After theory, After Shock

The beginning of After Theory by Terry Eagleton poses the question;

"What kind of fresh thinking does the new era demand?"

Eagleton halts on answering this question in favour to blast out his annoyances of the study of current pop culture that I am guessing (not guessing, he makes it quite clear) that studying television programmes as the product of the now, is beneath real academics.

It goes on to a mind boggling, swift and not so swift description of the origins of communism/socialism, or that's what I think is what he was saying as rather than use language as tool to communicate, he uses it to beat you into stupidity so you are left gazing away from the page and murmuring "eh?". Death of the author? More like death of culture in Eagleton's view which explains the title of book more clearly, so what does come After Theory? Cultural theory in political format particularity in relation to Marxism. Or something like that.

The chapter I found most interesting is "4 Losses and Galns", which is a description of the use of language. In my opinion, Eagleton makes more sweeping statements such "Jargon often enough means ideas you don't happen to agree with" - (I would argue with that , the mechanic telling me what wrong with my car means nothing to me but doesn't mean I disagree with his prognoses nor his ability to do the job, similarly I have no special feeling toward Obama and his government but I wouldn't have a problem calling him Mr President. They are just words whether we understand them, believe them or not.) But I do agree with his opinion that language is important when it comes to trust and validity. I have a theory that the Great British Bake off is popular not just because of its sweetness (of the cakes and the situation) but because of the language that is used. The innuendo, the word play, the bad jokes, etc is where it exceeds and where its spin off show the Great British Sewing Bee failed to live up to, its hard to make clean overhem zip line (I just made that up and have no idea if that's a real thing) sound as sensual as a moist succulent brulee. But overall, I find it all of an oxymoron that a writer who makes judgement on those for over using language and jargon, but who has just spent the last 70 pages doing just that.

Good points are raised and made through out Eagelton's reflection of society and its cultural and political impacts but you know the book could be half the size and the same amount of information would have been shared.

So will be ever no the answer to the beginning of the book and mentioned at the top of this post? Probably the answer lies in reading the entire book, which if you do, I think you'll be found banging your head against a wall.

Home and Away

Vegas and Dubai. Dubai and Vegas. Same thing right? To many, yes they are - both are a manufactured environment, very hot, are built in a desert, advertise glamour, celebrities own homes/hotels/whatever else people who have too much money buy and yet in reality they are so very different to each other.

This is immediately evident in the texts of this weeks reading. Dave Hickey's "At home in the neon" certainly puts forth a warm feeling to Las Vegas that is no way similar to that of the straight talking, mainly negative fact checks of Mike Davis' "Fear Sand and Money in Dubai". Even the titles scream of polar opposite of language, Hickey's reference to Las Vegas as "Neon" immediately puts a bright and warm feeling to the forthcoming chapter where as Davis' "sand" suggests a dry, inhospitably environment of the desert.

Hickey's writing I find is far more novel, in that when first reading and reflected upon it, it felt almost like a diary, I've changed my mind since and reclassified it as more of a letter. A unique type of writing as it is both private but sharing feelings and experiences to an audience (even if that audience is just one person). And thats exactly how this came across to me. Describing his adopted home with such pleasant thought and happy tales with charming delight of "food to cocktail"

I can't quite recall most of "Fear Sand and Money in Dubai" such was the density of factual prose and angry sentiment. I've read some of Mike Davis before and his description of downtown LA was on a far lighter note than that of his plain disdain of Dubai.

Though my observations may be sweeping, I don't particularity think they are controversial, many may think the same. Vegas being sin city where you go for a good time in the good ole US of A, where the waitress/strippers/bartenders/card dealers are all part of the fun and are certainly not just the help. Where as Dubai, a supposed paradise, but in the middle of a war torn region and bordering countries has been built up on slave labour and inequality for most of its citizens.

They are certainly not twin cities Vegas and Dubai, maybe distant cousins born from bastard children at the beginning of the 20th century where boom and consumerism came into its own. Luckily we have writers like Hickey and Davis to show as the difference, simply in the tone of their written word.

Indifferent and numb

This week’s reading was in the form of an article by Jonathan Meade about Zaha Hadid's  “The first great female architect” and Alain Badiou “This crisis is the spectacle; where is the real?” a short chapter in his book.

To start off with Jonathan Meade’s article, I immediately am taken with the title “The first great female architect” - ouch, hope you’re not reading Denise Scott Browning - but I suppose this goes into depth as to what is defined as ‘great’. Is Zaha great because she is a genius? brilliant architect? a business woman? or is the great used in the same way as ‘Great Britain’, not so much a nod to its brilliance but rather in reference to its expanse, after all she has created a worldwide brand. Maybe I am over thinking it, so let’s move on.

Meade's language and tone is thrown backward and forward. I read it as if he wanted to write an article about a great architect, was left puzzled upon meeting the architect but remembered he was seeing the architect at the weekend at a party so couldn't be too harsh. Glowing little snippets from the text such as "Zaha has style all right, but not a style." contrast with the overall condescending tone.

When I first read the interview, I instantly forgot it, that’s not to say I didn't find it interesting but rather I didn't gleam anything from it apart from Zaha is a woman and an artist/architect that has five computer screens. Maybe its that I am indifferent to Zaha Hadid's work, neither liking or disliking it, that I pick some critical and some amusing tones.

Alain Badiou's chapter I found far more engaging. Not because I necessary agree with it, in some cases I outright disagree. Condemning the world into a world of either black or white - good guys and the bad guys - us and them just screams of an agenda. But then again of course he has an agenda, he has written a book called "The Communist Hypothesis".

"Capitalism has always ensured that we pay the price for a few short decades of brutally inegalitarian prosperity" Wow, some emotive language used there and makes for a convincing argument that certainly captures the attention of the reader, but on the whole I'm numb to most political talk because it all boils down to theories of the grass being greener if only we did it my way.

Of course what he writes about is something we are all experiencing and currently living through, and yet he is accurate in describing us, the public, as viewers of our own fate, waiting for those who have basically won a popularity contest to make the right decisions ("Save the banks" or not) and see us through to the good times again.