We heart you too buddy, and I <3 Huckabee's is an awesome movie indeed. I remember appreciating it when I first saw it, but I feel like I can appreciate it more-so now. Good call.

Take Care Sam

Hey Joe,
Thanks for the feedback here and in class. I liked our discussion on how Adorno addresses the use of improvisation as a ruse for spontaneity in Jazz. I will be the first to recognize that in order to be a musician there is a great deal of involvement in the practicing of your instrument in order to work towards the mastery of it. Improv or any solo's for that matter, while being able to adapt to the situation or mood of the artist, are reflective of the style of the musician and the way in which they apply their understanding of music performance.
I think it is interesting that, as Adorno points out, that this is somewhat defeating of the concept of randomness and spontaneity as it is expected to be a part of the work. When you think of jazz you almost expect a smooth sax solo or a moving trumpet piece. It is interesting to see the similar level of expectation in listening pop music. You expect something along the lines of a rather short intro, followed by a verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge chorus and an outro. This translates into other popular genres as well; there is an almost predictable nature to the songs that fit into their category. It is interesting to think though that a group’s work can be categorized if it claims to be original.
I think that the piece we listened to in class (I can't remember the name), which aimed to call attention to each note in the song in an effort to take away the passive reception of the music as it is expected to be heard, was rather interesting. Its funny, between this and my Phil 409 Aesthetics class, I have been really opened up to seeing art, the mass media and the world in general in a different way. For instance, hearing that song here in critical theory, and looking at Warhol’s Brillobox in 409 at the beginning of the semester repulsed me to some degree. I heard the song and thought "well that’s rather unpleasing. Sure you are trying to make a point but who's going to buy your music or go to your shows if all you are doing is playing discordant notes in protest". As for the Warhol, all I could think is "What is this? Things like common brillo boxes and urinals do not deserve to be called art" yet in a heartbeat I would call Inception a work of art (still think it is). However, here at the end of the semester I've grown to appreciate what these artists of many media are working to do.
After learning that Warhol was trying to draw attention as to what constitutes art which is intended to be mass reproduced, I had a whole new opinion of Brillobox as drawing attention to the effects of mass reproduction on artwork. Can it be art if there is no way to determine the original? I find myself considering this question for my paper here in critical theory, primarily how the widely produced and consumed musical works of today affect the masses.
But back to what we were talking about. I think it will be interesting to look at how this level of self-duplication in future works by musicians works into the way in which music is developed and goes on to impact society. Thanks again Joe, good talk.

Thanks for the feedback Josh. Though I think that I need to keep the connection between the studio works and performances as what I'm showing is how the relationship between the artist and audience is shifted with the recording industry. For many, but not all of the 'sensational' artists (by this I mean being popular for a short period of time and then fading from memory, one hit wonders and such), their performances are less original and instead are constructed to a strict set of standards in an effort to duplicate the image put forth of the artist by the industry, including their sound. I'm not going to stray into the ethics of using technology to correct voices which go out of key such as voice box's, or harmonizers to change the key of music. However many listeners expect a certain amount of familiarity when they go to a concert. They want to hear songs they know, and they want them to sound similar to what they are used to.
(Examples of voice box's and harmonizers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHEtgRMajzQ&fe... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iv2NmNKYbSU&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy7n4WBUCis)

What this sometimes causes is for a dependency on technology to help the artist mimic the song on the album. For example, it’s one thing to go to a John Mayer concert and have him change up some of his riff's, it’s interesting and may enrich the experience. However, if he's doing a tour and doesn’t play any of his familiar songs, people may feel frustrated or unfulfilled. But then let us look at someone like Brittany Spears who relied heavily on the support of technology to make her sound almost identical to her CD, or Ashley Simpson who used it to do all the singing for her. (ha -> http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/828/)

As their listening base often expects the duplication of the CD track’s that they are used to, some artists are pressured into lip-syncing in order to assist them in translating the album into a performance which will be well received. I suppose one thing that I am getting at is that mechanical reproduction has only diminished the 'aura' of any one work of art, but that in doing this they generate a new aura, one of the industry its-self. By doing this the label heads escape, if only for a time, the pendulums swing of the rising and falling of popularity. Artists may come and go, but the industry remains and many trust in it to provide them with their listening choices. It should also be noted that I am not attempting to demonize the industry; I'm simply saying that mechanical reproduction has only served to reinforce the ability to subjugate the listener. What I am also getting at here is that the diminishing of the aura of an individual work of art serves as an illusion to protect the auric potency of the industry which has benefited from the harnessing of the transformation of musical culture.

Also while there has been a lot of talk about Marx recently on the blog and in class, I don’t think that at this time I would want to integrate that argument into the paper. While anything really may end up functioning to dull the senses of the individual from Religion to Music and even Philosophy, they also have the potential to open up the mind to perceiving the world in endlessly new ways, as well as the cultivation of a more whole being. I don’t really want to take an antagonistic approach to music destroying culture but rather take an exploratory and observational approach as to how music and its production may impact the development of the music culture. I hope that my use of the interaction of the recording process and performances, as well as my position on the aura, is a bit clearer with the explanation above. Again thanks for the feedback Josh, it helped me flesh out some parts which may have been unclear.

Andrea, I have to agree with you that cheating does not start with the presentation of a new technology rather it is the choice of the student. If new technologies are created to provide a wider access to knowledge there is a chance that they could be abused, given. The idea was posed in class (and above) that programs and systems could be established to make cheating so difficult that many people would opt against cheating and just do the work. However I do not think that the answer is to respond with anti-cheating technology, as I believe that will just breed better cheaters. Rather I think that there is something more important that should be addressed that everyone keeps mentioning, and that is the lack of drive or inspiration to learn in a grade driven world.
As a Philosopher and future Educator I would guess that the lack of interest in learning exhibited in many of today's students would be concerning to you, as it is to me. In this great age of Knowledge, when near anyone has access to bounds of information which but a few hundred years ago were restricted to the very few, it saddens me that so many do not seek the light of knowledge when it is almost freely given. Personally I feel, as I’m sure many do, that the student must be given the motivation to educate themselves from the time they start their education, if not before. It has to be given to them by their parents, by their instructors and peers. Part of what the current education system does incorrectly in my opinion is it provides the reality that students passively receive instruction from people who 'know things'. While a student’s journey through education is made fruitful by the labors of those who came before them, students should be provided a reality in which they are their own educator, and the instructors are there to aid their path to self-discovery. If the student has the love and drive to learn what is important to them they can’t help but be directed towards success. With the help of their instructors the student travels on their own road to discovering themselves and what it is that they will do. When this happens there is no need to cheat because when you love what you are studying with all your heart there is no way you would ever let another person have the opportunity to cheat you of your journey and of your opportunity to reveal to yourself what it is you seek.

I believe then that the distinction is made that Phantasy (fantasy) is of the realm of creation in the mind and is related to the pleasure drive but often doesn’t hold up when placed in reality. phantasy (imagination) on the other hand, exists within reality and yet retains characteristics of the Phantasy world before it is organized into the reality world. What are your thoughts?

I think that this relates to the idea that works of art exist in a realm unto them-selves as they are not of the world, but represent the images created in the mind of the painter, or their Phantasies, which may not in fact reflect reality. However, he goes on to say that “Phantasy as a separate mental process is born and at the same time left behind by the organization of the pleasure ego into the reality ego. Reason prevails: it becomes unpleasant but useful and correct; phantasy (I believe he here is referring to the fantasy) remains pleasant but becomes useless, untrue - a mere play, daydreaming." (142) Then in the lower paragraph he says "phantasy (imagination) retains the structure and tendencies of the psyche prior to its organization by the reality, prior to its becoming an 'individual' set off against other individuals" (142)

I think it is interesting that you're bringing up the distinction between Phantasy (fantasy) and phantasy (imagination). In response to your question as to if he's trying to make a distinction between the two, I believe that Marcuse is in fact trying to make a distinction between the two. There is a quote on page 141 in the center of the page, which I think you covered in your analysis above, that addresses this issue "This is the act of phantasy-making (das Phantasieren), which begins already with the game of children, and later, continued as day-dreaming, abandons its dependence on real objects." (141) Below that he goes on to show that Phantasy "links the deepest layers of the unconscious with the highest products of consciousness (art), the dream with the reality" (141)

I can understand the idea that by displaying this ironic cartoon, the view it satirizes is given some substance through the illustrator recognizing it that the view exists. Though ignoring the view does not do away with it but only stigmatizes it and allows it to go on. Although, if the goal of the individual is not to do away with it at all, but rather to simply move past it, then yes I agree that in not responding to it you do not subject yourself to take part in the conflict generated out of it.

Could you clarify what you meant by your last paragraph, I would like to better understand what context you're viewing their use of irony.

I just finished reading your article and I am a little confused as to what you meant in your last paragraph. It seems to me to be contrary to your observations leading up to this point: "The New Yorker cover gave credence by the very act of satirizing it. They make it seem like the idea of Michelle and Barack Obama being Muslim terrorists is simply to be taken seriously, considered and at most satirized." (Lipton) I'm not sure if you're describing the view that the cartoon is satirizing through irony, or if you are saying that that this was the purpose of the cartoon.

This is in my oppinion a good bit to comment on. While reading this it made me think of a story two of my friends, one Korean and one from Fuzhou in Fujian province of China. It was the story of how Confucius decided that chopsticks should be used to dine instead of having a knife at the table, as the knife is violent and in an effort to establish a more peaceful way of living that even something as small as the way we eat should be made most peaceful. Whether or not that is true it is interesting that while technology may lead to calculated and violent behavior, when left unattended, the use of a shift to a different technology as well as becoming mindful of our actions with our current technology we may shape our actions in a beneficial way as well. What do you think of this?