Group Reflection- Phew it's over!

For our group presentation we did Phenomenology, Reader-Response Theory, and Psychoanalysis. My portion of the presentation focused on Freud and Fetishism. We were originally supposed to present a week earlier, but got pushed back. I was grateful for this because I felt that I wasn't fully comfortable with my topic and wanted more time to perfect it. I was perhaps the most anxious in my group about presenting. I didn’t want to say penis and phallus every other word. But, I did, and actually think my presentation went well. I was second after Stephen whose slide was super fancy, so besides being nervous about saying phallus and penis, I was nervous that my slide looked like a junior high power point.

            Once I started my presentation, my nerves went away. For the most part I actually enjoyed teaching the class about Fetishism. I think the subject matter worked to my advantage because it kept the class interested. I was grateful that the class responded to the questions I asked and the discussion that followed my power point. I

            As far as putting the power point together, Stephan definitely took the reigns. He was the one that contacted all of us through email and made sure everyone was on top of it. I stayed in touch with Stephan through email throughout the weeks to make sure I was on track with everyone else and to see if there was anything else to be done. Stephan also put the power points together, which was an extra job that he happily took on. While our group did not have much interaction prior to our presentation, I think everyone took care of what they needed to do and we gave an informative, interesting presentation. Or so I hope!

Week 8 "The Death of the Author"

 The reading that most resonated with me this week was Barthe’s “ The Death of the Author,” mainly because I could clearly understand what he saying, or I think I could.  I think it is hard to dissociate a piece of work from the author. Barthe wants the reader to not think about the author, their background, history, or psychology. By doing this, I think the reader is missing many things that the author intended.  Contrary to what Barthe says, that an author puts limits on the text, I think it does the exact opposite. It not only allows the reader to better understand the author’s intentions but also provides them with knowledge to draw their own conclusions.

A perfect example for me would be when I read “A Streetcar Named Desire” by Tennessee Williams. I read about half the play before I started wondering about Williams. After reading a little about Williams and his family and what was going on at the time of the book, I could see so many relevant connections that brought the play to life for me. For instance, that Williams had a sister who suffered schizophrenia or that he was an alcoholic. Just those two facts helped me better understand that characters of Stanley and Blanche. Without knowing William’s background and what was historically going on at the time the play was written does the author and the play a disadvantage. I do not think this means that we can assume an author’s intentions or draw conclusions on a text because of an authors history or background, but I also don’t think we should completely ignore it.

Mamma's Boy- Analysis # 3

I am not sure if I believe Freud’s theory. I have always been intrigued by Freud and was excited to learn a little bit more about his ideas.  Freud believes that we are aware of our motivations. I don’t know if people are insightful enough to know that the reason they hate their dad is because they want to sleep with their mom. I think there is some definite truth to the power of male/female relationship in any variety.  Yet I do not think that some of Freud’s theories can be the definitive answer for every mother/son scenario.

           

Learning about Freud in class this week, and watching the clip from Hamlet I realized that many entertainment outlets have Freudian ideas, specifically the Oedipus Complex. Psycho is the first movie that comes to mind. Though it differs a little from the Oedipus Complex, there is no denying that Norman Bates does what he does to win his dead mothers affection. Bates kills his mom’s boyfriend, and many other people that he feels get in the way of him and his dead mom.  Bate does not function in the normal society because of his repressed feelings for his mother. 

One of the things we discussed in class that I think makes sense is Fetishization, the idea that people use fetishes as a replacement for something else. In the theory of Freud, it would be fear of castration.  Most people are trying to hide some sort of pain or memory. Freud is simply saying that in order to do so you must replace that pain or memory with something else. This idea reminds me of a movie called Secretary in which the lead female cuts herself.  After not being satisfied through cutting, she finds someone that will give her pain through spanking and dominatrix. Through this action she is able to heal her pain...through pain.



Works Cited


"Secretary." YouTube. Web. 20 March 2011.

New Criticism- Analysis # 2

         This is a painting done by Banksy in the West Bank on a security fence. To me, this painting tells a story of two kids who are painting a wall and stumble upon a whole, which leads them to paradise. They are working kids, painting the wall for money but instead of working, find a utopia where all their dreams are going to come true. The kids look happy and their is optimism on their face that life has more to offer them. After just watching the film “Exit Through the Gift Shop,” I believe that Banksy’s work is done to make people happy and provoke questions about society. 

  If I were to look at this painting from a New Criticism perspective I would have to erase what I just watched about Banksy in “Exit Through the Gift Shop.” In New Criticism, a piece of art or writing is self contained, the biography of the artist and the historical context are unimportant.  From this perspective I would say that the painting is of two children who are painting a wall. As they are painting the wall they see a hole and discover that there is a beach.Their is irony and paradox in the painting. The paradox is seen by looking at the color contrast and the children’s lives in front of the wall as opposed to what is behind the wall. The color contrast also emphasizes irony because the wall and children are black and white and “paradise” is very colorful. Taking a New Criticism perspective, I did not include any background on Banksy and, I resisted telling what the painting means to me. Along with historical and biographical context, New Criticism does not rely on psychological or sociological impact. I think that this perspective is not as effective. I find it impossible to get everything I can get out of a piece of work without knowing some background information on the artist or historical context. For this piece of work, from a New Criticism perspective, the audience has no idea that Banksy is one of the pioneers of street art or that his paintings often time get erased because what he does is illegal. The context is crucial to understand the painting as a whole. I understand why this technique is effective though because often times in works, people rely to much on the author or historical context for analysis. Once in a while it is interesting to see what you get just by reading the work or looking at the painting and analyzing the form. 

word count: 427

Week 5 Enlightenment

           In this week’s class we discussed Enlightenment Theory which began in Western Europe in the 17th century. The period of the Enlightenment introduces rationalism, empiricism, and skepticism. Rationalism is the idea that through reason, knowledge is gained and understood. Empiricism believes that knowledge is gained through the senses and experiences felt through the senses. Skepticism says that true knowledge is impossible. 

  Rationalism is the idea that through reason, knowledge is gained and understood. Empiricism believes that knowledge is gained through the senses and experiences felt through the senses. Skepticism says that true knowledge does not exist. This theory begin with Rene Descartes who famously said “I think, therefore I am.” This was the birth of rational thought. The idea that all we need is our mind and common sense. 

  This theory begin with Rene Descartes who famously said “I think, therefore I am.” This was the birth of rational thought. The idea that all we need is our mind and common sense. In Alexander Pope’s Essay on Criticism he lists things to be aware of when giving criticism. His criticism is a neo-classicist reprisal, which means upholding rules and conventions. 

  Immanuel Kant introduced German Idealism which is the idea that how a person perceives an object is based on the properties we discover in them. I like this idea because I feel that people can look at one object but everyone can see something different based on their experiences or knowledge. Kants German Idealism is a mixture of rationalism and empiricism. 

          This painting reminds of me of what Kant talks about. This is a paint by Mark Rothko. I think it provokes a lot of emotion but it is abstract and different for everyone. This one painting does not mean the same thing for everyone just because it is painting. 

Analysis # 1

         Aristotle defines rhetoric as “the ability to see the available means of persuasion.”(86) Aristotle’s rhetoric emphasizes three important types of talking; deliberative, forensic, and epideictic. The key to rhetoric was to keep it short and keep it memorable. Along with that there are mechanics that can be used such as induction, syllogism, ethos, pathos, logos, and style. 

          For this analysis I will be focusing on an example of deliberative speech. A deliberative speech is one where you are persuading people about what is going to happen next. The clip I found is from the 2005 film “Thank You For Smoking,” in which Aaron Eckhart plays chief spokesperson, Nick Naylor, for a large tobacco company. What is interesting about this clip is that even though most of the general public can agree that smoking is bad, Nick Naylor persuades his audience that smoking is in fact “cool.” The below clip illustrates the power of persuasion seen in Naylor’s speech.

  What makes Naylor’s speech so persuasive is the mechanics of rhetoric he uses. Like the clip in class from “Wall Street,” both Gekko and Naylor know that it is not just what they say but how they say it. Their use of ethos is extremely effective. He walks around the table, making sure to look everyone in the eye. He does not act as if he is above them or knows more, but instead finds ways to include them by asking questions.  He clearly is trying to sell an idea, but his conversational tone makes it a more comfortable environment. His use of ethos comes through in his look too. His attire helps him be taken seriously. He talks with confidence and conviction and makes his audience want to listen to him.

  His use of induction and logical fallacies are seen when he discusses films of the past. He makes a correlation between films and what made them cool. His first premise is that movie stars are cool, the second being movie stars smoked in films, the conclusion being that smoking must be cool. This is really the key to his speech. While this may not be true, by putting it in that format helps emphasize his point.

  Nick Naylor’s speech in “Thank You For Smoking” has the two key components of rhetoric that was discussed in Kevin O’Neill’s lecture, it was short and memorable. The clip is only one and a half minutes and yet all of his points were made and are clear. He talks in a way that is easy to understand and does not dwell on any one idea for too long. He wants to keep their attention and to do that he moves quickly so that his audience doesn’t bore.

  As a spokesperson for cigarettes, Nick Naylor has to have good rhetoric. Because most of the time he is dealing with people that do not agree with him, his arguments must be convincing and logical. The power of Aristotle’s rhetoric is displayed in the scene above. He employs induction, logical fallacies, ethos and style to form a persuasive argument.

Works Cited:

Kevin O’Neill Lecture

Leitch, Vincent B. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton &,

2010. Print.

YouTube 

March 14 2011 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdbldsnSxE

word count: 547

Week 3- Kevin O'Neill Lecture

I expected to be confused when I walked into the lecture room to listen to Kevin O’Neil speak about rhetoric, theories and their origins. Instead, I was pleasantly surprised that I understood and was able to follow what he was saying. He was extremely charismatic and he proved that if you know how to relate to your audience, you will make a bigger impression. Between his different accents, pitches, and references I couldn’t help but listen and be intrigued. It was great that he gave us a brief history of what type of people the greeks were. I should have guessed, but never knew just how much weight they put on speech. Its actually very impressive. It really helped to have someone put into clearer terms the ideas that we had previously read. I walked out feeling a little bit more comfortable with the theories jargon. 

The clip from “Wall Street” was a great example how the things talked about in the lecture are applied. What made Gordon Ghekko’s speech so convincing was his use of rhetoric compared to the man before him. He made himself part of the crowd like he was “just like them.” He made certain not to seem of a different caliber so that the people would trust him. He points fingers at the shareholders even though he is the biggest shareholder. Looking at movies or even the news you can see how rhetoric is used to encourage, persuade, and manipulate people. I think that the use of good rhetoric is a very powerful tool as seen in your example of “Wall Street.”