http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/an-interview-with-simon-donald-about-viz-magazine/10693.html
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
VIZ INTERVIEWS
http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/an-interview-with-simon-donald-about-viz-magazine/10693.html
ARTWORKS
The Good & The Evil - Crayon, pen & ink on magazine photo.
Postcards from the Edge (IRAQ) - Acrylic, pen & ink on paper.
Pedro Dumpty (Revised Nursery Rhyme) - Crayon, pen & ink on paper.
Chinese Arts Centre Project
'Chinese New Year (Year of the Rabbit) Workshop & Wall Art'
After discussions with the Chinese Arts Centre, Northern Quarter, Manchester. I will be commissioned to write a workshop (8 - 16 years old) and create a piece of art for the introduction wall to the main gallery space based on Chinese New Year; this year it is the 'Year of the Rabbit'.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
The Neverending Fight to be Master of the Balloon People
Video Animation by Stephen C. Nuttall & Cara Hayes.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
FUCK YOU BILL BOOK COMPLETE
After a few months of hard work the 'Fuck You Bill' book has been printed and bound...
Friday, November 12, 2010
James and the Giant Peach Competition (2)
James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
An enormous, angry rhinoceros that has escaped from London Zoo has eaten James’s parents. And it gets worse! James is packed off to live with his two really horrible aunts, Sponge and Spiker. Poor James is miserable, until something peculiar happens and James finds himself on the most wonderful and extraordinary journey he could ever imagine …
James and the Giant Peach will be fifty in 2011. First published in 1961 it has become one of the most loved of Roald Dahl’s stories, appealing to readers of all ages. Dahl was a master of language and of making up words. His stories are full of fabulous visual twists and turns.
Students are invited to design a whole new cover look for this iconic title, reinventing it for a new generation of readers, encouraging children (and adults) to revisit it and ensuring that it remains an integral part of childhood for the next fifty years.
Your cover design needs to include all the cover copy as supplied and be designed to the specified design template (B format, 198mm high x 129mm wide, spine 12mm wide).
What the judges are looking for:
We are looking for a striking cover design that is well executed, has an imaginative concept and clearly places the book for its market of both children (to pick up and buy for themselves) and adults (to buy for children). While all elements of the jacket need to work together as a cohesive whole, remember that the front cover needs to be able to work on its own and be eye-catching within a crowded bookshop setting.
The winning design will need to:
have an imaginative concept and original interpretation of the brief
be competently executed with strong use of typography
appeal to the broadest possible audience for the book
show a good understanding of the marketplace
have a point of difference from the many other book covers it is competing against be able to sit on the shelves of a supermarket as easily as it sits on those of more upmarket bookshops such as Waterstone’
1. DEADLINE FOR ENTRIES
The closing date for entries is 5 p.m. on Friday 15 April 2011. This site will accept entries from Monday 17 January 2011.
2. ELIGIBILITY
To be eligible for the 2011 competition, you must be a student on any year of an Art or Design course at HND or degree level. The competition is open to international students and to MA students. The competition is not open to students on an Art Foundation course.
There can be only one named entrant per entry.
3. DESIGNS
You are permitted to enter designs for both the Penguin Adult Prize and the Puffin Children’s Prize. You may not enter more than one design for each category.
4. SUBMISSIONS
All entries must be submitted digitally via an online link which will be made available on this site from Monday 17 January 2011.
Entries must supplied in the following format:
PDF
300ppi
CMYK
5mm bleed
Ideally colour managed to ISO Coated 39 or ISO Uncoated 29 (optional)
Trim and crop marks to be included
Hard-copy entries will not be accepted.
5. CONDITIONS OF ENTRY
Closing date for receipt of entries is 5 p.m. on Friday 15 April 2011.
No purchase necessary to enter the competition.
This competition is open to students of any year of an Art or Design course at HND or degree level, international students and to MA students. This competition is not open to students on an Art Foundation course or employees of Penguin, their families, agents and anyone else connected with this competition.
No responsibility can be accepted for incorrectly uploaded entries. Entries via agents or third parties are invalid.
All correctly completed entries will be forwarded to a judging panel made up of the Penguin Art Directors, the Penguin General Managing Director and guest judges for the Penguin Adult Prize and the Puffin Art Director, Puffin Managing Director and guest judges for the Puffin Children’s Prize, who will select a shortlist of entries for each category.
The shortlist will be announced on this website by 18 May 2011.
The shortlisted entrants will be notified in writing by 18 May 2011 and invited to resubmit their entry following feedback and further art direction from the Penguin/Puffin Art Directors. The closing date for the shortlisted entrants’ resubmissions is 1 June 2011.
Shortlisted entrants will be required to provide the following submissions for each design entry:
An A3 board showing the full jacket to scale 1:1.
The design mocked-up on a book (which Penguin will supply).
A short, typewritten text (max. 50—100 words only) submitted as a Word document, explaining the concept for your design.
An A3 board demonstrating the development of the thought process from the original research to the final concept.
A high resolution PDF and Jpeg of the front cover and full cover design on CD.
The sender must prepay all shipping costs, insurance, customs duties and handling fees for all entries.
The Promoter accepts no responsibility for the loss of or damage to any portfolios or other cases in which shortlisted entrants may send their resubmissions.
A first-, second- and third-prize winner will be selected from each category for the Penguin Adult Prize and the Puffin Children’s Prize. The winners will be the designs which, in the opinion of the judges, best fulfil the brief from all entries received. The first-prize winner of the Penguin Adult Prize will receive a six-week work placement in the Penguin Design Studio and a cash prize of £1,000. The first-prize winner of the Puffin Children’s Prize will receive a four-week work placement in the Puffin Design Studio and a cash prize of £1,000. The second-prize winners of the Penguin Adult Prize and Puffin Children’s Prize will each receive a cash prize of £350. The third-prize winners of the Penguin Adult Prize and Puffin Children’s Prize will each receive a cash prize of £250.
The prizes are non-transferable and no cash alternative will be offered to the first-prize winners. However, if, at the sole discretion of the judges, none of the entries in either or both categories is of a sufficiently high standard to merit the awards, no prizes, or only second and third prizes, may be awarded.
The winners will be announced at the awards ceremony in June 2011. The winners’ details will be made available after the awards ceremony on this website.
Events may occur that render the design competition itself or the awarding of the prizes impossible due to reasons beyond the control of Penguin. Penguin may, at its absolute discretion, vary or amend the promotion, and the winners agree that no liability shall attach itself to Penguin, provided that any prize shall not be of lesser value than the one advertised.
The decision of the judges is final and correspondence will be entered into only at the absolute discretion of Penguin.
The winners agree to take part in reasonable post-event publicity and to the use of their names and photographs in such publicity.
All entrants hereby license to Penguin the use of their entry for display on any Penguin-owned website and for display in a physical exhibition. Appropriate credits will be given to each item displayed, but Penguin shall not be under an obligation to hold such exhibitions, or to include every entry if it does. Each entrant warrants to Penguin that his/her entry is original, and made without the inclusion of material owned by any third party.
Entries will not be returned to entrants.
Penguin will use any data submitted by entrants only for the purposes of running the competition, unless otherwise stated in the entry details. By entering this competition, all entrants consent to the use of their personal data by Penguin for the purposes of the administration of this competition and any other purposes to which the entrant has consented.
It is a condition of entry that all entrants abide by the rules of the design competition.
Promoter: Penguin Books Ltd, 80 Strand, London WC2R 0RL.
Write to us at: Penguin Design Award 80 Strand London WC2R 0RL
Email us at: mail@penguindesignaward.co.uk
An enormous, angry rhinoceros that has escaped from London Zoo has eaten James’s parents. And it gets worse! James is packed off to live with his two really horrible aunts, Sponge and Spiker. Poor James is miserable, until something peculiar happens and James finds himself on the most wonderful and extraordinary journey he could ever imagine …
James and the Giant Peach will be fifty in 2011. First published in 1961 it has become one of the most loved of Roald Dahl’s stories, appealing to readers of all ages. Dahl was a master of language and of making up words. His stories are full of fabulous visual twists and turns.
Students are invited to design a whole new cover look for this iconic title, reinventing it for a new generation of readers, encouraging children (and adults) to revisit it and ensuring that it remains an integral part of childhood for the next fifty years.
Your cover design needs to include all the cover copy as supplied and be designed to the specified design template (B format, 198mm high x 129mm wide, spine 12mm wide).
What the judges are looking for:
We are looking for a striking cover design that is well executed, has an imaginative concept and clearly places the book for its market of both children (to pick up and buy for themselves) and adults (to buy for children). While all elements of the jacket need to work together as a cohesive whole, remember that the front cover needs to be able to work on its own and be eye-catching within a crowded bookshop setting.
The winning design will need to:
have an imaginative concept and original interpretation of the brief
be competently executed with strong use of typography
appeal to the broadest possible audience for the book
show a good understanding of the marketplace
have a point of difference from the many other book covers it is competing against be able to sit on the shelves of a supermarket as easily as it sits on those of more upmarket bookshops such as Waterstone’
1. DEADLINE FOR ENTRIES
The closing date for entries is 5 p.m. on Friday 15 April 2011. This site will accept entries from Monday 17 January 2011.
2. ELIGIBILITY
To be eligible for the 2011 competition, you must be a student on any year of an Art or Design course at HND or degree level. The competition is open to international students and to MA students. The competition is not open to students on an Art Foundation course.
There can be only one named entrant per entry.
3. DESIGNS
You are permitted to enter designs for both the Penguin Adult Prize and the Puffin Children’s Prize. You may not enter more than one design for each category.
4. SUBMISSIONS
All entries must be submitted digitally via an online link which will be made available on this site from Monday 17 January 2011.
Entries must supplied in the following format:
300ppi
CMYK
5mm bleed
Ideally colour managed to ISO Coated 39 or ISO Uncoated 29 (optional)
Trim and crop marks to be included
Hard-copy entries will not be accepted.
5. CONDITIONS OF ENTRY
Closing date for receipt of entries is 5 p.m. on Friday 15 April 2011.
No purchase necessary to enter the competition.
This competition is open to students of any year of an Art or Design course at HND or degree level, international students and to MA students. This competition is not open to students on an Art Foundation course or employees of Penguin, their families, agents and anyone else connected with this competition.
No responsibility can be accepted for incorrectly uploaded entries. Entries via agents or third parties are invalid.
All correctly completed entries will be forwarded to a judging panel made up of the Penguin Art Directors, the Penguin General Managing Director and guest judges for the Penguin Adult Prize and the Puffin Art Director, Puffin Managing Director and guest judges for the Puffin Children’s Prize, who will select a shortlist of entries for each category.
The shortlist will be announced on this website by 18 May 2011.
The shortlisted entrants will be notified in writing by 18 May 2011 and invited to resubmit their entry following feedback and further art direction from the Penguin/Puffin Art Directors. The closing date for the shortlisted entrants’ resubmissions is 1 June 2011.
Shortlisted entrants will be required to provide the following submissions for each design entry:
An A3 board showing the full jacket to scale 1:1.
The design mocked-up on a book (which Penguin will supply).
A short, typewritten text (max. 50—100 words only) submitted as a Word document, explaining the concept for your design.
An A3 board demonstrating the development of the thought process from the original research to the final concept.
A high resolution PDF and Jpeg of the front cover and full cover design on CD.
The sender must prepay all shipping costs, insurance, customs duties and handling fees for all entries.
The Promoter accepts no responsibility for the loss of or damage to any portfolios or other cases in which shortlisted entrants may send their resubmissions.
A first-, second- and third-prize winner will be selected from each category for the Penguin Adult Prize and the Puffin Children’s Prize. The winners will be the designs which, in the opinion of the judges, best fulfil the brief from all entries received. The first-prize winner of the Penguin Adult Prize will receive a six-week work placement in the Penguin Design Studio and a cash prize of £1,000. The first-prize winner of the Puffin Children’s Prize will receive a four-week work placement in the Puffin Design Studio and a cash prize of £1,000. The second-prize winners of the Penguin Adult Prize and Puffin Children’s Prize will each receive a cash prize of £350. The third-prize winners of the Penguin Adult Prize and Puffin Children’s Prize will each receive a cash prize of £250.
The prizes are non-transferable and no cash alternative will be offered to the first-prize winners. However, if, at the sole discretion of the judges, none of the entries in either or both categories is of a sufficiently high standard to merit the awards, no prizes, or only second and third prizes, may be awarded.
The winners will be announced at the awards ceremony in June 2011. The winners’ details will be made available after the awards ceremony on this website.
Events may occur that render the design competition itself or the awarding of the prizes impossible due to reasons beyond the control of Penguin. Penguin may, at its absolute discretion, vary or amend the promotion, and the winners agree that no liability shall attach itself to Penguin, provided that any prize shall not be of lesser value than the one advertised.
The decision of the judges is final and correspondence will be entered into only at the absolute discretion of Penguin.
The winners agree to take part in reasonable post-event publicity and to the use of their names and photographs in such publicity.
All entrants hereby license to Penguin the use of their entry for display on any Penguin-owned website and for display in a physical exhibition. Appropriate credits will be given to each item displayed, but Penguin shall not be under an obligation to hold such exhibitions, or to include every entry if it does. Each entrant warrants to Penguin that his/her entry is original, and made without the inclusion of material owned by any third party.
Entries will not be returned to entrants.
Penguin will use any data submitted by entrants only for the purposes of running the competition, unless otherwise stated in the entry details. By entering this competition, all entrants consent to the use of their personal data by Penguin for the purposes of the administration of this competition and any other purposes to which the entrant has consented.
It is a condition of entry that all entrants abide by the rules of the design competition.
Promoter: Penguin Books Ltd, 80 Strand, London WC2R 0RL.
Write to us at: Penguin Design Award 80 Strand London WC2R 0RL
Email us at: mail@penguindesignaward.co.uk
James and the Giant Peach Competition
James Henry Trotter, four years old, lives with his loving parents in a pretty and bright cottage by the sea in the south of England. James's world is turned upside down when, while on a shopping trip in London, his mother and father are eaten by a rhinoceros that had escaped from the zoo. James is forced to go and live with his two horrible aunts, Spiker and Sponge, who live in a high, desolate hill near the white cliffs of Dover. For three years Spiker and Sponge physically and verbally abuse James, not allowing him to venture beyond the hill or play with other children. Around the house James is treated as a drudge, beaten for hardly any reason, improperly fed, and forced to sleep on bare floorboards in the attic.
One summer afternoon when he is crying in the bushes, James stumbles across a strange little man, who, mysteriously, knows all about James's plight and gives him a sack of tiny glowing-green crocodile tongues. The man promises that if James mixes the contents of the sack with a jug of water and ten hairs from his own head, the result will be a magic potion which, when drunk, will bring him happiness and great adventures. On the way back to the house, James trips and spills the sack onto the peach tree outside his home, which had previously never given fruit. The tree becomes enchanted through the tongues, and begins to blossom; indeed a certain peach grows to the size of a large house. The aunts discover this and make money off the giant peach while keeping James locked away. At night the aunts shove James outside to collect rubbish from the crowd, but instead he curiously ventures inside a juicy, fleshy tunnel which leads to the hollow stone in the middle of the cavernous fruit. Entering the stone, James discovers a band of rag-tag anthropomorphic insects, also transformed by the magic of the green tongues.
James quickly befriends the insect inhabitants of the peach, who become central to the plot and James' companions in his adventure. The insects loathe the aunts and their hilltop home as much as James, and they were waiting for him to join them so they can escape together. The Centipede bites through the stem of the peach with his powerful jaws, releasing it from the tree, and it begins to roll down the hill, squashing Spiker and Sponge flat in its wake. Inside the stone the inhabitants cheer as they feel the peach rolling over the aunts. The peach rolls through villages, houses, and a famous chocolate factory before falling off the cliffs and into the sea. The peach floats in the English channel, but quickly drifts away from civilization and into the expanses of the Atlantic Ocean. Hours later, not far from the Azores, the peach is attacked by a swarm of hundreds of sharks. Using the blind Earthworm as bait, the ever resourceful James and the other inhabitants of the peach lure over five hundred seagulls to the peach from the nearby islands. The seagulls are then tied to the broken stem of the fruit using spiderwebs from the Spider and strings of white silk from the Silkworm. The mass of seagulls does indeed lift the giant peach into the air and away from the sharks, although the peach is badly damaged in the incident.
As the seagulls strain to get away from the giant peach, they merely carry it higher and higher, and the seagulls take the giant peach great distances. The Centipede entertains with ribald dirges to Sponge and Spiker, but in his excitement he falls off the peach into the ocean and has to be rescued by James. That night, thousands of feet in the air, the giant peach floats through mountain-like, moonlit clouds. There the inhabitants of the peach see a group of magical ghost-like figures living within the clouds, "Cloud-Men", who control the weather. As the Cloud-Men gather up the cloud in their hands to form hailstones and snowballs to throw down to the world below, the loud-mouthed Centipede berates the Cloud-Men for making snowy weather in the summertime. Angered, an army of Cloud-Men appear from the cloud and pelt the giant peach with hail so fiercely and powerfully that the peach is severely damaged, with entire chunks taken out of it, and the giant fruit begins leaking its peach juice. All of this shrinks the peach somewhat, although because it is now lighter the seagulls are able to pull it quicker through the air. As the seagulls strain to get away from the Cloud-Men, the giant peach smashes through an unfinished rainbow the Cloud-Men were preparing for dawn, infuriating them even further. One Cloud-Man almost gets on the peach by climbing down the silken strings tied to the stem, but James asks the Centipede to bite through some of the strings. When he does a single freed seagull, to which the Cloud-Man is hanging from, is enough the carry him away from the peach as Cloud-Men are weightless.
As the sun rises, the inhabitants of the giant peach see glimmering skyscrapers peeking above the clouds, and a sprawling urban city far below them. The inhabitants of Manhattan see the giant peach suspended in the air by a swarm of hundreds of seagull, and panic, believing it to be a floating, orange-coloured, spherical nuclear bomb. The military, police, fire and rescue services are all called out, and people begin running to air raid shelters and the New York Subway, believing the city is about to be destroyed. A huge passenger airplane flies past the giant peach, almost hitting it, and severing the silken strings between the seagulls and the peach. The seagulls free, the peach begins to fall to the ground, but it is saved when it is impaled upon the spike at the top of the Empire State Building. The people on the observation deck at first believe the inhabitants of the giant peach to be monsters or Martians, but when James appears from within the skewered peach and explains his story, the people hail James and his insect friends as heroes. They are given a welcoming home parade, and James gets what he wanted for three long years - playmates in the form of millions of potential new childhood friends. The skewered, battered remains of the giant peach are brought down to the streets by steeplejacks, where its delicious flesh is eaten up by ten thousand children, all now James's friends. Meanwhile, the peach's other former residents, the anthropomorphic insects, all go on to find very interesting futures in the world of humans...
In the last chapter of the book, it is revealed that the giant hollowed-out stone which had once been at the center of the peach is now a mansion located in Central Park. James Henry Trotter lives out the rest of his life in the giant peach stone, which becomes an open tourist attraction and the ever-friendly James has all the friends he has ever wanted. Occasionally one of his friends visits: the Old-Green-Grasshopper would pop by and rest in the armchair by the fire with a brandy, or the Ladybug would pop in for a cup of tea and a gossip, or the Centipede to show off a new batch of particularly elegant boots that he had just acquired. Always imaginative and creative, James becomes a successful author, writing his story in James and the Giant Peach - "the book you have just read!"
Jan Švankmajer - Dimensions of Dialogue (Možnosti Dialogu) (1982)
This stop motion animation film is divided into three sections. "Exhaustive discussion" shows Arcimboldo-like heads gradually reducing each other to bland copies; "Passionate discourse" shows a clay man and woman who dissolve into one another sexually, then quarrel and reduce themselves to a frenzied, boiling pulp; and "Factual conversation" consists of two elderly clay heads who extrude various objects on their tongues (toothbrush and toothpaste; shoe and shoelaces, etc.) and intertwine them in various combinations.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Derrida’s "Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences"
Derrida’s "Structure", originally published in 1970, is justly labelled one of the more easily comprehensible texts in his large body of work. In it, he discusses some of his basic notions of post-structuralism and deconstruction, roughly explains the origin of the school of thought revolving around these practices, and gives several concrete examples in support of his arguments. Compared with other introductory essays by post-structuralist theorists, "Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences" remains one of the key texts of basic post-structuralist thought, and appears to be a good introduction to Derrida’s work.
Rather than arguing a specific point based on the evidence he gives, Derrida writes what at certain points almost resembles an ultra-brief history of structural and post-structural thought. It is in this essay, too, where he introduces a number of terms that are essential for an understanding of his own theories (such as his concept of "play"). Most of Derrida’s theoretical constructs, however, although obviously alluded to, are not mentioned explicitly. While spending a good amount of time describing what he elsewhere called "logocentrism", for example, Derrida never explicitly formulates these thoughts in "Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences".
As in most of his writing, here, too, Derrida applies much of what he writes about to the way he writes (It is no secret that it is exactly this practice of writing that makes it so difficult to read Derrida.). As usual, he "means" much more than merely what is perceivable on the surface of his text. Accordingly, this essay simultaneously deals with several topics that are never actually named. The basic deconstructive procedure of detecting, questioning and upsetting dichotomies, for example, is performed on the traditional metaphysical concept of "structure", but not put in the foreground. In reading this one -- much as any other -- of Derrida’s texts, we thus have to act exactly as he advises us to in his own readings of other texts: Look for meaning not only in declarative and prescriptive passages of texts, but in the margins, the gaps, "between the lines".
In "Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences", Derrida starts off hinting at an "event", a "rupture", that brought about a revolutionary change in the history of the concept of structure. (He later goes on to state that this rupture marks the transition from structuralism to post-structuralism, along with all the ideas and theories that led to it.) Derrida then goes on to recapitulate what, up to that point, the general ideas of structure where. He shows that the whole history of the concept of structure itself can be seen as functioning within one system, one structure, namely that of metaphysics (part of which is logocentrism). What all those concepts have in common is that they imagine structures as organized around a center. But since this center -- be it God, freedom, man, happiness, consciousness, etc. -- can not be affected by the structure surrounding it, it has to be seen as residing outside of the system, as not actually being in the center. Although constituting the axis around which everything revolves, the center – i.e. the source, goal, and explanation of All – is not part of the system it defines, it is not located in its center.
At the time "when language invaded the universal problematic" (a recurring hint in Derrida's writing at Sausurre’s theories), it was necessary to begin to think that none of the structures discussed have centers, and it is this moment when, according to Derrida, the "rupture" referred to in the opening paragraph occurred. The simple fact that signs define themselves by their relationship to other signs implies that there can not be "a center" – neither within nor without the system (or ‘structure’), since this ultimate sign (the 'transcendental signifier') could not be defined without reference to yet another sign.
Derrida goes on to list a number of influential thinkers who were important in propagating this shift from structuralist to post-structuralist thought (among them Nietzsche, Freud, and Heidegger). What all the new theories and concepts had in common is that -- even though they claimed to be aware of the predicaments -- they still operated from within a metaphysical system. The new generation of philosophers articulating them were for the most part quite ignorant of the fact that it is impossible to escape the metaphysical system, as long as one does not want to abandon the concept of the sign altogether.
This general transition from a belief in structures with centers to a belief in decentered structures has, according to Derrida, relevance in connection with what is generally called "human sciences". Ethnology, he argues, is an academic discipline that could only be born within a metaphysical system (that of ethnocentrism) that had a center (Europe). After "the rupture", of course, these perspectives had to be revised. In giving a more detailed example, Derrida discusses the theoretical work of Claude Lévi-Strauss, who -- surprisingly early -- thought and argued in accordance with much of what Derrida formulated much later, but was clearly positioned within a metaphysical system. Derrida analyzes Lévi-Strauss’ treatment of the nature/culture dichotomy, as well as his studies of mythology. At the same time – in good Derridaen fashion – he takes the opportunity to examine Lévi-Strauss’ methods and modes of arguing. This instance is a good example of how Derrida usually treats texts he works with on multiple layers, and how he works his theories into his own text-about-another-text. He writes about Lévi-Strauss that "his discourse [...] reflects on itself and criticizes itself" (116) -- which is exactly what Derrida himself does with both the text he uses to support his argument (Lévi-Strauss’), and with his own writing. Other deconstructive features of Lévi-Strauss’ text that Derrida mentions include the setting up and questioning of dichotomies, the exposure of the fragmentedness and decenteredness of texts (here myths, and -- following Lévi-Strauss’ argument -- ultimately language itself), the impossibility of totalization when it comes to the concept of language, and, finally, the concept of "play". (None of these issues are addressed in this article, as they are all explained in a very comprehensible way in Derrida’s essay.)
Some of these arguments (in the fashion of "always already there") are developed by Derrida himself, and -- since they are not explicitly mentioned in the texts he analyzes --read into Lévi-Strauss’ work. This is yet another instance where Derrida performs in praxis what he simultaneously discusses in theory: The concept of play; The open-endedness of interpretation; The making-use of the surplus of meaning and the lack of a center in order to validate new/further meanings, meanings that the text itself might not have been aware of.
Derrida, Jacques. "Structure, Sign, and Play in the Human Sciences". In The Structuralist Controversy: The Languages of Criticism and the Sciences of Man, ed. by Richard Macksey and Eugenio Donato. Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press, 1970. (247-72) (reprinted in Writing and Difference)
Rather than arguing a specific point based on the evidence he gives, Derrida writes what at certain points almost resembles an ultra-brief history of structural and post-structural thought. It is in this essay, too, where he introduces a number of terms that are essential for an understanding of his own theories (such as his concept of "play"). Most of Derrida’s theoretical constructs, however, although obviously alluded to, are not mentioned explicitly. While spending a good amount of time describing what he elsewhere called "logocentrism", for example, Derrida never explicitly formulates these thoughts in "Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences".
As in most of his writing, here, too, Derrida applies much of what he writes about to the way he writes (It is no secret that it is exactly this practice of writing that makes it so difficult to read Derrida.). As usual, he "means" much more than merely what is perceivable on the surface of his text. Accordingly, this essay simultaneously deals with several topics that are never actually named. The basic deconstructive procedure of detecting, questioning and upsetting dichotomies, for example, is performed on the traditional metaphysical concept of "structure", but not put in the foreground. In reading this one -- much as any other -- of Derrida’s texts, we thus have to act exactly as he advises us to in his own readings of other texts: Look for meaning not only in declarative and prescriptive passages of texts, but in the margins, the gaps, "between the lines".
In "Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences", Derrida starts off hinting at an "event", a "rupture", that brought about a revolutionary change in the history of the concept of structure. (He later goes on to state that this rupture marks the transition from structuralism to post-structuralism, along with all the ideas and theories that led to it.) Derrida then goes on to recapitulate what, up to that point, the general ideas of structure where. He shows that the whole history of the concept of structure itself can be seen as functioning within one system, one structure, namely that of metaphysics (part of which is logocentrism). What all those concepts have in common is that they imagine structures as organized around a center. But since this center -- be it God, freedom, man, happiness, consciousness, etc. -- can not be affected by the structure surrounding it, it has to be seen as residing outside of the system, as not actually being in the center. Although constituting the axis around which everything revolves, the center – i.e. the source, goal, and explanation of All – is not part of the system it defines, it is not located in its center.
At the time "when language invaded the universal problematic" (a recurring hint in Derrida's writing at Sausurre’s theories), it was necessary to begin to think that none of the structures discussed have centers, and it is this moment when, according to Derrida, the "rupture" referred to in the opening paragraph occurred. The simple fact that signs define themselves by their relationship to other signs implies that there can not be "a center" – neither within nor without the system (or ‘structure’), since this ultimate sign (the 'transcendental signifier') could not be defined without reference to yet another sign.
Derrida goes on to list a number of influential thinkers who were important in propagating this shift from structuralist to post-structuralist thought (among them Nietzsche, Freud, and Heidegger). What all the new theories and concepts had in common is that -- even though they claimed to be aware of the predicaments -- they still operated from within a metaphysical system. The new generation of philosophers articulating them were for the most part quite ignorant of the fact that it is impossible to escape the metaphysical system, as long as one does not want to abandon the concept of the sign altogether.
This general transition from a belief in structures with centers to a belief in decentered structures has, according to Derrida, relevance in connection with what is generally called "human sciences". Ethnology, he argues, is an academic discipline that could only be born within a metaphysical system (that of ethnocentrism) that had a center (Europe). After "the rupture", of course, these perspectives had to be revised. In giving a more detailed example, Derrida discusses the theoretical work of Claude Lévi-Strauss, who -- surprisingly early -- thought and argued in accordance with much of what Derrida formulated much later, but was clearly positioned within a metaphysical system. Derrida analyzes Lévi-Strauss’ treatment of the nature/culture dichotomy, as well as his studies of mythology. At the same time – in good Derridaen fashion – he takes the opportunity to examine Lévi-Strauss’ methods and modes of arguing. This instance is a good example of how Derrida usually treats texts he works with on multiple layers, and how he works his theories into his own text-about-another-text. He writes about Lévi-Strauss that "his discourse [...] reflects on itself and criticizes itself" (116) -- which is exactly what Derrida himself does with both the text he uses to support his argument (Lévi-Strauss’), and with his own writing. Other deconstructive features of Lévi-Strauss’ text that Derrida mentions include the setting up and questioning of dichotomies, the exposure of the fragmentedness and decenteredness of texts (here myths, and -- following Lévi-Strauss’ argument -- ultimately language itself), the impossibility of totalization when it comes to the concept of language, and, finally, the concept of "play". (None of these issues are addressed in this article, as they are all explained in a very comprehensible way in Derrida’s essay.)
Some of these arguments (in the fashion of "always already there") are developed by Derrida himself, and -- since they are not explicitly mentioned in the texts he analyzes --read into Lévi-Strauss’ work. This is yet another instance where Derrida performs in praxis what he simultaneously discusses in theory: The concept of play; The open-endedness of interpretation; The making-use of the surplus of meaning and the lack of a center in order to validate new/further meanings, meanings that the text itself might not have been aware of.
Derrida, Jacques. "Structure, Sign, and Play in the Human Sciences". In The Structuralist Controversy: The Languages of Criticism and the Sciences of Man, ed. by Richard Macksey and Eugenio Donato. Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press, 1970. (247-72) (reprinted in Writing and Difference)
POSTMODERN LITERATURE
The term Postmodern literature is used to describe certain characteristics of post-World War II literature (relying heavily, for example, on fragmentation, paradox, questionable narrators, etc.) and a reaction against Enlightenment ideas implicit in Modernist literature.
Postmodern literature, like postmodernism as a whole, is hard to define and there is little agreement on the exact characteristics, scope, and importance of postmodern literature. However, unifying features often coincide with Jean-François Lyotard's concept of the "meta-narrative" and "little narrative", Jacques Derrida's concept of "play", and Jean Baudrillard's "simulacra." For example, instead of the modernist quest for meaning in a chaotic world, the postmodern author eschews, often playfully, the possibility of meaning, and the postmodern novel is often a parody of this quest.
This distrust of totalizing mechanisms extends even to the author and his own self-awareness; thus postmodern writers often celebrate chance over craft and employ metafiction to undermine the author's "univocation" (the existence of narrative primacy within a text, the presence of a single all-powerful storytelling authority). The distinction between high and low culture is also attacked with the employment of pastiche, the combination of multiple cultural elements including subjects and genres not previously deemed fit for literature. A list of postmodern authors often varies; the following are some names of authors often so classified, most of them belonging to the generation born in the interwar period: William Gaddis (1922–1998), William Burroughs (1914–1997), Alexander Trocchi (1925–1984), Kurt Vonnegut (1922–2007), John Barth (b. 1930), Donald Barthelme (1931–1989), E. L. Doctorow (b. 1931), Robert Coover (1932), Jerzy Kosinski (1933–1991) Don DeLillo (b. 1936), Thomas Pynchon (b. 1937), Ishmael Reed (1938), Kathy Acker (1947–1997), Paul Auster (b. 1947)[1], Orhan Pamuk (b. 1952).
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia – 29.09.10 at 13.10.
Postmodern literature, like postmodernism as a whole, is hard to define and there is little agreement on the exact characteristics, scope, and importance of postmodern literature. However, unifying features often coincide with Jean-François Lyotard's concept of the "meta-narrative" and "little narrative", Jacques Derrida's concept of "play", and Jean Baudrillard's "simulacra." For example, instead of the modernist quest for meaning in a chaotic world, the postmodern author eschews, often playfully, the possibility of meaning, and the postmodern novel is often a parody of this quest.
This distrust of totalizing mechanisms extends even to the author and his own self-awareness; thus postmodern writers often celebrate chance over craft and employ metafiction to undermine the author's "univocation" (the existence of narrative primacy within a text, the presence of a single all-powerful storytelling authority). The distinction between high and low culture is also attacked with the employment of pastiche, the combination of multiple cultural elements including subjects and genres not previously deemed fit for literature. A list of postmodern authors often varies; the following are some names of authors often so classified, most of them belonging to the generation born in the interwar period: William Gaddis (1922–1998), William Burroughs (1914–1997), Alexander Trocchi (1925–1984), Kurt Vonnegut (1922–2007), John Barth (b. 1930), Donald Barthelme (1931–1989), E. L. Doctorow (b. 1931), Robert Coover (1932), Jerzy Kosinski (1933–1991) Don DeLillo (b. 1936), Thomas Pynchon (b. 1937), Ishmael Reed (1938), Kathy Acker (1947–1997), Paul Auster (b. 1947)[1], Orhan Pamuk (b. 1952).
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia – 29.09.10 at 13.10.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)