Final Blog Post

Before taking this class on the “autobiographical impulse” I suppose I had a rather generic view of autobiography. I never really paused to wonder if you could actually define autobiography. Through the course of the semester it has become evident that perhaps autobiography is something that is so complex, and that it would be too difficult to contain within a neat definition. What about those instances when you do not have the pact between the author, the protagonist, and the narrator? How do we translate this to film and art? Even when literature, film, or art is not fully “autobiography,” there can be traces or imprints found of the author, director, or the artist. This is the reason that I decided to use the word “autobiographical” in my research.

Some of the most significant insights for me were found in our readings of Michel Foucault, Roland Barthes, and Jacques Derrida. Foucault gave us a foundation of the history of confession and how this relates to the technology of self. I found his theory on the panopticon rather helpful, as it gave me a visual for understanding the idea of surveillance and how that might be the only time when we are showing our true selves. Barthes’ ideas about autobiography were interesting, as he makes it clear that while we can gain insights about someone’s self, we can never fully know them. This is the idea of the spiral (as opposed to the closed circle), for we can never fully know the truth. His vignettes were examples of what “pricked” him, what was compelling to him. We as his audience are not “pricked” by the same things, so we do not fully understand. I found Derrida’s notions about the ear of the other (having a “keen ear”) and otobiography quite compelling, as I think his theories regarding the signature rather important to my own research on Warhol. It is our job as the reader (of literature or of art) to be responsible readers, and to find the imprint of the author or artist in his or her works. It is also important that the author or artist is responsible in speaking the self in his or her own creations whether it be literature or art.

How have our readings and class discussions affected me in my own speaking of myself and in my own autobiographical practices? I confess that I have never blogged before, and this has been a new venture for me. It is a bit scary to think about how much information is easily accessible online and how much of that information is untrue. I do find myself encountering the autobiographical more often. I find it in my interactions with others, in reading various texts that are not autobiographies, and even in my other classes. I think I encounter the autobiographical more frequently because this class has heightened my awareness of the subject, and my understanding of what “autobiographical” may be has expanded. The autobiographical impulse seems to be innate in everyone. People like to talk about themselves, and even if they do not, imprints of self can be found in what they say and how they say what they say.

What is also interesting is that taking this class and learning theories of autobiography has challenged my view of art as being autobiographical. Yes, art is autobiographical, but where is it located? Where is the signature located? It is not just found in the actual signing of the name by the artist’s hand. It is also not simply found in the subject chosen by the artist. It is also found in the way the artist creates his or her artworks, how he or she cuts up the composition, and what it is about the art that makes it his or her work. This of course brings me back to Derrida’s notions of the signature. Perhaps more than any other theorist, I am taking away Derrida with me. I must confess that I am excited to expand my knowledge of his ideas next semester, and perhaps understand more fully how it relates to my research on Warhol.

These are my reflections upon the autobiographical impulse and the readings we were assigned over the course of the semester. I suppose this assignment is autobiographical in and of itself. These are my own confessions about autobiographical practice. I am leaving my own imprint that one could attempt to locate in the paragraphs of this final blog post. Although at times this class has been challenging, I have enjoyed the challenge and I will take away a new not-so-generic view of autobiography and notions of the autobiographical impulse. Thank you! Amanda Davis

Post-Presentation Post: Lingering Thoughts About Warhol's Imprints of Self (and Artist)

I would like to respond to the question posed about the notion of the imprint of the self versus the imprint of the artist. How are these two different? Where do they converge? How does this change the imprint? I suppose ultimately it would be impossible to completely separate the imprint of the artist from the imprint of the self. Warhol was the artist who was creating the work of art. Can we ever separate Warhol the artist from Warhol the person? Certainly not completely. However, could we locate imprints of Warhol as the artist and imprints of Warhol's self? I think we could try.

I would like to suggest that if we attempt to locate the artist imprint, we could use Derrida's notions of the Signature and Citation. Perhaps the artist's imprint can be located in the cutting of the composition and the addition of pop symbols into the Last Supper image. The way that he arranges the pop symbols may be somewhat more complicated. The pop symbols themselves may belong to the imprint of the artist. However, the way they are arranged (perhaps enhancing the spiritual meaning: dove for the holy spirit, the price tag in reference to Judas taking money to betray Jesus, the GE symbol for light, etc) could be a part of both Warhol's self (his religious beliefs) and Warhol the artist (the aesthetics).

The addition of the feet may also be a combination of imprints of Warhol's self and Warhol as the artist. The feet refer to his foot fetish and they refer to being at the feet of Jesus. Warhol used various images of the Last Supper - not Leonardo's image (it was being restored at the time). These images have feet, so perhaps it was not practical to exclude feet from his Last Supper series. I think both Warhol's imprint of self and his artistic imprint can be found in the Last Supper series. This further complicates the notion of the imprint of self, as it becomes something layered that cannot be completely separated. This is my attempt at explaining what I think the imprint of Warhol's self and his artistic imprint are and where they could possibly be located.

We have discussed the idea that the imprint is a rupture that is fleeting and located at a particular time. While this is mostly true, as Warhol made his imprints at a particular time. However, are we not left with a lasting image of that rupture in the future as we view the art? Does not the discernment of Warhol's imprint (the discovery of the signature) occur also in the future? How might this also change our idea of the imprint? Is the imprint what is brief while the signature is lasting? These are just some questions that I came up with in attempting to answer the previous questions.

Presentation Post: The Autobiographical Impulse, Andy Warhol, and the Last Supper Series

My presentation will be a bit different from other presentations, as I am focusing on Andy Warhol and his Last Supper series. I have come to understand that defining autobiography is a complex and perhaps impossible task. It would be ridiculous to imagine one would be able to fully understand a controversial and complex person such as Andy Warhol. My aims are not to suggest that it is possible for anyone to be able to fully understand Warhol’s self; however, I would like to discuss the autobiographical in relation to Warhol. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to say that reading through Warhol’s diaries, books, and interviews and through viewing his art we can get a glimpse of Warhol or the imprint of the artist (utilizing Laurel’s idea of the imprint of self).

I will use three different philosophs' ideas about the autobiographical: Michel Foucault, Roland Barthes, and Jacques Derrida. The ideas that come from Foucault (the Panopticon), Barthes (his own autobiography), and Derrida (the otobiography) are most relevant to understanding Warhol and attempting to locate the autobiographical in his artwork. I will elaborate on their ideas and how they relate to my understanding of Warhol’s self before taking a look at his art and attempting to find the imprints of Warhol in the Last Supper series. I think Warhol often had a layered self – a public, somewhat superficial side and a spiritual side. There are moments of rupture that reveal glimpses of Warhol’s more spiritual or personal side, and I think these moments are important to understanding the artist.

I would like to leave you with a few questions. Is it possible to ever fully understand another person? Is it possible to piece together imprints of the self in order to get the full picture of someone else? Can we really look at someone else without bringing our own autobiographical to that understanding of someone? Is it possible to locate autobiographical aspects of an artist in his or her art? Can we find imprints of the artist in his or her art? Is it possible to ever do this from an objective standpoint?

Third Warhol Blog Post

The Andy Warhol Diaries mostly presents a public side of Warhol. Is this the way he wanted to be portrayed? He had control over what he wanted recorded in the diary entries and what he wanted to leave out? Do we as readers ever get a full idea about who Warhol is as a person? Or, is it rather that we get impressions, imprints, or glimpses of Warhol? Many times the diary entries involve Warhol's interactions with others, or his opinions on other people. Do we locate the autobiographical within the interactions of Warhol with other people? This is not Warhol's only autobiographical text, and I also have read parts of his book The Philosophy of Andy Warhol (From A to B and Back Again). This book is written differently than his diaries. This book is similar to Barthes' autobiographical text. The difference is that Warhol often refers to himself as "I" unlike Barthes who tends to switch between "I" and "he" and so on. However, Warhol takes on different ideas - love, death, art, time, work, fame, beauty, etc - and elaborates on them. Warhol is good at sometimes revealing his true ideas and sometimes made-up ideas. How do we discern what Warhol really thinks? How do we discern the autobiographical in his texts? Is it possible to piece together the imprints of Warhol to get an idea about his true self? There are some moments when there is a rupture in his text or in an interview that shows a glimpse of Warhol. For instance, sometimes there are moments when his spiritual side shines through the more superficial public side. Is this Warhol? Can we see this in his art? Was his Last Supper Series the culmination of his spiritual side shining through? However, there is more to the autobiographical in this series than just revealing part of Warhol's spiritual side. He creates the series in a way that is unique to Warhol and by doing this, he signs the piece. As a viewer, we must discern where the signature is located in order to understand the imprints of Warhol's self.

Lab 3: Gordon Bell and Jim Gemmell's "A Digital Life"

As I read through this article, I admit I was a bit disturbed at the idea of recording absolutely everything, or practically everything that happens in a person's day. The authors seemed to assume that people would want to record everything they read, all the conversations they have, the food they eat, how many calories they burn, and so on. I understand how there might be some positive outcomes from recording memories for people with memory loss, and some of the medical measurements for people with health issues. However, I certainly would not want to record everything that I say, read, or do. When I take a picture or receive a text message, I can decide if I want to keep it or delete the image or text. Would not this idea of recording practically everything take away that decision? Would I become less of an enterprising individual as outside forces (technology) would govern me? I think in becoming an individual, you have to make choices, you have to learn how to manage your own time, you need to learn how to govern yourself. If technology takes over in every realm, how is that promoting the individual?

Second Warhol Blog Post

I found an entry in Warhol's diaries that reveals several different aspects about him:

Thursday, April 25, 1985:
Dr. Bernsohn says he doesn't want to be associated just with crystals because he could lose his license - he said that in Massachusetts people have lost their licenses. But I mean, if you really believe in something, it seems kind of funny if you won't take the consequences.
I'm trying to find another store that sells the sculpture of the Last Supper that's about one-and-a-half feet - they're selling it in one of those import stores on Fifth near Lord & Taylor but it's so expensive there, about $2,500. So I'm trying to find it cheaper in Times Square. I'm doing the Last Supper for Iolas. For Lucio Amelio I'm doing the Volcanoes. So I guess I'm a commercial artist. I guess that's the score. (Warhol and Pat Hackett, The Andy Warhol Diaries, 645).

When reading this entry, it is important to go beyond just the surface details, but to do this in a responsible and respectful way. I suppose each of us might read this entry differently based upon what knowledge we bring to the reading (knowledge about Warhol and knowledge about ourselves). I think what is interesting is that he first talks about Dr. Bernsohn and criticizes him for not being willing to take the consequences for what he believes in. Is he relating this to himself and his own beliefs? The second part, which seems rather unrelated to the first part when you first read it. This is the first time Warhol mentions the Last Supper series in his diary. He complains about the cost of the sculpture of the Last Supper scene he is looking for before even mentioning that he needs it for the Last Supper series he has been commissioned for by Iolas. Warhol may have had a lot of money; however, he remained thrifty throughout his lifetime, often concerned about the cost of various items. At the end of the entry, Warhol claims his identity as a commercial artist. This entry has several different layers that reveal different aspects of Warhol's self. It is still important to ask myself if I am reading this entry the way I want to read it? Can I relate this idea to Warhol's art? Do I see autobiographical aspects in Warhol's art that I want to see? Am I bringing my own self into my reading of Warhol's self?

Nikolas Rose's "Governing Enterprising Individuals"

Rose mentions the three dimensions of Foucault's "technologies of the self" - the political, the institutional, and the ethical - as a starting point to discuss the idea of enterprising the self. Rose seems to suggest that therapy is used as a way to gain greater autonomy of the self. He states "Become whole, become what you want, become yourself: the individual is to become, as it were, an entrepreneur of itself, seeking to maximize its own powers, its own happiness, its own quality of life, though enhancing its autonomy and then instrumentalizing its autonomous choices in the service of its life-style" (158). People use therapy to find themselves, to find happiness in their lives, and to feel they are gaining control over their lives. The healthy self becomes free to choose. Then Rose writes about how people often find their identities bound in their work. Work is an important aspect of people's paths to self-realization, "and the strivings of the autonomous self have become essential allies in the path to economic success" (161). I understand that people must work in order to sustain a certain life-style; however, I think perhaps Rose is taking this idea a bit far. Does a person's identity, especially in relation to work necessarily have an economic goal in mind? Perhaps I am not quite reading this right. Rose later states that consumers attempt to enhance their quality of life through acts of choice in a world of goods. He seems to be generalizing quite a bit and it feels corporate.

Niklas Vollmer, "Reading the Water"

While viewing Vollmer's "Reading the Water," I found there were many instances of layering - Niklas' father's lectures, text (sentences), his son's voice, his own voice, video shots of his father and son, and photographs. I sometimes wonder whether his father was aware of Niklas' intentions for his film. When he watched the finished film, was his father surprised? Sometimes Niklas would direct his father as to where he should go and when to say what he had to say (the behind-the-scenes footage). However, he seemed almost oblivious to Niklas sometimes, caught up in his lectures. Is Niklas providing us insight into his own childhood - his desire for some attention from his father? Is this the adult Niklas wanting the attention? His son seemed rather aware of the sentences that were meant for him and which ones were meant for Niklas for his father. Sometimes Vollmer would provide parallels from himself via photographs from his childhood and then show his son in a similar position on the beach. Vollmer seems to have an awareness to his son and his needs, and is he comparing his own relationship with his father to his relationship to his son? I found that some of the sentences flashed across the scene when his father was lecturing and his son was talking quite compelling. Sentences such as, "are you okay, daddy?" made me think of my own relationship with my father. I am reminded of Annette Kuhn stating that her photographs are photographs of families in general, for they are not individual, although they began from an individual. So, can we relate this to Vollmer's film? Although this is his film, created by Vollmer, is this also a film for children and their fathers? Where does Vollmer see himself in this video? Would he consider this an autobiography or is it autobiographical?

Annette Kuhn's "Family Secrets: Acts of Memory and Imagination"

Kuhn's overall theme is the interaction between past and present, past and future on memory, remembering, and meaning-making. When talking about the bombsite in the movie Mandy, she states that "the mise-en-scene of the bombsite speaks a preoccupation that, unspoken yet insistent, pervades to entire film: the relation between past and future. It suggests that the future is rooted in the past, that the past will leave its marks on the future" (44). The past leaves imprints on the future self. This relates to Kuhn's own examination of the photographs taken of her as a child. How her mother remembers the scene and her daughter is different from how Kuhn remembers. The past influencing the future also relates to Derrida's ideas about the signature. The signature - although may physically happen in the past - is not determined until the future. The past imprints of the signer are discovered in the future. The signature also implies a certain absence. Kuhn states something similarly about photography. She says, "the photograph's seizing of a moment always, even in that very moment, anticipates, assumes, loss. The record looks towards a future time when things will be different, anticipating a need to remember what will soon be past" (49). The text and the photograph imply a future audience with a reading that is different from the past. Discovering the imprints of the self, or discovering the signature is an act that assumes a future audience.

Jacques Derrida's "Otobiographies"

Derrida writes about the idea of the signature of the author in a written work and the importance of the ear. Derrida states that, "I speak myself to myself in a certain manner, and my ear is thus immediately plugged into my discourse and my writing" (50). He goes on to discuss Nietzsche's idea about the keen (small, discerning) ear and the larger ear. The ear is not just an auditory organ, but also a visible organ. The ear becomes important, as Derrida suggests that it is with the ear that the other (readers, listeners, etc) determines the signature of the author. In the act of signing a work is not what establishes the author's signature, and instead it is something that is determined later by the other. It is how the other reader understands the text and how he or she sees "traces" of the author throughout the text.

Can we relate these ideas to artists and their artworks? Is the act of an artist signing his or her work not the actual signature? Is the signature of the artist actually determined by his or her audience? This can occur posthumously as Derrida suggests with literature. In fact, in a way, this relates to Barthes' idea about the death of the author as the birth of the critic. Is the critic/audience finding traces of the author within the work, and it is how the other understands the artist through the traces that determines the signature of the author? We could even relate this to the idea of the imprint. Artists often leave imprints on their work - van Gogh's brush strokes sometimes go straight through to the canvas, Warhol's silkscreen methods actually require imprints to be made on the canvas. Is it the way in which artists leave their imprints that will later be viewed or "heard" by viewers that will determine the artist's authenticity, his or her signature?

Jonathan Caouette's "Tarnation"

"starred" as himself in the film, he directed it, he actually wielded the camera, and he even edited the film. Perhaps this is fulfilling I am still processing Caouette's film "Tarnation" (2003) and I wonder if this film is perhaps more autobiographical than any other we have viewed thus far in the semester. CaouetteLejeune's autobiographical contract. However, how would de Man see the film? As Caouette viewed the world and his life through the camera, they are still representations of him, his childhood, his mother, his grandparents, David, and his life. Yet, I think that we cannot throw out the possibility that this film is autobiographical. There are various imprints of Jonathan in the movie. From some of the footage, it is obvious that Jonathan admires the work of Warhol, and you can see this in the repetitions of images and photos that are intermittently shown in the film. It seemed Caouette wanted to get the truth about his mother and himself (similar to the film "Nobody's Business"). Sometimes his mother refused to talk about some of those experiences or the things she remembered were not truthful - does this mean that her "truths" flirt with fiction? Perhaps her mind and brain are so damaged that she cannot know what her "truth" is anymore. Jonathan seems to be rather steady-minded in comparison to tell his own truth. Yet, I found out from interviews I read that he actually has a son who is 10 years old with a girl he knew from his teenage years. This truth was excluded from the film. This once again demonstrates that the director (or author) is ultimately in control of what truths he or she exposes and excludes from the audience.

Paul de Man's "Autobiography as De-facement"

I will admit that some of the examples de Man used in his article were unfamiliar to me, and perhaps somewhat confusing. What I am struck with from reading this text is that there are several problems with autobiography. Of course, it is not something easily definable - for instance, de Man first says that title pages are autobiographical, so that could mean that all texts with title pages are somewhat autobiographical. Then, at the beginning of the next paragraph (922) he says that perhaps none of the texts are autobiographical. It seems to me that we have a problem with binaries when it comes to autobiography - the idea of the prosopepeia, meaning to give a mask or a face and de-facement. De Man states that, "Prosopepeia is the trope of autobiography, by which one's name, as in the Milton poem, is made as intelligible and memorable as a face. Our topic deals with the giving and taking away of faces, with face and deface, figure, figuration, and disfiguration" (926). The intent of an author or filmmaker in creating something autobiographical is it to reveal something about him or herself? Yet, by attempting to create the autobiographical, it is a representation of the person or thing. De Man suggests that it is a representation - a picture, image, or language - that is itself mute. We return to the cyclical diagram of the autobiographical. Autobiography as a revolving door, caught in a double motion, seemingly to escape problems that it will once again face. Autobiography is perhaps impossible, but what about the autobiographical? What Laurel's idea of the "imprint of self"? How could this be different from the problems that autobiography suffers?

Michael Renov's "The Subject in History: The New Autobiography in Film and Video"

Renov states that he privileges "a writing practice that couples a documentary impulse - an outward gaze upon the world - with an equally forceful reflex of self-interrogation. This double or reciprocal focus effects an unceasing, even obsessive, exploration of subjectivity that situates itself within a matrix that is irreducibly material and of necessity historical" (105). What is interesting is this idea of the documentary impulse and the obsessive nature. This reminds me of Reeves' video "Obsessive Becoming." He seems to be obsessed with his past and bringing certain truths to light. However, what is fiction and what is nonfiction? Renov introduces the idea of a "new autobiography." How does this relate to the essayistic (a la Barthes) and the autobiographical? Derrida suggests that these two are related - meaning is mobilized along a dynamic borderline between the "work" and the "life," the system and the subject of the system 105). With the essay, Barthes states that "one cannot get to the heart of a refrain, you can only substitute another one for it" (106). It seems he is talking about nomination here. Substitution. How about the autobiographical? Is this nomination? In Reeves' video, he uses images and text that enthrall him, and some images that perhaps substitute words that describe how he feels towards himself or towards Milton (such as the boxing imagery). In Barthes' autobiography, he uses photos that are interesting to him (they have punctums for the author). His text also mentions things that are "called out" to him. Are these aspects part of Renov's "new autobiography"? We as viewers or readers are not as fully involved as we are when the autobiography is a traditional chronological retrospective narrative, or are we involved on a different level? Are there people who are more willing to involve themselves with this "new autobiography" and people who do not recognize the autobiographical in this "new autobiogrpahy"?

Daniel Reeves' "Obsessive Becoming"

We have been debating the idea of the autobiography in writing, in film, in video, in art, and in various other media in class discussions. How is Reeves' video "Obsessive Becoming" autobiographical? How does the medium - video - inform the autobiographical? How does this video relate to our Roland Barthes' reading and his way of setting up the autobiography? I think what is interesting is that while there is somewhat of a narrative of the autobiographical, it is told in bits and snippets. Is this the life of Daniel Reeves that is described? It seems that Reeves has this obsessive impulse to describe his background - his parents, his "fathers," and the circumstances that surrounded his childhood. People who were interviewed, such as Milton's sister, told their stories; however, it was not a chronological telling of stories. There was no clear narrative, just like in Barthes' own autobiography. There were snippets, images, and words that juxtaposed the brief narratives. In my own memory of the film, I am left puzzled by several aspects of the video. There is a twirling person in a white robe, and I am not sure what that has to do with the video. Reeves (I think it is him) appears in the video throwing a gun into the middle of the lake, stating that Milton will no longer need the gun where he is now. Lastly, the morphing of photographs from one person to another: I understand that these people were related, but it go almost nauseating after a while. The video media allows Reeves to create an autobiographical account, that shows images that "enthrall" him (like Barthes) but we as viewers may be left wondering what the significance of the image is to Reeves and to us. Who is this video for? Is it therapeutic for Reeves?

First Warhol Blog Post

Reading Warhol's Diaries is quite overwhelming in some ways, especially if you had it in your mind that you were going to read the entirety from beginning to end. However, I do not believe that Warhol's diaries are not meant to be read this way. While the diaries are set up in a chronological manner, you do not necessarily need to read them in order to get an idea about what Warhol is talking about. There are events and people that are ongoing throughout the diaries. Perhaps Warhol's entries seem superficial - he describes parties he attends, things he buys and how much he pays for them, and people he has seen and what he thinks of their appearance. Yet, there are moments when he mentions going to church or supporting his nephew to become a priest that one gets an idea that perhaps there is more to Warhol than just the superficial persona he often allowed the public to see.

What I am interested in discovering from reading Warhol's autobiographical text and his art is where is Warhol's imprint found? I am particularly interested in Warhol's Last Supper series (below I have included a piece entitled "Dove Last Supper," 1987 to give you a visual). What is it about these pieces that makes them Warhol's without looking at the actual signature? Is it his use of symbols from popular culture? What is he doing with these symbols?

What makes this a Warhol? What does the artist do differently to make it his work? I think it is fascinating that he has included the feet of Jesus (Leonardo da Vinci did not as his piece was placed over a doorway). What is the significance of feet to this piece? To Warhol? Not only has Warhol cut up popular symbols and put them into the pieces, but he actually cuts up the composition and reassembles it in a different way (see the Red Last Supper or the Pink Last Supper, both 1987). Why does Warhol do this? What is he trying to say? How do we see Warhol's imprint in these works and in his diary entries? Derrida has a few ideas about the signature, the graft, the graph, and the citation that I will also be looking at in relation to Warhol and his Last Supper series.

Olive Riley, The Oldest Living Blogger

I hate to admit that when I heard the news that the oldest living blogger turned 108 in last Thursday's class I automatically imagined an old man from the the USA. What is that saying about me and my own assumptions? I was rather delighted to find that this blogger is actually a 108 year-old Australian woman named Olive Riley. The small 17 second segment aired on ABC News definitely does not give justice to Olive Riley and her blog. However, the fact that her story was briefly mentioned on the news is significant. What does this mean about autobiography and the autobiographical impulse? I think it means that blogging is becoming more and more popular as a way for people to tell their stories. If a 108 year-old woman is able to keep a blog online (perhaps with assistance), who could not? Some of her stories and "blogging" is available through YouTube in addition to her blog. You can even access some of them through her blog. She posts conversations and different experiences she has. Are these people blogging and constantly updating their blogs leaving imprints of themselves on a website? Are they constantly trying to create meaning of their lives (a la Derrida)? Is it that this method of autobiographical practice is more accessible to others? People are now able to view aspects of Olive's life through reading her blog or watching her on YouTube...but we still cannot see everything. This would be impossible! This is the same situation as a book autobiography - the author ultimately chooses what is included and what is excluded. However, the blogging allows for more authors and a larger audience.

More Roland Barthes

If you were interested in reading an essay by Barthes, please go here:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Death+of+the+Author+by+Roland+Barthes&hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&oi=scholart

And click on "The Death of the Author" link. It is really quite fascinating!

The death of the author is the birth of the critic. We can use this idea also in discussing art and the responsibility of the critic to the artist and the his or her work (especially after the artist has died).

"Roland Barthes" by Roland Barthes

Barthes tends to define himself over and over again in relation to his work, sometimes in subtle ways and sometimes in more overt ways. From the pictures in the beginning, he often remarks about who had a grasp of language and who did not and he is aware of his reading and what was going on in the literary world when he was growing up. Barthes is also very aware of the ideas of Freud and Lacan - the id, the mirror stage, etc. Then he writes, "Where is your authentic body? You are the only one who can never see yourself except as an image; you never see your eyes unless they are dulled by the gaze they rest upon the mirror or the lens." Barthes then comes back to the idea of the body, images, and defining oneself, perhaps finding one's imprint. He tends to see himself in relation to his work.

On the page with the three images of Barthes in his office, he states, "My body is free of its image-repertoire only when it establishes its work space." We get the idea that Barthes feels comfortable in his study. Later, Barthes describes the Ship Argo and introduces the ideas of substitution (replacing one part at a time) and nomination (name that is not linked to the stability of parts). He calls his two work spaces - one in Paris and one in the country - his Argo. The offices are identical in structure and this is what constitutes the identity of the area.

Towards the end of the passage we read (page 60-61), Barthes introduces the idea of the plural body. He states that he has a plural bodies, some public bodies (literary, written), he has two local bodies: a Parisian body and a country body. I think this is interesting that he mentions specifically these two bodies. They are like his work spaces - structurally they are the same. However, he feels differently in Paris (alert, tired) than he does in the country (rested, heavy). Is he defining himself in relation to the work he accomplishes in each place? Does each place leave a different sort of imprint on him? And consequently does this affect his identity?

Foucault's "Panopticism"

Foucault talks about the Panopticon as a machine for seeing/being seen. This is a machine that works on the basis that one party is able to see the other party at all times while the other whose "seeing" is a type of trap is able to be seen at all times. Foucault mentions that "it is a way of making power relations function in a function, and of making a function function through these power relations" (207). This is a type of self-enclosed mechanism based on the ability to see versus being seen. Foucault mentions that this Panopticon idea relates to other social structures such as hospitals and schools, not just prisons. So, how does this relate to the autobiographical impulse? When describing oneself in an autobiography or autobiographically, is not that person functioning as the one who sees (himself/herself)? Also, as we have discussed in class, when writing about oneself, there is the intention of an audience. Therefore, the autobiographical self is also the one who is seen. On another level, the idea of being seen and exposed might lead one to conform to societal pressures. This influences the way in which one communicates about oneself - not just the way one chooses to describe the self, but also what one chooses to cut or add in or elaborate on about the self.

Michel Foucault's "The History of Sexuality"

Foucault again focuses on the idea of confession, and in this essay, in relation to the history of sexuality. He states that "the evolution of the word avowal and of the legal function it designated is itself emblematic of this development: from being a guarantee of the status, identity, and value granted to one person by another, it came to signify someone's acknowledgment of his own actions and thoughts" (58). Foucault goes on to state that we have become a singularly confessing society. According to Foucault, confession began as Christian penance - sex was a privileged theme of confession. This confession compels people to speak of their sexual peculiarity. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, with the Reformation and the introduction of medicine, confession expanded beyond the Christian understanding. People confessed to family members, friends, doctors, etc.

With the developments in medicine, sex became more of a concern. There suddenly became a need for people to be biologically responsible. People needed to be responsible about who they were having sex with as there was the spread of venereal diseases, people could have genetically problematic children, and many other problems. First sexual consciousness began with the bourgeois families and it was not until later that this became more of a concern with the working class. This happened as working class families were given access to birth control, they became organized conventional families, and the development of the juridical and medical control of perversions in order to protect society. Psychoanalysis became a way to alleviate the effects of repression of sexual perversion - it allowed people to confess perversions within a discourse.

What does this mean in relation to the self? Foucault is talking about confession as a way to speak truth about oneself, and in particular, a way to talk about one's sexuality. Medicine has a role here - one must confess to the doctor in order to get a proper diagnosis. We often confide in others who are close to us about our sexuality; however, it usually remains something hidden inside. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (even today) was the confession forced in the confessional? Is the confession nowadays less forced? Do we speak more freely now? How does this help us construct ourselves? Or is this type of confession destructive? Does it relate to freedom and power?

Alan Berliner's "Nobody's Business"

Alan Berliner's film "Nobody's Business" is about his father's life as well as his own life. It is difficult to separate Oscar's autobiography from Alan's autobiography at times. Where can one locate their separate autobiographical imprints? It was difficult for Alan to get his father to talk about his background, where he came from, and why he had become such a loner. He kept telling his son that he was not interested in the past, and could not imagine why Alan would be so interested in the past to make a film out of it. Alan seemed to want to discover something deeper about his family and about himself. There were a lot of issues of which he was unaware - he did not even really understand his own parents' divorce. Attempting to piece his background together, Alan used archival materials, he asked various relatives questions, he viewed old 8 mm home films, and he asked his father many personal questions. He stretched Oscar's patience. Did Alan end up with a better picture of who he was through the process of making the film? Was his aim to get his father interested in his own background? For whom is this film intended? Is this a film for Alan? For Oscar? Who is Alan's intended audience?

Michel Foucault's "About the Beginning of the Hermeneutics of the Self"

Michel Foucault discusses the hermeneutics of the self and what this meant from a pagan philosophical viewpoint and how it changed with the introduction of Christianity. Foucault is interested in how people verbalize confessions and how this leads to a definition of self. How do people define themselves? There are three major types of techniques in human societies: production, signification, and domination. While Foucault mentions that techniques of domination were important when concerned with the knowledge of the subject (or self), he believes that perhaps there needed to be a new techniques for the technology of self.

The two most important techniques for the discovery of the truth of the self are the examination of one’s conscience and confession. These two techniques transformed from the pagan era to the Christian era. Before Christianity, and especially with the Stoics, it was important for people to examine their thoughts and actions of the day in order to “know yourself.” In philosophical schools, the relationship between the master and student was important for verbalization about the truth of oneself. Seneca describes himself examining his thoughts and actions of the day – he had a system of knowing when his actions fell short and when his actions were wrong. He played administrator for himself – he was both judging his actions and being judged. With the introduction of Christianity, the focus of the confession shifted from examining one’s actions to examining one’s thoughts. How did they line up in accordance with God? The focus was on confessing one’s thoughts to a spiritual leader. With this transformation is when hermeneutics of the self begins.

What is transformed during the shift from pagan to Christian confession? In pagan philosophical confessions, the aim is truth. Truth is obtained by rhetorical explanation. The desire is to create a self where the will and knowledge are united. With Christianity, the desire is to discover the self by examining what is hidden inside the self. This is the difference. Foucault believes that modern hermeneutics of the self is rooted in Christian techniques more than the Classical (pagan) techniques. Just the very fact that he uses this term “hermeneutics” implies this in a way. Christians making confession is not an act but as a life-long affair. Self-revelation occurs at the moment of exomologesis (at the moment of reconciliation). Exomologesis is a representation of certain kind of death. It is the will attempting to free itself from the body. At the moment of the verbalization or confession, there is a renouncing of self that occurs. The question of the self becomes paradoxical: “we have to sacrifice the self in order to discover the truth about ourself, and we have to discover the truth about ourself in order to sacrifice ourself” (221). With the sacrifice of the self, a loss of self, how is autobiography possible? How is the autobiographical possible if there is ultimately a loss of the self?

Rene Descartes' "Discourse on Method, Optics, Geometry, and Meterology"

Descartes begins his discourse by actually giving it the title "Discourse on the Method for Rightly Directing One's Reason and Searching for Truth in the Sciences." Descartes is really laying out his purpose here in the lengthy title. Then, further, he describes what he is going to do in six parts. If we, as readers were to be convinced that Descartes was going to give us the method to follow in order to "rightly" direct our reason and search for truth, we would be disappointed. For, Descartes then states that his intention, "is not to teach here the method which everyone must follow in order to direct his reason correctly, but only to show the manner in which I have tried to direct mine" (5). So, is Descartes claiming that his method is the method that one should use? It seems that this first part reads more like an autobiographical story of his search for truth.

Descartes describes his journey - he first began by reading books, because "the reading of good books is like a conversation with the greatest gentlemen of past ages" (6). He read poetry, mathematics, theology, philosophy, and etcetera. Then, he gave up reading to go traveling. Everywhere he would reflect upon the things that occurred to him so that he might find truth in each man's reasoning. He wanted to distinguish the true from the false. He then took all this information to study within himself, and was most successful. Descartes sets up his own journey in order to give some foundation to his findings.

In the fourth part of Descartes' discourse is when he really struggles with his search for truth. His truth is his most famous phrase: "I think, therefore I am" (27-28). His soul - the "me" is separate from the body. Descartes really struggles to define himself in relation to God and truth and reason. Would I use the same "method" that Descartes used to discover truth? Most definitely not. While he claims that not everyone must use this method, I think he believes most differently. Otherwise, he would have titled his essay, "Discourse on the Method for How I Rightly Directed My Reason and Searched for Truth in the Sciences." There are quite a few traces of Descartes' self in his writing for it to be so generalized.

Michelle Citron's "What's Wrong with This Picture?"

After reading this chapter by Citron, I admit I understand how Daughter Rite fits into our course and discussions of autobiography. The chapter is written in two parts that run next to each other and are related to one another but they are completely different writings in themselves. Daughter Rite similarly portrays two different videos going on - one with the narration and manipulated home videos, and the other being the story of the two sisters visiting their mother and recalling stories from their childhood and adolescence. Citron explains that the film communicates the universal idea of girls getting frustrated and upset with their mothers. The stories are not always her stories. Where do we locate the autobiographical aspect in this film? Is it merely in the manipulated home videos? What is interesting to me is how Citron uses Daughter Rite not only to describe her own frustrations about her mother, but she also uses the video (the home video bits) as a sort of therapy for herself and her mother. Hershman uses her diaries as a sort of "talk cure" where she talks out her problems. Retrospectively, Citron finds a clip from a home video where she somewhat inappropriately manhandles her sister (who feels uncomfortable about it), and this is where she locates her dealing with the incest she experienced. Her mother was able to talk to Citron about her own experiences with incest after viewing Daughter Rite, and instead of getting frustrated with her mother, they form a closer relationship. It reminds me of Benjamin's claim (I know, back to Benjamin) that the camera can act as a way to see more deeply - the idea of a psychoanalytic lens. Citron was able to see through the surface of what seemed to be two happy sisters interacting to better understand what was going on beneath the surface.

Lynn Hershman's "First Person Plural"

While we only watched about half of the film First Person Plural (1996) by Hershman, I was able to understand (mostly) what she was trying to communicate. Reading the David E. James article "Lynn Hershman: The Subject of Autobiography" also aided in my understanding of Hershman's work. Hershman used a confessional style of autobiography to deal with her weight gain and her issues of abuse and violence. Unlike many of the other autobiographical films and videos we have viewed thus far in the semester, Hershman was unafraid to confront the camera lens. She said that no one was taping her, and that alone she felt she could talk about herself in a way that she would not be able to if someone else were present. We as viewers cannot help but make eye contact with Hershman's image in the film. We cannot escape her. We must listen to her story. James mentions the idea of the "talking cure" (127) that Hershman talking through her issues of weight and abuse is the only way to heal herself, and then ultimately to find herself. What is it about the medium that allows Hershman to feel comfortable about revealing her autobiographical story? She uses manipulations of her own image and she uses other images (Dracula, Hitler, old photographs of herself) to enhance her story, or perhaps to communicate to the viewer what she thinks about herself - or is she doing this to evoke certain feelings or understandings in us in relation to her? I would be interested in finding out how the film ends. How is Hershman cured? What does she find out about herself?

Leigh Gilmore's "Self-Representation: Instabilities in Gender, Genre, and Identity"

Gilmore mentions towards the beginning of her chapter that most narratives or autobiographies portray the "hero" as Western, white, and male, and he identifies his perspective with "a God's-eye view and, from that divine height, sums up his life" (17). This certainly has been true from the readings we had for last week. St. Augustine, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Benjamin Franklin: three men telling their stories from a rather lofty position.

Gilmore uses Audre Lorde's Zami: A New Spelling of My Name to identify the multiple difficulties in defining autobiography. Lorde does not claim to write an autobiography but a biomythology. She changes the name of the genre, and this parallels the change in her own name. Other problems include her race and her sexual orientation in addition to her gender. We have been attempting to define autobiography, and this is problematic. It was mentioned in the chapter that we know what autobiography is, but it is hard to define. We have guidelines, especially involving the definition of the "I" and the author-narrator-protagonist relationship. But, is this a genre that can be clearly and easily defined?

Towards the end of the chapter, Gilmore uses four examples of what happens when there is an interruption in the autobiography - whether it is "edited" by another (Bolton), censured by the public (Tillich), written from a different viewpoint ("Dora"), or taken for another's work (Cavendish) all examples involve women. This reminds me of a canonical article by Linda Nochlin entitled "Why Have There Been No Great Female Artists?" Basically, women have not had the same opportunities as men, and they have had greater domestic responsibilities. This is in addition to social and cultural pressures on women who have attempted to become artists. They were not allowed to become artists. My mind turns to Angelica Kauffman who was one of the most successful female artists of the Eighteenth Century. She was trained by her father (much like Annibale Carracchi) and since her first marriage was scandalous, she did not have the traditional domestic responsibilities of other women. She was encouraged to become a great artist. Similarly in autobiography, perhaps women were not allowed to tell their stories. This seems to be the case from the four examples of Bolton, Tillich, Dora, and Cavendish.

Benjamin Franklin's "The Autobiography"

Although Benjamin Franklin's autobiography was not as entertaining as Rousseau's autobiography, I think perhaps it was easier to read when compared to Augustine's "Confessions." Franklin does not seem to be concerned about religion, much less the focus of his story as is seen in Augustine's autobiography. Similar to Rousseau, Franklin gives his readers a more chronological account of his life beginning with his birth and describing his background. His background and boyhood are a part of his own development. Franklin was more concerned about his own thoughts and his self-education.

In Sidonie Smith and Julia Watson's chapter on "Life Narrative in Historical Perspective," they mention that Franklin's autobiography was not published until much later in mid-nineteenth century. They go on to say that, "Franklin's autobiography becomes a prototypical narrative for America's myth of the self-made man and the entrepreneurial republican subject, specifically marked as male, white, propertied, and socially and politically enfranchised" (98). This leaves me wondering who Franklin had in mind as his readers when he wrote his autobiography. Rousseau felt he needed to defend himself, his character, and even became a bit threatening at the end. We do not get the same feeling from Franklin's story. He seems to describe himself as the self-educated, self-made man. This would make sense for Franklin's story to become an example of the ideal American man. However, this happened much later. What were Franklin's true intentions and who was his intended audience while he was writing his autobiography?

Screening of "Daughter Rite" by Michelle Citron

While watching "Daughter Rite" I was confused as to whose autobiography was being told. Does this film fit into the autobiography genre that we have discussed? There was a narrator who talked as if reading diary entries, and the narrator spoke of an "I" with the juxtaposition of old home videos made of two daughters with their mother. However, there was also the story of two sisters interacting and sharing stories/making discoveries about their mother. At the end of the film, it mentioned that the two actresses were "role playing" these two sisters. For me there is confusion about how the ongoing story of the two sisters relates to the diary-entry-like narrations. The one clear relation is the mother-daughter relationship and how daughters have a fear that they will be like their mothers - for good or for bad. As a viewer, it did not seem that the narrator, the author, and the protagonist were the same "I" and consequently, is it possible to consider this autobiography? Can it be autobiographical? If so, whose story is this?

St. Augustine's "Confessions" and Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "Confessions"

St. Augustine's Confessions was autobiographical in a very different way that Rousseau's Confessions were autobiographical. St. Augustine's accounts all relate and lead up to his conversion and to the event in which he realizes that he can no longer live in a sinful state. Throughout his story his relation to God remains the most important and central idea. We as readers must read in between the lines at some points to figure out what is going on in Augustine's life. His conversion is the screen through which we view Augustine's life.

Rousseau's autobiography is completely different. He addresses his readers at the beginning and states his purpose in writing his Confessions. There is a sort of chronology that he follows (for the most part) beginning with his birth and boyhood and into adulthood. Interestingly, though, he jumps back in time in order to support a story he has already told. We, as readers, get a clearer understanding of Rousseau's story as well as his personality (compared to Augustine's story). Consequently, it is easier to view Rousseau's story as autobiography, even though in both Confessions, the author is also the protagonist and the narrator. It is also clear from their different styles that they were written for different purposes and with different readers in mind.

Paul John Eakin's "Registers of Self"

Although Eakin stated he was going to go about studying the "self" or "selves" relating to identity in an anthropological way, his methodologies were based more in psychology. For Eakin uses four autobiographies (in addition to Madame I) to show how identity is influenced with there is a disconnect between the body and self. This is an approach often used in a psychology experiments or studies. Psychologists often study what is "abnormal" in order to gain a better understanding of the brain and how it works.

An idea that I kept coming back to in my reading of this chapter was the notion of change. According to "neural Darwinism" the brain's neural organization is constantly modified. Psychologists have studied this. For instance, when someone is blind, their sensory perception becomes reorganized. The area in their brains used for sight often diminishes so that the area devoted to touch perception increases. This allows a blind person to rely more upon their sense of touch. However, one does not need to be blind in order for the brain to reorganize itself. If the brain is constantly reorganizing itself, then we ourselves are constantly changing. Our bodies and our concept of self (selves) then are also constantly changing.

Does this mean, then that our narratives constantly change? Do we remember things differently? If our concept of self (selves) is rooted in our body and body image, then even without that break between body and self (the abnormal examples) our would bodies influence our autobiographical narratives and experiences. Perhaps we are just not as aware of this when there does not seem to be a break between body and self.

Ross McElwee's "Sherman's March"

Viewers of McElwee's "Sherman's March" might be confused about the film based solely on the beginning with a brief historical introduction of Sherman. After a few moments, McElwee takes over the narration and the rest of the film is about him with bits and pieces of Sherman throughout. While McElwee mostly stayed in the South, more or less tracing Sherman's march through South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia, Sherman did not seem to be his driving force. The film became an autobiographical story about McElwee who was on a mission of his own. We, as viewers, followed McElwee as he traveled from place to place, from one woman to another. Women became his driving force. There were moments during the film that made me feel uncomfortable - he was a bit creepy sometimes. Perhaps that has to do more with my own identity and sense of self in relation to the person McElwee was portraying on the screen. While McElwee was filming his own adventures through the South, perhaps he was identifying with Sherman by creating his own parallel journey.

Lejeune's "The Autobiographical Pact"

Lejeune's definition of autobiography is in terms of text and seems a bit limited. It is interesting that he excludes memoirs, journal/diary, and the self-portrait or essay. These seem to me to have autobiographical value. The reason for a diary to be excluded is because it is not written with a retrospective point of view of the narrative. What? Writing a diary usually records the events of someone's life after they happened. If someone records the events of the day, they necessarily happened before the writing occurred. While Lejeune addresses the exclusion of poetry in "The Autobiographical Pact (bis)" in addition to some of the weaknesses of his Autobiographical Pact, I felt that there was more that needed to be addressed.

The other issue that I had with Lejeune was his identity of the author. He stated that an autobiography written by an author using a pseudonym could still be considered an autobiography. However, later he states that the author and the narrator share the same name. Other issues of identity occur when the author is unknown. Lejeune decides that an unidentified author combined with an unnamed protagonist cannot be autobiography. I do not think that we can necessarily exclude that possibility, although it would be difficult or impossible to determine whether it was truly an autobiography.

One last issue I had was when Lejeune stated that the difference between biography and autobiography, "lies in the rather paradoxical fact that this accuracy has no essential importance" (22). This is different from Bruss who wrote about the importance of the truth-value. Perhaps I am misreading this or misunderstanding Lejeune. However, I think that capturing a person's life events with accuracy would influence the integrity of the autobiography.

Lab September 11, 2007

Justin Hall's video was an autobiographical impulse explosion. It seemed as though he had no real impulse control when telling his story. Telling his story and expressing his feelings exemplified the limits of the internet. There is only so much interaction one can have with one's computer and the camera. Yes, capture his story on the webcam, but he must call a friend in order to have an actual conversation with someone. Perhaps this is why he is feeling so desperate.

I also wanted to make a comment about Rebecca Blood's weblog article. I personally have a tough time keeping my blogs short. Yet, I think that this has to do with my inexperience and in knowing exactly what to say. Rebecca Blood touched on this in her lengthy article. While reading it, I felt as though I need some more experience in blogging in order to hone my blogging skills and to be more selective in my writing.

Smith and Watson, "Autobiographical Acts"

Smith and Watson introduce Ken Plummer's idea about autobiographical stories involving three different kinds of people who contribute to the autobiography: The narrator, the coaxer, and the consumers or readers. They take his idea further to suggest there are many different groups involved. Coaxers, according to Plummer, is a person or institution that provokes people to tell their stories (50). Some coaxers can be more coercive than collaborative. This is important to keep in mind when examining an autobiography - how much of the story is the narrator's? How much has been deleted or changed based on the preferences of the coaxer?

Just as there are multiple types of coaxers, there are various sites of storytelling that are multilayered matrices (mostly personal, institutional, or geographical). There are four different autobiographical "I"s: The historical "I," the narrating "I," the narrated "I," and the ideological "I." The boundaries of an "I" is often shifting and flexible. It is based upon relationality to others or to the Other, and as one can imagine, there are multiple others.

There are a variety of methods that narrators use to tell their stories, and "the emplotment of autobiographical narratives can be described as a dense and multilayered intersection of the temporal and geographic" (74). Finally, consumers of autobiographies are varied and heterogeneous. This idea that the autobiography is a varied and multilayered genre is reinforced with almost each different aspect of the autobiography the authors address.

Perhaps this is not completely new to our study of the autobiography; however, I like that they remind their readers that it is important to be critical and mindful of the different dimensions involved in the genre of autobiography. Because autobiography is such a complex genre this becomes a difficult task when it is not always clear which "I" we are reading/seeing, when the chronology is fractured, when parts of the story have been cut out, and so on. The audience also changes over time and location, and the meaning can change. I think Plummer sums up this idea when he says, "always and everywhere the meanings of stories shift and sway in the contexts to which they are linked" (80).

Michael Renov, "The End of Autobiography or New Beginnings?..."

Renov introduces the article by mentioning Elizabeth Bruss' argument about the subtle disappearance of the genre of autobiography. It is clear that his argument is in response to Bruss' canonical article. I agree with Renov that both Benjamin and Bruss acknowledge the change that occurs moving from literature (and painting) to film (and photography), but it is Bruss who is unable to see the positive side.

Renov uses mostly the internet and personal web pages to communicate his argument. With the invention of the internet and the advancements of web pages, there is actually an increased interest in sharing autobiographical information. More and more people are interested in creating their own web pages - blogs, myspace, facebook, etc - to communicate information about themselves. Written words are still used, but are enhanced with pictures, photographs, sound (music), videos, and a variety of other media. The creator of a web page is the author, the narrator, and the protagonist of his/her own page. Other people become involved when they interact with someone's web page. Perhaps with others responding to a person's web page, this provides another view point of the person's ongoing autobiography.

Technological advancements have altered the ways that people are able to participate in the autobiographical impulse. Not everyone must write an autobiography in book form (however some still do), and autobiography is more accessible to people through the internet. Therefore, as Renov suggests, the genre of autobiography has actually been reborn and not extinguished. It is different from Bruss' understanding of the autobiography; however, with changes in technology and in our culture, so too must the genre of autobiography change.

Screening 9/4/07: Sadie Benning and Fatimah Tobing Rony

Sadie Benning: Sometimes Benning uses written words to communicate ideas whether it is about her neighbors, her friends, or herself. She poses questions. The videos also seem to function as Benning's confessions - confessions about herself, such as admitting to skipping school, kissing boys, kissing girls. She uses a lot of close up shots, mostly of her face to include herself into the video. Is she filming herself? That would mean that she is both filming and being filmed at the same time (sorry Bruss). Benning enhances her autobiographical videos with a certain amount of shock value. Yet, there is also some humor and insight involved. I liked Benning's quote: When you are alone, you know yourself for you and not because you are with someone (paraphrase).

Fatimah Tobing Rony: Her film, On Cannibalism, is an interesting critique on the social sciences and their practices of collecting and "displaying" subjects from other cultures. While Rony focuses on her mother's ancestry, does this mean that the film is "autobiographical"? It is not an autobiography, but because her mother's ancestry is a part of her own, is this enough to make it "autobiographical"?

Bruss, "Eye for I: Making and Unmaking Autobiography in Film"

Bruss introduces the idea that with advancements in technology such as film there has been a subtle disappearance of the genre of autobiography. It seems that we cannot leave Benjamin behind, for he is the one who acknowledged the changes that came along with the shift from literature and painting to photography and cinema. Bruss focuses specifically on the genre of autobiography and compares literature and film as media. She focuses on several ideas. One of them is that in film, there is an almost always mutually exclusive relationship between the person filmed and the person being filmed. This is problematic as it relates to autobiography.

In literature, the author who writes about himself/herself is writing about "I" and there is no real mediation between the person and his/her words. However, in film, one is not able to film himself/herself while also playing himself/herself, so there is mediation. There are multiple people involved: the director, the producer, and the actor or actress are only a few mentioned. Bruss believes that the only way that film could produce a real autobiography would be if the auteur were to be the actor and the director, to be the person filmed and the person filming (which is clearly an impossibility). Even then, many other elements could come into play that influences the autobiography.

While Bruss brings up many good points, I think Benjamin's idea of the camera introducing viewers to the unconscious optics has some validity here. While film may not portray a person in a truly autobiographical way (as Bruss defines the genre), what if the film version of autobiography brings us to a deeper understanding of the person? What is more important? Perhaps with film we are developing a new form of autobiography.

Bolter and Grusin's "Immediacy, Hypermediacy, and Remediation"

Immediacy: Bolter and Grusin state that immediacy as it relates to computers would require them to have interfaces without recognizable tools so that they would be more natural. The user would then come into an immediate relationship with the contents of the medium. However, how is it possible for the interface to be interfaceless? Would everyone really be comfortable with this? Computers must have tools such as a keyboards and video games must have controllers. I like the idea of photography as an Albertian window, a singular window the into which the viewer sees and becomes immersed.

Hypermediacy: One idea about hypermediacy that really struck me, as one who studies art history is that of representations within representations and artists representing the world made up of multiple representations such as Velasquez's Las Meninas. How about Manet's The Bar at the Folies-Bergere? For there are certainly multiple representations of the barmaid from different perspectives in the painting. In addition, Bolter and Grusin mention the idea of collage and photomontage as hypermedia - for they rearrange pre-existing media. Images are often taken out of their original context to create new meaning.

Video Screening 8/28/07

Jem Cohen's Lost Book Found was an interesting film about a man trying to live in the city. One question that continued to pass through my mind as I watched the movie was: Is this film autobiographical in reference to the narrator? In respect to the city? Or, is this autobiographical in reference to the narrator in respect to the city and the composition book belonging to the man who was a grate-fisher? It seemed that after the narrator read through the lists contained in the composition book, he took this sort of mindset when approaching his experience of the city. In a sense, the notebook became the lens through which he viewed his life in the city. The narrator made a decision, seemingly arbitrarily, that changed his worldview thereafter.

Benjamin's "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction"

I am interested in the concept of the aura as it relates to art. The aura being "the unique phenomenon of a distance, however close it may be." How is an artist able to communicate something personal while maintaining a certain distance from the artwork? I think this distance allows for the viewer to more easily create meaning for himself or herself. When viewing a reproduced image of a painting, the aura is not present as it is when viewing the original artwork. Benjamin further uses the idea of distance to compare the painter to the cameraman by using a similar analogy of the magician and the surgeon. The magician heals by maintaining a certain distance between himself and the patient while the surgeon heals by penetrating the distance between himself and the patient. The work of magician/painter maintains the aura while the surgeon/cameraman penetrates the aura. While it may be easy to answer which way one would prefer to be healed, it is not so easy to state whether painting or film making creates a "better" or more complete image of the original.