The life processes of machines

Mechinic heterogenesis , transversal chaosmosis, or the life processes of machines…

In looking at televisual texts such as TV programmes or movies, its interesting to analyse the their trectatory, and see how the text transverses once it is in the public domain. These mutaions, proliferations and new agendas in turn alter the destiny of the machine.

Felix Guattari states:

“the machine always depends on exterior elements in order to be able to exist as such, it implies a complementarity, not just with the man who fabricated it, makes it function or destroys it, but it is itself in a relation of alterity with other virtual or actual machines—a “non-human” enunciation, a proto subjective diagram”

(Chaosmosis:1995:37)

Guattari here acknowledges that machines change and morph, and it is not only due to the creators of machines, but those who engage in it. This can be seen in the television machine— creators of the programme can only put out the finished product, a text that we engage in and interpret in our own way. Effectively, individuals selectively lift from these texts, and incorporate aspects of the original machine into their own lives, creating another universe, another dimension, an apendage to the creators original product.

Guattari also talk about how collective assemblages of machines are not necessarily binded, but parts or aspects can be pulled apart, and the machine will still operate. He states:

“the term assemblage dies not imply any notion of bond, passage, or anastomosis between its components. It is an assemblage of possible fields, of virtual as much as constituted elements…if we take a hammer apart by removing its handle, it is still a hammer but in a “mutilated state”
(Chaosmosis:1995:35)

This “diversion of creative chaos” can be seen in fan sites and fan tributes that extend narratives. It can also be seen in texts that change their physical form, such as books that become movies, or songs into video clips. The meaning and funciton of the machine as been proliferated, and thus its impact on different people and generations. However, the machine is still the machine, just in a “mutilated” or differing media.

The life of the Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas machine, for example began as author Hunter S. Thompson’s regular column in Rolling stone magaizine in the 1966. His collumns were then compilled into a novel, which develloped a cult following and started “gonzo” reporting, a type of journalism/fiction writing. This type of writing becasme popular becasue it reported actual events, while twisting the truth to make the story more interesting. The book went to Hollywood in 1998, and Terry Gilliam made a movie version, starring Johnny Dep and Benicio, which also rose to cult status. In doing so, the Fear and Loathing machine was contemporised into a media form that is better able to engage with todays audience. Evidently, the Fear and Loathing machine’s life has morphed and extended.

However, this type of “televisual chaosmosis” can be thought of as consciously produced by fans, produces, actors etc—they are the ones altering the text. It is more interesting though, to look at how these texts emerge unconsciously in our lives, changing from a fictional machine to real life. An example of this is language or phrases used in televisual texts that become incorporated into our vernacular—jargon that was once only understood by the characters, now adapted into the everyday. Interestingly also, whether these televisual machines still exist or not, assemblages of the machine such as language might still continue. Relating back to Guattari, it is now understood what he means in saying that the machine, and it’s future, always depends on exterior elements, as it is us who engages with the machine which will cause its mutation and proliferation.

Examples are:

“look at me” – from Kath and Kim
“Not happy Jan” – from RACV insurance add
“Fwee for Fwee” – Insurance add
“Il be back” – Terminator
“Puk you miss” – Summer Heights high
“How you doin’” – Friends
‘ “Straight to the pool room” – The Castle
“coulda would shoulda” – Sex and the City
“Harden the fuck up” – Chopper
“Livin the dream” — Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
“Yada yada yada” – Seinfeld

Zoolander, Sex and the City, Seinfeld and several of the classics have others. However, these are more than good one liners, and more than pop culture referencing, but language that has been adapted into our everyday speech. They then become machines in their own right, which may then extend or die, dependant on what and how we use it. It is in this way that we see no binary division between fiction and real life. The meaning behind these phrases has been transferred from the text to its usage in the everyday.

References:

Felix Guattari (1995), ‘Mechinic Heterogenesis’, Chaosmosis: an etho-aesthetic paradigm. P.Bains and J. Pefanis (trans). Sydney: Power Publications: 33-59

Disinform

Disinformation operates everywhere in our daily life. It is commonly referred to as an active measure, or a form of manipulation used by governments or corporations who set out deliberately to mislead and deceive people for power. The children overboard case is the first thing that comes to mind when the word “disinformation” is mentioned. It is easy though to blame the government for misinforming as a tool used to confer their image and gain control. However, we are all prone to deliberately framing facts to manipulate and control people in certain ways.

This is particularly evident when looking at parents with children. Being young and vulnerable, children bear the brunt of disinformation. They are constantly lied to and told stories so that adults can control their behaviour. The most obvious example is Santa Clause. Santa Clause is used a vehicle to get children to behave appropriately throughout the year, otherwise Santa wont come on Christmas morning. Parents could easily remove Santa by saying “I wont give you a Christmas present if you’re naughty”, but they don’t because they don’t want their children to hate them. This is consistent with the thought that these days, parents and children are “friends”, the line between guardian and junior blurred.

Other examples are wives tales such as “carrots help you see in the dark”, or “if you dont eat your crusts you hair will go grey”. These are just lines told to children in order to get them to eat vegetables and finish their food. It is interesting to note though that this type of disinform is clearly different to telling children white lies to avoid telling complexities in life that they wont understand, such as where babies come from. Clearly, children are too young to understand the truth of sex and childbirth.

There are two implications that present themselves though. When children eventually discover the truth, not only is their intelligence offended, but there is also a large portion of disappointment. It is easy for adults to think “oh well, they’ll get over it”, but if you put yourself in their shoes, the let down is huge. This devastation, can be also seen when children discover that a) fairies don’t exist b) unicorns don’t exist c) the seven dwarfs don’t exist d) the tooth fairy doesn’t exist e) the Easter bunny doesn’t exist f) there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow g) there is no prince charming or h) the ugly sisters don’t have a hot step sister called Cinderella. Some argue that this isn’t disinformation, but just allowing children to just be children, letting them imagine life without the responsibility of everyday life. It is also suggested that parents need a way to monitor and force children’s behaviour that isn’t visible. This notion could be challenged thought, that we are only setting children up for disappointment, and subsequently have a cynical outlook on life. As a result, their trust in others is broken at an early age, making them callous and selfish.

Reproaching parents for disinforming might sound petty, however the point I wish to make here is that we are all, arguably, prone to disinform.

Madonna and Style

Madonna is not necessarily famous for her music, movies or image. She is an “artist”—her “art” being the way that she can craft and reassemble the Madonna machine. She does this with her style and her mode of address, changing music sound, creating a new image, new dance style, new hobbies, new friends, and voicing new beliefs. Her success though is granted simply to her skill in repackaging and mutating, allowing her to reach out to new markets.

If you look at Madonna as a brand say, she is modernizing and re creating the Madonna label to tap into minority groups or target new markets. Evidently, each new image pushes the boundaries of what is fashionable, what is common in society, and like a brand gives her a competitive advantage over her competitors. Each music phase she plunges into is slightly off what is “popular”, but gives this allusion that she is one step ahead, granting her a cool iconic status (By this I define “popular” as what is economically pleasing to record companies). Subsequently, Madonna is staying current with the youth of today, the biggest consumers of her music.

The other way of looking at her, is that her constant change of style is just part of the Madonna show. According to David Tetzlaff, “the purpose of Material Girl is for Madonna’s audience to witness her playing with her own persona, to indicate that she is the author of her image” (1993:246). As Madonna explores new ideas within herself, she wants the world to see the process in which she assembles her new machine. Each new process, each new structure is on show. He also looks at Madonna’s music, video clips and image as a postmodern text, and suggests that whatever we see on the surface of the text is meaningless, but only there to stimulate us. Certainly, her music and outfits is irrelevent, but what she does with them. She tries to be controversial, or as she states in In Bed with Madonna she likes to “push peoples buttons”. She is controversial in her sexual escapades, speaking freely about aids, homosexuals, war in Iraq, kabala and adopting children. She is on the forefront of what is new and underground, acting as a vehicle for us to assess it.

Consequently, once we have visibility to her art—her clothes, music etc— and have knowledge of these products, we can then find means to access it. Each new persona Madonna pulls out drives our fetishes, as we want what she has/looks like. Clearly, Madonna’s mutations feeds into other industries, industries that either sell Madonna as a commodity (her music, clothing label, costumes) or her way of life. Even her hobbies and activities such as kabala and yoga are made into commodities, as they are part of the Madonna package. From this we can see that her “art”— her continuum process of repackaging of the Madonna machine—is how she feeds and anticipates the commodity industry.

At the same time, Madonna seems to have an intrinsic drive to be in the spotlight—she clearly doesn’t need the money, but does it because she loves the fame and fortune, and it gives her a challenge, to come up with innovative ideas of marketing the Madonna label. Tetzlaff confirms this in stating that “Money isn’t really important to Madonna: success and control are” (1993:246).

Madonna is only one example of the celebrity machine—all celebrities have several behind the scenes factors and personal crafting their style and tell them how to address the public in order to attain a certain market. It is interesting though to look at other artists who have follower in Madonna’s footsteps and made their “art” their continuum process of mutating and recreating. Other diva type stars are obvious examples, such as Kylie, Beyonce, Brittany and Christina. They are such stars we only need to refer to them by their first name. However, most artist change, developing their sound as the band members switch and the artists mature. For example The Beautiful Girls are a band which only has one constant member, Matt McHugh, and the rest of the members come in and out, adding their creative ideas and inputs. consequently, their sound has also changed. Artists can also change their mode of address without changing their sound. The the White Stripes who once only released their music on vinyl and refused interviews, now release on CDs and itunes, and have a large public relations group driving the band on the front cover of every second magazine. Again, their mode of address has adapted to reach more people and expand their market.

Davis Tetzlaff (1993(, “Metatexual Girl” in The Madonna Connection: Representational Politics, Subcultural Identities, and Cultural Theory Ed. Cathy Schwichtenberg. St Leonards, Sydney: Allen and unwin: 239-263

YOUTH MACHINES

The notion of “youth” has become highly valued in our socity. The meaning of youth is no longer the period of time in our lives, but has imbedded notions of freedom, rebellion and beauty. This is because youth has been commodified, and I argue that it has been achieve via the semilogies presented in teen films.

Teen programmes create a collective assemblage of what it means to be a teenager. However, the word ‘teenager’ was only coined in the 1950’s, and is only a constructed term to label and market to certain groups of people. It is not a tangible thing, as the semiologies presented in teen text suggest. The reality of adolescence and the filmic portrayal are in fact divorced, which only proves that youth is another well-packaged machine.

Firstly, it is important to examine the semiotic language in teen films and programmes. Films and TV programmes in this genre, such as Skins, Dawson’s Creek, Beverly Hills 90210 \and the OCThe OC bear witness to binge drinking, partying, rebelling, sexual experimentation, drug use, crime and disrespect for authority (Shary, 2005). Such modalities of behaviour mould the notion that youth is a liberal and rebellious time, devoid of responsibilities or concerns.

Teenagers also seem to be in tight knit friendship groups, their friends being more important than their families. Their ‘group’ is often compared and contrasted against the genres of other ‘groups’. Take the teen flicks Mean Girls for example, or Ten Things I hate about you, where the new students first induction is being introduced to all the different groups: the jocks, the nerds, the Asians, etc.

Most importantly though, teenagers are portrayed in these texts as being irrational and have an attitude problem, also known as “teenage angst”. in the Sunday Age’s ‘Life’ magazine, Sam de Brito writes “the job description for being a teenage boy has always read “loud and obnoxious” and it will forever require that they dress, act and talk in ways that irritates their elders” (2008, p. 17).

On the other hand, there have been characters who have demonstrated the capabilities of teenagers with intelligent and perceptive protagonists. In Beverly Hills 90210 Brandon Walsh sets a benchmark for the idyll teenage code of behaviour. Well, in the first season anyway. He is popular, intelligent, writes for the school newspaper, is on the track team, has a full time job, and a moral high ground above his peers.

Even Kelly, known for her promiscuities, looks after her alcoholic mother, admitting her into rehab and getting her on the right path. The 1998 movie Anywhere but Here with Natalie Portman and Susan Saradon plays on a difficult mother/daughter relationship, showing that sometimes the daughter is more in control than her older and supposedly wiser mother.

In contrasting capable young people against their elders, these texts highlight the strength of teenagers. These exceptions though, don’t take away from the image of adolescence, they only create this rift between teenagers and adults, an “us versus them” type attitude, which in turn only reinforces the grumpy teenage angst stereotype.

Naturally, it is proposed that teenagers behaviour and attitude is do to puberty and the loss of childhood stability. However true, there is also an impeded notion in these texts that youth is a rite of passage, a finding of ones identity, a phase of which they have no control. They also imply that “adolescence” is a phase that one must endure before they reach an adult status. However, adolescence doesn’t have a fixed time frame.

It is impossible to pinpoint when you “become” an adult. A persons “becoming” or time when they piece together their subjectivity, is constant. Guattari (1996) talks about the adolescent revolution as a constructed time in adults minds, a “segregative social practice” (p. 63). Guattari understands that adolescence is comprised of several “becomings”, or producing ones subjectivity. Becoming is not based on ones genetics or hormones, but via multiple components and modes of mechanic communication, and because of this, becommings can happen at anytime.

In fact, he believes you can become anything, “One can become woman. One can become a potted plant” (p. 63)

Becoming adolescence is just like this. A metaphorical becoming.

The interesting point to note is that “adolescents are not aware of their becomings” (p. 72). Instead they use their clothes, music, discourse and behaviour to define who they are, and in turn, teen films use such modalities to create the cultural paradigm of the teenager (Shary, 2005).

While most teenagers can relate to the notions of adolescence in these texts, the fact of the matter is many of these texts don’t portray reality. Teen programmes romanticise what it means to be young, providing us with a false notion of youth. Certainly teenagers struggle during puberty and have new experiences, but many teenagers cringe at the modes of behaviour in these shows It seems to contrived, a hyperboled adults depiction of an idyllic youth. For example, there is a scene in Skins where the group are all conveniently passed out on a bed, covered with food. It is also portrayed in the OC that they have a house party and get intoxicated every weekend. It’s so stylised that it actually turns away their target audience, as teenagers know such a scene would never take place.

There are characters however like Seth Cohan in The OC and Dawson Dawson’s Creek’s who are the “nerdy” types who don’t engage in such behaviour, but these characters are often counteracted by their radical counterparts. In The OC there’s Marissa who overdoses on drugs and alcohol and Brian who bashes someone new in every episode. In Dawson’s Creek, Jen’s promiscuities and Pacey’s school teacher fling are a strong contrast to the articulate virgins, Joey and Dawson.

The cultural paradigm of the teenager set up in teen text have implications on people of all age. For teenagers, it pressures and pigeonholes them into what they inevitably should be. They should be promiscuous, they should be wild and rebellious. They should have a good group of friends, and their groups should have a fixed title such as “jocks” or “skaties”. Moreover, it creates a time frame for young people, forcing them to “embrace their youth” or it will “slip away”.

On the other hand, these notions of liberation and beauty make adults nostalgic and envious. Even the younger age brackets of tweens adore these shows. They yearn to grow up and become wild teenagers, rid the title of “child” and no longer under their parents watchful eye.

For both parties, it’s simply because they desire ‘youth’. This is the main point I wish to raise: The meaning of youth is no longer ones coming of age, but implies a free spirit and fun nature (White, 1997). Youth is considered the “best time of our lives”, punctuating a time of friendship, love, parties, sexuality and of course beauty. Youth is not only celebrated in our society but we are obsessed with gaining and/or maintaining it. Theorist Kern reiterates that “Ours is an age obsessed with youth, health and physical beauty. Television and motion pictures, the dominant visual media, churn our persistent reminders that the lithe and graceful body, the dimpled smile set in an attractive face, are the keys to happiness, perhaps even in essence” (1975).

This idylic notion of youth though is faulse, as one cannot “reclaim” their youth. Instead, the commodification of youth feeds other industires, creating fetishes for commodities that will reinforce our yourthfulness, and return our “free spirit”. such items include cosmetic surgery, sports cars, or even wearing “young” clothes.

heorists White and Wyn also propose that “The idea that youth constitutes a significant and distinct category is inevitably reinforced by popular media” (1997, p. 18). From this, it is obvious that the teenage paradigm fosters notions of youth, and in turn renders youth as another commodity.

To finish off, here is a poem by Joan A. Bell

Teenagers

So many
Headlong, heedless, hurdlers
Giggling, bluffing, blustering
Blissfully blind
As each new, now moment
Is busily becoming yesterday
But the others-the ones
With fawn eyes soft-sad
Sighing, clutching, once-only minutes
Inexorably slipping by—
They are the more deserving
Of our tears

References:

Guattari, Felix (1996), ‘Adolescent Revolution’, Soft Subversions S. Lotringer (ed.) New York: Semiotext (e), 63-72

White, R., Wyn, J., “Rethinking youth” (1997). Sage publications, London.

Shary, T. “Teen Movies: American youth on screen” (2005). Wallflower, London.

hello world: take 2

Here is the belated blog I have promised (myself). I can already see the future…week 4 it’s awesome, and week 5 it’s forgotten. It’ll never be as good as this blog http://www.steelgirl.com/carrot.htm, or yours Felicity, but here’s a go.

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!