Walt Disney

I was never a big Disney fan. I always felt that most of the movies (and products) represented patriarchal views; very white patriarchal views. I could never help but wonder, “Where are the mothers? Why don’t the bad-guys have color?” The female characters are either unrealistically beautiful or unbelievably mean bitches out to get everybody. The good characters have bright colors on while the evil-doers are dark and dreary. I have a hard time watching my niece dress-up like Cinderella as both her mother and my mother watch gleefully.
I will say that Walt Disney was a remarkable man. He took the idea of the American Dream and ran with it! He did not start off rich nor was he a city slicker hot-shot. He was just a regular guy with an amazing talent. Not only did he build an empire on entertainment for children of all ages, but he basically convinced the parents of Middle America that their parenting skills were not going to destroy them.
What I find most interesting is that the public picture houses were frowned upon. They were considered dirty and crowded and could spread infectious disease. They were also “…concerned about controlling the moral and behavioral effects of movies upon the poor and ignorant, particularly children,” (page 39 Babes in Tomorrowland). The Puritans wanted to close the playhouses for the same reasons in the early 1600s. They feared they were corruptive. City administrators of that time were bothered by the fact that anyone could go, including the poor. Doesn’t that sound familiar?
I do have to get off my high pessimistic horse right now and say that I really did like Disney World. I took myself away from the characters and outside the plots of the movies and was transported to a place that was extremely culturally diverse. Not only were the employees from all over the world, but the patrons were from all walks of life. Here we were, all together enjoying the same thing for similar reasons. It truly was an amazing experience to see the vision of one man through the eyes of my eleven-year-old son.
It is still a disappointment to see my niece walk around in those outfits when she could be learning how to fish and use tools like I did when I was a kid. I roll my eyes as she tries to get one of my nine nephews or one of my three sons to be her Prince Charming. All is not lost. The boys would much rather be WWF wrestlers than saving damsels in distress!

Entourage

After reading Negus, I thought about a storyline in the HBO series Entourage. For those who have not seen it, it is about four guys that go to Hollywood to make it big. “Vince” is the star, his brother “Drama” hits it in TV, “E” is the business manager, and “Turtle” is basically the gopher. Vince does a period piece that was short on budget. He felt very strongly about the movie, but it turned out to stink. His PR person and agent tried to sell the movie by its trailer, which was beautifully done.

When Negus talks about “suits” I think of Vince’s agent selling producers an idea that was outside of the actual creativity (or lack of it) that Vince and the director believed the movie obtained. It seems that without actually being a creative force, the “suits” in this instance were able to create a product that other thought they needed or wanted. The movie did sell, but Vince did not have a "suit" to write a contract. After the movie was viewed, the buyer pulled out.

When I think about advertising (including movie trailers), I imagine a group of people brainstorming on how to present products to the public. I am not sure they are all authors, but I do believe they are all part of a creative force. I think they are masters of the language and I think they do have a hand in creating values within cultures (what is beautiful, healthy, popular, etc). Which in itself is art.

To Be Published

This is photo of a mural painted on the side of a building in NYC. There are two pieces of art to be discussed here. First, there is the mural itself. Although the author is unknown to me and there is no visible tag, I believe it is signed. The artist has painted a city street with flags of different countries. The flags are stratigically placed possibly demonstrating the diversity and harmony of different cultures living together in one area.

The second form of art is the photo itself. It is a photo of a boy at recess in the schoolyard. It was taken just at the end of the school year and it was unseasonably hot for that time of year in NYC. The boy's teacher is shouting to him that recess has ended and it is time to go back inside, but the boy wants just one more minute. Without that description, the viewer can see that it is sunny and possibly warm. The buildings, cement, and fencing are characteristics of city life. The rest, only the author could tell.

Even though I would produce both pieces, I do not think they would be considered art in other circles. Part of me thinks Bourdieu would consider this art because it is a representation of society at that time (and someone probably got paid to do it). The mural depicts cultural diversity and the tentions of that diversity. It has also been placed there stratigically (like a billboard) so it serves a purpose other than something to look at. It makes a statement about life in Hell's Kitchen. The other part of me thinks that Bourdieu would say that only higher classes decide what is art. The artist used materials that were available to him/her (the wall) which would probably be considered defacing property to those of a higher class. For me, the photo represents summer. For a higher class, it probably represents poverty. It is that class that determines what is art. Therefore, I could not be a determiner of what is considered art.

Shades of Gray

I found that the readings for the past two weeks have displayed the idea that "authorship" is a mixture of different ideas. Macherey says that art is not a creation, but a product of man's labor. If we say that an author is a creator and owner of what he has produced, then we agree with Macherey. Becker says that art is a network of people who cooperate to produce a work. When thinking of movies and television, it is difficult to disagree. Heath says that the author is a product of society, so the work is a product of society. Freud believes the work is the product of the author's fantasies (immagine the reader's fantasies). Foucault says that a text always bears signs that refer to the author. Whichever of the statements one agrees with, at the same time, it is difficult to deny the other statements. I think it is very tricky to be able to choose a single theory.

Derek Kompare's article and the articles in Authors Inc. talk about author-branding. This seems as if it leans toward coding. Wollen says motifs should be used for coding. If a particular author writes the same way, then all the works will have the same motif. Therefore, they will be coded the same way. The author's name becomes the code instead of the work itself. I think that is where some of the theories are conflicting. Is the author the important factor or the work; or are they one in the same (branded)?

I tend to look at an author as a person doing their job. Some just happen to do it better than others. Like athletes, some are touched by God and are extremely successful at what they do. I also believe that authors become what they write. The audience begins to have expectations of what the work will be like. Although the audience will be pleasently surprised at times, it does not always work out that way as in the case of Mark Twain's autobiography. Because of his prior success, his audience still read it. We behave the same when it comes to music. We enjoy a group, buy their CD, and expect there to be a signature style. In many cases we get what we expect. Every so often we are disappointed.