“writing with” Katie/Notes on Ambience #1 (4-28)
>2
When I sat down to read through the emerging 658 posts this week, Rogoff’s notion of “writing with” rumbled around my head. I think the blog space potentially lends itself to “writing with,” so I’ll attempt to take up some form of it here (although, admittedly not entirely in the form Rogoff suggests). My impulse here is to attempt to engage a colleague’s text in what is meant to be an “open” or “extending” or “curious” move…because Katie’s post got me thinking and I don’t simply want to respond in a “closed” way by saying “good” or “I disagree” or “What Rogoff is really saying is…”
And I guess a question that I want to pose in attempting to do this – What kind of composing/writing creates conditions for “open,” maybe even “action” oriented situations for reading and extended composing?
(A note: As this post will take up, as a starting point, some ideas from Katie’s writing, specifically her post “Beating Authenticity: A Fragmented (Frustrated!) Response” – go check out the original text here.)
A central question of Katie’s:
Rogoff claims that she prefers curiosity (preferring the curious eye to the good eye) because it is unsettling and likely because it works to defeat the binary of good/bad (386). This position makes the most sense in terms of attempting to remove power from the (assumed) powerful. It keeps one from labeling – from determining something as good or bad. Chaos finds a home in art/representation as Lanham notes “The arts are non-linear systems” (467). “Art” (defined as whatever by whomever – nevertheless, art has a definition, even if it is just as art) strives to break, push, merge boundaries. Okay, but it still acknowledges those boundaries in order to break them… How can we stop acknowledging boundaries is my ultimate question?
***
Boundaries and Form
We’ve been quick to set up the poles of the “visual” and the “verbal,” as much of our reading attempts to posit and argue the values of each. Let’s be careful, however, not to over simplify our notion of form. In other words, while yes, we can understand “form” to broadly be the primary medium of the text object itself (i.e. photograph = visual; novel = verbal/alphabetic), ultimately, other “forms” are always present, for example:
- the institutional/spacial form where a given textual materiality has currency (the classroom, the movie theater, the gallery, the interstate billboard…);
- the form(s) of response/response(s) as form(s) – …intellectual, social, spatial … – afforded by the intersection of (all) the present forms
(there are more manifestations of form to consider, but even if we start with these…)
If we simply continue to frame our inquiry into “new media” or “digital composition” as the visual vs. verbal, we leave vast areas of both “forms” and the possibilities within each un-questioned and unexplored
***
To further explore Katie’s question of doing away with boundaries, and to take up at least a portion of a recent post by Sarah who writes:
…the “thesis” of ENG 658. Instead of degrading visual texts “as the less-important and less-intellectual sidekicks of alphabetic texts,” composition instructors need to recognize visual text as equal to “conventional” text. As composition courses continue solely to devote instruction to the “essay,” students will increasingly wonder how this type of writing will help them in the “real world.”
Let’s play around with “reading,” or let’s play around with the avoiding of degradation of, two “visual” texts that deal with, among other things – marriage.
Remember, pay attention to our “eyes.” I want to invite your “curious eye,” and I don’t think we’ll be able to turn-off our “good/bad” eye all that easily or completely, so let’s also note what emerges there too – what our good/bad eye and our curious eye do.
***
Loose(!) Context(!):
a few “technical”/Form specifics of the texts and loop back to Katie and Rogoff and Kress, maybe to help contextualize, hoping that contextualization will encourage response…
Jason writes:
Both texts – “Commitment Ceremony” and “In the Days Preceding and Following Our Wedding, Packages Arrived.” – primarily em(de)ploy video w/sound; both have the same duration (4′44″); both are post-able to YouTube…maybe there are other “generics” in “form”?…both are, at least, generally “visual”; both in some way deal with “marriage”; both were composed by “white” people …
Katie writes:
I find it ironic that deconstructionists strive to break apart binaries in order to affect chaos, disharmony, unsettled feelings, etc. to enact fluidity, motion, (maybe) progress because in human psychology, it seems that when feelings of chaos are paramount, the desire to have control grows stronger – as the cyberculture seems to be enacting: this obsession with CONTROL. So, we are moving towards freedom of expression, of infinite possibilities with visuals, sounds, colors, texts, etc.; yet, all this concludes in is having control over visuals, sounds, colors, etc. AND how we want to see them. Hmm.
Kress writes:
“…the school-subject English need[s] an encompassing theory of text, in which the texts of high culture could be brought into productive conjunction with the banal texts of the everyday…
… This is a much more “generative” notion of genre: not one where you learn the shapes of existing kinds of text alone, in order to replicate them, but where you learn the generative rules of the constitution of generic form within the power structures of a society.”
Remember, Sarah writes:
…the “thesis” of ENG 658. Instead of degrading visual texts “as the less-important and less-intellectual sidekicks of alphabetic texts,” composition instructors need to recognize visual text as equal to “conventional” text. As composition courses continue solely to devote instruction to the “essay,” students will increasingly wonder how this type of writing will help them in the “real world.”
Rogoff writes:
“To some extent the project of visual culture has been to try and repopulate space with all the obstacles and all the unknown images, which the illusion of transparency evacuated from it. Space, as we have understood, is always differentiated: it is always sexual or racial; it is always constituted out of circulating capital; and it is always subject to the invisible boundary lines that determine inclusions and exclusions. Most importantly it is always populated with the unrecognized obstacles which never allow us to actually ’see’ what is out there beyond what we expect to find. To repopulate space with all of its constitutive obstacles as we learn to recognize them and name them, is to understand how hard we have to strain to see, and how complex is the work of visual culture.”
Jason writes:
(some) Existing (generic) shapes/forms (in “Commitment Ceremony”): the music video, the short film, pop rock, butch, femme, air drums, monogamy … there are more …
(some) Existing (generic) shapes/forms (in “In the Days Preceding and Following Our Wedding, Packages Arrived.”): the home movie, the short film, wedding registry, the single family home, 2nd Day Air, monogamy … there are more …
***
Notes on Ambience #1: Ambience not as ‘mood’ but as “repopulated space”
***
So …
Here are the two texts…remember – “curious eye”/”good eye” (Rogoff) and “boundaries” and “degradation” and “productive conjunction”
Julie Goldman and Kate McKinnon’s Commitment Ceremony
[youtube]WE6UtcJtqE4[/youtube]
Jason Loan’s (Me!) In the Days Preceding and Following Our Wedding, Packages Arrived.
[youtube]2fo5_GIfx_s[/youtube]
“curious eye” … ?
“good eye” … ?
“boundaries” … ?
A return to Katie’s question: “How can we stop acknowledging boundaries … ?” (Again, go here for the full text of Katie’s post.)
>2
8 Comments
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
If I may be so bold as to say, Jason, I don’t think Katie was conflating form with boundaries in the way it seems you have in this post. I don’t think Katie was advocating the elimination of boundaries, simply the almost obsessive human tendency to focus on boundaries.
I’d like to use an analogy to describe what I think Katie is talking about, and then I’ll return to the interesting question/discussion you pose.
When Southern California was young, there were several cities that filled the area, but few major highways that lead into these cities. Each of these highways would have clear demarcations at a city’s border, for drivers crossing into a new city. These signs would often say things like “Welcome to Arcadia, Home of the Brave” or “Garden Grove, Where Everything is Peachy” – stuff like that. As the Southern California population grew, and more pathways were created in and out of SoCal cities, these border markers became less and less visible. Today, it is now possible to travel for several hours, and at any given time, not know what city you are in. This is because the NEED to distinguish our area as “ours-not-yours” has lessened as our families move into other areas and we no longer need to keep our cities homogeneous. In fact, often, the only time we are even cognizant of city borders is when something disruptive is occurring – police activity, criminal activity, overpopulation, poverty, etc.
I think what Katie is suggesting, is that we have passed a time in which we need to protect boundaries in art. We should have a solid enough foundation in the visual world around us that we don’t need border markers signaling – “Welcome to Good Art, Where the Good People Live.” Instead, we should be able to move between various forms of art and eventually discover we are not even sure where we are. The only time we would be aware of a boundary is when something disruptive is happening within those boundaries – and then we are only cognizant of the disruption long enough to decide if it is safe for us to proceed into its boundary. This kind of de-emphasis on boundaries only serves to bring together diverse points of views; the kind of views normally kept separate by rigid border constructions.
As for your video comparison, it seems to me to be an apples-and-oranges comparison. Yes, apples and oranges share some generic categories like sweetness, fruit, round, have peels, etc., but just try to make Duck a l’Orange with an apple.
The politics that the language in Goldman’s piece evokes is noticeably missing in the Loan piece. The Loan piece is a reaffirmation of the capitalistic nature of the heterosexual matrimonial structure in America, while the Goldman piece laments that fact. In other words, they both reside in Southern California, but their boundaries are distinct because of the disruption that the Goldman piece introduces. Had you chose another YouTube video that was not disruptive, I think you would be reinforcing Katie’s point that the boundaries between different manifestations of art can and should be crossed fluidly with little or no acknowledgement.
YEEEEEESSSSSSS!!!!! Thank you Gina for commenting…cool…
honestly, I don’t know what I’m suggesting or asserting half the time…justing playing maybe, hoping for a response to unlock my thinking…
So I fucked up…didn’t fuck up…part of what I was thinking would happen is that I would fail in “writing with” Katie..
I don’t think we have to make an effort to “conflate boundaries with forms” – forms are boundaries – and I think Katie hits on this…
Your example of the city is an intriguing one and I tend to agree with the idea that the “traditional” boundaries of city space have/are dissolved(ing)…which I think creates a situation in which textual boundaries become more an more clung to and consequential – if we can’t “read” our living space as stable and secure (within borders), then a reactionary impulse is to more firmly “border up” the other spaces/forms where meaning is made…In other words, if I can’t “know” my city, I want to “know” my music videos…I think Katie hits on this too…
I was going to “disclaim” the videos with the notion that I didn’t simply want to encourage comparison and I didn’t want to make a value judgment about either…I think comparison even with a disclaimer was bound to happen its part of how we read and make sense of things in contact…and it is the comparitive impulse that both allows for “open” and “closed” readings…
I think your assessment that one piece “evokes what’s missing in the other” speaks to much of Rogoff’s thinking…and interestingly the idea that “The Loan piece is a reaffirmation of the capitalistic nature of the heterosexual matrimonial structure in America, while the Goldman piece laments that fact” speaks to the complexity of what is evocative – are “reaffirmations” and “laments” equally political? radical? transformative? How does eash piece – Loan and Goldman – evoke what missing and present in the other?
Which is more disruptive? (is more disruption better?)
A brief thought on this…
While the Goldman piece disrupts the notion of “the heterosexual matrimonial structure in America” by positioning non-heterosexuals in the scenes of that structure, the rhetorical(?)/medium structure of the piece is very “normative” video – again, the music video, the short film, the pop song – so there is situation in which “content” is potentially (again, depending on audience) “disruptive” – however, the “form” is pretty palatable to say – most anyone under 60.
The Loan piece is certainly not incredible, if at all “disruptive” in the “content” – a mundane acknowledgement via title cards of the wedding registry ritual and images of banaza of opened packages/gifts…but the “form” might be – again, depending on audience and venue – very disruptive…ambient sound track, an odd mix of static shot and “shaky cam” home video…home video itself as a public, discoursive medium might seem “disruptive”…
To avoid the question of which is more disruptive – bad question I think…we might return to the idea of “boundaries and form” and your idea – What does each piece evoke as missing or present in the other? Or how does each piece evoke what is missing and present in our response to marriage? Gay marriage?
Again, Gina…thanks for putting me on my ass in the best way…thanks for responding…
Maybe we should move this to a shared “google doc” for further development? Game?
See http://compositionmatrix.blogspot.com/2008/04/seemingly-weak-attempt-to-involve.html
Jason writes:
honestly, I don’t know what I’m suggesting or asserting half the time…justing playing maybe, hoping for a response to unlock my thinking…
I actually laughed out loud at this. I, too, often don’t understand what you are suggesting or asserting, but I always enjoy the process of trying to figure it out.
I especially appreciate your efforts to relate and interact with, conflate and experience the other blogs in class.
I apologize for taking so long to get a response to your piece, which attempts to “write with” various authors (myself included). That you actually “wrote with” is a matter for debate. One could say you “wrote with” because many authors appear on your page location; however, it seems more of a “writing exhibit,” with paragraphs you have selected to put on display – or even farther, a “writing Frankenstein.” I’ll explain (further down).
To attempt to answer your question: what kind of composing/writing creates conditions for extended composing? I don’t know that you need to define a “kind” of composing act to create open/action-oriented situations because the very act of defining closes the act. Instead, it seems that the very act of composing itself, in any form, creates the conditions for extended composing (just as in conversation – when one converses with (vs. talks to) someone, conversations carry into many different paths). The act of composing doesn’t need to be a certain kind, but it does need conditions. Those conditions comprise audience and access to the piece. Conversation must not be a one-way street, in other words.
You cite that we are guilty of “oversimplifying” our notion of form. I don’t know that humans can really help this behavior. Even as you try to expand the notion of form through your examples, I’m sure you realize that you are deliberately naming some and consequently, not naming others. It’s a problem of time and space and oversimplification is the result. That’s why it is important that you take the time to write blogs about “forms” that remain unacknowledged as an attempt to move beyond this flaw. The tragedy is that it can ever only be an attempt…
Some questions:
1. I have to ask – in “Loose(!) Context(!)” – what are you trying to accomplish with the exclamation marks? I hope it wasn’t just to make me ask… =)
2. Also, when you reference your marital video (and Gina’s video), you call them “texts.” Is this really an “appropriate” term? Hmm…
3. You’ve mentioned this notion of “ambience” multiple times – ambience as repopulated space. Could you explain what this means to you? And why it is important?
There is much material here, and I see an attempt to engage it all. If the point was to have these texts engage by having the author (you) select them, order them, and to have them appear in the same blog space, then I say that the engagement was a success; however, I fail to see how they engage, or rather, relate to each other specifically. Is this truly a successful communication?
Instead, it seems that you like to piece things together (especially seemingly unrelated things) to see what could be born out of such piecing (a Frankenstein construction). While I applaud the effort, I struggle to see “Frankenstein” coming to life. His limbs are too loosely connected (which, yes, does certainly ensure that his limbs are freer from the whole – but does that help them, or “him,” any)?
While I suppose I should take it upon myself to connect your Frankenstein’s limbs, (and really try to guess what relationship you are *implying* via the relationship between all these texts) it seems easier just to continue to fabricate my own Frankenstein. Is this, then, writing with?
Lots here to think about respond to…
Thanks for the questions…I’ll get back…need some process time.
Again, thanks.
Buy:Viagra Super Force.Viagra.Soma.Maxaman.Cialis Professional.VPXL.Levitra.Viagra Professional.Viagra Super Active+.Zithromax.Tramadol.Super Active ED Pack.Cialis Soft Tabs.Cialis.Viagra Soft Tabs.Propecia.Cialis Super Active+….
Cabinet http://xcabinetc-pavgy.03GMCPARTS.US/tag/styles+tables+Cabinet/ : styles…
Cabinet…