Bridget Post: Its Almost Over... =)

As the semester winds down to an end and students rush to make their last grades their best ones, I sit here typing my last blog and feel kind of sad. Not because I haven't done the best I could possibly do this semester or because I am in fear of a bad grade. No, my sadness comes from the fact that there will be no more ENG1131. No more readings that I do not understand, yet once I get to class everything is all of a sudden clear to me. No I am not sucking up... I am actually really going to miss this class. I am going to miss the discussions that we have had about nearly everything under the sun, I am going to miss my classmates, I am going to miss Kate, but most importantly I am going to miss the constant influx of new knowledge that stemmed from outside the "normal" realms of education and caused me to think twice about nearly everything I have learned up until this point and everything I will learn later in life. I don't believe that any class that I have taken has affected more than this one. From being exposed to provocative literature like A Chorus of Stones and Family Secrets to watching powerful films like Night and Fog, this class has really been an opportunity to think on a level I probably never would have, if I didn't decide to take Writing Thru Media with Kate.

As for our final project, the only thing I can really say about it is that is another challenge that I am excited to be taking on and will be even more excited when my group and I overcome it.

To Chase: Thanks for being such a fabulous band mate!! You have a weird humor that I admire and a sort of undercover genius that have definitely helped to make our band one of the best!
To Jordan: Where do I start? You are simply awesome for reasons that have really helped get us through our band assignments. You too have a undercover genius and I am grateful to have been able to work with you.
To Thiago: Your are a new addition, but I welcome you just the same and appreciate your contributions to our radio project! You too, are awesome!

In a nutshell: Mindsight ROCKS!! Plain and Simple. =)

Chase Final Blog

"The philosophers have already perceived the world in various ways; the point is to change it." -Karl Marx

If there is anything this class has imprinted upon me, it is the necessity to analyze and decipher for one's self.  Coming into ENG1131 was different than leaving it now.  I think the quote above explains the need to be original, truly original, or as original as one can get in order to change something about the world.  Barthes was an individual in his his analysis of image music and text and that is why we study him.  He analyzes these three things and more to a degree that had not been uncovered yet. 

Finding time for the project has been my biggest struggle lately, it's been a crazy couple weeks and it is not slowing down unfortunately, but hey that's what it's all about I guess. I am really interested to see, or hear our final project because right now it is all about to come together.  I am glad that we did the radio project, even though it has been a struggle, I am enjoying learning how to use Audacity.

I say this all the time but, it is safe to say that our group is easily the best group, although some may argue, we know the truth.  I find it funny that the three, now four, of us were put together because we get along so well.  I have enjoyed working together and have had a lot of fun throughout the semester.  It is sad to see such a good class be over, but the world's gotta move on.  I hope we keep in touch and are successful.  Keep it real Jdog and Bribaby.

Bridget's Post: Yes Men -- EXTRA Blog

After reading/watching up on The Yes Men project, the first thing I thought about was just how vast the reach of the media really is and how the internet makes it so much more accessible. I actually watched the Dow interview before in a class, but I have no recollection of being told that it was completely fabricated. I’m not sure if that is because I wasn’t paying attention or something else. Whatever the case may be, I actually think that what the Yes Men do is really interesting and kind of necessary. Journalism and the media are supposed to be about bringing the truth to the masses, yet they often neglect to truly do that. Instead they feed us lies and half-truths about things that could potentially change the way we view our government, its relationship with us, and with those outside the confines of our American borders.

When thinking about the Yes Men project in terms of our own radio project, I think it does help in giving us ideas on the range of things we can say on air. It proves that we can virtually have a show in which no tongues are held (except for those trying to say the 7 words that are to be left unsaid) and no topic is off limits even if what we say isn’t the absolute truth. I think this freedom provides for an interesting element to be added to our show, yet I do still question the ethics of it all. I mean, lying is wrong in every sense right? So the Yes Men creating false news releases and interviews or my group broadcasting a radio show with false information trying to pass as being real should be just as wrong. The outcomes of such broadcasts are interesting, yes, but are it worth it to know you lied to millions of people (tens in our case) and gave them a false hope?

I don’t know what the answer to that question is, but the fact that the Yes Men have the balls to do it causes me to give them their props. More power to them, I’m just not sure if I am ready to follow in their footsteps. I’d rather make a path of my own…. Create my own footprints to stomp all over the media with.

Yes Men Blog

Although there may be fallacies, I think it is interesting that they are able to choose the angles they want and are able to tell people what they want them to know.  They can find things that they think the masses should know and are not being told and give them an angle that some may not have wanted to be covered.

I think that some a negative side to the Yes Men would be people who would think it was real and buy into it whole heartedly, and then they may be disappointed later on.

The media can be a very big problem today, especially with television and the internet.  Television news channels can be biased in the news they dish out just like the Yes Men, and although it may be easy to find a news channel that fits your slant it is important to just get the facts and determine their meaning as you choose without someone doing it for you.  The internet is a bigger problem than television now.  It is extremely easy to find false articles about any topic and mistake them for truth.  

I think in regards to our radio project, it would not be a good idea to do what the Yes Men did, especially with the type of non-fact-checking student run newspapers that may or may not be affiliated with the university that are present in our broadcasting radius.  However, it may be interesting and cruel to see if and how much we could get people to believe.  As it becomes more and more necessary to nail down our projects and get them done, I think it will be interesting to see what my band thinks about this idea and what others bands will do.

Bridget's Post: Warring Worlds

The War of the Worlds Broadcast was a really weird one. At least, I thought it was. When I first heard it, the first I thought about was why would any one want to play such a cruel joke on the public? Mass media outlets aren't for playing around; they are for bringing news and non-frightening entertainment to the masses (I suppose some people like to be frightened though). As I listened to it, I couldn't help trying to put myself in the place and that time to see if I would have believed such a thing if I was just an ordinary citizen driving in my car to some destination I would have called home. The answer that I come up with every time is a big fat no. I suppose that could be simply because I prior to listening to it, I knew that it was fake and I knew that some people believed it when it was first broadcast. This knowledge kind of ruined the thing for me because I was no longer able to separate the broadcast itself from my historical knowledge of it.

However, that lack of separation coupled with the things that I have learned in this class also worked to my advantage because it caused me to listen to the broadcast with my ears completely open. What I mean by that is I was able to focus on the elemental aspects of it as I paid close attention to detail. Like my band discussed in class on Wednesday and as Chase said in his blog, what I found most interesting was the how Welles' voice was such a good example of the grain of voice. For all I know, Welles could have deliberately made his voice sound that way for the sake of good and believable broadcast, but I feel as if they used anyone, the results would not have been the same. There was just something about his voice that pierced me in a way that I cannot explain and will not even try to. After all, that is the essence of the grain of voice and the third meaning, that it is lost once you attempt to explain is inexplicability.

Chase's Blog

War of the worlds was very interesting because of the context that we now know after the fact that it happened.  To me, I don't really see it as being believable because that could never happen today.  There are too many different sources of information that would have to all be saying the same thing in order for the general public to believe it.  The saying 'hindsight is 20/20" really fits when thinking about this broadcast.  Listening to it now, it sounds so ridiculous, but if one were to listen to it back then and were to come in during the middle or after the disclaimer, it does sound very real.  To me, Welles' voice played a major role in the scam being so believable.  The tone of his voice sounded legitimate and you could not tell that he was reading something.  When thinking about Welles' voice, I automatically think of Barthes' Grain of Voice.  I don't know if there is a plausible connection but from what I got, the believability of  Welles' voice can go along with some aspect of what Barthes' is saying.  It is hard to put my finger on it but something about Welles' tone makes him sound genuine and like he really is a radio DJ reporting the news.

I think it will be interesting to see how our groups broadcast goes and how everyone sounds on recording, but I look forward to seeing what the musicians that we choose think about Grain of Voice.  

Bridget Post: Memory

This week has definitely been one of the longest of my life. I'm really starting to realize how very fast time has been moving. It's like every time I blink another 24 hours passed and I am left wondering where all this time has gone. While I am on the subject of time, I think I want to talk about a topic that came up in Roswell in my blog this week. I actually watched it again this morning for no reason at all and became intrigued with how it deals with time as being some kind of enemy that will eventually take away our memories, turning us all in to amnesiacs.

This caused me to take a deeper look into memory and the actual act of remembering in relation to time. It's true what he said in Roswell because as time passes and we get older, we do tend to forget our earliest memories. Its like with each day that goes by, a little bit of me vanishes. When I say "me" I am referring to my memories of course because they are a large part of who I am. Having said that, one can understand how fearful it is to think that there might actually come a time when you forget many of the memories you have worked so hard to create and keep. I can't imagine what I would do if I woke up one day and I no longer remembered the last day I spent with my older brother before he died or my first kiss or even the day Barack Obama was elected president. I can barely take it when I can't remember where I put something much less to lose and know that I have lost an entire memory. But then again, if the memory is lost to me how will I ever know that it was once there?

I guess that is what makes memory so unique, the fact that we have sooo many yet we are not even aware of how much that we don't remember. For instance, yes I remember my first day of college but I do not remember the name of the first professor I saw that day, nor do I remember any of the people who were in that first class with me. Yet, I do remember what I wore to school that day. I remember walking from Turlington Plaza to Little Hall and seeing this tree that had the weirdest looking branch on it. It was soo weirdly shaped that I had to pause to take a closer look and I haven't forgotten it since. Now thinking back I wonder what exactly was so intriguing about a meaningless branch. Besides its shape, I really don't know what drew me to it or why I still remember what it looks like. It's strange how we cultivate these memories choosing to remember some while forcing others out of our minds either consciously or sub-consciously.

Sometimes I wish I could remember the little details that our minds choose to forget. I wonder if a tiny detail such as the color of someone's shirt or the shape of a cloud in the sky, could change the memory all together for me. I will never know the answer of that, of course, because the bottom line is I can't remember.

Jordans' Post

My comment that Barthes’ theory of the Third Meaning was essentially “useless” was perhaps a bit premature. Upon further thought I feel as though the notion of a third meaning is personally effective in understanding a deeper sense of oneself as well as the direction of humanity. However I am still troubled by the kind of “black hole” effect of Barthes’ theory. It feels as though Barthes theory occurs in a vacuum; that is to say that there is no tangible evidence only a surreal feeling that said meaning exists. The Third Meaning can then be described as alive, evolving and in constant flux. The reason I said “useless” is because of this definition precisely. Without a concrete example it becomes very difficult to not only discuss the Third Meaning, but to even explain why something fits in such an abstract category. The danger is that without context anything becomes susceptible to claims of Third Meaning. The problem then stems from Barthes claim that the Third Meaning is a luxury, an exchange without gain, and therefore becomes hazardous to ignorance when it goes unchecked. How then do we “check” the Third Meaning? Barthes’ himself is unsure whether or not it is even justified to articulate a Third Meaning. I believe the Third Meaning MUST be articulated but with a vigorous attention to detail as well as a wholehearted effort at exhausting all limits of said meaning. Third Meaning should only be discussed in extremely controlled situations where content, and purpose of said consultation, is crystal clear to all those involved. Without a clear understanding there is no way of expanding beyond superficial assertions of symbols and meaning.
With this mind I will attempt to explain my choice image for this week. It is a still from Michael Man’s cops and robbers saga, Heat. The reason I chose this image? In a word, subtlety. The scene pits two men from opposite sides of the law having a casual conversation in a quiet coffee shop. The shear magnitude of two of the greatest actors in film history sitting across from each as detective and criminal runs shivers down my spine. This spark ignited from said image doesn’t necessarily constitute Third Meaning for me but something about how the entire film as a whole is represented by this single image is significant. The way an entire film can be exemplified by a single image is representative of Barthes’ Third Meaning. Still I feel as though Barthes’ theory leaves much to be desired in terms of application. How can something so subjective and abstract be worthy of extended usage in objective style discussion? I know that there is a way to connect these notions in apparent contradiction but what that is I am quite unsure how to clarify. I commend Barthes’ attempt to express the inexpressible but his theory is not immune from critical response.

Chase's Blog

I would first of like to suck up a bit and say that Chorus of Stones is one of my new favorite books.  As I read this book more and research more about it, it is changing the way I view the world.  My analysis of everyday events and people's actions has changed very drastically.  As I sat on the bus today a Jehovah's witness approached me with a pamphlet to read.  After reading the pamphlet I couldn't help but question religion as a whole.  As I sat and thought about the pamphlet, ideas from Chorus of Stones popped into my mind.  What makes the secrets of the German's or others different than those of the people who have formed religious texts and religions.  Catholic corruption came to mind, and although it may not be a problem now, I can't help but wonder how much of the truth is hidden and unknown.  I usually am not a very deep thinker but that is changing slowly and I can't help but analyze ideas and people on a daily basis.  The city bus is an interesting place to think about the concept of repressed secrets.  Looking at people on the bus and thinking about what is going on inside their heads, what has happened to them in their life, why they dress the way they do, what secrets they are pushing down and when will it all come to the periphery.  Reading Jordan's comments on the correlation between von Braun and the underground railroad is interesting to me, although von Braun and the slaves are on opposite sides of the spectrum, they are still hiding and wanting to escape through safe passage.  Such horrific things such as slavery and Nazi Germany are easy to analyze in relation to each other, but I find the most interesting application of the concepts in Chorus of Stones is to the very basic things we as humans look over, such as religion and daily human actions.

Bridget Post 5: Knowing

A Chorus of Stones was one of the best and most provocative books I have ever read in my life. Although there were parts that I simply could not wrap my mind around, the construction and insightfulness of it all caused me to view life in a whole new light. Perhaps what I found most fascinating was Griffin's way of weaving information about the cell and the start of all life throughout her text in a manner that almost seems like it doesn't fit until you think about the deeper meaning of it all.

After some heavy thinking, I finally realized that Griffin had used all these different elements (the war, private lives, secrets, gender roles/sexuality, evolution, childhood, and the cell) to weave a web of stories that embrace the over all notion that history intersects with self on a biological/molecular level, and that reality is as much environmental as it is social and political. The fact that a person could even think on such a level to make such a profound connection is mind-boggling to me, yet once this information was placed in front of me I do feel as if I have always known it. It wasn't as surprising as I thought it would be because it made SENSE!

“I am beginning to believe we know everything, that all history including the history of each family, is a part of us, such that when we hear any secret revealed… our lives are made suddenly clearer to us, as the unnatural heaviness of the unspoken truth is dispersed.”
-Susan Griffin

I really don't need to say much about the quote above, it pretty much speaks for itself, but I have included because it is the one that hit me the hardest. I feel like because of our molecular connections, we do actually know everything before we really know it. I mean the simple fact that we all are humans, biologically made up of the same basic things has to be what connects us to one another. Why else would we care or feel any emotions at all when something terrible happens to a stranger? Why else would we want to help the children who are suffering in another country an ocean away from us or be compelled to end the genocide that as fallen on those who either can not or aren't allowed to help themselves? Is it simply human nature or are these tendencies generated or manufactured by the society we live in? Is there even such a thing as human nature?

It should come as no surprise that I am overcome with a surplus of questions after reading this book because that is often the case with any and everything that I have been exposed to in this class. One thing I can say is that I have developed a keen appreciation of artistry and those who think outside the "normal" realm of worldly existence. I love the excitement such controversial topics bring to my own life. I have always been one to want to go left with everyone else is going right so someone like Griffin has really brought out the inner historical/literary rebel in me.

One thing that does worry me though is this idea that such cruel things have taken place in the name of science and warfare. If the stories of the people documented in the book are truths, is there no limit to the lengths that humans will go to for fame, for science, or to simply win? Does that mean I, too, am innately ruthless, or even evil when it comes to the things I want just because I am human?I wonder how many deadly experiments are going on right now as I sit staring at my computer screen on this seemingly ordinary day of my ordinary life. I wonder if there was ever such thing as "ordinary" because for every day we think we are living in "normalcy", something dark, deadly, and extraordinary in probably going on. Things that we probably cant even comprehend. Things that society says we don't even want to know. But.... I say... SCREW SOCIETY because I WANT TO KNOW. After all... You have to KNOW, in order to KNOW.... right?

Ahh... another exciting week in ENG1131... until next time ;-)

We talked a lot this week about secrets and while we all have them it is important to realize as well that we all discover them. I knew very little of Werner von Braun prior to Griffin’s Chorus of Stones yet I feel as though I have always been interested in World War II technology especially that which was thought of as “classified”. We spoke moderately about government secrets but perhaps not to the extent which was necessary to gain an advanced appreciation. What is sexier or more intriguing than a spy story or a government cover-up/conspiracy? What event garnered more attention for espionage than World War II and the resulting Cold War which followed? I think the awesome involvement of so many forces (and therefore secrets) intensifies our interest in fully understanding all the aspects of this haunting event. This brings me to my posted picture which is von Braun late in his life. Since chorus of stones I have been incessantly researching the influential scientist on the web. I even purchased a biography on the German with the byline, Dreamer of Space; Engineer of War. Something about von Braun’s flee to the United States reminds me of those slaves who used the Underground Railroad for save passage to the North. The mysterious nature of both events correlates to Griffin’s point that somehow the secrets of humanity become our own and in that sense become alive with an ability to evolve over time. When I think of von Braun or slaves secretly fleeing in the night I am overcome with a sense excitement that can only be compared to the urgency one is overcome with when a revelation demands our immediate action. I am overcome with a feeling my actions can change history. I am overcome with a feeling that I am alive.

-Jordan Diaz

After reading Roland Barthes’ The Death of the Author I was confused. After hearing Band three’s presentation I was slightly less confused. Finally after reading Bridget’s post I feel I have a firm grasp on not only this section but Barthes’ text overall. I think her point that if the author was truly dead why put a name on the book is especially clarifying of Barthes’ intentions. I believe although Barthes’ assertions are significant in their depth it is far more important to realize Barthes’ tone. As Kate said it was and is “revolutionary.” Barthes would like to screw with our heads, attack our personal status quo in an effort to question our traditional ideas of language and literature. I think that so far it has worked. My previous ideas and beliefs seem superficial and translucent in comparison to my new attitude of accepting the Text as alive and in constant fluctuation. I think this idea of the Text being alive can be useful in understanding Barthes’ claim of the death of the author because what Barthes really means is that the author has changed. Now instead of the author being independent and original, with our explosion of information the author today is more of a historical character. He or she expands ideas instead of creating them. Now I completely disagree that the author has lost his or her ability to create because I feel as though we daily see new ideas coming in the form of art and science. However to say that Barthes doesn’t believe artists today can create original and unique works is cutting his argument short. I feel Barthes is using a relative tone to say that in comparison to authors of past history today’s artists borrow and to some extent steal too often from those of previous generations. Again I point to Barthes’ contradictions as evidence that he aims not at converting the reader but instead challenge him or her to think beyond even the most in depth reading to a kind impossible perfect understanding of the Text at any given instance. Barthes’ imperfections here only enhance his point that although we can never have a perfect understanding it should be our ultimate goal in any reading. My explanation still leaves something to be desired which is where perhaps we can attain a kind of momentary knowledge because Barthes seems to believe that focusing on that which we can never know is the first step towards this kind of perfect knowledge.

-Jordan Diaz

Bridget Post 4: Am I, too, Dead??

This week’s discussion on Barthes’ The Death of the Author, was one that I found to be really interesting yet questionable. In class, during Band 3’s presentation, all the talk of the author having to be separated from the text caused me to pose the question of how are we supposed to truly know what Barthes meant in his writings if we are supposed treat the text as if it’s author is dead? I mean, how are we truly supposed to know that the way we are interpreting the text is the right way, or even the way he wanted it?

Perhaps, the key to understanding this section is to think of it in terms of the author not being able to own the text once he or she has produced it. I think I sort of tackled this in a previous blog when I was discussing how I even though I am sitting here documenting my thoughts on a topic as I type these words, once I press the post button, I no longer exist in relation to it. Because of the context of this writing, most people who read this are going to have no clue who I am, what I believe, or even what kind of experiences I’ve had to make me view the world the way I do. So, in this case, I would truly be dead to the reader because they would have no reason to associate me as the author, and my life experiences, with the text.

I completely agreed with and understood where Barthes’ was coming from when Elena explained the theory of surrealism and how a single text does not truly belong to the person who wrote it because it is influenced by the ideas of many, similar to how many people are involved in the production of a film. However, if the author is not able to lay claim to a text because of that reason, why even put a name on a text at all? Why not attribute every text to entire societies, rather than one person? Perhaps the answer to that last question is because people obviously want recognition for their work. Even though their theories, ideas, and views of the world may be based on ideas stemming from the society around them, in some cases it still was that one person who chose to take the time to document it. Therefore, now that I think about it, I think it is appropriate to say that the author is dead because death symbolizes something that was once there has been completely removed, never to return again. This is essentially what the author is to the text, an entity that was once there, living, breathing with the text as he or she created it, but then died when the text was released in to the world and became an entity of its own.

Chase's Blog

This viewing of The Shining was different from my past viewings. As I watched it and thought about all the cinematography techniques that were used, the film changed for me completely.  I agree with Jordan about the camera angles used throughout the movie, without the creative positioning I feel the movie would lose a lot of character and suspense.  The angles do form some sort of language or code, a certain mood is transferred while watching the movie.  I never noticed the redness before we talked about it in class, but going back and looking at the movie now, it is so noticeable.  Jack Nicholson was the perfect choice for his character, his facial expressions are dead on for every mood he is supposed to be portraying.  When I think about the spacial cinematography in this movie I think of really wide shots. The landscape where the hotel is and the magnitude of the hotel itself come to mind.  On the other hand, close up shots like the one of Jack putting his head through the door are ingrained in my mind.  Although the wife is a victim in this movie, I always feel so annoyed with her every time I view the film.  I cannot pinpoint exactly what makes me dislike her, but unfortunately I can't stand her.  One of the most interesting parts of the movie is the Gold Room, especially when you get to the end of the movie and see the photograph with a young jack standing in the center.  I find the movie very predictable, but the way it was shot creates a suspenseful mood that pulls me into the movie completely. When Danny and Jack are in the maze, the lighting obviously becomes more dark and sinister and you really get a cold, horrible, scary feeling as you watch the two work through the maze.

This was perhaps my fifth or sixth viewing of Stanley Kubrick’s haunting vision of Stephen King’s classic tale of a hotel caretaker gone cuckoo, The Shining. This viewing was every bit as chilling as my previous. The film is so well edited and timed, especially for something from the horror genre. Kubrick’s ability to create tension is one of a kind. It starts from the opening curtain with the revolutionary long shots of the Colorado mountainside and continues through to the use of off screen space in the later parts of the film. Kubrick also employs different lighting techniques to accentuate his film. In class we discussed the redness of not only the scenery but the red light that often floods the lens. The film also is very well focused, especially the long open shots inside the hotel. I think of Jack throwing the tennis ball and the boy riding around on the tricycle. Kubrick truly has a knack for keeping tracking shots in line and well focused. Even in stationary shots Kubrick’s uses different angles to add tension and drama. I think of when Jack is in the freezer and the camera is on the ground angled up towards him. The scene that most impresses me is when the young boy sees the door to room two-thirty-seven open and Kubrick uses a mirror to show that the room is most certainly not empty. Although we never see the boy enter the room we can infer by Kubrick’s cinematography that he does enter and encounters some evil inside. This is a crucial point because the film is able to tell a story without language, only image and sound. My previous sentence got me thinking though, is cinematography not a form of language? Just by how a camera is angled we can tell a lot about the story a film is telling. Perhaps the difficulty in understanding language is that too often we believe it to be only the spoken language and not the signs we see in other aspects of communication.

Bridget: The Debate

So I watched the presidential debate and the end result is that it really didn't do much to sway my opinion one way or the other. I still think Mcain is too old and too conservative and too much like Bush to effectively dig America out of the financial hole we're in and I still think Obama might just be the CHANGE we need to turn this country around and prevent us from falling into the next Great Depression.

This was the first presidential debate I ever watched and, to my surprise, I actually thought it was quite humorous because of the fact that McCain and Obama didn't even want to speak to each other at first. I felt sorry for the Jim Lehrer having to work so hard to literally force what started out as two people talking directly to him into an actual debate. The funniest part was when McCain made the "you think I can't hear" comment because he is soo old he's probably going to need an hearing add soon if he doesn't already use one. Also, I know it's a debate and I should have expected each candidate to try and take blows at one another when ever they could, but what the heck???? I would have rathered watched 2 grown men effectively and accurately attacking the issues instead of each other. At some moments, I really felt like I was watching 2 little kids arguing over their tonka toys. Another thing, what was with McCain and all the little stories he had about his past? DUDE... You have 2 minutes to answer the question.. PLEASE get to the point and quit with the "back when I was a youngster" stories. It's not even like they were interesting. However, when he did get to the issues, most of his spiel about our financial crisis and his stance on the war were completely predictable. It's like give me something I haven't heard before... please? Obama's points were the same way, but at least he is such a charismatic speaker that I was compelled pay attention everytime he spoke. It also helped that what he was saying made sense!!! After this debate, the only thing I can hope for is that America see who is truly capable of running this country. I hate to say it, but let's be serious, McCain is too close to death for us to honestly think that he is going to be able to fix everything that is currently wrong with our country and Palin... well, let's not even GO THERE!

Band 2 Presentation: The Photographic Message?

Roland Barthes is a brilliant man who’s genius is sometimes far too great for the likes of college students like us to understand or even begin to grasp at first glance. This is why we as a group are thankful that we were able to delve into the inner workings of Barthes the structuralist, rather than the Barthes Band 1 had, which was Barthes on acid. However, no matter what state of mind he was in, his texts are still very difficult to break down into meaning without some dedication and serious critical thinking skills. Therefore, our group really had to keep one question in mind when trying to create this presentation: So what does it mean??? 

Our discussion focused mostly on the photographic message as well as the significance of memory work. We defined the photographic message as the denotation and connotation we get from pictures and its surrounding layout. We discussed whether a photograph can actually be denoted or if we are only allowed connotation. We also investigated Barthes notion of six connotation procedures. The first three (trick effects, pose, objects) must be separated from the last three because the connotation “is produced by modification of the reality itself, of, that is, the denoted message.” While the other three (aesthetic, photogenia, syntax) reside on a more subconscious, historical plane. However all six do benefit from the status of the denotation in that the viewer may not always see the photographers preparation prior to the moment the picture is taken. All in all the most important point is that we all see these images differently because our own personal historical and cultural experiences.

After reading, our group came together to discuss what he was really trying to say. This proved to be very helpful because what one of us didn’t understand, the other was able to explain. We brainstormed ideas for what to do and immediately decided that there was no better way to explain Barthes notion of this photographic message, than with the use of photographs. Then, we went on to decide that having each of us focus on a specific section to present would be the best way to formulate our presentation. It simply made the most sense because one is always better at breaking down and fully understand one section of something rather than trying to become an expert at the whole entire thing. This separation of sections also allowed us to add our own individual flavor and personality to our sections and then come together as a group to make it all flow together through language and imagery to create our own interpretation of Barthes’ photographic message.

Bridget eased the class into the presentation with the introduction and the photographic paradox, Jordan gave them some context using imagery to explain connotation procedures, and Chase brought it home with text and image and photographic insignificance. Each group member did their best to draw meaning from their respective texts and translated that meaning to their classmates. Of course, we each needed help from one another along the way as we hit little bumps in the road, but nothing completely deterred us from our goal.

Our photographs did a fantastic job of driving each point home and the connections we made to Kuhn’s, further confirmed and illustrated Barthes’ message.

Now that it’s over, we just hope we were able to accurately and interestingly answer the question we began with for our class. Now the only question left to ask is… Do know what it means? If you do, then we have effectively done our job.

Bridget Post 3: From Work to Text?

The subject matter for this week was pretty complex, but by the end of the week the both ladies of M.C.C.K08 and Kate helped me really grasp the true meanings of Barthes  piece. As always, Barthes did a good job of confusing me as he tried to explain he differences between work and text, but I have finally come to a point where I think actually "get it". Like Band 1 said, when I first read From Work to Text, it was hard for me to think of the word "text" as being more then just the words themselves, but once I got rid of that automatic association, I was able to really delve into what Barthes said text truly is in relation to work. At first, I thought that if work is simply the thing itself, that which you can read, touch, or feel, then is text is simply the readers comprehension of it, their meaning, however, now understand that there is so much more to text and the network of things that gives every text continuity, plurality, and abstraction. From what Barthes said and Band 1 explained, I understand there really is no true, absolute meaning of any "text" because there is no closure to it. Just as I am typing these words down for others to read, analyze, and draw meaning from, I am keeping in mind that their meaning may be totally different from my own because text has no Father or affiliations. Therefore, once I complete this blog can I really even say that it's mine? I guess not, because if text has no author then the words on this screen no longer belong to me. Yes, I wrote them but the aren't "mine" and the message I am trying to get across might be completely lost to some. When thinking about it in that context I have to wonder what's the point? Why bother to try and explain anything to anyone through text when there is no guarantee that they are going to comprehend it in the way I want them to anyway? And if text is a network of things working together to make meaning, who exactly is responsible for that network and the way it is woven together? Am I the maker of that network or does society determine what text is and isn't and how we should comprehend it?No matter what the answers to those questions might be, I still think I play a huge role in the way this text shall be read and comprehended, even if it is in an unconscious manner. Yes, I am conscious of what I am saying and of what I mean, but the underlying network the this text is creating as I write it unknown to me. 

I think the image I chose this week relates to the subject of text, but from a different direction. I chose it because it connects what Barthe was saying about text to somehing I can relate to today. In the minds of most, if not all people my age, the word text is associated with the beloved act of text messaging. Since text messaging is such an important part of the average young adults life today (as is very evident in this image), I have to wonder how Barthes' notion of text applies to the text of a text message. Does that too, have no closure, is living, and continuous? Is it also author-less and open to interpretation. What about the language of text messaging? Would LOL or TTYL mean something different to you than it would to me or someone who lives across the country? What do you think? The only thing I am sure of is that the world wouldn't be the same with out it.

In attempts at knowledge and understanding it must be realized that frustration and confusion are part of the game. I encountered this head on when attempting to distinguish between text and Text. Leading to even more frustration is Barthes assertion that the Text is not to be thought of as an object that can be computed. Then what the hell is it, an idea? I find that although vague, Barthes realizes that a strict dictionary definition is unsatisfactory in the deeper meaning of this abstract almost all encompassing idea of text is. Perhaps it is crucial to note that Text both is and is not simultaneously. Text is a container full of definitions. Therefore its understanding is based on fluctuating instances of piercing emotion in which the reader doesn’t necessarily comprehend the Text but instead feels it moving through them.
Barthes explains that while a work is displayed the Text is demonstrated. With this idea in mind I chose an image of text fluctuating on the page. I feel the idea of Text leaping off the page is very helpful in identifying the importance of how we interpret the Text. I felt that band one’s assertion that the Text is abstract and irreducible helped me to understand the relevance of Barthes’ argument for Text. While I was trying narrowly define the notion of Text, band one articulated how the Text was not important as a strict definition but instead as a collaborative effort find the true meaning of our unconscious understanding of media.
We also discussed memory work and its significance in understanding our own repressed memories and ideas. Memory work is an effective way to tap into, not only are subconscious but to a certain extent the Barthes’ idea of Text. Because memory work focuses on pinpointing this piercing it can also help us to find Text and that which it encompasses. While we are focusing on the unconscious mind and its interpretations, it is important to note that all are efforts are strictly conscious and cognizant. That said I argue that we can never truly these abstract concepts. However it is yet to be realized whether these attempts at knowledge will lead to a better society or are just futile efforts to define the indefinable.

Chase Blog 3

After reading from Work to Text I was even more confused about the subject matter, but once the lovely ladies of Band 1 explained it to me, it became more clear.  When just merely looking at the words Work and Text, one would think the work is made up of the text, however, he would be wrong.  Text is much more than writing, it is a collaborative abstract that cannot be pinned down.

The image I chose for this entry can be easily interpreted if you were present for the throwing of the yarn during Band 1's lecture.  I chose the image because I feel it represents each of the threads of yarn that we threw.  Sound, touch, language, and the multi colored 'anything' yarn are all represented in this image.  The sound of the water and the storm, the touch of the hand, the words mixing with the sky and anything else than can be connoted from the image. 

The image is a work of art but the connotations from it go beyond just a physical thing.  This image does have an author and was a conscious creation but at the same time the author's unconscious is coming through and the meaning expands beyond just an image. The image is structured but the connotations can take any form in the inspirations the viewer gets from it.

A text is so hard to pinpoint just like a feeling is sometimes from an image you view, as Kate said in lecture, you know it is there but you just can't grasp it.  When I think about text in this abstract way that is how I feel, I can understand what Text is or is supposed to be, but I can't fully grasp the whole text because it is always changing and mixing and weaving through my subconscious and evolving into new ideas.

Bridget Post 2

So this week, we have been talking about semiotics and "The World of Wrestling” in class. Therefore, today I decided to talk more about "The World of Wrestling". For some reason, I really liked this piece because I felt like it took a topic that was of no interest to me and made it really interesting by forcing me to look at the sport in a whole new light.
Like Kate said in class, the piece was basically an example of semiotics in action. What interested me the most was how Barthes referred to wrestling as this intelligible spectacle that represents justice. The lines between how it actually does this are somewhat blurred in my mind, but I can kind of see where the justice aspect of it would come in.
Like Barthes said, amateur wrestling involves wrestlers who play these characters that represent different morals of life. However, being that these characters are somewhat larger than life, and in the real world good doesn’t always conquer evil, nor does those who are good get rewarded while those who are evil have to pay for their wrong-doings, I want to know what exactly is it that makes people love wrestling so much?
Personally, I couldn’t sit through an entire match because to me, it is still barbaric whether what’s happening is real or fabricated. Yet, there are millions of people who can’t get enough of something that they know probably wouldn’t take place in that manner in real life. I guess it all comes down to the notion that people simply like fantasy. We love that we live in a society that allows us to drift away every now and then into a place where our problems don’t matter for a little while. We can be who we want to be, feel how ever we want to feel, and take solace in that fact that someone has to pay even if it is for just a moment.
We like to be entertained. We like to be able to submerge ourselves in situations that take us from reality and make us feel as if we are living in a somewhat just world.

Barthes said wrestling harbors the ultimate symbols of defeat and suffering, but how exactly does it do that? Yes, you have these characters that play the hero and the villain, but they are just that…. CHARACTERS. People who will walk away from the wrestling match and return to their normal lives as fathers, sons, and brothers. I guess this is why Barthes says the sport is intelligible, because amateur wrestlers are clearly good actors. They know when to turn it on and when to shut it right back off, and that in itself is a very interesting and intelligible thing for one to be able to do.

The photo that I chose for this week probably seems as if it doesn’t connect with what I have been discussing, but I just wanted to point out that in Barthes’ piece, he only refers to male wrestlers. Even though the sport is predominantly male, I still would like to make sure women are not left out of it. I have heard much too often that wrestling is a man’s sport, but there are many women who are just as passionate about it. I strongly believe that we women can do nearly anything a man can do and probably even better in some cases so in conclusion, I pose the question… “Girl’s can’t what??????”

Until next time...... :-)

Chase Blog 1

Creating the blog turned out to be a lot easier than expected. I was expecting to have to type in HTML codes and create it from scratch, but when our group met, Bridget already had the template up and on the site with our group picture already in place. I think the group picture is a comedic take on the education system today, and in a way reflects some aspects of society. I chose my individual image because it connects through the idea of education but also comments on where a majority of our generations aspirations lie. Many young people still pursue a college degree, but in a subconscious or maybe even conscious way, they would trade it all for fame and fortune. If one were so lucky to rise to fame, I seriously doubt he would choose to finish his schooling. The american dream has taken on new aspects in our culture today, the media has change every facet of our lives in some way and controls the masses. I guess the point I am trying to get across is that while continuing education is still a main choice many in this country choose, the aspirations of today's youth do not lie in learning to be a chemical engineer, physicist, or botanist; most aspire to fame and glory.

Looking through electracy, my image portrays how easy it is in our culture today to be into so many things. Ordinary people are able to publish whatever they want in blogs, have their own websites, publish papers and studies, and put their own music in circulation on the web. With reality shows taking up most of the air time, youtube videos, myspace, and facebook anyone can be a star. American culture is evolving into another entity to adapt to the technological changes and it is apparent through what we see in the media.

Bridget Post 1: *Our Blog's Aesthetic*

Writing through media... What exactly does that mean? Well, at this point I have come to understand that it can mean virtually anything you want it to mean as long it pertains to this notion of literacy, orality, and electracy. Which is essentially the embodiment of life as our generation knows it. This blog itself is an example of writing through media because it thoroughly combines the elements of literacy and electracy, while allowing us the opportunity to become authors of our own "mystories" that will be accessible by the masses to read, analyze, and draw their own conclusions.
My roll in the design of this blog was finding the image. Well actually the image found me and thus, became the icon around which our blog was created. This image was so appealing to me because of the irony it displays both through what it depicts and its play on words. It is something that we feel really exemplifies the state of education and learning in our society today. Just as Jordan said, we are interested in the question of how do you turn education into intelligent action? What does it really mean to be an educated person in a society that is constantly changing and advancing?
Obviously cats can't read,"edumacation" is not a real word, and "learn me a book" breaks the simplest rules of sentence structure, so where do you draw the lines between what is acceptable and what isn't? What's truly intelligent and what is not? The real and the fabricated? The literate and electrate? Can lines even be drawn at all? Who knows?, but we sure do hope to use this blog to explore the possibilities of it all.
We chose this simple black background because it meshes very well with our picture, of course, but it also gives of an air of traditional simplicity. Some of the most influential and powerful people in our history didn't need too much to get his or her thoughts across, and neither do we.
The image that I chose this week was another one that just found me and was our inspiration to name our blog "Mindsight". Since this blog is simply a documented insight into my mind as well as the other two members of my group, it made perfect sense to add that title to aesthetic we wanted to create. My image really relates to the freedom that we have to dream, be exposed to images, and draw our own meaning from it all. Yes, we live in a system where we are required to go to school and be taught whatever it is that they want us to learn, but this image gives off a feel that we don't have to simply absorb what others teach us. No, we actually have the intellect and the means to delve further, challenge things we do not agree with, find clarification for what we do not understand, and simply make sense of this complex world we live in.
What stuck out to me the most, besides the words, was how the man in the main portion image seems to be powerfully soaring over the ocean either not knowing that he is being watched by another or not caring. Whichever the case may be, this image exuberates what it means to have the freedom to choose your own destiny, draw your on conclusions, and interpret the world around you in any way you wish. And I hope this blog can be a testament of that freedom.
Finally, I, too, am interested in seeing what kind of responses we get for our thoughts. So if you have anything to say at all, please do not hesitate to post. This has been and will continue to be a learning experience for me and I hope it can be one for anyone who reads this as well.
I am finally a member of the world of blogging and I feel as if this is going to be a beautiful, FREE, and enlightening experience. Don't you? ;-)

Jordan Post 1

What is the importance of literacy? More importantly how does it affect our formal education? What knowledge is relevant and what knowledge is trivia? This blog is our attempt to analyze not only the superficial answers to these questions but also why they are so crucial to our current debates. My role in our blog’s design was coming up with the template along with Bridget. We chose black because it was easy to read and provided a natural background with the picture Bridget found for our defining image. Also the black background is very traditional and this being our first blog we chose to keep things simple. We decided on the picture because it dealt directly with some of the follies of education and the school system, as well as it being witty and humorous. I chose the Far Side comic for the same reasons. It pokes fun at not only at the system (gifted schools) but also at the student for allowing himself to be duped or short handed. The young pupil is obviously supposed to be able to read as evidenced by his book, but there’s something missing between him knowing and him acting on that knowledge. This is where we would like to start with our blog, how do we turn this education into intelligent action. We would like to place evidence that not only is our actual literacy important but how we go about use this privilege is just as if not more vital in our development. Finally how can we use mediums, such as a blog, to address issues and concerns with the direction of today’s literate masses? I am most interested to see what reaction we get (if any) to our band’s thoughts and ideas. Will anyone even be able to find our website? Will they be confused, inspired, dumbfounded or simply bored? I will say this, any and all criticism is welcome as we are new to the blogging phenomenon.