Blog Assignment #5

In his article, David Novak delineates the complex remediation and remix of “Jaan Pehechaan Ho,” a song and dance sequence from the Bollywood film Gumnaam (1965). Unlike Southeast Asia, Africa, and Europe, North American receptiveness towards Bollywood has been towards excerpts and song and dance sequences as opposed to the entire film itself. We can find such sequences, as well as their reuse in renditions, on blogs, YouTube, and on Facebook. They originate as “mash-ups” of cultural references; of different global voices and bodies, places and times. In other words, they are already remediations, always simultaneously familiar and strange (Novak). And recognizing oneself as a part of this process—whether one is invested in nostalgia or newness— requires de-emphasizing the authority of the original media context in favor of its remediations (Novak). The de-emphasis of authority that Novak characterizes becomes apparent when reuse of culturally-tied media comes into contact with those who have identify with such ties, as well as those who have certain expectations of media that draws on characterizations of culture and its repurposing for new contexts of use. This can come in the form of reaction; one that may not always be so positive.

The reuse of “Jaan Pehechaan Ho” by Heavenly Ten Stems, infused into their live performance, triggered accusations of racism and on-stage protest because it was interpreted as a recognizably separate form; one not mutually linked to the culture it characterized in its reproduction. The certain level of authority that Heavenly Ten Stems embodied lay in their musical rendition, and its ability to seamlessly link a cultural rendition to an audience with its own relation to that culture it reproduced. The authority was diminished upon introducing a take on something that had different meaning than what was implied by the music. While certain closeness can result from commonalities in media reuse, it is important to establish distinctions and present itself as a recognizably separate form, otherwise it can become subject to increased tension in relating it to the original form. What is at stake here is not just the loss of original meaning in a landscape of mediated cultural signs. It is a question of equivalence—more accurately, of the lack of equivalence—between two sites of remediation whose relations to the original hang in the balance between “mockery” and “tribute” (Novak). Despite the band members’ good intentions, their attempt at revealing aspects of global popular music as a multidirectional social imaginary was interpreted as mockery rather than tribute.

There are certain characteristics that determine whether the reuse of media is considered acceptable or unacceptable. The reuse of media becomes acceptable when it presents itself in a recognizably separate manner, yet adheres to standardization in cultural connectivity through its use. It is important to emphasize the power of popular media. If attempts are successful at remediation, they become popularized. This popularization signifies acceptance in its reuse. If we do not see someone with gold face paint playing music that has strong ties to Asian culture in popular media, it is safe to say that it is not a popularized representation and should be avoided, despite playful and positive associations, otherwise it risks “costumization” and interpretations of mockery.

Novak, D. Cosmopolitanism, Remediation, and the Ghost World of Bollywood. 2010.

 

Blog Assignment #4

Graffiti as a modern art form originated in the late 1960s, first appearing as an “underground” form of expression that was eventually recognized by the art community and migrated to art galleries and museums. It was considered to be vandalism and was rejected by dominant society until the art world embraced it and made it more acceptable (Belton 2001). In today’s society, the art world honours the artistic expression of graffiti artists, while society punishes those who deface property without permission. These opposing views of creative expression and destructive behaviour have been subject for debate for quite some time, yet has allowed for graffiti as an art form to develop more fully in relation to the culture and society in which it is found.

The term “graffiti” was originally used to refer to inscriptions and figure drawings on the walls of ancient cities such as Pompeii. Today, it refers to the pieces we photograph in alleyways, the tags we see on dumpsters, and the “wild style” lettering we associate with hip-hop and popular culture. The subculture of Hip-Hop for example, gained coverage in the New Yorker magazine, films, and movies in the late 1980s, and by the time it was accepted as part of mainstream culture and society, graffiti had been commercialized (Kan 2001). The shift in perception of graffiti since the 1960s has been obvious, yet undertones of resistance, illegal, and destructive activity still resonate in its characterization.

Despite the popularization of graffiti and its increasing association with mainstream popular culture and art, it is a social problem in many places that requires billions of dollars every year to be spent on cleaning it up. Schools are popular places for graffiti to present itself in, and it could very well be the rebellious attitude against society that many adolescents exhibit that lends justification to viewing graffiti as a problem in society, rather than something that should be embraced or used as an educational tool (Kan 2001). These attitudes are not all negative and linked to problems in society, however. Vancouver, BC is an area that has a fair concentration of graffiti, particularly in the downtown area where there are many styles and ways of integrating graffiti into the both public and private spaces in the urban environment. Although there is still risk of arrest and prosecution in employing graffiti as a medium for artistic expression without permission, it is accepted for what it is when it presents itself to those who pass by. It becomes a part of our surrounding environment and its seamless integration is necessitated by its connectivity with culture and society.

Although there are still mixed feelings towards graffiti as both creative expression and destructive behaviour, as a modern art form, it has gained more depth and has found itself more interwoven with society and culture. Looking back to the graffiti preserved at Pompeii, we are able to realize the degree of evolution of graffiti over the years, and understand its social and cultural implications as not static, but as continually adapting and re-conceptualizing its attempts at relating to the world that surrounds it and its creators.

Sources

Belton, V. 2001. Graffiti is part of us. Retrieved from

http://www.graffiti.org/faq/graffiti-is-part-of-us.html.

Kan, K. 2001. Adolescents and Graffiti. Art Education, 54(1).

Whitehead, J. 2004. Graffiti: The Use of the Familiar. Art Education, 57(6).

Blog Assignment #3

Being versed in Western literature and media, our culture tends to relate to art as well as reproduce it. In today’s modern societies, technology has led to our acceptance of reproduction in media, allowing us to increase our proximity towards objects of art; objects exposed to reproduction. Our realities of a routine relationship between culture, visual media, and its reproductive potential have been adjusted, with both social and cultural consequences. Walter Benjamin’s article, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, clarifies these consequences as a challenging of authenticity as well as a loss of authority of the original due to reproduction. He refers to this as its aura.

An example in media that has led us to reposition ourselves in relation to art is YouTube. Although YouTube has increased the potential for the globalization of media and has affected our understanding of what is considered original and what is reproduced, it has led to a reduction in the aura of authenticity of the original. Walter Benjamin argues that reproduction cannot possibly capture the essence of originality and authenticity that art has previously exposed us to, and that the authority of what is produced is lost due to our increase in proximity in relation to it. YouTube has allowed for artistic production with the idea of both accessibility and reproducibility in mind, and as part of this process, art is no longer viewed as definitive in its originality and authority, but rather culturally accepted as a mass reproduction of engagements within the realm of visual media.

            My recent viewing of Slumdog Millionaire recalls the song “Jai Ho” being performed by the cast at the end of the movie, effectively summing up the main events as they occurred throughout the storyline. It was performed in typical Bollywood fashion as indicated by its music selection, choreography and dance, as well as its portrayal of characters and their relationships with one other. Its representation of culture and its use in the culmination of the storyline of Slumdog Millionaire produced a distinct aura of authenticity and originality within the context of the movie. For those who may not have been familiar with Bollywood film or even Indprior to seeing this movie, Slumdog Millionaire revealed cultural insights and the culture it gradually unveiled.

            For me, the aura and appeal of this musical ending was diminished upon seeing it reproduced and presented in many different ways to an awaiting audience on YouTube.  The reproduction and presentation of the original “Jai Ho” song and dance allowed itself to be taken out of context, and to be reflected on, based on individual representations of its intent in being presented separately from the movie. The renditions of song and dance had no appeal, only a diminished aura that reproduced no authoritative ideas of Indian culture, Bollywood film, or Slumdog Millionaire. The only appeal to reproducing “Jai Ho” was seemingly that it came from a popularized movie and provided an excuse to relate to it using YouTube as a medium for globalizing artistic expression. It is my belief that our reproduction of artistic expression is based on the original appeal of authenticity and its aura. But, as Walter Benjamin states, reproduction actually diminishes the aura of authenticity, despite the presentation of reproduced material. Therefore, I believe that we need to be aware of the consequences of reproduction within our society and to understand the idea of reproduction as being a way to see things in a new light, yet not being representative of the reproduced within its original context.

Sources:

Benjamin, W. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.

Accessed January 26^th, 2011.

Slumdog Millionaire (2008 - Movie)

YouTube