Homo Eco on Stage
This is a space of discussion and provocation for the community of the course "Homo Economicus: Modern Political Economy and the English Comedy of Manners" at the San Francisco Art Institute in Fall 2015
Monday, December 7, 2015
Sunday, December 6, 2015
REMINDER!
Final papers are due in Tuesday's class. Also: You must hand in your
Reading Notebooks -- there will be no way to get those to me if you
forget. Don't arrive late, because the final class could very well end a
bit early, depending on how our discussion goes.
Monday, November 30, 2015
Precis Posted for Sachi Moskowitz
Too Camp or Not To Camp
In Notes
on "Camp",Susan Sontag explores the idea of Camp, what is Camp, what makes Camp, and how to define Camp. “I
am drawn to Camp, and almost as strongly offended by it,” she says in
the second paragraph of the essay. In reference to art in relation to
Camp, she states: “Camp art is often decorative art, emphasizing
texture, sensuous surface, a style at the expense of
content,” and claims it is the love of the exaggerated, the “off” that
defines the canon of Camp.
Sontag uses Art Nouveau as an example, referring to it as a typical and fully developed Camp style, when one thing becomes converted into something else. Lighting fixtures in the form of flowering plants. She uses a specific example, the Paris Metro designed by Hector Guimard in the late 1890s who designed the entrance in the shape of cast iron orchid stalks. She takes a look at the art of mannerist artists like Caravaggio and Pontormo, and points out during this period there were extraordinary feelings for artifice, for surface, symmetry and its elegant conventions for representing instant feeling and the total presence of character. She wraps up this thought by stating that calling these artists and their genre simply Camp would not be accurate. It is providing a lens which blocks out content.
Sontag also focuses of different types of literature and what makes it a success. She compares works such as the Iliad to Metamorphosis by Kafka which are completely different works but have the same effect. She writes about valuing work because of its seriousness and the dignity that it achieves. For example the Iliad and Aristophanes’ play. In contrast, in support Sontag's quest to define Camp she focuses on the other creative sensibilities besides seriousness that achieve the same value of underlying seriousness. For instance Kafka and Rimbaud. She states, “That whose goal is not that of creating harmonies but of overstraining the medium and introducing more and more violent, and unreasonable, subject matter.” Supporting her example that, “ something is good not because it is achieved, but because another kind of truth about the human situation, another experience of what it is to be humanin short, another valid sensibilityis being revealed.” A seriousness that fails.
To Sontag, Camp is represented in a person's taste, and in a response to the exaggerated. Sontag states Androgyny is an image that supports Camp sensibility. She uses examples like the flowing sexless bodies in Art Nouveau prints and posters, figures with “androgynous vacancy”. Also, the swooning slim figures in pre-raphaelite paintings and poetry. This is when she talks about Camp drawing on an unacknowledged truth of taste, being the most refined form of sexual attractiveness. Which consists of going against the grains of one’s sex. Sontag explains, “what is most beautiful in virile men is something feminine; what is most beautiful in feminine women is something masculine. (Bringing it back to relating to Camp, it is similar because it is an exaggeration of sexual characteristics and personality mannerisms.) Sontag supports this idea by stating, “It’s not a lamp, but a “lamp”; not a woman, but a “woman.” To perceive Camp in objects and persons is to understand Being as Playing a Role.”
Sontag describes Camp in many different ways and in an obsessive love / hate kind of relationship. After reading this essay I will be haunted by “what is Camp.” Sontag has delved into something that is rarely discussed or articulated, and she’s analyzed it in what seems every way possible.
Sontag uses Art Nouveau as an example, referring to it as a typical and fully developed Camp style, when one thing becomes converted into something else. Lighting fixtures in the form of flowering plants. She uses a specific example, the Paris Metro designed by Hector Guimard in the late 1890s who designed the entrance in the shape of cast iron orchid stalks. She takes a look at the art of mannerist artists like Caravaggio and Pontormo, and points out during this period there were extraordinary feelings for artifice, for surface, symmetry and its elegant conventions for representing instant feeling and the total presence of character. She wraps up this thought by stating that calling these artists and their genre simply Camp would not be accurate. It is providing a lens which blocks out content.
Sontag also focuses of different types of literature and what makes it a success. She compares works such as the Iliad to Metamorphosis by Kafka which are completely different works but have the same effect. She writes about valuing work because of its seriousness and the dignity that it achieves. For example the Iliad and Aristophanes’ play. In contrast, in support Sontag's quest to define Camp she focuses on the other creative sensibilities besides seriousness that achieve the same value of underlying seriousness. For instance Kafka and Rimbaud. She states, “That whose goal is not that of creating harmonies but of overstraining the medium and introducing more and more violent, and unreasonable, subject matter.” Supporting her example that, “ something is good not because it is achieved, but because another kind of truth about the human situation, another experience of what it is to be humanin short, another valid sensibilityis being revealed.” A seriousness that fails.
To Sontag, Camp is represented in a person's taste, and in a response to the exaggerated. Sontag states Androgyny is an image that supports Camp sensibility. She uses examples like the flowing sexless bodies in Art Nouveau prints and posters, figures with “androgynous vacancy”. Also, the swooning slim figures in pre-raphaelite paintings and poetry. This is when she talks about Camp drawing on an unacknowledged truth of taste, being the most refined form of sexual attractiveness. Which consists of going against the grains of one’s sex. Sontag explains, “what is most beautiful in virile men is something feminine; what is most beautiful in feminine women is something masculine. (Bringing it back to relating to Camp, it is similar because it is an exaggeration of sexual characteristics and personality mannerisms.) Sontag supports this idea by stating, “It’s not a lamp, but a “lamp”; not a woman, but a “woman.” To perceive Camp in objects and persons is to understand Being as Playing a Role.”
Sontag describes Camp in many different ways and in an obsessive love / hate kind of relationship. After reading this essay I will be haunted by “what is Camp.” Sontag has delved into something that is rarely discussed or articulated, and she’s analyzed it in what seems every way possible.
Precis Posted for Rosemary Ye
Rosemary Ye
Dale Carrico
Homo Economicus
November 24, 2015
Précis: Hobbes on Equality – Way of the Roundabout
Thomas Hobbes, a philosophical
intellect who lived in the late 16th century to the early 17th
century, wrote the following section on Equality
excerpted from the book Leviathan
published in 1651.
Starting on equality, Hobbes writes
how nature has made all men equal with the exception of people (specifically
men) in society who claim themselves as being more capable than the other, however
it all comes down to who has the best pretending skills. Then he notes, “For as
to the strength of body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest,”
meaning even if they are physically less strong than their opponent, they can
still take over the enemy by plotting in secret with others who are also weak
in order to protect themselves. In the second paragraph, Hobbes sets an
argument between the existence of “art grounded upon words” (such as
literature, poetry, rhetoric, drama) and of science, a value which very few people
are apparently born with. Evidently it is seen up to here that Hobbes is
obsessed with distinction and has a strong attitude towards delineation. The
section written is specifically about equality, yet he solely mentions the
existence of men and ‘the man’ and assumes the only relevant people born to
this world are men. Continuing, Hobbes writes “I find yet a greater equality
amongst men than that of strength.”; this line is hypocritical and half-repeats
what he wrote at the starting of the section on Equality because ‘strength’ and ‘men’ both are part of a
whole (together, not separate) and consequently, nobody are equals in Hobbes’
own words since even the weak can kill the strong. Next Hobbes writes how all
men experience prudence at one point and in time, all of them will be equally bestowed
this value; here, he makes an association to the possible dangers that could be
set on all men. Hobbes argues with himself again, stating that all men have a
vain misconception of their own wisdom, saying “which almost all men think they
have in a greater degree than the vulgar; that is, than all men but themselves”.
In man’s nature, they only see the good quality in themselves, on how much wit they
possess and how much more superior they are than “the vulgar”, but this all
comes down to the fact that they see themselves first-hand and see others’ wise
qualities second hand from a distance. Hobbes adds “But this proveth rather
that men are in that point equal, than unequal.” meaning essentially all he
argues in the first few paragraphs are no longer valid because ending the
section with a ‘everyone-is-equal-anyhow’ outlook covers up the long stretch he
makes on the subject. In the concluding sentence he writes “From this equality
of ability arise the quality of hope in the attaining of our ends.” which in
false peacefulness ends the section Hobbes wrote on Equality, proving more facts about ‘man’ that are unequal than are
actually equal.
In summary and analysis of this
piece, Hobbes essentially assumes that everyone is the same and so we learn the
truth of how none of the differences that are discussed actually makes a
difference (because he’s just going in circles with the equality theories). At
the start Hobbes theorizes how in nature men are born equal, then quickly
switches perspectives to how the weak man can kill the strong man; thus
according to Hobbes’ judgment, what point does he exactly want to make? The
focused subject is equality, yet he unfairly judges many basic issues with the
example of who’s stronger or weaker, ignoring the existence of women and not
knowing if science is actually better than art (claiming that one subject is
not born into all men). Equality in Hobbes’ terms is simply a cycle of rationalizing
which man is better than the other in strength, prudence, wisdom and wit —therefore
no matter how equal he thinks society of that time was, it clearly
proves the opposite.
Precis Posted for Tara Caltenback
Tara Caltenback
Homo Economics
Dale Carrico
11/2015
The Contemporary Sexual Contract
Carole
Pateman’s, The Sexual Contract, stands in defense with feminist
arguments and stands against inequality between genders in the Social
Contract.
It speaks on the relationship between men and women in a patriarchal
society. A woman and man’s relationship is determined by the man based
off of history and how it is passed on. Pateman also speaks on the shift
from “classical patriarchy” to the contemporary
understanding of patriarchy. In either sense, Pateman argues that
there is no shift for the rights of women.
The
argument of this article talks about how women are preserved in the
world. Within these contracts created by men in high command, women are
placed
within particular parts of the texts. Pateman talks about women being
brought up in the marriage, prostitution, and motherhood contracts.
These contracts give men the “authority” to control women in any sense.
An example is stated in the marriage contract
where men are able to sexually use their wives however they please,
even against the woman’s consent. Contracts can be seen with many
issues. One including the fact that only men are considered
“individuals.” Pateman says “sexual difference is political difference.
Sexual difference is the difference between freedom and subjection.”
This statement runs true for most of the contracts that were created by
men of the patriarchy. Being a man means there is privilege and freedom
just by being a male. By being a woman, there
is a lack of what is to be considered “true” identity and ability to
live in society without being belittled.
This
piece speaks with feminist arguments that are much more contemporary
than contracts that have been mentioned. Pateman empowers women in
society as
there isn’t equality, like there should be. The Sexual Contract enables
women to become more equal in comparison to men. It also calls out the
problematic ideas other contracts like the Social Contract offer to
spread around society.
Precis Posted for Barry Despenza
Barry Despenza
Dale Carrico
Homo-Economicus
Prasis
11/22/2015
“Camp”
is usually
associated with theatricality with attribution towards the gay culture.
Camp Culture was popularized by filmmakers such as George & Mike
Kuchar. In notes on Susan Montag’s
camp, she clearly disagrees with the fact that camp is just some
cheesy concept but more of a insight into one’s behavior. One must have
love for the exaggeration and the artificial in order to “convert the
serious into frivoulous”. According to Montag,
What’s really interesting is the concept of camp and its world in terms
of style. She is careful to point out that some art can be approached
as a camp, which allows me to believe that camp isn’t something to be
ignored.
Sontag suggests that taste has neither systems nor proofs. What she
means is that taste has no formula. It’s clearly subjective and
therefore in order
to patronize and scrutinize one’s taste is distasteful. She goes on
later to deconstruct the notions of taste by addressing a series of
notes to Oscar Wilde. “to emphasize style, is to slight content, or to
introduce an attitude which is neutral with respect
to content”. Going back to the love for exaggeration, it is evident
that in importance of Ernest, that Ernest life has become a
theatrical experience for the viewer. Element of his life is campy but
the fact that he learns who he truly is, is a metaphor
for “self –identity”. As Montag said before, “Life is way too serious
to take serious”/
Precis Posted for Alejandra Morales
Alejandra Morales
Dale Carrico
Homo Economicus
11/24/15
In the book of Wealth of Nation by Adam Smith in chapter 2 justifies which are the
principles of the division of labour. Of
the Principle Which Gives Occasion to the Division of Labour, Smith describes
that the principle of labour in resume words, comes from a natural necessity of
the human being to truck, barter and exchange commodities from one to another
and since animals lack of reason and speech they act in a different way.
Smith proposes that what makes the
mankind and the division of labour is the propensity to truck, barter and
exchange items. This action can be observed within any society, which
encourages producing labour. It is only humans who have the characteristic that
no other being has and this is the necessity of exchange commodities. The first
of the reasons we are part of this division are the consequences of the faculty
of reason and speech. Smith gives one example comparing the behavior of dogs
and humans. Two greyhounds are chasing
the same hare, and then one of them realizes the other dog is they’re also chasing
the same hare. While one greyhound looks at the other, as Adam Smith describes
this as an accidental concurrence of their passions.” When an animal wants to
obtain something whether is another animal or a human being this won’t have the
persuasion to obtain something just from free will since he doesn’t have reason
or speech. A dog can go with his master
and try to obtain the attention of him just to get fed or to get water. The
human being can also work this way with his kind, begging for attention acting
in a fawn way just to get what he wants by providing enough evidence to that
person that they helping him is actually helping themselves and nothing more.
In civilized society the man needs cooperation
and assistance of others, his success depends on the genius of others matching
the genius of his own, while with animals, once they reach maturity they are
completely independent and must survive off of their own individual attributes
and skills, or genius. The defining factor between humans and all other living
species is not only our discovery of reason and speech, but is our labor in the
practice for our passion. “ Give me what
I want, and shall have this which you want, ” describes that what we obtain
comes from another part, which the thought is mutual. The difference of men’s
talents it is not as different as it’s supposed to be in fact is really
similar. When human are in a young age they grow up similar to other kids but
later than the age of 8 they can start choosing different thought about this,
and is because of reason. After being 8
years old humans begin to notice their talents and they become employed in
different occupations. This is an example of a principle of the division of
labour. It is education, habit or custom
which makes it and us different doesn’t come from the natural being.
Smith gives us another example, they
don’t think about your needs instead they look for their own interest, which is
sell or exchange. For human kind there’s no humanity just self-love, which is,
address our necessities and the advantages. An example is a hunter who knows
his ability to build bows and arrows better than other, he knows that this
ability will help him exchange his work for cattle’s or venison in an easier
way than he goes to the fields an catch them by himself. In this way he finds
it his interest to dedicate his life to this way of life, building arrows and
bows for the exchange of something and that’s how the employment starts,
exchanging work for others works.
To conclude, the human being is
different from any other species for the distinction that men can reason and
can talk. It is natural for other species to act for their own convenience and
survival but it is man who has the reason to exchange and take what he wants
but depending from other men. There’s no difference between kids or even babies
or a dog from another dog but it is from their “genius” and talent to survive by
their own without any exchange just by their simply disposition of defend
themselves. By the contrary men their geniuses are of use to one another, they
survive in society with their talent to exchange, barter and truck.
Precis Posted for Karen Yan
Karen Yan
Humanities 218 -01, Fall 2015
Argumentative Final Paper
Argumentative Final Paper
LaBruce’s Bold
Reinterpretation of the Word ‘Camp” in Modern Times
Bruce LaBruce and Susan Sontag
are two characters that we have to understand before delving to the summary of
this week (11/23/2015)’s lecture post. Susan Sontag is a famous writer that
wrote an essay called “Notes on ‘Camp’”, in her essay, Sontag analyzed the word
“camp” and the different type of cultural and political connotation that comes
with the word. Bruce LaBruce is also an actor and writer that frequently uses
materials that involve gay culture, sexual transgressions and even pornography.
This week’s post delves into Bruce LaBruce’s interpretation of Susan Sontag’s
Notes on ‘Camp’ and the interesting take that one artist has on another is the
focus of this week’s lecture.
Sontag’s
interpretation of the word Camp is restricted to her time period, which came 50
years before LaBruce’s time period. Sontag also had a broader interpretation of
the word while LaBruce attempted to take the meaning of the word to the edge by
uncovering the extremely elaborate sub-categories of the word camp and the
different types of camps out there. Due to LaBruce’s explicit nature of his
artwork, he specially explored the different camps such as the “bad straight,
good straight, bad gay, good gay camps” etc. LaBruce not only expanded on
Sontag’s interpretation of the word, he also critiqued her essay by accusing
Sontag of “normalizing” the word camp while
being somewhat hypocritical about it.
According to LaBruce, since Sontag is herself a lesbian and is herself in a
camp and is involved with campy things, she should not have defined the world
or the social term “camp” in such an off-handed manner. LaBruce is especially
offended by the reference of the camp by Sontag as “a sensibility that convers
the serious into the frivolous.” Not only does this definition seek to
undermine the entire culture of camps, it also contradicts with Sontag’s own
previous definition which called camp a sort of “sophistication.”
Later on
in LaBruce’s essay, LaBruce does acknowledge the fact that Sontag’s essay was
written 50 years ago when there was a different society. Fast forward to modern
society, camp is something that is ironically more mainstream. It is clear to
see that both artists believe camp to be some sort of a social phenomenon where
people of the same liking could band together and perform a sort of a social
function. However, according to LaBruce, in modern society, the”whole damn
world” is a sort of camp. “Camp today is for the masses,” says LaBruce, with a
commentary to today’s modern world. Even though he still believes that there
are some sort of reason that modern camp is still based on a certain
aestheticism, camp is starting to become prevalent in our society.
Based on
this assumption, LaBruce goes on to break camp into different sub-categories
such as good/bad straight and good/bad gay. LaBruce also goes on to explain in
detail what each camp will entail and what the different types of sub category
means to the world and the word camp itself. Bruce also refers to these
sub-categories as an “anti-camp” as LaBruce rejects what Sontag defined to be
camp, restricting the influence and meaning of the word. 50 years later,
LaBruce is redefining the word camp based on modern day interpretation as well
as his own background and experience. LaBruce uses Sontag’s writing as a
tangential connection from which he then jumps onto his own completely new
interpretation of the word camp, and contradict the old discussion of the word
written by Sontag.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)