Modernism and Postmodernism are both significant philosophical movements that have ties in the societal, economic, and artistic environments of their era.  However, the two are not mutually exclusive they are essentially taking the same subject matter and using the zeitgeist to illustrate their own perspective on the subject.

Modernism is a critique of the 19th century bourgeois culture, it rejects the values and styles of realism by moving away from the objective description, the concrete idea, and shifts towards abstraction and embodies the essence of inward consciousness. In film, this is shown through having a narrative with no conventional beginning, middle, and end.  A good example of this would be the film Memento, by disrupting this linear narrative it constantly keeps the audience on their toes, forcing a certain perspective in order to communicate the plot throughout the film. Literary pieces that exemplify this come from Faulkner, Hemingway, and Camus, they envision themselves as a sort of self-exiled
hero, not fitting into sociaiety and are constantly in a self state of crisis.

On the other hand, postmodernism focuses on simulacrum. It takes a step back from the situation and becomes reflexive to reveal the reasoning behind the actions. Also, it abolishes the boundary between high and low culture, there is no more hierarchy of culture because as postmodern theorist Santiago Colas said, “We may attempt to forget or ignore mass culture, but it will neither forget nor ignore us.” A distinctive feature of postmodernism is the emphasis on a understanding the metanarrative, and the overarching meaning behind ideas. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, by Tom Stoppard is a good example of this, it takes two seemingly insignificant characters from the classic Shakespearean play of Hamlet and portrays their perspective on everything that is happening. It gives a unique view on what on the plot and allows the reader to have a cerebral and rather disorienting experience alongside the two characters. This novel is distinctively postmodern because it seeks to delve deeper into an established work, and gives a fresh new take on why things are occurring. Stoppard gives an ironic and deceptively simple perspective to the minor characters, there are often hidden meanings behind the words that take a lot of knowledge to recognize and acknowledge. What is distinctive about this film is its direct comparison of a modernist time period in Hamlet, and taking a completely postmodern twist on the whole things. The two ideologies are constantly being contradicted and interwoven throughout the entirety of the novel. At one point Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have an existential crisis in the play, this self-reflexivity is a prominent characteristic of postmodernism. It forces the readers to be mindful of the duality of the two plays on one stage, the whole idea behind the book is really dynamic and engaging which is why it has extended to plays and a film. Artistically, Andy Warhol embodies postmodern ideals. His pastiche representations of average household items are what made him famous, he pushes the boundaries of conventional items and displays them in colorful and beautiful ways that are incredibly unique.

P.S. I know this was late Laura, please don’t fail me…. 🙁

“Said argued that the concept of the Orient as other serves to establish Europe and the West as the norm.”

1. In regards to the quote above, can the same be said in reverse? Who establishes what the “norm” is?
   1. I do think that the same can be said as reverse. Historically, America has been perceived as a country dependent on the “new”, we see ourselves as a the hearth of commercialism and innovation. I think that we truly see ourselves as the ideal model of a country, at that everything we do from art to science is in fact the “norm”, and we have a low tolerance for anything that doesn’t align with our own ideas.
   2. Society establishes what norms are, but still norms are completely subjective. What’s normal for one group of people may not be normal for others, which  makes it culturally contingent.
2. If meaning is established through differences, how does one account for the similarities?
   1. Going back to the idea of the norm, that’s also how we see similarities. We think that they are SUPPOSED to be that way, because why wouldn’t it be? We are biologically coded to ignore similarities after a while, our brains are developed to process the new and different things because we assume what is already there will not change.
3. Could it be argued that women of the harem were the ones in power and not merely objects for males to gaze at?
   1. Individually they could’ve felt powerful, especially if the were the sole center of attention. There is something innately powerful if you are the only recipient of someones gaze, it feels like you’re captivating them. On the other hand, as a group they were essentially being objectified, if you’re staring at a group it’s hard to differentiate so you just see the whole thing rather than the individual ones which is essentially de-individualizing and dehumanizing.
4. Can “gender in the gaze” be equated to objectification?
   1. Yes it can be, however I think the reason we see “gender in gaze” as objectification is because gender is innately stigmatized to us as a society. We associate certain characteristics with each gender, so when we put gaze in that equation we assume that the gaze is used to justify and follow those stereotypical characteristics.
5. In what ways does the audience of a film identify with what is being played out on screen?
   1. Perspectives can really alter how we perceive a scene, which I tried to talk about in my video essay. They can display the emotions of the protagonist, and communicate that in way that is completely unique to the audience. In my opinion, a successful film makes you feel like you’re in the same reality. You can feel the emotions, you can see the details, you can almost sense everything to the point where you’re so immersed in there that you start to feel like the protagonist yourself, or a familiarity with them. Gaze is sight, what we see is what we perceive, it’s how we process the world which is why it’s so important to how we see film and media. The director can essentially create a reality for us that doesn’t actually exist in real life but it feels like it does. Many prolific directors do this such as Frederic Fellini, Wes Anderson and many others.

Based on what we learned in class, “doxa” refers to common belief and popular opinion, while “episteme” is portrayed as more of a justified, true belief. We briefly touched on the distinction between the two with some examples such as evolution, and how that shifted from a general knowledge of the creation of humans through the Bible (doxa) to a solidified idea that humans evolved from early primates through series of adaptations which can be justified scientifically (episteme). However, even after the examples we covered in class, the distinction was still really confusing to me as I tried to identify the respective terms in the context of my essay. After some careful research (aka a five minute google search), I have a clearer view on what doxa and episteme are in relation to each other.

To start off, doxa is like a foundation of knowledge or beliefs. A solid mass of common thoughts that may be shaky in some areas, but has enough following to be built upon later to create a substantial argument. An example of this would be “people with bad hygiene are unattractive.” There hasn’t been any scientific studies (that I am aware of) that attribute people’s perceived attractiveness to whether they smell good, which is subjective in itself. We don’t all like the same type of smells, some people like being natural and decide not to wear any sort of fragrance, while others (me included) love to bathe in our favorite scents because that is what we like as individuals. An important principle of doxa is that it is culturally contingent, it changes from culture to culture so it excludes some part of a general audience. Episteme differs from doxa in this sense, it deals with less subjective views and uses objective observations to make arguments more substantial.

In the building metaphor, if doxa is the foundation, episteme is the steel beam that makes up the frame work of the argument. Besides using basic reasoning skills to come to a conclusion, which is commonly done in doxa, episteme goes beyond that and reveals the actual process that lead to the conclusion. It demonstrates a deeper knowledge and understanding of the argument that allows the idea to become immutable, which is why science is a good form of episteme because it is observational, empirical, and sometimes inductive. An example of this would be the practice of law. If we saw someone blatantly breaking a law, our first impulse would be to say that the person is guilty! This is doxastic in nature, we are creating a judgment based on our personal belief that this is wrong and the social conventions of “laws” should not be broken. In contrast, a lawyer would use logos to view the situation, there’s a process that they must undergo to reach the conclusion on whether or not that person is truly guilty. What specific law did they break? Is there observable proof that a violation occurred? There is a methodical approach to episteme that sharply differs from the way conclusions are reached using doxa.