Baxter, a violent and aggressive person, could be seen as Perowne's alter-ego; a part of him that he keeps repressed. By passing the unacceptable parts of his nature to 'an other' he can retain his self image that is so much part of his persona.
Just because I would like it to be a recollection of a dream this does not make it so. It can be read as a straightforward narrative of a day in the life of Perowne. I think that from an analytical point of view this makes it less interesting but wishing does not make something real. Or does it??
Wednesday, 25 April 2012
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
I have now watched Episode 22 "Restless" of Series 4 of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I cannot help feeling that I would have been better prepared had I followed the programme from the beginning. Clearly the main characters have already been created and interacted as Series 4 begins with Buffy's arrival at College on her first day. She is subject to all the fears and concerns that arise from her life experiences up to the point at which the series begins and so her behaviour as shown to us presumably is consistent with that shown/developed in Series 1 - 3. Not having seen any of these leaves the viewer struggling to understand why she is behaving as she is at this time. This comment is also true of the other main characters who we meet and have, in this episode, experience of their dreams. At times I felt that I was in a similar dream to Xander who is suddenly faced with his questions being answered in French, a language he does not understand, nor does he understand why the sudden switch to French has occurred.
The main component of the episode is the dreams the four main characters. Following a very busy time slaying evil things they are tired but feel too 'wired' to sleep so they agree to spend the night watching videos but fall asleep anyway. I will assume that the readers of this blog will know who the characters are and the role they play. If not there is a great deal of information on the Internet both in Wikpaedia and more specifically at http://www.buffyguide.com.
Willow's dream opens with Tara lying semi-naked on a bed whilst Willow paints Hymn to Aphrodite on her back. As with all dreams there is no logical sequence to what we see and we next see Willow at College believing that she is about to attend the first lesson of her Drama class. Instead she finds herself on stage with her fellow students, who are all in costume, about to present a version of Death of a Salesman. Willow who sees herself as not dressed for the role (whatever it is) is told that everyone likes her costume although, to her, she is in her everyday clothes. To add to her anxiety Buffy tells her that all her family are out front looking forward to her appearance on stage. At one point she finds herself alone between two sets of red stage curtains unable to find her way out. We next find her in the classroom about to read a paper to the class. She is wearing the same clothes as in the theatre part of the dream but Buffy strips them off leaving Willow standing in front of the class in the same clothes she wore Episode 1 of the series [ Note - Of course I was unaware of this or how she saw herself at that time]. To add to her misery Oz, her former boyfriend, and Tara, her current girlfriend flirt with each other. The dream ends with Willow being attacked by the first slayer.
The opening scene suggests that Willow has sexual feelings for Tara but has to partially suppress them because of the probable response from her family and others or her own guilt about having such feelings. She resorts to the apparently more innocent pastime of painting a love poem on her back. Interestingly there is another scene in the dream of Xander where the sexual relationship is more explicit but in this case we have to take cognizance of the fact that it is part of Xander's fantasy. The scene in the theatre is a reflection of Willow's anxieties about her being at College and not being able to keep up with her fellow students nor receive their approval. It is important to her to be accepted by the 'others' and to show them that she is no longer the girl the viewers saw in the first episodes. Graphically this is portrayed in the scene when Buffy strips her clothes off to reveal the same costume worn in an earlier part of her life.
We are also offered a glimpse of her relationship with her family whom she cannot see but are the cause of some anxiety. There is one other element of the dream and that is the red curtains in which Willow is trapped. They can be interpreted as a comfort blanket that keeps her hidden from the judgemental looks she feels are always upon her. Equally they could be seen as a metaphor for the type of relationship she has/wants with Tara - to find herself buried in the most private parts of the woman she desires.
Xander's dream, again a series of disjointed scenes, begins with him apparently waking and then excusing himself to go to the bathroom. On the way he meets Willow's mother whose behaviour is suggestive of a wish for a sexual encounter with Xander. He passes up on the immediate opportunity but does indicate a desire to return once he has been to the bathroom. Once in the bathroom he is conscious that he is not alone and on looking round sees that he is being observed by a group in white coats ready to take notes. He excuses himself saying that he will find another bathroom but on going through a door into what he thought was a bathroom he finds himself in a playground where he sees Buffy, Giles and Spike. He is told by Giles that Spike is to be trained as a Watcher. Buffy is seen playing in a sandbox. We then switch to an ice-cream truck where Xander finds Anya, Willow and Tara. The latter two are heavily made up and in skimpy clothing and are in a suggestive embrace. They invite Xander to join them but on his way he finds himself in the basement in his house. The dream sequence then returns him to the University where he seeks advice from Giles about what is happening only to be answered in French a language he does not understand. Constantly throughout the dream sequences he finds himself in the basement of his house.
It does not take a genius to work out the sexual nature of the early part of his dream. The attempted seduction by Buffy's mother is taken to be a metaphor for his desire as a child to have sex with his mother, a la Freud, whilst the behaviour of Willow and Tara in the Ice Cream van serves to offer two fantasies that men find sexually arousing - the wish to see two women in the sexual act and to watch this in a place that should be free of all such behaviour. The latter fantasy is the 'innocence' of the ice cream van created by its link with the young. However his main anxiety and probably the cause of the constant return to the basement of his house is his feelings of inferiority as he has not been as successful as his friends - for example he is not attending college. The French language sequence is a metaphor for his fear that he will no longer be able to understand his friends as they become more and more immersed in College life.
Giles dream revolves around his desire to continue to mentor Buffy and the contra-desire to let her make her own way as a Slayer. His feelings are further complicated by the presence of his girl friend who is first seen with an empty pushchair suggesting an unfulfilled desire to have children. It is not clear whether this is a desire felt by Giles. Buffy appears in his dream as a child, dressed as such and having pigtails. She is attempting to throw a ball at a mock vampire at a fairground but is unable to hit the vampire. Giles offers advice about keeping her arm straight ( there is obvious stereotyping in this part of the dream (it is usually more subtle) because there is a belief that females cannot throw a ball straight and that in some unspecified way it is a by product of being female) and she is successful. Through this sequence we can see evidence of Giles still wishing to guide Buffy We switch to a night club where Giles uses singing to explain why the group are being attacked - apparently he has always wanted to be a musician. The final sequence is him tracing the wiring from the sound system, that has failed, back stage only to find an unfathomable tangle of wires. As he looks in dismay at the task he faces the stalker catches and scalps him.
Giles dream is offered as evidence of the conflicts in his life and the difficulties of reconciling his feelings toward Buffy and his feelings towards his girlfriend. The appearance of Buffy as a child/adult figure exemplifies his ambiguous feelings towards her. His desire to protect is possibly a manifestation of his feelings about his own adequacies and the confirmation he receives from being seen as a father figure by Buffy whilst at the same time possibly avoiding a stable relationship with his girl friend.
Buffy's dream centres around her feelings about the cost of being a Slayer. The dream sequences are confusing with the dream starting with Buffy being woken by Anya in her room at College and then she is seen in her room at home with Tara whose message is not easy to understand. She is then at the University where she finds her mother living inside a wall. We switch to the next sequence where she meets Riley and Adam (now restored to human form) plotting domination on a world wide scale. The three come under attack from demons to which Riley and Adam respond by deciding to build a fort made of pillows. Buffy finds her weapons bag only to find it full of mud which she smears on her face mimicking the first slayer's appearance. We then find her in the desert facing the First Slayer and a fight ensues that continues back in Buffy's room where her friends lie dying. Buffy eventually works out that she can simply stop the fight by the simple act of ignoring the First Slayer who responds by disappearing. The dreams end when everyone wakes up none the worse for their experiences.
The underlying theme of Buffy's dream is her feelings of isolation (the desert scene) that she sees as an inevitable part of being a Slayer. Her encounter with Riley expresses her fears of the effect Riley's work with the military and the effect this will have on their relationship and her ability as a slayer. The sequence with her mother inside the wall is evidence of her feelings towards her mother and the barrier that is a constant part of their relationship. Her realisation about the way to defeat the first slayer is less easy to interpret and is something of an anti-climax. Presumably it leaves open the opportunity for another series on Television.
One element that is difficult to place is the man who constantly appears with cheese slices that he presents in a variety of ways. His most cryptic comment is "I wear the cheese it does not wear me". He has placed the slices around his body. The statement is never challenged although Lacan would probably have a field day with the argument asking how we decide whether in one sense the cheese is wearing the man. A similar incident occurs when Anya is attempting to be a stand up comic at the Club where Giles sings. She starts a tale, somewhat erratically, with talking about a man wearing a duck on his head. We are not offered the rest of the story line until we hear the punch line "Why is this man stuck to my ass?" We have moved from the man wearing the duck to the duck wearing the man. I have no idea what this means other than we make assumptions about appearances based on our experience and we may actually be interpreting it totally the wrong way round.
The main component of the episode is the dreams the four main characters. Following a very busy time slaying evil things they are tired but feel too 'wired' to sleep so they agree to spend the night watching videos but fall asleep anyway. I will assume that the readers of this blog will know who the characters are and the role they play. If not there is a great deal of information on the Internet both in Wikpaedia and more specifically at http://www.buffyguide.com.
Willow's dream opens with Tara lying semi-naked on a bed whilst Willow paints Hymn to Aphrodite on her back. As with all dreams there is no logical sequence to what we see and we next see Willow at College believing that she is about to attend the first lesson of her Drama class. Instead she finds herself on stage with her fellow students, who are all in costume, about to present a version of Death of a Salesman. Willow who sees herself as not dressed for the role (whatever it is) is told that everyone likes her costume although, to her, she is in her everyday clothes. To add to her anxiety Buffy tells her that all her family are out front looking forward to her appearance on stage. At one point she finds herself alone between two sets of red stage curtains unable to find her way out. We next find her in the classroom about to read a paper to the class. She is wearing the same clothes as in the theatre part of the dream but Buffy strips them off leaving Willow standing in front of the class in the same clothes she wore Episode 1 of the series [ Note - Of course I was unaware of this or how she saw herself at that time]. To add to her misery Oz, her former boyfriend, and Tara, her current girlfriend flirt with each other. The dream ends with Willow being attacked by the first slayer.
The opening scene suggests that Willow has sexual feelings for Tara but has to partially suppress them because of the probable response from her family and others or her own guilt about having such feelings. She resorts to the apparently more innocent pastime of painting a love poem on her back. Interestingly there is another scene in the dream of Xander where the sexual relationship is more explicit but in this case we have to take cognizance of the fact that it is part of Xander's fantasy. The scene in the theatre is a reflection of Willow's anxieties about her being at College and not being able to keep up with her fellow students nor receive their approval. It is important to her to be accepted by the 'others' and to show them that she is no longer the girl the viewers saw in the first episodes. Graphically this is portrayed in the scene when Buffy strips her clothes off to reveal the same costume worn in an earlier part of her life.
We are also offered a glimpse of her relationship with her family whom she cannot see but are the cause of some anxiety. There is one other element of the dream and that is the red curtains in which Willow is trapped. They can be interpreted as a comfort blanket that keeps her hidden from the judgemental looks she feels are always upon her. Equally they could be seen as a metaphor for the type of relationship she has/wants with Tara - to find herself buried in the most private parts of the woman she desires.
Xander's dream, again a series of disjointed scenes, begins with him apparently waking and then excusing himself to go to the bathroom. On the way he meets Willow's mother whose behaviour is suggestive of a wish for a sexual encounter with Xander. He passes up on the immediate opportunity but does indicate a desire to return once he has been to the bathroom. Once in the bathroom he is conscious that he is not alone and on looking round sees that he is being observed by a group in white coats ready to take notes. He excuses himself saying that he will find another bathroom but on going through a door into what he thought was a bathroom he finds himself in a playground where he sees Buffy, Giles and Spike. He is told by Giles that Spike is to be trained as a Watcher. Buffy is seen playing in a sandbox. We then switch to an ice-cream truck where Xander finds Anya, Willow and Tara. The latter two are heavily made up and in skimpy clothing and are in a suggestive embrace. They invite Xander to join them but on his way he finds himself in the basement in his house. The dream sequence then returns him to the University where he seeks advice from Giles about what is happening only to be answered in French a language he does not understand. Constantly throughout the dream sequences he finds himself in the basement of his house.
It does not take a genius to work out the sexual nature of the early part of his dream. The attempted seduction by Buffy's mother is taken to be a metaphor for his desire as a child to have sex with his mother, a la Freud, whilst the behaviour of Willow and Tara in the Ice Cream van serves to offer two fantasies that men find sexually arousing - the wish to see two women in the sexual act and to watch this in a place that should be free of all such behaviour. The latter fantasy is the 'innocence' of the ice cream van created by its link with the young. However his main anxiety and probably the cause of the constant return to the basement of his house is his feelings of inferiority as he has not been as successful as his friends - for example he is not attending college. The French language sequence is a metaphor for his fear that he will no longer be able to understand his friends as they become more and more immersed in College life.
Giles dream revolves around his desire to continue to mentor Buffy and the contra-desire to let her make her own way as a Slayer. His feelings are further complicated by the presence of his girl friend who is first seen with an empty pushchair suggesting an unfulfilled desire to have children. It is not clear whether this is a desire felt by Giles. Buffy appears in his dream as a child, dressed as such and having pigtails. She is attempting to throw a ball at a mock vampire at a fairground but is unable to hit the vampire. Giles offers advice about keeping her arm straight ( there is obvious stereotyping in this part of the dream (it is usually more subtle) because there is a belief that females cannot throw a ball straight and that in some unspecified way it is a by product of being female) and she is successful. Through this sequence we can see evidence of Giles still wishing to guide Buffy We switch to a night club where Giles uses singing to explain why the group are being attacked - apparently he has always wanted to be a musician. The final sequence is him tracing the wiring from the sound system, that has failed, back stage only to find an unfathomable tangle of wires. As he looks in dismay at the task he faces the stalker catches and scalps him.
Giles dream is offered as evidence of the conflicts in his life and the difficulties of reconciling his feelings toward Buffy and his feelings towards his girlfriend. The appearance of Buffy as a child/adult figure exemplifies his ambiguous feelings towards her. His desire to protect is possibly a manifestation of his feelings about his own adequacies and the confirmation he receives from being seen as a father figure by Buffy whilst at the same time possibly avoiding a stable relationship with his girl friend.
Buffy's dream centres around her feelings about the cost of being a Slayer. The dream sequences are confusing with the dream starting with Buffy being woken by Anya in her room at College and then she is seen in her room at home with Tara whose message is not easy to understand. She is then at the University where she finds her mother living inside a wall. We switch to the next sequence where she meets Riley and Adam (now restored to human form) plotting domination on a world wide scale. The three come under attack from demons to which Riley and Adam respond by deciding to build a fort made of pillows. Buffy finds her weapons bag only to find it full of mud which she smears on her face mimicking the first slayer's appearance. We then find her in the desert facing the First Slayer and a fight ensues that continues back in Buffy's room where her friends lie dying. Buffy eventually works out that she can simply stop the fight by the simple act of ignoring the First Slayer who responds by disappearing. The dreams end when everyone wakes up none the worse for their experiences.
The underlying theme of Buffy's dream is her feelings of isolation (the desert scene) that she sees as an inevitable part of being a Slayer. Her encounter with Riley expresses her fears of the effect Riley's work with the military and the effect this will have on their relationship and her ability as a slayer. The sequence with her mother inside the wall is evidence of her feelings towards her mother and the barrier that is a constant part of their relationship. Her realisation about the way to defeat the first slayer is less easy to interpret and is something of an anti-climax. Presumably it leaves open the opportunity for another series on Television.
One element that is difficult to place is the man who constantly appears with cheese slices that he presents in a variety of ways. His most cryptic comment is "I wear the cheese it does not wear me". He has placed the slices around his body. The statement is never challenged although Lacan would probably have a field day with the argument asking how we decide whether in one sense the cheese is wearing the man. A similar incident occurs when Anya is attempting to be a stand up comic at the Club where Giles sings. She starts a tale, somewhat erratically, with talking about a man wearing a duck on his head. We are not offered the rest of the story line until we hear the punch line "Why is this man stuck to my ass?" We have moved from the man wearing the duck to the duck wearing the man. I have no idea what this means other than we make assumptions about appearances based on our experience and we may actually be interpreting it totally the wrong way round.
Monday, 23 April 2012
A few random thoughts
Whilst reading through Do Androids Dream of Electronic Sheep some passages raised questions in my mind that were not directly relevant to the required work but nevertheless were of interest to me. If you like this blog is one of self-indulgence.
It will be recalled that in the previous blog reference was made to the existence of so-called specials who had been judged as insufficiently intelligent to qualify for transfer to colonies on other planets. In terms of the book "Once pegged as special, a citizen, even if accepting sterilization, dropped out of history. He ceased in effect, to be part of mankind. (Location 341 Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, Philip K Dick Orion Books ebook 2010 by Gollancz). This raised the question in my mind - Is the Gaze relevant to all people? In terms of the States efforts in the book to persuade those remaining on Earth to emigrate the posters, TV and other communications they were aimed at those eligible for transfer, the 'specials' did not 'exist'. Yet, although their reactions would be different, the Gaze would generate a reaction, in this case one of rejection and isolation. Most had sufficient understanding to realise that in some way they had been classified as different and inferior.
The more general question raised, for me, was there a minimum level of understanding required for there to be a reaction to a Gaze. If there is no understanding of the object does it lose its power to bring forth a response in those who 'see' it? If I am in a foreign Country whose writing is of say Arabic script that I cannot understand any poster would lose its impact and I may simply choose to ignore it. However if I am looking for a specific location and all signs are in the same script all signs would cause me anxiety because of my need to understand. It could be argued that the existence of the Gaze is solely the property of the subject and not of the object so that anything could have triggered Lacan's feelings of anxiety and guilt because they were already part of his sub-concious feelings about his favoured position compared with the fisherman with whom he was sharing a boat.
"As Isidore knocked on the apartment door the television died immediately into non-being. It had not merely become silent, it had stopped existing, scared into its grave by his knock" (Ibid Location 981)
It is an interesting issue to consider whether a television becomes non-existent when it is switched off. Evidently the box and screen will still be there but is it a television? Is there not a need for it to be broadcasting to be a television? Consider when a person dies. They, as a person, cease to exist but there body remains for a measurable period of time.
Later in the book one of the androids realises it will shortly be 'retired' (destroyed). There is a reaction - her eyes faded and the colour dimmed from her face, leaving it cadaverous, as if already starting to decay -(ibid Locn 2016). Evidently the android is aware of its own existence i.e. 'self'. Yet, we are told the thing that distinguishes androids is there lack of empathy. Can you have awareness of self if you are non-empathetic? We recognise feelings in others through empathy and we become aware of the same feelings in ourselves and by judging the reaction of others we learn to react appropriately (most behaviour is learned). In this case there is a human reaction to the awareness of the closeness of death but how has the android learnt this behaviour if it is not empathetic. There are examples throughout the book where androids show empathy in the writing.
"Rachel [an android] said "Or we could live in sin, except that I'm not alive" (Ibid Locn 3025). Decker replies that legally 'she' is not but because she is an organic being and not made out of electronic wizardry she is alive. It raises the question of what it means to be alive. Who decides? Death has to be certified by doctors who have knowledge of the deceased. Up until that point the person is not legally dead even if the body is well into decay and it is clear that death occurred some time prior to discovery. Death and by definition life is a decision that would appear to lie with the State. We are a legal entity that at some time is seen as 'alive' and at another time 'dead'. I wonder what we are between being alive and the state recognising that we are dead.
One passage that has a Kafkaesque quality is when Isidore becomes aware of the state of the world in which he lives. He touches the wall only for his hand to break through the surface; he sits only for the chair to collapse and a cup disintegrates before his eyes. He is facd with another reality or perhaps reality itself. Whatever it is that has kept him from seeing this reality has gone and he is left in a world that has already beyond that of decay. (Ibid Locn 3258) He has no way of knowing whether he has in some way moved into a new reality or that he has always lived there and had failed to see it.
Towards the end Decker when asked whether something is true responds by saying "Everything is true. Everything that anybody has thought" (Ibid Locn 3467). If this is the case then there is no such thing as reality because two people can hold views that are diametrically opposed and could not exist in one reality. For this situation to exist there must be an infinite number of realities none of which is superior or more likely than any other.
It will be recalled that in the previous blog reference was made to the existence of so-called specials who had been judged as insufficiently intelligent to qualify for transfer to colonies on other planets. In terms of the book "Once pegged as special, a citizen, even if accepting sterilization, dropped out of history. He ceased in effect, to be part of mankind. (Location 341 Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, Philip K Dick Orion Books ebook 2010 by Gollancz). This raised the question in my mind - Is the Gaze relevant to all people? In terms of the States efforts in the book to persuade those remaining on Earth to emigrate the posters, TV and other communications they were aimed at those eligible for transfer, the 'specials' did not 'exist'. Yet, although their reactions would be different, the Gaze would generate a reaction, in this case one of rejection and isolation. Most had sufficient understanding to realise that in some way they had been classified as different and inferior.
The more general question raised, for me, was there a minimum level of understanding required for there to be a reaction to a Gaze. If there is no understanding of the object does it lose its power to bring forth a response in those who 'see' it? If I am in a foreign Country whose writing is of say Arabic script that I cannot understand any poster would lose its impact and I may simply choose to ignore it. However if I am looking for a specific location and all signs are in the same script all signs would cause me anxiety because of my need to understand. It could be argued that the existence of the Gaze is solely the property of the subject and not of the object so that anything could have triggered Lacan's feelings of anxiety and guilt because they were already part of his sub-concious feelings about his favoured position compared with the fisherman with whom he was sharing a boat.
"As Isidore knocked on the apartment door the television died immediately into non-being. It had not merely become silent, it had stopped existing, scared into its grave by his knock" (Ibid Location 981)
It is an interesting issue to consider whether a television becomes non-existent when it is switched off. Evidently the box and screen will still be there but is it a television? Is there not a need for it to be broadcasting to be a television? Consider when a person dies. They, as a person, cease to exist but there body remains for a measurable period of time.
Later in the book one of the androids realises it will shortly be 'retired' (destroyed). There is a reaction - her eyes faded and the colour dimmed from her face, leaving it cadaverous, as if already starting to decay -(ibid Locn 2016). Evidently the android is aware of its own existence i.e. 'self'. Yet, we are told the thing that distinguishes androids is there lack of empathy. Can you have awareness of self if you are non-empathetic? We recognise feelings in others through empathy and we become aware of the same feelings in ourselves and by judging the reaction of others we learn to react appropriately (most behaviour is learned). In this case there is a human reaction to the awareness of the closeness of death but how has the android learnt this behaviour if it is not empathetic. There are examples throughout the book where androids show empathy in the writing.
"Rachel [an android] said "Or we could live in sin, except that I'm not alive" (Ibid Locn 3025). Decker replies that legally 'she' is not but because she is an organic being and not made out of electronic wizardry she is alive. It raises the question of what it means to be alive. Who decides? Death has to be certified by doctors who have knowledge of the deceased. Up until that point the person is not legally dead even if the body is well into decay and it is clear that death occurred some time prior to discovery. Death and by definition life is a decision that would appear to lie with the State. We are a legal entity that at some time is seen as 'alive' and at another time 'dead'. I wonder what we are between being alive and the state recognising that we are dead.
One passage that has a Kafkaesque quality is when Isidore becomes aware of the state of the world in which he lives. He touches the wall only for his hand to break through the surface; he sits only for the chair to collapse and a cup disintegrates before his eyes. He is facd with another reality or perhaps reality itself. Whatever it is that has kept him from seeing this reality has gone and he is left in a world that has already beyond that of decay. (Ibid Locn 3258) He has no way of knowing whether he has in some way moved into a new reality or that he has always lived there and had failed to see it.
Towards the end Decker when asked whether something is true responds by saying "Everything is true. Everything that anybody has thought" (Ibid Locn 3467). If this is the case then there is no such thing as reality because two people can hold views that are diametrically opposed and could not exist in one reality. For this situation to exist there must be an infinite number of realities none of which is superior or more likely than any other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)