Analysis of the Author Paradigm
People have a general tendency to want to be “known” for something. But has the internet’s ability to grant complete anonymity combined with the capabilities of the human imagination and a computer’s power changed that? I would have to say “yes.”
I often times wonder if there is a “27 Club” in other cultures. One’s with ideologies spread throughout their ways of life, such a Confucianism, Buddhism, Taoism, or Islam (most likely being the current best example). Foucault brought this back to life by saying,
“The modes of circulation, valorization, attribution, and appropriation of discourses vary with each culture and are modified within each. The manner in which they are articulated according to social relationships can be more readily understood” (Foucault, 4).
If this is the case, how is there so many examples of cultural appropriation around the world? In many underground art galleries exhibited over the internet by freelance artists and designers there is a strange style emerging. Imagine the Outrun aesthetic of saturated blues, pinks and oranges, coming together to meet the disillusion of a post-apocalyptic world, thrown into greed and corruption, under a brutal tyranny. Chinese texts sprawled out over the desolate city streets of the worlds created, with neon lights displaying bars and strip clubs against the blackness of the starless night sky. This is the making of an art style comprised of a mass fear of a dystopian future, merging with the western need for immediacy and numbness through colors and saturation. These new works, if I may call them works, are fashioned, then posted to galleries with links to a page. These pages often have no name to cite for them. The dates in which they are managed are chaotic, and it appears as though it is a portfolio for someone who is no longer using the images. These avenues of discourse feel far separated from the one’s Foucault claims are built and harbored within cultures over “many” years (Foucault, 5). In today’s world, the discourses may not even affect the “author” as the author may not even exist, which is partially the fun of internet humanities. Microsoft learned this quite recently when they used a Redditor’s discarded Xbox One ad design for one of their mainline advertisements. It has been quite some times since they were found out, but no author with the original assets has stepped forward to take ownership. The work’s legitimacy was recognized, but the author never managed to exemplify its “transformations” or “distortions” (Foucault, 6). Unfortunately, I cannot determine whether or not that bothers me. It clearly complicates the discourse of publishing and being an “author”, but is that an issue?
Perhaps the capabilities that an author holds these days have far stepped out of the limits of space and time, perhaps even perception into a mystical existence. By this, I mean to say that possibly, the capabilities that an author can now hold is on par with that of anyone else. What if a mock human rights excerpt made by someone in a basement could be drawn up with the rhetorical legitimacy of the highest authority over the matter, and sway a public or entire culture to accept it? The possibility always exists. Our god-boxes are changing things for the discourse of authorship, and I would say this is a good quote to show it,
“Rhetorical inquiry into human rights discourses examines the politics of representation in establishing, maintaining, and transforming hierarchies in social, political, legal, and economic forums” (Lyon-Olson, 205).
Hierarchies are being transformed and it is awesome! Microsoft is stealing the creativity of nobodies for the most simplistic tasks – making an ad for an indie developed video game. “Maintaining” is becoming harder and harder because of the new discourses, and it is harming the “social, political, legal and economic forums” of the old – and I love it.
I do not think that changing the dynamics of discourses will throw the world into chaos. It may make authorship harder to manage, or justify. But that will just make authors hold to their work more tightly. I would never call for a return to the origin. The old must die as it no longer adapts – pity. These days are bringing about more and more “authors of discursivity” (Foucault, 8). It is a beautiful time to be an author because of the unlimited power one may hold in any discourse, as long as their culture permits it.
Works Cited
Foucault, Michel. “What Is an Author?” The Critical Tradition: Classic Texts and Contemporary Trends, Third Edition. Ed. David H. Richter. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martins, 2007. 904-914.
Lyon, Arabella, and Lester C. Olson. “Human Rights Rhetoric: Traditions of Testifying and Witnessing.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly41.3 (2011): 203-212.
I often times wonder if there is a “27 Club” in other cultures. One’s with ideologies spread throughout their ways of life, such a Confucianism, Buddhism, Taoism, or Islam (most likely being the current best example). Foucault brought this back to life by saying,
“The modes of circulation, valorization, attribution, and appropriation of discourses vary with each culture and are modified within each. The manner in which they are articulated according to social relationships can be more readily understood” (Foucault, 4).
If this is the case, how is there so many examples of cultural appropriation around the world? In many underground art galleries exhibited over the internet by freelance artists and designers there is a strange style emerging. Imagine the Outrun aesthetic of saturated blues, pinks and oranges, coming together to meet the disillusion of a post-apocalyptic world, thrown into greed and corruption, under a brutal tyranny. Chinese texts sprawled out over the desolate city streets of the worlds created, with neon lights displaying bars and strip clubs against the blackness of the starless night sky. This is the making of an art style comprised of a mass fear of a dystopian future, merging with the western need for immediacy and numbness through colors and saturation. These new works, if I may call them works, are fashioned, then posted to galleries with links to a page. These pages often have no name to cite for them. The dates in which they are managed are chaotic, and it appears as though it is a portfolio for someone who is no longer using the images. These avenues of discourse feel far separated from the one’s Foucault claims are built and harbored within cultures over “many” years (Foucault, 5). In today’s world, the discourses may not even affect the “author” as the author may not even exist, which is partially the fun of internet humanities. Microsoft learned this quite recently when they used a Redditor’s discarded Xbox One ad design for one of their mainline advertisements. It has been quite some times since they were found out, but no author with the original assets has stepped forward to take ownership. The work’s legitimacy was recognized, but the author never managed to exemplify its “transformations” or “distortions” (Foucault, 6). Unfortunately, I cannot determine whether or not that bothers me. It clearly complicates the discourse of publishing and being an “author”, but is that an issue?
Perhaps the capabilities that an author holds these days have far stepped out of the limits of space and time, perhaps even perception into a mystical existence. By this, I mean to say that possibly, the capabilities that an author can now hold is on par with that of anyone else. What if a mock human rights excerpt made by someone in a basement could be drawn up with the rhetorical legitimacy of the highest authority over the matter, and sway a public or entire culture to accept it? The possibility always exists. Our god-boxes are changing things for the discourse of authorship, and I would say this is a good quote to show it,
“Rhetorical inquiry into human rights discourses examines the politics of representation in establishing, maintaining, and transforming hierarchies in social, political, legal, and economic forums” (Lyon-Olson, 205).
Hierarchies are being transformed and it is awesome! Microsoft is stealing the creativity of nobodies for the most simplistic tasks – making an ad for an indie developed video game. “Maintaining” is becoming harder and harder because of the new discourses, and it is harming the “social, political, legal and economic forums” of the old – and I love it.
I do not think that changing the dynamics of discourses will throw the world into chaos. It may make authorship harder to manage, or justify. But that will just make authors hold to their work more tightly. I would never call for a return to the origin. The old must die as it no longer adapts – pity. These days are bringing about more and more “authors of discursivity” (Foucault, 8). It is a beautiful time to be an author because of the unlimited power one may hold in any discourse, as long as their culture permits it.
Works Cited
Foucault, Michel. “What Is an Author?” The Critical Tradition: Classic Texts and Contemporary Trends, Third Edition. Ed. David H. Richter. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martins, 2007. 904-914.
Lyon, Arabella, and Lester C. Olson. “Human Rights Rhetoric: Traditions of Testifying and Witnessing.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly41.3 (2011): 203-212.
Comments
Post a Comment