Irony... ughhh! (Fin)

This final section of the incomplete analysis of irony points towards the understanding of the effects of our subject's implementation, namely that irony's contemporary use is as a negative action.  Further, its alienating effects have a negative result on the pragmatics of peaceful public (social) spheres.

In Of the Gaze as Objet Petit a, Jacques Lacan relates a story from his youth when he spent time on a fishing boat.  As a privileged/intellectual person, he sought a more genuine/practical experience, which he thought he would find on a fishing trip.  He tells of Petit Jean, a fisherman by trade, who directs his attention to a sardine can floating on the water, reflecting the sunlight. Little John exclaims, "You see that can? Do you see it? Well it doesn't see you!"
First and foremost, the story is an analogy for how the gaze functions: immediate knowledge of desire= objet petit a = Petit Jean; sardine can = object 'fishermen' fill = object of desire; etc, etc... the object of desire never returns the gaze (thus paradoxically objectifying the subject).  Sorry for the horrendous abbreviation of this exegesis, but my main point lies not only in Lacan's theory of subjectivity, but instead in his own objectivity.
Lacan goes on to say that he felt/was out of place in the picture of this story, and that "it was because [he] felt this that [he] was not terribly amused at hearing [himself] addressed in this humorous, ironical way."
The way that irony/satire/sarcasm functions today is similar to the way that Petit Jean used it in relation to Lacan, as an objectifying tool.  For Lacan, the irony lay in the the fact that his search for a 'real' experience (being on a fishing boat) was denied when the experience (Petit Jean, the sardine can (the entire situation)) did not recognize him as 'real'.  Everyone is searching for a genuine experience, yet this search has gone awry due to a two-fold process of irony.
First, the use of irony as an objectifying tool, causes one searching to become ashamed of his/her search.  Second, the use of irony as a facade which covers one's real search results in the finding of fetishes.  I will explain this in plain terms.
For the former, say I really find some unexplainable pleasure in DragonCon, and (although it is based on fictions) it helps me have a more genuine experience of life.  If other people, whom I also rely on to validate my experience, make fun of me by exploiting the irony of the situation, then I may retreat from my source of meaning for shame.
For the latter, if I have the foresight to know that my peers will make fun of me for indulging in fantasy, I may pose my interest in DragonCon as an ironic gesture.  This allows for a fetishization of the irony, as opposed to having real pleasure in the convening of those who enjoy fantasy.
In the former case, I, as the subject, am objectified through humiliation by others.  In the latter case, I humiliate and objectify myself as a preventative measure (defense mechanism.)  In either case, the resulting alienation produces anxiety.  As there are innumerable examples, it does not take a specific one to know that alienation and anxiety result in social unrest.
Of course, all of this is null and void when in the company of trusted friends and family, or in other situations (comedy clubs, etc.) where it is understood that the use of irony is only in jest.  Outside of these 'safe' venues, and in reference to the previous posts on irony, it remains unclear whether or not the current forms of communication allow irony/sarcasm/satire to be easily recognized.  If these tropes are not recognized, or if they are but still objectify/alienate, they are sure to be detrimental to interpersonal (and possibly intercultural) relations.

Irony... ughhh! Pt.2

"There is nothing outside the text."  Jacques Derrida

I will start this section with the qualifier that irony and its friends need not be eradicated completely, but should definitely be returned from common communication to their rightful place, entertainment.  By showing how irony/satire/etc. are human forms, hopefully I can show why it is imperative that such forms not lose their value.

Currently, and largely with respect to the Web 2.0 and text messaging, a major percentage of language is delivered in a textual (as opposed to spoken/audible) format.  Further, the contemporary abundance of information that is available in text format often necessitates that a reductive approach to communication be utilized so only the meat gets delivered, while decorative plating accoutrements be left in the pantry.  This being understood, there is often not enough time or space to set a tone, much less qualify every statement being delivered.

In this setting, it is possible that form is all we have; that a definitive form equals meaning pairing is necessary.  The transmission of information must be literalized so that meaning can be conveyed accurately.  When language is removed from inflection, intention must align with form.  To illustrate this best, I will call attention to the newest language, coding/programming.

There is no such thing as ironic/satirical/humorous code.  When one is speaking to a machine, the information must be logical.  What one desires (to happen as a result of communication) must be accurately conveyed using a standardized lexicon.

 When transferred to inter-human communication this becomes a bit of overstatement, as we are highly adept at communicating and understanding nuance.  The fact remains; the idea of inflection is paramount.  How are we to know for sure, from minimalistic text whether the speaker is being straight forward or not? 

This is all the set up for the point that will follow.

Theatre and early film acting is melodramatic, while contemporary filmic acting is wrought with subtlety (in order to be more effective.)  In this same way, contemporary irony/satire/sarcasm is most ironic/etc. when delivered in a less dramatic, more ‘convincing’ manner [which could be called minimalist with reference to inflection.]  The same way that subtle/realistic acting makes us less aware that we are viewing a fictitious scene, subtlety in irony causes confusion about the intention of the communicator, arguably becoming more effective.  Further, the counter-action of drama is that we, as real-life actors, become more dramatic, aligning our feelings’ formal manifestation with those we witness as ‘real’ or ‘moving.’  The question of simulation, of how ‘reality’ lines up with formal manifestation becomes clear.  Coming back to irony et al, as these tropes become over-used, the equal and opposite reactions that occurs between form and meaning changes the location of the reality to which is being referred.  When referential accuracy is lost, meaning is lost, and communication breaks down.

Although a constantly changing reality may be the most realistic form of reality, and the only possible reality for language, future posts will go to show it may not be the most positively productive force for human interaction. (Habermas anyone?)

Irony... ughhh!

"Words may show a man's wit, but actions his meaning." Benjamin Franklin 

 This is the beginning of a multi-part posting that I will be delivering in smaller bites across the next few days.

I have a serious love-hate relationship with the discussion at hand, so a clear purpose cannot be promised, and I am almost definitely bound to become a babbling idiot at some point - so bear with me. There are so many things that I want to say about irony, sarcasm, and satire in general, that I have a really hard time deciding where to start, again please excuse the mess that is to follow.  Also, I will point out that I am not some kind of puritan, that I do use these tropes, and think that I also overuse them.  Although technically different, I will use these words interchangeably {though I am quite sure that I will resend this conflation at a later date, and that a strict understanding of each one's use would probably help the situation I will draw.}  For now, I feel that they are all commonly used in the same service these days, humor that acts as a type of pitiful revolt, weak protest, and tired contrarianism.

Juvenalian satire, verbal irony, and overarching sarcasm have become commonplace on television and seem to be the main form of communication for younger generations. They can be seen in advertising, sitcoms, and even 'news' channels.  If I had to point to a major offender and purveyor of the proliferation of such tropes, I would definitely call out the sitcom.  

The pairing of words with meaning that defies literal interpretation by way of tonal inflection is the source of much comedy [and tragedy], esp when paired with dramatic and/or situational irony.  For some reason or the other, these unusual parings cause a stir in our emotions. But these are forms of entertainment, and explain why they have been useful in advertisement and the cable 'news' networks.  The fact that as means, they almost always produce desired ends (viewership), can help explain why they are (overly) used.

Jean Jacques Rousseau pointed out the fallacy of gluttony in respect to taste; that a glutton does not taste because all he/she does is taste.  In a way, this is a statement of the law of diminishing value, and I think it is easy to transfer this line of reasoning to irony's use value, that in its overuse it becoming useless (or at least less valuable.)  Note, I am not trying to say that it is inherently bad or useless, but that it is overused and becoming worthless.  

One way that I feel this overuse is manifesting is in a constant state of jocularity.  As I suggested before, these tropes are currently best known as a means of entertaining.  I will also assert that humor and its result, laughter, are defense mechanisms.  I will even go so far as to say that often (not always) the laughter that is derived from such tropes are a fetishized version of the jovial feelings derived from deep personal relationships.   So, the need to be entertained with the fear of taking ownership of whatever it is that ails us (which combined can be called perpetual escapism,) prompts one to utilize entertaining defense mechanisms.  But these are only micro-escapes, personal prayers that ease immediate fears.  They do not work on a larger scale.  If they did, you would see the President telling terrorists "Your Momma" jokes. {Seriously, someone needs to make a comic strip using this idea... Damn, there I go, being sarcastic.} 

In the end, I worry that the overuse of irony, satire and sarcasm will become similar to food abuse.  Each of these things may be used excellently to satisfy basic human needs, whether it be for nourishment or protection, while the excessive partaking of them exposes neurosis and/or results in poor health.  A serious life peppered with frivolity may be similar to a healthy diet interspersed with a soda here and there...

Digi-photo's and sentimentality follow-up

This is a follow-up to my first post on why low-res digital photography won't be sentimentalized. Here is a good article from nytimes.com about [hipsters] buying/using old typewriters: http://goo.gl/R0dd0. (Be sure to check out all pages/pics and captions - also notice the 'hipstamatic' filters on the pics.) 

Image Credit: Marcus Yam for The New York Times

I don't think such a trend will translate to low-res digital photography when holographic photography (or whatever is next) comes out to replace 2D-digital. Maybe there will be a desire for 'good old' screen-based digital imagery, but I doubt it will be for pixellated photographic images.  Again, I'm just not convinced that low resolution photography defines an era, generation, or particular "feel".  I could be wrong, and younger generations may be thinking in terms of 2-3 year (or shorter) cycles/trends while I'm thinking in terms of 5-10 (or more) years.
Also, there is a real difference in sentimentalizing something compared to being into something because its 'retro' or arcane, or even worse, ironic. If a 2001 plastic HP camera ever becomes a fetishized object, it will be due to the irony of it ever having existed in the first place. (Trust me, I will get to irony and why it must die [or at least fade] soon.)
Retro and archaic things may possess an air of beauty or idealism even by those who never experienced them first hand - think typewriters, art deco, and Renaissance Fair.  To truly sentimentalize something though, the romanticized feeling for the object, memory or time must be personal, otherwise, it is merely fetishization.

Another Critique of Judgment

Aesthetic judgment is at least partially separate from the idea of taste.

Taste refers to the reception of a stimulus, the sensation it illicits, and its immediate bodily acceptance or rejection.  Taste has to do with biology, for the most part it is "natural," if by natural we mean immediately known, consciously pondered as briefly as possible, to the point that it seems that no thought is given to such a decision.

Aesthetics, or at least what aesthetics has become, is the contemplation of what kind of sensation should be the result of any such stimulus.  It has more to do with sociology and psychology, in that aesthetic decisions are made based not only on immediate sensation, but through a filtering of the perceived personal and social implications involved with (dis)liking something. It may be that Aesthetics rests fully in the Symbolic order, while taste is more 'Real,' in a Lacanian sense.

There are times of conflation (a type of honesty, perhaps) when taste and aesthetics overlap. The easiest example to help explain this is food.  Essentially every young person likes the way sugar tastes, thus it is in good taste to have candies and confections.  At this time, taste and aesthetics coincide.  As people get older, the social and personal pressures of body image and health, and all the rules that come with it, may alter their aesthetic decisions of sweets, to the point where they no longer like them. Of course, this example can be made infinitely more complicated by slightly increasing the complexity of the situation.

Now the question remains, what is the nature of this alienation? Is there more truth in the aesthetic judgment or the taste judgment?  Is the most truth arrived at when taste and aesthetics overlap? (Is there any truth at all or just fleeting thoughts/feelings?)

{Lame conclusion: I think both are important in their own right, and the real importance is in reinstating (or implementing) the difference in these two words, so that when critiquing a work of art (or anything), one can distinguish between the guttural/emotional response and the intellectual response.}

Why do We Like Shiny Stuff?

What is it that draws us to shiny things? Its doesn't seem logical to think we began liking diamonds, gold and other polished metals and jewels because of their rarity.  It seems logical that we liked shiny things, then the more rare a particular shiny thing was, the more valuable it became... (I'll get to value some other time.)

I think that some people, then, now, and in between, who happened to ponder this question may assume that there is some sort of energy, latent or active, potential or kinetic, present in such entities.  In various cults and religions there is power given to the crystalline form, and those things which have such form.

But can we still make such statements in todays cynical, scientific age?  I think not; my best guesses derive from psychological and evolutionary theories.

I think the most logical way to explain our interest in shiny things is evolutionary (biologically or socially.) Clean, drinkable water is shiny - its surface reflects light - so it catches our eye from a distance.  It makes sense that somehow there is a genetic predisposition to shiny things, such that those animals with such a disposition are more adept at finding water - thus better adapted toward survival.  This might be testable to see if other animals (esp. other primates) have an affinity for shiny stuff.

Another explanation, that is not too different from the first, comes from a more social/psychological way of thinking. Eyes, healthy eyeballs, are shiny (that kind of 'clear' reflective shiny that clean water has.)  Further, eyes have a high priority for humans, as they are the sensory receptor that has the most advantageous distance to time ratio (the receive stimulation from the farthest away stimuli the fastest - essentially at the speed of light.) So to mate with an other that has healthy eyes is again evolutionarily proper.  

Narcissus, Carravaggio (circa 1597-1599)

In addition, the eyes have the ability to return a gaze - to set in motion our socially interactive self. {This can and will be given more thought.}  Finally, and to be fully synthative, the eye can see its own reflection in water (or other shiny surfaces.)  This subject creating/affirming gaze was given paramount importance by Jacques Lacan in his Mirror Phase. I will definitely return to these ideas on later posts, in relation to Lacan, the story of Narcissus, Michel Foucault, Lewis Carroll, and possibly others.

Stop being Creative!

For at least as long as Modernism (whatever that is) has been around, the idea of a creative individual has held an important role in culture (and in effect, society.)
There are numerous writings on the importance of the creative individual and 'genius'- Kant's Critique of Pure Judgment and the various writings of Clement Greenberg. In the latter half of the Twentieth Century people began to downplay or outright deny individuality (individual subjectivity), genius, and the creative act - Barthes, Foucault, Derrida, etc. I have addressed this at length in my essay Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V. I will not go into it too far, but to briefly recap, either everything is unoriginal because it is only a combination of other preexisting things, or everything is original because each unit/section of space-time is singular. In either case originality is meaningless (in terms of value.) Also, that creativity is reduced to the combination of preexisting ideas or things, so it,too is devalued. In reference to the common Kantian definition of genius, a lack of originality and creativity means the unavailability of genius.
So, if these three things are inconsequential, to what can we attribute the value of the Art Act? Only exactly what it is; synthesis.
One of the most important philosophical acts (esp in Continental Philosophy) is dialectical movement - the synthesizing of a thesis with its antithesis to come to a more clear (truthful) understanding of the situation (dilemma) at hand. As I allude to in Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V, what we think of as a creative act is a dialectical act, which is ever so similar to the evolutionary act - the very basis of 'Nature'.
This leads me to believe that a very basic and common definition of Art holds true: Art is an act of replicating Nature. {I can't figure out if that is Modern, Postmodern, or something else - but it does seem a bit conservative in may ways.}
Well what does all this mean? That is the most important question.
Meaning is a funny thing to define, but here is a short sweet one: meaning is the purpose {circular, I know} given to a pattern such that its future is determined by its past. For example, the meaning of life is to create life...
Synthesis is a way to create meaning out of (usually) incongruous things/ideas. It literally combines two things that each could be true (have reliable meaning) into another thing that seems more true - like laying two patterns over each other to create a third, more intricate or more simple pattern. This third pattern is thought of as 'new' or 'valuable' due to the uncanniness, inevitability, or seemingly unlikeliness of its existence - all of which is relative to the subject observing such patterns and synthesis.
So if newness and originality are only relative and inconsequential, what do we do about "creativity"? It is just a word, so we could change its definition, but that is unlikely, so I propose we begin using a different word to describe the Art Act: synthesis (instead of creation). And to avoid the confusion that would arise from calling and artist synthetic, we should call him/her Synthative.