I worry about Barthes' selectively neutral treatment of the myth. In the Blue Blood Cruise, his political statement is poignant. I wonder why value judgments are absent from other mythologies, specifically Wrestling [insert title]? Maybe I'm missing something?
Uncritically submitting to myth's gravitational pull seems problematic. The wrestling myth [justice] surfaced during the weeks following 9/11. In an effort to watch the "bastard" get his due, freedoms were sacrificed and a war on terror was waged. Maybe I'
m stretching with this example, but to be sure, our draw toward the spectacle of justice being served can be dangerous.
When countries like South Africa and Liberia set up Truth and Reconciliation Commissions to address war crimes, many were not satisfied with the results. In light of this myth, I can imagine why. An eye for an eye may make the whole world blind, but the satisfaction of injuring the other in justice is a powerful motivator.
Right, Justice Harry S. LaForme, chair of Canada's Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission, dealing with Canada's decades-long government policy requiring Canadian Indians to attend state-funded church schools. From: [http://www.daylife.com/photo/09Uheeg1oif6V]
--
I see a relationship between this text and Benjamin's Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Benjamin is clearly worried that the film will be used in a highly politicized, potentially negative way. Because of it's "ballistic" nature, the film does not allow the viewer to think critically about the experience; they are very much submerged. On the first page of his work, Barthes draws a correlation between the audience of the mythological world of wrestling and "the aud
ience at the cinema" (15). He says, "a light without shadow generates an emotion without reserve" -- doesn't this sound familiar? It also leads me to Marcuse's mimesis. If the world is filled with the zombie-esque citizens he describes, constantly arrested by film and wrapped in mythologies, how is it possible for the myth-consumer to think beyond the surface level of the myth?
Barthes argues throughout the text that the language-object is never destroyed, but neutralized. My question is: how neutralized can it get? If the audience doesn't perceive the language-object, does the myth becomes truth? What kind of potential does this hold?
Uncritically submitting to myth's gravitational pull seems problematic. The wrestling myth [justice] surfaced during the weeks following 9/11. In an effort to watch the "bastard" get his due, freedoms were sacrificed and a war on terror was waged. Maybe I'
m stretching with this example, but to be sure, our draw toward the spectacle of justice being served can be dangerous.When countries like South Africa and Liberia set up Truth and Reconciliation Commissions to address war crimes, many were not satisfied with the results. In light of this myth, I can imagine why. An eye for an eye may make the whole world blind, but the satisfaction of injuring the other in justice is a powerful motivator.
Right, Justice Harry S. LaForme, chair of Canada's Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission, dealing with Canada's decades-long government policy requiring Canadian Indians to attend state-funded church schools. From: [http://www.daylife.com/photo/09Uheeg1oif6V]
--
I see a relationship between this text and Benjamin's Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Benjamin is clearly worried that the film will be used in a highly politicized, potentially negative way. Because of it's "ballistic" nature, the film does not allow the viewer to think critically about the experience; they are very much submerged. On the first page of his work, Barthes draws a correlation between the audience of the mythological world of wrestling and "the aud
ience at the cinema" (15). He says, "a light without shadow generates an emotion without reserve" -- doesn't this sound familiar? It also leads me to Marcuse's mimesis. If the world is filled with the zombie-esque citizens he describes, constantly arrested by film and wrapped in mythologies, how is it possible for the myth-consumer to think beyond the surface level of the myth?Barthes argues throughout the text that the language-object is never destroyed, but neutralized. My question is: how neutralized can it get? If the audience doesn't perceive the language-object, does the myth becomes truth? What kind of potential does this hold?
0 comments:
Post a Comment