Author: Angel Ortiz

Subversive Acts (Discussion Response)

/ Angel Ortiz / Leave a comment

This is what popular culture has assimilated (a postmodern wreck) to, the ability to produce generic, systematic, commercialized material that people buy into. The reason why it works is because society likes it and its simple, not really much that artist do these days to be different and to argue, why change if being a sell out makes you money? The acts of artist like Radiohead and The Smiths are considered subversive only to the limitation we place on them. Depending on what the goal is, any artist can achieve their goal of getting audience attention by being different or subversive. The definition of subversive, “seeking or intending to subvert an established system or institution” or in other words to provoke altercations within an established authority to voice an opinion. We can make an argument that many artist these days already do so in their songs, depending on whether we are speaking of their acts, or the lyrics within their music. A famous artist we can take a look at could be Eminem in his song Mosh. The song is very direct, explicit, and grimy if I might add. I enjoy the song because of how Eminem executes his message about president bush during the time of war in Iraq. There are prior examples to him, but he directly points a finger at the president for the mistakes he has made and how society is out lashing for what he caused (the amount of U.S troops killed over oil).

The video (Youtube source)  that Eminem made supports the argument more so that just like Radiohead and The Smiths, it is not so much what the artist do to provoke subversiveness within a system, but how they do it that matters. Eminem executes with the lyrics in a song that he follows up with a music video to provide evidence to his reasoning to saying the things he does for grabbing an audience. Might I add, this is true hip hop, the artist itself does not matter to me, but the content that is provided, it is safe to say that rap/hip hop itself is subversive. The genre calls for subversiveness because its origins are from jazz and blues music that revolve around systematic flaws (like U.S politics). If this is not enough support take the interview BET did with Eminem a while back.

That being said, Radiohead and The Smiths are only justified in whether they establish their argument properly if their cause is reasonable. Eminem was justified for being provocative in that his intent was in regards to U.S politics being ineffective. The act can be done direct or even indirect almost passive or for a better usage of word metaphorical. Artist from other countries have done the same thing that Eminem has but in a less aggressive manner, take the example from a Mexican country band Los Tigres Del Norte – La Granja (source Youtube). Obviously an audience from another country who has no historical knowledge of Mexico will not understand the meaning behind their lyrics but it makes the point about getting a message across to their niche audience (in this case, citizens of Mexico). Los Tigres del Norte, like Eminem, send a message about how politics (an institution) is corrupt and have problems maintaining a satisfied society, just another example about how music can be be provocative within the music industry and the system.

It is arguable to say that all music is subversive in its own way, but then again, many artist sell out and end up creating a systematic tune that everyone will embrace without really sending a message. They achieve their goal of sending a message but there is nothing about it that is changing the system (Drake, Lil Wayne, Future, etc.). The sources here are more on content that they encode in a highly post modern society while embracing or commemorating the modern characteristics that have been lost. If you would like to hear music that contains and subversive material and his produced by subversive artist take a look into SPM (When The Devil Strikes), Immortal Technique (Dance with the Devil), A Tribe Called Quest, and Big L (Put it On) to name a few.

Carlos Coy aka SPM (source: hiphopprophecy.com)

 

Felipe Andres Coronel aka Immortal Technique (source: theindiespiritualist.com)

A Tribe Called Quest (source: egotripland.com)

Lamont Coleman aka Big L (source: Youtube – LAKIM’s Sailor Moon Mix)

Mise en Scene & Montage question response

/ Angel Ortiz / Leave a comment

A moving camera operates in a dynamic manner that not only captures a scene that is not still, but, engages the audience into the scene. This sense of engagement or role within the film from the audiences’ perspective is all due to the dynamics of the camera and how the “mise en scene” is developed. There is more to a film than the capturing of shot, the moving camera allows for “the gaze” to be elaborate, an in some cases, maybe more intimate with the spectator. This allows for the observer to have power over the object in a different manner, it is not only examining just the object as a whole, but taking apart the object to discover ideas about it. Yes, the object has ownership of “the gaze” as it is whats being examined but with the limitations of what about the object, the observer wants to see. It is possible to make the mise en scenee due to the moving camera because, a setting can be shown to an audience. Take the 1954 film Rear Window, at the commencement of the film there the camera shows the audience an external/outdoor view of some apartments which allows them to decode the setting for the film.
The artist is the one who is in power of creating the subject which in turn affects the observes power over the subject. Although the prior sentence may seem misleading but it basically explains how the “artist” can paint or create something (subject) and arrange (montage) it in a particular way to have the audience (observers) analyze the product. In the film, there are other ways that the moving camera demonstrates the effectiveness of movement. For example, once the scene or setting is shown to the audience, we are then taken into the apartment of the main character, protagonist, journalist who is sleeping. A close up is then made of the character as we examine his face being awoken by the second character, a female that kisses him. It is intimate, of course a kiss in general in intimate, but with the innovation of moving cameras we see the exchangement of words and expressions in a more complex manner.
Thus, the ethics of the artist, subject, and observer are dependent on the positioning and creating of the camera and scene. Having close-ups, then reverse-camera shots demonstrate the level of excitement within a conversation in a film, which an audience could decode as important or not significant. Monaco said it best in the reading Language of Film, “Film has no grammar. There are, however, some vaguely defined rules of usage in cinematic language, and the syntax of film- its systematic arrangement-orders these rules and indicates relationship among them” (Monaco p191). Ethics can only be established by the method an artist decides to develop the “mise en scene” which will then depict the relationships an audience identifies with, giving them the power, to decide how to decode the subject. Taking another reading into consideration for further elaboration is form Sturken and Catwright where they identified that “Just as images are both representations and producers of the ideologies of their time, they are also factors in the power relations between human subjects and between individuals and institutions” (Sturken & Catwright p93). Not to confuse people with the different subjects at hand, but they do interpret how an observer can be effected by the artists’ creation and a moving camera has much to do with what Monaco and Sturken/Catwright have to say about the relationships between power of an observer and the object being identified with.

Understanding Common Belief vs. Justified Truth

/ Angel Ortiz / Leave a comment

In our class discussions we have covered the topic concerning Doxa and Episteme in a manner to identify between the two in visual representations. The two ideas are misleading at first. Doxa revolves around a common belief while Episteme is factual or a justified truth. In the most simplest form, the two could be misinterpreted and considered the same but they are not. An example of Doxa could be how people perceive political figures, like Donald Trump, as a racist. This may hold strength when providing evidence of particular dates or events that Trump was quoted using hurtful language toward minorities, but, there is not solid, concrete, or law to prove that Donal Trump is racist, only to say that is comments where racist would count. Taking Episteme into consideration, there must be an agreement or understanding based on scientific study or factual evidence to prove an idea or belief. An example of this could be considering how Cigarettes cause lung cancer. This initially was considered a Doxa, but with long periods of scientific studies and analysis between the correlation of cigarettes and people lungs, there was proof to support that smoking tobacco would cause lung cancer. This could also be said for sports, like in football, where over long studies of analyzing the effects physical impacts could damage a players brain.

 

We examined advertisements in class such as the Ted Cruz political cartoon and the football PSA which helped clarify the difference between Epsiteme and Doxa. It can be quite difficult to understand Episteme and Doxa, but something that distinguishes the two is that fact is a result from process and truth to be rules that are abided by. This ties to another concept called “Empirical Investigation” which discusses the observation of scientific revolution or the basis for inductive reasoning. What initially separates the two ideas is the ability to prove one (Episteme) through a scientific or mechanical process while the other (Doxa) is inferred based off of an audience that generates an idea. We were also introduced to the term “Techne” and how it is defines as the knowledge applied to craft or “know how”. Applying everything together we come to the consensus that Rhetoric is the cultural construction of knowledge. It is because of the scientific method that we create Empirical research which then leads to inductive reasoning and how a common belief (Doxa) can become a justified truth (Epsiteme) after long periods of scientific discovery. In some cases, Episteme can be Doxa due to religion, food, and culture. Doxa finds itself categorized as scientific, cultural, and political as these are where most ideas are commonly associated with popular beliefs by audiences’.

Furthermore, Doxa and Episteme can be applied in the Ethos and Logos branches of rhetoric, technically all three, but most closely and directly related to the two just mentioned. Ethos is the method that something is given credibility, which can be tied back to a common belief (Doxa) that football causes brain damage. Whereas Logos would be the justified truth (Episteme) in finding evidence that scientifically proves the effects physical impact has on the human brain. In this scenario, the ability to combine an audience belief with a justified truth is possible, but not in all cases, or in other words a Doxa can be an Episteme but an Epistme may not revert to a Doxa or popular belief.