Some of these thoughts will be a continuation of last week's post. Others, I think, will go in different directions. To begin responding to the second half of Barthes' Image-Music-Text, I will work chronologically through text.
Death of the Author
To us, today, discussions of the death of the author should not seem new. In one sense, we seem to have moved on from these discussions forward to the death of the canon (during the Culture Wars) and on to predictions of the death of print. But Barthes' descriptions are still, if not even more so now, relevant.
He says, "Thus is revealed the total existence of writing: a text is made of multiple writings, drawn from many cultures and entering into mutual relations of dialogue, parody, contestation, but there is one place where this multiplicity is focused and that place is the reader, not, as was hitherto said, the author" (148).
Again, the latter half of this sentence is familiar. It's the first half that gives me pause. On one hand, what the speed of today's media change may have revealed is the degree to which this has not only been the case but is becoming an even more fluid process today. Some have suggested that what we are witnessing is a form of return. As just one example, we have the theory of the "Gutenberg Parentheses" (which, perhaps ironically(?), in its use of a grammatical convention to serve as a metaphor may suggest that the possibility of a true return has always already been foreclosed). In other words, some would suggest that we are returning to a culture that more closely resembles oral cultures of the past. Maybe, though, it's simply that as Barthes suggests, the authority of the author has always been, in some senses, false and that, similar to a repression of other modes of production that have not been replaced but simply suppressed into our collective unconscious, we are witnessing the rise of collectivity of production. As an example, we have Cory Doctorow's work or the penguin wiki novel project (unfortunately, it seems, in a Frey-esque fashion, titled A Million Penguins, which may allow us to question a parallel between the fad of the memoir that gave rise to a fictional tale of overcoming addiction and the neophilic interest in collective novels. meh?). Either way, we have at least 3 things to rethink from Barthes statement: technological change, copyright laws, and the emergence of new forms of media as the result of, in part, resistance to perceived impossibilities.
Musica Practica
Briefly, and to continue our discussion from our last meeting, Barthes' says, "Beethoven's music has in it something inaudible (something for which hearing is not the exact locality" (152).
Here we could return that which of language cannot speak, what is ineffable. Three things...1) it seems, as some have suggested, what cannot be communicated is something about medium itself, the tableau, film, etc., which to me suggests a return to materiality. 2) Since we've discussed outer space as a way of thinking about how we represent visually what isn't visual data, the discussion of what cannot be sense brings to mind discussions of dark matter. I'm not equipped to continue that discussion further except to note that they say it's even in our kitchens. 3) As we read, the break down of the symbolic chain of language may present itself for some as unusually vivid or bright images.
Lesson in Writing
In his discussion of Bunraku, Barthes suggests that the presence of the actors manipulating the puppet on stage may challenge how, in the West, we have traditionally viewed continuity. Here, I'm interested in other forms that do this. Barthes suggests the "modern text" is one example. From my own research, what comes to mind are punk rock zines and the ways in which the hand produced materials that resist the glossy, polished quality of mainstream magazines make the act of production continuously visible to the reader.
The Grain of the Voice
Barthes says, "The 'grain' is that: the materiality of the body speaking its mother tongue; perhaps the letter, almost certainly significance" (182).
Here, again, we have returned to the body. I am also tempted to think of the difference between analog and digital forms of media. In digital theaters that play FTP downloaded films instead of prints, we no longer see film grain, hear the 35mm projectors whirring, etc.
He says, "The 'gain' is the body in the voice as it sings, the hand as it writes, the limb as it performs" (188).
What autotune does, then, to pop music is perhaps mirrored in other forms of digital conversion. The sound of the pop and crack of the record as it turns has been cleansed, sanded down; the grain becomes imperceptible.
No comments:
Post a Comment