This is so timely! A few weeks ago I googled my name & came upon a lesbian slash "fan fiction" about, as far as I can tell, a person's local news cast starring a Laura "Kaz" Kazdan & I was reminded of the existence of fan fic. Check my Facebook for a "friend fic" if you care a lot. Aaaanyway, here we go again:
Fan fiction is part of a larger fan culture, which involves art, internet forums, and conventions. Within this subculture a whole other sub-culture of almost equal size exists. This is the slash and gay fan culture. I read "Lime Crush Has No Inherent Meaning" because the summary the author gave it was "Xander and Oz have sex on a beach for no apparent reason." It lived up to this lofty claim, and more! Putting Oz in pink lipstick and Xander in a belly chain and adding lots of cocoa butter, the author could've been writing about anybody - nothing had much to do with the source material. While some fan fiction takes off from a particular episode or scene, I've always thought fiction in general is a place for wish fulfillment. Fans form communities based on their shared interest in a character or couple (or videos or photoshop). Slash fiction such as this one was, is a light hearted way for a fan of a show to reach out to others with the same interests (Buffy, gayness, dolphins) and share their fantasies or creativity and gain acceptance.
The next fiction I read was "Xander Harris's Really Weird Jar-Jar Sex Dream" because of the title. This combined fandoms, perhaps to reach out to more people. This too was light as air and a little wacky. Slash can sometimes be very dark; my theory is that people write fic to express things they can't in their physical life. In fiction an author can anonomously explore their forbidden desires and be encouraged that there are others like them. This is probably why there is such an abundance of slash... it is a forum for some gay teens to work through their fears and desires, gain confidence, and perhaps come out in real life (or "RL" as they like to refer to it.) Of course this is all based on my own theories and has no scientific evidence, but it makes sense to me! How about you?
Monday, December 3, 2007
Thursday, November 29, 2007
ME TOO(B)
Firstly, look out because I will be blogging again next week if you just can't get enough. On to the show: (and I will try and keep it shorter than last one, because I don't think anyone had interest in reading 6 paragraphs even if it had a nifty youtube vid....)
Jenkins makes an argument for the democratization of the film industry. In a time where a few companies control and own almost everything, youtube comes about and flips the whole model of production and consumption on its head. But what does this mean and what does it do? Fan films are hopefully a catalyst for a sort of home made genius, free of the rules and restrictions of a big studio and the ever looming idea of the Numbers.
Jenkins goes into the idea of franchises, but the main point of interest the permeation of a piece of entertainment into our lives and culture so completely. He uses the example of Star Wars, which every person in the United States has some relation or other to. The audience is promoted to active participant in this dialogue between art, ads, and mass culture. From parodies by professionals on TV to tributes by fans at home, the ideas becomes a cultural landmark rather than just a film. Metephorically speaking, it (for example, Star Wars) is a trunk all other ideas (for example, Troops) grow and branch out of. These apendages gain cultural credibility and interest through their source material, but become something all their own.
Jenkins makes the case that things like youtube are just going back to the idea communal art, like folk lore and the oral tradition. However, he points out that the Few (the owners of everything) have claimed "intellectual property," thwarting many creative conversations. Fans contest this idea, feeling as though the characters, places, and ideas are as much theirs as anybody else's. Here's something I'm sure everyone has seen, but I feel really fits. (Try telling anyone who was raised on Mary Poppins that they don't have the right to re-imagine it once their youth-colored glasses are removed. She's as much yours as that Elmo with the missing eye that your dad bought you in the 5 hours your mom was giving birth.)
Jenkins makes an argument for the democratization of the film industry. In a time where a few companies control and own almost everything, youtube comes about and flips the whole model of production and consumption on its head. But what does this mean and what does it do? Fan films are hopefully a catalyst for a sort of home made genius, free of the rules and restrictions of a big studio and the ever looming idea of the Numbers.
Jenkins goes into the idea of franchises, but the main point of interest the permeation of a piece of entertainment into our lives and culture so completely. He uses the example of Star Wars, which every person in the United States has some relation or other to. The audience is promoted to active participant in this dialogue between art, ads, and mass culture. From parodies by professionals on TV to tributes by fans at home, the ideas becomes a cultural landmark rather than just a film. Metephorically speaking, it (for example, Star Wars) is a trunk all other ideas (for example, Troops) grow and branch out of. These apendages gain cultural credibility and interest through their source material, but become something all their own.
Jenkins makes the case that things like youtube are just going back to the idea communal art, like folk lore and the oral tradition. However, he points out that the Few (the owners of everything) have claimed "intellectual property," thwarting many creative conversations. Fans contest this idea, feeling as though the characters, places, and ideas are as much theirs as anybody else's. Here's something I'm sure everyone has seen, but I feel really fits. (Try telling anyone who was raised on Mary Poppins that they don't have the right to re-imagine it once their youth-colored glasses are removed. She's as much yours as that Elmo with the missing eye that your dad bought you in the 5 hours your mom was giving birth.)
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Me & Jim
James Clifford's "On collecting art and culture" deals mostly with the appropriation of art and artifacts that are somehow "other" into our own western culture. Be they from a distant culture or a particular place in time of our own, Clifford suggests that their otherness gives them their worth. He compares collecting to fetishizing, the main difference being their publicity – possible other differences being the worth of the collection and the knowledgably the collector shows in it. A collector is expected to know about their collection – the rarer the collection and the more they know about it, the higher status the collector has earned. I was particularly interested in his thoughts on collecting objects as a means to externalize a personal world. He discusses how a person's interests are then expected to be transferred to a public means of display as some sort of form of self-advertisement.
The Western idea of collection is almost unavoidable; it's just the way we think about things. Things as innocent as children's toys are then funneled into the idea of collection, expected to be displayed and discussed. He made a remark about even our own personal belongings are accumulated into a collection of our tastes and interests, which made me think about an idea I had for a character for quite some time. This character didn’t buy any of his or her own clothes, furniture, or belongings, so instead he or she just wore and owned things they were given as a present or somehow came about another way. The somewhat ironic thing about this is that I realized I created this character with a very specific idea of collection: a collection of friends, places, and events in this characters life, a collection of the way others thought of this character, a collection of everything up until then – in a sense making this character a collector of his or her own world rather than some fabricated interest.
My own collection is somewhat reminiscent of my character’s. I have many interests and hobbies, but I don’t collect memorabilia, posters, art, books, tchotchkes... I don’t collect anything but ideas, feelings, and memories. I’ve kept as many of my childhood belongings as I could – clothing, books, toys, notebooks, pictures – and I scour thrift stores and my grandparent’s house and Target for things that remind me of things I used to have or things I saw in movies or read in books. I’m obsessed with getting a wood paneled station wagon, the idea of it just holds so much life for me. As best I can tell, its because this is the car where you go on a road trip to a small town and learn about yourself and life and maybe your mother and maybe “Salisbury Hill” plays on the radio. All of my belongings need to have their own story, their own life. My collection is most closely related to Stewarts idea of the “structure of desire, whose task is the… impossible one of closing the gap that separates language from the experience it encodes.”
Clifford asks questions about the changing view the greater society holds on collections and art and what gives them status. What holds intrigue for me is the rich, unnoticed life of ideas ordinary objects hold – but I am not society. Society places importance of expensive and rare objects. Tastes change over time, America is always choosing some foreign culture to romanticize – Indian, French, Chinese, African. More recently, at least in my social circles, older American folk art has been exalted, perhaps as a response to the larger American interest in monster collections – expensive collections of commonly agreed upon “important” pieces. The rich can decorate their homes with Picasso sketches or ancient tribal masks, more as a means of status than any particular interest. The idea of really searching for worth rather than accepting commonly held beliefs holds more merit as it turns the collector into a true collector, rather than simply a wealthy “fetishist.”
The contemporary art scene holds status, its not only the old and distant. Anything accepted into a gallery holds the possibility of giving the owner status. Like my friend’s interest in folk art, interest in contemporary art is a little less mainstream and therefore exclusive. A home with a Damien Hirst on display could theoretically hold greater status than a Dali, because it says something more personal bout the collector and holds greater meaning to a particular facet of our culture.
Finally, Clifford discusses the Museum of Natural History – something I thought about the entire article. He discusses Stewart’s idea of the inadequacy of museums. “She shows how collections… create the illusion of adequate representation of a world by first cutting objects out of specific contexts… and making them stand for abstract wholes.” I immediately remembered staring at a Chinese dress on a wall and the description of the event for which it was used underneath. However, this museum also displays things in a unique way, like snapshots of life. They have stuffed lions forever suspended in mid battle, bears forever suspended in mid growl. They also have displays that are completely fabricated, like daily pilgrim life or the famous imagined battle between the squid and the whale. Clifford even makes the point that the museum itself is a collection of an idea of collecting. Boy, Jim is trippy.
You can tell Uncle Jesse's into music because his room is filled with instruments, neon pictures of instruments, posters of musicians, a juke box, and furry sheets! Also, this youtube is a collection of every single time Michelle Tanner has ever smiled! Oh, collecting!?
Oh, and beanie babies!
The Western idea of collection is almost unavoidable; it's just the way we think about things. Things as innocent as children's toys are then funneled into the idea of collection, expected to be displayed and discussed. He made a remark about even our own personal belongings are accumulated into a collection of our tastes and interests, which made me think about an idea I had for a character for quite some time. This character didn’t buy any of his or her own clothes, furniture, or belongings, so instead he or she just wore and owned things they were given as a present or somehow came about another way. The somewhat ironic thing about this is that I realized I created this character with a very specific idea of collection: a collection of friends, places, and events in this characters life, a collection of the way others thought of this character, a collection of everything up until then – in a sense making this character a collector of his or her own world rather than some fabricated interest.
My own collection is somewhat reminiscent of my character’s. I have many interests and hobbies, but I don’t collect memorabilia, posters, art, books, tchotchkes... I don’t collect anything but ideas, feelings, and memories. I’ve kept as many of my childhood belongings as I could – clothing, books, toys, notebooks, pictures – and I scour thrift stores and my grandparent’s house and Target for things that remind me of things I used to have or things I saw in movies or read in books. I’m obsessed with getting a wood paneled station wagon, the idea of it just holds so much life for me. As best I can tell, its because this is the car where you go on a road trip to a small town and learn about yourself and life and maybe your mother and maybe “Salisbury Hill” plays on the radio. All of my belongings need to have their own story, their own life. My collection is most closely related to Stewarts idea of the “structure of desire, whose task is the… impossible one of closing the gap that separates language from the experience it encodes.”
Clifford asks questions about the changing view the greater society holds on collections and art and what gives them status. What holds intrigue for me is the rich, unnoticed life of ideas ordinary objects hold – but I am not society. Society places importance of expensive and rare objects. Tastes change over time, America is always choosing some foreign culture to romanticize – Indian, French, Chinese, African. More recently, at least in my social circles, older American folk art has been exalted, perhaps as a response to the larger American interest in monster collections – expensive collections of commonly agreed upon “important” pieces. The rich can decorate their homes with Picasso sketches or ancient tribal masks, more as a means of status than any particular interest. The idea of really searching for worth rather than accepting commonly held beliefs holds more merit as it turns the collector into a true collector, rather than simply a wealthy “fetishist.”
The contemporary art scene holds status, its not only the old and distant. Anything accepted into a gallery holds the possibility of giving the owner status. Like my friend’s interest in folk art, interest in contemporary art is a little less mainstream and therefore exclusive. A home with a Damien Hirst on display could theoretically hold greater status than a Dali, because it says something more personal bout the collector and holds greater meaning to a particular facet of our culture.
Finally, Clifford discusses the Museum of Natural History – something I thought about the entire article. He discusses Stewart’s idea of the inadequacy of museums. “She shows how collections… create the illusion of adequate representation of a world by first cutting objects out of specific contexts… and making them stand for abstract wholes.” I immediately remembered staring at a Chinese dress on a wall and the description of the event for which it was used underneath. However, this museum also displays things in a unique way, like snapshots of life. They have stuffed lions forever suspended in mid battle, bears forever suspended in mid growl. They also have displays that are completely fabricated, like daily pilgrim life or the famous imagined battle between the squid and the whale. Clifford even makes the point that the museum itself is a collection of an idea of collecting. Boy, Jim is trippy.
You can tell Uncle Jesse's into music because his room is filled with instruments, neon pictures of instruments, posters of musicians, a juke box, and furry sheets! Also, this youtube is a collection of every single time Michelle Tanner has ever smiled! Oh, collecting!?
Oh, and beanie babies!
Saturday, September 8, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)