Dear FMS 040ers,
I wanted to apologize (a bit) for (the disorder of) last night–the technical glitches not only interfered with our rhythm, it also influenced our ability to work through the video examples (i.e. the empirical data that was intended to facilitate our epistemological work–to use terms from last night’s lecture). Hopefully, in subsequent classes we won’t have as much environmental interference, so that we can just roll up our sleeves and get stuff done.
So, as you saw (and heard), last night involved a goodly amount of lecture. Just so that you know, that is not my preferred style; but in this course, some amount of lecture is unavoidable. I will try to find ways around it, but (just a head’s up): on certain opaque or else congested topics, it will be unavoidable.
Apologies there, as well.
Anyway, while we are on the subject of the empirical/epistemological interface, if I might make a suggestion . . . perhaps you might care to think though the evidence provided as a means of better mastering it. For instance:
- how does the Abbott and Costello routine help us process elements like paradigm, syntagm, convention, code, and system?
- how do the Ben Carson and Bernie Sanders’ political ads help us understand the 3 elements of semiotics: sign, code, culture?
- what aspects of those political ads help facilitate understanding of concepts associated with semiotics: sign, signification, denotation, connotation, constraint, motivation?
- are elements from Plato’s allegory–form, representation, reality–discernible?
- at a more advanced level, how would the Barthes model of connotation be applied to the political ads?
We will do a bit more work on these aspects in class next week (especially Barthes’ model of first and second order connotation)–so, head’s up there. Please feel free to work through some of these points in this space and/or post questions about this on the Wiki to help facilitate our classroom discussion next Tuesday.
One final dimension before closing . . .
Yesterday we identified a few heuristics that we might carry forth in our theorization of media, including:
- Plato’s allegory;
- Kuhn’s model of scientific (r)evolution; and
- Mannheim’s ideology and utopia.
Removing the third heuristic from the realm of theory, can you see specific instances of this dualism play out in the “real world” of experience?
In effect, rather than focusing on the form (theory, itself) do you see evidence of “ideology” and “utopia” at play in content (actual real world thought and action)?
Extra plus bonus points if you can discern evidence of ideology and utopia in media form or content, itself.
If you have thoughts on any of this, we’d all benefit from hearing them!