Class Notes 9/4

9/4 Class Notes

Announcements:

1- Don’t forget to see To Kill A Mockingbird at Cardinal Stage. It opens on Friday.

2- We’ll be returning to Roach and Debord for a 9/11 discussion.

Discussion:

Jess- Everyone mostly stayed close to home for the memorial hunt, we were looking at overlooked memorials, Kelly’s graffiti example was distinctive in that its permanence is debatable. Can graffiti be preserved?

Amy- was interested in Kelly’s use of “emotional tribute tags” and wanted to know where the emotion is and how it works.

Kelly: The graffiti is similar to the Hoagy statue, but it is not a respected, permanent, or planned way to memorialize. Its quickness is almost like writing in a journal.

Whitney: The fact that graffiti can be painted over and yet still present reminded her of the concept that, in order to be remembered, something must be forgotten. Its is like a palimpsest.

Derek: The act of writing “I hope I never forget you” is one of tenuous permanence and carried the hope of not forgetting even though the graffiti may be forgotten.

Jennifer: was reminded of “rear window tributes,” but found the graffiti ones to be more intimate.

Jess: agreed and wondered if the lack of specificity could allow you to read your situation into the graffiti’s message, thereby internalizing it in a way that’s unlikely with something like a rear window tribute.

Dorothy: suggested that that opinion, of self insertion, is one with which serious or “high art” taggers would agree. She wondered if graffiti is still considered low art.

Cody: then mentioned how a graffiti’s location can impact the high/low distinction while discussing an example he chose not to blog about—how graffiti can erase and recreate the history and identity of the things and/or places upon which it is located.

Kelly: noted that there are graffiti communities that respect each other’s work and try not to cover it with their own, thereby creating graffiti wall conversations.

Amy: noted that the presence of performance (in graffiti) is more evident because the act of its creation is a part of its performance, unlike types of memorials. She also noted how the graffiti allowed its viewer to create a narrative for it.

Ellen: enjoyed the graffiti example because it was not necessarily morbid and it can be difficult to locate memorials that don’t feature morbidity. She also noted how, in finding memorials that we had ostensibly overlooked, our memorial examples failed to be expressive forms of memorializing.

Derek: disagreed by suggesting that a memorial could still be successful because there is an invitation to memorials and revive memory.

Andrea: saw a connection to medieval literature, which offers similar invitations of discovery and revitalized memory.

Jess: noted how memorials are imperfect because, like the new MLK memorial, they emphasize one particular aspect of the memorialized subject while distorting the rest of their lives. She wondered if Hoagy Carmichael liked pizza or if Herman B Wells was lactose intolerant.

Amy: was intrigued by Derek’s statement in that it allowed to a system through which memorials are personified, objectified, and personified once more.

Whitney: used this question to ask is there is a danger in making memorials too accessible by offering the example of two types of lists of IU student casualties in war.

Jess: noted how memorials are not for the dead, but for the living.

Sara: discussed how the Vietnam and Korean War memorials in DC functioned differently. One strives to prevent war while the other glorifies it.

Ellen: thought that was a useful point and wanted to think about the types of work that certain memorials do, particularly those that shape the collective commemorative. A number of examples of Ellen’s point followed, including: Holocaust shoes, staging slave ships, and wearing slave collars.

Amy: seconded the opinion that it is useful to think about how memorials work, in the same way that Brecht show the work that theatre is doing.

Jennifer: brought up the example of Crown Hill Cemetery, its extensive rules, and that people followed them. Next followed a discussion of decorum toward memorials as examples were given as to how social etiquette involving memorials could be breeched.

Jennifer: next wanted to find a way to connect Whitmore to Debord, which we did by summarizing Whitmore and then looking at points 4 and 10 of Debord.

Amy: asked what could be gained by viewing spectacle as social relationships.

Dorothy: thought that it offered a lens through which to view spectacle in various moments in history

Ming: wondered if we are always implicated in the social relationships of spectacle.

Courtney: noted how the constant implication in the relationships was what made Debord seem so negative.

Derek noted how social relationships create lenses through which to view imagined communities. He discussed analysis of Clint Eastwood’s speech at the Republican National Convention and mapped how it created a community of what someone would imagine “Republican” to mean and included them in the imaginary community.

Ellen: asked us to explain Debord’s major points. And mentioned how manifestos were not the best media dialogue while Amy joked that the manifesto would be a bad way to approach a dissertation.

Dorothy: was troubled by the group’s tendency to create and “us” when she believes that people are capable from separating from politics. Then she launched into a discussion of the types of people Roach cited in Cities of the dead.

Amy and Ellen: noted that Dorothy’s point was an excellent one, but there wasn’t enough time to do it justice. The class decided that we will begin Thursday’s discussion with Dorothy’s comment.