Economic Perpective of Habermas & the Current Music Industry

In the article Modernity — An Incomplete Project, Habermas affirms that, “[T]he project of modernity has not yet been fulfilled” (Habermas, 13). I think his view of the modern world and the failure of the Surrealist movement is extremely interesting. Habermas argues that, just because other projects have failed modernity, it does not mean that this movement is lost forever.

I like how he analyses these dynamics through an economic perpective. Unless we break with the capitalist model that operates in our world, the project of modernity will never be complete. The neoconservatism that support this system has institutionalized science, morality, and art to a point it that it does not relate to the real life-world anymore.

I believe his argument makes a lot of sense in our current world, specially concerning art. One example would be music production. Capitalism is only concerned with popular music that is easy to sell. Most radio stations only play the top 40 songs! And this genre of music lacks the depth, the analysis, and the connection to the life-world and its issues. 

I listen to Brazilian music a lot, and some of my favorite artists created their most important pieces during the military dictatorship period. Their music spoke to the people. Their music talked about inequality and working class issues, issues that everyday individuals could relate to. Contemporary Brazilian music does not follow this trend anymore; it is devoid of its connection to everyday plights.

I don’t think this contemporary music example relates to Habermas argument that only specialists can now understand their lines of study. However, I do believe the music industry is utilized for mass consumption goals and for the advance of profits in the capitalist system. Although music reaches big audiences, I don’t think it speaks to the life-world experience (if you pay attention to the lyrics, most are about money and sex). They sell an illusion of a perfect luxurious life that does not reflect reality.

Sadly I agree with Habermas when he says that, “[I]n the entire Western world a climate has developed that furthers capitalist modernization processes as well as trends critical of cultural modernization” (Habermas, 13). Unless something drastically changes in our society, capitalist impulses and desires will reign over the production of art. 

No experimentation? /Sublime

Similar to the Walter Benjamin piece, I really enjoyed this reading because whenever I read things that go far in depth with art, I can’t help but make connections to pretty much everything that I have learned in my Contemporary Art & Theory course. This idea/concept of the Sublime is astonishing to me and in particular made me think of the abstract expressionist, Mark Rothko. I will also attach a very interesting article at the end of my post if anyone is interested in reading it. It is called “Stirring Images: Fear, Not Happiness or Arousal, Makes Art More Sublime.”

In the beginning of “Answering the Question: What is Postmodernism?,” we are introduced to this idea that Neoconservatives no longer want experimentation with regards to art. This is insane to me! It made me immediately think of Marcel Duchamp’s “Fountain.” To no surprise, the Salons and Academies rejected the “fountain” which was actually an upside down urinal. The piece went against the traditional works of art and became something so powerful! To this day, Duchamp’s Fountain has provided us with a concept known as the Readymade.  So how can you say you don’t want experimentation? From my perspective, experimentation is everything in the art world—especially when looking at contemporary art.

Aside from that tangent, I mention Mark Rothko because his art is so simple, yet is known for triggering a strong emotional response. Typically, his paintings are very large-scale and consist of just a few colors. I have actually seen one in person and can honestly say, they do give you some sort of feeling, I just can’t put my tongue on what it is. And maybe that’s the idea of the sublime—that I can’t explain it or put a word to it. This reading was interesting for me because I think when I go to critique very abstract art now, I’m going to add another layer of perspective with regards to this idea of the sublime. Attached are a couple of my favorite Rothko paintings and the article I mentioned above J

 Article: http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.rollins.edu:2048/docview/920364043/fulltextPDF?accountid=13584

Benjamin and the aesthetic butterfly effect

   The class discussion was amazing this week, and I really enjoyed the Benjamin reading. I thought that he brought up some interesting points, and he articulated them so clearly that I easily grasped the majority of his argument on the first reading. He really challenged me to think about the way that I perceive and consume art. One subject that he touched on in particular really caught my attention: the idea that “[the] meaning of each single picture appears to be prescribed by the sequence of all preceding ones” (Benjamin 41).  This concept that art reacts to and is largely defined by every work of art preceding it, and likewise that a single work of art has the power to influence all of the works that will be created in the future, makes sense to me. In a way, the creation of a piece of art is dependent on every work that precedes it; it is like a sort of aesthetic butterfly effect.

   To extend upon the idea, I think that it works in two separate effects. The first is to prescribe meaning, because we understand and attribute value based upon knowledge and experience informed by the past. The second is to dictate creation. The first example I thought of to illustrate this concept was the emergence of the Surrealist movement. Surrealism developed largely out of the Dada movement and also as a reaction against the highly formalistic Cubist movement. The works within these preceding movements were essential to the creation of Surrealism, and they also provided a context through which to understand the Surrealist movement’s origins and values.

   The reaction of each work of art to the past is also interesting when considered in relation to capital and consumerism; as art has been commoditized and pieces of art have been created for the purpose of mass consumption, and classic works of art have been capitalized upon and transformed into products of consumption, Benjamin’s concept would dictate that all works of art in the future will be influenced (either in meaning, creation, or both) by these works. It’s interesting to consider the effect this will have on future artistic movements and, in essence, the future of art.

Benjamin Reflection

   The discussions in class this week were by far my favorite ones this semester. Benjamin has been the only theorist that I have been able to wrap my brain around; his work is extremely accessible compared to the works created by those like Appadurai. I connected most with his ideas of art and the forms of value that it can have. I also found it fascinating that he seemed to find a positive aspect to mechanical reproduction and its close ties with capitalism while at the same time highlighting the more obvious and tragic effects of capitalism on the significance of art.
  This reading brings about some conflicting within myself and how I feel Benjamin discusses these relationships though. On one hand, I feel that influential art should be available to everyone. As an art enthusiast myself, I could not imagine traveling to Greece to see priceless Greek statues and architecture only to be driven away because I'm from America and don't have the cultural or occupational right to see these works. On the other hand though, there are so many people who have the opportunity to view these pieces of art and have no respect or understanding of their influence on the modern world and art itself.
   In terms of mechanical reproduction, I would also argue that this process benefits those who cannot make the pilgrimage to see them in person and allows for the influence of these artworks to reach them. This increases their cult value and makes it possible for their history to be taught and for their influences to reach those of us who may never have been able to understand it otherwise. At the same time, there should be limits on this reproduction. For example, having some sort of a certified reproduction of a piece of art on a canvas or an academic poster is a way for the arts influence to spread in a respectable and controlled way, but in my opinion, having "Starry Night" strewn all over an umbrella allows for the exact opposite to happen. To me, there is a way to reproduce these artworks in a way that may preserve their historical significance, or their aura, while avoiding the horrid truths and realities of capitalism and its tendency to lessen the value of influential ideas and objects.

Summary of Cult and Presentation Value

I loved our past class discussion on Benjamin. I felt his text was very accessible, and he brought some interesting concepts to the table. I find his concepts of cult value and presentation value extremely interesting.

I like how interconnected they are; the values seem opposing but dependent on each another at the same time. I never thought about mechanical reproduction in a positive way before, but Benjamin was able to convince me that there are indeed benefits to this capitalist induced reproduction of art. As a piece is able to reach more people and larger audiences (because of mechanical reproduction) its cult value increases. The piece becomes recognized and it becomes part of the cultural sphere.

Presentation value, on the other hand, decreases with mechanical reproduction. I relate this term to the concept of aura. When a work has just been produced, it posses an aura that takes into account the time and place where it was created. After its creation, the aura gradually decreases naturally; time passes, the work might to transported to other places, etc. However, the process of mechanical reproduction accelerates this decomposition of aura and it decreases the presentation value of a piece. The presentation value has to do with the “proximity” someone is from the original work. In conclusion, as the cult value increases, the presentation value diminishes.

I think Benjamin discussion of mechanical reproduction is important in the contemporary world. With the advance of technology, new form of mechanical reproduction are created everyday. People can take pictures of anything with their phones, we can see pictures of any famous work of art in the internet, we can even skype call someone at a museum! Cult value becomes very important in our society as anyone can mechanically reproduce art easily. I am curious to see how his discussion will evolve in the future. 

The Instagram Famous

Filters — in the past couple of years, social media outlets have bombarded their users with the ability to apply layers of colors and graphics atop of their images. Be it to enhance or to emphasize the tones of a picture, the fact that certain filters hold certain atmospheres is undeniable. For example, black and white filters are mostly considered as somber, or even as classics (modern, maybe?) — but who dictated it as so? Each filter, and also our own experience, provide a different "lens" through which we see the picture in. In context of Benjamin's essay, I thought of it in terms of photography — a subject can be taken from different angles, but what about taking a picture of a subject from the same angle, but applying different filters?

Instagram accounts are more or less windows into the user's life. Went to Disney this past Saturday? Post a picture, and now everybody (or at least the ones who follow your account) knows that you've visited Cinderella's castle. While people may use Instagram for purposes of connecting with friends and family, there are also people who seek for followers outside of their immediate circle of acquaintances — in other words, they seek to be "Instagram famous." One of my friends can very well be considered a famous person; with over 20 thousand people following her account, she has 20 thousand pairs of eyes peering into her life. What intrigues me is the fact that while some of our pictures are fairly similar, she collects almost 100 times more likes that I do. A simple picture of a Starbucks cup on her account is able to reap in as many as 1,500 likes, and personal pictures get as many as 200 comments.

In comparing my friend's account and the accounts of other "famous" Instagramers, I noticed something interesting — there is a theme to their images. Among the pictures of Starbucks and selfies, a similar filter is applied to all of their uploads. It suggests the idea that there perhaps exists an optimum look to a picture that people like, and only one that is only produced with the help of filters.

Benjamin states on p.38 that "[e]ven the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be." Could Instagram posts be considered works of art, let alone reproductions of it? Do filters constitute as a method of art reproduction? Personally, it seems to me that social media has discovered new leeway for "modern" "art."

Leonardo et al in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-34335621

Postmodernism / Concepts of time and space / Nijigahara Holograph

As I've gained a better understanding of postmodernism through our readings each week, I've started to try and see contemporary media and texts from a new perspective; this post is a self-indulgent reflection piece on postmodernism inspired by Nijigahara Holograph, an extraordinary manga by Inio Asano. To provide some context, these past few weeks I've been grappling with the concept of postmodernism in relation to history and time. Postmodernism seems to me to be uprooted from the "classical" and thus, the past, while at the same time acknowledging that all contemporary existence is at once defined by its place in history, or alternatively, by its ability to exist both in the past and the present. Postmodernism, from what I have perceived, seems to possess a deep sense of instability and lack of a tangible foundation or structure. Its fundamental rejection of empiricism gives it an internal plurality that escapes definition or restraint, and that both fascinates and confuses me.

Following some of these themes, Nijigahara Holograph is an incredibly disturbing manga that deals with mortality and the darkness of human nature. To be as ambiguous as possible and give little away, the story at first seems cruelly random and difficult to follow, erratically jumping between past, present, and future. However, the final pages reveal that everything has happened because of all that came before and after - characters the reader assumed were different individuals turned out to be the same person simply occupying different locations in time (and thus age), but existing together in the same space. In a very postmodern style, the meaning of the story and a full understanding of its plot can only be located in the illogical, the non-linear. In Nijigahara Holograph, all time is occurring at once. Our location in space and time is at once fixed and constantly transient: we are constantly present both everywhere we have been in the past, and everywhere we will go in the future. It’s a concept of time and existence that overlaps too completely to be cyclical, and thus all meaning is derived from everything that has, has not, ever will, and will never happen. 


This strikes me as an expression of poststructuralist theory, wherein the constructs that govern our society—concepts of time, space, and meaning—are deconstructed and challenged. These themes seem to manifest in our readings as well, in that each new theory serves in some way to unmoore the past from its traditional occupation within a linear concept of time, whether it is challenged by "nostalgia for the present" or depicted/perceived in the form of another country (Appadurai), or confronted by Benjamin’s proposal that the location of a work of art in time and space and its “unique existence at the place where it happens to be” determines the history to which it was subject. These exist among a few other examples I’ve picked out thus far from the texts.

This thought is in no way complete, but I really wanted to make an effort to translate my thoughts into a more tangible form. I’d like to apologize to Habermas for neglecting his theory in my discussion, and I’d also like to highly recommend Nijigahara Holograph to anyone who has the time. If you read it, this post might actually make some semblance of sense.

Is Anything Shocking Anymore?

I will admit, the reading by Habermas was quite difficult for me… the theory was very dense and I reread many a line! Two quotes that really stuck out to me, however, were both on page 6, discussing creativity in modern life and the avant-garde. The first quote is as follows: “Culture in its modern form stirs up hatred against the conventions and virtues of everyday life, which has become rationalized under the pressures of economic and administrative imperatives.” This quote led me to question whether or not capitalism is hindering our society’s creativity. That is, are we too capitalistic to be modern? The conventions that are equated with capitalism, in order to reinforce consumerism, can interfere with the creative, as the conventions are centered on efficiency and profit. In any atmosphere where profit is valued higher than artistic prowess, creativity will be negatively affected. We see this theme occur in mainstream Top 40 music on the radio. The creativity is sucked from the music industry in order to make a standardized, money-making hit in order to make profit. Consumerism encourages mass production, and what is less creative than vast numbers of the same image or product?

The second quote that I fixated on was: “Although the avant-garde is still considered to be expanding, it is supposedly no longer creative.” The article discusses avant-garde as a movement focused on uniqueness and shocking the viewer. When creativity becomes mass-produced, even the avant-garde falls victim to the capitalistic consumerism. In some ways, the most shocking images now are returns to the classic, instead of continuously pushing boundaries. I am reminded of Lady Gaga’s progression of fashion and appearance, and how it is more shocking to see her in an old Hollywood style glamorous dress, than to see her in nude pleather being “born” from an egg. Overall I found this article very interesting and quite illuminating in regards to originality and the fate of creativity.

Modernism as radical eclecticism?

The concept of being “modern” has always caused certain debate in my mind and has been bothering me for a while now. The reason for this is because after being away from home for almost three months (in Boston, Santa Barbara and Miami Beach) for the first time, my mom told me I came back “more modern” and she clearly wasn't happy about it. By saying I had “become more modern” she meant that I had changed in a negative way. I grew up in a very rigid catholic society and went to an only girls opus dei high school where you are almost forced to believe in Catholicism (and of course, God). After leaving my bubble and getting to experience different cultures, beliefs, ideologies, traditions, I realized that many things I had been taught were not true. I came back with a more open mind, and my mom was very unhappy with the fact that I was now “too modern”. 

Habermas says that "the term "modern" again and again expresses the consciousness of an epoch that relates itself to the past of antiquity, in order to view itself as the result of a transition from the old to the new" (p 3). So: was my new mentality the result of the transition from the antique beliefs and doctrines I was forced to believe in and participate on, to a more tolerant and open mind after learning and experiencing real life? Why did she see this as a bad thing? She thought I was loosing my roots and I was going to end up in hell (which she still believes and worries about).

In my opinion, being “modern” is not necessarily something bad! This is were I agree the most with the author: "the idea of being "modern" by looking back to the ancients changed with the belief, inspired by modern science, in the infinite progress of knowledge and in the infinite advance towards social and moral betterment" (p 4). I believe “modern” is some kind of beneficial advance or progress, as opposed to just something new. 

This reminds me of our previous discussion about what is considered original or authentic because: what is new anymore? Furthermore, what is modern anymore? Is modernism a combination of the old and the new? Today’s fashion trend goes back to the 70’s. We are wearing crop-tops and high-waisted jeans. Could this type of ‘modernism’ be considered radical eclecticism? 

What is classic?

   After attempting to delve into Habermas, I must say that I had a particularly hard time gripping the concepts of this reading. Although a relatively short and concise piece, it was difficult for me to wrap my brain around his ideas of "spheres" and how he related other ideologies to the shifting views of modernism. At least one of Habermas's points did make sense to me however, that being that something that has been produced by modernism will eventually become a classic simply because it was at one time modern (p.4).
   A common theme in our class discussions this semester has been deciding whether something produced by modernism is actually "modern". By producing and formulating an idea that is so different from the normality of societal ideology, you have in turn created something "modern" that will leave its mark on history as well as the minds of those people within the society, this making it an eventual classic simply because it will be memorable and influential. As we have come to realize though, most "modern" ideas are based on historical one. How then, does something that has roots stemming from historical ideals become a classic itself without undermining the authenticity of the original? As so many people aim for modernism and aim for that shocking, new ideological breakthrough, how long until our society is just a trend of overwhelming modernistic ideas? Are we already there?
  There is the issue of the capitalization and profit associated with the new manifestation of modernism. Modernism has branched from simply a label that is put on a societal ideology to a label that is used to describe new technologies, new trends in fashion and design, and other new agents of capitalism. That makes the works of modernism take on a whole new meaning. Rather than creating a modernistic idea to change the times or start a movement within a society, people are now using "modern" as a way to make money, which is leading to an overwhelming amount of "modern" being produced. I think that this may be where the title of this Habermas work comes from, (Modernity-An Incomplete Project), because modernity seems to have stopped achieving what it was intended to achieve. It begun to morph and play into other, more influential ideologies of our time rather than remains a separate one of its own.
   In general, it seems that the true meaning of modern has been lost amidst this fad of modernism. As  being modern seems to have become a trend itself, doesn't this undermine the overall ideology of modernism? And can anything truly become a "classic" when there is nothing new or truly memorable about it? Not only because it is the result of a major trend, but also because it is based off of something that has already existed?

Creativity and Uncreativity

Is what is modern considered what "the new" (Habermas 4) is? Regardless of the essay, I was taught that modern equated to the technologically advanced — in other words, it was always known as the better option when choosing between the antiquated and the modern. Clearly, humanity has the knack of discarding the old; people are always searching for something better and faster. But aside from thinking of modern as "the new," Habermas suggests that modernity is closely related to the classical. Trends are constantly forgotten and replaced with new trends; what is trendy today may very well be obsolete tomorrow. However, work that is considered modern turns into "a classic because it has once been authentically modern" (Habermas 4). This, in return, reminded me of Benjamin's notion of authenticity vs. authority.

"Modernity revolts against the normalizing functions of tradition; modernity lives on the experience of rebelling against all that is normative" (Habermas 5). On the other hand, Habermas later remarks that "the avant-garde... is supposedly no longer creative" (Habermas 6). If modernity is the rebellious act of challenging the normative, and if the new is no longer creative, does this effectively mean that modernity disallows creativity? The belief that the unusual is uncreative seems outrageous, but so is the thought of thinking the norm is creative. An "abnormal" image shown on the media is called for being too ballsy, and never for being creative. So where exactly does the line lay in determining a work's modernity, and thus/also its creativity? Who decides where it should be?

Heaven knows.

Take the plunge!

Last week we discussed Macherey and Jencks in class.  Macherey says that "what is important in the work is what it does not say". 

Last class we were talking about the optimum; how this concept works and how it can totally change the outcome of something. Going back to Marilyn Monroe's picture, which Morgan Saunders perfectly explained on her post: "It’s crazy to think that if her dress were just a little bit shorter, then it would be seen as too revealing, where as if it were just a little bit longer, it wouldn’t be revealing enough."

However, this isn't said in the picture is it? Marilyn's picture was groundbreaking at the time. It rose some controversiality but it was also a huge step for women. The famous supermodel changed the perspective of how women portrayed themselves and proved that we can be sexy, glamorous, classy, beautiful, attractive and prudent(ish). What people saw in this piece of work was what was said: SEXY, BEAUTIFUL, GLAMOROUS, REVEALING, FEMININE...

However, what is really said? (Or not said?) What is important in this work - as Macherey says - is what is not said: its optimum. When people see the picture, they don't know the whole concept and process behind its success. The fact that she was wearing that exact dress, of that exact length and color; that the picture was taken at the exact moment when her dress was blown by the air in that exact same way: enough to cover her body, but revealing enough to show her legs, is what made a difference. That very precise optimum is what enabled the image to be so successful.. But that is not what the work says or tries to show right?

This reminds me of a social entrepreneurship class I took last year where the teacher took a whole week to explain "The Plunge". throughout the whole semester we read and learned about entrepreneurs from all over the world with all types of businesses  Almost all of them had come up with a great idea and had done everything that was necessary to make it happen. Basically they took the plunge! 

The plunge mean that moment when you decide to jump in, no matter what and take the risk of making your dream come true. The plunge was also that moment when you where at the right place in the right time; when you met the right people to start up your business. The plunge meant your attitude towards your dream... The plunge was just the optimum!! If Blake Mycoskie (the creator of TOMS) had not created that exact alpargatas design, he might have failed...

Do you believe in luck?

Che! And T-Shirts

Aura. I like that term a lot. This reading made me reflect about technology and its effect on art.  As a species we have gone through so many different types of forms of expression. From painting and writing to film and photography.

I think it is interesting, however, that often these “mechanical reproductions” of art, the newer means by which we can create, take the aura from the piece of art. The newer means by which we create art (such as photography) somehow cut the essence of the subject.

I think that may be, as the text suggests, because the new mechanical reproductions are many times used for massive production. How can something made to be overproduced and capitalized over represent a pure aura?

This whole problematic of the mechanical reproductions reminded of the Che Guevara shirts we see being sold everywhere. Poor Che Guevara… His image is mass produced and sold for profit, fitting perfectly into the capitalist system, when in reality he advocated for the complete opposite.  Not that he was necessarily the best person ever, but it sad to see one’s values be completely obliterated and re-appropriated.

Buy here a Che Guevara t-shirt for only $24!!!

I feel that pictures of paintings also possess that hypocrisy. The artist produces a painting at a particular moment, with a particular feeling, for it to exposed to the nude eye and evoke different emotions on people. Painting are “supposed” to be analyzed close by, when people can see the slight paint curves made from the brush. A photographic reproduction of a painting lacks in aura completely.

I like how the author talks about the differences between theater and film as well. As a former “actress” I always felt like video lacked the personal interaction of audience and performers. Film feels more fabricated and pre-conceived, without space for error and improvisation. In a way, I believe film lacks the “aura” theater has.

That’s it” I am really tired. I am sorry if I don’t make sense.

Jeff Koons-- Art Reproduction

In addition to Jonny, I really enjoyed this reading—especially because my Contemporary Art & Theory class last Spring also read it! So I was a bit familiar with it, but definitely discovered new things as I read it again. Throughout this text by Benjamin, I couldn’t help but constantly think about the renowned artist, Jeff Koons.

Koons is an American artist that is mostly known for his reproduction of common objects—such as balloon animals, which are then converted into stainless steel with sharp mirror finishes. However, he is a very controversial artist because he, himself, never makes any of his own work. He comes into his studio with a simple sketch of what he would like, and then has his studio assistants create the piece of art. So, is he really the artist? That’s a whole other story… but I mention him because he is obviously very fine with the continuous reproduction of art.

In a documentary that we watched in my Contemporary Art & Theory course, Koons’ inventory of all of his artwork were shown on a private server—not accessible to the public. In one of his collections, he focuses very heavily on butterflies. In that collection, there is over a hundred different pieces, yet there are VERY slight differences that even make each piece stand different from the other. I’m talking as small of a difference as one of the colors on a butterflies’ wing. Most people don’t even know these hidden works of art exist! He changes them the absolute slightest bit, which screams reproduction. This is crazy to me when you look at some artists that only have one piece that they’re known for.

I also found it very interesting in the reading when Benjamin talks about how people are now purposely creating things that are easy to reproduce because people would rather have something within reach (regardless of whether it is not the original) instead of taking a trip to a museum. This idea to me is insane and only makes me think where art is going. Personally, it is so important for me to see the original—I could careless about a fake. There’s nothing special about that! So I guess you could say that I’m on the same page as the people, that Benjamin mentions, being very private about artwork. I’d rather truly appreciate an original piece of art for what it is, as opposed to being okay with the constant reproduction in the art industry. 

Also, in case you're interested in Koons' work, here he is talking in his studio--

http://www.tate.org.uk/context-comment/video/studio-jeff-koons