A Blog About Blogs...A Meta-Blog

This blog has been my first blogging experience, unless posting pictures on flickr can count as a blog. Can a purely visual blog exist or does a blog necessarily entail writing? I'm not sure. Anyway, I have enjoyed writing this blog, but there are some issues it has raised that I wish to address. Primarily I want to focus on the issue of audience. Blogs make it incredibly difficult to gauge your audience. If I were writing this blog purely for myself, I would choose not to write in complete sentences and instead would undertake a more note-taking style of blogging (one of my favorite styles of writing). However, since I am writing this blog in the context of my media anthropology class, I have tried to be clear and coherent in what I have written. Problematically however, my audience is not limited to media anthropology aficionados, but to the whole internet population. In this light, should I be more thorough in describing and explaining anthropological terms and jargon? Or is confusion a useful tool in the process of learning and realization?

This week I have been thinking about a piece of conceptual writing by Vito Acconci entitled Read This Word. Here it is for your own evaluation and enlightenment:

READ THIS WORD THEN READ THIS WORD READ THIS WORD NEXT READ THIS WORD NOW SEE ONE WORD SEE ONE WORD NEXT SEE ONE WORD NOW AND THEN SEE ONE WORD AGAIN LOOK AT THREE WORDS HERE LOOK AT THREE WORDS NOW LOOK AT THREE WORDS NOW TOO TAKE IN FIVE WORDS AGAIN TAKE IN FIVE WORDS SO TAKE IN FIVE WORDS DO IT NOW SEE THESE WORDS AT A GLANCE SEE THESE WORDS AT THIS GLANCE AT THIS GLANCE HOLD THIS LINE IN VIEW HOLD THIS LINE IN ANOTHER VIEW AND IN A THIRD VIEW SPOT SEVEN LINES AT ONCE THEN TWICE THEN THRICE THEN A FOURTH TIME A FIFTH A SIXTH A SEVENTH AN EIGHTH
(from http://www.ubu.com/concept/acconci_read.html)

Can this kind of meta-writing function effectively in a blogging context? Would there be a specific audience for a blog full of this type of writing? What would that audience look like? Is it useful for both writer and reader to be self-conscious in their respective roles (of writing and reading)?

Mediation Histories

In Media Anthropology class, most of our readings and discussions have focused on how relatively "new" media function in different societies (including TV, radio, video etc). I was wondering how older media function in relation this new media. For example, how do traditional forms of painting and sculpture relate to the video produced in a specific culture? Are they similar or different? Intertextual? Are there some essential aspects of culture embedded in all media? If so what are those aspects? Has any historical work been done on tracing the transition from one medium to another and the resulting transformation that occurs? Are specific types of media rooted in certain times and places or are they transtemporal and transpacial in a sense, creating new meaning through time and space regardless of thier original historical context? It seems to me that if we are going to use the term media, as an encompassing category which includes so many forms of expression, we should have some way of explaining how each medium relates to the other (whether it be in transculturally or interculturally).

The Transference of Screen Angst To Spectator (aka an excuse to talk about the new Coen brothers movie)

This weekend I went to see "No Country for Old Men" (the new movie by the Coen brothers). Dont worry I'm not going to spoil the film, instead I want to discuss a particular resonance between screen and audience which occured from my perspective. Since I went to the movie on opening night, the theater was crowded (nearly sold out I would say). A middle aged woman sat to my left and my movie-going friend sat to my right. Unlike most experiences I've had at the movie theater, I was acutely aware of both my right and left spectator throughout the entire movie. Why? My hypothesis is that the constant onscreen angst presented in the movie transfered directly into the physical body and consciousness of the spectator. Unlike most movies, "No Country for Old Men" is two hours of pure suspense and existential angst; the spectator is presented with a screen scenario in which any character could die at any moment. Not only is the spectator aware of this predicament, but so are the filmic characters. Therefore, the specatators to my left and right (and myself) were constantly on the edge of thier seats: jumping at every gunshot, cringing at the needles, nearly crying out at the helplessness of the characters. Thus, the chorus of spectators perfectly mirrored the helplessness of the characters. The spectator embodied this helplessness, this angst, this fear of sudden death, not only because the screen presented such a powerful antinarrative, but because the truth of the film is far too real to be ignored. Whereas a typical film will give you the illusion of reality, this film presents you with the ultimate reality: the uncertainty of death.

Cinematic Reflexivity

How is cinema self-reflexive? Is there a difference between between a self reflexive video and metavideo?

Ways cinema can be self-reflexive:
1. Showing production processes within a video. Example: A video which shows another video being shot.
2. Talking about the production process, intentionality, and meaning of a video within the video itself. Example: A video which includes footage of someone (say the director) describing the meaning of the video.
3. Making a video about yourself. Example: An autobiographical video. This type of self-reflexivity is different because its reflexivenss is not necessarily obvious to the viewer, but will always be noted by the video maker.

A metavideo is a video about video, so showing some sort of production process is implied. Vertov's Man with a Movie Camera for example could easily be considered a metafilm (with his notions of "cinema eye" and "radio ear" also implicated). Likewise a lot of the indigenous video work that I have been watching (by the Video in the Villages Project) can also be categorized as metavideos because they often show production processes interspliced within more conventional narratives. It is important to note that Point #3 (above) might or might not be classified as a metavideo depending on the viewer's awareness of the video's production context.

What might a self-reflexive viewer look like? What about a self-reflexive viewer watching a self-reflexive film? I suppose this question has an easy answer: Brechtian cinema (Verfremdungseffekt). But is there more to it than that?

A Strategic Placement of Television?

Over the summer I began to get lazy about my exercise schedule (I dont have enough friends who play tennis), and thus decided to check out the Ratner gym facilities. For individuals going to the gym there are essentially two possibilities: weights or cardio-fitness equipment (ellipticals and treadmills). I choose the cardio equipment. The first thing I notice when I enter the equipment room is the televisions. There is one television screen in front of every elliptical and treadmill. They are completely unavoidable, equipped with all the cable channels you could ask for. I get on an elliptical machine and try what I assume everyone else is doing: distracting themselves from the actual activity of exercise by watching their favorite TV show. This doesnt work for me. I have never experienced television in this way before. Usually I watch television in a relaxed state, sitting or lying down on a sofa, but now suddenly I was sweating, my heart racing, getting a work out (the last thing that I associate with television). Luckily there is the option of turning off the television, which is what I do. But then I wonder... I decide to turn the TV back on and compare my exercise rate/calories burned (all monitored by the elliptical machine) with the TV on versus with it off. I learn quickly that when the TV is on and I start watching it, my exercise rate slows down significantly. It seems that my body associates TV with a state of rest. I guess this is not the case for everyone else at the gym, but maybe they just havent noticed that television is slowing them down.

Performance and Narrative

"Roma Chatterji (1986) has suggested that certain narratives have a built-in formulaic closure (e.g. kahani khatam paisa hajam, i.e. the story has concluded and the penny is digested) which insulate the narratives from events of one's life. She contrasts these with sacred tales (katha) in which the recitation of the story is part of the ritual activity and hence events occuring in the story are also happening in the lives of the people who are listening to it" (Das, On Soap Opera: what kind of anthropological object is it? 181).

Thinking about a culturally removed narrative versus an imbeded performative narrative is quite interesting. This categorization evaluates narrative from the perspective of the spectator. Depending on the cultural position (and also personal disposition) of the spectator, she/he would potentially have different reactions to/interpretations of the same text. A performative narrative would evoke action/reaction whereas a removed narrative would probably evoke speculation and imagination. Thus while indigenous video, for example, often provokes cultural action in indigenous viewers, non-indigenous viewers would be partial to evalution. These lines however can blur depending on the subject matter presented. A documentary video presenting violence against children would probably evoke action and outrage from cross-cultural audiences. Still, the types of action and the way such outrage may be expressed might still differ within varying cultures (with respect to how imbedded or removed such narratives are within a specific culture). It might also be interesting to investigate whether a specific type/genre of narrative is typical for certain types of performances. Or how performative narrative might become removed through succeeding mediations (i.e. performance mediated by narrative mediated by video etc).

I Dont Buy It -- Problems with Harindranath and Cultural Imperialism

"We must recognize that although the relationship between the West and the rest continues to be fundamentally unequal, characterized by the exploitation of labor, the rise in consumerism, the spread of neoliberal values, and so on, the role played by the hybrid, Westernized "local" elite is crucial to this relationship" (Harindranath, Reviving "Cultural Imperialism", 166).

In Reviving "Cultural Imperialism" Harindranath throws around generalizing terms which are undefined and unjustified within the text. What is most problematic is how he uses "the West and the rest" and "hybrid, Westernized "local" elite". What does he really mean by "Westernized" and "hybrid"? Although he explains how Indian elite are sympathetic/conformative to "Western" culture, he does not address what part of their identity conforms to their original culture. In what cases would the Indian elite view a film through their original cultural perspective? The term hybridity seems to fall apart. Why can't there be hybrids of say Chinese/Indian spectators? Why must it be confined to two different cultures? Can you talk about someone harboring three different cultural perspectives? What about four?

How Harindranath seemingly connects "the rest" with the notion of a "hybrid, Westernized "local" elite" is also problematic. This is a generalization which seems inherent in literature about cultural imperialism. Unless Harindranath presents detailed research specifying how all cultures outside of "the West" (the United States I presume?) harbor "hybrid, Westernized "local" elite", it is an unjustified assumption. One little study on Indian spectatorship is not enough to support generalizing claims.

Revolution through Art?

Not just any art is capable of stimulating a revolution. The work would have to be of a specific medium, a highly mobile medium. Sculpture, performance, and painting are not sufficient, because their audience is confined to a single space and time. The medium instead needs to be able to quickly traverse space and time in order to have a unifying, revolutionary effect. Video, digital photographs, and electronic texts are examples of potentially revolutionary media; they can transfer information across the globe (through the power of the internet) in a matter of seconds.

If, for example, an electronic text of Adorno's 'The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception' was circulated and read by the masses, would revolution be possible? There is certainly the potential for revolution. If the masses read Adorno and realized that they are being controlled, desensitized, and standardized by the culture industry, they could form a unified rebelious force. Perhaps the reason why Adorno is so pessimistic about revolution is because, at his time, he could never hope for his writing to penetrate the masses (there was no internet, no electronic texts in the 1940's).

Representation Vs Mediation

Representation assumes that there is some imitiation or mimesis of an original object/person/idea. This is a specific type of mediation, where the representation is what mediates the original object/person/idea. An example of this would be an object which is represented by a drawing which could then be represented by a painting or a sculpture etc (with each representation relying on imitation). In contrast, mediation is a much broader category which does not necessarily have to take the form of mimesis. In fact, I would argue that mediation could just as easily take on the opposite form (as a kind of abstraction, deviation, or negation of the original).

Issues of Narration and Perspective

With respect to the video clip "If By Chance We Meet Again" (from This American Life), I wish to raise a couple of questions. What would this documentary be like if there were no narration from Ira Glass? More importantly, what would this documentary look like if all the narration had been provided by the owners of Chance? What if these cattle ranchers knew how to use and edit video and decided to make a documentary of their own about their experiences with Chance? If this were the case, how would the content, style, and presentation of the video change?

Perhaps...
1. There would be no scenes showing or talking about how Second Chance almost killed his owner.
2. The video would lack any scenes which negatively portrayed Chance. It would probably be just the opposite.
3. The majority of the footage would be simply of the cow. The majority of the audio would be of the owners talking about their cow's greatness.

In fact, I wonder how the owners felt about the actual video and how their story was presented (including the narration by Ira Glass).

Perspective is powerful.