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.

Video Subproject

CNN iReport - Christians and the Media

(Oct 8, 1970)

For better or worse, we spend A LOT of time in front of our image-machines.  While I did not read this particular chapter until after making the iReport video, it is clear that this chapter on the Transversal is quite relevant to the issues raised in the video.  Ulmer writes that "the agenda-setting power of popular culture is based on its ability to transform science and history [and I would add religion, or the naively purported lack-thereof that constitute the mythology of our society" (95).  In contemporary society, Christian belief and ideology is at risk of being wholesale written out of the societal mythology.

One might see the approach of increasing Christian representation in Entertainment media as somewhat consistent with the strategies advocated by Ulmer.  In that our "identity experience" (99) is connected and influenced through a growing visual and electrate world, and that "one's own scene may be figured by the news[/entertainment media]" (95), it makes sense to explore that world of the Spectacle as a way of "using the visible to write the [increasingly] invisible" (111).  Breaking through the emerging barriers, though, may be difficult, in that the public sphere "sanctions certain images and not others" (100), and the image of the normal/sane Christian is an image that seems to be on the outs. 

Video ALSO posted on CNN's iReport:  http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-345054

(NOTE:  Video Clips obtained from Public YouTube channels of ABC and IGN Downloads)

Referenced News Articles:

Roland Martin: "Hollywood and God can co-exist" - CNN.com

"GLAAD Sad about Grey's" - TVGUIDE.com

Neon Lights, Full Moons, and Lucy

(October 30, 1964) 

Ulmer seems to have a rather distinct answer to that question.

Below is my video response (albeit spoken rather quickly) to the next section of the readings:

Links:

BBC Posts:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/641394.stm

Monte Schulz Interview: http://www.newsarama.com/comics/091014-Schulz-Jordan-Fantagraphics.html

"I'm a Lucy" YouTube Page:  http://www.youtube.com/user/IMaLUCY

Software/FREEware Link:

CamStudio (Screen Capture video software): http://download.cnet.com/CamStudio/3000-13633_4-10067101.html?tag=mncol

A New Language

(Oct 11, 1962)

I do not have much experience speaking through the language of film/video.  My vocabulary is pretty limited, and my accent is even worse.  But, like with any new language, practice by immersion is the best way to learn, and thus my video response to the next portion of the readings:

"Hot Summer Lights"

(c. 1962)

We all have things to work out - both collectively and as individuals... things that perhaps lemonade stands alone can't solve... things that doctors alone can't solve.  It seems, from this section of reading in Ulmer, that Monuments, or more perhaps more precisely MEmorials, are intended to heal something, someone, someones. They help us find ourselves within our relationships to the collective (18) and work inventively to address particular issues of concern (13). Ulmer quotes Gloser as saying of Beuys Wound Works that it is an “attempt to heal the place” (27). Perhaps we should return at some point to questioning this notion of healing and wounds, but first let’s take a look at what might be another example (though probably not as direct or as insightful as those discussed in ch1) of monumentality.

Cedar Point is a roller coaster amusement park located in Sandusky, Ohio. During most evenings in the park, the Midway is filled with the “Hot Summer Lights” show. The show is a combination of video and animation displayed on a large screen, loud music of all genres, and choreographed pyrotechnics. Debuted in 2006 (http://www.cedarpoint.com/public/news/history/index.cfm), the show features elements that speak to the need that Americans have for unifying, even in our exceptionally diverse and heterogeneous society.

The show is set in the center of this massive roller coaster park. This is not exactly the site of “wounds” that Ulmer hints at being a profitable location for monuments (though the park is on a peninsula which is often rumored to be sinking – so perhaps there is something to be said about that, in Cedar Fair’s constant need to make structural improvements to safeguard their multi-million dollar rides’ longevity). The towering rides, some over 400 feet tall serving as an ominous backdrop to the displays on the screen. It is an impressive place of play: “the more a place is set apart for free play, the more it influences people’s behavior and the greater is its force of attraction” (Chtcheglov qtd. In Ulmer 29).

The images include many scenes from the park, including computer generated animations of riding a roller coaster, but there are two highlights to the show (at least as evidenced by the crowd reaction). The first is the BigTen section. In this section, the school fight song for each of the BigTen schools is played while footage of their football teams is shown. This elicits wild cheers from the massive crowds sitting on the pavement watching (the biggest cheers coming during the Ohio section and the biggest boos coming during the Michigan section). This is an example of that simultaneous need to recognize and build individuality and community that our society is made up of. In a period of national identity crisis, sports serve as a metaphor for individuals relating to themselves through their relationships with others and larger institutions (similar to the superego discussed by Ulmer through Freud/Deleuze/Guattari (18-21).

The next section of the show that generates a strong reaction from the crowd (the tourists) is the patriotic section. During my last visit to the park, I could see dad’s swaying with their sons and daughters on their shoulders and mom’s having their little ones salute or place their hands over their hearts as they watched images of tire swings and fields of grain to the tune of “Proud to be an American.” It struck me then that this was an important cultural ritual – and I now see it as a sort of monumentalizing, in that “it is not what tourists say but what they do that counts” (25).

So this may be an example of monumentalizing or memorializing. Is it tied to a specific problem or wound that needs healing? Maybe – our national/social identity crisis at this current state. If we move past this point (though Ulmer seems to indicate that we will inevitably de-nationalize in our conceptions – see page 29), does this cease to be a monument/memorial in the Ulmerian sense? Rushmore still seems to be, so I suppose this would as well (though admittedly I am still grappling with what it means to be monumental/memorial in the Ulmerian sense of the terms).

Images Subproject

Composition and Baseball

(Sept. 12, 1962)

There are many elements that make up any given visual text, and there's plenty of room for diverging opinions (disagreements, even) on composition choice and analysis.  KvL's work points to some tendencies, however, in the way that visuals are read and/or meaningfully created.

I shot/took/edited/created/etc.ed the following two images to fit the purposes of my slooowwly developing EM concept.  The plan is to memorialize/celebrate the work by Charles Schulz who died in 2000 (and others, like Bill Melendez who died this past year), focusing on how Peanuts is not a comic strip relegated solely to the confines of the strip framing, but rather contains elements that point to truths in our own lives - using characters that we can identify with to portray a high level of modality, even if not in the typical way we think of modality.  I'll primarily talk about the second image below in relation to the continued KvL reading.

(Photo 1)

(Photo 2)

Let's work through some of the KvL ideas...

1) Salience:  The most salient element (in Photo 2) is the fence.  It is the closest to element to the viewer, is sharply in focus (an important point given the shallow depth of field) and contains high contrast due to the highlights/shadows. 

There is a second element, however, that competes for salience once you see it - the Peanuts characters hollering from the dugout bench.  Patty and Linus (not Peppermint Patty, mind you... this is the Patty from the early days of the strip eventually to be phased out) become salient once seen because they are "out of place" in some way - i.e., they are comic strip characters in a photograph of the real world.  Their salience is aided by the vectors running towards them - the fence line and the bench line.  They are obscured (though partially framed) by the fence, though, which means their salience is challenged and may be interpreted differently by viewers.

The close-to-center placement of the subjects also helps make them "heavier" (202) and thus more salient.  This can be seen even more dramatically in Picture 1, where Charlie Brown and Lucy are clearly the most salient elements, with Schroeder being only slightly less because of his non-centeredness.

2)  Information Value: 

Given-New (181) --- There is little on the Right, making for little New meaning.  The most salient element (at least initially) is in the Right, but the image remains empty behind the fence.  The subjects (Patty and Linus) are Given (though only slightly).  The goal is to make them appear Given.  This is in order to challenge the initial reaction of "hey - they don't belong there!" (which is also why the picture is in black and white - to try to and meet them closer on their initial plane of modality).

There is also a leftward vector created by the direction the subjects and looking and hollering, inviting (Offering) the viewer to take a second look at the Given - perhaps a "did I miss something?" moment.

Ideal-Real (186) ---  There is not a very distinct horizon in Picture 2 (unlike Picture 1's "divine lights" from above generated by the stadium lighting).  Picture 2 is confined largely (save for the upper left corner) to the Real, boxed into the dugout.  This is important given that the characters may be hard conceptually for a viewer to ascribe to the Real of a naturalistic photograph (a point of potential Contestation --- KvL aplty point out such a possibility in reading images).

3)  Framing:  Patty and Linus are framed partially by the dugout, partially by the depth created by the fence.  This creates an "inside" and "outside" that potentially complicates our notions of Given and New, maybe even the Real and Ideal.  The fence is a convoluted frame, though, in that it is partially see-through, allowing for Patty's face to be framed within the fence, but Linus to be further obscured.  In Picture 1, by contrast, Lucy and Charlie Brown are framed simply between two light poles (potentially even framed by a triangle created by three of the poles).  The pitcher's mound may even serve as the bottom of that frame.

And finally...

With this in mind, it is important to note that these comic strip characters have been taken out of their "typical framing" of the strip (204).  This is to allow them to be situated in a new context - framed by naturalism (in our world, as opposed to theirs).

Slowly learning: using KvL

I’m not so sure it’s that there are flaws in the education system… but rather that sometimes it just takes time to learn.  I feel that way with KvL’s material.  The more I live with it and work through it, the more I am learning (and hopefully getting “smarter”), but it is anything but a quick process.

After getting a few pages into this week’s reading, I decided to select an image, a photograph I had taken, and work my way through the reading with it, as opposed to my old strategy of doing the reading and then trying to use my new-found knowledge to analyze the image.  I think this might be a more productive route for me (especially as it keeps me from “forgetting” to consider a necessary part of the reading after the fact).

The image I chose is a photograph I took in the Summer of 2008 while visiting Oregon’s Central Coast.  It is a picture taken of my grandma while she, my sister, and I were walking along a trail to Oregon’s highest coastal point.  It happens to be one of my favorite photos I’ve taken of my grandma, actually one my favorite “vacation photos” I took the whole time I was out there.  I’ll stop there, though, with my narrative, and let the KvL material work us through what’s going on in the photo. 

1) The represented participant (my grandma) does not look at the viewer’s (interactive participant’s) eyes, which makes it necessarily an ‘offer’ – one that addresses us indirectly (119).

2)  It is framed in a medium shot, cutting the subject off “approximately at the knees” (124).  This creates a proxemic social distance that allows us to have a level of relational involvement with the subject but without extreme attachment.  The subject is standing at a lookout position (128) with scenery in the background, available for a highly-distanced examination by the viewer.  The subject is of closer relational importance to the viewer than this scenic backdrop.

3)  The photo chooses the angle for the viewer, and in this case the point of view is subjective, in that not every feature of the subject is seen (130)

4) The photo is taken at an angle parallel to the subject, increasing involvement with the subject (134), as opposed to merely being a spectator from an oblique angle.

5) We see the subject from a Backview.  This is where my interests in KvL’s thoughts were really piqued.  Their description of the photo of parents at first seemed to be a moment where they would be analyzing my photo, but I grew resistant to their extrapolation.  They argued that there was a desire on the part of the photographer to distance himself from his parents and their world (138).  Because I do not have a great desire to distance myself from my grandma, especially not at the time when I was on vacation with her, that description did not make sense… at first. 

    

What I then saw in their description of the “complex and ambivalent” backview is that there is a level of detachedness from the subjects – an amplified detachment beyond just not having a direct gaze, in that we don’t even see the eyes at all.  This is one of the reasons why the photo resonates so much with me – because this detachment paradoxically affords me (one who personally knows the subject) an increased level of attachment.  The backview provides me with a view of the subject (my grandma) as an independent, un-attached subject – a then-83-year-old person who was still taking her own pictures for herself while on vacation.

6) The perspective is from a low angle, but not too low of a degree.  This then creates a relationship between viewer and subject (140) that lends power and authority to the subject (something that works for me as a viewer, in that this is my grandma – someone who naturally I would be accustomed to “looking up to” despite being physically taller than her for some time).

7)  Her perspective/relationship with the other objects in the image gives her as the subject authority of the other objects that she is literally “looking down on.”   She is on the same level with the clouds, and thus has an equitable power relationship, with them, but the rest of the earth and sea are below her.

8)  This is a naturalistic photo with nothing “out of the ordinary” (like color, context, brightness, etc.) that might challenge “reality” so there is a very high level of modality (159).  There are sharp details and saturated colors, but nothing beyond what is socially accepted/expected of consumer-grade digital cameras – certainly nothing approaching the “hyper-real” (161) like some have argued (I think falsely) about the “Squirrel Crasher” image below – another standard vacation shot, though this time with some more-than-standard content crashing the party.

(CNN.com) 

I have liked this photo of my grandma since I first reviewed the “film” after the vacation.  I have had a hard time articulating why, though.  KvL’s discussion helped me work through it in a way that I think was profitable.  Perhaps I am learning, even if slowly.

Photos 1

We were asked to have some photos for the next time we meet, so here is one before/after...

BEFORE

AFTER

I only did a few things to the Photo.  It was taken at Lowe's shortly after the worker watered the flowers with the mister.  I used the Quick Select tool in Photoshop to isolate the flower and its leaves.  I then copied that selection into a New Layer and adjusted the color balance just a little bit to get rid of the pervasive light pink.  I then added another Layer that I filled with White and put it beneath the flower layer.  I used a large diameter soft edge Eraser around the edge of the flower to get rid of the jagged/hard edge.  I then did some varied Dodging and Burning to draw out some of the highlights and colors that weren't as evident in the original.  I then made a thin rectangular selection around the edge by adding Rectangle Selections together (in a New Layer) and filled it Black so that the image would be more definable here on the white Blog page.

Wowsers... KvL and some Terminology

(1962)

I kind of feel like I need to go back to Kindergarten... or rather, like I am going back to Kindergarten via KvL.  There's so much new education - learning how to count, which color is which, what a cow says, etc., - that I need to learn.  Well, maybe not those things in particular, but KvL surely prove that I am a newbie to their particular branch of education.  Like Sally got on her first day of Kindergarten, we too get some pictures via KvL, but what replaced the songs and the games was an extensive Vocab Lesson on how to describe these pictures.  I knew we would be utilizing specific terminology, but Wowsers - I had not prepared myself for this much "New Stuff."  

Using (a tiny bit of) the terminology provided by KvL, let's look at a press photo for the upcoming season of Survivor:

(CBS.com)

There are a number things going on here, but let's use KvL's language to unpack just a few:

1) There's a Covert Taxonomy (79) in that each person is posed in this "family photo" style, each shown as one of many contestants set against the typical tropical backdrop.

2) Each contestant is a Posessive Attribute (PA) of the Program's family photo Carrier (87).  There are three black PAs, 17 white; 10 men, 10 women; etc.  Each of these PAs shares the characteristic of physical fitness and lends a general notion of athleticism, aggression, and competition to the Program.  One can look at these "parts" as carrying their own PAs, such as tattoos, descriptive hair styles, etc., that may say something about them as an individual (Carrier).  

3) There appears to be a Symbolic Process in that the two PAs in the upper left corner appear "look out of place in the whole, in some way" (105) because of their posture toward one another.  Their matching heights, her dress, and their shoulder-touching inward turn, make them resemble two in a couples-photo.  This may be a nod toward the program's inevitable turn toward "alliances."  

That is a tiny bit of what can be done with the 30 or so terms introduced so far by KvL (44-114).  This post alone has taught me that like in Kindergarten, you often learn best by doing.  Just in this little breakdown of a Survivor photo, I have already learned more about KvL's approach.

The question remains, though, as to what happens if we don't adopt this language perfectly.  In math as a small child, if you don't get the basics of addition, subtraction, etc., it is quite difficult to  progress successfully into the next stage of the subject.  If I don't master the notion of Vectors, will I be able to really gain from KvL's further insights?  Is the terminology essential?  If it is, I hope I catch on quickly.

KvL and some Puppets

(1960)

It seems that Kress and van Leeuwen (KvL) seek to "clobber a few cherished beliefs" - like the verbal text is superior to the visual, and/or that the visual does not impose any limitations on how one reads it as a text.  Instead, they argue that "language and visual communication can both be used to realize the 'same' fundamental systems of meaning" (19).  Similar to as in verbal language, the visual contains structures and combinations of various regularities (i.e. a "grammar" - p20) that may at times remain invisible to the reader, but that still influence and guide the meaningful reading of the visual.

There are lots of different visual modes of conveying meaning.  As KvL point out, "each medium has its own possibilities and limitations of meaning" (19).  An example that came to my mind while reading this passage was Jim Henson's set of innovations that he brought to puppetry.  He got into puppetry not because he liked the artform, but because it was the most immediate way that he could get a job in TV - a medium that he found fascinating.  Once on the job, he saw new possibilities for sign-making in this new visual medium that others before him did not.  Prior to Henson, televised puppetry looked just like that -- a televised production of what was already being done, puppet booth, curtain, and all:

(Kukla, Fran and Ollie c.1954)

 Henson saw that there were many more "semiotic resources available" with this medium, so he made some changes when he started his first show:

(Sam and Friends - "Visual Thinking" 1959)

(I love the content of the particular Sam and Friends clip as it pertains to this discussion - the most famous remnant of that largely forgotten show).  The puppet booth was removed so that the characters could be seen as characters, not as puppets being controlled by people hiding behind a booth.  By removing the frame, Henson infinitely expanded their world, allowing for the inclusion of all sorts of semiotic "stuff" to happen.  


Part of understanding the grammar of visual communication involves recognizing how ideas or "things" are represented through a reproduction of "criterial aspects of the object" (7).  For the small boy that KvL mentioned, it was that "wheelness" was sufficient for "carness."  For Henson, in order to represent "life," the eyes had to appear focused.  Henson and his design team keyed in on that cultural understanding - the eyes are the window to the soul and all - and used it to communicate meaning (as part of what KvL would call the Interpersonal Metafunction).  By making the eyes slightly cross-eyed (their "magic triangle"), they were very conspicuously taking part in sign-making, making it appear that the puppet was focused on a particular point, an action that denotes life.

(Kermit and Henson)

These examples demonstrate that the "old" (?) belief in the supremecy of text is not a viable belief in all circumstances.  Puppetry is a very visual and very meaning-laden enterprise, certainly not merely an illustration of or addendum to verbal text.


I think I could go on for a while with examples from puppetry as it relates to these foundational beginning pages of KvL... but perhaps I'll stop at this for now. 

EM: Photos, Nature, Peanuts, oh my...

(1960)

It won't be until we share URLs that Feedback starts being generated, I know, but I am "bringing my thoughts into being"  by placing them in digital print here on the blog.

I would like to incorporate nature photo/video into my EM project, but I can't seem to drum up an inspiring topic that would work for such.  I don't want to go all eco-friendly/tree-hugger on this project, and while I am interested in the public sphere's grapplings with the issue of Creation/Intelligent-Design/Evolution, I am not sure that I want this particular assignment to focus on such (not that I don't want to express my perspective or pursue my interests, but rather that there's Sooo much research I am interested in on the topic - museums, legal language, media representation, etc., - that I'm not sure I wouldn't be biting off more than I could chew topically when there's so much technologically that I'm going to have to deal with for my EM.  I am interested in pursing the Creation/ID/Evolution avenue for perhaps something like my Dissertation [!]... but time will tell on that front.  Maybe the "Timing" doesn't seem right. [?]).  And thus I am not sure where I'd incorporate Nature photography into topic X.

One of the reasons that this is a current mental hitch is that I'm just not sure what route I'd go for the photo/video capture part of the Peanuts EM.  I don't have any Peanuts ideas that really grip me quite yet... 

...maybe I need to get a cabin out in the woods and listen to the logos....

EM Ideas - Peanuts

 

(First Peanuts strip, 1950)

So I, like most of us in this endeavor, am certainly the infancy stages of working out my ideas for the Electronic Monument.  The idea that initially came to mind was to memorialize Charles Schulz, creator of Peanuts.  There are two issues that I am wrestling with as I consider whether or not this is a viable option.  We've worked through these a little in class workshop, and I am beginning to feel more confident in my first-thought/gut-reaction/instinctual-response to the assignment, thus sticking with Schulz.  These two issues are:


1) Am I making the world a better place?  
     >> I've done work in the past on Peanuts as a serious-text, so I feel a little foolish for somehow momentarily abandoning ship.  I think I was a little caught in the wake of 9/11's enormity when reading Ulmer.  Schulz has and does affect Lots of people with his work.  <<I think I'm almost ready to get past this issue as a deal-breaker.


2) Am I re-inventing the wheel?
     << The fact that Schulz was/is so impactful means that his death and work were not and are not unnoticed.  Sure he died 9 years ago, so there aren't ongoing memorial specials about his work (save for around Christmas), but there's still plenty of him "left" in society.  A simply Google search can find a number of hodge-podge memorials to Schulz, most created shortly after his death.  So what am I going to do different?  Or maybe I need to find the more common and overlook to memorialize?
                          >> I think my answer might be in taking a different approach.  The current memorials focus on Schulz's work, but maybe the emphasis should be more on those affected by the work?  Maybe there isn't a real clear distinct here... maybe none at all, really... but here's my current ponderings for an EM that might be "new" --- perhaps a compilation of comments from others on how Schulz's characters allowed them to see something in themselves (THANK YOU Barbara, for your comment in the workshop - it was one of those reassuring/Lightbulb moments).  A working title has even come to mind - "I'maLucy".  I think it would be neat to collect video clips from folks stating why they are like/identify with a certain character.  Maybe someone would submit a video of themselves sitting at a piano, saying, "I am a Schroeder.  Music is what I breathe and silly little girls and dancing dogs just won't ever get it."       << This would give THEM a voice, using Peanuts as a vehicle for catharsis and community, thereby celebrating and memorializing Schulz's Peanuts work.  




There are LOTS of obstacles to this --- like GETTING the video, for instance, but those are all just logistical.  If I can figure out the theoretical and substantive, the logistical will merely be nuts and bolts. There are plenty of HomeDepot remedies for such.


Hmmm...