Flusser and the everyday radical

If you're interested in the ideas of state apparatus and how we have become victims to or complicit in (depending on your perspective) these paradigms, I've written a wee piece in response to Villem Flusser's essay "The shape of things" ...

The realisation that you are so deeply entrenched within a system of code and feedback mechanisms is disturbing, perhaps primarily because Flusser only confirms what we all secretly (or not so secretly) already knew.  I cannot help but find similarities between reading Flusser and finding out that something you hoped was true but secretly knew wasn't (for me, it was Santa- Christmas 1993.  Older brother was feeling particularly spiteful).  In the case of Flusser, I think that everyone is aware that they are part of a system, that their decisions are pre-programmed and the realities of 'free choice' are lacking.  However, the totality to which Flusser makes one recognise and come to grips with the reality of the systematised, categorised, feedback monitoring world is oppressive to say the least. 

Rebellion is the mechanism that one attempts to employ in order to fight the system, however Flusser seems to crush any hope of being rebellious... AT ALL, at every turn his totalitarian rhetoric vaporises any small inkling that you might be nursing regarding your ability to topple the powers that be.  Everyone likes to be thought of as autonomous and unique, responsible for his or her own decisions.  The freedoms that one gains at certain ages are treasured and the actions that can result from such freedom are reflected upon as exciting, risky and almost radical.  The realisation that said 'exciting' 'risky' and 'radical' behaviours turn out to be expected and normative can be a rather depressing moment for the one-time-rebellious teen.  To think that potentially your entire existence (and not just your seeming rebellious teenage years) could be determined by a series of formulae- probabilities, feedback mechanisms and statistics is beyond depressing...  am I playing the game of life or is the game of life playing me?

It scares me to think that at some point this numbers game, the formulaic and pre-programmed nature of the world, will come to shape people, prior to statistics being shaped based upon human action.  Will we renege 'choice' all together, hand our lives over to 'the man' (something that paradoxically not a man at all...) and live our lives completely according to how we 'should' (that is, by a formula, how we are predicted to live based on a set of inputs and the decisions that would typically result from such inputs).  Like a self-fulfilling prophecy will we begin to behave according to the parameters that the programmers set for us- have we already started? 

It's extremely worrisome either way, thinking just in terms of how pervasive programming (or the politics of choice), even seeming positive or worthwhile programming, can be.  I  can think of things that I've been told in my life that probably should have held true but haven't.  Based on my ethnicity, demographic background, age etc. there are certain statistics (or, perhaps, phenomena) that I could have been a part of but am not.  I'm a bit of a statistical anomaly and it's concerning that statistical anomalies could be erased if we become resigned to the paradigms and apparatuses that we are told we are a part of.  What allows us to escape these paradigms and apparatuses is our ability to imagine something outside of the bounds that we are told we must adhere to.  Like in the playground of our childhood(s), we should climb the trees that we are told we can't and play bull-rush in spite of what OSH and ACC might have recommended.  If we are resigned to our fate based on formulae and live according only to what might be expected of us, I think we lose that which makes us human and not simply machines.

I like the idea of the statistical anomaly- the outlier, the annoying point on the graph that gets excluded from the general trend in order to save face, making sure the variance works out so that the data can be considered legitimate.  Writing and the Arts certainly offers the statistical anomaly some 'freedom' to move, allowing for imagination and experimentation without a desire for things to be quantified as 'valuable' or 'economically viable'.  Writing and the Arts allows for flux and non-linearity in a world that increasingly tries to process people as mere statistics and fit us to models of what is deemed appropriate. Stasis and conformity is so Cold War, jump on the everyday radical bandwagon and make us shape the stats not have the stats shape us...


x

Being povo is not really working out

Just realised how intensely poor I will be come late December this year.  Gah

There is so much in my life that I am looking forward to attending... and unless I become this uber good breaker innerer my dreams of January and February festivals are gonna be extreme fails.

Public enemy I want you.  Can't find ticks anywurr.  WANT TO CRY.

x

More 90's amazingness

Who stopped this

Who the hell advocated letting girl bands that dressed the same and pulled together some great and overtly NON sexual moves fall into cultural oblivion?  This is some timeless performance right here.  I'm entranced... the outfits are gold (both literally and figuratively) and the dance moves are SPECTACULAR

I want to get in training for this!

BRING BACK THE NOLANS



x

Holla

0.42

x

The offending post

Warning: Read only if inclined to be subjected to my ill-informed rantings 

In response to Groys on the aesthetics of self design: 


There are many people, celebrities, politicians, and models etcetera, for whom self design is arguably critical to their success in their chosen careers.  However, for the rest of us ‘normal folk’ self design needn’t be of such concern to us and nonetheless... it is.  Unlike the subjects of front page spreads and tabloid headlines, most people are neither subject to the same media scrutiny, nor dependent upon positive reception to such scrutiny, so the question inevitably arises- why do we care so much?


Some people would argue that they don’t care, and they mightn’t care, well at least not as much as they might be willing to admit to.  The reality that I would argue is that we exist in a society that is increasingly dominated by the aesthetics of an individual.  You can choose to have some kind of emotive reaction toward such an idea or not, but it’s here- the notion that only and very specifically celebrity-esque individuals (people who are actually celebrities, people who want to be celebrities, politicians, people attached to political scandal, “A-Lister’s” – people in the social pages and promo girls for the V8's in Hamilton) cared about how they looked, what image they presented to the world is now obsolete. 


In some cases it would be difficult to differentiate the levels of self-design of an ‘ordinary person’ to that of a celebrity-esque individual- the difference being that the celebritised individual is subject to greater exposure.  Everyone is acutely aware of the cultural messages that they emit by opting to wear certain clothes, of certain brands (or fabric or era etc) and style themselves (or not) a certain way.  People recognise that even the seemingly blandest of items, such as the notebook they choose to use in class (moleskine, the obvious choice of the note-taking elite) and the type of pen they choose to write with, send subtle messages to those  who know (and care enough) to recognise and then evaluate such aesthetic choices. 


It is this that I think is probably most interesting about self-design; that self design is dependent upon and created given that a certain kind of understanding between individuals who are mutual “aesthetes” exists.  A secret code if you will. People who are not interested in fashion might think Tavi, the teenage fashion wunder-blogger, is nothing more than a pretentious, pink-haired brat.  Alternatively, those “in the know” believe her to be this fashion savant and send her ridiculously expensive MiuMiu clogs that she will wear to high school.  Within a particular community, there exists an aesthetic synchronicity that allows for the creation, proliferation and understanding of a certain self-designing within that group.  This enables for self-design on not only a visually aesthetic level, which is what is most commonly seen, but also through the evolution of language and thought that is exclusive to that set of people who engage with that aesthetic model .  To use my secret-shame MTV watching as an example, the show ‘The Jersey Shore’ has a specific visually aesthetic image as well as a language (and arguably a life philosophy) that is inherent to the show and that viewers engage in when watching it.  As all good MTV reality shows are, the people of ‘the Shore’ are shameless self-designers, with Mike “The Situation” reportedly having trademarked that moniker (the situation at hand are his abs), while the phrase “GTL” (gym, tan laundry) has been adopted as ‘The Jersey Shore’ manifesto by characters and fans of the show alike. 


I don’t entirely know if the death of the author (or creator) has become the primary alternative to being a plain old bad author just yet, though Groys implies this.  I think everyone’s self-design exists on a much more fluid exchange than maybe has been possible in the past- nobody feels responsible to fulfil just a singular aesthetic reality at the exclusion of other alternatives.   I also don’t think it’s about people being ‘bad authors’ per se, more, I believe that the greater concern is is being bland and boring; if there is so much design available what is the benefit of not designing (self or otherwise)?   In an era where we are able to design ourselves and everything is so designed, a failure to engage in aesthetics and design seems to imply some reluctance to engage with others full stop- if as Baudrillard states, all everything is, is aesthetics, can anyone truly extract themselves from self-design, even through anonymity/death/spontaneous evaporation?  No, I think not.

This is why I'm not

Oh sweet Jesus... you know when you try and be witty and smart and then people react and you're not 100% sure if people are engaging with you or if they just secretly hate you and think you're an arrogant try hard? 

Story of me life.

Had to write this class blog.  Why I decided to try and be facetious and 'clever'; unsure.  Anyhow, result: I elicited a direct response from a certain tutor and I am unsure if she finds my comments amusing or plain rude.  I hope she doesn't think I hate her or am mocking her (because I'm totally not).  Maybe she thinks I am a loser who deals with my own insecurities by mocking others? (partly true)  I think her personal response piqued the interest of my fellow classmates and now my unfortunate rantings have been exposed to my entire class.  I WISH I HAD A PSEUDONYM. 

Also, thought I was being funny in deriding individuals who love sci-fi last week.  Now feel that this may have been a terrible move on my part and I am under the distinct impression that I invoked hatred for my ranting, negative and cynical ways (and also for me personally).  This has nothing to do with the tutor or that particular class but is just another general life misfortune for me at the moment.  Ugh

I can't help it, I really can't.  It's like I have linguistic chunder in the form of abuse and sarcasm.  I seriously can't control my urge to be critical of others.  Sorry.

This is why I hang out by myself at Uni.  Shit.....

x

p.s. any advice re. being nice, optimistic and positive would be greatly appreciated.