Electronic Monument

The Monument has been established and locked in!

www.Wix.com/StephenJLind/Peanuts-Gallery

Peanuts Widget

COMICS.com has now released their Peanuts strip Widget:

http://comics.com/widgets/peanuts/


(FYI - it seems a little buggy to me right now, as you may notice from the Sidebar version below)

Neon, Neon, Neon... am I getting tired of Neon?

(Dec. 6, 1962)

We suffer from compassion fatigue:  Granted.  Tourism requires spectacle:  Granted.  Beyond that... I'm not so sure.

Reading this last chapter from Ulmer's Electronic Monuments, I can't help but return to a theme I struggled with a few weeks ago - that of Reason vs. Neon.  If we suffer from a certain numbness and tend to allow the abject to stay abject, is the solution more potent spectacle?  Perhaps more strategic spectacle?  Spectacle directed at that which is not yet spectacle?  I'm not sure I'm comfortable with this approach.  There seems to be a certain danger to it...

Again I find Ulmer's work thought provoking, but at times a little alarming - alarming in a way that I'm not entirely okay with.  It seems that there is a certain exploitative use of Neon over Reason happening more than once.  That is not to say that the Reason is absent, but rather that the combination of gas and electricity may be problematically volatile.  For instance, in the recollection of the Times' "Portraits of Grief," it was noted that "an editor named Wendell Jamieson circulated a memo admonishing contributors to avoid certain tropes.  By then, evidently, the Times had filled its quota of bond traders who loved their wives and kids and were fanatical about golf" (244).  Perhaps I am simply missing it, but there seems to be no condemnation of such approach.  The victim is not the right type of spectacle, so figure out a new way to showcase him is the line of thought.  If devoted golfer-husband-father is how that bond trader self-identified and how the family remembered him, why is the egent given license to recast him as more spectacular and "free of the burdens of compassion fatigue?"

Ulmer routinely uses dramatic, graphic material to illuminate his ideas.  It would be naive not to recognize the value of such in the marketability of a book.  That's not to say that Ulmer is merely falling in-step with academic capitalism, but I wonder how much is spectacle in order to draw attention to the book.  That then compounds the problem of our ethical limitlessness - how much Neon per part Reason?  While he remarks off-hand that there is "more to capitalism than fraud" (251), he still proposes for consideration "an eternal stove labeled Invest in the Future into which visitors [to Ground Zero] are invited to toss their cash" (247).  Are we okay with such a proposal, even if just a "proposal?"  Are we okay with the constant invokations of Bradley McGee?  I'm not sure that I am.

Perhaps this is spectacle for the sake of overriding our own academic compassion fatigue - bending the bar too far so that when it relaxes it is in the proper place.  But at what cost?  Ulmer tells us, "When you see the gain, look also for the loss" (247).  What are we losing in this drive for MEmorialization, for Electracy?  For what lies "beyond" (258)?  The Sufi that Ulmer mentions (252) had a battle years ago with Spectacle in Turkey.  The Karagoz shadow puppetry (BELOW) became a hit with the masses - largely in part to its spectacular screen-ishness.  Islamic law prohibited such as they were representations of animate objects, but ultimately came up with the line that the perforations in the puppetry made them non-representative, and thus they were permitted.  The Sufi were backed into a corner - either fight the will of the masses or lose part of their religious consistency.

Does electracy/MEmorialization back us into a corner?  What might WE be losing?  Perhaps LOSING BE US...

Representative Toys

(November 16, 1962)

 

Oh how nice it was to return to KvL.  I hadn't expected it to be such a breath of fresh air, but boy was it ever.  That is certainly not to say that Ulmer is less important or that KvL is easier material (though I am not sure I have a problem in saying the latter), but rather that KvL suits my linear thought process a little more clearly than Ulmer.  Additionally, this last section in KvL was a new application of material they've already educated us on, so there wasn't as much grunt work necessary in understanding this material.

Nonetheless, there is some neat stuff going on here.  I especially like their inclusion of children's toys as a text for analysis, and I suppose I shall continue in that vein...

I have long been a fan of the Thundercats - that great 80s cartoon that saw humanoid felines crash on Third Earth after their planet was destroyed, only to find a great new evil awaiting them in the form of the evil Mumm-Ra (I've watched a lot of cartoons in my day... and there we have the connection to the Peanuts strip this week). Let's take a look then, at one of the popular toys that came from that franchise: the Lion-O action figure.



There's a lot going on with this simple action figure, as can be seen through the KvL lens - though I'd like to take KvL a little further in a few places.  The figure is a sculpture - from its very beginnings in production, that is how an action figure is produced.  It is three dimensional with all sorts of visual/material "stuff" going on.  One important aspect of this figure is that it is independent of a setting, as is often the case with sculptures (243).  Now, if one were to also purchase the Cats Lair fortress, I suppose Lion-O would have the setting that is representative of his setting in the cartoon, but that he would certainly not stay there, as that is not how action-figures are "used."  Instead, the decontextualized nature of the figure allows the child to imagine him in any place he/she would like, be it the fort under the dining room table or some imagined, mental recreation of Third Earth that disregards physical location.


The moveability of the limbs is important to this point on imagination.  Those engaging the figure can move them "to create a variety of representational structures, narrative 'scenes'" (248).  In the context of the Lion-O figure, this may have an interaction with notions of Given/New|Ideal/Real.  For instance, Lion-O's right hand holds the Sword of Omens and is can be raised by pressing the lever on his back, raising the Sword, the symbol of the Thundercats' power, into the realm of the Ideal.  The gesture of raising the sword has all sorts of cultural connotations, but it seems like the concept of the Ideal may be at play here.


There is plenty going on visually with the Lion-O figure.  Within the context of the Thundercats franchise, this toy actually has a reasonably high level of modality.  He doesn't look exactly like the 2-D cell animation character, but given that it was the 80s and he's a 3-D version of a 2-D character, it's not all that bad.  This may seem to run counter to what KvL say is typical of "boys' toys" (254), but I suppose the actual character himself is from a fictional world, and thus fits into their general observation that boys toys have lower modality (in relation to the "real" world, I suppose, while Lion-O has a high level of modality in relation to the cartoon world he is representing).  KvL quote Barthes as speaking perjoratively about "the plastic material" used to construct these toys (255), but given that this figure is a representation of cell-animation, plastic seems like a very fitting substance.

The eyes are also a very important part of this figure - one of the most important parts, actually.  While KvL note that "the eyes of many 'boys'' dolls [...] are often obscured by helmets, masks or dark glasses" (251), it is quite the opposite for our friend Lion-O.  Not only is their extreme contrast to his eyes (white eyes on an orange face with dark black pupils), but when an individual presses the battery ring into his back, Lion-O's eyes light up.  This seems to have more to do with the "action" aspect of the figure than it does an aspect of the "gaze" to which KvL may want to point.  In the context of this figure being a moveable, interactive, representation of a character, it seems like the glowing eyes would make a child more likely to interact with the figure in a way that may disregard the gaze.  This physical design is important on this point, as the individual holding the figure is inclined to face him forward, given that the lever (a sort of handle) is on his back.  Perhaps then the eyes serve as a way to create a sharper transactive gaze with another character-figure being played with at the same time.

There's also plenty that can be read into/from Lion-O's garb.  While I hesitate at such (for instance, I think the "reading" of the Playmobile toys (247) is a bit over-the-top), there is certainly plenty that can be said about the depiction of masculinity, action, etc.  Such anlaysis is really born out of an exploration of the semiotic codes used in the cartoons of the 80s.  This Lion-O figure is probably a decent representation of such.      

Website Link

Here is the link to the in-development website for the Peanuts Electronic Monument:

http://www.wix.com/stephenjlind/Peanuts-Gallery

Note:  I am conscious of my choice to use a WYSIWYG platform to create the site, as opposed to coding/scripting the site "by hand."  I am torn on this issue.  I began constructing the site in Adobe Flash (which I have used before, long long ago when it was Macromedia, though I remember just about nothing from that use), and as I searched through tutorials to understand the not-so-user-friendly Adobe Flash, I came across Wix.  Now, I knew that I wanted a Flash site.  There are certain media-esque qualities of a flash site that fit my purposes much more immediately (both functionally and aesthetically), given the content of my monument.  That meant I would be doing scripting in Flash as opposed to say HTML coding in Dreamweaver - either way, getting my hands dirty.  However, I would be taking shortcuts along the way, using pre-defined motion paths to get me started, then making alterations in order to customize and personalize the material.  I mean I was certainly not going to simply open up Dreamweaver and ONLY stay in the coding window the whole time -- I would be using the program to help me achieve the desired ends.  Well, when I stumbled upon Wix, I saw that desired End much more immediately than I had before.  I chose to use Wix because it allows me to focus more time on Design than Coding.  I manipulated the material on Wix such that I certainly did not just plug my pictures into a predefined template... but all the while, I did not code the site.  I guess this work is closer to the "cake-from-a-box" end of the spectrum than the "cake-from-scratch" end.  I am torn between "getting my hands dirty with the process" and "getting to my desired product."  Either way I am using a tool to create the product I want... the tool I have used at this point has simply left my hands a little less dirty.... 


hmm.....

Stability and Change...

Hi All --- I am going to keep this post short, given that NCA and the great city of Chicago are calling my name (sorry usual Peanuts strip, even you don’t make the cut this time…)…

A couple orders of business – first, the reading for this week.  Boy oh boy does Ulmer continue to get convoluted, with folds upon folds of meaning. 

It seems like Ulmer would not be a non-fan of the images I posted last time (Abercrombie and Sean John).  He puts forth “the premise that advertising is one of the practices most committed to inventing the discourse of electracy” (182) by the way it creates gaps that are a/e-ffective: “What is new in the ad is that the inference is a work of images rather than concepts, of associated signifiers rather than arguments” (183).  Perhaps this is thus not a means by which to have Neon trump Reason, but rather a way of having Neon create new pathways for constructing/articulating/creating/communicating Reason, largely through Memory.  This is done through images, which serve as signifiers, creating a “mood” (186).  These ads work in a way that Ulmer seems to conceive us as evolved beyond the traditional literate way of thinking.  If these modes of ‘working’ become cliché, however, like with the good cop/bad cop routine, then they stop working (194).  The egent has to be a step or two ahead – that seems to be the nature of electracy. 

So what then (our second order of business) can I take from this in application to my MEmorial project for Schulz?  Well, I know that I should not be predictable and rudimentary.  That wouldn’t fit with the transversal approach of connecting ideas.  Yet I need to think of what will be most a/e-ffective.  The video “More” seems to be a useful peripheral for my project.  One current monument to attach it to is the host of YouTube posts about Charlie Brown/Peanuts.  Their presence serves to memorialize the great fandom that the franchise still commands – and  a YouTube Video Response would be a peripheral way of attaching new signifying images to expose the gap in readings of Peanuts.  I’m not sure how much Neon or electracy is at work there, though.  Barbara’s thoughts on going the different direction of attaching Peanuts to the topics under-recognized (like Vietnam, the economy, feminism, etc.) seems a little more Neon… but I’m not sure if the peripheral matches up as well.  And thus I am at an impasse.  I think the “More” video as a peripheral is a solid approach – in fact, it’d be great if I could get the Charles M. Schulz Museum in CA to display the video (I’d be able to put the CNN debacle behind me then, for sure!).  I am a little worried that I am not being clever or transversal enough.  It doesn’t seem to live up to the Miranda-esque standards Ulmer puts forth for us.  Then again, maybe I’m being too hard on myself.

Hmm… things to think about… and now off to explore more of the Windy City and “Stability and Change" through NCA’s 95th annual convention!

Struggling to be a fan...

It just didn't seem right to include a strip by Schulz for reflection on the reading(s) for today.  I am sure there is a great irony in that.  For the most part, I have been on board with Ulmer's approach up to this point.  That is certainly not to say that I have fully understood the nuanced writing that is Ulmer's approach (good grief, No), but his emphasis on bringing to light the abject, interrogating the boundaries of the inside and outside, making new collective identities out of individuals as individuals, etc. etc., has been embraceable.  The approach in the chapters on Formless Emblems and The Agency of the Image were... troublesome at best.

These sections made me question the ethics of a MEmorial.  To what degree must an egent be "fair" or "truthful" in their representations of the issue(s)?  More particularly, to what degree does Ulmer say that an egent must be "fair."  In some ways, I am not sure that he allows himself to set up such an ethical scheme.  If problems are multidimensional, rhizomatic even, to what degree can we claim that one perspective is "right?"  It seems that that is perhaps not the point?

But maybe it should be.  How are we to gauge the recipe for Reseoneon?  One part Reason, One part Neon?  On what basis do we make that claim?  Let's take the following Advertising examples as commercialized approaches towards emblem-making and image-use:

Both  of these images represent rather successful franchises - Abercombie and Sean John.  The logic behind them is, well, lacking a certain amount of robustness.  The Abercrombie ad is hypothetically selling clothing - something that is barely pictured in their advertisement.  We know, though, that the advertisement, through certain methods of emblem-ness, is selling much more.  It relies on codes shared by the audience (122), namely of beauty, power, desire, etc.  The second image very explicitly violates any reasonable line of logic, in that the slogan is "Life without passion is unforgivable."  The product is called Unforgivable... it is life without passion.  Certainly not the intent of the producers... but who cares? Not the massive consumer base buying the product.  Half part reason, Twelve parts Neon, and we have a successful campaign!  Why shouldn't the egent take this same approach?

Certainly Ulmer has plenty of Neon in these chapters by way of the very...  intense stories he shares from the various news stories.  The fact that he shares them via news stories, though, is proof in itself of a limited portrayal of the facts as a strategic/tactical way of getting to ones ends - Neon.  The stories serve primarily as Neon.  Now, maybe that's the point.  Maybe they are necessary in their graphicness in order to sting us who are in a world of catastrophe fatigue.  The images of aborted fetuses/babies/unbornchildren/tissue may very well fit into this same category.  Forcing us to see the abject in ways that may seem like too much, only because too much is the only amount that is enough.  It certainly does not get us toward an ethical guideline, though.

This all begs the question of what the egent is trying to accomplish?  It seems as though Ulmer is working more toward a performance of the philosophical/theological quandary that is the Problem of Evil, more than he is working toward a new form of consultancy that could influence public policy beyond the RedBlue mentality currently at play:  "More power to the conventional consultants as they plan and calculate their solutions" (160 , my emphasis).  They are not solutions we all should be taking part in - they are theirs.  This is the problem of the Y - seeing "not solution, but impasse" (160).  Why would we see it any other way?  Ulmer himself knows "intellectually [...] that nothing [we] do will improve the world" (164).

He may say that he wants to consider what to do about these abject sacrifices (these sacrifices that are so intimately tied to death... talk about generating fatigue in a reader...), but I'm not sure we're "supposed" to do anything - how can you when the Y asks us to see the impasse of these competing goods/stories/testimonies/perspectives/values/etc?  AND if we are supposed to "do" something, then what are the ethical guidelines - the recipe for Reseoneon?  One part Reason, two parts Neon?  How can one hold to the Y and still hold to a prescribed recipe?  I'm not sure on this one.