My Blog Reflects on Visual Rhetorical Theory and Disability Rhetoric and their Connections to Classical and Contemporary Rhetorical Theory
About me
Recent comments
Links
An Inconvenient Truth
Chaim Perelman
Charles Peirce
Cicero
Defining Visual Rhetorics
Do the Right Thing
George Campbell
Kenneth Burke
Quintilian
Roland Barthes
Saussure
Semiotics
Stephen Toulmin
The Basics: Semiotics
Umberto Eco
Visual Rhetoric
Wayne Booth
Archives
today
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
Counter
visited *loading* times
For my blog this week, I wanted to spend some time working on my analysis for E-Lit and working out some of the comments and suggestions Dr. Grigar noted. Because, although we were only supposed to submit a 500-word essay (and mine was already 700, sorry Dr. G), there is still so much more I could've discussed in regard to the chapter.
So, first, let me post my summary and critique of Jack Post's chapter "Requiem for a Reader?" from Baeten and Van Looy's book, Close Reading New Media (I've provided Dr. G's comments also, in yellow, since I will respond to them at the latter part of the post):
Chapter 7: Closely Reading Jack Post’s “Requiem for a Reader? A Semiotic Approach to Reader and Text in Electronic Literature”
So, first, let me post my summary and critique of Jack Post's chapter "Requiem for a Reader?" from Baeten and Van Looy's book, Close Reading New Media (I've provided Dr. G's comments also, in yellow, since I will respond to them at the latter part of the post):
Chapter 7: Closely Reading Jack Post’s “Requiem for a Reader? A Semiotic Approach to Reader and Text in Electronic Literature”
By Rochelle Gregory
Summary
By examining the companion website for Darren Aronofsky’s film Requiem for a Dream, Jack Post explores the ways in which texts, images, sound, voice, and music function in electronic literature in his article “Requiem for a Reader? A Semiotic Approach to Reader and Text in Electronic Literature.” Post argues that website compliments the film by offering users another opportunity to experience the “paranoid experience and agonies of addiction”—precisely what the movie is about (124). I am happy that you have taken the time to check out the site. Good work.
Aronofsky and Florian Schmitt, designer of the site, achieve this experience by using Macromedia Flash to create an immersive space where users, as they move further into the site, have decreasing control over their environments. Specifically, the site is often unpredictable as sound disappears, pages become simply HTML-code, animated texts change their appearance, and photographic colleges appear artistic and abstract (128).
While Post’s article examines how the site uses images, sound, and texts to create an immersive experience, his article also presents a semiotic theory for examining electronic literature. Specifically, Post argues that the site’s texts, presented as Flash media, illustrate the ways that the signifier operates in terms of form and substance; however, Post’s semiotic theory of electronic literature privileges the signifier’s “appearance” or aesthetics over its “substance” or function (135). Texts, as they appear in electronic literature and other new media, create tensions between reading and looking—the totality of the signifier is determined by its visual, linguistic, and musical elements (137).
Your summary is good. I wonder what he implies with the title, though? What is a “requiem,” and why is there one for a reader?
Critique
In Edward Picot’s review of Close Reading New Media and Post’s piece, in particular, Picot argues that the article never achieves the purpose of closelyreading the texts of the website; specifically, Picot claims that the article involves “itself instead in a discussion of the different ways the site makes use of text.” And, Picot criticism of Post’s article are fair enough. It is good that you consult Picot’s review to kick off your critique.
Post establishes throughout the latter half of his article quite convincingly how new media presents texts as signifiers that operate both aesthetically and functionally; still, the article fails to apply this critical theory in depth to the Requiem for a Dream site. Rather, Post first discusses how Aronofsky and Florian’s site compliment(s) the experience offered in the film; Post then presents his semiotic theory concerning the duality of the signifier in new media. Post’s argument might have been more convincing, especially to skeptics who might challenge how a film’s website constitutes (electronic) literature, if he had discussed the signification of the animation of Marion and Harry lying in bed, for example. I know you have not read Hayles, so it is not fair for me to call her in now. She argues that we cannot apply literary criticism to new media texts because the latter is not strictly literature. Hayles is particularly critical of semiotics and new media texts since semiotics assume a one to one connection between signifier and signified. A letter typed on a computer is anything but a 1 to 1 correspondance since the binary code sitting underneath the letter appearing on the screen is a combination of many 0s and 1s.
In this particular example, the image of Marion and Harry only becomes fully visible after the user moves the cursor around the screen triggering the program to “unveil” or show specific areas of the image to users; however, this unveiling occurs after several moments in which the screen is completely blank and it seems as if the program has paused or locked up. In this case, the users’ actions propel the image to appear and the users become more immersed in the program; however, this visual immersion takes the users further into the program, much like the characters’ further spiral into addiction. Therefore, while the immersive experience is often considered pleasurable, as J. Yellowlees Douglas and Andrew Hargadon discuss in “The Pleasure of Immersion (good) and Interaction,” in this case, as users immerse into the site, they experience moments of paranoia, confusion, and inadequacy.
However, as the image appears to users on the screen, texts flash and move across the screen; for instance, “REQUIEM,” “DREAM,” and “800-650” appear, all of which are references to elements in the movie. In this case, the texts function linguistically to connect the experience of the site to the experience of the film. Likewise, the “eerie,” melodic music that accompanies this image further enhances the intended mood. Still, by examining the signifier as a visual and linguistic element, Post’s article convincingly illustrates how Flash, and new media in particular, present signifiers that are not simply linguistic elements. However, his article would be complete if it had the one final piece that is missing, a close visual, linguistic, musical reading of this new media source.
Works Cited (put this above your resources)
Douglas, J. Yellowlees and Andrew Hargadon. “The Pleasure of Immersion and Interaction.” First Person: New Media as Story, Performance, and Game. Eds. Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Pat Harrigan. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 2004. 192-7.
Picot, Edward. “Upclose and Virtual.” trAce OnlineWritingCenter. 14 May 2004. 25 Oct 2005. <http://trace.ntu.ac.uk/Review/index.cfm?article=107>
Post, Jack. “Requiem for a Reader? A Semiotic Approach to Reader and Text in Electronic Literature.” Close Reading New Media: Analyzing Electronic Literature. Eds. Jan Van Looy and Jan Baetens. Leuven, Belgium: Leuven UP. 2003. 123-40.
Thinking about the word "requiem," I have two theories: One, the word was meant to connect the title of the website to the title of the movie. It was a pun, more or less.
Or, two, "requiem," as "A special mass said or sung for the repose of the souls of the dead" (OED), goes back to the experience the website was supposed to convey to readers. Specifically, just as I discussed in my post, the site was supposed to create a sense of immersion. But, instead of one that was pleasant or entertaining, the creators wanted users to feel more lost, fragmented, and paranoid as they immersed themselves in the site. I think in this case, the "requiem" or funeral durge is that of the readers. Their experience is not meant to exactly be pleasant; rather, the immersion into the site reflects the death of the reader. They continue to have less and less control in the site, the farther they get into it. It is the "death," so to speak, of control. Therefore, the requiem represents the metaphorical death of the reader.
Thinking more about Dr. G's comment regarding Katherine Hayles' theory that new media cannot be subjected to the same literary theory as literature because new media isn't literature, exactly. Theories regarding semiotics aren't necessarily applicable to new media studies because semiotics assumes a 1 to 1 ratio between the signifier and the signified. However, in new media, the 1 is represented on the screen by many 0's and 1's--there is no 1 really on a computer screen, just a series of commands that tells us the character on the screen should resemble a 1.
After reading Eco over the past two months, I wonder if semiotics and philosophies of language are changing so that such discussions might, in fact, apply to new media. Specifically, Eco argues that language, like a mirror, doesn't represent a 1 to 1 relationship either. I read Eco's discussion on the mirror of language as saying that the mirror is reflected onto itself. So, for example, when someone walks into a dressing room with mirrors on the front wall and mirrors on the back, the reflecting image is the one that never ends. It's the "image of the image," so to speak. Therefore, we see ourselves getting smaller and smaller in the images in the mirror, over and over again. Language, as a mirror, does the same thing. There never is a starting point and there never is a conclusion. The image goes on forever.
As this relates to electronic literature and semiotics, perhaps there really is no 1 to 1 relationship between the signifier and the signified. There never really was. Instead, what we see, what we think is a 1 to 1 relationship is really just two images reflected back on each other in this great strand of images reflecting each other in a mirror. So, if there is no constant, stable relationship between the signifier and the signified, if there never really was a 1 to 1 relationship to begin with, maybe semiotic theory can be applied to new media.
Therefore, if new media needs more close readings to gain more credibility among the humanities departments, maybe semiotic theory, literary theory, or whatever type of analysis one wants to do, could achieve those ends. I think that is what Van Looy and Baetens were really trying to do in their book.
Works Cited
Post, Jack. “Requiem for a Reader? A Semiotic Approach to Reader and Text in Electronic Literature.” Close Reading New Media: Analyzing Electronic Literature. Eds. Jan Van Looy and Jan Baetens. Leuven, Belgium: Leuven UP. 2003. 123-40.
Thinking about the word "requiem," I have two theories: One, the word was meant to connect the title of the website to the title of the movie. It was a pun, more or less.
Or, two, "requiem," as "A special mass said or sung for the repose of the souls of the dead" (OED), goes back to the experience the website was supposed to convey to readers. Specifically, just as I discussed in my post, the site was supposed to create a sense of immersion. But, instead of one that was pleasant or entertaining, the creators wanted users to feel more lost, fragmented, and paranoid as they immersed themselves in the site. I think in this case, the "requiem" or funeral durge is that of the readers. Their experience is not meant to exactly be pleasant; rather, the immersion into the site reflects the death of the reader. They continue to have less and less control in the site, the farther they get into it. It is the "death," so to speak, of control. Therefore, the requiem represents the metaphorical death of the reader.
Thinking more about Dr. G's comment regarding Katherine Hayles' theory that new media cannot be subjected to the same literary theory as literature because new media isn't literature, exactly. Theories regarding semiotics aren't necessarily applicable to new media studies because semiotics assumes a 1 to 1 ratio between the signifier and the signified. However, in new media, the 1 is represented on the screen by many 0's and 1's--there is no 1 really on a computer screen, just a series of commands that tells us the character on the screen should resemble a 1.
After reading Eco over the past two months, I wonder if semiotics and philosophies of language are changing so that such discussions might, in fact, apply to new media. Specifically, Eco argues that language, like a mirror, doesn't represent a 1 to 1 relationship either. I read Eco's discussion on the mirror of language as saying that the mirror is reflected onto itself. So, for example, when someone walks into a dressing room with mirrors on the front wall and mirrors on the back, the reflecting image is the one that never ends. It's the "image of the image," so to speak. Therefore, we see ourselves getting smaller and smaller in the images in the mirror, over and over again. Language, as a mirror, does the same thing. There never is a starting point and there never is a conclusion. The image goes on forever.
As this relates to electronic literature and semiotics, perhaps there really is no 1 to 1 relationship between the signifier and the signified. There never really was. Instead, what we see, what we think is a 1 to 1 relationship is really just two images reflected back on each other in this great strand of images reflecting each other in a mirror. So, if there is no constant, stable relationship between the signifier and the signified, if there never really was a 1 to 1 relationship to begin with, maybe semiotic theory can be applied to new media.
Therefore, if new media needs more close readings to gain more credibility among the humanities departments, maybe semiotic theory, literary theory, or whatever type of analysis one wants to do, could achieve those ends. I think that is what Van Looy and Baetens were really trying to do in their book.
Works Cited
Aronofsky, Darren and Florian Schmitt. Requiem for a Dream. website. 25 Oct 2005. http://www.requiemforadream.com/
Douglas, J. Yellowlees and Andrew Hargadon. “The Pleasure of Immersion and Interaction.” First Person: New Media as Story, Performance, and Game. Eds. Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Pat Harrigan. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 2004. 192-7.
Douglas, J. Yellowlees and Andrew Hargadon. “The Pleasure of Immersion and Interaction.” First Person: New Media as Story, Performance, and Game. Eds. Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Pat Harrigan. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 2004. 192-7.
Eco, Umberto. Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language . Bloomington : Indiana UP. 1984.
Picot, Edward. “Upclose and Virtual.” trAce OnlineWritingCenter. 14 May 2004. 25 Oct 2005. http://trace.ntu.ac.uk/Review/index.cfm?article=107
Picot, Edward. “Upclose and Virtual.” trAce OnlineWritingCenter. 14 May 2004. 25 Oct 2005. http://trace.ntu.ac.uk/Review/index.cfm?article=107
posted by: rgregory at 16:52 |
link | comments (1) |
Comments:
Comments:
Template by motime.com | header image credit: Markus Gann © www.begann.de