Who's That Pretty Girl in That Mirror, There

This week we discussed Freud and Lacan, the Oedipus complex and the theory of the phallus. Also, we talked about how The Lion King is basically a Disney version of Hamlet, what with Mufasa being killed by Scar, and Simba being unable to take action against him due to his own desire to kill his father and take his father's place, as Scar does. Interesting, but also sad, as I will probably never be able to watch the movie again without putting a Freudian spin on what I am watching.

Doing this made me think, though, about the clip that we watched the first day of class. In the clip from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, we saw first a woman singing about being a doll on a music box, and then we saw a man come out of a box and begin dancing and singing. There is one point in the scene where he stops, caught by his own reflection. He stares for a moment, and then snaps himself out of it, returning to his song and the play that is going on for the people around him. Relating The Lion King to Hamlet and the Oedipus Complex made me think about this moment's relation to Lacan and his theory about the mirror image.

Before the man sees himself in the mirror, he seems to have no idea what he looks like. He is utterly without shame, dancing like a fool for the amusement of the people around him. Then he catches sight of the woman on the music box, and his world narrows to her, much as the child's is narrowed on his or her mother during the first stage of its life. Soon enough, however, the man catches sight of his own reflection in the mirror. He now sees himself, or at least a version ot it, just as the infant will see their reflection and realize themselves as separate from the mother. From that point forward, even though the man gets back into his song and the play to distract the king from his real purpose in his palace, he is changed by seeing his reflection, just as the child is changed by seeing their own. From that moment on, the man is fully aware of himself and what he is doing, the same way that a child, after registering their own reflection, realizes themselves as a seperate entity from their mother, the concept of I occuring to them for the first time.

Sign, Sign, Everywhere A Sign

This week in class we started Structuralism. We covered Saussure and some of Frye, and it is Saussure that I found the most interesting.  He had the idea that regarding words, there was the sign, which was broken up into a signifier and a signified. The signifier is the auditory or visual image, and the signified is the mental process that follows the signifier. For example, if someone either says the word “cat”, or shows me a picture of one, I know what it is. Yet this seems fairly subjective to me. Misheard song lyrics are a great example of this. Creedence Clearwater Revival has a song “Bad Moon Rising”, and the lyric “There’s a bad moon on the rise” is surprisingly often heard as “There’s a bathroom on the right”. The two different lyrics present very different images, which can change the entire meaning of the song.

Another thing that we talked about was how one image or symbol can come to represent another, such as a celebrity figure being used to sell a product. Once a public figure becomes synonymous with the product being sold, the theory is that every time you see that figure you will think of the product, and therefore want to buy it, due to the other things the symbol promoting the product represents. So if I see Drew Barrymore  on the television, and she is telling me that all she uses is Cover Girl makeup, I will think that if I want to be more like her, I should use Cover Girl, too. Then I might be more successful, skinnier, with a great on again off again boyfriend and maybe one day, quite a bit of money which I will of course spend on Cover Girl cosmetics. I think that everyone is aware of this, and it only matters how suggestible you are, and what you are already likely to buy. For example, I don’t really wear makeup, so seeing Drew Barrymore telling me to buy Cover Girl on my television screen is hardly going to result in my running to the nearest Rite Aid to make a purchase. However, I do love to eat, so when I watched Brad Pitt shoveling all kinds of snack foods into his mouth over the duration of Ocean’s 11 -13, I made quite a few trips to the snack bar.

Works Cited

Fogerty, John, and Larry Morris. "Bad Moon Rising." Creedence Clearwater Revival. Impact, 1969. MP3.

The Bahktin in Picasso (Analysis #2)

In all truth it was tempting to post a photo of his younger self. Even though he was sure that this online dating thing wasn't for him, he didn't want the people who were going to be viewing his profile to think him old, or ugly. It was a matter of vanity, really. He knew that when he'd been younger he'd been quite attractive, but those days were now behind him.

He hadn't even wanted to do this in the first place. It was only to pacify his daughters that he'd signed up for the advertised three month trial, because they felt that he'd been single too long. They knew how he missed their mother but they felt that eight years of waiting to date again was just ridiculous. Even more than that, they wanted him to be happy, and understood that he was one of those people who needed the comfort of having someone go through life with him. They wanted him to find that.

What they didn't understand was that he had found it in their mother, and her death didn't make it any less true. He'd found his soul mate long ago, and now that she was gone had no interest in acquiring a place-holder. It just wouldn't be fair. Still, it would make his daughters happy to see him try, so with a small sigh he created a brief profile and posted a current photo; maybe not one that would ensure a plethora of interest, but one that was honest.

~**~ 

A self portrait of Pablo Picasso done in 1906. If I recall correctly, there was much debate about why, when his main form of art was in the cubist style, he chose to paint himself in such stark lines, a man gazing unflinchingly into a mirror and recording exactly what he saw. I rather like it. I like the idea that though Picasso enjoyed painting the world around him in distorted images, he also was well aware that the true self should not be distorted. Granted, I do believe that he did paint himself in cubist style as well, so my romantic idea about what he was trying to say is probably just that: a silly idea.

Bahtkin would say that whatever Picasso intended us as an audience to see in his painting, we are not getting it...and even if we stumble upon it by accident, or are told what it is we are to understand by gazing upon this picture, we still cannot experience it as Picasso intended. Bahtkin believed that there were three interpretations in all dialogue, and as dialogue is just one form of art, they can also be applied to this painting. The three interpretations were what was originally intended – whatever Picasso’s message in the painting was supposed to be,  whether it was to himself or to the ones viewing the painting, what the audience themselves sees based on their own experiences and notions, and a third interpretation, the one both outside the image and in between what is on the canvas and what registers in our mind as we gaze upon it (1088). In all of this, it is the third interpretation that interests me most, because it seems to be the one that is free of subjectivity, whether it be the observer’s or the artist’s. The second, however, coincides most with my belief that in everything we do as people; everything we say, write, draw, even think, comes down to what we have experienced ourselves. We as humans can understand concepts that we have not actually experienced, but we have to filter it through ones that we have. For example; if one of my friends has a child and I do not, I cannot fully understand what she is going though; however, I can recall instances of playing with and teaching children that I babysat, or my niece, and use these experiences to relate to my friend. It is the same with this painting. I look at it and see the idea that a person should not flinch from who they are, but rather meet it head on. However, the person standing next to me and gazing upon the same painting will more than likely take an entirely different meaning from it…and neither of these meanings will perfectly coincide with the feelings that the original artist hoped to invoke.

Works Cited

Bakhtin, Mikhail. "Discourse in the Novel." The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed. Vincent B. Leitch. New York: W. W. Norton &, 2010. 1072-106. Print.

http://blogs.princeton.edu/wri152-3/f05/fkherani/(8)selfportrait.jpg - Date accessed 1 March 2011

It’s Enlightenment, Baby

How does one reach enlightenment? Immanual Kant would say that one could only reach enlightenment when they are no longer immature; when they have learned the difference between their public and private uses of reason. According to Kant, one reaches enlightenment when they realize that thought they must obey the laws and regulations of society, it is their duty to speak out about the unfairness of said rules in a public forum.

I was surprised to find that for once, I actually agreed with one of the philosophers that we have been reading. I think in this instance, Kant is perfectly right. Take, for example, the current financial situation here at CSUN. I don’t feel that when our state’s budget is in crisis, the result is that I have to pay more money to receive an education; an education that means less and less. Right now having a Bachelor’s Degree is almost the same as having a high school diploma was when my mother was young, but tuition is so expensive that to get a Masters I would be in debt for years. I find this situation ridiculous, and I don’t feel as though I should be the one who pays for the mistakes of others. I will shout how I feel from the rooftops; goodness knows that  my family and most of my friends have had to hear me rant about it. Yet every semester will find me applying for loans and falling more into debt, because even though I don’t agree with it, and even though I will proclaim loudly that I am being short changed to anyone who will listen, it is still my responsibility as a student to pay the tuition required of me. Kant would say that this shows maturity, and that makes me closer to enlightenment, but that part I have to admit I am less in agreement with. I doubt anyone could believe such a thing if they saw me stomping my way down the hall at work when I am having a bad day.

Razzle Dazzle 'Em (Analysis #1)

                While reading about Gorgias of Leontini for class, I was struck by something mentioned in his introduction; something I found to be at the heart of his Encomium of Helen. It was simply this: that while “…Plato is didactic, Gorgias aims to persuade through performance” (37).  That one line helped me to understand the work I was reading. It was quite easy for me to imagine one on a stage, passionately reciting Gorgias’ argument for Helen, defending her in the face of her naysayers and possibly convincing them that in the end it was Helen who was to be pitied; Helen who had no control over her destiny. Yet all the argument really happens to be is a smokescreen; a clever use of words and logic to cover the fact that Helen did in fact commit adultery when she left her husband to go with Paris. Whatever influenced her to do so does not change that simple fact, and yet Gorgias’ clever use of language does a very good job of masking it. After all, who could dispute that fate, birth, and simple love are forces too strong to be denied? It would take someone fairly cynical indeed to want to blame Helen for leaving when Gorgias paints her as a victim of circumstance, rather than choice.

                Which is why, when we were given the assignment to find a clip that showed one of four classical theories, I immediately thought of “Razzle Dazzle” sequence from the movie Chicago as the perfect choice. For what is Billy Flynn doing for one Miss Roxie Hart during her trial but a trumped up version of what Gorgias did for Helen? He is throwing up a layer of words and showy distractions so that everyone around him forgets that she has committed a murder. As he tells her himself, “How can they hear the truth above the roar?”  People don’t care about the truth when they can have a bit of a show, and if you can give them that you can get away with murder. Literally, as it happens. The trick to keep in mind is not to falter; to not give the audience enough time to think about what is being said; else they might realize that the story that’s being woven about them has as many holes as a slice of Swiss cheese.

In the end, even though Roxie is guilty of murder, Billy manages to hide that behind a mixture of a falsified tragic past and an unfortunate twist of fate, painting Roxie as a victim of circumstances and therefore unable to foresee or change the path her life would take…much as Gorgias would claim of Helen. Yet we know, because Billy has already told us, that it doesn’t particularly matter if one is innocent or guilty. What truly matters is how well one can talk themselves out of a hairy situation once they find themselves in it…how well they manage to “razzle dazzle” the crowd so that they forget that the three-ring circus they have found themselves participating in hasn’t been there all along.

Works Cited

“ Razzle Dazzle Chicago Movie”. YouTube. 14 Feb 2011. Web. 14 Feb. 2011.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn5-VN3SH1o&feature=fvsr>.

Gorgias. "Encomium of Helen". ed. Leitch, Vincent B. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton &, 2010. Print.

Reflections on the Power of Rhetoric

This week we went to a lecture about Aristotle from Kevin O’Neill. Aristotle was a student of Plato, but branched away from him when it came to the power of rhetoric. Where Plato believed that rhetoric should not be involved in discourse, that fact and truth only should be used, Aristotle believed in it and its power to persuade. O’Neill mentioned that this might have been because to be someone of importance in Greece at the time, one had to be a skilled speaker, as that was a good piece of one’s public life. There were three types of public arguments or speeches: the deliberative, which was used to argue a future prospect; judicial, which was used in the past tense and also to defend oneself or accuse or defend someone else; and the epideictic, which tried to convince others that someone’s actions were either praiseworthy or shameful, depending.  The object wasn’t necessarily to be right; it was whether or not one could skillfully argue their case and turn their audience to their way of thinking.

Aristotle believed that there were three means of persuasion. There was ethos, the appeal to the character of the listener or a confirmation of the character of the speaker, pathos, an appeal to the listener’s emotions, and logos, which was an appeal to the listener’s rational thought. Good arguments use at least two of these elements. Personally, I believe that the argument that would work the best would be appealing to the listener’s emotions. When a person – or even better, a group of people – has their emotions roused in your favor, they are more likely to see things your way. They might not agree once they calm down, but if all you need is to get a vote, then whether or not they agree when it is over doesn’t really matter. It may be a manipulative way to look at things, but to my mind, rhetoric is nothing more than a manipulation of words to get a desired outcome

Plato's Cave

Today we went over Plato, and one thing that I have always found interesting is his Allegory of the Cave. The idea that we are all in a cave, only seeing images against a wall, and never the real thing, and therefore can never reach enlightenment is very interesting to me. I don't actually agree with Plato, however, when he says that we shouldn't copy what we see and feel because it dilutes it's reality even more. If the only reality we know and understand is that which we see and hear, then does it matter if there is something beyond if we cannot comprehend it? Wouldn't the very fact that we perceive reality a certain way make it reality?

To make it more relevant, one could picture it as if they were solving a word search. One peers at a jumble of words for minutes, possibly even hours, seeing nothing that makes sense. Then, like a bolt out of the blue, they spot just the word that they have been looking for all along, and cannot understand how they didn't see it before. There is no cave. There is only the reality we perceive, and the reality we have yet to see. Yet until we see this new reality, the reality we know is the only reality that can be.