3 Economic mediation

This week we looked at the structures of community under all kinds of regimes and cultural shifts. The film this week was “Les Glaneurs et la Glaneuse” (Agnes Varda, 2002). Her understanding of community is as follows, “The acceptance/ modification/ refusal of social structures/political and economic structures and the affects of those decisions upon other structures and people.” She decided to follow a movement in France that has been revived due to laws on food imposed by corporate businesses. It is a documentary but as this course has tried to show a documentary is one person’s affect upon another. The shots/angles are chosen and the subject matter- she is French new wave but not dogmatic. The film pays homage to a once celebrated tradition (through art and community) and tries to infuse it with a new similar practice. The ideas are the same, picking up free stuff for art or food. They exist in this country as well although the name is less romantic, freegans, the principals are the same. One could argue that it is an attack on global companies but ironically it is these companies that have brought these mini factions together. One could argue that the affect of the riots on the people of London was that they brought towns together in the same way. 

Basically we are trying to establish how groups and communities are formed. Is there one particular formula? I would argue that culture has an integral role, as groups are formed for or against it. The skate culture of last week shows how a sub group is formed in a grass-roots manner, self-made boards. This is then scooped up by corporations and mass-produced; Astroturf community. Communities outside geographical limitations can be formed on the internet or a rally against something, occupy for example. This community was separated in itself as the rich and poor with the same ideals then separated. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRjKnHvvwXg This would counter Paul Rieouer (1986) ideology that all one needs for intergration is merely the same viewpoint. “integration ideology plays a mediating role in the social realm.” Our pasts shape our feelings, we can share an emotion over viewpoint and form a sub group but ultimately we must be of similar ilk before this begins, our affects will be similar. Groups are drawn together then regardless of outside influence? Probably not as culture seems to play a vital role in placing people together.

2 Concept: Dogtown

This weeks lecture was on the theme of concept. 

• Consider the notion of culture and how is it defined and communicated as commodity, classified and sold.
• How has open source media and P2P processes re/de-formed commodity culture?
• What are commodity fetishes and how does the media engage, perpetuate and create them?

To answer these points one must first define the word concept. To do this we were given the documentary “Dogtown and Z-Boys” (Stacey Peralta, 2002). The film follows the renaissance of skating culture through the lives of young Californian surfers. It explains how their elitist attitudes (Locals only) and street aesthetics secured them into skate-cultures’ history. This led to financial gain in the case of Peralta, thus in this instance we are investigating how one is able to market this anarchic way of life for everyone to buy.

The way I understand this to work is that if the concept is “the wave” and the movements these surfers made on the skateboards; then the commodity is ultimately the merchandising at the other end. Concepts need mediators. Whether, in this case, it was skate shows, magazines or photographers. These are the bridges between something as simple as a wave and financial gain. I should add that luck or drive must play some part in the financial or commercial success of a product. Peralta was not the only member of the Zepher crew. Right place-right time perhaps? Peralta it would seem from the documentary and Hollywood film to be the most reliable Z-boy as he had an urge to escape his life. This is ironic as the lifestyle (concept) he was so eager to escape was the one funding his exit. Marx described this to be a hinderance on communism: while here in Manchester. He noted how natural selection and competition force men to strive above the rest. Once above the working/worked man will not share the wealth with his starting equals thus funding a machine that they were once so eager to escape. This is slightly off topic though it does bring me into Marx’s explanation for man’s want for commodity. I will also reference Sigmund Freud’s nephew Edward Bernays who completely exploited man’s irrational want for things. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ8ZvYNlxiM describes in detail as to how public relations managed to change the world and seemingly normal people’s behaviour, I learnt everyone is suggestible.) 

Marx’s explanation of concept is straightforward; to make a table one uses wood and at no point does the concept of wood change. When do people stop referring to it as wood and simply as a table? Wood+ culture or design aspects= table.  This is the most basic and fundamental explanation one can give to how a commodity is created. This doesn’t warrant the irrational need by man for such items, enter Bernays.

The best example to show how Bernays’ public relations, thus media hype, could control the masses is women smoking. By enlisting newspapers and some actresses he was able to create a campaign that had stemmed out of thin air. He discovered that the reason woman didn’t smoke was due to the symbolism of the cigarette; phallic and reserved for men. He made this into a suffragette movement “light your torches of freedom”. The one resounding factor that I took from all this is that media is able to make man become irrational for commodity. Case in point, the idea that simply buying a skate board turned you into an anarchic poor Californian surfer. To most of the commentators in the film it made sense, how can this be true or make sense? The magazines and photographs gave them the want and the newly designed boards the commodity. One should also point out that once these boards had been bought (as I spoke about in week 1) culture had already shifted. The Board becomes a cultural statement/artefact which to all intense and purposes is a fabrication; you weren’t there; you were visiting and here’s your mass marketed board proving you weren’t there.

1. Affect and aesthetics

This week we discussed the notions aroused by culture and discourse. The reading gave insight into how themes and aesthetics are formed. The definitions, I found, to be very confusing as even Foucault states that “discourse the word is used but no where adiquetly is it defined.”

From “culture” I discovered that (according to Stuart Hall):

• Never was one regulative notion of culture
• Culture is a “whole way of life”.

These ideas were later opposed by Williams and other writers who found that culture was not in fact one way of life. It was a production of practice, “…everything is expressive over everything else.” Culture is picked at any point in time has already changed; it is constantly changing either against itself or pushing itself ever forward.

Affect is still an idea that I have difficulty with. Since many writers seem to disagree with the definition I will thus give my own interpretation, however lacking in merit. Frederic Jameson described post-modern culture as the “waning of affect.” Wheeler describes affect to be emotions. As time has progressed more and more writers have started to disagree with this surface explanation. Spinoza translated by Deleuze & Guattari suggests that in fact “Affect/affection neither word denotes a personal feeling.” This is then elaborated by Mussumi, showing the exact difference between the three words; “feelings are personal and biographical, emotions are social, and affects are prepersonal.” The resounding argument by all seems to be that this word cannot be fully realised in language (perhaps a nod to film). I still find this all very muddled and after googling the definitions (for a while) I came across a baby analogy: babies have no preconceived conceptions both to life and langauge; thus they are forced to perceive language/tone/facial expression of parent/colour with a prepersonal notion; this is affect. The parent and child then share an emotion but if the parent were to say “the child is feeling happy/sad…” this would be wrong as the child cannot yet feel, it can only share its emotions. I still find this all very  difficult to comprehend and am still wary as to whether or not the actual definition eludes me. Affect in my definition is how one is able to create an idea where the audience is told something new, yet reacts in a way that seems natural. The mise-en-scene helps create affect along with different aspects. I still find it difficult to separate feelings from affect as surely everyone has preconceived ideas about almost everything. Affect (in my opinion) equals the most natural reaction; the most truthful.  

Coffee and Cigarettes (Jim Jarmusch 2004). The film is linked to this topic as Jarmusch is depicting a cultural documentation with celebrities and highlighting what he feels is relevant in this new world. There are no real preconceived ideas as the title is an exact match to the content. Mise en scene is a natural one and thus we simply have a truthful experience that has been falsely created for us.