Analysis 5 (Postmodernism & American Psycho)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGeAMVK75T4

Postmodernism is a term first explored during the late nineteenth century. A whole century later, roughly 1950-1960, the phenomenon was applied to everyday life.  In the above link from YouTube, the film “American Psycho” directed by Mary Harron is a perfect example of postmodernism. We see Patrick Bateman, the main character, describing himself to “have all the characteristics of a human being: blood, flesh, skin, hair; but not a single, clear, identifiable emotion, except for greed and disgust.” (Patrick Bateman) He says, “there is an idea of a Patrick Bateman; some kind of abstraction. But there is no real me: only an entity, something illusory. And though I can hide my cold gaze, and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable... I simply am not there.” (Patrick Bateman) This image of Bateman is developed to create an ideology of the current society Bateman is living in. Bateman and the phenomenon, postmodernism are the idea that nothing is real and or genuine and that everything is a copy of something that’s already been duplicated. The standpoint is frequently in the first person, thereby indicating his self-obsession and pursuant of his individuality, but also his desire to integrate Lyotard suggest that postmodernism is continually redefined and this goes for Patrick Bateman. He is always trying to redefine himself. It might be through is physical appearance and or that of his business card or where he dines.  He seems as though his personality, his image, and life is all made up, like he’s a empty soul living in a live flesh body. In the Postmodern Condition, Lyotard says “what at one moment challenges our ideas, our sense of how things are, becomes, at the next moment, that which we seek to challenge.” Lyotard also says that “today we can presume that this breaking is rather a manner of forgetting or repressing the past. That’s to say of repeating it. Not overcoming it.” For Patrick, the life he’s living may as well be a fantasy, and to the audience this is a possibility at certain points. American Psycho ends with, the bang “THIS IS NOT AN EXIT.” As Lyotard says, “from this point, it would be necessary to consider the division of mankind into two parts: one part confronted with the challenge of complexity; the other with the terrible ancient task of survival. This is a major aspect of the failure if the modern project (Which was, in principle, valid for mankind as a whole.”

Works Cited:

Lyotard. "Defining the Postmodern". ed. Leitch, Vincent B. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton &, 2010. Print.

Foucalt. "Discipline and Punish". ed. Leitch, Vincent B. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton &, 2010. Print.

"American Psycho “Morning Routine."YouTube.  9 May. 2009. Web. 23 Apr. 2011. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46-WNPlCYsg

Analysis # 4 (Marxism)

http://www.youtube.com/embed/A7rbQHJ9b3o

I have to disagree with the theory of Marxism. We are not what we make. We as humans go beyond that idea. The human is capable of anything. And I mean anything. We have created the working class and the capitalist. We allow capitalist to treat working class with less respect and make more money then the working class. But have we ever stopped and wondered what the Capitalist would do without the working class? Struggle! Yes struggle, because we are and do what there money provides us to do. If we were treated equally and with equally I mean with respect and not looked down upon because of our hourly wage, then this world would be a better place. Capitalism wouldn’t be the way it is today, out of control and overwhelming. Marxist thinking claims that Capitalists and Workers are in a constant state of struggle, which is called Materialist Dialectic. But are they both in trouble. Doesn’t the capitalist pressure and lower the wages of the working class to make more profit? Marxism do says that in order for capitalists to make profit, and to double their profit, they have to lower the wages of workers as much as possible. And on the other hand working class has to struggle to keep their wages up if not try to make sure they don’t get a decrease in pay. This my friends is called class struggle. Sad but true and we still see this very notion continue till this very day.


Works Cited

Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich. "The German Ideology". ed. Leitch, Vincent B. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton &, 2010. Print.

            "Marxist Philosophy" YouTube.  24 Aug. 2009. Web. 27 Mar, 2011. <http://www.youtube.com/embed/A7rbQHJ9b3o>.

Analysis # 3- (Fetishism)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhbynTCTHyM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkccHQ1egc4&feature=player_detailpage

Fetishism, do all men have it? Do they hide it? After doing some research on fetishism, I came to understand how fetishes come about. According to Fraud, fetishes usually develop when we are young, and when we feel the need to substitute what we feel with a particular object or body part. Majority of the fetishes are sexual and I think this is very interesting. I have yet to meet someone that has a fetish with something other then sex and or a sexual desire or body part.

            For Fraud, the fetish is a penis substitute. Is it really? Well in order to have a fetish with something you have to have sexual obsession with an object where you can’t get off without thinking about, touching it, and or looking at it. So does it become a penis substitute? Well now it makes more sense. If one has a fetish then there are incapable of doing what others do without there preferred object and or preference around. Because it is the center of there sexual obsession, the fetish controls the person.

            Fetishes are usually found in males. I do not know a single woman with a fetish, though when I did research online, I was able to find a tone of sexual fetish websites when people virtually pay money to watch others do and play out what there sexual fetish is. Because “usually they are quite satisfied with it, or even praise the way in which it eases their erotic life, it is very difficult if not impossible to over come a fetish. “It reveals itself so naturally and seemed to me so compelling” that one does not even know they might even have a fetish and “we do not know those which are decisive for the rare pathological result.” Therefore be careful you never know who might be looking at your feet and/or other body parts. :)

Works Cited

"Crazy Fetishes" YouTube. 16. Oct 2010. Web. 17 Mar. 2011. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhbynTCTHyM>

Freud, Sigmund. "Fetishism". ed. Leitch, Vincent B. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton &, 2010. Print.

"Why Men Like Women's Feet Extreme Body Part Foot Fetish Documentary Discovery Health Channel" YouTube. 23 Mar. 2010. Web 17, Mar. 2011.<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkccHQ1egc4&feature=player_detailpage>

Analysis # 2 (Word Picture & Structuralism)

            Picasso has his own way of expressing Art. Art with so many vibrate colors and art that stand out to the human eye. The above painting captured my attention because of the vibrate colors and the weeping woman’s facial expression. She looks as though she be tortured and discriminated in a courtroom. Her face expresses pain and anguish as though she has no one in the world to talk too. She’s grinding her teeth while trying to close her mouth with her hand as though she has so much to hide. Her hair is let loose and straight as this is the only thing that may be free and not tided up. We see so much pain in her eyes as its like shattered glass and the way her eyebrows are structured. In my opinion her tears portray longing and the need for love. As the website I got this portrait from says “she is a victim of the rape of her sole.” It’s an amazing painting over all.
          What more is self conscious then “art”? Picassos painting reflects art and subconscious. It allows one to feel what it sees. One does not have to know that background of the painting nor information about the artist to feel the art work. “Art is a product of human activity” (pg. 547) Art expresses the artist but we do not appreciate the art unless who no who drew it. Picassos painting have got so many viewers because it is he who drew them. But regardless of the artist, I still think his paintings are awesome and fascinating



           Structuralism is the analysis of language, culture and society. Structuralism “is the social side of speech, outside the individual who can never create nor modify it by himself.” Pg 850. In order for one to understand what it means, you have to think of the simple concept of structure and how our words and languages form. According to Marxist, these structures and there structuralist models exist only in human mind, and not in nature. Structuralists claim that in order to understand the surface structure one has to understand the deep structure, and how it influences the surface structure. Saussure’s concept of the phoneme and his idea that phonemes exist in two kinds of relationships, the diachronic and synchronic was really helpful in understanding the concept of structuralism.  Linguistics is used in every word and every language. It’s important to understand the importance of linguistics. Linguistics is the study of language form, of language meaning, and of language in context. Once you grasp this concept, you’re able to structuralize culture and its language. Structuralism argues that a specific domain of culture may be understood by means of a structure. “In language there are only differences without positive terms.” Linguistics helps us understand those differences. However let’s not forget syntagmatic which means “in a language-state everything is based on relation.” Syntagmatic “relation is in the present” which means it helps us understand what’s going on in the linguistics.  

Work Cited

Saussure, Ferdinand De. "Course in General Linguistics". ed. Leitch, Vincent B. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton &, 2010. Print.

Classical Literary Criticism and the Sublime

Last week in class, we had our first group presentation. Their main focus was on Classical Literary Criticism, and also discussed the Longinus’ sublime. Sublime means something that lifts up the soul, inspiration, happy, and that feeling where your heart feels like its going to stop. According to one of the presenters, “real sublimity contains much food for thought. It is difficult/impossible to resist. It has a strong impression on the memory.” Watching the video clip the presenters had set up was amazing. They were all different by sublime in their own way. According to Longinus and our presenters, thee five sources of sublimity are conceived of great thought, strong and inspired emotion, certain king of figures, noble diction, and elevated word arrangement. According to Longinus, at least one of the above mention sources must be discussed for the piece to be sublime. I liked how they wrote on the chalk board as we as classmates had something visual to work off of. We also discussed how the film “Avatar” is sublime. Overall their presentation was very informational. I learned a lot from it and thought the presentation was very well done.

Then the Professor started to discuss the Enlightenment which began in Western Europe in the 17^th century. We discussed how this era was very important. People never thought for themselves. Orders always had to be followed. When Descartes came along, people began to think for themselves, have their own mind and this was something very new. Thinking for themselves brought new ideas, and with new ideas came thinking and using ones mind. Overall, last weeks class was very informational and amazing. I picked up on everything the presentation was about and understood it. I also loved how their presentation brought up such a great class discussion.

Are You Ready for the RED PILL? (Analysis #1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEAcHBRPr9A&feature=BF&list=FLgnzwjj16RAA&index=1

In the four minute YouTube clip from the movie “The Matrix,” we see Morpheus offer the choice of the red pill or the blue pill to Neo, the red pill being the painful truth about reality and the blue pill being living in ignorance and to believe in what ever you want to believe.

Neo is being offered a choice. His decision is made merely on persuasion. The concept of Rhetoric which means the art of persuasion is being used.

In Aristotle’s “From On Rhetoric,” he says “there is persuasion through the hearers when they are led to feel emotion [pathos] by speech; for we do not give the same judgment when grieved and rejoiced or when being friendly and hostile. To this and only this we said contemporary technical writers try to give their attention.” Pg 115-6. Speech is the persuasion Morpheus is using to try and convince Neo to take the red pill. He says that “it is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to bind you from the truth” to persuade Neo that the life he lives is nothing but a lie. His words and gestures persuade Neo to what he thinks is the truth. But “what truth” are we talking about here? Living life day by day thinking there might be a Matrix or living the wonderland life and seeing with your own eyes what the Matrix really is.  According to Aristotle, “persuasion occurs through the arguments when we show the truth or the apparent truth from whatever is persuasive in each case.” Pg. 116. Neo believes what Morpheus tells him. He wants the truth but the only truth he knows is what he has lived, not what Morpheus tells him he is going to live. So which one should he believe?   

“Unfortunately no one can be told what the matrix is? You have to see it for yourself. Remember all I’m offering is the truth, nothing more.” What a line to persuade someone into thinking that the only thing they offer is the truth. But is it really? How does Neo know what Morpheus is saying is the truth? He doesn’t. He believes in what ever he wants to believe whether this means taking the red pill or the blue pill. When someone asks you what you know but you are unable to explain it, it’s hard to trust that person, but when someone says they have seen and know the things you know and have seen, you begin to trust them. They tell you that “ironically this is not far from the truth” and you think to your self then what is “truth”. Aristotle says that rhetoric is like making a judgment. Then what judgment did Neo make? To believe what is being told by another or to believe what he wants to believe. Taking the blue pill or the red pill was a choice made ultimately by Neo with the persuasion of Morpheus. He knows what he can’t explain but has it done by someone else.

Works Cited

"Matrix “Decision." YouTube.  13 Feb. 2011. Web. 13 Feb. 2011. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEAcHBRPr9A&feature=BF&list=FLgnzwjj16RAA&index=1>.


Aristotle. "From on Rhetoric". ed. Leitch, Vincent B. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton &, 2010. Print.

Week 2

During our February 1^st class, we discussed Encomium of Helen. Our discussion made me think quite differently verses the reading. I have to admit that after reading Encomium of Helen, I was quite convinced that Helen was not to blame for her actions but after our class discussion, my mind quickly changed. Helen should be blamed for her actions and may I say is absolutely insane and absurd for doing what she did. Because of her a 10 year war was caused and people were killed and yet I don’t know why I was sp persuaded from the reading. The war was so intense and tragic that I can’t believe it was all due to one woman’s stupidity. Gorgais presents such an argument that I couldn’t decide if the persuader or the person being persuaded was right. Now I have learned that, you should never be persuaded. Always look at the facts. Think critically and analyze before you make a decision.

In class we also discussed the Allegory of the Cave. After watching the video clip and discussing it in class, I began to think of the way the prisoners thought. They were trapped and were only allowed to see what the outsiders wanted them to see. They did not have an imagination because they knew nothing of it. Therefore what they saw was just a lie and what the only human released saw life outside the cave to be real. The prisoners had never seen life therefore thought what they saw was true and real. This made me think differently and critically. Isn’t everything in life seen differently through each person’s eyes? I know I may see something as beautiful but someone might think it’s ugly. Is looking in the mirror a true image of you or is it false?