The anthropology of media covers a wide array of subjects and this course has allowed us as students to express our own opinions about these subjects freely and without much critique. This is my time to see what other students have thought about while writing on the same subjects that I have been writing about all semester. I chose to look at the blogs of two of my peers, Riaz Makan and Adrien Lotfipour, and see what sort of ideas they applied to the concept of graffiti in Vancouver. Both students take a similar side when critiquing graffiti, and both discuss how graffiti needs to be looked at as art, not as an act of vandalism.
Riaz Makan writes about the social and education importance of graffiti. He takes a historical approach and discusses how the art of graffiti arose and how it has become popularized, moving from building walls to canvases in art studios (Makan, 2011). I think that he makes some great points for the importance of graffiti, and how it is not simply an act of vandalism, although he admits it sometimes can be, but it is an art form that expresses social issues in a non-violent context (Makan, 2011). He discusses the work of Koon-Hwee Kan, who discusses a common debate relating to graffiti, why adolescents are so attracted to the act (Kan, 2001). He, along with Riaz Makan, talk about how the act of rebellion is so appealing to youth, and it is this reason why so many find it to be an act of vandalism instead of another form of art (Kan, 2001; Makan, 2011). I believe that any discussion about social issues is a great contribution to our education. No topic is ever going to have a consensus, especially in anthropology, but that is what keeps it interesting. I think Riaz Makan has contributed especially well showing both the social and educational implications to naming graffiti as solely a negative practice, we need to rethink how we see this act, and view it in a new, positive, light (Makan, 2011).
Adrien Lotfipour takes a similar stance to looking at graffiti. He focuses on the distinction between graffiti as art and graffiti as vandalism, and uses the theoretical concepts of Marisa Gomez to aid in this discussion (Gomez, 1992; Lotfipour, 2011). Adrien Lotfipour clearly thinks that graffiti should be thought of as art, as you can see in his blob post. He believes that it is a modern day expression of social trends, coming from hip-hop especially (Lotfipour, 2011). He discusses that this graffiti is public art, and the people doing this art want it to be seen and enjoyed, it is not hidden for only certain eyes to see it (Lotfipour, 2011). He discusses how the graffiti that is done with permission is more acceptable than graffiti done without permission, but both still remain to be art, regardless of its legality (Gomez, 1992; Lotfipour, 2011). Adrien Lotfipour shows yet another opinion on acceptance of graffiti, I think it is becoming more socially acceptable as time passes, as the younger generation sees what graffiti is about and appreciate it as more than an act of vandalism. This blog entry contributes to anthropology as it creates a setting for a broader and more open discussion of graffiti and its social implications.
This debate is something that is continuous in several of the social sciences. I do not believe that there will ever be a general consensus as to whether graffiti is good or bad. We do know though, that according to these two students, that graffiti should, in most circumstances, be considered as art; graffiti needs to be looked at in a more positive light, taking it away from the gang associations and moved into a more educational framework, to teach us about the social issues and concerns that are occurring in our cities today.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Blog Assignment 7: Film Theory Analysis of "City of God"
I chose to analyze the Brazilian/French film “City of God” through a Marxist and Marx-influenced framework. This movie is not only critically acclaimed, but tells a typically Marxist story of the struggling lower classes giving into the intended framework society has placed upon them (Gray, 2010). The film is set in the 1970’s and 1980’s in the “City of God” also known as Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. It tells the story of two young men, one of which avoids the typical life of a poor Brazilian, which is crime, and the other who is not as lucky (Meirelles, 2002). It is based on the true story and life experiences of one of the characters, and shows the brutal realities of the slum life in Rio (Meirelles, 2002).
Marx believed that human life was pretty well marked out for us (Gray, 2010). This life is based on capitalist society, which functions on economics (Gray, 2010). Marx did not like the world that he lived in, but he saw it for what it was, and saw how it functioned and wrote about it in a theoretical configuration. His world functioned through economics, and this is no different for the people in Brazil. These young men grew up in the poorest parts of Rio. They can do everything in their power to avoid the life that society intends them to live, but no matter what, they will, like many before them, end up living a life of crime in order to survive (Meirelles, 2002). This movie follows Marxist framework quite well, as it shows that there are particular orderings of society, a social hierarchy, which the upper classes especially want to maintain. Through ignoring the obvious fact that there are thousands of poor people on the outskirts of Rio, the rich remain rich, and the poor remain poor (Gray, 2010). Like Marx predicted, and like it is shown in this film, the people of the lower classes begin to accept their fate, and they even begin to use the same ideas the upper class used in order to try to oppress and exploit the weak (Meirelles, 2002). This is clearly shown throughout the movie, but particularly in the scene where the head drug dealer, L’il Ze, forces a young boy, who wants desperately to be part of the gang, to kill another young boy. L’il Ze knows deep down that children acting like this is not right, but he is trying to display his authority, like the rich do with the poor in their society, and he is showing his economic and social power by proving he could make anyone do whatever he wanted (Meirelles, 2002). His hunger for power and money is also shown in how he wants to control the cities drug trade. He knows that the only way of doing this is to kill the competition, and he does this without a worry (Meirelles, 2002).
Marx has obviously also influenced other people’s work, and this is seen through Althussers idea of interpellation (Gray, 2010). We can see that Althussers idea is very true in “City of God”, that an individual’s identity is definitely forged by society (Gray, 2010). Society in Rio de Janeiro has this hierarchical format, which in order to be maintained, needs to place certain individuals in these categories of higher to lower rankings. For these young men, they are looked at as though they are criminals from the day they are born, so the fact that the majority of them do become that way is not surprising, especially from a Marxist point of view (Meirelles, 2002). The societies ideologies form individual’s identities, but these so called ideologies are formed by society, media in particular. This is shown in the movie where the people of Rio think that the hood area is bad and that the people living there are bad, so they both become that way. Also, the only way that people come to realize the true issues lying at the core of this area is through media, through Rocket taking pictures and them being printed in the newspaper, and this was all by accident (Meirelles, 2002).
Marxist ideas are displayed in many forms throughout this movie. We see the class struggles that Marx furiously discussed in a lot of his papers, and we see that the societies ideologies frame the way that each individual’s life plays out (Gray, 2010).
Marx believed that human life was pretty well marked out for us (Gray, 2010). This life is based on capitalist society, which functions on economics (Gray, 2010). Marx did not like the world that he lived in, but he saw it for what it was, and saw how it functioned and wrote about it in a theoretical configuration. His world functioned through economics, and this is no different for the people in Brazil. These young men grew up in the poorest parts of Rio. They can do everything in their power to avoid the life that society intends them to live, but no matter what, they will, like many before them, end up living a life of crime in order to survive (Meirelles, 2002). This movie follows Marxist framework quite well, as it shows that there are particular orderings of society, a social hierarchy, which the upper classes especially want to maintain. Through ignoring the obvious fact that there are thousands of poor people on the outskirts of Rio, the rich remain rich, and the poor remain poor (Gray, 2010). Like Marx predicted, and like it is shown in this film, the people of the lower classes begin to accept their fate, and they even begin to use the same ideas the upper class used in order to try to oppress and exploit the weak (Meirelles, 2002). This is clearly shown throughout the movie, but particularly in the scene where the head drug dealer, L’il Ze, forces a young boy, who wants desperately to be part of the gang, to kill another young boy. L’il Ze knows deep down that children acting like this is not right, but he is trying to display his authority, like the rich do with the poor in their society, and he is showing his economic and social power by proving he could make anyone do whatever he wanted (Meirelles, 2002). His hunger for power and money is also shown in how he wants to control the cities drug trade. He knows that the only way of doing this is to kill the competition, and he does this without a worry (Meirelles, 2002).
Marx has obviously also influenced other people’s work, and this is seen through Althussers idea of interpellation (Gray, 2010). We can see that Althussers idea is very true in “City of God”, that an individual’s identity is definitely forged by society (Gray, 2010). Society in Rio de Janeiro has this hierarchical format, which in order to be maintained, needs to place certain individuals in these categories of higher to lower rankings. For these young men, they are looked at as though they are criminals from the day they are born, so the fact that the majority of them do become that way is not surprising, especially from a Marxist point of view (Meirelles, 2002). The societies ideologies form individual’s identities, but these so called ideologies are formed by society, media in particular. This is shown in the movie where the people of Rio think that the hood area is bad and that the people living there are bad, so they both become that way. Also, the only way that people come to realize the true issues lying at the core of this area is through media, through Rocket taking pictures and them being printed in the newspaper, and this was all by accident (Meirelles, 2002).
Marxist ideas are displayed in many forms throughout this movie. We see the class struggles that Marx furiously discussed in a lot of his papers, and we see that the societies ideologies frame the way that each individual’s life plays out (Gray, 2010).
Blog Assignment 6: The Importance of Radio
Radio in any setting would not be successful if it did not cater to the tastes of its listeners; it has to reflect the ideas of that community, and while it does that, it helps create the community as well. I will show this is true through two case studies, one centered on Australian aboriginal radio and the other in Fort McPherson in the Northwest Territories of Canada. Radio has a really strong importance in both of these communities, and through radio, the people of these communities have a sense of belonging and identity, as does the radio programming itself.
In the movie CBQM, we see how the CBQM radio station in Fort McPherson is organized. It is not only run by community members, but also most if not all the things talked about and played on the station are for that community (Allen, 2009). This radio station creates community by bringing them together. You can tell it is a very small town, and everyone really relies on the radio for guidance on community information, including religious information, police announcements, birthday announcements, and even telling one person to call another, just to list off a few things (Allen, 2009). The radio station is a way for the members of the community to feel a sense of belonging; they are included in everything that is going on, even though they are sitting at home. On the other hand, the community really forms how the radio is formed, and a perfect example of this is when the weather starts to change and the days will be longer, you can tell there is extreme excitement in the community at this time, and something as little as weather to most people, is very important in this Northwest Territories community (Allen, 2009). This station is central to the community, and without the community the radio station would not exist, so they work together to form a relationship that is necessary for both sides. I think especially since this community is so small, that CBQM is so essential as it is their communities hub for information of all forms, it is a way to make sure people are safe, like letting them know about a wolf sighting, and a way to keep them up to date on political information, like with the chief informing them about concerns in the community (Allen, 2009). This radio station truly reflects this community’s interests and concerns, and is a great example of how radio can be so central to the meaning of a group.
The other case study is from Australia. It is a little different as it is on a larger scale than the CBQM example. Fisher talks about how there are many radio stations that try to reach aboriginal communities across Australia, and it is sort of a way of bringing them together, even though they are really several kilometers apart (Fisher, 2009). Like in the Fort McPherson case, these radio stations are a way to bring the aboriginal community and kin groups together, the stations are a venue of communication and help create a better sense of community identity and togetherness that otherwise would not exist across such a wide space (Fisher, 2009). Kin talk to each other through the radio, which really reflects the importance of kinship to these people (Fisher, 2009). This case study is a little different though, as it was the community itself that really fought for the station to start, so it definitely created the nature of the radio in that sense. Also, the community uses the station as a way to communicate with their families, like on CBQM, but also to play songs for family members and friends who are in prison (Fisher, 2009).
Both of these case studies are very similar, but have their distinct community characteristics. Although their scales are different, both radio programs create a tie for these aboriginal communities to feel a sense of community and togetherness, in situations that would not necessarily happen if the radio stations did not exist. The radio stations definitely cater to their listeners, and they play the music that that communities want and talk about the issues that concern these communities the most.
In the movie CBQM, we see how the CBQM radio station in Fort McPherson is organized. It is not only run by community members, but also most if not all the things talked about and played on the station are for that community (Allen, 2009). This radio station creates community by bringing them together. You can tell it is a very small town, and everyone really relies on the radio for guidance on community information, including religious information, police announcements, birthday announcements, and even telling one person to call another, just to list off a few things (Allen, 2009). The radio station is a way for the members of the community to feel a sense of belonging; they are included in everything that is going on, even though they are sitting at home. On the other hand, the community really forms how the radio is formed, and a perfect example of this is when the weather starts to change and the days will be longer, you can tell there is extreme excitement in the community at this time, and something as little as weather to most people, is very important in this Northwest Territories community (Allen, 2009). This station is central to the community, and without the community the radio station would not exist, so they work together to form a relationship that is necessary for both sides. I think especially since this community is so small, that CBQM is so essential as it is their communities hub for information of all forms, it is a way to make sure people are safe, like letting them know about a wolf sighting, and a way to keep them up to date on political information, like with the chief informing them about concerns in the community (Allen, 2009). This radio station truly reflects this community’s interests and concerns, and is a great example of how radio can be so central to the meaning of a group.
The other case study is from Australia. It is a little different as it is on a larger scale than the CBQM example. Fisher talks about how there are many radio stations that try to reach aboriginal communities across Australia, and it is sort of a way of bringing them together, even though they are really several kilometers apart (Fisher, 2009). Like in the Fort McPherson case, these radio stations are a way to bring the aboriginal community and kin groups together, the stations are a venue of communication and help create a better sense of community identity and togetherness that otherwise would not exist across such a wide space (Fisher, 2009). Kin talk to each other through the radio, which really reflects the importance of kinship to these people (Fisher, 2009). This case study is a little different though, as it was the community itself that really fought for the station to start, so it definitely created the nature of the radio in that sense. Also, the community uses the station as a way to communicate with their families, like on CBQM, but also to play songs for family members and friends who are in prison (Fisher, 2009).
Both of these case studies are very similar, but have their distinct community characteristics. Although their scales are different, both radio programs create a tie for these aboriginal communities to feel a sense of community and togetherness, in situations that would not necessarily happen if the radio stations did not exist. The radio stations definitely cater to their listeners, and they play the music that that communities want and talk about the issues that concern these communities the most.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Blog Assignment 5: The Acceptability of Remediation
Remediation is an interesting topic, as it has become so common for most media to be recreated in some manner. The majority of remediation today is a form of tribute to the original, and a way for anyone to have their ten minutes in the spotlight, especially where youtube is concerned. I am going to write about two Saturday Night Lives skits that are recreations of previous media and how both can be seen as mocking the original, but how due to the content one is more acceptable in terms of recreation than the other. I think that there is a large gray area when it comes to acceptable and unacceptable media recreation, as some people tend to be a little more sensitive to certain topics than others. There are some topics that remain untouched, as we know that it would be unacceptable to recreate or mock them, like 9/11 for instance, but there are other circumstances where we feel the need to make fun of certain situations, like the most current mockery of Charlie Sheen interviews. It also depends on location, as in the United States and Canada I believe it is way more socially acceptable to reuse and recreate media, than in other countries. Like we see in Novak’s article, there are some culturally significant situations where a lighthearted recreation can be taken as racist and insulting (Novak, 2010). We really can never know for sure if a reuse will be accepted or not, but thinking about the original piece of media and the meaning behind it is very necessary to avoid conflicts like Novak describes (Novak, 2010). I think it comes down to timing and topic when we characterize where reuse of media is acceptable or not. When talking about racial, gendered, or political topics, there are always going to be people who find the new media unacceptable, where others find it entertaining.
Saturday Night Live, more than any other media outlet, is known for its parodies of major media events in the world. One very funny and famous one is of the “Single Ladies” video by Beyonce. Beyonce, along with SNL cast members and Justin Timberlake, recreated her video, but instead of her usual female backup dancers, Timberlake and a couple other male SNL cast members dressed up in leotards and danced alongside Beyonce. This, for I think most people watching it, is a great example of how media can be recreated acceptably and for much comic relief. Beyonce herself was in the recreation, which added to its hilarity as she does exactly what she did in the original music video, but now alongside men in leotards. Just changing the backup dancers changed the entire idea of the video, especially as it is named “Single Ladies”. Maybe the only unacceptable part of the video could be the men in tight leotards and lack of good dance moves, but I find it difficult to think anyone would find this insulting (Wonderpetpower, 2008).
The other SNL video is a parody of Sarah Palin’s interview with Katie Couric. Although from my point of view, this video is very much acceptable, I do think that to some it could be seen as the opposite. Politics especially are a sensitive topic, and making fun of a vice-presidential candidate, to some, is seen as disrespectful and unacceptable. I think from a Republican perspective parodying Palin’s interview is detrimental to their campaign, and a lot of media outlets were making fun of Sarah Palin during the 2008 election. I can see many from Alaska also finding the parodies of Palin as insulting, as not in this video, but in other circumstances many poked fun at Palin’s red neck-like actions, due to her being from Alaska. I would hope that people realize that it is a joke, and not harm is meant in these videos, but to some politics is a very serious topic, and it is not acceptable to reuse the original media events just for entertainments purposes (Bipinsen, 2008).
There are many other circumstances where reuse can be seen as unacceptable, like I said though; it is a large gray area, as it depends on where you are and the person who is watching the reuse to decide what is appropriate and what is not.
Saturday Night Live, more than any other media outlet, is known for its parodies of major media events in the world. One very funny and famous one is of the “Single Ladies” video by Beyonce. Beyonce, along with SNL cast members and Justin Timberlake, recreated her video, but instead of her usual female backup dancers, Timberlake and a couple other male SNL cast members dressed up in leotards and danced alongside Beyonce. This, for I think most people watching it, is a great example of how media can be recreated acceptably and for much comic relief. Beyonce herself was in the recreation, which added to its hilarity as she does exactly what she did in the original music video, but now alongside men in leotards. Just changing the backup dancers changed the entire idea of the video, especially as it is named “Single Ladies”. Maybe the only unacceptable part of the video could be the men in tight leotards and lack of good dance moves, but I find it difficult to think anyone would find this insulting (Wonderpetpower, 2008).
The other SNL video is a parody of Sarah Palin’s interview with Katie Couric. Although from my point of view, this video is very much acceptable, I do think that to some it could be seen as the opposite. Politics especially are a sensitive topic, and making fun of a vice-presidential candidate, to some, is seen as disrespectful and unacceptable. I think from a Republican perspective parodying Palin’s interview is detrimental to their campaign, and a lot of media outlets were making fun of Sarah Palin during the 2008 election. I can see many from Alaska also finding the parodies of Palin as insulting, as not in this video, but in other circumstances many poked fun at Palin’s red neck-like actions, due to her being from Alaska. I would hope that people realize that it is a joke, and not harm is meant in these videos, but to some politics is a very serious topic, and it is not acceptable to reuse the original media events just for entertainments purposes (Bipinsen, 2008).
There are many other circumstances where reuse can be seen as unacceptable, like I said though; it is a large gray area, as it depends on where you are and the person who is watching the reuse to decide what is appropriate and what is not.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Blog Assignment 4: Graffiti
Graffiti and Vancouver are no strangers with one another. Graffiti has been an on going culture in Vancouver for years, and it keeps growing with time. I have always been torn when I think of graffiti, as there are two very extreme sides of the story. Graffiti can be beautiful, and can make large statements. It is a silent display of a usually loud declaration, but it can also be destructive and almost pointless; a disruptive act just to cause a nuisance. I am going to focus on the more negative aspect; I am looking at graffiti in Vancouver, specifically on public transit.
Since my days of taking the bus have began, almost 10 years ago, I have never liked the fact that several people in this city think it is okay to deface public property to make a statement. I get that people are trying to display a message of anti-establishment, which is fine, but the amount of money and time that has to go into cleaning up and preventing graffiti on public transit it outrageous. These statements can be made in much more efficient and respectful ways. As Ley and Cybriwsky indicate, graffiti is “an outlet for often deeply felt but rarely articulated sentiments and attitudes” (Ley and Cybriwsky, 1974: 492), and I think this to be a positive and non-violent way of getting a message across. But, there is a lot of graffiti out there, particularly on transit, which only sends a message of ignorance and thoughtlessness. Placement of graffiti is not random. It is an act of performance for a particular audience and it is placed in a certain area for a certain group to see (Ley and Cybriwsky, 1974). That makes sense, as you would place a certain message in an area for the right people to see it, in order for your message to me heard. But, I do not understand the message those who write graffiti on public transit are trying to portray; that being said, I may not be the audience these people are trying to reach.
Ley and Cybriwsky talk about how much money can be wasted on simply cleaning up graffiti in public transit areas. In one year alone in New York City, around five hundred thousand dollars was spent on cleaning up graffiti (Ley and Cybriwsky, 1974). Graffiti is a great way to display attitudes, behavioral dispositions and social processes, especially where direct measurement is difficult (Ley and Cybriwsky, 1974); by reading graffiti, we usually can see what social issues are in a particular area and city. But on buses, I find the graffiti to be meaningless tags that young teenagers are trying to mark up every spot possible for some sort of social recognition. I may be missing the point, as I have never found it necessary to write on a bus seat and have never been a teenage boy, but I do not know that there is any other purpose than to cause trouble. I find it extremely frustrating that money, coming from tax payers and bus takers, is being put into the clean up of this graffiti, instead of going towards a better purpose, like more buses or better forms of public transportation. I all in all find it aggravating, and every time I sit on a bus I am reminded of the money wasted as I stare at yet another form of graffiti on the seat.
I do know that not all graffiti is destructive. There are large murals and wall pieces that I have a large respect for in this city. Vancouver has a large variety of graffiti to look at, I just think that graffiti on buses should be stopped as it is not portraying the same positive and powerful messages that other graffiti can have.
Since my days of taking the bus have began, almost 10 years ago, I have never liked the fact that several people in this city think it is okay to deface public property to make a statement. I get that people are trying to display a message of anti-establishment, which is fine, but the amount of money and time that has to go into cleaning up and preventing graffiti on public transit it outrageous. These statements can be made in much more efficient and respectful ways. As Ley and Cybriwsky indicate, graffiti is “an outlet for often deeply felt but rarely articulated sentiments and attitudes” (Ley and Cybriwsky, 1974: 492), and I think this to be a positive and non-violent way of getting a message across. But, there is a lot of graffiti out there, particularly on transit, which only sends a message of ignorance and thoughtlessness. Placement of graffiti is not random. It is an act of performance for a particular audience and it is placed in a certain area for a certain group to see (Ley and Cybriwsky, 1974). That makes sense, as you would place a certain message in an area for the right people to see it, in order for your message to me heard. But, I do not understand the message those who write graffiti on public transit are trying to portray; that being said, I may not be the audience these people are trying to reach.
Ley and Cybriwsky talk about how much money can be wasted on simply cleaning up graffiti in public transit areas. In one year alone in New York City, around five hundred thousand dollars was spent on cleaning up graffiti (Ley and Cybriwsky, 1974). Graffiti is a great way to display attitudes, behavioral dispositions and social processes, especially where direct measurement is difficult (Ley and Cybriwsky, 1974); by reading graffiti, we usually can see what social issues are in a particular area and city. But on buses, I find the graffiti to be meaningless tags that young teenagers are trying to mark up every spot possible for some sort of social recognition. I may be missing the point, as I have never found it necessary to write on a bus seat and have never been a teenage boy, but I do not know that there is any other purpose than to cause trouble. I find it extremely frustrating that money, coming from tax payers and bus takers, is being put into the clean up of this graffiti, instead of going towards a better purpose, like more buses or better forms of public transportation. I all in all find it aggravating, and every time I sit on a bus I am reminded of the money wasted as I stare at yet another form of graffiti on the seat.
I do know that not all graffiti is destructive. There are large murals and wall pieces that I have a large respect for in this city. Vancouver has a large variety of graffiti to look at, I just think that graffiti on buses should be stopped as it is not portraying the same positive and powerful messages that other graffiti can have.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Blog Assignment 3: Jai Ho!
Looking at Walter Benjamin’s article on “The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction” we can use his ideas and see how in today’s media we see reproduction of certain art forms, in our case the Jai Ho dance and music, and how they can have social and cultural significance (Benjamin, 1936). The original video is a celebration of the movie Slumdog Millionaire; it is not only part of the credits, but it is a celebration of the triumphs of the characters in the movie and a fun and entertaining way to end a movie. From that video, sparked several reproductions, which show how perceptions can change with replication, like Benjamin suggests, and how common reproductions are, especially with our mechanized forms of reproduction that we use today (Benjamin, 1936). None of the reproductions I will discuss are the same as the original, so they put the original in the eyes of viewers that would not have necessarily have seen it before, just like Benjamin spoke of in his article (Benjamin, 1936). These videos create a larger audience for the original and that is especially the case with the Pussycat Dolls video; it creates a more mainstream pop version of the song and video. It maintains a similar scene, but changes the lyrics and the general tone of the song. The audience has changes to a more North American, popular culture based group. The meaning of the original was to be victorious and celebrate the successes of the movie, as I said earlier, but the Pussycat Dolls version has transformed the first concept into a more love story oriented song. The song speaks of someone being another’s destiny, which was an idea in the film, but it has a much larger emphasis in this video (Vevo, 2009). This video is also much more sexualized and made a little more mainstream, the audience is different than those who would watch the first video, and I think that is what Benjamin was trying to say, he stated that the new versions of the original would broaden the spectrum which the original could not get by (Benjamin, 1936). I do feel the Pussycat Dolls video is monopolizing the idea of Jai Ho a bit just for a profit; by making it more globally friendly, you lose some of the cultural and social significance that the original had. Benjamin said that this is a strong possibility when recreating art; you tend to take away from the original and what it represented and create a bit of a joke out of it (Benjamin, 1936).
The third video, which is just a recreation of the dance, shows us how movies and youtube videos can influence our daily activities. These people have gone out of their way to memorize the dance in order to recreate a moment that they enjoyed. They want to show others that the dance is possible for all; they do not really put any strong emphasis on the importance of the song or lyrics, but that the dance was for all to participate in (Hagen, 2009). The last video truly shows what Benjamin is talking about. The Tamil dancers are celebrating, like in the original video, but they are putting their own cultural spin on the Jai Ho dance. They have created their own moves to the song, but have maintained the general uplifting aura of the song and movements. They, like in the original, are celebrating something, their own culture, and I think this shows that something like the Jai Ho video can be transformed cross culturally, without losing too much of its message (Khohar, 2009).
These videos are examples of what Benjamin was talking about; how reproduction is made and perceptions are changed once the replicas are seen (Benjamin, 1936). All pieces of art are reproducible, and we see this in these videos that one art form can transform into something completely different, depending on cultural interpretation.
The third video, which is just a recreation of the dance, shows us how movies and youtube videos can influence our daily activities. These people have gone out of their way to memorize the dance in order to recreate a moment that they enjoyed. They want to show others that the dance is possible for all; they do not really put any strong emphasis on the importance of the song or lyrics, but that the dance was for all to participate in (Hagen, 2009). The last video truly shows what Benjamin is talking about. The Tamil dancers are celebrating, like in the original video, but they are putting their own cultural spin on the Jai Ho dance. They have created their own moves to the song, but have maintained the general uplifting aura of the song and movements. They, like in the original, are celebrating something, their own culture, and I think this shows that something like the Jai Ho video can be transformed cross culturally, without losing too much of its message (Khohar, 2009).
These videos are examples of what Benjamin was talking about; how reproduction is made and perceptions are changed once the replicas are seen (Benjamin, 1936). All pieces of art are reproducible, and we see this in these videos that one art form can transform into something completely different, depending on cultural interpretation.
Blog Assignment 2: Mediation and Globalization
In Mazarella’s article “Culture, globalization, mediation” we see that there is an on going argument, especially in anthropology, that globalization studies are not the way of our future. He also discusses the divide of opinion on whether mediation helps or hinders our social lives. He argues both for the positive, that globalization, along with mediation processes, aids our social lives and are at the foundation of them to begin with (Mazzarella, 2004).
Mazzarella is certainly interested in processes of mediation in ethnography. He says that culture itself is an effect of social processes of mediation, and that we can find out more about cultures in ethnographic fieldwork by using mediation (Mazzarella, 2004). He believes that mediation creates new concepts in social life and also, that media is a foundation of social life now a days. Mazzarella writes that mediation in ethnographic fieldwork can help us separate the “virtual and actual”, what is real and happening now and what is has potential in happening (Mazzarella, 2004: 348). There is no speculation in the use of mediation in ethnography, the ethnographer finds out for himself or herself what is real and what is not. He is also interested in cross cultural practices of mediation. We can construct our own cultures by looking at other cultures through mediation (Mazzarella, 2004).
Globalization affects our cultural understandings, as well as other cultures, through processes of mediation by creating a sense of separation that people do not seem to want. Mediation can be seen as a negative, as it creates “distance, intervention, and displacement” instead of a unity that people want to feel (Mazzarella, 2004: 348). In a sense, globalization has disavowed mediation, as it has made us want to separate ourselves from the realities we discovered when globalization arose. Globalization revealed political and conceptual problems in what we see as “culture”. And this has made us see the mediated quality of culture; which seems to have become a very negative concept, although Mazzarella is trying to argue the contrary (Mazzarella, 2004). But I find this all struggling, as globalization to many is thought of as a bad thing, one cultural idea is boring and unfair to those who do not want to conform to the globalized ideal. One of his main arguments is that our cultural politics of globalization are extremely contradictory; to say that mediation is the most important part of out lives, but then say that it is ruining them as well (Mazzarella, 2004). Globalization can help us understand other cultures through mediation by showing both sides of the story, we do not assume what is going on, we find out the facts and then make sure all have a grip on what is truly going on.
Mazzarella points out that there is no definitive answer, mediation processes can be both positive and negative, but they help aid in understanding the worlds cultures, our own and of others. Globalization has made it easier to understand the world’s cultures as well, as we have created a global culture in the process.
Mazzarella is certainly interested in processes of mediation in ethnography. He says that culture itself is an effect of social processes of mediation, and that we can find out more about cultures in ethnographic fieldwork by using mediation (Mazzarella, 2004). He believes that mediation creates new concepts in social life and also, that media is a foundation of social life now a days. Mazzarella writes that mediation in ethnographic fieldwork can help us separate the “virtual and actual”, what is real and happening now and what is has potential in happening (Mazzarella, 2004: 348). There is no speculation in the use of mediation in ethnography, the ethnographer finds out for himself or herself what is real and what is not. He is also interested in cross cultural practices of mediation. We can construct our own cultures by looking at other cultures through mediation (Mazzarella, 2004).
Globalization affects our cultural understandings, as well as other cultures, through processes of mediation by creating a sense of separation that people do not seem to want. Mediation can be seen as a negative, as it creates “distance, intervention, and displacement” instead of a unity that people want to feel (Mazzarella, 2004: 348). In a sense, globalization has disavowed mediation, as it has made us want to separate ourselves from the realities we discovered when globalization arose. Globalization revealed political and conceptual problems in what we see as “culture”. And this has made us see the mediated quality of culture; which seems to have become a very negative concept, although Mazzarella is trying to argue the contrary (Mazzarella, 2004). But I find this all struggling, as globalization to many is thought of as a bad thing, one cultural idea is boring and unfair to those who do not want to conform to the globalized ideal. One of his main arguments is that our cultural politics of globalization are extremely contradictory; to say that mediation is the most important part of out lives, but then say that it is ruining them as well (Mazzarella, 2004). Globalization can help us understand other cultures through mediation by showing both sides of the story, we do not assume what is going on, we find out the facts and then make sure all have a grip on what is truly going on.
Mazzarella points out that there is no definitive answer, mediation processes can be both positive and negative, but they help aid in understanding the worlds cultures, our own and of others. Globalization has made it easier to understand the world’s cultures as well, as we have created a global culture in the process.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Blog Assignment 1: Media Coverage of Haiti, CNN
I chose to study CNN coverage in the role of media relating to the on-going cholera epidemic in Haiti. It seems to me that looking back at the beginning of the epidemic that CNN in particular was not responsible for the conditions that led to the epidemic itself, but, that being said, I do believe they have not aided the situation as it has worsened over time. CNN coverage itself focused on aid and getting information to the globe on how things had gotten to such a severe point in Haiti, and what the possibilities of helping out really were, but they did this while instilling fear in the public, which I feel ended up deterring aid. I definitely feel that media is not meant to be part of the problem or the solution, that they should remain outsiders and just give information to the public about these global issues, but they need to be held accountable for what they print. Media like CNN is especially not a humanitarian group, they are there to find out what the root of issues are and what that country or others could have done to prevent the issue. One thing CNN is doing right is by trying to maintain that these people still need aid, even after a years time and billions of dollars being sent. Even one year after the earthquake in Haiti, CNN reported “Five ways you can still help in Haiti” (Angley, 2011), showing that it is still an ongoing issue. We all want the epidemic to end; we can only hope that the media continues to raise awareness of how bad it still is in Haiti, and that we need to focus on that, not on scaring the readers and creating a larger separation between the world and places in need.
While looking at Philip Gourevich’s article “Alms Dealers”, you can see that media can and has played large rolls in creating more harm than good in aid situations. This turns into situations like in Haiti, where in order to get more attention from aid groups, the government and media, people purposely cause large disruptions (Watson, 2010). They create barricades on roads so people cannot get through, or they have large protests, to get more media attention. So, media can be blamed for these situations getting worse, the people being affected in these situations become so afraid of getting a disease like cholera that they cause havoc to get more attention from the global media, hoping to finally be saved (Watson, 2010). CNN in particular is one media outlet that reacts to these outcries and jumps at the chance to show the world how bad it is in Haiti. These media outlets should know that it is not really their place to solve large problems like cholera in Haiti, they can report about them, but they are not these countries saviors.
When the outbreak first began, CNN coverage was quite basic, telling its viewers the death toll, talking about the physical origins of the outbreak, and how the epidemic could be contained and reduced (CNN Wire Staff, 2010). This coverage continued like this through late October 2010, and continued with an almost uplifting tone. This coverage then turned a little sour, when people started to speculate where cholera came from in Haiti, as there had been no reported outbreaks since the 1960’s (Young, 2010). They told the readers that the outbreak would only get worse before it got better and that death tolls were increasing rapidly. CNN started to create fear in the readers minds, telling of cholera cases moving to Florida, and tourists traveling to the Dominican Republic were warned that they could be infected there as well (Young, 2010). These are the circumstances where I believe media like CNN goes wrong. They create a separation between the place of need and those who can actually help. If you instill fear in people they are going to be a lot less likely to help those who need it. Fear never helps us and I believe that it is a terrible tactic for these media reporters to use.
While looking at Philip Gourevich’s article “Alms Dealers”, you can see that media can and has played large rolls in creating more harm than good in aid situations. This turns into situations like in Haiti, where in order to get more attention from aid groups, the government and media, people purposely cause large disruptions (Watson, 2010). They create barricades on roads so people cannot get through, or they have large protests, to get more media attention. So, media can be blamed for these situations getting worse, the people being affected in these situations become so afraid of getting a disease like cholera that they cause havoc to get more attention from the global media, hoping to finally be saved (Watson, 2010). CNN in particular is one media outlet that reacts to these outcries and jumps at the chance to show the world how bad it is in Haiti. These media outlets should know that it is not really their place to solve large problems like cholera in Haiti, they can report about them, but they are not these countries saviors.
When the outbreak first began, CNN coverage was quite basic, telling its viewers the death toll, talking about the physical origins of the outbreak, and how the epidemic could be contained and reduced (CNN Wire Staff, 2010). This coverage continued like this through late October 2010, and continued with an almost uplifting tone. This coverage then turned a little sour, when people started to speculate where cholera came from in Haiti, as there had been no reported outbreaks since the 1960’s (Young, 2010). They told the readers that the outbreak would only get worse before it got better and that death tolls were increasing rapidly. CNN started to create fear in the readers minds, telling of cholera cases moving to Florida, and tourists traveling to the Dominican Republic were warned that they could be infected there as well (Young, 2010). These are the circumstances where I believe media like CNN goes wrong. They create a separation between the place of need and those who can actually help. If you instill fear in people they are going to be a lot less likely to help those who need it. Fear never helps us and I believe that it is a terrible tactic for these media reporters to use.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)