Group Presentation Reflection

We decided, from the beginning, to do our presentation on Structuralism instead of Formalism—as we where to choose between the two. This decision came about through some convincing by Francesca and myself. The two of us had some past experiences with Structuralism while none of us had any formal instruction on Formalism. The convincing did not take long, and there was no dissent. One of the main reasons we chose Structuralism was because I had an idea for a game to help the class better understand the somewhat confusing terms ‘signified,’ ‘signifier,’ ‘sign.’ While I came up with the basic structure and technicalities of the game/exercise, the finished product is surely a group effort. Each member of the group (myself included) sent images and words that correlated; creating the pieces necessary for the game once they were printed out. For the presentation I did my best to disambiguate the terms, and I provided some quotes from readings I’d done in the past that where not available in the Rivkin text. The group seemed to work well together; we used the time last Wednesday the 17^th (when there was no class) to meet face to face and divvy-up the work load, all else was sent through email. This is being written before the class took place, so I don’t know how everything will wind up going, but I assume it will go well.

dont look back

Experience is something we all contend with, but the manifestations of life are nothing more than observation of that which cannot really be seen. The blinders are on and the only things tenable are those that we have been given an unmerited reign over. The power we believe ourselves to have exists only to drag us in more and more, if it where anything else then there would be such a thing as freedom. The individual must stand up and resist, but the coverage is boundless and exists at all ends, any resistance could be turned and submission created out of it. To hide is to resist—to protect the self from instruments of cultural identity, and the tenets of industry. But experience would be for not because the unfettered one who escapes the modern condition would be unable to resist looking back into a world in which could never exist in the same way again…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is a photo, but because of the ambiguous figures, location and color it is signifies something of artistic value or purpose instead of an advertisement or informational photo. There is a dark human-figure behind a tree in the background that seems to be male. The figure is wearing an overcoat, wide pants tucked into boots almost as a soldier in combat. Because the figure is behind a tree it signifies his hiding from the figure in the foreground. But the hiding is not quite inconspicuous, he seems almost casual; hands in pockets, most of his body showing on either side of the tree—perhaps he is only hiding his face (maybe shamefully). The figure in the foreground is somewhat perplexing; it appears to be a doll (Naked with an article of clothing crumbled on the ground) with only an abdomen and two sets of legs. One set of legs acting as the upper body, sticking strait up, with the other set in the typical leg position. All four feet are covered with school girl-like shoes and white tube socks, both signifiers of youth. Being in a forest the already mysterious scene signifies some kind of forbidden nature, that we where not supposed to see.

Week III Reflection

I find the carnival of Bakhtin interesting not necessarily in the realm of literary theory, but in that of socio-political discourse. The “temporary liberation”, as Bakhtin puts it, is necessary for the proletariat to understand what there is for them, to almost provide the motivation needed for a revolution. This idea of carnival is the first step; the suspension of rank and order, of class and distinction, with carnival the ‘unofficial’ emerges. This ‘unofficial’ brings out an “atmosphere of freedom, frankness, and familiarity.” The new world of hope and happiness is only momentary, soon it ends and everything goes back to the way it was—cultural structure is powerful, more today than ever so ultimately this break from reality is just a game or an act and the industry of culture never looses its grip. It would take more than the sense of carnival to change the dominating power structures that exist, but it gives us a look into an unconfined and limitless future of the everyman.


A look at the truly carnivalesque interacting with those unexposed to the pleasures:

Week II Reflection

Though most of the ideas that were developed during antiquity are now erroneous (or only considered relevant by a misinformed few), some of the basics continue to hold ground. The Aristotelian examination of plot is used to some extent in every field of literary theory. Though we have come to understand that the specifics may rather pedantic and unforgiving it seems as though literature and its criticisms have used the ideas as a basis of understanding. What Aristotle and the other philosophers of antiquity did not consider was the change that literature inevitably encounters over time—the change in readers, in the world in which writers exist, or through an autonomous change in literary devices. To them the greatest writer was Homer, whom would have lived 500 years before. No one else came close, every writer and storyteller after attempted to imitate to the last detail. The equivalent today would be a desire to copy Shakespeare, none of the styles or individual authors would have existed over the last 500 years (Realism, Romanticism, Modernism, Joyce, Hugo, Swift, Melville, Milton, Pynchon, etc.) only men and women that attempted to be Shakespeare and always failed in the eyes of critics, and therefore readers. It may be harsh to make the compression because in 350 B.C. there was no accessibility to variety and ultimately no chance of change; if one critic with authority is fixated on a 500-year-old author that is survivable, change has a chance, but when every great philosopher, critic, and Joe Blow only has eyes for that one author change is stifled by desire, and the status quo is perpetuated by need. My attention is called to this idea of change only after reading through the Russian Formalists, who contend that change in literature, like literature itself, is as a result of the internal (in the circle of literature), not of the outside world…a great change from Greek Antiquity.

An Aristotelian Approach to “Salad Fingers” Ep. III

David Firth’s character Salad Fingers is representative of a man “in action” who is of bad character—clearly worse than the average person (59). As a result this series of animated shorts falls within the realm of a comedic plot. Unlike a tragedy according to Aristotle, Salad Fingers is not a “representation of an action that is complete and whole”, it is of a disproportionately short length, and the plot is neither simple nor complex but rather uses attributes that could be of either type (66-67,70). We see a grim looking, man-like creature that is seemingly speaking to the audience, but because he is representative of “a species of ugliness” it seems unlikely that he would also be a dependable narrator even in his daily activity (63). In these movements across the day there appears to be a successive cohesion within the action itself, but not within the bonds of reality.

It can be argued that this episode of Salad Fingers is complete and whole, as it does have a beginning, something that follows it (the assumed middle), and an end of sorts—though the plot is not well constructed and it is too short to be deemed beautiful, there does appear a unity between the parts (beginning middle, and end). The unity lies within the activity of Salad Fingers and those of the armless BBQ man, but the unity is lost at the end when Salad Fingers recognizes the existence of another character; at the end they aren’t moving about in an attempt the attain their respective goals. Ultimately the characters, their actions, their words, are meaningless because “if the presence or absence of something makes no apparent difference, it is no real part of the whole” (68). The peripheral nature of the show itself raises a question of legitimacy. If every component of a story is lacking wholeness and completeness then would it therefore lack the tangibility necessary to exist as something that can be viewed for entertainment?