Wendy stated in our class with Christina, while viewing black and white pictures taken in (I forget where) that the pictures seemed sad and devoid of life (forgive me..this is not a verbatim account). Upon reading Ulmer, I share the same sentiments to a degree. Ulmer's emonuments seems sad and devoid of life in that the examples he brings to us time and again focus on disasters and the questions/desires that stem from them. Car accidents, child murders, 9/11 ...oh my! he states that emonuments must have a punctum...that it must create within a viewer a peircing that opens them to the experience of what they are taking in. I have no doubt that Ulmer priviledges death as a the ultimate punctum. Though he allows us to use emonuments for our own purposes it does not offset his example of tragedy as an exemplar: a model/original/archetype.
What of color, sublime life, and dancing?
Though he does not state that this should not be the subject matter he does not imply explicitly that it should be.
Given the restriction of the form as a monument - which entails a looking back - I wonder if it doesn't have the capacity (which I think it does) to witness through a pleasant punctum that which is all around, but due to its encompassing presence not always acknowledged. Perhaps he believes that should be relegated to the arts: poetry and the like. All forms that he taps into to inform his conception of emonuments. Perhaps it is not his intention to deal with the dead...given that a part (I hesitate to say most) of the theory which informs his emonuments comes from dead people and then maybe it was.
Though he states that emonuments are for the living - a dialouge between the living...I cant help but see the parallels between this conversation he wishes us as egents to have (supposedly new and radical) and the conversations that have gone on before. Essentially a superimposition of traditional exhibitions onto an electrate medium/media.
It seems that Ulmer might have gotten away from himself in over theorizing simple traditional tenets that have been dictating the creation of alternative forms of communication as witnessed in the arts through the ages. I wonder what Christina or Varnette Honeywood (artist), or Picasso, or Gertrude Stein, or Wanda Coleman (poet, screenwriter) would have to say about his work?
Would their collective response be:
Why / Y you've stated what we've been about all along...(aside from all the death and dying that is)
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
Where do I begin? Ulmer has given us so much to think about. I'll begin by confessing that every time I sit down to read EM and consider the ramifications of MEmorials, I am forced to think about a tragedy that occurred in my family just over two years ago. It was the Friday before Labor Day and time for the annual family reunion on my mother's side in celebration of the Roseboro clan. My four year old cousin, Assadi (Arabic for Isaiah) was playing around in the driveway as my mom's nephew, Assadi's dad, Isey (as we call him) was cleaning out his car and getting ready for the drive from Roanoke, VA to Baltimore, MD where the family reunion was being hosted that year. Somehow, Assadi found my cousin Isey's loaded gun under the driver side seat and shot himself in the head. He was killed instantly. The whole situation was tragic and pointless. Everyone was sickened by the news. Why did Isey have a loaded pistol in his car? How did Assadi get to it so quickly? Suddenly, my grandmother's house, where the shooting took place, was the site of breaking action news. Family and friends forwarded online newspaper articles for details. It was surreal. Because Assadi's mom is a Muslim, he was buried within 48 hours of his death, so no one from our side of the family had a chance to say goodbye. We were all so shocked and trying to pull it together. Before we knew it, it was done. That weekend the family reunion went on as planned in Baltimore without those family members immediately touched by the tragedy. To this day, I'm not even sure if there was an official mention of it at the actual reunion that year.
The following year, another family reunion was held in Charlotte, NC and I decided to attend. Strangely, eerily there was no mention of little Assadi. Not one. I mentioned the omission to my mother, but that was it. It was like it had never even happened. I wondered about this to myself and believe I might have a clue as to why our family could not bare to utter a word about the tragedy. That year, the reunion committee produced a play about the origins of the Roseboros, which is traced back to Rubin Roseboro. While Rubin was not the first Roseboro out of slavery in our family, he was the first to own land. For that reason, he's noted as the founding patriarch. It is that piece of paper signifying Rubin Roseboro's ownership of land which makes him memor[i]able. Rubin's father, on the other hand, was the first member of the family to be emancipated, though he remained landless his entire life. As a result, Rubin's father has been deleted from the official family narrative. I think this connection to Rubin's landless father and Assadi is significant.
Like Ulmer, I see an opportunity for interface between these two forgotten Roseboros and believe their ultimate obscurity is connected. I think the [black] family [reunion], if it is to survive as an institution has to move away from the old Y formation of the "family tree" and toward a risomatic structure that can systematically situate these "sporadic" figures like Assadi and Rubin's father as entities that are lasting and consequential in their own right. Annual conventions, will no longer do the work needed to keep large extended families together. Shameful episodes, such as the senseless death of Assadi or the obscuring disenfranchisement of Rubin's father cannot be fully developed, and therefore adequately assigned meaning, through the old mapping structures associated with familial connections. How many times have you looked at a family tree to see boxes filled with the names of those prematurely dead family members who never lived fully enough to reproduce (either through sex or acreage)? Think of how the eye lingers on those stunted branches. What will future generations make of the Bradly McGee box that never branched out?
The vantage point of the screen allows a space for us to make sense of this lingering look. Through the electronic sphere we can construct the worlds that might have been inhabited by Assadi, Bradly, and Rubin Rosboro's father and, as a result, possibly make this one better.
The following year, another family reunion was held in Charlotte, NC and I decided to attend. Strangely, eerily there was no mention of little Assadi. Not one. I mentioned the omission to my mother, but that was it. It was like it had never even happened. I wondered about this to myself and believe I might have a clue as to why our family could not bare to utter a word about the tragedy. That year, the reunion committee produced a play about the origins of the Roseboros, which is traced back to Rubin Roseboro. While Rubin was not the first Roseboro out of slavery in our family, he was the first to own land. For that reason, he's noted as the founding patriarch. It is that piece of paper signifying Rubin Roseboro's ownership of land which makes him memor[i]able. Rubin's father, on the other hand, was the first member of the family to be emancipated, though he remained landless his entire life. As a result, Rubin's father has been deleted from the official family narrative. I think this connection to Rubin's landless father and Assadi is significant.
Like Ulmer, I see an opportunity for interface between these two forgotten Roseboros and believe their ultimate obscurity is connected. I think the [black] family [reunion], if it is to survive as an institution has to move away from the old Y formation of the "family tree" and toward a risomatic structure that can systematically situate these "sporadic" figures like Assadi and Rubin's father as entities that are lasting and consequential in their own right. Annual conventions, will no longer do the work needed to keep large extended families together. Shameful episodes, such as the senseless death of Assadi or the obscuring disenfranchisement of Rubin's father cannot be fully developed, and therefore adequately assigned meaning, through the old mapping structures associated with familial connections. How many times have you looked at a family tree to see boxes filled with the names of those prematurely dead family members who never lived fully enough to reproduce (either through sex or acreage)? Think of how the eye lingers on those stunted branches. What will future generations make of the Bradly McGee box that never branched out?
The vantage point of the screen allows a space for us to make sense of this lingering look. Through the electronic sphere we can construct the worlds that might have been inhabited by Assadi, Bradly, and Rubin Rosboro's father and, as a result, possibly make this one better.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
In language, poetry has the quality of the punctum. In other words, the reader is rewarded for his/her savoring of language by allowing that language to intrude into one's sense of timing. The breath and the heartbeat are invited to participate in the word structure, thus allowing language itself to penetrate the body. When that resolution moves the lingering reader into dangerous territory, poetry is all the more gripping. To really read poetry, one must commit her/himself to a luxuriant, almost decadent expenditure of attention to language. Poetry requires a slowing down and a lingering gaze into accepting some conclusion -- of course Barbara Marie Stafford spoke of the notions of "slow looking" and the "lingering look" when she was here last week, so I also have her thoughts in mind.
In this poem, Campo performs a stretched sonnet that forces us into the psyche of his persona narrator, or Jerry's friend. I think this is why poetry has such a unique capacity to memorialize.
Revulsion by Raphael Campo
I think her name was Carly - no, Charlene.
So fucking beautiful, the way she laughed,
a hardness in her face that seemed so soft.
She picked up Jerry real quick - I mean,
without his knowing it - they dated three,
four months. He kissed her in the parking lot
one night in front of all our friends. We thought
she was a woman, too. Eventually,
he wanted more than just a kiss; she played
miss frightened innocent until he forced
his hand inside her dress. Her bloody face
was in the local newspapers next day,
beneath the one-inch headline MALE PROSTITUTE
FOUND DEAD. I recognized her, sure I did,
but I would say she got what she deserved -
I mean, she was a guy, a fucking fruit.
I think her name was Carly - no, Charlene.
So fucking beautiful, the way she laughed,
a hardness in her face that seemed so soft.
She picked up Jerry real quick - I mean,
without his knowing it - they dated three,
four months. He kissed her in the parking lot
one night in front of all our friends. We thought
she was a woman, too. Eventually,
he wanted more than just a kiss; she played
miss frightened innocent until he forced
his hand inside her dress. Her bloody face
was in the local newspapers next day,
beneath the one-inch headline MALE PROSTITUTE
FOUND DEAD. I recognized her, sure I did,
but I would say she got what she deserved -
I mean, she was a guy, a fucking fruit.
I am currently using my Digital Remix project as a demonstration of media's/images' ability to numb the mind to imagery and ideologies that--perhaps even 20 years prior--seemed repulsive. This idea is particularly interesting in instances like news media (as Ulmer points out) or even in "reality" TV (as Nicole S. points out) where the audience is supposed to see something "real" in what is presented. Most audiences recognize the concoctions (often somewhat ridiculous ones) formulated in reality TV--the human sensorium that Ulmer suggests probably plays a role in this--but many, even educated, audiences often forget to critically reflect on the news media and its relevance to "reality." Interestingly, this "reality" becomes spectaclized in order to "maximize [the audience's] desire" (83), rather than to present a Truth. This spectaclization then becomes the norm. Just as we see Hollywood expanding the boundaries of what is acceptable to view in terms of nudity, profanity, drug use, or any other preciously-deemed unacceptable behaviors and images, we also see the news media reaching further to aggrandize the dimensions of reality, perhaps stretching even further the truth in order to present a spectacle that we--society--are entertained by.
self "becoming image"
Ulmer speaks of "becoming image" and the differencce between one's self and one's image much along the same lines as Lacan and his notion of looking into the mirror as a child. Ulmer though takes this thought farther and begins a conversation about "perfect self-presence" through self "becoming image. " This chain of thought amounts to autocommunication that allows one to see one's self seeing one's self which essentially is the meta-awareness of the act of seeing oneself.
This type of autocommunication I believe has been continually exploited by those who create and produce reality shows.
Through creating the image of reality by the lack of scripts and casting people who the target audience can relate to in one way or another, reality shows work to allow people to "watch themselves" in a role of "perfect self-presence" personified by the cast. This phenomenon then becomes a type of autocommunication...a narcisistic endeavour that allows one to participate in their own self "becoming image."
This type of autocommunication I believe has been continually exploited by those who create and produce reality shows.
Through creating the image of reality by the lack of scripts and casting people who the target audience can relate to in one way or another, reality shows work to allow people to "watch themselves" in a role of "perfect self-presence" personified by the cast. This phenomenon then becomes a type of autocommunication...a narcisistic endeavour that allows one to participate in their own self "becoming image."
Death might not make WOW a world
Death on a screen whether it be a computer or silver one works often times to represent death as consequence. Essentially, death itself is not the focus of the viewer/player. It is the effects of that death on the current situation which is the point. And so death is seen as a character of causation and not effect.
I came to this notion in thinking on the aesthetics of death as described in Klastrup's article on WOW and in thinking about how death is displayed in the various movies/tv shows that are watched. These thoughts lead me further back to thinking of plays such as "Death of a Salesman" but here I have to stop b/c in thinking on this play imparticular I am forced to look back toward "American Beauty" which deals with death in an all together different fashion. Death in "American Beauty" is the end...the effect...and even though we see briefly its affects on the other characters the emphasis lies not at that point but on all the other points or causes that lead up to it. This is important and perhaps why the movie was such a hit b/c it demonstrates death acting as it does in the "real" world. What is death but the ending point of what is here a summation of all of the causes that we experience that leads up to that point?
So why is it that death in WOW and other videogames acts as a cause? Because perhaps as Klastrup points out there has to be an incentive for a player to play better. If this is so, can we then state that death is part of what makes WOW a world? I ask this last question because death is positioned in these games as counter to its function in the real world
I came to this notion in thinking on the aesthetics of death as described in Klastrup's article on WOW and in thinking about how death is displayed in the various movies/tv shows that are watched. These thoughts lead me further back to thinking of plays such as "Death of a Salesman" but here I have to stop b/c in thinking on this play imparticular I am forced to look back toward "American Beauty" which deals with death in an all together different fashion. Death in "American Beauty" is the end...the effect...and even though we see briefly its affects on the other characters the emphasis lies not at that point but on all the other points or causes that lead up to it. This is important and perhaps why the movie was such a hit b/c it demonstrates death acting as it does in the "real" world. What is death but the ending point of what is here a summation of all of the causes that we experience that leads up to that point?
So why is it that death in WOW and other videogames acts as a cause? Because perhaps as Klastrup points out there has to be an incentive for a player to play better. If this is so, can we then state that death is part of what makes WOW a world? I ask this last question because death is positioned in these games as counter to its function in the real world
Permission
So I have some ideas with regards to my digital remix project and my final emonument that entails the use of my fellow class member's identities and their actions. Essentially, I'd like to have your permission to use you in my two projects that have to do with reality TV and reality. Your role in the project would be to represent reality and would be used to enact a stark contrast to those entities that comprise reality on tv. So please respond to this post with a yes or no so that I know what I'm working with. Gracias!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)