#also good critique (good in the sense of thoughtful and well structured not necessarily correct) prompts discussion | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

antoine-roquentin · 5 years ago

Text

Wendy Brown, In the Ruins of Neoliberalism:

Of all the neoliberal intellectuals, Friedrich Hayek criticized most systematically the notion of the social and society and offered the most sustained critique of social democracy. Hayek’s hostility toward the social is overdetermined, one might even say over the top, as it seeks epistemological, ontological, political, economic, and even moral grounds. He deems the very notion of the social false and dangerous, meaningless and hollow, destructive and dishonest, a “semantic fraud.” Concern with the social is the signature of all misbegotten efforts at controlling collective existence, the token of tyranny. Hayek deems “society” a “makeshift phrase,” the “new deity to which we complain . . . if it does not fulfill the expectations it has created.” 15 At best, he says, the term carries nostalgia for ancient worlds of small and intimate associations and falsely presupposes “a common pursuit of shared purposes.” At worst, it is a cover for the coercive power of government. 16 Social justice is a “mirage,” and attraction to it is “the gravest threat to most other values of a free civilization.” 17 How can society and social justice be all of these things? And what is the taproot of Hayek’s animus toward society and social justice?

The first clue rests in Hayek’s frustration with the ambiguity of the modern meaning of “society.” The fact that it denotes so many different kinds of human connection “falsely suggests that all such systems are of the same kind,” and Hayek sees more than mere sloppiness in society’s semantic slide from small chosen groups to nation-states. 18 Noting that the Latin origin of the term (societas, from soctus) implies a personally known fellow or companion, Hayek detects a danger- ous romance with a lost past in its contemporary usage, where “society” is inappropriately used to denote impersonal, unintentional, and undesigned human cooperation on a mass scale. Complex interdependence in modernity, Hayek says, does not arise from fellow feeling or organized common pursuit, but from individuals following rules of conduct that emanate from markets and moral traditions. 19 To call this “society” wrongly conflates “such completely different formations as the companionship of individuals in constant personal contact and the structure formed by millions who are connected only by signals resulting from long and infinitely ramified chains of trade.” 20 More than merely being wrong, however, this conflation reveals the “concealed desire” by social justice or planning advocates to model modern orders on intentional, organized notions of the good— the stuff of totalitarianism. Hayek spies a second dangerous illusion in the idea and idealization of society. The concept, Hayek says, is based on a false personification of a collection of individuals and a false animism in which “what has been brought about by the impersonal and spontaneous processes of the extended order” is imagined to be “the result of deliberate human creation.” 21 Both the personification and the animism generate the conceit that certain things are “of value to society” and ought to be sup- ported by the state (legitimating its extended reach and coercive power), things that can be valued only by individuals or groups. 22 Personification and animism also lead to the belief that society is more than the effects of spontaneous processes and can there- fore be manipulated or mobilized as a whole; this is the basis of totalitarianism. 23 And they lead to the belief that society is the product of design, improvable by a more rational design, one that would trammel the evolved traditions and freedoms that are the true basis of order, innovation, and progress. 24 Above all, false personification and animism wrongly produce society as a tableau for justice. If society is imagined to exist apart from individuals, and if its order is thought to be the effect of deliberate construction, it follows that it ought to be designed by designers in a justice- minded way. This opens the door to unlimited state intervention in both markets and moral codes, which, Hayek argues, have “a peculiar self- accelerating tendency”: The more dependent the position of the individuals or groups is seen to become on the actions of government, the more they will insist that the governments aim at some recognizable scheme of distributive justice; and the more governments try to realize some preconceived pattern of desirable distribution, the more they must subject the position of the different individuals and groups to their control. So long as the belief in “social justice” governs political action, this process must progressively approach nearer and nearer to a totalitarian system. 25 Hayek’s alternative to state- administered planning or justice is not, as is commonly said, free market capitalism. Rather, as chapter 3 will elaborate in more detail, morals and markets together generate the evolved and disciplined conduct to “create and sustain the extended order.” Evolved conduct “stands between instinct and reason” and cannot be submitted to rational justification, even if it may be rationally reconstructed. 26 Although we can retrospectively articulate the function of both markets and morals, they are not the product of a functionalist design; indeed, their evolutionary emergence and inchoate operation are fundamental to Hayek: “If we stopped doing everything for which we do not know the reason, or for which we cannot provide a justification . . . we would probably very soon be dead.” 27 Markets and morals, then, are neither commensurate with nor opposed to reason, neither rational nor irrational. Rather, they endure and are valid because they arise “spontaneously,” evolve and adapt “organically,” knit human beings together independently of intentions, and establish rules of conduct with- out relying on state coercion or punishment. Both markets and moral tradition generate a dynamic, rather than static order and bring into being new human “powers that would otherwise not exist.” 28 Both propagate felicitous conduct in large populations without relying on the overreach of human intention or the fallacies of human reason and without employing the powers of the state. Markets and morals, for Hayek, also reveal the true nature of justice— its exclusive concern with conduct, rather than with effects or results. Justice is only about correct principles, universally applied, not conditions or states of affairs. 29 Justice also has nothing to do with rewarding effort or the deserving. Hayek even considers the Utilitarians erroneous in this regard, especially John Stuart Mill, whom he criticizes for writing that a just “society should treat all equally well who have deserved equally well of it.” 30 Most significantly, he attacks Horatio Alger for popularizing the idea that capitalism’s best defense is its rewards for the hard-working. 31 In fact, Hayek declares repeatedly, markets reward contributions, nothing more. 32 Such contributions, like wealth or innovation, may or may not be the fruit of great effort and, conversely, long and intense labors may come to little. 33 Hayek knows this may be disappointing, but claims it is not unjust— conflation of the one with the other is the great mistake of social democrats. Traditional moral systems parallel markets in many ways, Hayek adds, especially in their provision of order without design and their location of justice in rules, rather than in outcomes. Moral traditions generate an “inherited system of value,” which is “a device for coping with our constitutional ignorance,” an ignorance comprising both the vast unknowability of the world and all the consequences of our actions. 34 If we knew every- thing, could anticipate all effects of action, and could agree “on the relative importance of . . . ends,” Hayek says, “there would be no need for rules,” including those of moral conduct. 35 Moral rules are ultimate values, then, not because they solve the problem of unknowable facts and unshared ends, but because they provide codes for action despite this problem— they are a peculiar kind of deference to unknowability. As such, however, they can only guide moral conduct; they cannot themselves generate a moral order. In the same way that effort may be incommensurate with reward in the economic domain, “moral conduct will not necessarily gratify moral desires” for particular outcomes. 36 This may seem woefully unfair and even unreasonable, just as repeatedly losing at a game of chance does. “We understandably dislike morally blind results,” Hayek writes of moral- economic arrangements generated by spontaneous order and protected from political interference, but they are the hard truth of free and progressive human history in a world where we are too ignorant to plot predictable collective outcomes or agree on common values. Moreover, “the fruitless attempt to render a situation just whose outcome, by its nature, cannot be determined by what anyone does or can know, only damages the functioning of the process itself.” 37 And then, Hayek darts past the claim that the morally upright or the hard- working may not be rewarded for their virtue to declare that “inequality is essential to development” and “evolution cannot be just” in the popular sense of the word. 38 True justice requires that the rules of the game are universally known and applied, but every game has winners and losers, and civilization cannot evolve without leaving behind the effects of weakness and failure as well as chance. Thus, he describes the “game” that will advance civilization, satisfy wants, disperse information, feature liberty, and is wholly “undesigned’ while still being capable of improvement: It proceeds, like all games, according to rules guiding the actions of individual participants whose aims, skills and knowledge are different, with the consequence that the outcome will be unpredictable and that there will regularly be winners and losers. And while, as in a game, we are right in insisting that it be fair and that nobody cheat, it would be nonsensical to demand that the results for the different players be just. They will of necessity be determined partly by skill and partly by luck. 39 Now we are in a position to understand what Hayek considers so dangerous about the “social justice warriors” who would remake the world according to a rational plan or grand moral calculus. They draw on the “fatal conceit” of society and wrong- headed principle of equality to attack the twin pillars of civilization, traditional morality and competitive markets. They are spirited by a form of social and intellectual primitivism that imagines a director behind “all self- ordering processes” and lacks the maturity to fathom historical evolution and social cooperation that exceed intentional design. 40 They are childlike as well in demanding equality of outcomes. They inappropriately submit morality to rational standards and conflate market and moral justice with outcomes, rather than rules. They intervene in markets in ways that damage innovation, development, and spontaneous order. 41 More than being merely misguided, social justice attacks the justice, freedom, and civilizational development secured by markets and morals. If belief in the social and political stewardship of society is what takes us down this path, then society must be dismantled.

#marvel's problem is that it can't write villains this good

16 notes · View notes

laranjatoranjalaranja · 5 years ago

Text

Aesthetics and History of Art: what is their role under fully-automated luxury communism?

Aesthetics has become unpopular among the left. Today, it is commonly associated with fascism and right-wing manipulative propaganda tactics. Walter Benjamin’s famous text about the modern reproduction of artworks can be credited with laying out a great part of the structure and terms of this discussion. In his work, what he calls the “aestheticisation of politics” is famously associated with fascism, while art, understood as a kind of aesthetics that has been politicised, is contrarily and positively associated with communism.

The main reason why this text acquired the cult status it has today, within the artworld, is because of the way in which it defines contemporary art as inherently revolutionary. Benjamin believes that, thanks to recent advances in its technological reproducibility, truly contemporary artworks were finally freed from old hierarchical ideas of originality, and thus acquired a new and enhanced political potential, particularly suitable for the communist political project.

Aesthetics, on the other hand, without the politisation that would turn it into art, becomes simply the domain of appearances, simulation, and spectacle in the Debordian sense. And this is where this theory starts to show its fragility.

A closer look at Benjamin’s theory reveals it to be susceptible to the same criticism as Debord’s Society of the Spectacle. As Jacques Rancière has pointed out in The Emancipated Spectator, the separation between the simulated appearances that seduce the masses, and the true reality only accessible to some, is unfounded and misleading, despite being commonly understood to be a fact of life.

The legitimacy of this separation depends on a thriving platonic idealism that often affects both right and left of the political spectrum and which is particularly prevalent in the Western world. According to this ideology, the mind and the body are hierarchically separated. While the mind is our reliable means of accessing the truth, the body is the deceiving realm of flawed sensorial perception which is completely unreliable unless previously subjected to correction by reason.

If we understand aesthetics in its broadest possible form, as simply that which relates to the senses, it inevitably falls into the suspicious second half of this division. But art can still be saved if it is not understood in aesthetic terms but as politicised aesthetics. The politicisation of aesthetics entails fighting ‘the spectacle’, by subjecting the ‘simulations’ our body perceives to the political ‘corrections’ of our intellectual reason.**

To further clarify why this kind of framework is flawed, it becomes useful to make a quick detour to the work of another author. In Pedagogy of The Oppressed, Paulo Freire defines praxis as a dialectical union between theory and practice. This means that, while our theory can, and should, inform our practice, this same practice also needs to inform our theory, thus making sure it matches our actual, lived reality. This means that the relationship between mind and body, theory and practice, reason and senses, is better understood as one of cooperation and mutual dependency than one of hierarchy and antagonism. It also means that aesthetics, broadly understood, plays an essential role in this dialectical process.

But, going back to Benjamin, I have said that the main reason his theory got so popular within the artworld is because of the revolutionary character he assigned to art. But this is not the only reason. Complementing this idea, we have a second one which relates to the phenomenon of demonization of aesthetics I mentioned in the very beginning.

It is becoming increasingly hard to ignore the fact that the art faces serious, and inherent, issues and contradictions. The complementing aspect of what makes Benjamin’s argument appealing is that it allows us to keep our faith in art, while also feeling like we are targeting the problems that ‘threaten its purity and integrity’. These problems are thus presented as non-inherent, originating from external sources, and a great deal of what made this ‘outsourcing’ possible has been the use of aesthetics as a scapegoat for the issues affecting art in general.

Aesthetics has proven to be a particularly good fit for this. This is because if, on the one hand, some people felt suspicious towards art because they thought it was shallow, futile and even deceiving, we could argue, like Benjamin, that this was a problem of aesthetics and not art. Although this ‘futility’ argument is relatively common, it is not a very strong one (as I have tried to show when I mentioned Ranciere’s critique). A strong argument that can be directed against art, on the other hand, would be that it is a historical invention of the modern West, which means it has not always existed and, therefore, the usefulness of its continued existence becomes open for debate. But this critique too can be diverted towards aesthetics.

In fact, aesthetics much more that art, was accused of being something made up in the 18th century by Western white males unaware of their privilege, to create rules that would validate what they thought of as beautiful and worthy of attention. Aesthetics, as a discipline, deserved all the criticism it got. More recently, the art market and the ‘artworld’, where also targets of a similar critique which, was also perfectly valid but, for some reason, continued to assume that all these things can be separated from art itself. As if art could ever have come to existence, and continue to exist, without them.

This criticism of aesthetics as an academic discipline, the art market or the artworld, is usually done using a leftist discourse. But critiques that extend to the notion of art itself are rare.

Occasionally, more radical leftists will become interested in topics like art. And many of them do end up realising, half way through their own research, courses or degrees, that all these accusations often thrown at ‘aesthetics’ are just as applicable to our notion of art. Frequently, these people end up being the ones who are more dismissive and suspicious of our contemporary cultural institutions in general. They often believe that art, like most of our contemporary culture, can be categorised as ‘capitalist spectacle’, and therefore should be understood as a distraction to be ignored.

These people can be easily convinced that art is a capitalist invention of the modern West. But the conclusion they draw from this is that the best thing to do is to dismiss all the things presented as art by our artistic institutions as capitalist distraction tactics, meant to divert our attention from the ‘real’ issues. What they fail to recognise, on the one hand, is that art is not a distraction to be ignored, but a weapon to be fought. And, on the other hand, they make the mistake of accepting the terms in which the capitalist artworld defines what aesthetics can be.

Capitalism knows well how to use aesthetics to its advantage. It has developed things like marketing and branding, as well as art, which are complex and highly effective techniques designed to work specifically to its own advantage. It knows how to tell the seductive and persuasive story of its own triumph and legitimacy.

This left, on the other hand, has little more than outdated ideas of communist propaganda, which are literally from the last century. And this is because, today, the left often conceives of aesthetics as either evil or merely secondary. We haven’t taken any time to develop an alternative way to understand this other part of us, the one that is more connected to the senses and which is equally essential to understanding the world around us.

While part of what I will do here is question the validity of, and politics behind, our modern notion of art, I also want to argue that aesthetics is, actually, not necessarily susceptible to the same criticism. Unlike art, the artworld and the art market, the word aesthetics can have an older, broader meaning. Aesthetics, as that which simply relates to the senses, is not susceptible to the same criticism as its modern academic homonym, or as art, because it is not to be understood as a Human creation. It is not connected to any idea of ‘what it means to be Human’ or any ‘essence’ of Humanity. So, in this specific sense, aesthetics can be said to be an a-historical concept.

The prevailing platonic idealism I mentioned previously, leads people to prefer thinking in terms of Art and Humanity, rather than in terms of aesthetics, which would imply the recognition of a common ground, shared among us and all the other animals.

Aesthetic sensibility, understood in this way, is possessed by anyone and anything that simply possesses senses. From humans, to animals and maybe even other kinds of beings. While we can say that not all cultures have art because the concept of art is an invention of the West, we cannot say the same of things like aesthetics in this broad sense.***

Rather than dismissing aesthetics as a product of capitalism or a more or less futile thing to be dealt with ‘later’, we need to recognise that capitalism will thrive as long as it continues presenting itself as the best, or even the only, materially realistic, viable, alternative. No matter how many theories and manifestos the left has, as long we are not capable of presenting aesthetic alternatives to what capitalism has been imposing, none of it will feel, or even be, translatable to real life.

The left cannot go on pretending like aesthetics is a dispensable, secondary issue. Aesthetics is not a distraction, it is an essential part of how we experience our lives and therefore it too deserves a pride of place in our political agenda. Ignoring it will not make it irrelevant.

At this point, I have been studying History of Art in academia for 5 years, and it strikes me how, despite appearances, truly revolutionary History of Art barely exists. Despite the overwhelming number of so-called radical journals and other kinds of left-wing publications, most of it is actually liberal. What I mean by this is that most of the people who write for these publications seem to share a common goal: to free art from the elites’ domination (much like Benjamin). This is a liberal goal because it aims at reforming rather than revolutionising the existing system. It aims at saving art at all cost and it rules of even considering that its obvious and persisting problems might be inherent and that a possible solution would be to replace it with something radically different. Related to this, is another striking problem which is the prevailing assumption that art and the elites are separable to begin with.

I want to make it clear here that art cannot be understood (especially within academic contexts) as a human constant. Studying the history of art implies that art has a history and, therefore, a historical origin. Humans were not ‘artistic’ by nature, since the beginning of time. Art is a concept created by the modern West. There were no actual synonyms to the word Art in non-Western cultures and no one in Europe was even talking about such a thing until the 18th century (see Kristeller’s The Modern System of The Arts (pt. I and pt. II) and Shiner’s The Invention of Art*).

It is irresponsible and anachronistic for Art historians to say or imply that art is something that humans have always done. This is an imperialistic tendency that we need to, not only distance ourselves from, but also actively fight against. And I stress actively fight against because these things I am writing about here have already been mentioned in academic publications from decades ago (Kristeller’s first article was published in 1951).

Since its creation, Art has existed to serve the capitalist elites (see Taylor’s Art, An Enemy of The People*). It was created by them, for them. To both serve and represent their interests.

I say capitalist elites, specifically, because the works commissioned by the traditional nobility did not fit with our modern idea of art in their original contexts. The treasures of the French monarchy only became Art when the bourgeoisie took over and made them what they are today - the collection of an Art museum. These objects were stripped of their original meanings and functions and became targets of ‘disinterested contemplation’ and those who see this as a revolutionary triumph over an oppressive regime conveniently forget that the reality is more complex and the same thing was also done with foreign objects stolen by the French colonisers, shortly after.

Today, many people are still wondering why is Duchamp’s Fountain Art. The answer is, mainly, because this is what the elites behind our art institutions decided is art. The line between Art and non-Art is merely an institutional one. Art is an institutional system. And this is a system whose tables cannot simply be turned because, in order for Art to exist, it needs to distinguish itself from other modern categories like crafts and popular culture. The category of Art depends on this hierarchical distinction because, simply put, Art is High Culture.

This means that as long as art, as we understand it today, exists, there must also exist a privileged group that gets to draw the line between High and low culture. The cultural identity of these elites might change overtime, but their status as oppressors will always remain, within this structure. This is why the quest to ‘democratise’ art is merely reformist rather than revolutionary.

I am not advocating for the burning of museums, Futurism style. I do think museums are important sources of information that should be free especially when they are public. What I am saying is that when these museums exhibit things that were not originally intended to be art as if they have always and unquestionably been so, they are making a serious mistake. They are silencing alternative narratives and disrespecting the people who created the objects they claim to be spreading knowledge about. They are suppressing aesthetic diversity, not promoting it.

Regarding contemporary Art museums and galleries, I think it would be fair to say that they are mostly bullshit. I make intentional efforts not to give any of my money to them (this also applies to academic Art Schools). I sometimes visit them, when they are free, because I want my opinions to be informed. I don’t usually pay for any tickets (they are usually even more expensive than regular museums anyway) nor do I let myself be troubled by those who believe I cannot be an expert on Art with a proper opinion, if I don’t go to all the ‘landmark’ cultural events. I try not to let art snobs like Jonathan Jones dictate which cultural events are or aren’t worthy of attention.

To conclude, History of Art as an academic discipline still has serious issues. Real History of Art should recognise that Art has a specific historical origin, and not treat it like a mysterious (mythical) part of ‘Human Nature’.

To do leftist History of Art, nevertheless, we need to take this even one step further and study the consequences of the capitalist origins of this phenomenon and how it developed from there. The impacts of its structure, the way it works, how it legitimises itself, its weaknesses, all these should be analysed in ways that will allow this phenomenon to be coherently perceived through a left-wing lens, subsequently enabling us to imagine viable alternatives to the current Art system (Richard Sennett does something like this in his book The Craftsman. If you don’t feel like reading, he also explains it beautifully in his lectures on craftsmanship available on youtube).

Also, I feel like I should mention that the mythical treatment Art historians give their subject, either emphatically and intentionally or through the passive and implicit acceptance of this mythical definition, is probably one of the things that mostly contributes to the much criticised workings of our contemporary art market. Surely, one of the reasons why artworks are sold at such exorbitant prices is because what these people are buying is not just good looking paintings. These objects are being sold as the latest, most recent pieces in the important puzzle that is Human History. Once gathered all in the correct order, these pieces are thought to reveal what it means to be Human. The ‘History’ of Art I’ve been criticising here is largely responsible for the maintenance of this profitable myth, that has been giving the powerful disproportionate control over the narratives of our collective existences.

Notes:

* If you don’t have access to these texts via your public libraries, genesis online library should have it for free download, just click here and try following the links presented (they are forced to keep changing domains because certain people don’t like it when information is too accessible).

** I do believe there is something more to be said about this politicisation of aesthetics. I think it can be a very useful and interesting terminology, but it needs to be conceptualised outside of this limited ‘reality versus simulation’ framework.

*** Or, for example, of something like venal blood. All people and animals with venal blood can be said to have venal blood, despite understanding or not what this means. A culture which does not understand what we mean by ‘art’ today, cannot be said to have it (they will have other things, which they will understand in different terms, and which, I want to emphasise, are not of lesser value just because they won’t fit our ‘artistic model’).

13 notes · View notes

alexcaldownapier · 4 years ago

Text

Week 13 (Final Post) - Representing the Real

Critique Feedback Form

NAME: Alex Caldow

PROJECT: “Just A Job” 5-minute short documentary

DATE OF CRITIQUE: 28/04/2021

TUTOR(S): Sana Bilgrami

VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF FEEDBACK:

Sana:

“In a short 5 minutes you’ve managed to achieve, to tell us a really complex and complicated story. There’s a huge backstory to this guy’s life and then there’s what he does today which is also really interesting and it felt like, as you said Orla, it felt like the film was in two parts. The before and the after. I’m just going to comment on a few things separately and then try and make sense of it all together.

So yes, of course, your sound levels were terrible and so I was struggling to listen to half of the interview and that’s something that you really need to fix because there’s no point if no one can hear what’s being said.

What extraordinary cinematography! I thought that some of those shots are really amazing, really well composed, very interesting variety of shots. However, it’s kind of interesting because in the first part, we hear this backstory but what we’re looking at is a very contemporary, just-now space and then we move on to - although you do try and match some of the images with the - like when he’s working in the cemetery and then you have the night shift, which I think is where the strength of your film lies. And I almost wonder whether you could have made the heart-breaking choice of getting rid of some of that backstory and focusing more on the present. Because he says some - I mean he is an amazing, clearly although I couldn’t hear him, he’s an amazing interviewee. He says some amazing stuff like he’s telling us all this stuff about his - I couldn’t quite work out what was happening in the civil service but clearly they didn’t treat him well and he left. And then he worked as a grave-digger and you know looking after the cemetery and he said that it was just awful and then he ends up by saying “I hate edinburgh”. But all the while, we’re seeing these really romantic shots of edinburgh. So, structurally there’s a disjoint in your film, where you as filmmakers are saying one thing and the guys saying something else and the two kind of strands are… I was trying to make sense of what you were doing and I’m not sure that there was a reason for doing that but correct me if I’m wrong. But it felt like the first part of the film, the visuals just did not have any relationship, although you do film the cemetery so there’s a kinda direct relationship there but they’re so beautifully framed whereas the story is really heart-wrenching and kind of really difficult. So, it felt there was a mismatch.

And then, in the second half of the film, I mean I loved all that stuff, all those many different shots, you get a sense of being inside this space. I’m not sure, because I couldn’t hear it well, I’m not sure how well it’s established that he is a night watchman or, sorry, a security guard at halls of residence. That’s something that I’m not sure is clear. I mean, I know it, because we’ve talked about it but that’s something to watch out for but perhaps I just didn’t hear it. But really strong stuff there about how he helped students out and at that time it felt like your visuals were kind of responding to what he’s talking about as well. So, I guess this is - yeah, it’s complicated my feedback in that sense, but you’ve made a really complicated film so you deserve complicated feedback. And I think, I’ll applaud your ambition for doing so. If you were going back to the edit suite, I would say you need to be really ruthless if you want to make a really brilliant film because you’ve got brilliant material both from the security guard and your own stuff that you’ve filmed.”

Leo:

“Yeah, I enjoy this. I agree with most of what’s being said and you know you’re already fearing my comment about the sound mix but you’ve identified the problem. I think it’s stuff that comes with experience. You had the bad luck of having a character that’s very soft spoken and the sounds you wanted to add are quite piercing so it doesn’t mix very well. But what I think is really important is that the way you use the sound and the images shows that you have an understanding of why you did that. So, whether it did or did not work, I think is secondary to the fact that you are conscious of why you’re doing that. I can see that there’s an intention behind it, which i think is really the thing we should applaud here rather than how it turned out to be because you know, you might’ve found a thousand different problems and you’re still not entirely familiar with pro tools and sound design so I don’t think that’s an issue. I think what I appreciate is that there was a thinking behind it.

I do very much agree with the second half being much stronger than the first and it's not even the images that you’re using. I think what works against your film mostly is the editing. There’s this really bizarre section in like the beginning and the middle where like the editing is really fast-paced and it doesn’t really match his slow, somber tone. As you said, he’s really soft spoken and it’s really interesting to hear him speak - I have good headphones so I could follow the interview - but as i try to get lulled by his words, it’s really interesting to hear him speak but the editing is kind of fighting against that, kind of cutting very fast and that gets solved when you get to the night shift section which is why I think it’s a really good section.

Cinematography is really really good, well done, some of the shots are just gorgeous. I think KJ in the chat is mentioning the one of him in front of the blue background. Really good, it fits really well with what is being said. The night cinematography is really nice. The sound design, it’s interesting because I was expecting a lot of quiet, but you were “lucky”, so to speak, enough to catch a night where you know the fire brigades were called and all the alarm and the sound, I think it’s really interesting. I think it subverts expectations, what I was expecting and that’s never a bad thing as long as you’re being true to what his experience is like. I think it was really good. So, yeah. I think obviously you know what I think I can say about your film is that it’s a really good film that’s very unpolished on a technical side of things. But I don’t think that’s an issue. I think it’s more important to prove that you know what you’re doing rather than you actually can do that. Because that can come at a second moment. Especially in a situation where you don’t have all the kit and equipment and facilities that you would like to have with restrictions. So, yeah, I really really enjoyed this. Well done on the cinematography; well done on like finding the best moments of his interview. As you said, it’s great you discovered some more of his character through the interview stuff that you didn’t expect and yeah, I think it works really nicely.

Sana:

Yeah, I just wanted to re-emphasise that I was really pleased with the way you are experimenting with sound design and playing with that. So that was really good. Really well done. It was there and it made your film richer for being there. So, well done with that. And yeah, what a great interview, really fantastic. I know how difficult it must be because whatever he says in that first half of the film is really interesting as well and I wonder, if you were to go back to the edit suite, I wonder if maybe if you were a bit more ruthless and not necessarily take it out entirely but edit it down a little bit and paid attention to what was happening with the visuals at the same time. In terms of pace and what we’re seeing - yeah I loved the second part of the film. I think it really works really well. So, well done.

I just feel that if you could revisit your visuals and look at the pace and look at what's being used where your film would be much stronger for that.

MAIN POINTS GLEANED FROM FEEDBACK:

The complex story is both a strength and a weakness as it feels a little disjointed

The sound levels were too low

The cinematography was very beautiful if sometimes mismatched from the tone or context

The edit pace was disjointed with the tone of the film

REFLECTION: All the criticisms, I think are completely valid. It is a shame that, due to the vast amount of great material we sourced, both from the interview and from Ben’s B-roll footage, we would have had to lose a lot of good stuff to better emphasise specific sections. The fast edit pace was something I talked to Ben about but he stuck to his vision, his specific ideas for the pace expanded in his blog. The pace allows us to cover a lot of ground, however, I do think it minimises the impact of each individual story or section. By holding on specific moments, shots or sentences from Phil, they could be given more weight. The feedback was a lot of highs mixed with a lot of lows and I think if we had focused more on these highs - Ben’s excellent B-roll, the introspective and personal answers from Phil and the clear, day-in-a-life structure - we’d have a much stronger film. Overall, however, I’m really happy with our final film and I think it tells a really interesting story about disillusionment and underappreciation faced by many in the modern workplace. It has been a very smooth production and I feel our team has worked together well under Ben’s direction.

ACTION PLAN: For future projects, I think I need to have a clearer idea of the story in my mind and the strengths and weaknesses of it in order to get the best from it. More versions of the edit may help as well - we could have caught the sound level issue. This project has helped me become far more confident as a producer and as a documentary filmmaker, two things I haven’t had much experience with.

Farewell Representing the Real, it’s been a pleasure.

#representing the real

0 notes

eilisfrasernapier · 4 years ago

Text

Representing the Real: Critique Feedback Form

PLEASE FILL IN THIS FORM AFTER THE CRITIQUE And add the completed form to your Research Journal.

NAME: Eilis Fraser

PROJECT: ‘Just a Job’ short documentary

DATE OF CRITIQUE: 28/4/21

TUTOR(S): Sana Bilgrami

VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF FEEDBACK:

Sana:

“In a short 5 minutes you’ve managed to achieve, to tell us a really complex and complicated story. There’s a huge backstory to this guy’s life and then there’s what he does today which is also really interesting, and it felt like, as you said Orla, it felt like the film was in two parts. The before and the after. I’m just going to comment on a few things separately and then try and make sense of it all together.

So yes, of course, your sound levels were terrible and so I couldn’t, I was struggling to listen to half of the interview and that’s something that you really need to fix because there’s no point if no one can hear what’s being said.

What extraordinary cinematography. I thought that some of those shots are really amazing, really well composed, very interesting variety of shots. However, it’s kind of interesting because in the first part, we hear this backstory but what we’re looking at is a very contemporary, just-now space and then we move on to - although you do try and match some of the images with the - like when he’s working in the cemetery and then you have the night shift, which I think is where the strength of your film lies. And I almost wonder whether you could have made the heart-breaking choice of getting rid of some of that backstory and focusing more on the present. Because he says some - I mean he is an amazing, clearly although I couldn’t hear him, he’s an amazing interviewee. He says some amazing stuff like he’s telling us all this stuff about his - I couldn’t quite work out what was happening in the civil service but clearly they didn’t treat him well and he left. And then he worked as a grave-digger and you know looking after the cemetery and he said that it was just awful and then he ends up by saying “I hate Edinburgh”. But all the while, we’re seeing these really romantic shots of Edinburgh. So, structurally there’s a disjoint in your film, where you as filmmakers are saying one thing and the guy’s saying something else and the two kind of strands are… I was trying to make sense of what you were doing and I’m not sure that there was a reason for doing that but correct me if I’m wrong. But it felt like the first part of the film, the visuals just did not have any relationship, although you do film the cemetery so there’s a kinda direct relationship there but they’re so beautifully framed whereas the story is really heart-wrenching and kind of really difficult. So, it felt there was a mismatch.

Leo:

“Yeah, I enjoy this. I agree with most of what’s being said and you know you’re already fearing my comment about the sound mix but you’ve identified the problem. I think it’s stuff that comes with experience. You had the bad luck of having a character that’s very soft spoken and the sounds you wanted to add are quite piercing so it doesn’t mis very well. But what I think is really important is that the way you use the sound and the images shows that you have an understanding of why you did that. So, whether it did or did not work, I think is secondary to the fact that you are conscious of why you’re doing that. I can see that there’s an intention behind it, which I think is really the thing we should applaud here rather than how it turned out to be because you know, you might’ve found a thousand different problems and you’re still not entirely familiar with pro tools and sound design so I don’t think that’s an issue. I think what I appreciate is that there was a thinking behind it.

I do very much agree with the second half being much stronger than the first and it's not even the images that you’re using. I think what works against your film mostly is the editing. There’s this really bizarre section in like the beginning and the middle where like the editing is really fast-paced and it doesn’t really match his slow, sombre tone. As you said, he’s really soft spoken and it’s really interesting to hear him speak - I have good headphones so I could follow the interview - but as I try to get lulled by his words, it’s really interesting to hear him speak but the editing is kind of fighting against that, kind of cutting very fast and that gets solved when you get to the night shift section which is why I think it’s a really good section.

Cinematography is really good, well done, some of the shots are just gorgeous. I think KJ in the chat is mentioning the one of him in front of the blue background. Really good, it fits really well with what is being said. The night cinematography is really nice. The sound design, it’s interesting because I was expecting a lot of quiet, but you were “lucky”, so to speak, enough to catch a night where you know the fire brigades were called and all the alarm and the sound, I think it’s really interesting. I think it subverts expectations, what I was expecting and that’s never a bad thing as long as you’re being true to what his experience is like. I think it was really good. So, yeah. I think obviously you know what I think I can say about your film is that it’s a really good film that’s very unpolished on a technical side of things. But I don’t think that’s an issue. I think it’s more important to prove that you know what you’re doing rather than you actually can do that. Because that can come at a second moment. Especially in a situation where you don’t have all the kit and equipment and facilities that you would like to have with restrictions. So, yeah, I really enjoyed this. Well done on the cinematography; well done on like finding the best moments of his interview. As you said, it’s great you discovered some more of his character through the interview stuff that you didn’t expect and yeah, I think it works really nicely.

Sana:

I just feel that if you could revisit your visuals and look at the pace and look at what's being used where your film would be much stronger for that.

Okay, well done, really well done. I can see you have put in a lot of effort into this project, it shows in the work that you’ve created.

MAIN POINTS GLEANED FROM FEEDBACK:

-Sound needs worked on.

-The images/visuals didn’t always match up with what he was saying. Similarly, with the tone and pace, Phil the interviewee spoke slowly and somberly but some of the cuts especially in the first half of the documentary were paced very quickly.

-Should go back and look at the edit and cut things, be strict.

-Great cinematography.

REFLECTION:

-Feedback very informative and I agree with it all.

-With all the footage we had got we could have gone in multiple directions with the all the different topics he discussed. We could have made multiple variations of this film that would showcase him in a variety of ways using the same footage which gives an idea of how much we captured. I think this is one of the areas where we have to improve, not trying to include absolutely everything.

-The sound problem is frustrating. For a number of reasons, one being the fact people can’t enjoy and be fully engrossed on the film without it being fixed, can easily zoom out with bad sound.

but I am glad it was reconsidered that we gave using sound design a go and it can be worked on.

-From watching again, I can see a drastic change in the first half of the film from the second, the second is way more cohesive and works better.

-Happy that everyone was heavily pleased with the cinematography.

-In hindsight to hone in on just a couple or a few things from the interview specifically would have been more impactful and have a better-rounded film. But the good thing here is that we have everything that is necessary to do this, it is just a case of cutting and shaping it.

-I would have wanted to have painted him in a happier light because he had those funny and uplifting moments which would have also matched a lot of the visuals better.

-I really agree with the pacing and it being inconsistent.

-structural dysfunction with the “I hate Edinburgh” and showing really nice bits of Edinburgh, this wasn’t deliberate so looking back more planning could have been done to make sure what part of the interview we use matches the visuals / makes sense with the visuals.

-loved the second half, successfully conveyed the space, and very proud of this section of the documentary.

-Also looking back at the pre-production stage, the moodboards and stills we had got for the nightshift shoot really resembles that of which was in the final film. So, in terms of planning, I think we got that aspect right.

ACTION PLAN:

GO BACK TO EDIT

-Fix sound, that’s number 1 as the film loses a very key element that would make it a great film. Ben has a one-on-one tutorial to get the sound levels sorted.

-Cut down on some of the sections and make the whole film on the same sort of wavelength as second half.

-Share, once we have finalised our best version share with Sana and others.

0 notes

productiongroupf · 5 years ago

Photo

Film Shoot - The Encounter

“Our second week of filming was more successful and I think that everyone in our group agreed that the outcome was of a lot higher quality. For this week we once again had three different premises to choose from, one of them being ‘Someone turns out to be someone else. An appointment becomes a trap; a date turns out to be a police agent, etc.’ This is the idea that we decided to go with. For our short film we wanted to play around with the idea of a tinder date, wherein the guy turns out to be acting as a spy for his friend.

We placed a big focus on pre production, heading to the location a couple hours before filming so that we were able to set everything up the way we wanted it. We used props such as tapestries, fairy lights and notebooks/paints etc. to give the impression of a teenager/young adults room. We needed to make sure that we weren’t relying too heavily on the dialogue to tell the story so by setting up the mise-en-scene we were anchoring the audience into a certain ideology already. However, we did face a setback in that because of the storm a group member was stuck at home which therefore meant that we had to change our filming location on the day of filming, I do think that we handled the situation quite well though and managed to make good use of the space that we had.

My role this week was cinematographer, which was somewhat of a challenge for me as out of our entire group I had had the least experience with using the camera, however Maddie and Zoe were both there to help me out when I needed it. We tried to use a wide variety of shot types and camera angles, such as POVs, extreme close ups etc. as this was something that was highlighted during our feedback from the previous week.

I think that overall we did manage to achieve this but our main critique was how we edited certain shots together, some we had used just didn’t make sense and some were completely unnecessary altogether. Overall I think our entire group was pleased with how our film came out, we knew it was a definite improvement from the prior week and our peers agreed, although it could have been better it was definitely a step in the right direction and the feedback we received allowed us to improve on our future productions. ”

— Week 3 Blog post, Leah (Cinematographer)

“For this week I took on the role of director, I thoroughly enjoyed this as I am hoping to direct in the future. Because of this I felt much more confident this week as I enjoy having the creative control over the look of the scene. I took the skills I had developed in the previous week regarding shot lists and liaised with the cinematographer to create one myself. I ensured that this was as detailed as possible so that I was able to accurately portray my ideas for shots to the cinematographer. While constructing the shot list I colour coded each shot based on how important it was to shoot, on set I found this to be very helpful as it provided structure for each scene and due to time pressures meant that I knew easily which shots to cut. In future weeks I hope that as a group are able to grow in our efficiency so that we don’t face the same amount of time pressure and are able to obtain more of our proposed shots. Furthermore the theme of this week was mise-en-scene so as the director I was able experiment with this. Although I was already aware of the importance of all elements of mise-en-scene (setting, props, lighting and costume), the shortness of the film made it all the more important. Based on the script, I knew that the film we created would only be about 2 minutes long and as we had chosen to do a drama that explored interlinked relationships, I thought it was of paramount importance to get the mise-en-scene accurate. This is because the audience would be able to indirectly understand the background story of the protagonist and understand her better as a character meaning that they would be more invested in her story and emotion. To do this we discussed the backstory of our Daisy (the protagonist) in depth so that we could accurately display her personality through the décor of her bedroom (where the majority of the film was set). We used a variety of bright colours and no clear colour scheme to give the impression that she is a character who struggles to conform and finds it difficult to make bonds with people. To give the correct feel for the film I wanted to use subdued yellow light to give the room a cosy feel and show the importance of the interaction as she was bringing Jack into her safe space, thus making the betrayal more painful and more emotive for the audience. The biggest problem we faced while shooting was the fact that one member of our group was stranded due to cancelled trains and we had planned to shoot in her flat. As a result we needed to quickly find a new location and set dress it appropriately. From the point of a director, the way in which this obstacle impacted me most was due to fact that I had designed the composition of shots based on the layout of our original location so I was forced to think of creatively solutions in order to capture the scenes in the way I wanted. In addition, another problem we faced was that I was required to act in the film making communication between myself as the director and the cinematographer difficult as I was unable to watch the shot as it was being captured. I feel that this is another thing that impacted on the time management of filming this week.”

— Week 3 Blog post, Maddie (Director/Actor)

“Our story this week was based on “the encounter” however I do think that it would have fitted into the other title categories we had to choose from. Our limitation was that we were not allowed to use music. The lack of music made it hard to develop the relationship between characters, however we could have worked on this by giving the characters more breathing space and silent reflection in some shots so that the audience could have time to consider their emotions, as the dialogue was maybe a bit too snappy and quick. We were 45 seconds over the “maximum” time limit, so I think the story would have required quite a bit more work to give space to hold shots for longer to show characters emotions, and I would consider this is future for similar films, however as the sound recordist I was focused mainly on the quality of audio and that was mainly dialogue in this case. We were also limited in the lighting that we could use, however normal lighting and lamps were interesting to use and play around with, as we blocked out any light coming in from outside and they were our only light sources. We did this was as we wanted the story to take place after a late-night date rather than at 2 in the evening, therefore it took some thought to set the scene up. This week we were allowed to move location away from the Parry Williams building, which meant that we were able to play around with and develop the mise en scene. We spent a lot of time preparing to film, making sure everything on set was placed with purpose or that it made sense. Our choice of location was however a bit small and hard to manoeuvre through with the camera and boom which posed its own challenges and, because of this we have some wide shots that perhaps look a bit strange. We also had problems with mise en scene in student accommodation in terms of attaching decorations to the walls, as it is not permitted, and therefore a different location may have been more useful as we had more in mind for the mise en scene than we were able to achieve. For the story we chose, It was potentially confusing to the audience why the guy was snooping around, how far would a person go to find out what their ex was up to and would they necessarily send their friend on a date to get a hoodie back? I learned that our story was very dialogue driven and therefore we should attempt to use dialogue more intentionally rather than using it as the driving force of the story. This week we had more options when it came to the cut and picking the best takes was easy, and we also had time to try our hand at colour grading to give the scene a warmer and cosier look. Close ups were improved on, and I was much more satisfied with the result than I expected, and the experience of working with the sound was fun.”

— Week 3 Blog post, Zoë (Sound)

And here is the short film: The Encounter

youtube

0 notes

edwad · 7 years ago

Note

random thought: wouldn't a georgist style land value tax lead to the consolidation of valuable property by large firms? if an LVT is levied, I don't see how homeowners who own valuable land would be able to hold it. I get how LVT is good from an urban planning perspective (better density and resource allocation) but I don't see how it's any more (or less) favorable to socialists than any other tax.

the land value tax, especially in the hands of georgists, is almost necessarily paired with the idea that land should be held in common/socialized, which is why marx talked about the LVT (in the pre/non-georgist sense) as “simply an attempt, decked out with socialism, to save capitalist domination and indeed to establish it afresh on an even wider basis than its present one”. i dont think hes necessarily wrong, but i do think that he barely read george’s work and that he was especially bitter when it came to his peers that served as socialist competitors for the practical way forward (proudhon and duhring being others that come to mind).

also its a very progressive tax so the more valuable the property, the higher the taxes become, and the more money which gets pumped back into the economy. if this were structured well (as in, if the revenues from the tax were utilized in genuinely useful and progressive ways), then i think this might be just about the only instance of a real and structural “trickle down” economy, which is why ive considered it as a potential experiment for a socialist transition.

i think despite all of that what youre saying is a genuine concern, but its not terribly uncharacteristic of capitalism as it already is without a LVT so i suppose the potential benefits of the tax itself is more what draws people to it, rather than the the possibility that capitalists might act like capitalists.

as for the homeowner question, i know that some georgists have considered the possibility of zoning land (usually with the convenient benefit of assuming a capitalist world which is nothing like our own), which might have some effect on how the tax is levied on housing, if at all. but i think this might contradict what for them is a genuine (but undoubtedly, if only accidentally, semi-radical) free market bias, since nothing is more Natural and Liberating than discovering untapped natural resources and then proceeding to throw people out of their homes so you can exploit their land. this, especially when tied to socialization of land by the state, rather than actual common property by the community, might turn into a classic case of capital + state power. we’ve already seen eminent domain used in this way in the united states, and in louisiana, where i’m more familiar with the actual practice, the typical term is actually “expropriation”. in this instance, the legalese is much more telling.

regardless, ever since marx, a decent marxist/marxian critique of HG has been pretty lacking imo, and many on the marxian left that are opposed to georgism are still in favor of LVTs (like michael hudson, who isnt a Pure Marxian by any means, but hes an easy enough case-in-point, especially since Pure Marxians never lift their noses from purity in the first place and are the exact thing im complaining about here). we should really be reconsidering and re-critiquing all of those other alternatives that used to exist and are now starting to come back (carson’s mutualism, gaffney’s georgism, etc). we cant just assume the correctness of marx against these other people/ideas. ruthless criticism should never amount to simply quoting marx, and i think we can/should do better.

9 notes · View notes

disabilitythinking · 7 years ago

Text

Disability Communities ... Followup

Last month, I blogged about the idea that there are actually several different "Disability Communities," based on the major different approaches disabled people have to their disabilities. In that post, I proposed 5 of these communities or approaches, something like this list:

Activism Culture Achievement Assimilation Cure

Note: I have decided to rename "Bootstrapping" and call it Achievement instead, because "bootstrapping" is a little too dismissive or judgmental. I am also simplifying "Cure Questers" to just plain Cure.

Let's look at these categories in a little more detail:

Activism

◎ Personal participation in activism ◎ Problems of disability are mainly social and structural, and therefore correctable ◎ Activism is a valuable and important way of addressing disability issues ◎ Disability activism is urgent, exciting, empowering ◎ Hope for better future through better disability policies & services

Culture

◎ Regularly use and/or produce disability-oriented media ◎ Enjoy discussing & exploring disability as a social identity ◎ Disability is a culture, a personal and collective social identity ◎ Disability identity is a source of personal & collective pride ◎ Hope for better future by combating ableism and promoting disability pride

Achievement

◎ Focus on self-improvement, education, training ◎ Focus on getting a good job ◎ Pursuit of maximum achievable financial independence ◎ Value maximum achievable practical independence, self-determination ◎ Hope for better future by personal achievement and proving disabled peoples' capability

Assimilation

◎ Goal of achieving mainstream social acceptance ◎ Social acceptance is signaled by others ignoring or looking past disability ◎ The ideal is a "normal life" in which disability is insignificant ◎ Disability is an inconvenience, a challenge, an obstacle ... not really an identity ◎ Hope for better future by making non-disabled feel at ease with disabled people

Cure

◎ Goal of curing or substantially reducing your disability ◎ Disability is mainly a personal health and fitness issue ◎ Activism focused on medical treatment or prevention of specific disabilities ◎ Fundamentally dissatisfied with having disabilities ◎ Hope for better future by preventing disabilities

The original post was just table setting for a bigger point, which is that I believe most disabled people are unique blends of these approaches. Mapping out how each of us invests in these approaches can reveal a lot about what kinds of disabled people we are. At the same time, I think it can also help make sense of the frequently huge differences and divisions in the disability community as a whole.

I'll start with myself.

I wanted to make some kind of graph or chart to illustrate where my own disability thinking sits among these different approaches to disability. So, I gave myself 10 "points" to distribute among the five approaches ... the more points, the more heavily invested I believe that I am in that category. Here is what I came up with:

Activism: 4 - My main interest is in activism, and my overall view of disability is that better disability policy is the key to a better life for disabled people. Also, I tend to like disability activists, and talking about disability issues is stimulating and exciting to me.

Culture: 3 - I am also interested in, and a small producer of disability culture. I absolutely believe that disability is an identity and that there is a real disability culture. However, this interest is still rather new to me, and I still occasionally find myself feeling skeptical of the importance many of my friends and colleagues attach to issues of identity, language, and representation.

Achievement: 2 - I care about my own success, not just as a person, but as a disabled person who can be an example to others. At the same time, the brand of disability activism that centers on conventional markers of success leaves me cold.

Assimilation: 1 - I care a great deal about having freedom, access, and integration, but I'm not that interested in whether I am fully assimilated and viewed as "just another guy" by non-disabled people. This is partly because I don't think that total blending in is really possible for me, and partly because I've always been a bit of a loner, happy to be set a little apart from the crowd.

Cure: 0 - There is no medically or practically meaningful cure or therapy imaginable for my particular disabilities, which is probably why I have never been the least bit interested in such a thing. Meanwhile, there are things that can and should be done in society, things we already know how to do, that would make life better for disabled people.

And here's a graphic representation of all that:

What would your chart look like?

Next month, I plan on finishing this three-part series of posts by using this formula of sorts to look at how my profile has changed over the years, from my youth, to young adulthood, to the present day me. I may also try to chart out some other kinds of disabled people and disability organizations that have very different profiles, and emphasize very different approaches to disability.

Observations:

My instinct is that the majority of disabled people are mostly invested in a combination of Achievement and Assimilation, with a bit left over for Activism and Cure in specific circumstances ... such as the threatened loss of health care (Activism), or the prospect of significant pain relief from surgery or medication (Cure).

I would guess that the overall investment in Culture has grown a lot just in the last 10 years or so. Until recently, appreciation of disability culture was almost entirely restricted to people with a background in academic cultural theory, the kind of mindset and analytical skills you pick up in the liberal arts college experience. However, I think that social media has created much more direct, intuitive, and accessible entry points, opening up interest and participation in disability culture to a much wider audience.

For a long time, the Achievement approach to disability was synonymous with Activism. The goal of disability activism was almost entirely about ensuring equal access to education, employment, and participation in conventional middle class American life. This is changing. Disability activism is more ideological now, (not necessarily a bad thing!), more engaged in existential issues ... like long term care and eugenics ... and just a little less with public school inclusion and employment rates. These are still important, but no longer exclusive, unquestioned goals.

The most broadly shared, easy to understand approach is probably Assimilation. It's the one approach most evenly shared by disabled AND non-disabled people. It's message ... "Just treat me like everyone else," is simple and relatable. It has for a long time also been considered the most easily accomplished. However, in recent years, the disability community has become more skeptical of the prospect of achieving true assimilation and social acceptance. Also, some question the value of assimilation itself, as wholehearted embrace of disability culture becomes a more viable, fulfilling alternative.

This rubric of 5 approaches or communities seems like an especially good way of clarifying the fundamental differences between disability organizations as well as individuals. Those of us engaged with the disability community can probably identify by name organizations that exemplify Activism, Achievement, Assimilation, and Cure. Oddly, I can't think of a disability organization that belongs squarely in the Culture approach and community. Am I missing something, or is this actually an open slot for some new disability organizations that don't yet exist?

As always, your questions, thoughts, and critiques are most welcomed. And if you feel like sharing how you see yourself in relation to these approaches, do share!

#Ideas #Culture

2 notes · View notes

mild-lunacy · 8 years ago

Text

What Characters Deserve: Projection vs Empathy

Projection is something I've long struggled with in fandom. I've actually recently reblogged an illustration of how it works, which is a bit over-the-top but nevertheless accurate. There's definitely a progression of attitudes, from the mildly transformative to the wildly appropriating. I'd like to note that it's all *natural*; I'm not saying there's a right or wrong way to be a fan, obviously. I'm just saying that I personally struggle with the predominant nature of this approach in fandom and the role it plays in typical fan discussions, because I think it leads to a lot of discourse about what went 'wrong' when canon fans are disappointed. It is a pervasive attitude, but one that's pretty much impossible to argue or push back against effectively. Also, the fact is that I would generally *prefer* there was more of an emphasis on empathy in reading or responding to fiction: that is, asking the question of 'how can I put myself into this fictional character's shoes' instead of asking, 'how can I put myself *into* this fictional character'.

For example, I'm a fan of slashing characters, because for me it starts with the canon and plays with it based on its unexplored potentials in fanon. Sometimes people slashed the canon randomly or invented OCs, just for fun, but the history of slash is primarily one of a romantic reading of existing close male friendships. Conversely, I get frustrated by pure queer headcanons of het canon source texts lately, which seem to happen through a fundamentally different process than the way classic slash was done. There's a difference in approach between 'this is fun and/or it fits' (empathizing) and 'this is how it *should* be' (projecting). The latter would state that queerness is good and *therefore* a given canon character is queer (or a POC, or a different gender), even if the whole story is actually based heavily around a het romance (this is the case in 'The Scorpio Races'). That headcanon is thus absolutely independent of the text, and involves pure projection, often combined with a sort of pushy, moralistic bent. Suddenly, any tiny thing about the characterization that's not, I dunno, completely boring and meaningless is a 'queer sign' to be decoded; and of course that's fine, when there's actual queer-coding. It's just... sometimes there simply *isn't* any. One would need to transport themselves to a less ideal, less comfortable universe to appreciate that book. That's a worthwhile task, in my opinion, given the book is well-written and otherwise worthwhile.

It's worth meeting the story where it lives. To pretend there is coding where none exists would be to strip the text of its context and reduce it to a purely modern and 'good' or moral text that has a properly extensive and broad amount of representation. However, as a fan I'm all about appreciating what's there. If I can't, why would I even be a fan? Consequently, it's hard for me to relate to the idea of characters who 'deserve better'.

I realize I get a bit knee-jerky about it, which is ironic, I suppose, 'cause people I related to and was friends with in HP fandom said this about Draco Malfoy all the time. And I guess I try to excuse it and say Kavinsky isn't like Draco to *me* for various reasons, and not every antagonist or character is equivalent and they certainly don't all deserve the same things. I'm pretty blase about minor characters of any sort 'deserving' any more development, especially in narratives that don't rely on an ensemble cast or are otherwise telling a different story. I'm even relatively chill about the storylines of major characters not turning out how I wanted, or even how anyone would want. I'm not even talking about stuff like explicitly canon Johnlock; look, Gansey and Blue are the major het couple (and probably major couple, period) of The Raven Cycle, and Maggie Stiefvater said they still can't actually kiss at the end, 'cause it's still true that if she kisses her true love, he'd die. The problem you learned about on the first page is still there on the last page (so... worse than BBC Sherlock in that sense). Everyone in fandom hates that and rejects that reality to substitute their own, it seems-- except me. I'm okay with it (and it's kind of frustrating 'cause it's easy to feel pretty deeply isolated even among fellow shippers, 'cause literally *no* Blue/Gansey fan seems to accept what Stiefvater said).

It's not because I don't care about Bluesey (or Johnlock, obviously). I ship them both hardcore. You could say it's that I'm just... a huge canon-whore, more than like 95% of fandom, and that's true. But it's also true that I think I relate to fiction differently. Partly its that anyone who ships or likes Bluesey at all seems to want it to be happy and to get emotional satisfaction from canon. That's the 'warm fuzzy' orientation to stories, as Julad once wrote; I'm 'cold prickly' all the way. I'm cool with implicit resolutions and subtext. I'm also relatively cool with not being 'satisfied' directly at all, given it's not too bleak or depressing. Besides that, I generally don't project onto the characters; I *empathize*. I value their story, their needs and wishes. I accept that they are not me. I'm *interested* in that difference. So if they're satisfied by the end, I'm satisfied. I don't tell fictional characters what's supposed to be enough for them, you know?

Possibly, an even better example than the Bluesey kiss issue is how many people in the Raven Cycle fandom have said Blue 'should have' been gay, and either have been platonic with Gansey or have Gansey be a girl. Like, I've literally seen people claim they were 'robbed' (though perhaps a bit ironically). This sort of projection is not atypical of fandom attitudes; it's probably more correct to say it's actually typical, but this is an extreme case. Seeing canon Johnlock is obviously not the same as aggressively genderbending Gansey and then blaming the author for not doing that, because, well, the narrative itself supports Johnlock. It's not out of thin air or based entirely on wish fulfillment. However, *some* arguments aren't that different in kind, because naturally, fandom discourse is what it is, as is fandom in general.

Of course, you could argue that all this is splitting hairs (and I know it). It's certainly vaguely ironic 'cause you could certainly also argue certain critiques of BBC Sherlock I have sympathized with essentially say (not in so many words) that John and Sherlock's characters deserved better. How do I justify this?

First, just 'cause I sympathize and integrate other people's viewpoints doesn't mean it's my natural response. It's also different 'cause in BBC Sherlock, the story arc is deeply integrated with John and Sherlock's relationship. To the degree I do wish there was explicitly canon Johnlock, my concern is that the story wasn't all it could have been based on its own structure, not that my favorite romance or character got short shrift. But then, I can see how other people feel it's just a ship like their ship, and given they don't see the arc-- and the arc remained subtextual/implicit rather than part of the surface text-- I can't expect everyone to share my context or to read texts correctly when the show-runners (more or less) didn't read the (potential of the) text correctly either. Or at least, it certainly seems very possible at this point. At the same time, while I'm tempted to say JKR didn't read the potential of Draco Malfoy correctly, I certainly hesitate to do so, 'cause I really am a canon-whore to the end. There's definitely some cognitive dissonance involved here, 'cause people's favorite argument about Kavinsky in TDT is that Stiefvater didn't understand her antagonist's potential or read her own character correctly. And that upsets me! But how could I say this is true sometimes but not others, given I love all these stories and think these are great (if flawed) narratives.

I dunno if I really thought Draco Malfoy 'deserved better', and ditto for John and Sherlock, anyway. I don't really think in those terms, even if I sympathize. I think in terms of 'does this make sense' or 'does this work in context', and if it doesn't make sense at first, I try harder. I also just enjoy complexity in characterization, which generally involves some unresolved or even unresolvable threads... granted the narrative doesn't constantly set up a resolution (like Sherlock's constant tango with 'romantic entanglement'). In general, I like characters who struggle and make mistakes, without necessarily needing them to be overtly 'fixed' or corrected, though. I don't need, say, John Watson to always be admirable, or Sherlock Holmes to be the perfect consulting detective who really does value 'cold reason' above all other things. I think I just like characters that are *interesting*, storylines which are dramatic and unusual.

The major way I think characters 'deserve better' is if they're underutilized. A lot of people say this about, say, Noah Czerny in The Raven Cycle books, but he was a huge part of the plot! Huge. The only concern is that he didn't get a happy ending, even though, you know... dude is *dead*. It's too late. Sometimes there is no way out, and facts are facts: Noah is always dead. And sometimes there *is* another solution, but the author thinks the difficult one is more interesting, unexpected and creative: so Blue and Gansey still can't kiss after the end of TRK, and John Watson hit Sherlock even though he didn't absolutely *have* to in TLD. And sometimes, well, *sometimes* the story the writers are telling us is *really* not the story you may have wanted, and they take the characters in a nonsensical or unworkable or just-- badly executed direction. That's sort of what happened with BBC Mary Morstan, I think. Every character deserves to be written well, and the truth is that sometimes they... aren't. To be frank, usually I don't care if it's a minor character or the plot or character arc of the main characters is well enough served. I don't have the mental energy to care specifically about minor female characters just because they're female; the thing is, though, is that I don't particularly need to *project* onto female characters to feel at home. I don't feel like I need a female avatar in any given story, but especially if I'm fond of one of the leads. So for me, the question of how they treat Mary or Molly and how they treat, say, Anderson isn't that far off. Of course, as far as I can tell, this is atypical. By and large, people want to read about themselves, and by 'themselves' they mean... whatever is the next best thing to being literal.

I don't begrudge people this, really. I treat it as a fact. People's interest in fiction is mostly useful for them for very personal reasons... even escapist or fantasy/romance fiction, or perhaps *especially* that. Most fantasy fans seem to want to escape into a world where they exist and matter, as a general rule of thumb. A world where they are important, perhaps stronger, more beautiful or smarter than in reality, but.. present. To be clear: I've never felt like this. I've just wanted to escape into a place that was truly *different* and magical. Not that I didn't want to be powerful, but I just never felt particularly constrained by the facts of my actual life, except insofar as they were what I wanted to escape. In the end, those facts were boring and I'd easily forget them at the first opportunity. That said, there's a great variety of female characters with many of my personality traits in fantasy novels (INFPs are probably one of the most typical fantasy protagonists), so.... Who knows, I might feel differently if I was a fan of superhero comics, PC games or even just mainstream movies. I just... wasn't. You probably also get a different attitude reading epic fantasy than those comics or mostly watching TV at a formative age. Although I did watch sitcoms growing up, it wasn't anything I was invested in emotionally (I loved Star Trek, Buffy and X-Files, all of which obviously had strong female characters but also other kinds of characters). Maybe I was a bit spoiled.

Anyway, it is true that stuff like sitcom type shows on TV and superhero comics are obviously directed at certain audiences: there's a lot of sorting of titles by type of protagonist and expected audience. With hundreds of superhero titles, you start to want one for your 'team'. You don't really do that with epic fantasy. You just have the genre, and fun tropes within the genre... and a lot of generic Mary Sues, probably. With science fiction, the whole point is to mess with the established social customs and experiences in the Real World, so there's no point in transferring things wholesale. Everything is up for grabs by definition, though in retrospect I'd have definitely enjoyed if it was more gay.

In the end, I think it's clear that human subjectivity creates projection when imagination (and one's sense of self) is involved at all. Naturally, both these things are heavily involved in fiction. That's sort of a reflection of mirroring: the fundamental ability people have to mimic others' emotional states or body-language. I'm not entirely trying to fight windmills, nor do I wish to destroy this dynamic: I just think that empathy could fill the role of projection, and I personally would certainly enjoy fandom a lot more if it did. It would be great if people were more interested in characters (and other people!) for the ways in which they're different, but still *human*. What a wonderful world that would be. And, I admit, a more comfortable environment for me personally, with less cognitive dissonance to go around (not that this is anyone's concern but mine, of course).

For a concrete example of what would change with more emphasis on empathy, there would be less heteronormativity, I think, 'cause people wouldn't so strenuously project their own personal and cultural norms onto characters they like. On the other hand there would also be less yelling about headcanons on how a character is actually and/or 'should be' canonically queer/black/etc, and any dissent is unacceptable. Perhaps with a loosening of the bonds of heteronormativity, the need for such assertive pushback would be obviated. More fans could... relax, maybe. At least, I know I would. People are people, so there'll always be wank; I'm just talking about how *more* empathy chosen instead of projection would mean *less* fan conflict and heteronormativity, among other things.

I don't know *how* to actually positively support or encourage empathy rather than projection, aside from being in a teaching role with children, while their relationships with fiction are still forming. Nevertheless, I wish there was something I could do productively. As it is, I rant and ramble about this at intervals to let off steam, but I'd like to make a difference. I don't want to change human nature... but it'd be nice to encourage certain responses over others. To some degree, empathy is important in real life now more than ever before, since the world is so connected and so very tense about it. The question of 'how do we appreciate the Other without appropriating or dismissing?' is an important one, even if its fannish version is just one fangirl's eternal lament.

#fandom meta #pointless rambles #characterization #reader response #oh fandom #raven cycle #hp feels #draco love #sherlock feels #narrative #queer issues #bluesey ❤️#me myself and i

6 notes · View notes

somapancakes · 6 years ago

Text

Truth in Nietzsche’s On Truth and Lies in a Non-Moral Sense

Assignment 1, SEM 2 2013-14:

Our usual conception of truth could be said to presuppose some kind of correspondence between a statement a person makes, weather this be internally or externally, and reality. The correspondence theory of truth, initially brought to light by Bertrand Russell, holds the view that “truth exists in some form of correspondence between belief and fact.“ Throughout On Truth and Lies in a Non-moral Sense, Nietzsche attempts to challenge this, as he seems to have a problem with the fact that we have created and also blindly accepted, this conception of truth. American philosopher Hilary Putnam says that the simplistic understanding of truth as correspondence is that there is a world out there; when what we say or think is ‘true’ we think we have got the world right and we say something is ‘false’ when what we say doesn’t correspond to the way the world is.

A basic, common sense, non-precise, non-philosophical but standard explanation of what we mean by truth could be demonstrated by saying that we understand and agree with the fact that there is a world out there that exists the way it does, has in the past and will continue to do so in the future, regardless of if I’m perceiving it or not. What philosophers are interested in is the notion that it is actually very difficult to specify how us speaking about the world can get the world right. For Nietzsche, correct perception of the world would mean an “adequate expression of an object in the subject”(TL, 148). However, for Nietzsche this is “contradictory and possibly impossible”(TL, 148). What Nietzsche seems to be getting at here is the fact that when we assume we are speaking truth about a thing, we fail to notice how different thinking and speaking about a thing is to the thing’s actual reality; “For between two absolutely different spheres, as between subject and object, there is no causality, no correctness and no expression there is, at most, an aesthetic relation; I mean, an allusive transference, a stammering translation into quite a different language. For which purpose a middle sphere and mediating force is certainly required which can freely invent and freely create poetry.” (TL, 148) So, we establish the notion that to think about a thing has a very different reality to the kind of reality that whatever we’re thinking or speaking about has. For Nietzsche, everything that exists in human experience originates with an act of intuition or naming, which is a figurative rearrangement of something that is external to us. This figurative rearrangement is the ‘translation into quite a different language’ that Nietzsche was talking about. To demonstrate this, it could be said that if I see someone take a round green shaped object off a tree and bite into it I will probably infer that the round green object I see is an apple. Apple being the sound we use to represent the round green shaped edible object. However, the sound apple does not directly correspond to the object at all; it does not shed any light on what it is like to be apple. This “mysterious X” (TL, 145) for Nietzsche is necessarily unknowable to the human intellect, and this seemingly Kantian understanding of reality outlines that there is a significant difference between talking about a thing and the thing in itself. Kant wanted to explore the relationship between the phenomena, or, our experience of things, and the noumena, the things in themselves. From this Kant argues that we can never be certain of the nature of our understanding of life, which is a standpoint he adheres to throughout The Critique of Practical Reason, which Nietzsche seems to have taken onboard in his early ideas concerning truth. So, how does this ‘translation’ work? How do we turn our sensory apprehension of the world into an apparent truth about the world? Well, the key thing to note here is that at most it is an “aesthetic relation”. The “mediating force” that creates the difference between thinking about a thing and the thing in itself is for Nietzsche somewhat artistic, or rather; Nietzsche thinks that all our interpretation of the world is creative. But what is the nature of this creativity? And could there possibly be different species of creativity? For example, if we have a poet writing about a bird and a scientist writing about a bird, one may assume that in the scientific account, statements made correspond more directly to what the bird ‘is’ – it’s truth. However, it could be said that the poet is trying to do more than just simply present what the bird is. Nietzsche says that “a painter who has no hands and who wished to express in song the image hovering before him will still reveal more though this substitution of one sphere for another than the empirical world betrays of the essence of things” (TL, 148-149). What Nietzsche is suggesting is that even to express the world involves some kind of creativity – it involves this translation from sensory perception into thought into idea and finally into word or sound. Each one of these steps for Nietzsche is creative and also it is important to note that Nietzsche thinks each time a step is taken something is added, unlike the scientific account of the bird but like the poetic account. For Nietzsche, this way of translating from sensory perception into word is okay, but he thinks that often when we speak of truth we assume we are just saying things as they are, but in fact we are excluding from our attention the creativity of the whole process, as opposed to expressing and articulating things without doing anything to the thing itself- simply representing the thing. Nietzsche demonstrates this by saying that “where words are concerned, what matters is never truth, never the full adequate expression; otherwise there would not be so many languages” (TL, 144). One way of demonstrating this is to look at a passage by Jorges Borges, which talks about the representation of a terrain through use of a map;

“…In that Empire, the Art of Cartography attained such Perfection that the map of a single Province occupied the entirety of a City, and the map of the Empire, the entirety of a Province. In time, those Unconscionable Maps no longer satisfied, and the Cartographers Guilds struck a Map of the Empire whose size was that of the Empire, and which coincided point for point with it. The following Generations, who were not so fond of the Study of Cartography as their Forebears had been, saw that that vast Map was Useless, and not without some Pitilessness was it, that they delivered it up to the Inclemencies of Sun and Winters. In the Deserts of the West, still today, there are Tattered Ruins of that Map, inhabited by Animals and Beggars; in all the Land there is no other Relic of the Disciplines of Geography.”

—Suarez Miranda,Viajes de varones prudentes, Libro IV,Cap. XLV, Lerida, 1658. (Borges, 1967).

So, the creators of the map will never be satisfied until they have something that corresponds exactly point to point the terrain, but then the map will get in the way because it covers everything. The only way a map can represent in an accurate and helpful way a given area is by changing, condensing it so you can see what you want to see all in one go. If the map were entirely accurate, as accurate as it was possible to be - simply a re-presentation of the terrain, it would be of no use. The map has to creatively condense the terrain much like how Nietzsche thinks we have to creatively translate our sensory experience into communicating our experiences to others. Nietzsche proposes that concepts arise as abstractions of individual experiences and all concepts arise “by making equivalent that which is non-equivalent” (TL, 145). Since Nietzsche thinks that there is no way of knowing what the essence of a thing is, all we can say about truth is that it is a “mobile army of metaphors, metonymies, anthropomorphisms, in short a sum of human relations which have ben subjected to poetic and rhetorical intensification, translation, and decoration, firmly established, canonical, and binding; truths are illusions of which we have forgotten that they are illusions, metaphors which have become worn by frequent use and have lost all sensuous vigor, coins which, having lost their stamp, are now regarded as metal and no longer as coins.” (TL, 146) What Nietzsche seems to be suggesting here is that all truth is merely and illusion, created by humans through language – “metaphors, metonymies and anthropomorphisms”. It could be argued that what Nietzsche means when he says that truth is an illusion, is that we see truth as if it is a fundamental aspect of man. But why is this? Nietzsche thinks that, assuming that we are animals and we are the way we are because of evolution, why would we have this seemingly counter productive drive for truth? When really it is deceitfulness that is not only beneficial to us socially, but due to the fact that to deceive is one of the key strategies that we have developed to not only help us survive as a species but also to structure our society. In Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil, he speaks about this aspect of illusion or truth being used to survive as a species, but says that in the case of truth it is a question of to what extent the judgment we make to say if something is true or false “furthers life, preserves life, preserves species, perhaps even cultivates the species” (GE, 7). Another important factor of Nietzsche’s thought is that of interest and disinterest. We could say that when we talk about wanting the truth about something, we simply want to know, without taking anything away from it, how it is. Nietzsche is highly suspicious of any attempt to propose the notion that one has a disinterested view, and he is dubious about the idea that there can ever be such a way of seeing the world. It could be said that Nietzsche enjoys exposing views, which claim to be disinterested, unearthing the hidden motivation behind such views to prove that human beings can never be disinterested in this way. If we take the example of a gold prospector, we can see that he wants to know something about the world – where the gold is. However, the reason he is interested in where the gold is is because he want’s to extract the gold and sell it. He wants to know because and so that; because he’s a gold prospector and so that he can sell the gold to make a profit. For Nietzsche, the intellect can’t transcend human interest, he thinks that there is always a because and so that. Nietzsche thinks we fail to notice this and assume that we just simply want to know the truth of things, but for Nietzsche there is a “blinding fog over the eyes and senses of human beings” (TL, 142) that restricts us from seeing the true interested nature of our view of the world. It could be argued however, that scientists could have a disinterested view of the world in that when a scientist wants to know about gold he does not want anything from it, he simply wants to ontologically know what it is like to be gold, but Nietzsche still thinks that in every attempt to learn about the world there is some motivation, even for scientists, behind it – we are never disinterested. Overall, throughout On Truth and Lies in a Non-moral sense, Nietzsche’s fascination of “that mysterious drive for truth” (TL, 143) allows him to attempt to understand foremost why on earth we, as a mere blip in the expanse of time and space, have created this notion of truth an placed such an insanely high value on it, when its clear that its not always good for us. It is important to note that for Nietzsche, it is not truth itself that is harmful, which may in fact only exist as a mere fragment of our intellect, not as some higher, divine aspect of reality, but instead the value which have placed on truth. We think we want truth, this sort of ideally objective, accurate, re-presentation of reality, but really our actual situation doesn’t seem conclusive to getting that, and in fact seems to be facilitated by the opposite of ‘truth’ – deception and illusion. It could be suggested that in order to ask the question of the value of truth we must first look at the issue of perspective, as the value of wanting truth can’t be taken for granted, the will to truth must first itself be interrogated.

0 notes

nothingman · 7 years ago

Link

Two vastly different figures have come under fire in the past week for challenging the political establishment. The first was Father Patrick Conroy, a Roman Catholic Jesuit priest and House chaplain who was abruptly fired by Paul Ryan after allegedly criticizing GOP tax cuts during a prayer session.

The second was comedian Michelle Wolf, who was widely critiqued for negative comments about press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. The controversy over Wolf’s speech centered around her reference to Sanders’s “perfect smoky eye” — apparently perfected with the help of ashes of “burning facts.” The speech prompted a written apology from the White House Correspondents’ Association.

The media criticism around both figures centered not just on the content of their alleged misconduct: Conroy’s seemingly left-wing views and Wolf’s supposed anti-feminist attacks on another woman’s appearance. They also pointed to the problematic, ambiguous natures of both the House Chaplain and the White House Correspondents’ Dinner as institutions.

Echoing the sentiments of many on Twitter, Vox’s own Matt Yglesias tweeted that there “probably shouldn’t be a House chaplain.” After all, what is a religious figure doing in such close proximity to senior lawmakers?

There probably shouldn’t be a House chaplain.

— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) April 27, 2018

Meanwhile, over at the Washington Post, journalist Margaret Sullivan critiqued the “insider” nature of the White House Correspondents’ dinner: saying: “[T]his festive night, always unseemly, is now downright counterproductive to good journalism’s goals. It only serves to reinforce the views of those who already hate the media elite.”

Despite their different jobs and roles, Conroy and Wolf occupy similar positions. Their job is to exist in the liminal space between complicity and opposition, at once being part of the establishment and challenging it.

Both positions come with their own sets of challenging ethical questions. What role should a religious figure have in a country with a separation of church and state? And at an event like the Correspondents’ Dinner — designed to elide the differences between government and press — what is an entertainer’s role? And are her targets and her audience the same people?

But ultimately, both Conroy’s and Wolf’s roles are vital precisely because of their ambiguity. Their concerns and goals are opposed to the institutions with which they are affiliated at a structural, rather than an ideological level. This gives them a blueprint for serving as a different — even radical — kind of opposition than, say, a political party. Having them physically as well as psychologically close to those in power is a feature, not a bug, of the role they play.

A House Chaplain has different concerns from politicians — and that’s a good thing

Let’s start with Patrick Conroy. As far as we know, Ryan’s opposition to the chaplain was based on the idea that Conroy was too ideological in his prayers. In one November session, he prayed that there “are not winners and losers under new tax laws, but benefits balanced and shared by all Americans.” (According to Conroy’s interview with the New York Times, Ryan told him “Padre, you’ve got to stay out of politics.”)

Jonathan Chait at New York magazine made a fair point when he noted that, perhaps, Conroy should have been fired for espousing what seemed to be a political view. After all, he pointed out, the chaplain is supposed to be nonpartisan. Democrats, he pointed out, would probably be up in arms if Conroy had led a prayer in favor of, for example, the Christian glory of the free market.

But nonpartisan doesn’t mean apolitical. And having a faith leader — of whatever faith (as chaplain, Conroy brought in a rotating cast of prayer leaders, including an imam) — means having someone who has a structured value system.

Furthermore, that values system, by definition, stands in opposition, for better and for worse, to the one demanded by the political process. To generalize just a bit here, most faith traditions — particularly those that are highly represented in America — involve a reasonably high proportion of demands made on the individual, and on individual ethical behavior. They include don’t lie, don’t murder, and other commandments and directives along those lines — demands that conceive of morality in stark, black and white terms.

While of course there are significant political and communal elements to many of these theological systems (from different interpretations of the “kingdom of God” in Christianity to versions of political Islam), ethical demands are largely made on the individual and are, by and large, straightforward, and binary. There is good and evil, right and wrong, and it is up to individuals to choose correctly.

By contrast, the political system by its very nature requires more than a little grayscale morality. No reasonable person assumes that even the most moral government tells the truth all the time, for reasons diplomatic as well as self-serving. Every single “good” government in history — to say nothing of the less-good ones — has made decisions that, in improving the lives of some, worsen (or end) the lives of others.

This is a painful structural necessity of the political process. Politics is, even in its ideal state, about choosing the least bad option for the fewest people. The problem is, it becomes all too easy to elide the human cost of that in favor of the bigger picture.

That’s where Conroy comes in. Having a figure from a tradition whose moral absolutes are, well, absolute, provides lawmakers with a necessary, daily reminder of the human faces of those affected by even the most well-meaning policies. Insofar as a faith leader serves as structured opposition, he does so not in a partisan sense, but as an ideological one: Conroy’s values should be reckoned with by those in power, even if they are ultimately ignored.

(And, for what it’s worth, I’d say the same thing if Conroy had made similar comments about, for example, the “sanctity of life,” to use an example of a common Christian attitude more favorable to a GOP party platform.) Indeed, most of the time, they should be ignored — nobody wants, or, at least, should want, a government run by theocrats. But they should be contended with all the same.

Now, crucially, I don’t think this leader should necessarily be Christian. (I’d, personally, advocate for a rotating cast of faith leadership figures, including secular humanists and — sure, why not? — members of the Satanic Temple. But I think having voices speak, if not truth, then at least conviction, to those in power is a necessary corrective to the structural utilitarianism of the political process.

(Just think, for example, of that famous scene in The West Wing, when President Jed Bartlett, a Catholic, confesses to his priest after allowing a federal execution to be carried out — something that he thought was necessary, but which defied his own church teaching.)

It’s vital that such a chaplain-like figure would have structured rules in place to avoid partisanship, something lacking in, say, Trump’s troublingly untransparent evangelical advisory board, which has collapsed into sycophancy. But the presence of such a figure is a necessary challenge to an institution.

Comedians and chaplains alike use their “intimate” social position to pose necessary challenges

So too Michelle Wolf, and the White House Correspondents’ Dinner more generally. Like Conroy, Wolf and other comedians who have performed at the dinner exist in a liminal space. They’re physically and socially close to their audience and targets. They’re literally breaking bread with the people they’re about to challenge.

It’s more than fair to critique the traditional coziness of journalism and the White House, if not, exactly, this White House, as Sullivan did in her Washington Post piece. But the structure of the dinner and, more importantly, the unifying presence of the comedian at the roast both risks complicity and allows directness.

The comedian is a kind of intermediary between the press and the White House. She can skewer everyone in the room, as Michelle Wolf did, telling the press, “You helped create this monster, and now you’re profiting off of him.”

And the presence of a comedian in that very room — as a real, tangible human person, rather than an abstract “criticism” — is vital to the strength of that critique. To criticize someone face to face is a very different, far more intimate, act than criticizing someone, say, on MSNBC or Fox News.

Wolf’s goal, like Conroy’s, isn’t political. And, unlike Conroy’s, hers is to entertain as well as to provoke. But, like Conroy, the structurally adversarial nature of her position serves as a powerful corrective to the system itself — she’s there to cross the line, to challenge the whole political and journalistic system, to point out its flaws on left and right alike.

And to stand or sit there and take the heat, publicly, is to contend with those criticisms. For Sarah Huckabee Sanders to be forced to sit there and look Wolf in the eye as she hears criticism about “burning the facts” (for that infamous “smoky eye” or not), is for her to face, publicly, personally, and intimately, the direct consequences of actions that political formalities can all too easily explain away.

In Ancient Rome, several sources cite generals returning from battle for their triumphal parades with an enslaved man tasked with the job of whispering in his ear “remember that you are mortal.” Shakespeare’s plays are full of designated Fools whose job it is to stay close to kings — King Lear, for example — and say the things they least like to hear.

And sometimes, historically, it’s been priests who play this social role, too: Just look at “meddlesome priest” Thomas À Beckett, whose conflict with Henry II over the role of the church led to his murder.

Proximity is necessary for challenge as well as complicity.

Of course, those who need to hear “fools” most are the ones least likely to do so: Donald Trump has skipped both this and last year’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner, making him the first president in 36 years to do so. House Republicans almost unanimously refused to investigate the circumstances of Conroy’s firing.

Our problem isn’t ambiguous figures like Wolff or Conroy. It’s a lack of leaders to hear them.

via Vox - All

#IFTTT #Feedly #Nothingman uses feedly

0 notes

ceridwyn2 · 8 years ago

Text

Writing Meme: Cool Asks for Fic Writers

Snagged from a few others :D

Describe yourself how you would describe a character you’re introducing Mmm. Petite. Early-mid 40s. Adept at many things. Nurse, photographer, writer, crafter. Introvert. Observer.

Is there any specific ritual you go through while/before/after your writing? Often tea & biscuits (digestives, gingersnap or shortbread)

What is your absolute favorite kind of fic to write? Drama w/ slight to moderate angst

Are there any other fic writers you admire? If so, who and why? Many. And they vary by fandoms that I’ve participated in. However, Melissa Good (Xena /Dar & Kerry) particularly stands out because she was one of the early fic writers I started reading, and I’ve gone back to read her stuff many times. Her stories are very well-written. She does over-arcing love stories that are not explicitly sexual in detail, nor do they need to be. Her love scenes, when written, fit in very well with the tone and style as the rest of the story. Trust me. That vision of Xena scaling a mountain, risking death more than once, then running - practically flying - over the fields in a rainstorm to the borderlands between the Amazons and Centaurs to save Gabrielle from a renegade shit disturber amazon, then landing a big kiss on Gabrielle in front of said crowd of Amazons and Centaurs is pretty legendary. Story is called ‘At A Distance’ (http://www.merwolf.com/ata1.htm). The series of stories is A Journey of Soulmates and begins with 'A Warrior By Any Other Name’ (http://www.merwolf.com/warrior1.htm). Melissa’s Dar & Kerry series is here and starts with 'Tropical Storm’ - http://www.merwolf.com/ffiction.html#dk

How many words can you write if you sit down and concentrate intensely for an hour? Don’t know that I’ve actually counted. When I get into a zen stage of writing where the characters keep talking I just go with the flow and don’t stop until a) I need a trip to the loo, b) my tea has gone too cold/run out of biscuits, c) my stomach is growling to loudly to ignore.

First fic/pairing you wrote for? (If no pairing, describe the plot) Oh heavens. Not published anywhere, but Beauty & The Beast (Catherine & Vincent) - the Linda Hamilton & Ron Perlman version. I was in my late teens. Pre-internet.

Inspiration, time, or motivation. Choose two. Inspiration & time

Why do you choose to write? An outlet to explore feelings, explore characters that speak to me on some level, and sometimes to challenge myself.

Do you ever have plans to write anything other than fic? I have one original story in the works. I’ve also written a published academic article in a Canadian Oncology Nursing Journal back many yrs ago when I was a nurse trainee. I’ve also written interviews with musicians, writers, creators. (https://celtic-dragon.me/tag/interview/)

What inspires you the most? Different things. Sometimes it’s being out in nature, conversations, reading other well-written stories, sometimes music, travel.

Weirdest thing you’ve ever written/thought about writing/etc.? At the moment I can’t recall. Well, not completely true. I can write a love scene and have done in the Otalia Virtual Seasons, but I can’t write explicit sex scenes as it feels weird to me. Not a prude; I can read them at times - if it feels right within the context of the rest of the story and it’s well-written without feeling like I’m reading a young-adult’s attempt at porn. I’m also not a fan of vulgarity or overly flowery terms for sex.

A fic you wish you had written better, and why? My early stuff seems a bit cringeworthy now but again we only learn from our past and reading other well-written stories. Also, as we age, our own life-experience contributes to our overall knowledge (or at least it should). How I wrote as a teenager/early 20s is quite different from how I write now (nearly mid 40s), as well it should. Reading other well-written stories with correct spelling, proper punctuation and grammar, verb-tense agreement, etc. REALLY helps improve one’s writing skills, as well as really knowing the characters (and their development). Getting a beta-reader who can constructively critique your stories to bring out the best in your work is also a recommendation. I’ve been writing fic off and on for about 25 years.

Favourite fic from another author

@lunacatriona - 'Waves that Rolled You Under’ (Holby City - Bernie & Serena). More of my Holby fic recs here: http://ceridwyn2.tumblr.com/post/160719828756/a-warm-blanket-of-a-story

LarkhallReturns: 'Love With Deception’ and 'Abuse of Power’ (Bad Girls - Nikki & Helen AU). I don’t think either are online anymore (I have them in PDF format for reading offline); they might be accessible via WaybackMachine search - it’s been a while since I checked.

SelVecanti: 'Reunion’ (Babylon 5 - Ivanova/Talia, set post S4.) Brilliant story. Capt Ivanova has a new Warlock class ship made unknowingly to her at the beginning using Shadow technology. Psi-Corp are trying to get to Ivanova by using Talia.

Nordica: 'Jungle Fever’ (Hospital Central - Maca & Esther, plus other HC regulars). An AU set at a Médicins Sans Frontières clinic in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. (Another story I have archived in PDF format offline)

G.L. Dartt - After Larkhall (Bad Girls - Helen & Nikki) series, starting with 'Dead Slow’ (http://users.eastlink.ca/~ginadartt/OtherFanFicIndex.html) - some odd coding on the site at the moment, though.

And just to plug something I was a part of (both as a writer, editor, and sometimes season planning collaborator) was the Otalia Virtual Seasons (http://www.celtic-dragon.ca/otalia_vs/OVS_Downloads.html) - Guiding Light - Olivia & Natalia.

Your favourite side pairings to put in?

Depends on the fandoms I’m writing in at the time. And not necessarily romantic pairings, but sometimes just friendship pairings.

Holby City sides: Sacha & Essie.

Call the Midwife sides: Delia & Phyllis friendship or pretty much any dynamic with Sister Monica Joan. (This is stuff I’ve only partially gotten round to writing)

Scott & Bailey sides: Gill Murray & Julie Dodson - though sometimes they’re the main with Janet & Rachel as the sides.

Guiding Light sides: Doris & Blake

Your guilty writing pleasure? Don’t know that I really have one, that I can think of at the moment.

Do you have structured ideas of how your story is supposed to go, or make it up as you write? I have a general sense of direction for the story, particularly if it’s a shorter one-off piece and not a multi-part story. When I was writing with the OVS (mentioned above), we had an over-arcing plan of things that we wanted to accomplish over the season, so specific plot points were planned out well in advance. However, like a serial drama, one story had to follow from the previous so we needed to be aware of what the writer before us was incorporating so that there was continuity between one story and the next, also to lay in bits in our story that would be picked up in the next one. What was really fun was coordinating the multi-author stories in the season, where each writer would take a different group of writers to write about and making sure no one character was in two different places at the same time.

Would you describe yourself as a fast writer? On the one-off pieces, usually. Or if I’ve got a deadline. Multi-part stories, not so much…unless I’ve got a deadline.

How old were you when you started writing? Crikey. In my teens I wrote for my high school Creative Writing class book (circa 1989-1991). Before that, just my own jotting of ideas.

Why did you start writing? As a way to express ideas & feelings

4 sentences from your work that you’re proud of. Oh, good heavens. There are many, over 20+ yrs of writing, writing in over a dozen fandoms.

#fic meme #Berena #fanfic questionnaire #Holby City #multi-fandom fic

0 notes

carinaclicksaway-blog · 8 years ago

Text

Hello 2017. Hello Group Critique.

After the much needed Christmas break we return back to university and a group crib. I have a brilliant recorder that I use regularly for group cries and lectures. It is the best way to get every bit of information that you might otherwise miss just writing notes. It takes a while listening and typing it all up but it is invaluable.

Group Critique from 23rd January 2017 - Audio Notes

In attendance: Carina Ioannou - CI Chris Matthews - CM Netanya Smith - NS Danielle Bather - DB Adam Fisher - AF Hannah Baker - HB Marina Gil Mao - MGM Hayden O’Brian - HOB

CI - I decided that my place was my childhood place of memory. Brief history, my dad is Cypriot and my mum is Polish. They divorced when I about14/15 ears old. My dad had an affair and the project is about the before, during and afterwards of the family dynamics and relationship and trying to display interpretations of that. I have used archival images, new images and individual frames from super 8mm film. These were before I was born so I wanted a timeline and pockets of history from before I was born and that was to go in line with the different versions of childhood amnesia. I wanted to explore the different fragments, distorted versions of childhood memories. It’s the little stories that I might have remembered in a different way. My parents still live in North London and my sister lives in Stoke on Trent. I went to photograph them at their houses and also the two parks that I used to go to as a child. I have taken photographs from both playgrounds to explore my childhood landscapes. It is basically a journey. The objects and things like the lemon tree and ashtray. I have displayed a running order of some of the contemporary images that I have taken and these will be featured in my photobook. I have decided to do a photobook to cover site specific and audience targeting part of the module. I feel it connects with it being tangible, being passed around like stories and also it references to the traditional family photo album and the archival images and documents that I have used. Does anyone have any questions or comments?

HB - I think you should include some of your old family photos although I know you’ve had trouble with printing today…

CI - I have some printed from home that are rough and the mock photobook with the old photographs in that I can hand around…

CM - Do you think you've been hand strung by being limited to A3. The fact that you've printed everything in A3?

NS - I guess it’s just an example of a different format that you intend on putting in a book anyway so…

CI - Yes, there are about 40 images in the book. It is a mix between archival and the new images. The centre fold of the book is a chronological order of the individual frames that I retrieved from the super 8mm film that was converted onto a disc. Let me show you the mock up book.

CM - What I was going to suggest that because they are all of the same scale, one of the things that would be useful for all of you to think about is the exhibition in the Hay Gallery. I would say that with all due credit Carina you have invested a lot of effort into the book which has taken up a lot of time because it is a very complex structure to what you are trying to say. It is the same thing for you Netanya and Marina with the way you are presenting/structuring your work. It takes on a whole lot of other considerations and I think Carina one of the things that is obvious that you’ve on the wall here is that this needs a whole lot of thought in terms of an installation.

CI - Yes this is just the images being stuck on the wall as they are. The image of my dad on the sofa and the pigeon has been discussed with you Chris at length. It was a happy coincidence that my dad’s bathrobe is similar to the feathers and even his hand mimics the way the pigeon clasps onto the railing. I have looked quite heavily into symbolism and metaphors especially after my last project in the 1st year.

CM - There are lots of connections in the images. The Russian doll and the lollipops with its tongue out mimics your mother holding her dress. There are lots of little interesting visual rhythms.

NS - And perspective as well. I like that you’ve no only gone back to the parks that you went to as a child but you’ve taken the photograph from a child's perspective and shot them low.

CI - Yes that was intentional. I also had to speak to the parents in the playground and I presented my student ID card to allay their fears. I explained that I was a photography student and my reasons for photographing in a playground. Once they knew what I was doing and that I was only shooting the playground and not the children it was fine. I’d like to pass round the mock up of the photobook that I did. I initially printed out the pdf and it doesn't quite read well because in the book the pages would be facing but with this print out they are on separate pages so you do loose some of the narrative. As well as this pdf I also purchased a blank exercise book that I stuck contact sheet size images into once I knew the running order. The one disadvantage of the mock book was that I had to work with the size that the photographs were printed to. I couldn't just cut them to size as I would loose the parts of the photograph. But it did mean that I had a tangible piece to work from and I really got a good feel of how the book would work. For example the two images of my mother. One of her in the living room and toehold photograph of her in the factory that my parents owned. The tone of it, her expression and even the lighting is similar even though they are decades apart. It is a really nice juxtaposition between the two images.

CM - They work there in the pdf because you can see that they are the same size.

CI - I also like the feel of the exercise book that I have used. It was another consideration as to how I might want to print the photobook. A booklet rather than a hardcover book perhaps. With the book comes the thinking of text. I initially had the text in the front of the book. Who I am and about the book. Then a separate page briefly describing what the images represented and a dedication to my father, mother and my sister. After a tutorial with Chris I came to the conclusion that had this very personal book and the first image was a scanned image of an old school book that I had as a child. I wanted this to act as a pseudo front cover for the story but when you turned the page you were confronted by the text and this seemed too jarring. I needed to sleep on it and Chris was correct in saying that this was a jolt and ruined the flow of the book. I decided to go with the advice from Chris and rearrange the book so that the text would appear at the end of the book. It was nice to see the information text at the end and to see how this worked better than originally planned. It depends how people read a photobook. Seeing the credits, if you will, at the end of the book like a conclusion certainly has a better flow. I also needed to rethink the title from “Requiem of a Family” to “Requiem for a Family”. The new title that uses ‘for’ rather than ‘of’ works better.

CM - Carina and I have had a lot of correspondence and conversations about the book and I would like to know, especially from senior members of the group, what you think.

HB - I really like the book. It has a nice flow to it and now that I have seen the old images with the new and how you have included your school report it creates more of a story.

CI - The schools report for me is great at the end. It works as almost a conclusion for the story itself. A synopsis of how things have gone in the time that has passed and how things have progressed. Overall I think the images work well and are stronger when they are a mixture of old, new and the documents that I have scanned as well as the individual frames.

CM - The sequence is really important. Scaling the images to would need a lot of thought and their considerations. Make all the little poetic associations like your mothers chain smoking, the ashes, things passing…

CI - I really like the large prints that Dani has as they really provide a different perspective for the viewer and they have great impact.

CM - What I would like you to do is to prepare a selection of images for your portfolio for your project. Think of a tighter series of works that wold have their own coherence so that they belong together as a set and you can read them. Maybe a change of scale? You can only play with it and see how they work. They don't necessarily have to be uniform as it doesn't always work in terms of how a viewer would look at them. Maybe the smaller photos, the old photos could be shown as little relics. There’s so many different ways of thinking about this and of course the vehicle of the book allows you be an architect in a gallery space because you can do it in one instance because you’re just dealing with reproductions. The sequence needs works for definite. In terms of playing with a large scale the impact of some of the photos would be huge. The image of your mother smoking and looking straight on filling the entire frame in a large scale would certainly play with aspect and perspective. Her gaze looking out and the size of your head being almost the same size as her head would be very powerful. Are there any other thoughts that people have?

NS - I really like the still life of the ashtray and the glasses. Things can sometimes be more telling than faces. It is a jarring and striking image.

CM - I think the other thing that is nice about it is that there is a link - the windows are the same. That’s a good thing about having a sense of location. Site specific and consistency.

NS - The images of the old and new photos are really interesting. The mix is really interesting especially the scan of your childhood drawing of a house.

CI - That was a happy mistake. I tried to photograph the front of my childhood home but it just didn't come out the way I wanted. When I found the picture that I made as a child of a house it just seemed to fit in really well. It resonated more emotions and narrative than a new photograph of my childhood home. It was another link to the past and how a child sees things differently. It is an abstracted view of what my house looks like in my memory.

NS - It’s very fitting. It links in with the lollipop picture. What’s the significance of the lemon tree?

CI - In a nutshell it links my Greek Cypriot heritage to the photographs. It is my fathers lemon tree and it is the link to his culture. It is also used in Polish food - lemon tea, lemon sweets and stewed fruit drinks. A typical polish fruit drink that I would have as a child. Lemons have always been part of my household as a child and as an adult. But there is also the metaphorical link that lemons provide. Bittersweet, lemonade, growing lemons in a cold climate. It was also part of my process of coming up with a book title.

NS - Are there any sayings that could link in with lemons?

DB - When life gives you lemons make lemonade…?

CI - I did want to call it lemonade but Beyonce beat me to it!

CM - But the title that you have given it gives it a much better feel to it. It has so much more gravity.

NS - It’s a really impressive body of work and it flows really well. I think you have a lot of decisions to make with sequence but overall I really like it.

AF - How you have pieced everything together - visually and conceptually works really well. The new and old images mixed together work really well in that set. There are lots of semiotic signifiers that are being picked up through the images you have made and the images you have collected. They tie together really well and it is coherently thought about.

CI - Is there anything that you wouldn't have done or you think doesn't work?

HB - I think the one image that I personally doesn't fit in is the lollipop image. It is very bold whereas the other images all seem to gel really well. There are more personal connections to your family and that image doesn't work well with that sequence.

NS - I guess it depends on what context you put it in.

CI - I did try it and I used it in the mock book version but it just didn't work. Even when I was playing around with it on Blurb and resizing it and pairing it with other images I felt like I was just trying to make it fit in. CM - I just wanted to make a point about that topic. This is not about individual images. It is about the relationship of the images. And you talk about how you make the relationships within a family work, well it’s actually about the body of work. It’s also one of the thing I would say about this is actually about scale, about placement about sequencing and all of those other complexities which actually fit into either putting up an exhibition or putting together a book. And I think in terms of you talking about the lollipop image. It is strangely melancholic even though it’s of a happy subject. It’s all alone and the colours. There is the visual link with the image of your mother holding the drew with her tongue out to one side but it is very tenuous.

CI - I didn’t think it was strong enough as a link. I understand why we put them together initially when I was playing around with pairing the images but when I was working on Blurb it didn't have the right effect I was hoping for.

CM - Going back to the other links you’d never think that there would be a direct connection between a pigeon and your father on the sofa but it works. So one of the things about all of this process, and this applies to everyone here, is that when you set out with an idea about your work you might have an initial concept. But when you try to shoehorn it in doesn’t always happen. You can’t always judge what will work and what doesn’t. Just like when Hannah said that she didn't think the image worked, you can't judge what your audience is going to think. everyone will react in a slightly different way to the images. We know none of these places or your family so we have to take it for face value and how you've decided to represent the images. All of these things are part of the process. You have created a whole process by creating a structure, a title, any accompanying text. All of those things make something come together and knit together as a body of work.

CI - I must say that I am glad that Hannah spoke up about the lollipop picture because it is one thing to look at a piece of you work and to feel that it doesn't work within a body of work and then to feel confident enough to omit it from the sequence. But to have that confirmed by someone else it is a relief.

CM - Try seeing how they work and in terms of your show on the 20th of February I would think about three to five pictures to put in the Hay Gallery and try to come up with a shorter statement of photographs like one line coming out of a poem. It will condense part of what you want to say and it will become something else again.

HB - Have you thought about combining the two languages for a title?

CI - I have thought about a Polish or a Greek translation of the book for the future. And I also wondered about using the Polish or Greek word for lemon. Although the words sounds nice I feel that they literally get lost in translation. I also didn't want to choose between the two languages.

NS - I think the current title is good.

CI - Requiem was initially thought of a death or morning …

CM - Like I initially said in the email between me and Carina it actually comes from the latin for rest in peace. But it definitely works better being ‘for a family…’ rather than ‘of of family.’… anyway I think that is enough feedback. Well Done Carina!

Here are a selection of images that I chose to talk about during the group critique.

0 notes