Life is sweeter than jewish wine

frederic jameson and the cultural logic of late capitalism

Rhode Island School of Design

Understanding “Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism” by Frederic Jameson

Digital+Media Theory. DM 7538

April 12, 2007
Nathaniel J. Katz

In approaching Frederic Jameson’s “Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism” there are a couple of things to keep in mind that allow for a clearer reading of the essay. The first is that Jameson’s essay was first published in 1983, well before many of the concepts that he lays out as distinguishing of postmodernism came to be so prevalent. A lot of the ideas he writes about seem obvious to us now, but for Jameson they came out of his specific methodology,
Continue reading ‘frederic jameson and the cultural logic of late capitalism’

Paper on video games as art

Here is my paper on whether video games can be art for the Perspctives: Interactivity in the Arts course:

In posing the question “Can video games have the significance of Art?” we set ourselves up for the wrong type of discourse on the topic. The question, in its framing implies a cultural understanding of what art is, and what video games are. Continue reading ‘Paper on video games as art’

Hypertext paper

This is my first paper for George Fifield Perspectives:Interactivity in the Arts course. It is a review of Judd Morrissey’s hypertext work “The Jew’s Daughter” which you can view here

The Jew’s Daughter exists as a single virtual page, a rectangle of words that relies first and foremost on recognition of the aesthetic experience of the printed page. It resembles a printed page from a book and implies that your interaction with the text will resemble that of reading a book over that of a reading a website or hypertext document. This first impression is important in that it sets out to disorient the reader. Continue reading ‘Hypertext paper’

Nauman about art making and game playing

I read this in an interview with Bruce Nauman, my comments are at the bottom.

“There was a period in American art, in the ‘60s, when artists presented parts of works, so that people could arrange them. Bob Morris did some pieces like that, and Oyvind Fahlstrom did those political-coloring-book-like things with magnets that could be rearranged. But it was very hard for me to give up that much control. The problem with that approach is that it turns art into game playing. In fact, at that time, a number of artists were talking about art as though it were some kind of game you could play. I think I mistrusted that idea.

Of course, there is a kind of logic and structure in art-making that you can see as game playing. But game-playing doesn’t involve any responsibility – any moral responsibility – and I think that being an artist does involve moral responsibility. With a game you just follow the rules. But art is like cheating – it involves inverting the rules or taking the game apart and changing it. In games like football or baseball cheating is allowed to a certain extent. In hockey breaking the rules turns into fighting – you can’t do that in a bar and get away with it. But the rules change. It can only go so far and then real life steps in. this year warrants were issued to arrest hockey players’ two minutes in the penalty box wasn’t enough. It’s been taken out of the game situation.”
(327-328)

Breaking The Silence: An interview with Bruce Nauman, 1988 (January, 1987) Joan Simon. From Please Pay Attention Please: Bruce Nauman’s Words, Edited by Janet Kraynak. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2003

I think Nauman brings up a couple of interesting points in relation to new media art making. One is the idea of giving up control, especially relevant in interactive or web based art, where the user’s input is integral to the functioning of the work. It requires a surrender of control over how or what the work will look like and it necessitates a re-definition for the artist of their relationship to the work. I, like Nauman, have a hard time to some extent, with the idea that the work will form in the hands of the viewer/user. On some level it allows a surrender of responsibility which I think is essential to making work and putting it out there in the first place. It also allows for less decisions to be made (as they are to be made by the viewer/user).
On the other hand, I think it can be done so that the entire context for the interactive or game playing is done by the artist and the viewer/user is navigating a very controlled environment where any decisions or input that is made is reflective of the larger idea that the artist has outlined in the context.
The question then relates to simulation games (like Sims) where you have the illusion of freedom but it’s defined within criteria that have been programmed with a certain ideology. As opposed to a more anarchic open source simulation like second life, where codes of behavior may not be programmed but emulate “real” society. This leads me to ask an even larger question of whether we are free at all if we are operating within a society where the rules or codes of behavior are so clearly outlined.