Two of the most interesting concepts to me in chapter 9 are pastiche and parody. According to Sturken and Cartwright, pastiche can be defined as:
"A style of plagiarizing, quoting, and borrowing from previous styles with no reference to history or a sense of rules. In architecture, a pastiche would be a mixing of classical motifs with modern elements in an aesthetic that does not reference the historical meanings of those styles" (452).
And parody is defined as:
"Cultural productions that make fun of more serious works through humor and satire while maintaining some of their elements such as plot or character" (452).
For pastiche, one of the main strategies, then, is questioning the validity of the original. The authors state though that sometimes pastiche can fall into the category of parody--they are not always completely separate.
One of the main examples in the book of parody is Simpsons episodes that play off of famous works (literature, movies, music, etc.). However, these parodies are lost on viewers if viewers are unfamiliar with the original works. Parody can only function if the viewers are engaged in both the original and the re-working of the original, and understand the difference between the two.
The authors state that in some ways, parody and pastiche are the opposite of reflexivity--reflexivity makes "viewers stand back in critical distance" while parody and pastiche "allow us to enjoy our involvement in both the old text and its parodic remake" (330).
Both reflexivity and parody/pastiche are postmodern strategies, but they are near opposites. It is interesting to me how versatile the ideology of postmodernism is--it is and can be so many things, but they can all be contradictory in and of themselves.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Artifact
In class this week, we discussed reflexivity. According to Sturken and Cartwright, reflexivity is when "...the text refers to its own means of production" and "undermines the illusion or fantasy aspects of the narrative, encouraging the viewer to be a critical thinker about the ideology conveyed by the narrative" (322).
The text also states that "Bertolt Brecht...proposed the concept of distanciation as a technique for getting viewers to extract themselves from the narrative in order to see the means through which the narrative of a cultural work (such as a play or movie) gets us to buy into a particular ideological viewpoint" (322).
These ideas reminded me of the movie portrayal of the play Death of a Salesman, by director Volker Schlondorff, that I watched in my Drama class a few semesters ago. This film is very Brechtian in that it is constantly reminding its viewers of the set and the staging by utilizing large camera pan-outs to reveal that rooms really aren't rooms, and the outdoors are really inside a studio. It is a very theatrical set-up that urges its viewers to take notice of the means of its production.
At the time, I knew this was a Brechtian strategy, based on what I learned in the course, but I knew nothing of reflexivity or the product of these strategies. I now know that this is a postmodern strategy, and I think its purpose (at least in the case of this film) is to create a product that, as the authors of the textbook say, is "tempered with humor" (322). The reflexive Brechtian strategy arguably does several things, but one of the most obvious is to slap viewers in the face, as if to say "why are you watching this?" for reflexivity makes it possible to realize that the play, movie, or photo being looked at is not authentic life, but merely a replication created with props and staging.
Though I feel this is true, I don't believe the case of Death of a Salesman should be taken nearly as lightly as the example of Cindy Sherman's photography in the textbook, which can be construed as lacking to offer viewers "any significant critical or political message beneath the reflexive joke" (322).
The text also states that "Bertolt Brecht...proposed the concept of distanciation as a technique for getting viewers to extract themselves from the narrative in order to see the means through which the narrative of a cultural work (such as a play or movie) gets us to buy into a particular ideological viewpoint" (322).
These ideas reminded me of the movie portrayal of the play Death of a Salesman, by director Volker Schlondorff, that I watched in my Drama class a few semesters ago. This film is very Brechtian in that it is constantly reminding its viewers of the set and the staging by utilizing large camera pan-outs to reveal that rooms really aren't rooms, and the outdoors are really inside a studio. It is a very theatrical set-up that urges its viewers to take notice of the means of its production.
At the time, I knew this was a Brechtian strategy, based on what I learned in the course, but I knew nothing of reflexivity or the product of these strategies. I now know that this is a postmodern strategy, and I think its purpose (at least in the case of this film) is to create a product that, as the authors of the textbook say, is "tempered with humor" (322). The reflexive Brechtian strategy arguably does several things, but one of the most obvious is to slap viewers in the face, as if to say "why are you watching this?" for reflexivity makes it possible to realize that the play, movie, or photo being looked at is not authentic life, but merely a replication created with props and staging.
Though I feel this is true, I don't believe the case of Death of a Salesman should be taken nearly as lightly as the example of Cindy Sherman's photography in the textbook, which can be construed as lacking to offer viewers "any significant critical or political message beneath the reflexive joke" (322).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
