It's So Hard to Say GOODBYE!!!

It’s that time to say farewell to the critical &the Academy blog. I must say it has been an interesting experience. I have never been a part of a blog site before and to be quite honest I was not too keen on the idea at first. However, today I stand and admit that the blog was very helpful component to assisting me understand the theories that we learned throughout the semester.
I’ve had a couple of favorite topics/parts of the semester. My first one was the Matrix. I was excited to see the movie, in general, because I had never seen it…so it was a treat in general. But the fact that it entwined with Baudrillard’s concept of Simulacra and Simulation. That was a double treat. It really grasped the concept that Baudrillard was trying to illustrate, which was that the reality that we see through our lenses is not real and it’s exactly what the Matrix was trying to saying. But Baudrillard does not believe the Matrix understand his work. But for me, it did. It helped me understand the concept. One of my favorite topics is feminism. Especially since I had to do some research on it, since my paper was on the feminist view and the objectification of women in music videos. It allowed me to open my eyes to a lot of things and realize how women are objectified in the media. Hopefully, I don’t become like that Grad student and start analyzing every piece of media that I come in contact with and start applying the theories.
But for the most part it has been a positive experience and I feel like I can walk away from the class gaining knowledge that I didn’t have when I arrived to the class for the first time. So I want to thanks Dr. McGuire and the others who helped us understand these theories throughout the semester. Greatly appreciate it… Thank you!!!

Signed,

S.B. Eyez

Thank you Tanya Krouse.......FEMINIST!!!

First, I want to thank Tanya Krouse for taken the time to write this post to give us a deeper understanding behind feminism and literature. We truly appreciate it.

Usually when people say the word “feminist”….the negative stereotypes start rolling out. Usually people think feminists are man-hating lesbians, who are scary, ugly, hairy, and wear combat boots all day. However, the problem with these stereotypes and assumptions of what feminist is that they are completely WRONG. My definition of a feminist is a woman who does not conform to the convention of femininity and make it a mission to empowerment women (they believe men and women should have equality rights).

I believe that through literature feminist want to show the inequality that women face and present women in their own identity; rather than through a man. For years, we as women have faced problems with proving ourselves to be considered on the level of men. Overall, women have obtained enormous things over the years…things that people in the 50s possible would have believed was impossible. However, we still have ways to go. In my paper I took a feminist view on women being objectified in the media(specifically music videos) and through my studies I realized that although women have gain their own identity throughout the years, we still conform into the norm of being shape around a male figure. In music videos, in particular, most of the women are presented to be the object of the man’s desire and detached from their being. They are not presented as people with ambition, emotions, and dream. The question is why is it that women are only presented this way? Why they are only presented as sexual beings in popular culture today? I think it stems down to what it means to be a woman, not biologically but socially. Most women in today’s society have been taught to act a certain way and if we do not follow the norm then they will be referred to as masculine or even a bitch. Feminist just want people to start viewing women as equal and not people that are only identified through men, and I can definitely agree with that. In my opinion I believe that we can achieve bigger things and until that wall is brought down…we will never know what can be obtained.

THANK YOU ASHLEY SHELDAN!!

First off I want to thank Guest Speaker, Ashley Sheldan for taking the time to explain Lacan and the psychoanalysis theory. The first theory that grabbed my attention was the mirror stage. The mirror stage is when an infant begins to identify themselves as an individual being and detaching themselves from their mother. Mantissa immediately came to mind. When Miles Green comes out of his coma he begins to identify himself as an “it”. This is the first stage of the mirror stage. Imaginary is when an infant identify themselves with their mother. They do not consider themselves as an individual. Ashley Sheldan states, “the mirror stage does not provide the infant with an identity, or with coherence, but rather invites the infant to anticipate a future in which it will have an identity”. When he comes out of the coma he considers himself an “it” because to him he does not have an identity. This is exactly how an infant feels when they are just born. That is the way I see the mirror stage relates to Mantissa.
Another point that Ashley Sheldan made that reminded me of Mantissa was the concept of the death drive. This concept is when the sexual identity is illogical. The death drive aims for sexual satisfaction. This reminded me about what we discussed last class about how in Mantissa, Miles Green sexual fantasies of the threesome with the nurses. This sexual fantasy expresses his desires. Hopefully I explained these concepts and connected correctly with Mantissa. Thanks for reading my post :-D

OBAMA 08

EXCITED THAT THIS DAY HAS FINALLY COME. NOVEMBER 4, 2008 HISTORY HAS BEEN MADE....and CHANGE IS FINALLY COMING TO AMERICA :-D

MANTISSA

I have read a little bit of Mantissa and to be quite honest I was a bit confused while reading it. It seems like a quick read but one that a person must really pay close attention to in order to grasp the concept of the novel. I had to read it a couple of times. Hopefully I grasped the information properly.
However…although I was a bit confused, the part that grabbed my attention was when, the main character lost his memory and the fact that he believed that all reality is shown only on TV. The memory lost targeted my mind to the movie we are watching in class, Matrix. To have a memory loss and have to gain all the previous or new information into your mind reminded me of what they are doing with Neo in the Matrix. In the Matrix they are filling Neo’s mind with information that he needs to know about the world outside of the Matrix. He is reborn in the film and is gradually building up his knowledge with the information they imbed into his mind. I believe that when one is going through memory loss the process is very similar. You have to start over and learn previous and/or new information all over again.
The fact that Miles Green believes that the only things that are considered reality are shown on television is kind of funny to me. However it is a character in a book so I guess anything is possible. Anyways this reminded me of the Bauillraud’s ideas of simulation and hyperreal and through these ideas the concept of real comes into play. What is reality? Is whatever we see through hyperreal (our lenses) considered reality or is there another way that a person can actually defined the true concept of what reality is? In my opinion in the Matrix this seems to be the question that drives all of the characters.

Thanks Ken Rufo

I want to thank Ken Rufo for posting his thoughts on Bauillraud. It was pretty enlightening and allowed me to grasp the concept of Bauillraud’s ideas a bit clearer. There were a few points that Ken Rufo made, that quickly captured my attention. The first point was when he referred to the brand of Tommy Hilfiger around the concept of Marxism. I never thought of clothing lines in that way; however, after reading this it does make sense. Baudrillard felt that structural Marxism was too limited, and that it needed to incorporate "sign-value" into its analysis. Through the concept of sign-value Bauillraud illustrates a concept to that is shown frequently in today’s society… when an object represents or signifies something more important than how much it costs or how high quality is its construction. The clothing item that immediately came to my mind was Sean John’s new “No B****assness” T-shirts. They are simple t-shirts that have “No B****assness” and the Sean John Logo on them….and people love them. P.Diddy wears it on one of his shows and it became a popular trend quickly…but the high quality of its construction was probably not as much as they are being sold online….they cost about $30.00. Which I consider over priced for a simple t-shirt. But according to Bauillraud this happens because sign-value means that you have to focus on patterns of consumption rather than the modes of production.
Another point that Rufo made that interest me, was about the Matrix. I have never seen the movie before so I am excited that we get to watch it in class. As I watched it in Thursday’s class I became quickly fascinated with the film. It was funny to me that Bauillraud actually did not even like the film especially since most of the concept and ideas throughout the move are based on some of his theories. According to Rufo, “Baudrillard actually disliked the films, precisely because he thought the incredible special effects actually reproduced the problem of simulation into it”. However, the special effects helped me grasped the concept of simulation. I believe that without the special effects then the film my not have been able to grasp the concept of simulation. I already love the movie…the concept of reality reminds me of a philosophy class I was taken. I love the fact there is no correct answer of what reality is. I like the way the movie talks about how the world we live in is not really a reality but a wonder world that we allow ourselves to believe. I makes we think about everything around me….and take a second look at everything is analyze if this is a true reality.

Author???

This week’s topic has been about authorship. This is when we not only focus on analyzing the text but view how the author influences the text. Would Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet been as influential if it wasn’t for Shakespeare? Would Van Gough painting be so praised if it wasn’t be for Van Gough? Would the Mona Lisa been famous if it was not for the painter being so significant? The point is ….what would the text be without the connection with the author?
This is some of the points that Foucault talks about in his article, “What is an Author?” In this piece he examines whether a reader focus on the actually text or do they focus on the text through the author. Before we even read Romeo and Juliet, we already know it is written by the famous Shakespeare and we already assume that this piece is one that is going to be incredible. But Foucault states the question “what if the author was dead”? How would we view the text? Would we continue to view it as such an exquisite piece without the author of Shakespeare standing behind it? There is no right answer. But Foucault says that when the author is dead, the reader is born. He believes that when the author is dead then the author is no longer the source of origin of the meaning behind the text; which allows the reader to focus on the text for what is it rather than through the connection of the author.
In the blog, “CultureCat: Rhetoric and Feminism”(http://culturecat.net/node/575) states, “The field of composition has moved from the understanding of authorship as a solitary act resulting in a product owned by an individual to an understanding of authorship as a weaving together of other texts the writer has read and voices he or she has heard in conversation. In this statement it proves…that as readers we tend to connect the text with the author. We do not mean to do it however this is a tendency we became accustomed to because this is what society has taught us. We view text through the author. How would it be if we didn’t? Would our favorite stories, painting, etc be as powerful????