This photo sums up my discussion this year. It became apart of my movie in the group discussion of Screened Out.

Richard Rorty and Globalization, the poetics of identity and social hope

Well, Richard Rorty and me and a bone to pick. First of all, I do believe that in our society we are moving towards a trend of distinct social classes. However, I disagree on the reasoning. I believe that a major reason why people end up the way they do is because of the family and social class that they originally had when they where first starting out as children. I think that learned behavior is a very influential thing that molds human behaviors. I don't feel however that your are necessarily stuck in these social molds. I feel that it is our cultures fault that we are moving towards these two distinct social classes, but I disagree on the "standardization" of the two behaviors of the classes. Our society generally teaches us that we just need to take what we have. I disagree with this. Most people feel that because they don't have money or rich parents, they cannot be successful. I disagree. After reading alot of Carl Rogers writings on the humanist perspective I believe in Maslow's theory of self actualization. I believe that everyone has it inside of them to be the best that they can be. However if you have grown up in a home that has taught you that you aren't smart, rich or powerful enough to get what you want, you won't. If you believe it, its true. The only thing stopping people from being rich and successful is themselves. I really believe that you can have anything you want, you just have to work hard enough for it. To say that you are stuck in into one class is simply giving up.

Richard Rorty and Globalization, the poetics of identity and social hope

I also disagree with Rorty’s standardization of behavior for the poor or the rich. I don’t think it is fair to say that a certain class have behaved a certain way to get where they are. It is probably a combination of things like family connections, luck, in some cases hard work and I am sure some are where they are because of greed. To me saying the two go hand in hand is like saying that I have blonde hair because I speak English. It just doesn’t go hand in hand. Take for example family connections. Many people are born into money and haven’t done anything wrong to be in the social class that they are. Say Rorty is right about that family and they robed and cheated someone to be rich. The child will see this behavior but they don’t have to model it. Everyone gets to make a decision for themselves how they will behave. I almost see his statement as a form of discrimination. I may be misinterpreting his meaning, but I am pretty sure this is what he has said. Members of this blog have also commented on his opinion and I feel that they have the same feelings.

Globalization Arjun Appadurai

This is in response to Lorna and Laura’s discussion of sight vs hearing. I would way rather loose my hearing then my sight. I think above all else, everything that we remember is mostly done because we see things and then interpret them to formulate some sort of knowledge about space. I would way rather not hear and see, and that way I could interpret the things going on around me and make sense of it myself. If I was to choose to loose my sight, I would then rely on other peoples opinions of the world around me and let them form my reality. This actually reminds me of the encoding, decoding article. It would seem to me like blindness is like the media, filtering away and letting us only understand a directional sort of knowledge. My mother is blind, however she doesn’t seem to conform to what everyone one else seems to tell he about society. She therefore disproves my point but I do think it is because she has chosen to question the world around her. She seems to need to experience and explore on her own to fully understand the concept of something. However things like perspective and depth have absolutely no meaning or hit any understanding. She does however rely on me and others to tell her if something is beautiful, if something is dark, light scary or safe. To me, I feel bad interpreting her world for her. It is almost selfish sometimes. I think living with someone who has no sight I would definitely choose to loose my hearing, that is if I had to choose.

Globalization Arjun Appaduarai

In discussing globalization, I would like to bring up the topic of origin. How did this globalization begin? I feel it began with travel. Without the spread of people into different cultures and spaces we would never know what other cultures and societies are like. Travel has made us well aware of the world around us. It is with travel that technology has formed. The spread and consequent sharing of technology has began to quickly enhance the rate at which we can communicate with other cultures. It is this communication that has given us the opportunity to experience what other people are like. Globalization I feel is then a result of the influence of these exchanges between cultures. One society may be doing better then another and so they choose to conform to the others way of living. I feel that the power to impose ones culture on another is also a cause. Everyone has the desire to be the best they can be, and so in a global discussion, countries want to be the most powerful, rich and largest societies. Is this a good thing? I actually think that this disjuncture that Appaduarai speaks about is a very positive thing. It is what separates and creates difference in the world. I personally don’t ever want to see a global culture come into full force. I find that this global culture would be a result of countries and cultures subsequent death and surrender. How is it that anyone is willing to let this happen?

In the place of the public: observations of a traveler by Martha Rosler

Roseler’s discussion of the boring airport (boring in the sense that it is strictly a science an not an art) seems to bring up questions about the present state of affairs in our world. Roslers description of these airports being some sort of an expression of engineering and absent of architecture almost seems somewhat appropriate. However most people will disagree with me, I like to see a very scientific, stable, safe environment before I fly. I am quite anxious of flying, as most people who have traveled with me know. It’s not that I think that humans are to stupid to create something that can fly, its that I think humans aren’t smart enough to create something perfect. I am anxious of dying in a plane crash and it calms me when I see a strong structure that evokes nothing but stability. I know that almost noone will agree with me but in my own world, airports would so be scientific and engineered it would be a beautiful architecture to me. I would design an airport and exaggerate all the ideals that I associate with strength and power and security. I know that that probably sounds no fun, but in today culture of people thinking its appropriate to hijack planes and kill everyone, what’s wrong with an exaggerated sense of security, even if it has nothing to do with the actual plane ride itself.

In the place of the public: observations of a traveler by Martha Rosler

Every time I fly I am so amazed by two things, first that I am actually still alive and second that I am in a completely different place in such a short amount of time. It boggles my mind to think that I am somewhere so different on the planet. I guess it is so much weirder for me because I never got to experience the actual space in-between the two cities. I just was in one city and then I automatically arrived in another. I think it is this disjunction of understanding that makes us so amazed at flight. I have actually considered the fact that this whole idea of earth is an elaborate ruse. What if there is no Europe that far away? You have no way of knowing unless you boat there! You rely on what it is your told. However paranoid that may sound its true. I don’t fully know that I arrived in Mexico, or Hollywood or anywhere, I trust that I was taken to this place that is pointed out to me on the map. Actually I trust the maker of these maps. Obviously this isn’t true but an interesting thought.

Paul Virillio The overexposed City

Virillo's article also made me think about city as a geographical space. A historical city as we know it is so obviously different from what we have today. But the thing I was drawn to think about is the city as a measureable place. How big is the city you live in? The city seems to be a certain size based on how much space it physically takes up. However when I think about my definition of a city. I begin to think about what connects the city, what helps the city to grow and function. Isn't the internet apart of the city? Do computers not run most everything that we do? Everyday some many phone calls are made that we can barely keep up with all of them. These phone calls exist in a wave of there own. We cannot occupy any of this space, but it is a space that makes up our city. Should we not then include the space these take up into our calculation of city? I guess the idea of city is a subjective term. A city could fit into a small block but the virtual space that occurs along side the physical could be quite large. How we begin to rethink our definitions of city, size, boundaries and geography?

Paul Virillio The overexposed city

After reading Paul Virillio's article, I was instantly reminded of my first semesters studio project. I was studying seams, specifically the seam between reality and virtual reality. I was constantly reminded to play with this boundary and expolore the potentials that it could provide my project. What I found most interesting was this contrast between these two worlds. My major study was to investigate if it would be possible to blurr the line between the two. I think Virillo discusses the idea of the two as separate things but doesn't deeply discuss the blurring of the two. If you think about it, life is a mixed recipe of many different types of realities. My computer screen showing me typing words in a space that I cannot occupy, my cell phone carrying my voice through a world I also can never go. And even more interesting might be the switch from reality to virtual reality and back again to reality. An example would be talking on a video phone. Your world, the reality your in, looking into a virtual world, the video screen and the world revealed to you that is someone elses reality.

[tran] sexuality

“once the orgy was over sexual liberation could be seen to have had the effect of leaving everyone searching for their gender, their sexual and gender identity, with fewer and fewer possible answers…”

Amongst layers of discussion, Baudrillard begins to define a unique recognition of sexuality while simultaneously entailing its deceiving influence on the culture that surrounds it. Entering the 21st century, our perception as we know it has been forcefully constructed to value perfected ideals, material objects, canning reputations, infamous popularity, altered appearances, symbolic standards and most importantly dictated images. Not only is this an image of self as a natural object, but more so a sexual object; where sex is no longer skin deep, but silicone deep and individuality is of the least importance. Could it be these prized objectives that have led our civilization to an inclusive, transsexual gender? One that is dictated or unconsciously forced upon us, one that transforms us into flawless extensions of our natural essence and prescribes our every move. We, as hybrids are no longer received by what’s on the inside, but rather judged for what’s revealed on the outside.

Where is this incurred obsession derived from? What is the root beneath our obscured values, contrived desires and scandalous perceptions?

Essentially there is only one dictator, the media. A medium that is responsible for controlling all aspects of our life from what we see, to what we believe, to whom we are, to what we should be and how we should act and think, what we should look like, how we should dress and even whom we should idolize. As an extension of the American dream we are taught never to settle, primarily because our technological state is on a continuous incline, but satisfaction is no longer the cute house and white picket fence. We as transsexuals now require endless fulfillment, the newest trends, hottest accessories, most expensive cars, biggest homes and perfected appearances in order to be seemingly happy. Familiarity with the expression “keeping up with the Jones” invokes us to believe that our society is no longer contrived on that, so instead you better blow those Jones out of the water to get any sort recognition as far as were concerned.

In collation with the media’s influence over our values and identity, it begins to illustrate the power that celebrities and pop culture play into this twisted, yet fragile scenario. Through the eyes of a transsexual, celebrities are placed upon a pedestal and with this elevation it provokes beings to observe, analyze and evaluate their every move. Why is it that we aspire to be like someone else, someone that we don’t even know? Aside from what the media portrays, who’s to say that established individual is any better than you? Who are you? Who am I and what have we become?

We are so unsure of what’s real anymore and we couldn’t even begin to guess what’s fake. The delineated line once separating the two becomes more distorted with each day and the only guarantee is that the industry supporting this lifestyle will continue to live on.