Death of an Author

We were given a text taken and translated by Barthes, which talks about the death of todays author, I found the text incredible hard to read and understand, but understandably it was written in 1968 and has been translated from french to english, so some of the translation may be hard to replicate.

Shooting the messenger: Barthes, Foucault and the death of the Author

The birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the author

Grand Narratives or Meta narratives, which explain 'the way things are' for example religion, science, philosophy, etc, etc.

Quote from Barthes - ‘The image of literature to be found in ordinary culture is tyrannically centered on the author, his person, his life, his tastes, his passions, while criticism still consists for the most part in saying that Baudelaire’s work is the failure of Baudelaire the man, Van Gogh’s his madness, Tchaikovsky’s his vice. The explana'on of a work is always sought in the man or woman who produced it, as if it were always in the end, through more or less transparent allegory of the fiction, the voice of a single person, the author “confiding” in us.’

The important and meaningful parts of the text "Death of the Author"

Barthes speaks of the suppression of ' the author in the interests of writing, which is to restore the place of the read.

It is language that speaks, not the author. (the chose of words used that help describe and represent the meaning)

‘the author, when believed in, is always conceived as the past of his own book: book and author stand automatically on a single line divided into a before and after. The Author... exists before it, thinks, suffers, lives for it, is in the same relation of antecedence to his work as a father to his child.’

( In other words the author will have a very strong connection and view of their book, they may have personal experience and relation to the book, making it very personal to them)

Whereas ‘the modern scriptor is born simultaneously with the text... there is no other time than that of the enunciation and every text is eternally written here and now’

A text is not a line of words releasing a single “theological” meaning (the “message” of the Author-God) but a multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash. The text is a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centres of culture.

(Reference from personal view and Lecture)

Abstract Expressionism 

an artistic movement of the mid-20th century comprising diverse styles and techniques and emphasizing especially an artist's liberty to convey attitudes and emotions through nontraditional and usually nonrepresentational means

It's a form of art that allows the picture, painting, or art work tell the story of what it represents and the means, also open to much interpretation and debating among the meaning behind the work. 

Example of these abstract expressionism 

David Salle (1990) Mingus in Mexico
Gerhard Richter (1985) Station; Fiona Rae (1996) Bandit

Mark Rothko, Coloured lined drawing paintings 

Jackson Pollock paint splatting work


(Reference from Lecture)

Birthing the reader 

In today, players can literally take control of the story instead of being able to read the story, many games offer many paths in which the story of the text can change. Most game do not need to be narrated, as the player can write the story, in other words become a god of the game. 

Michel Foucault wrote 'what is an author?' wrote  'Categorisation of works by concept, genre, school, etc. ‘seem relatively weak... in comparison with the solid and fundamental unit of the author and the work.’ The name of the author, then, fulfils a ‘classificatory function'.

The author provides the basis for explaining not only the presence of certain events in the work, but also their transformations, distortions, and diverse modifications


(Reference from Lecture)

The New Questions

Michel Foucault see's text as a weapon, example of this can be seen in the anti Vietnam war that America was involved in, using words and images to combine the powerful message.

Text can be used as the same as images, an image that can show a message, hidden or not can still create an iconic symbol to represent it's statement. 

Something to Consider

• Is this an issue that concerns you?

This doesn't concern, as even today we are exploring and creating new ideas of delivering and creating narratives and messages within today's society, if we were to just stick to one style we would end up copying each other methods of presenting an important message and the people will get bored and lose interest, so by exploring new ways of creating messages within art and text is ver important.

• To what extent is the author function present in games?

I feel the authors function in today's game has greatly improved to a certain extent, Technology is allowing authors to create fare better narratives and story structures, because of the limitless advancement within technology  we are able to go to much better levels, and explore the possibilities in which we can present our new media forms.

• Is the author still a classificatory function in games?

Games today such as The Sims are even allow people to make their own story, but this still doesn't eliminate the main function of an author as an author is still present to represent the preset story's within the game, that players can continue or rewrite. It is now I see it as an ever more requirement for a good story and good gameplay to make games in today's media work.

• Or does the narrative itself take precedence?  

It seems the more and more players want to be able to play their own story's within a games, e.g. RPG games, as once again Technology is ever advancing allow players to have the abilities to create their own character, and imagination, such as Little Big Planet and Skyrim.

(Reference from personal view and Lecture)

24/10/12 Existenz the film

Existenz the film

Existenz was released in 1999 In the near-future, organic virtual reality game consoles known as "game pods" have replaced electronic ones. The pods are attached to "bio-ports", outlets inserted at players' spines, through umbilical cords.

The movie shows games in a virtual world, like the Matrix, where we follow Allegra the game designer  and Ted Pikul, a security guard who was put in charge to protect Allegra. The movie contains twists and turns and explores the pro's and con's to a virtual world.

The movies points out a lot of con's to a virtual world as well as some good ones, but what annoyed me was the whole twist to the film is that they are playing the REAL game through out the movie, and the game is being hunting down for making a game which they play within the game, confusing but understandably. 

One of the things that I didn't get, and this is understandably seeing as the film was created in 1999 was the game they were playing themselves. The game was to play as characters being hunted down for making a game, that people want to steal or destroy. Who would want to play a game like that? also there were some people that had acting roles, that seem totally pointless to actual game play. Game should involve everyone. I didn't feel like they were playing a game more like playing a role playing game in a drama class, where actors have to act on the spot, to me that isn't a game, the only game concept i agreed with a thought was a game was when they went into the so called eXistenZ game where AI followed a scripted. 

The film had many floors to it, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but like I said before, this was made around the time when games were only just getting more advanced in technology  and the real possibilities and understand that of how games work today, wouldn't of been known.


(Reference from personal view)

2001: Space Odyssey

My view and opinion on 2001: Space Odyssey, after reading Michel Chion.

Interpretation of a Monolith

I found Michel Chion view on the monolith a very personal one, he dances around his thoughts and his definition of the meanings of what the monolith means to him, which has no effect on me, as I felt and thought differently. He finally gets to the evidences to back up his view, that the Monolith represented with the film requires an effort of interpretation on the part of the laziest spectators in order to make any narrative sense. It requires that we must establish a relationship of some kind between these two shots and their content. This is something I agree with about the monolith, its totally open to interpretation, and meaning, but what the meaning is a debatable, for me it’s a symbol of power and progression. Michel then goes on to say, that the connection with the bone and the cut to space ship, can symbolize the power behind the monolith, we decide as viewers, that this object is a tool, a weapon beginning of everything man will invent. This is something I again agree with, the connection is clear within the film that the monolith gave the apes some sort of power that allowed them to progress to the next level of evolution, and the jump between the bone to the spaceship and a fast forward to man greatest age in time, probably a time for humans to yet again to evolve.

People Stop Talking

2001 highlights the problem of interpretation, is the first lines in the opening sentence, this capture me, because I already felt the film was completely complicated and very much open to interpretation I suggested in the first sentence. Michel points out the clear and obvious, parts for example the music, and images, through out the film create a form that can be impossible to understand but we feel obliged to project and try to understand, which leads to use creating our own interpretation. Michel goes on to point out something I felt strongly about when watching the film, Dave and Frank seemed cold or lackluster to us, but we forget to basis in the situation of constant surveillance, this is something I notice about Dave and frank, but I could get the constant surveillance feel from the film, and the understanding of how opposing superpower where everybody has to be wary of everyone else, which Michel then goes on to say in his writing. I don’t know where he got the evidence to support that because I never got that feeling within the film.

I think we are while watching the movie constantly looking for signs of emotion and well, being simple human, as most of the main characters are very blunt and have not a lot of personality with them, the only character I felt had personality and emotion was Floyd with his daughter, which Michel does point out, along with the coldness of the character which is there for another part of the interpretation within the film.

Interpretations: from Numerology to Alchemy

Within this part Michel goes on to talk in more detail about the theory of Numerology with the film, for example he talks about someone else theory of the number four, that the film is divided into four movie movements, that’s the monolith appears four times and that the title has four digits and a film screen has four sides, you start to see four’s everywhere. Which to me is aloud of nonsense, Michel doesn’t believe this him self and I don’t, as Michel later says you could do this with any number and apply it to the film. For me, I honest feel there isn’t much numerology within 2001: space odyssey apart from the frame in which the film is structured, though Michel does bring up another point, which is does agree upon, that the encrypted message that will become transparent once ‘Decoded’ and this is about the interpret of 2001 is some sort of hidden message to be read along a single axis to distort the fact that the film is directly about interpretation itself. This is something I totally disagree with, there is no message behind the 2001, this to me is the date that the film is meant to be set, as everyone in the 1968 believed by the 00’s we would advance so fare in technology we would be in space.

The Head of the Camera

To me the film largely relies on it’s messages and meaning through the usage of the camera’s and what Michel points out really support my idea, the use of static shots are linked with other static shocks, and the usage of close up’s which as Michel pointed out and I didn’t notice that they do a lot of close up on Dave, almost never on Floyd. The close are mostly used to diagnose the emotions and thoughts going through the characters head, but mostly with the close up’s as pointed out, on Dave, there seems to be nothing to say there is anything going through his mind.

Most of what Michel talks about in the camera gazes, and how a paradoxical is created, through the use of the effects, but what really capture my view is when Michel talks about who a camera remains fixed on a setting, once the actor has left the frame a technique Losely is used several times in Accident which it is impossible for us not to see an intention, and meaning behind this, the director has placed and done this for a reason, and when seeing it within the film we question it for it’s purpose.

Alignment

Michel comes into his prime with his theory of the alignments; this is where I can relate to his view. Michel explains the idea of a magical alignment of the sun, Dias, and the main, or of Jupiter and it’ moons, was used throughout the film to represent something magical and important about to happen. This is something I could clearly connect with and agree with when seeing the alignments within the film with the monoliths, Michel words the meaning a lot better than I could.

Ambivalence Embodied: Rhymes 

In other words to repeated situations within the film, some of Michel connection with these repeating situations or as he calls it, rhymes are debated, for me I can personally see the connections, for example, apes sleeping badly where as Floyd sleeps like a baby, I see where he’s coming from, it reflects a meaning or purpose behind it, as it shows we as humans as advanced, and of course Dave dyeing and being reborn is probably the biggest repeated situation.

Michel goes on to point out more of the connections, which again all of which I totally I agree with, Michel as manage to see each and everything meaning with the rhymes within the film, I feel. This was probably the most interesting part of Michel theory, I enjoyed, as I was able to see the relation between the connected rhymes.

The monolith as discontinuity 

Here is where Michel lays out some of the theory’s that might be behind the monolith, he points about he does this that the monolith cries out for interpretation you might say that is what it is there, as I said earlier, I totally agree this film is all about interpretation, and everyone will be different, so some people views are going to be different in a way to others.  Some of the theory’s lay out are possible for example the first that the monolith is an hour for logical symbol in reference to many ancient monuments erected instead for example the Stonehenge, in a way it’s like a message from a god, (or alien) the monolith captivate the imagination with the stubborn muteness of their presence, a mystery to man.

Many of the other theories has some reason, like the second theory a symbol of energy but I disagree with everything else, along with the other four theories. You could if wanted take parts from each one to make your own, but my theory is, that the monolith is from an alien planet, a source of energy, that when touched can create the motion needed for evolution, like the ape touching it, it then moved on to using tools to greatly enhance survival for them, and when Dave goes to Jupiter it course a reaction and gives Dave hallucinations, which put him a state of a Como where he is then trapped within his mind, and as the mind slowly dies he see himself dying within his mind till, he is a fetus.  I don’t believe the fetus means Dave is a star child, I think it means, “when someone dies another is born” and new generation to discover the meaning of the monolith. 


(Reference from personal view)