Is the Dark Side Misunderstood?

            So I had mixed feelings about Campbell’s supposition of the Monomyth. I am always a little wary of texts that start with Freud (and or Jung) but this is probably the first time I that their theories have been applied in a way that even resembled sense. For the most part Campbell’s argument seems to follow logical steps from his base and that follow the evidence he points out. Unless I have read this wrong, he asserts that the Monomyth is essentially, and this is an over-simplification, a result (and vital part) of basic human psychology. I can argue the foundation but the better part of structure built on top of it appears sturdy enough. The very end of his argument, however, seems to have something really out of joint.

The last section in the chapter we read is on The World Navel. He discusses the point where the good material from the subconscious come (through the hero) into the waking world; “the hero as the incarnation of God is himself the navel of the world, the umbilical point through which the energies of eternity break into time” (41). So far I follow. This is what the hero must be if he is bringing that knowledge back. Campbell’s following statement does not seem to fit; “the World Navel, then, is ubiquitous. And sense it is the source of all existence, it yields the world’s plentitude of good and evil” (44), and further “Virtue is but the pedagogical prelude to the culminating insight, which goes beyond all pairs of opposites” (44). He follows these statements with the tale of Edshu and his multi-colored hat. Maybe this fits with the argument of insight that came before, but the hero of the Monomyth cannot possibly be as ambiguous as Campbell seems to be saying. Is not the hero saving people from their miss-development that leads to tyranny? So that at least has to actually be evil.

I just finished watching Star Wars and one of the things that stood out to me this time round was just how stark the division between the two sides are. Even Han, as the rough kind of hero, does in fact have to pick whether to side with the Rebels or leave with his reward, which is really an indirect way to side with the Empire. Luke even says that he hates the Empire, a comment that Obi-Wan seems to have no quam with. What’s more, Obi-Wan guides Luke to completely obliterate the Death Star. From what Campbell seems to be saying, the hero should come to something of a higher understanding from which he sees all sides, because none is actually evil. Perhaps I am completely missing what Campbell is saying but best I can tell that never plays out in any Monomyth I am familiar with. The Dark Side always remains so.

Oh and I thought this too. I see some similarities…

Helm's Deep
(http://staticmass.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/towers_5.jpg)
The Falcon
(http://www.coronasquadron.com/wallpics/s-flcn-str.JPG)

Reproduction of Art

In our last class, we talked about Benjamin’s article and the reproduction of art.  The discussion about this article and then the follow up about expectations has kind of stuck with me all week.

The first part of our discussion, we talked about whether or not “reproducing copies of originals” (Benjamin, 1236) takes away the value of the original. One side of the argument is that replications don’t have the same impact that the originals do, so there are elements missing in the reproductions that were present in the originals. 

http://www.allartclassic.com

The second part of that discussion, and the one I leaned towards during class, was the Benjamin’s theory that “technical reproduction can put the copy of the original into situations which would be out of reach for the original itself” (1236). I interpreted this to mean that the replications of the original gives the piece exposure, which makes people want to see the original.

After thinking about the original versus the reproductions this week, I keep questioning, which one is better? I no longer feel like I have a clear feeling one way or the other, but am rather indecisive on the idea.

Yes, I still think that reproductions can bring awareness that might not have been there before. I had seen replication of Degas’ dancers in school and online, so when I went to the Museum of Art in New York, I knew I wanted to see the paintings. Being exposed to the work beforehand made me aware of his work, and sparked an interest. For that reason, I believe that reproductions are valuable.

However, after thinking about it, I can see how reproducing a piece can cause it to lose value. If you look at Shakespeare’s play Romeo and Juliet, there have been multiple film adaptations, for me, it’s hard to get excited for the story, and it feels a little worn out. I know that the story is great, but whenever a movie of comes on television, I feel myself rolling my eyes a little.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063518/?ref_=nv_sr_2
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117509/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1645131/?ref_=nv_sr_1

My last idea that makes me think that reproductions can take away the value of the original has to do with the idea of hype. In class, Iris mentioned that Stonehenge did not have the appeal that it was hyped up to have.  I am going to England this summer, and this is something that has been on my mind. Do I have such high ideal in my mind from images that I have seen online or on television that the original will not be able to live up to it? Do the reproductions set people up for disappointment when they see the originals, since reproductions can be altered and changed to be improved on?

http://crazy-frankenstein.com/stonehenge-wallpapers.html

I rambled trying to figure out what I thought about this topic. I felt like our class discussion helped the concepts to be clearer to me, but I feel like picking one side or another is not as easy. Both sides are valid. Reproducing art helps it reach an audience that it might not have gotten to before, but reproducing it can also take away the uniqueness and specialness of the piece.  

Star Wars: A Hero's Journey

I can't tell you guys how excited I am for Tuesday's discussion about Star Wars and archetypes. I think it might look something like this:

(But perhaps with a bit less Michael J Fox.)

So why am I so excited?

Everyone, it seems, has a Star Wars story, or even a few of them. My journey into loving Star Wars begins in the third or fourth grade. My mom and I rented all three of the films (yes, only three then) from our local video store and watched them back-to-back. I spent that summer writing a screenplay for "Episode VII" on something like 10 legal pads. The plot, as I recall, revolves around Luke training his sister to be a Jedi. (Maybe I should send it to JJ Abrams?) Star Wars introduced me to fan culture and fanfiction long before I knew either of those things even existed.

O Captain my Captain!

But my fascination with the movie deepened in the ninth grade. I had an amazing English teacher that year, Ms. Huff. She stood out a bit at the very traditional southern girls' school I attended. (I've always thought of her as my school's version of Mr Keating from Dead Poets' Society.)

A bit of a free spirit, she taught us the rhythms of poetry by teaching us to waltz. And she taught us about archetypes and mythology by showing us Star Wars.

Ladies and gentlemen, my eyes were opened.

I had never thought about the ways that all of the books and films that I loved were part of something larger, something connecting me to all of the people who ever have, or ever will, tell stories.

Even though I hope I have achieved a more sophisticated theoretical approach to texts than I had when I was 14, that lessons sticks with me. It's a formative moment in my education and my life, and it couldn't have happened without Star Wars.

Before I sign off for today, I wanted to share a link to a helpful article on Screened discussing how the Hero's Journey structure plays out in the film. I think you'll find it useful for our discussion next week. Click on the helpful diagram below to see it full size - you may want to consult it before, during, or after watching the movie for Tuesday's class.

from the Screened article linked above

So what about you guys? Do you have a Star Wars story to share? Are you a fan? Why or why not?

You Said a Bad Word

During our initial class meeting, we started to talk about the idea of mass culture, and to be honest I did not find it to be a horrible concept, or at least it was an understandable one. I can understand how someone can theorize about the masses being unable to control themselves in their role as a consumer.  However, continuing with this weeks reading, the ideas of mass culture are explained more in depth, and while the concept still make sense to some degree to me, the term mass culture comes across more like derogatory term to describe to the general population.

My understanding of mass culture, as described by Adorno and Horkheimer, is basically that the general population almost mindlessly accepts what the dominant ruling class produces. The idea from these theorists are "the cultural industry produces culture which the 'masses' consume unthinkingly and are thus confirmed as unthinking" (56). This whole idea of the population being "unthinking" (56) reminded me of one of my favorite movies Shaun of the Dead. The opening scene of the movie shows people moving through their lives mindlessly, almost zombie-like. They shop or work at the grocery store, they wait in line while focusing on their phone, and they listen to music on their iPods. This is the image that came to mind to me when reading this text, and maybe an extreme version, but this is the image I got when reading the Adorno and Horkheimer ideas on mass culture.

                                          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuhfEjYS3qc

So yes, the term mass culture to me sounds like a bad word to describe the general population as opposed to the dominant ruling class because the definition sounds like theorist believe that we have no control over our role as consumers. However, from our previous reading, not everything that gets put out for consumers takes off, so that proves that the masses must have some control. What is concerning is the perception that the popular culture is dependent on the dominant group, and that the masses will follow whatever idea is put out for them without much questioning.