Remediation
Hey~~
So . . . what do you think of Remediation? Let's use the comment feature to record your observations.
Ok by you?
k
posted by kathiyancey @ 3:18 PM
5 comments
Friday, January 26, 2007
So . . . what do you think of Remediation? Let's use the comment feature to record your observations.
Ok by you?
k
Contributors
Previous Posts
- Keywords from Class Discussion
- gina & rachel
- rachel & gina on marshall what's his face
- rachel & gina on marshall what's his face
- marshall what's his face
- Marshall McLuhan Post
- Marshall McLuhan is considered the father of the ...
- Marshall McLuhan, what're you doin'?
- Kathy's Idea of Heaven
- New Practices
5 Comments:
This is the quote that sold me: “We do not gaze; rather, we glance here and there at the various manifestations of the media. This immediacy is not based on a desire to control and appropriate the female form, or any form, and may not be univocally gendered” (81). As one who’s been schooled in Mulvey, I responded positively—ecstatically, even—at the notion that the oppressive gaze might be subverted through new media even though Grusin and Bolter aren’t the first to say it.
In Art on My Mind, bell hooks discusses the revolution in portrayals of black Americans following increased accessibility of cameras. The caricatured images aimed at perpetuating denigrating stereotypes of blacks lost credence after the democratization of photography, and, thus, the gaze of the white oppressor diminished as blacks gained authority in representing themselves through film.
A similar democratization has occurred in the exchange of digital information in cyberspace. No longer is the government or the media the sole source of information. The digital age affords us the power to undo single-minded rhetoric and participate in the free exchange of ideas, and because of this, the “glanc[ing] here and there,” we are empowered by multiplicitous voices, to see more, to know more.
Like Deidre, I was also drawn to the section on the "remediation of the gendered gaze." Here's the quote that got the biggest star in the margin:
"...the female gaze can be distinguished from the male gaze by its multiplicity--so much so that it may be not appropriate to speak of the female gaze at all, but rather of a series of looks from various perspectives" (84).
I think (and I may be wrong) that I remember discussing Lorraine Gamman's theory of the multiplicity of the female, and I remember being horrified at yet another negative rendition of the female gender. (Seriously, does anybody have anything good to say about the female when mentioned in the same breath as the male?)
Anyway, what surprised me was the notion that this same multiplicity may, through remediation, do more than simply break apart--that, by being thus fractured, it can reconverge in myriad ways to create countless new meanings (ones that, once created, I'm sure go right back to being "masculine").
I find it curious that, once one gives credit to the feminine it is immediately taken away; just as B&G give the female gaze equal footing with the male, they claim that it is so feminine it becomes universal, and that it "may not be appropriate to speak of the female gaze at all."
Why do they never mention that it may not be appropriate to speak of the male gaze at all? If the male gaze is simply a visual logic that excludes women's desire (79), why not, I dunno, include it? Instead, 'desire' is simply not ascribed to the idea of the female gaze, as if it did not actually exist.
I have a whole list of things that came out at me as I was reading. I can’t say why this quote struck me and I am not sure if it is appropriate because it doesn’t really deal with remediation other than as a social function. I am not a gamer, I couldn’t even consider myself a pseudo-gamer as I have in the past, because I haven’t repurposed my keyboard to play a game or held a joystick except maybe twice in the last few years…and I’m okay with that (I was never very big into them to begin with). But the quote that horrified me dealt with video games:
“Ideologically, the player is asked to defend or reestablish the status quo, so that even though the violence of the games appears to be antisocial, the ultimate message is not.” (93)
While I can see the truth of this ideology, especially when you realize the book is about 7 years old, with games like those mentioned, what about the more recent games where the violence is presented as the status quo? What does that say about society now?
The idea of a media expressing the violence of a society is nothing new. A clear example is seen in much of the Anglo-Caribbean literature produced during the Eighteenth Century. The History of Mary Prince discusses the condition of a slave, Mary Prince, during the Eighteenth Century and the violence that is portrayed is done so in such a detached manner that it is almost shocking. Having encountered this text toward the end of a semester that focused on the slave narrative where the violence was often graphic, the design of this text, the detached emotional nature of the descriptions and even the often lack of descriptions (she would often say things like: he gave me 100 lashes and they were so bad he had to rest, what a bad day) jolted us all as class. It is easily accepted that for a slave violence was a part of and a dominating feature of their world. But if we see violence in video games that suggest that violence itself is the norm, where theft and rape get extra points, should this not be addressed rather than just blaming the game as an isolated entity (something Remediation tells us is an egregious error)?
Side note: I actually used an Internet version of the text that was on the web to tally different word usages. What a time saver and it makes the point raised in another section of the text that discusses remediation without challenge (46) where it is pointed out that we can reorganize text on the Web without calling the character of that text into question
"These Internet and new media enthusiasts . . . are arguing that digital technoloy offers us a transparent democracy, in which the medium of political representation disappears and citizens can communicate their political will directly with each other or with their government" (74).
I found this quote interesting and provocative in light of Hillary Clinton's exploratory committee announcement via her website. On the surface, it seems as if the Internet does promote a more transparent democracy. On the other hand, the Internet also has the power to "control the message" much better than a video depicting a politician's actual behavior, as evidenced by Howard Dean (which we discussed in class).
As a democratizing vehicle on the national level, the Internet does allow more people to express their views, yet, in some instances, the global circulation makes freedom of thought sensitive territory. I think that this is why Walter Benjamin expresses hesitancy about technology, arguing that it creates a "new kind of political or revolutionary potential for mass art, a potential that can also be dangerous" (74).
Benjamin continues to say that technology destroys the "aura" of artwork which brings me to the third component of this post. I can recall numerous instances in my educational experience in which professors disparaged modern examples of literary works as "ruining" literature, instead of, as Bolter might say, "reconfiguring" the genre, or "rejuvenating" authors' desires to experiment with stylistic measures. Needless to say, we can learn a lot from Remediation as we consider how technological advances challenge, change, and reinvent older forms of media.
Regardless of the English track- whether Lit, Rhet/Comp or Creative Writing-- I think REMEDIATION is almost a track on its own- or maybe it is more of an umbrella or an arch- it is all tracks, covering all specializations and impacting every refraction from the lens of language-based study. I cannot imagine this material applies only to Rhet/Comp-- it needs to be explored and confronted department-wide and ASAP-- before it washes over and swamps everything about English Departments...
Post a Comment
<< Home