2.10.2004
Reading reax
It strikes me as, at the very least, unfortunate that we can read about something so simple (and, as pointed out, modern) as Vertov filming a cameraman driving down the street while spinning his camera about capturing everything it passes -- coupled with the lawsuits against filmmakers of Batman Forever, the Devil's Advocate, et cetera, who are the subjects of lawsuits because they happen to have filmed (intentionally or not) a trademarked park, sculpture or broken Coca-Cola bottle.
No wonder why the U keeps CLA and Carlson School of Management students so far apart.
In another English course, I'm dealing with post-structuralist theory, which espouses a belief that all discourse comes from other discourse. Or maybe this is more precise: "every text exists only in relation to other texts; meaning circulates in economies of discourse." I'm not completely sold on the idea that post-structuralism is the end-all philosophy. I just thought it was a relevant aside.
However, I am sold on the fact that Vertov's motives and films, although 90 years old, are pure art with benevolent motivations. Granted, the Soviet Union of 1929 wasn't exactly midtown Manhattan with all the billboards and neon and whatnot, but culture is culture. Vertov was not only filming culture, but trying to advance it. I am of the opinion that those who attempt to grasp ownership of labels, ideas, colors, parks, sodas or stocking caps need to make their money. But they also should realize that by inserting their "products" into culture -- free of charge on many occassions -- the products' standing in the culture could increase, and so too, eventually, may the profits. The business minds behind Coca-Cola, the Beatles, Levis and the Snuggle fabric softener bear all attempt to make their products or images part of our culture so we consume more. Well, we do consume more. But when we try to include those products in art as a reflection of our culutre, we get our hands slapped. Strikes me as sad. There needs to be compromise and legislation.
No wonder why the U keeps CLA and Carlson School of Management students so far apart.
In another English course, I'm dealing with post-structuralist theory, which espouses a belief that all discourse comes from other discourse. Or maybe this is more precise: "every text exists only in relation to other texts; meaning circulates in economies of discourse." I'm not completely sold on the idea that post-structuralism is the end-all philosophy. I just thought it was a relevant aside.
However, I am sold on the fact that Vertov's motives and films, although 90 years old, are pure art with benevolent motivations. Granted, the Soviet Union of 1929 wasn't exactly midtown Manhattan with all the billboards and neon and whatnot, but culture is culture. Vertov was not only filming culture, but trying to advance it. I am of the opinion that those who attempt to grasp ownership of labels, ideas, colors, parks, sodas or stocking caps need to make their money. But they also should realize that by inserting their "products" into culture -- free of charge on many occassions -- the products' standing in the culture could increase, and so too, eventually, may the profits. The business minds behind Coca-Cola, the Beatles, Levis and the Snuggle fabric softener bear all attempt to make their products or images part of our culture so we consume more. Well, we do consume more. But when we try to include those products in art as a reflection of our culutre, we get our hands slapped. Strikes me as sad. There needs to be compromise and legislation.
