Post Blog 9/26 Robby Riehle

I, like I think most people in Wednesday’s class, was interested in the concept that Habermas brings up, “the cult of the new” (99). He is exactly right, now more than ever we are fixated on the “new” or the hip. In our capitalist society having the latest (insert interchangeable product here) represents some sort of status. Consumerism, as a social and economic order, is a large driving force behind the ever-growing cult. Fueled ever furthermore by mass media and marketing campaigns. In today’s society having what’s new is not only natural, it’s expected. This of course meaning that not only do you have to buy the latest whatever because you’ve been programmed to want to, but by not getting it you risk stigmatization. Social media is a prime example of this. When Myspace came out everybody got one because it was new and the natural thing to do. By not creating a Myspace you would be left unconnected and out of the social media loop. But then when Facebook was release almost the entire public who invested time into their Myspace instantaneously dropped their accounts. Then with the announcement of twitter some people left Facebook just because it was new, even though it does only one future that Facebook already did. In fact I just heard on the radio a few weeks ago that Twitter is accepted to out live Facebook on a social media platform.  As capitalist consumers of the 21^st century almost everyone is indoctrinated into the “cult of the new”. The only question is how long will having what’s new keep its novelty. 

Post class blog 9/26

As usual, I walked out of the classroom on Wednesday with a much better understanding of our readings then when I walked in. Reading Lyotard and Habermas were very confusing for me but a couple of the quotes that we discussed in class helped bring clarity to their overall meaning. One of the quotes is from the Lyotard reading “so called realistic representatives can no longer evoke reality except as nostalgia or mockery” (40). I liked how we discussed this quote in comparison to romantic-comedy movies and reality TV. Romantic comedies are romance narratives filled with situations that are supposed to represent real life relationship issues. However, most people don’t fully relate to these films, but the comedic element in them makes up for this lack of actual “reality”. Reality TV as well is a major part of popular culture and it draws people in through the “so called realistic” aspect in it. Most people, however, are fully aware that these drama-filled shows are far from “real”; most of them are actually scripted and edited in order to make the show more interesting for us.

 Another interesting quote was from the Habermas reading, “the cult of the new” (99).  The meaning behind this quote is easily seen in our society today. With our society constantly changing, new technologies, clothes, social media, footwear, etc., generate fanaticism in everyone in their attempt to get the “latest” of everything. They are fixated on keeping up with the new material, regardless of price tags. In class, we mainly discussed the recent commodity, the iPhone 5, which sold 5 million in the first three days. People were putting up tents outside the stores in preparation for the international launch of the new device. It is mainly this reason that Habermas describes it as a cult, emphasizing both the positive and the negative aspects of it.

Post class 9/26

Habermas brought in some concepts surrounding modern and post modern that we hadn't seen in class yet. One interesting way he viewed post modernism is not the effects of modern times but an "antimodernity". This is something I really had never looked at in that perspective. To me, post modernism is the way in which views shifted over time due to events and institutions. It seems that he is against the idea of post modernism altogether and dislikes what it strives to accomplish.
The next big point I found in our class discussion to be interesting is the part about having faith. We said that faith keeps a sense of security in a destabilized world, which I would have to completely and 100% agree with. Personally, I don't go to church or partake in any specific religious activities or gatherings, but I would classify myself as someone who has faith. I think it's almost necessary to believe in something because of the calmness and hope it can bring to someone's overall state of mind. There's a set of rules people tend to feel inclined to live under if they believe there's a power or being that will one day question their actions. This is what keeps our world somewhat living under standards of right and wrong.
Then there's the cult of the new, which we exemplified through the use of cell phones. Tae discusses the outburst of the organic lifestyle now and how it may be a negative. I agree with the idea that some of these new cults aren't always the best things for society. In the case technology I believe the cell phone has been an incredible break through and is an improved piece of life but there's also those things such as Facebook that bring along a lot of complications with them. The social media has boomed but its in return taken out a lot of peoples private lives. Nothing seems to be personal now a days, but in the case of Facebook that's a decision people make when they join.

Post 9-26 Class Blog- Habermas

 Our society seems to be in a spiral away from traditions of art and technology, but in the realm of belief and ideology many cling to primitive constructs, such as religion. That astounds me that something as intangible as religion is stronger than the concreteness of art and science. But this is evident is Habermas' viewing of the neo-conservatives and their methods of social influence and argumentation techniques to establish themselves as the 'norm'.
 Such a strange dichotomy that the masses inhabit: on the one hand the masses shun scientific inquiry that opposes their religious beliefs, or does not support them and on the other hand the same masses embrace modern technology, in a cult-like following, that is brought forth with scientific exploration.
 In my opinion, it seems that people's desire to believe in intangible, spiritual mythologies are meshed up with social, economic and political identities(that can be directly opposed to their religious dogma); thereby making the masses subservient to the mantra of Capitalism and consumerism of products of low quality and low cultural value. By attempting to negate cultural value and artistic quality of art, and workmanship in products--interest that are invested in the mass-production model, which yields inferior products, stand to gain from a lowering of quality expectations in the masses, bringing about a status quo of accepting products that are inferior to products of the past.
 Technological progress would have one, likely, believe that products of the present would be better than products of the past, but in many cases that is false. For instance many appliances, cars, toys, etc. of the 20th century are better than what we buy now. The quality of food is also know to be lower now than before. The fact seems to be that the capitalist model is based purely on the growth of profits and that quality and progress are not necessary components to that paradigm. As, with the example of the Iphone 5 brought up in class, it is minimally more advanced than the Iphone 4s but as the hype and media would have you believe-- 'It is a must have' gadget. And the status quo narrative is that if you don't have the newest thing you are not 'hip' or 'cool'.

Post Class 9/30 - Andrea Luongo

            During our class discussion on Habermas, the idea that struck me the most from what we talked about was the idea of “The culture of the new” (99), especially when thinking about it in connection with Kanye West’s song “Stronger.”  Our society these days, has taken on the idea that “faster, better, and stronger” is of primary importance.  Everything around us, especially technology is always changing and progressing, at the same time influencing society to progress with it.  As we said in class, we have a complete fixation with the “new.”  As Habermas states in his essay, “Since then, the distinguishing mark of works which count as modern is ‘the new’ which will be overcome and made obsolete through the novelty of the next style” (99).  This quote by Habermas is important, because it illustrates the fact that what is new now, will not be new tomorrow.

            What is interesting about Habermas’ Modernity – An Incomplete Project, is the fact that as Habermas states, “But while that which is merely ‘stylish’ will soon become outmoded, that which is modern preserves a secret tie to the classical.  Of course, whatever can survive time has always been considered to be a classic” (99).  This quote by Habermas brings about the idea of something being timeless—that which can outlast the “fad” because it represents and instills something in society, unlike something that we deem merely stylish.  This idea, to me, resonated a lot with Walter Benjamin’s work, specifically relating to reproduction, and reproduction value, in the sense that everything, especially technology, is always being reproduced to conform to an ever-evolving society.  Benjamin discusses the idea that sometimes the original loses value because of all of the reproduction based on the original.  The same could be said for what Habermas is arguing—that the “new” is never really new once the reproduction and evolution of it begins.

Post class 9/26

“So called realistic representations can no longer evoke reality except as nostalgia or mockery.” This quote by Lyotard really tied into a lot of what we see in the media and especially on television today. Reality television is a huge part of culture these days; shows from Survivor to Jersey Shore all state the theme of reality. However we never really think how much reality do these shows actually have. People have to act in some ways even on reality tv because they are playing themselves, or who they want to be seen as. So the truth behind reality can be questioned. An example of this is the Real Housewives of Orange County. These high class rich women probably do have a lot of drama in their lives, but they way they are shown is almost like its scripted and they are playing a role, when it is considered reality. Here is a link to the trailer to a season:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K35bA-XxyH0

Another quote was “the relation between ‘modern’ and ‘classical’ has definitely lost a fixed historical reference.” This was by Habermas. Habermas was confusing for me to understand, but a lot of the key quotes we talked about in class really helped. He was saying that the idea of ‘modern’ and ‘classical’ come from the same roots but have evolved differently. I also liked the quote, “the quote of the new.” This is so apparent in todays society, we are all about what is popular and “in” at the moment that we don’t even think for a second about if it really is the best, or if we are the best critics. An example is the iPhone like we said in class. It is popular amongst everyone, and it may be a great phone, but it also seems like people want it because other people have it. 

Post class Postmodernism V.S Modernism Tae Lim

      There are no crystal clear definition of postmodernism and modernism. However, I noticed some similarities and differences between them. They both want to set up the new trend, ideas, and era. Modernism by breaking ground of traditions and influence. what I noticed is that modernism yet still have taste and back ground of tradition, becasue of they paid too much attention being different from being traditions. Modernism is quite easier to understand in terms of visuality because it is almost direct opposite of traditions or vertical ideas of old fashion. What is very interesting is that postmodernism takes longer and deeper process to define. With the same idea I judge modernism, postmodernism should be the direct opposite or reflection of modernism. However, it is hard to define postmodernism, the reason being is that it over laps with traditions and characteristics of modernism. Postmodern arts for instance: are so hard to understand and process because it looks old but it isn't?! They both have message of inviting us to new trend and era, but I think they seems like they were created by people who did not enjoyed system they were in.

    

    We also, talk about the "Cult of the New". The cult of the new to me is a obsession created by people who love changes. There were many examples of cult of new we discussed in class. For example; myspace, phones, clothes, ect. I, like most people, am living and loving the cult of new. Yet I started to wonder is it always positive ? Everything is so moving quickly, and consumed so quickly people watching, understanding what other people are doing. It is good to have those advantage, but to me it scares me a bit. I am a firm believer of everyone is different and they have thier own level of happiness. However, t is so difficult to train ourself with developing our own happiness, especially when we see people better looking, richer, taller, stronger, younger, older, bigger, smaller, ect. I always dreamed and thought about old style of relationship. These days people consume so much information about people and takes so much lesser time to judge people. If we consumed a lot of information about something, we should take longer time and deeper consideration to judge it.

 Organic products and food might be one of cult of the new. Most people did not cared about the organic before, now people are obsessed with organic products. Sometimes the meaning of organic is misunderstood by new trend. I saw organic gummy bears in stores, and some of them were over twenty six dollars. It just did not feel right.

Post class- 9/24

     Lyotard brought in the idea of realism and the gap that's left out. One quote that was highlighted dealt with the contrast between realism and reality, "Realism, whose only definition is that it intends to avoid the question of reality implicated in that of art, always stands somewhere between academicism and kitsch" (Lyotard 41). This goes with the fact that realism will trump the avant garde because of the desire for what's normal or known. That which is experimental is not guaranteed viewers.
     Look at movies for example. There's different genres, yet within each genre how many different formats are there? There's the intro, the climax, the love story, and the resolution, perhaps giving and taking some. Why do people continue to pay to go and see the same story with different characters? We like believing in fantasy, plain and simple.
      Not only do we like the lack of reality, but he claims there's no such thing and a realistic representation, only those which provoke nostalgia or mockery. An example of this is reality television. Yes, there may be real footage, people, places, and even drama, but there's a lot of editing that goes into the process of making just one episode.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYUL12fappM

    The Real World, a "reality" show where strangers are put into a house and filmed 24/7 for a few weeks. There may be no scripts but there was casting involved and there are situations which the producers have fabricated. Along with all of the outside influences, there's the fact that one episode is 30 minutes but includes days at a time. How is this still called "reality television"?
     Nothing we are seeing in the media is exactly as is. Everything is edited, photo shopped, biased, and or opinionated. Even the news is known for participating in destabilized referents, such as racial stereotyping. For example, there are statistics that deal with the comparison in news stories of black and white victims/ criminals and the difference in air-times. The media is behind the reasons for fantasies in realism.
    

Post Class 9/26 - Evan Pantazis

We spoke about the "cult of the new" in class today, and the main examples were social media and technology. When I thought of the "cult of the new" I immediately thought of shoe sales. It's not really a recent trend, but whenever a new shoe is released there is pandaemonium at shoe stores and in some cases there have been injuries and even deaths caused over a certain shoe.

I found this example most recently because my older brother used to be obsessed with shoes Michael Jordan shoes, and every time a new pair was released he was in line to get them at midnight. The most recent Lebron James shoes to be released are the most expensive shoes Nike has ever released for mass sale, or that is not a collectors edition. Nike has actually issued safety rules and regulations for the stores selling this shoe on the release date. The stores are not allowed to start selling at midnight, but instead must start at 8 am. It was during the midnight release of other shoes that fights occurred in Florida and California.

I thought it was interesting that these changes occurred, moreover it showed how the "cult of the new" affects how companies release products. Moreover the lengths people will go to obtain the new materials that are so highly desired in society.

Post Class 9/26 - Courtney Sparling

When I walked into the classroom today, I was wondering why Kanye West's song, Stronger, was being played. I am familiar with this song, and noticed that the lyrics include the repetition of words like bigger, faster, stronger, better, and harder. I really liked how Dr. C tied used this song in our discussion of the cult of the new.

The cult of the new is so prevalent in the world today, especially in America, when products such as the iPhone 5, and social media websites, such as Facebook, create such a fanaticism and desire in people to be yet another person to get his or her hands on the new phone or be part of the website.

I liked how we talked about the release of the iPhone 5 today. There was such a hype surrounding Apple's latest smartphone and people are still trying to get their hands on one (even though it seems like the iPhone 4S was just released just a short time ago). This picture shows a line of people waiting outside an Apple Store just to buy an iPhone 5.

Capitalism basically runs the show now. Virtually everything is driven by money. In capitalist societies, people become obsessed with new products (hype) and want them, maybe not for the quality, but to say that they get what everyone else is getting. I really do believe that the media is the main driving factor behind what we think we need in this trap we are in called, the cult of the new.

Melanie Roth - Baudrillard and Zizek

I thoroughly enjoyed Baudrillard and Zizek’s readings. The Spirit of Terrorism was the piece that I felt the most compelling, and easiest to break down, into clear ideas. In this piece, Baudrillard discusses the relationship of image to reality, specifically exploring the attack on the World Trade Center towers.

            The images of 9/11 will forever be embedded in my head. It didn’t matter that I was a state away from the terrorist attack. The media hyper-exposed these images, collectively creating the familiar and devastating visual, in my memory. The media exposure on this attack was so profound, and I found it extremely interesting when Baudrillard brought up the theory that “terrorism would be nothing without the media” (229). Baudrillard goes onto explain that “There is no ‘good’ use of the media; the media are part of the event, they are part of the terror, and they work in both directions” (229). I completely agree with this statement, specifically involving terror. The media broadcasted these visuals of 9/11 all over the world, and by doing so, spread terror. I do not see this exposure as a negative thing, and truly believe in the importance of informing the world about current events. Drilling these images into our heads keeps the public in tune. I stop short, catching myself before I finish that last sentence with the commonly misused word ‘reality’. This attack was real, but as Baudrillard states, “Reality and fiction are inextricable, and the fascination with the attack is primarily a fascination with the image” (228).

The image of the two World Trade Centers burning is what we connect to the September 11^th attack. It was the most popular image, and received the most exposure from the media. What about the images of the pentagon that was attacked? To tell you the truth, I had to look up a photo of the pentagon on 9/11 because I failed to retain that visual from my memory. These photos of the Pentagon were not advertised nearly as much as the World Trade Centers were, and with its lack of appearance in the mass media, this image has been forgotten. This example relates to one of Baudrillard passages, stating, “The image consumes the event, in the sense that it absorbs it and offers it for consumption. Admittedly, it gives it unprecedented impact, but impact as image-event” (228).

Below are images, of both the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, each pictured on 9/11. It would be fascinating to see how many people recognize the Pentagon, followed by the well-known image that defines 9/11.

The Pentagon

The World Trade Center 

Pre Class Blog 9/26

I found both Baudrillard and Zizek’s reading to be very interesting and thought provoking. Where Zizek’s concepts were more on the virtual plane Baudrillard ideas are more tangible. What was most interesting to me was the thought of (and behind) the “image.” I know for me, and I’d would presume most people, when someone says the words “9/11” instantly the image of the two towers on fire shoot into my head. As Baudrillard says, “the impact of the images and their fascination, are necessarily what we retain, since images are, where we like it or not our primal scene” (228). Baudrillard brings up the expression mise-en-scène, which caught my attention after focusing on it in such depth for film class. It got me to thinking about the event of 9/11 and I had the realization that that is precisely what the terrorist were doing, constructing mise-en-scène. Creating a spectacle in the most fitting sense of the word. They new the media would capture and redistributed that imaging for the rest of time, to the point that it befits a symbol. “It is not ‘real’. In a sense it is worse: it is symbolic” (299). And once this metamorphosis takes place you mind has to choice but to snap back, against you will, to that image. “And it is the radicality of the spectacle, the brutality of the spectacle, which alone is original and irreducible” (229).  

Post Class - Lyotard

            In class we reiterated that with postmodernism, people could reinvent themselves. Throughout the media that suffocates us day to day, we not only come across people reinventing themselves through images, we see it through the social media. In class we discussed the example of a photo-shopped Katie Couric, and how she was ‘altered’ to be more appealing to the general pubic. Her body was shaped to be leaner, while the structure of her face was more defined. We have discussed how Lyotards’ theories state that realism “stands somewhere between academicism and kitsh.” “It provides ‘correct’ images, narratives, and forms designed as “the appropriate remedy for the anxiety and depression the public experiences” (41). Something struck me when this quote was displayed on our in-class PowerPoint. Why would altering a celebrity’s appearance provide this remedy, for the publics’ anxiety and depression? Wouldn’t it increase these traits, creating more self-consciousness amongst our society? Below I attached the Dove Evolutionary Commercial that first came out in 2006. I was first introduced to this campaign during my junior year of high school, in 2009, and have since seen it countless times in many of my classes. This campaign was created to celebrate and make note of the natural physical variations that all women have, and to encourage females to be confident with themselves and comfortable with their appearance.  The campaign started in 2003, the well-known video came out in 2006, and after almost a complete decade later, nothing has changed. This goes back to Lyotard and his idea of the masses not wanting something if it is different. Our culture continues to be stuck to this construction of beauty, and remains infatuated with these repeated visuals. Before I conclude this blog post, I would like to point out that the Dove video is an example of a bricolage, the notion that everything seems to come together, which is a term we touched upon in class. The end product of the video was a construction, and something created from a variety of materials.   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hibyAJOSW8U

Pre-class Baudrillard and Zizek- Racquel

 I really enjoyed Baudrillard’s The Spirit of Terrorism and Zizek’s Welcome to the Desert of the Real readings. Unlike with the Lyotard and Habermas readings, I really feel like I was able to understand the key concepts of their texts. Like in Baudrillard’s text, Zizek refers to September 11 in his concept of reality vs. virtual reality. He states “we can perceive the collapse of the WTC towers as the climactic conclusion of twentieth century art’s ‘passion for the Real’ – the ‘terrorists’ themselves did not do it primarily to provoke real material damage, but for the spectacular effect of it” (231). I like this quote because I agree that the WTC was not just about the wreckage that it caused but also about the overall effect of the act itself. The shock behind it, the inconceivability of it, the devastation it caused, all of this together helped make this event unforgettable for us. Even so, we wanted to see it again and again, and we were shown by the media the images of it over and over.  Braudrillard states in his text that “there is no good use of the media; the media are part of the event, they are part of the terror, and they work in both directions” (229). And yet, even days after, some of us still couldn’t believe it was real.  Returning to Zizek, he connects us to Barthes saying that the repeated images of it “was jouissance at its purest” (232).  After, he states “And the same ‘derealization’ of the horror went on after the WTC collapse: while  the number of victims – 3,000 – is repeated all the time, it is surprising how little of the actual carnage we see – no dismembered bodies, no blood, no desperate faces of dying people…..” He then compares this to our commercials of Third World countries and poverty which show these kinds of disturbing images.  He ends this part asking “Is this not yet further proof of how, even in this tragic moment, the distance which separates Us from Them, from their reality, is maintained: the real horror happens there, not here?” Here he uses “distance” again, similar to Macherey’s “rupture” and Barthes “gap”. He is stating that it’s this “distance” that we should be focusing on when we talk about reality. 

Baudrillard/ Zizek - Courtney Sparling

I actually feel like I understood a lot of what the readings are trying to say. Specifically, when 9/11 was brought up in the readings, I felt like I could actually see a picture in my head that relates to the bigger picture because it is an event/image that I am very familiar with.

I was in 3rd grade when 9/11 occurred and I still remember being in gym class when my bus driver came in the school and took me and my younger sister home. I have lived in New York, about 50 miles north of New York City, my entire life, so I remember being very afraid after hearing the news. My father had just left his position as a police officer for the NYPD, so I still imagine to this day what could have happened to him if he had still worked in the city, as I know quite a few people who lost loved ones during this tragedy.

What really struck me in the Baudillard reading was this one question: "How do things stand with the real event, then, if reality is everywhere infiltrated by images, virtuality, and fiction?"

I distinctly remember my mom saying that this act of terrorism was like something out of a movie, something so horrible and unimaginable that it just couldn't be happening in real life! It was like "the white magic of cinema and the black magic of terrorism, the white light of the image and the black light of terrorism." 

I really liked how the Baudrillard reading connected with the Zizek reading. I can see how Zizek realted 9/11 to a "'real reality' itself as a 'virtual entity'." I can see how this was a real event that happened, but it was so unreal that it felt like it could not possibly have happened. 

I know for me, the media made it seem even more unreal. I remember seeing people jumping out of the building to their deaths and the smoke/debris engulfing the streets below. It was like a movie, played right on my television screen. I was glued to the television, along with my family. One of my friend's father was in NYC when it happened and he told us that it was like he was in a movie. He couldn't believe what was unfolding right before his eyes. It had to be on a set for a movie, not in the actual streets of the city where we have all walked down before, just living our daily lives. 

This CNN news clip shows the disaster unfolding, before any information was confirmed and people had no idea what had actually happened. It was a mystery turned horror story for me, relating it to the many movies I have seen before, where the unthinkable happens. The images on my television screen will always be in my head.

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

As Zizek asks, "Where have we already seen the same thing over and over again?" Hollywood.