The Mechanisms of Power

            Although Foucault and McKeon both discuss power relations and how different types of architecture can contribute to the division of power, I believe that they are referring to power in two different ways.  Foucault explicitly refers to power as the Panopticon, where one powerful body watches over and guards another body (for example, a prison). He gives power a more negative connotation than McKeon. McKeon does not specifically refer to power, just the fact that the most important people live in certain parts of the house, which distinguishes them from the common people. McKeon also states that there is a great difference in something being “distinct” and something being “separate.”  At the beginning of the essay, McKeon touches on how the alchemists’ labs were part of their home, but they were just a distinct part of them, rather than being separate. Gradually, however, stores and shops became separate from the homes. This to me showed power because it was much more difficult to have a separate shop than it was to have one in a person’s own home. Both authors’ arguments about power are seen, but I think that Foucault’s argument more expressly shows how power is distributed.

            I think that McKeon’s argument is less convincing and compelling than Foucault’s because it is harder to tell what he is saying. Throughout reading “Subdividing Inside Spaces,” I am still not exactly aware of how McKeon feels about power relations. I would have thought that he would have mentioned Foucault while discussing this subject, and to be honest I am not really sure why he did not. Maybe he did not quite agree with Foucault’s outlook on the Panopticon and Pantopticism in general. I believe that Foucault’s ideas of power relations would have been an important factor in McKeon’s argument of power, distinctiveness, and separation. To be honest, I still have many questions about McKeon’s piece. What is his main point? Why is the evolution of architecture regarding houses for royalty and the poor important for the argument of power relations? Why did he choose to write about this topic and leave Foucault’s argument out? All in all, this essay was difficult for me to comprehend and it was hard to fully understand what McKeon was talking about.

Power and the Panopticon

        

             In his essay “Panopticism,” Foucault explains the Panopticon as a machine of power. The model of the Panopticon represents power, according to Foucault, because the supervisor in the center can control all of the inmates around him, even without doing much. The person who exercises the power holds the ability to watch and punish the inmates, who are under constant surveillance. The idea that someone is watching you at all times makes a person more aware and careful of their surrounds and their actions, and the person of power is responsible for this. Foucault really believes that the Panopticon is a model for power all around the world, and he states that “it does not matter who exercises power” and “it does not matter what motive animates him.” I agree that the Panopticon is representative of power because it is really about who we as a society think possesses it that matters. Most people would agree that in America, the government has the power. They are watching us, making sure that we don’t break the laws, etc. and they are the ones who can punish us. Even if they aren’t watching us at all times, we think they are, causing us to obey rules and regulations. If we believed someone else had all of the power, then we would do the same thing to them. This is the way that I interpret what Foucault is trying to say about the Panopticon, but even though I have pulled this concept from his text, I still do not quite understand everything that Foucault is trying to say. If the whole world worked like a Panopticon, then why do so many people still deviate? This may be an unanswerable question that maybe even Foucault himself could not answer.

            Foucault is not the only author to write about the principle of power. Berger, Bordo, and Nochlin wrote about power, but each applied in different ways. Berger presents the agency of power as it relates to art, and how the political nature of art could change the way people view history. Bordo presents power as a sort of struggle between genders, and how women used to have the power when it came to being sexualized, but in recent years, men have acquired power in the industry by being sexualized. Also, Bordo’s argument could be seen as a power struggle between the media/marketing and society in general. Nochlin’s argument of the Bathers shows that the power lies within the paintings. These paintings have shaped society’s expectations on how men and women present themselves. I believe that by reading each of these essays, it has helped me understand how power is a common theme among writers, and that the argument of power and who should have it can present itself in many situations, often unknown. I definitely think that any person who has read these essays, including myself, will be much more willing to question the world and the things that our parents, teachers, and superiors have taught us in the past. 

The Magic of Sex Appeal

                     
             Nochlin and Bordo both wrote essays pertaining to a similar subject, but they are both extremely different as well, and have many different meanings. Bordo’s “Beauty (Re)discovers the Male Body” discusses the fact that males appear much more in ads and commercials to provide sex appeal than they ever did before, and that people are just starting to realize these sexually charged ads now that men are being shown. Nochlin’s “Renoir’s Great Bathers” studies art of the bathers and tries to neutralize the sexuality of the women shown in the paintings. Both writers believe that sexuality is extremely common in everything today such as commercials, ads and art. But even though these two speak to each other in that sense, they have many interesting differences. Bordo is annoyed at the fact that women have been exploited for so long throughout history and no one minded, but when men started becoming the sex symbols, people started complaining. Bordo basically says that sexually charging men and women are equally as unnecessary, and if it is not okay that men are sexually appealing in ads and commercials, then it is not for women to be either. Nochlin, on the other hand, believes that the sexuality of women is natural, but it is not so natural for men. She really cannot come up with a solution or argument in her essay. I believe she is trying to make the paintings of naked women a normal thing. When a normal person would see one of Renoir’s paintings of the bathers, they would likely not look at it for too long. For most people, seeing a naked person in anything is awkward. Nochlin thinks that it should not be this way. Why can’t nudeness be accepted and normal, it is in fact a natural thing.

            Both women wrote on a similar subject, but they have very different opinions on the matter. I think that out of the two, Nochlin and Bordo, Bordo speaks more powerfully to my generation. Bordo believes now that men are sexually charged in magazines and movies, people are finally starting to have a “problem” with sex being a dominant factor in the marketing and advertising business. It was normal that women were before, but when men start being exploited, then there is a real issue. I think that my generation would agree with this argument more than they would with Nochlin’s idea of neutralizing sex. People have a common reaction to these sorts of paintings and ads. It would take a lot of essays and ideas presented from Nochlin and people with her same viewpoint to make the public believe that nude bathers, for example, were a common sight. Bordo effectively addressed sex appeal and how it is found everywhere, and most people can notice and relate to that. Although I enjoyed both pieces by both authors, I really do believe that Bordo speaks more effectively to me and the generation that I am living in today. 

The Ghost of Tom Joad

The two versions of the song, “Ghost of Tom Joad,” may contain the exact same lyrics, but the way they are sung and presented change the feeling and context of those lyrics entirely. I actually already had the Bruce Springsteen version of the song on my iTunes, so when I heard the Rage Against the Machine version, I was a little thrown off guard.

Bruce Springsteen starts this song off with the sounds of a harmonica, and immediately the person listening to this song would know that it has a “folky” feel to it. The tone of this song is very solemn and serene. I would listen to something like this if I wanted to fall asleep; it is just a peaceful melody. The lyrics to this song tell a story, and the beat and music behind the lyrics compliment this story perfectly. The story it tells seems to be a sort of old folk tale, something a passerby would have heard while traveling in the old West. In other words, one would have listened to this story by campfire while listening to music like this; it is extremely conventional and usual, and it speaks to the audience easily because it seems so familiar to people.

“Ghost of Tom Joad” by Rage Against the Machine, however, is completely unconventional and conveys a different meaning. This song was a heavy rock song. Though the lyrics say the same thing as the Springsteen version, the listener gets a sense of rebellion when they listen to it. It plays directly to the “rocker” stereotype that is  “we are rebels and if you do not agree with society, then you should rebel too!”  When I listened to this song for the first time, I was instantly taken out of that serene, calm setting that the other version presented, and thrown into a harsh, flawed setting because the tone of this version is obviously chaotic and unsettled. This version of the song is good, however, because it appeals to a completely different audience than the other, which allows for more people to hear the same lyrics, just presented in different ways.

It is amazing how two songs with the exact same lyrics can be interpreted so differently by merely changing the background music. It just goes to show that even though we do not think about this issue often, when we hear something familiar in a completely unconventional way, it catches us off guard and makes us question conventionalism. 

The Mystification of La Prominade

La Prominade by Claude Monet perfectly describes the “silent, yet inviting” painting. This famous painting by Monet seems very still and most people who view it would probably think to themselves “Oh, what a lovely and beautiful piece of art,” but it is so much more than that. There are so many questions that could be asked about what Monet was thinking when he created this piece.

The first question I would ask is who are the woman and little boy in the painting? I want to know if Monet was thinking of two certain people in mind when we painted this piece.  The first thing that comes to my mind is that Monet was actually depicting himself as a child with his own mother. Of course, I could be totally wrong, but it seems like a logical explanation. Also, the woman in the painting has a look of despair.  It makes me believe that she is either contemplating something really important in her life, or she is truly unhappy about something.  She is also holding an umbrella, which could be shielding her from the world, or she does not want others to see her sadness. The look on her face is juxtaposed to the colors that Monet chose to use in this painting. The blues and greens used in this piece are whimsical and serene, yet the facial expressions are of dismay. This confuses me a little, so I would love to be able to ask Monet what meaning he is trying to convey with the expressions.

Another question I would love to ask is why the little boy in the painting only has eyes, and no more facial features. To me, it seems that he is troubled, almost as if he cannot decide whether or not he is happy or sad. If the little boy is a depiction of Monet as a child, maybe Monet was trying to portray his childhood’s lack of identity. For example maybe he was always in the shadows of others and neglected when he was young. He also may have had great times as a child; it is very hard to tell.

All in all, La Prominade may be “silent and still,” but there are so many questions to be asked of it. Berger believes that when a painting is not in its original form, it looses its “time” and “mystification,” and does not truly show all of the emotions that are supposed to be conveyed when someone views it. I really do not think this is the case, because if someone wants to look deeper into the meaning of a painting, or even a text, they can get many different meanings out of it, yet still have many questions left. 

THIS IS A TEST.

I am just writing this now to see if I am doing everything correctly! I am quite new at this whole blog ordeal.