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????

Derrida: The Self and the Other

--a consideration of the ideas about self and other presented in the film

I do not completely understand Derrida’s thoughts of the self and the other...however; I’m going to attempt to explain it the way I see it. I believe when Derrida talks about the other...he is talking about the person we see. In order for us to have a true understanding of the individual we have to have a good understanding of the other. The other shows the way others see us and the way we view ourselves through others eyes...and through that image we shape ourselves.

This concept of self and the other connects with other Psychoanalytic theory and Post-structuralism. In psychoanalytic Freud theory believes that an infant goes through several steps with parent in order to get to the core of their self. Philosopher Lacan believes that infant go through a step called “Imaginary” and this is when the infant do not have a clear distinction between others and themselves. However around 6months they go through the “Mirror-stage”...that’s when they begin to notice their own reflection and develop the distinction of themselves as a “unified being – separate from the rest of the world”. Post-structuralism believes that there is never any real center....so they don’t believe it’s possible to find the underlining identity of a person.

I am not sure if I explained this correctly...and hopefully I did not confuse anyone!

Documentary of Derrida

Derrida is one of the founding philosophers of deconstruction. Watching his documentary was enlightening. He helped me view and think about things that would not have crossed my mind. For example on his concept of love, he poses the question of the difference between who and the what. He asks, “Is love the love of someone of something”? He asks do we love people because of the qualities they possess or who they are. I never truly thought of it like that. Because if you love someone for the qualities they have...do you really love them? Because if they no longer have those qualities would you love them anymore. Is that what it means to fall out of love with people? It showed that Love is such a complicated topic that it cannot be simply answered in one or a few words.

The irony in the project of trying to capture the true Derrida in a documentary film is that we only see the image of Derrida that he wants us to see. He states that he did things out of ordinary anyways. For example him actually getting dress up even though he isn’t going out. He states that the only reason he did that was because there were cameras around because he usually just stays in his pajamas all day if he is not going out.

The purpose behind documentary is to document reality. However; how are we able to really capture the reality of Derrida if we only see the images and scenes that the producers choose to show us. Even Derrida states that after editing the footage it does not even become a bibliography of his; but of the producers.

Saussure

"In language there are only differences without positive terms" (40)

Okay…I am going to try to make sense of this. I believe I understand it…but I am not sure if I understand it completely. I believe when Saussure states “in language there is only differences without positive terms” he means that the meaning behind language comes from linguistic system. In the book it states, “Whether we take the signified or the signifier, language has neither ideas nor sounds that existed before the linguistic system, but only conceptual and phonic differences that have issued from the system” (Rice & Waugh 40).
For example, when you look at the word tree with the signifier and the signified we have a complete and positive meaning behind the text; however, without both components the meaning behind tree is not the same. Without signifier or the signified we cannot truly understand the meaning behind the word.
The theory of post-structuralism challenges this concept because to say you can only find true meaning behind a text with only signified or signifier is not what post-structuralism believes. Post-structuralism believes that a text does not have one meaning. The theory believes that there is “no facts just interpretation”. There is never truly one center of a text.

Dr. Craig

First off, I want to thank Dr. Chris Craig for taking the time to explain and give us examples of the concept of Marxism. It’s funny because although I have learned about this theory before, in my previous class (persuasive strategies); for some reason I still was not able to grasp the concept too well when starting this class. However, Dr. Craig really allowed me to gain a deeper concept of the criticism of Marxism, but not only through a literature point of view but as it affects our society. Through Dr. Craig’s example upon Marxism it shows me how culture and the society around us have the power to control our everyday actions and thoughts.
The main example, that stood out to me was the story about the trendy clothing store and the book about communism. I found it a bit ironic that one would find a book about communism in a trendy clothing store. This completely removes the meaning behind the book by placing it in such a location. Dr. Craig states, “It encourages consumers who purchase products from the store to imagine themselves as radically different from those who do not”. This reminded me of the people who join the protest about killing animals but then the next day they go and buy a fur coat to keep up with the trend of clothing. This immediately made me think of the trendy clothing store and the book about communism. It’s great that the person wants to help with the protest about killing animals…but once they buy that fur coat it take away the whole purpose of them helping the protest.