Week 4 (Jan. 27)

CRITIQUE FOR PROJECT ONE!

QUESTION FOR NEXT WEEK

Many linguistic expressions indicate a particular bias towards the visual or the audible, though we have long ago forgotten to interrogate their semantic specifics. Does the use of these expressions summarize in advance a biased experience of sound which we come to believe is authentic? “I’ll believe it when I see it.”  “I heard it through the grapevine.” In these two examples, vision donates proof; sound, rumor.

Bring in 5 common, everyday expressions (in any language) which reference either the visual or the audible, sight or hearing. Are these expressions historically datable? Do these expressions still apply in 2013? How might they have changed from their introduction until now?

This exercise is geared towards increasing awareness of the role of language in conditioning the range of possible sensory experience, fitting awkward, liminal, contradictory experience into preexisting categories, distorting it in order to better communicate.

READING FOR NEXT WEEK

Guy Debord: A User’s Guide to Détournement

AND

McKenzie Wark – Détournement: An Abuser’s Guide

Question: Is it still possible to conjure dissonance—and stop viewers in their tracks—by juxtaposing two contrasting images / sounds? In a world of constant psychedelic intensity, where signals vie for attention and cancel each other out, where discontinuity is the norm (zapping, rapid editing etc.), can there still exist room for REAL DISCONTINUITY?

Think about how your everyday experience of appropriation and “détournement” squares with Debord’s text.

Leave a Reply