ecstasy of influence

This was a very interesting piece. i'm always happy to hear another argument against the Man, especially when i agree with it whole-heartedly. In todays society, i believe most artists compose by what Burroughs called a "cut-up method", creating what has already been created. Not so much in the sense of making exact replicas, but that someone or something has had such an impact on their work that they end up incorporating them into their own interpretations. I know that for my projects so far this year, especially the self image, I used many references to past works of art (Huck Finn, Poe, etc), but this was simple an homage. If it wasn't for these things, I may be a different person, thinking and creating based on totally different inspirations. I compare this to the Simpson's episode mentioned and the quote "You take away our right to steal ideas, where are they going to come from?". Lethem then cites examples of great animations that would not exist without the borrowing from their predecessors.

If nostalgic cartoonists had never borrowed from Fritz the Cat, there would be no Ren & Stimpy Show; without the Rankin/Bass and Charlie Brown Christmas specials, there would be no South Park; and without The Flintstones—more or less The Honeymooners in cartoon loincloths—The Simpsons would cease to exist.

These all have a theme of being somewhat 'smart-ass' cartoons, but they are great shows none the less.
One quote that really hit home with me from this reading was this:

Most artists are brought to their vocation when their own nascent gifts are awakened by the work of a master. That is to say, most artists are converted to art by art itself.

Being an ad man, I did not realize i wanted to create advertisements until I saw the work Leo Burnette and Bill Burnbach. They have created ads that have become part of the publics everyday lives (Tony the Tiger, The Jolly Green Giant, Charlie Tuna, the famous VW ads). I have also seen ads that are inspirational and actually quite moving, but Lethem believes that this point is moot.

...even a really beautiful, ingenious, powerful ad (of which there are a lot) can never be any kind of real art: an ad has no status as gift; i.e., it's never really for the person it's directed at.

I can see how this makes sense, but i have to disagree( or I want to disagree). I cannot think of a really good argument to negate this point, besides saying that an ad is made for everyone and if everyone is moved by it then it can be a gift. I can see ad icons as gifts, such as the coca cola santa, but Lethem has left me with a bit to ponder.

GORKY

This movie is one that I was surprised I had never heard of before. What I immediately wondered was why they didn't make the movie within the film. It seems the purpose of the film was to convey they disgusting events that occurred to provoke a desired response. Since there were 3 different stories going on outside the film about the genocide, it felt as if they led the viewer off track. I realize they all tie in well, and I did enjoy the story, but the most powerful images and messages all come from the genocide. I had only heard of Gorky before, not knowing his work or the story behind it, but he seems like a depressing character. Living through the what he did in Turkey (though I don't know if they just tied him in to their film, regardless of fact), but between the genocide and his suicide the only happy moment in his life seemed to be the 30 seconds of dancing he did in his studio. What I can't stand is how Turkey can deny something like this ever happened. As horrific as these events were, I can see no downfall to admitting they occurred. One part of the movie that was basically the critical point in making it a good film or an okay one is when the old customs agent let the main character go. He found the drugs, but since the main character did not believe he was capable of being a smuggler he was released. I'm not sure exactly why I like this scene beside the fact that I believed that he didn't intentionally bring in the drugs. Maybe I am attracted to the idea that what you think you're capable of is inaccurate. The key to maintaining your capabilities is through ignorance.

Body and Archive

Though exceedingly lengthy, there are some interesting points made in this article. The whole science or pseudo-science of phrenology has always been an interesting topic to me. The idea that a person's physical characteristics can determine their tendency towards crime is intriguing. There is an obvious connection to the Nazis and some of their practices to find perfect Aryans and their tendency to declare somebody Jewish or otherwise by physical characteristics alone. Each race can be generalized by some common characteristics, which I do not believe to be stereotyping, but assuming them to have a certain personality trait based on physical attributes is a stereotype. On page 363?, there is a Bertillon Card with the picture of a man and various measurements of his features: nose, chin, ear, etc. The odd thing is his name is no where on the card. His characteristics not only identify him, but have become his identity. I am interested in having myself subjected to the science of phrenology to see exactly what my tendencies should be (I have a feeling I'm destined for greatness). One thing that this made me consider was since children's characteristics will change as they grow older, I wondered if people ever attempted to change their physical attributes, maybe creating some primitive form of plastic surgery...probably not.

stock photos

Being an advertising major, i have to dive into the stock photography pool fairly often. And looking at the photos from different sites, there is a very large amount of similar photos. Though they may not be exactly the same, they are usually interchangable. It is interesting how this reading notes how stock photography was looked down upon by the photography industry. Every time I use a stock photo, i feel as if i am just coping out because i know that image has probably been used a hundred times before. I can respect photos that are considered stock photos and below true art because advertising works much in the same fashion. Most of the work done for advertising, though it may be beautiful and wonderfully creative, is considered below art by most of those who are labeled as artists. Andy Warhol was originally in advertising and made the move to "high art" though his cambells soup can is basically a stock photo now.
Another interesting subject brought up was that of the album covers. most of the time they really don't have to do with the band and are just random. But they call it album art for a reason. That photo of K-Klass's album seems really pathetic to me and im not surprised i've never heard of them.
Whats also interesting is how a single photo can become somewhat of an icon and it will be used for hundreds of different purposes and have hundreds of meanings (meshing gears or the water drop).

Semioticsss!!!

First looking at Visual Language: Semiotics, i was intrigued of how the author noted that clothes can be semiotics. I suppose this is fairly obvious, but I reallly didn't even think about that, but I completely agree. The way people dress is usually the most basic way to communicate with other people. There is no need for any form of verbal communication, because peoples' attire is a great indicator or signifier of a person. This cannot always give an accurate representation of a person's personality though. I also really liked the comparison to the coin. The heads and tails work well to represent the concept and the sound image as one can't be with outh the other, though the coin only represents the inseperablilty of the two and not the concept behind the concept and sound image since you need to have both and having both heads and tails at the same time is not possible.
Then looking at Semiotics for Beginners: Codes, the intro regarding the golden record launched by NASA was very intereseting. I forgot that we had sent this record off into space and originally I thought it to be very well designed. But now, when I'm not in a science class, I can see how we could have put a recipee for split pee soup on it and if any aliens were to find it, it may still mean absolutly nothing to them if our references and contexts are invalid in their society. Though I suppose there is truly no universal (and i mean universal) way to communicate, especially if we are communicating with that which may not exist. Also, looking at the pictures and the associations we make with each is interesting. I glanced at the pictures first before reading each caption, and the captions basically narrated exactly how I recieved the images. It was frustrating to me that I was so predictable. The final thing I want to comment on is the references to the language of British upper class and non-upper class. I lived in England this past summer and not only was there a language variation between myslef and the Brits, but I noticed the internal differences too. One noted in this reading was that of "wireless" and "radio". I had an internship at a company where the boss was noticeably proper and he would refer to the radio as a wireless, but my younger coworkers called it a radio. I suppose there is also variations in language here in different regions of the states, but I think the international variations are more interesting. I went to a couple of concerts in London, but when I would ask about concert tickets, everyone would correct me so I would say "gig" instead of concert (which i do now habitually).

Hieroglyphs

When reading Modern Hieroglyphs, it is pretty interesting how someone can create such a simple symbol, such as those seen on bathroom doors, but have so much thought behind it. In general, I like the way positivists attempted to analyze language. Symbols should be broken down into their most simple and direct forms, though this is where the cultural differences come into play. I would think that there is a general level of intelligence across cultures, so hopefully if someone saw a symbol of an elevator with only male symbols in it, they would realize it is indeed coed elevator. I think this can relate to the reading about maps,and how there really needs to be certain contexts to extract certain meanings.
When reading about the swastika, I never previously thought about how the swastika was made into a self-fulfilling prophecy by Hitler. It did not represent what he said it did until after the Nazi's obtained the power the symbol supposedly already represented. I am trying to imagine a symbol that is currently recognized as an acceptably good one, such as an exclamation point or a smiley face, and have it totally flipped around to the point of provoking fear and hate out of those who see it. It is impressive the effect something so simple can have.

I know how to reason, i think...

I think, in general, Pierce's thoughts were correct, but I also think there are some flaws in his logic. When he discusses the photo of a zebra, he claims he could believe it to be "disagreeable" due to its physical likeness to a donkey. First, being an avid Animal Planet viewer, I do not believe a zebra to look like a donkey at all. Second, what if you do think a zebra looks like a donkey, but you happen to love donkeys and know them to be quite agreeable creatures? So in this claim, I think his arguement to be very subjective. I do like most of his examples, (though his descriptions of the 3 states of mind seem to resemble Newton's 3 laws), and I think the one regarding the richest man's house is a valid argument, also with the maps, they both mean nothing without some relative, familiar point. The final example of man being composed of living tissue seems a little under-developed, and didn't really do it for me.