Looking at the questions on gestaltheimer, I chose to focus on the following:
"do you see postmodernism as a “self-conscious” reaction that will eventually (or already has) fold(ed) in on itself or a necessary paradigm shift that will lead to a more satisfying way of “being in the world”? "
I have thought a bit about this over the last few days and I think we are still dealilng with postmodernism, but that it is waning. I see it as a way of changing from modernistic thinking to the next level. You can see some of that in how thought itself is changing. Many people in society now realize or are starting to realize that it is them, and them only, who is the master of their own life. For thousands of years, people have been focused on something outside of themselves as the basis for their happiness - which is why so many people are unhappy. As the change has taken place and continues to increase in strength, we are crossing from Pices into Aquarius and at the same time - into a whole new way of thinking.
I have the feeling over the next few years amazing things are going to happen. Thought is changing at an every increasing rate and it won't be long before the world as a whole thinks in an entirely new way.
I think at the university level it is hard to see, as so many of the students are in what I call university-angst. 18-24, and they not only question everything, they want to break out of everything and see the world as a very negative place.
it isn't - in fact the world is an amazing place - it all depends on you and what you see inside as to what will happen outside.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Project Proposal
Subject: Walt Disney
Reason: Walt Disney is an amazing person. Not only did he develop incredible art pieces through his animations, he also changed film and media. He also walked his walk – he was a good person who tried to make the world a better place through media.
Initial Ideas: I am creating an art piece that will have a stylized Sleeping Beauty Castle on it. Within the piece there will be many “doors” that can be opened/shut (think advent calendar). When opened, you can view the images of some of the most important Disney works; from Steamboat Willie to Snow White, Fantasia to The Parent Trap. There will be images from The Wonderful World of Disney, as well as Disneyland and Walt Disney World. The last few images will show that his dream lives on – through movies like Enchanted, High School Musical, Pirates of the Caribeean and The Princess and the Frog. I would love to have sound with it, but I think that is a bit beyond my capabilities – as I wouldn’t know the first thing about connecting sound bytes to each “door” as it opens/closes.
Arrangement: I haven’t decided yet whether the images will be chronologically placed or if by “type” of media. I am going back and forth with what to do about the wording. I know where I want to place it, on the inside of the doors, but I will have to see it to decide if that will look right.
Containment: The piece itself will be one, layered through 3 pieces of foam core. I haven’t worked out yet how the lighting will work – if I will use a lamp or somehow place lighting behind the piece.
Reason: Walt Disney is an amazing person. Not only did he develop incredible art pieces through his animations, he also changed film and media. He also walked his walk – he was a good person who tried to make the world a better place through media.
Initial Ideas: I am creating an art piece that will have a stylized Sleeping Beauty Castle on it. Within the piece there will be many “doors” that can be opened/shut (think advent calendar). When opened, you can view the images of some of the most important Disney works; from Steamboat Willie to Snow White, Fantasia to The Parent Trap. There will be images from The Wonderful World of Disney, as well as Disneyland and Walt Disney World. The last few images will show that his dream lives on – through movies like Enchanted, High School Musical, Pirates of the Caribeean and The Princess and the Frog. I would love to have sound with it, but I think that is a bit beyond my capabilities – as I wouldn’t know the first thing about connecting sound bytes to each “door” as it opens/closes.
Arrangement: I haven’t decided yet whether the images will be chronologically placed or if by “type” of media. I am going back and forth with what to do about the wording. I know where I want to place it, on the inside of the doors, but I will have to see it to decide if that will look right.
Containment: The piece itself will be one, layered through 3 pieces of foam core. I haven’t worked out yet how the lighting will work – if I will use a lamp or somehow place lighting behind the piece.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Postmerdnism - 328-343
OK - This part of the chapter I get! Between its examples of artists like Jeff Wall, as well as the show the Simpsons, I get the whole pastiche and parody idea.
This makes sense within the NOW. I have been saying for years that Hollywood had no new ideas, and now I realize I am just a part of postmodern thought! LOL
A couple of their points I don't think they brought out right.
When talking about the film indutry, it said that independent filmmakers weren't able to get their films into theaters because of the Hollywood Antitrust case and the demise of the Production code, they didn't explain how all that came to be. I assume, because it wasn't supporting what they were talking about, but I think it is of note:
In the mid-late 1940s the Department of Justice sued the Hollywood studios for unfair booking practices. Basically, what the studios would do is tell the theaters that if they wanted their "A" movies, they would have to sign a contract to show a certain amount of "B" movies. Due to this, Hollywood studios were able to control how and where their movies were shown, and they were able to keep out any independent films at the same time. In what has become known as the Paramount Decision, the courts told the Hollywood studios that they could no longer monopolize the nation's theaters, thus cutting off their ability to control everything. This set off a huge amount of time (about 40 years) where Hollywood was changing. It wasn't until the 1980s that the era of New Hollywood came into existence.
The book describes New Hollywood as an era of the independent filmmaker having some sort of control as they crtitiqued Hollywood their their films. The fact is - its almost impossible to be truly independent. Toward the mid-late 1980s, independent film companies were bought out by the biggies - Disney, MGM, etc. They kept their identities, but they are not actually independent - their work is tightly controlled by their owners.
Besides these two omissions, the section was quite interesting. I enjoyed the part on architecture in the postmodern era, how it focused on function and style more than form.
This makes sense within the NOW. I have been saying for years that Hollywood had no new ideas, and now I realize I am just a part of postmodern thought! LOL
A couple of their points I don't think they brought out right.
When talking about the film indutry, it said that independent filmmakers weren't able to get their films into theaters because of the Hollywood Antitrust case and the demise of the Production code, they didn't explain how all that came to be. I assume, because it wasn't supporting what they were talking about, but I think it is of note:
In the mid-late 1940s the Department of Justice sued the Hollywood studios for unfair booking practices. Basically, what the studios would do is tell the theaters that if they wanted their "A" movies, they would have to sign a contract to show a certain amount of "B" movies. Due to this, Hollywood studios were able to control how and where their movies were shown, and they were able to keep out any independent films at the same time. In what has become known as the Paramount Decision, the courts told the Hollywood studios that they could no longer monopolize the nation's theaters, thus cutting off their ability to control everything. This set off a huge amount of time (about 40 years) where Hollywood was changing. It wasn't until the 1980s that the era of New Hollywood came into existence.
The book describes New Hollywood as an era of the independent filmmaker having some sort of control as they crtitiqued Hollywood their their films. The fact is - its almost impossible to be truly independent. Toward the mid-late 1980s, independent film companies were bought out by the biggies - Disney, MGM, etc. They kept their identities, but they are not actually independent - their work is tightly controlled by their owners.
Besides these two omissions, the section was quite interesting. I enjoyed the part on architecture in the postmodern era, how it focused on function and style more than form.
Monday, November 16, 2009
PostModernity vs Modernity
OK,
This is an incredibly intense section of the book. I am re-reading it for the 3rd time and am not surprised to keep finding stuff I missed. There is so much back & forth between Postmodern thought and modern thought, i keep getting confused between the two. As soon as I think I have grasped the ideas, they define them again and I am confused.
I think I have it where Modernism is scientifically based thought processes; the idea that we can get to the root of something. In Postmodernism, we question everything and have no answers. In Postmodernism, there is style that has no relation to what is real.
OK, i am confusing myself again - back to the book . . .
This is an incredibly intense section of the book. I am re-reading it for the 3rd time and am not surprised to keep finding stuff I missed. There is so much back & forth between Postmodern thought and modern thought, i keep getting confused between the two. As soon as I think I have grasped the ideas, they define them again and I am confused.
I think I have it where Modernism is scientifically based thought processes; the idea that we can get to the root of something. In Postmodernism, we question everything and have no answers. In Postmodernism, there is style that has no relation to what is real.
OK, i am confusing myself again - back to the book . . .
Sunday, November 15, 2009
If It Doesn't Exist on the Internet, It Doesn't Exist?
I am beginning to feel as though I am going through some sort of mind control program.
The book harps on whether or not something can/should be used by another freely for use. (How many chapters can they put Levine in anyway?) We just went over Creative Commons a week ago.
Now, we have a guy who runs a site where you can get tons of "information" for free - some of it in the public domain, some he put up there because he considers it too expensive.
Personally, I push against living my life online. I hate that it has become the place to research. I hate that I automatically used to go to Google to look at images. I am glad I now look to other options.
To me this article is nothing more than the extention of the fast-food generation. We want it and we want it now. Well, ya know what? Taking the time to actually go somewhere and research is not a bad thing -in fact it can be quite instructive. The internet is straight information - people are using information they find anywhere online as though it is fact. I got into a discussion with a lady the other day who's sole argument was based on a blog. A blog is not fact - it is O P I N I O N! This blog is pure opinion! If you see something in a blog that intrigues you, research it and see if it is actually fact!
I know part of Goldsmith's argument is that some people don't have access to tons of information, so it should be accessible, but guess what? Its been that way for thousands of years. The only people who have access to everything work for the NSA and quite honestly - nobody should have that much access.
We should be looking at both sides of the coin here, not just one.
grrrr
The book harps on whether or not something can/should be used by another freely for use. (How many chapters can they put Levine in anyway?) We just went over Creative Commons a week ago.
Now, we have a guy who runs a site where you can get tons of "information" for free - some of it in the public domain, some he put up there because he considers it too expensive.
Personally, I push against living my life online. I hate that it has become the place to research. I hate that I automatically used to go to Google to look at images. I am glad I now look to other options.
To me this article is nothing more than the extention of the fast-food generation. We want it and we want it now. Well, ya know what? Taking the time to actually go somewhere and research is not a bad thing -in fact it can be quite instructive. The internet is straight information - people are using information they find anywhere online as though it is fact. I got into a discussion with a lady the other day who's sole argument was based on a blog. A blog is not fact - it is O P I N I O N! This blog is pure opinion! If you see something in a blog that intrigues you, research it and see if it is actually fact!
I know part of Goldsmith's argument is that some people don't have access to tons of information, so it should be accessible, but guess what? Its been that way for thousands of years. The only people who have access to everything work for the NSA and quite honestly - nobody should have that much access.
We should be looking at both sides of the coin here, not just one.
grrrr
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
