Haiku and all such things

Postmodern Haiku

      Everywhere, Rising

      Scurrying city--
      Deep roots seeping underground,
      the sound of what is.

For my Haiku I examined mainly examined the theories of Deleuze and Guattari, exploring the idea that the structure of human existence is more of a rhizome than the hierarchical tree. Within the first line I established the idea of hundreds of thousands of humans living out their existence. According to D & G, the rhizome system implies that within each human is the capability to be any sexual orientation, any race, etc. They often discussed their beliefs that--though they were heterosexual married men--they were also homosexual and transgender, but were born with tendencies for heterosexuality. The haiku explores the idea with the root image in a place where humans are rising up with a myriad of tendencies.

I concluded the haiku with a twist in sense--from sight to sound, providing a line that describes the postmodern theory that this is all there is, all there has ever been, with a break from meta narrative. The sound of the roots pushing through the earth in non-pattern, non-structures is the basis for describing the postmodern theory in my haiku.

My portfolio 8 haiku is simple. I'm not practiced in poetry so I just made mine serviceable. In hindsight I'd replace the dashes with something that creates less of a break.

Fixers come at noon

Fourth of July; red—white—blue

Text books wearing suits

The first line is meant to point towards Hall's claim that ideology tries to "fix" meaning in order to control understanding. Its supposed to lay down a unwelcoming precedent for the "fixers" because the idea of their goal is unsettling. 

The second line uses the image of patriotism, specifically the colors of Independence Day, as a concrete example of representation. Dozens of countries have the same three colors on their banner and each color means something specifically. Meaning can be manipulated.

The final line is the description of the "fixers," which can be said to be ideologies with the intent of fixing meaning. I called them textbooks because they want to instill concrete meaning and generally function from a single ideological viewpoint.

Postmodern Haiku

Hey all,

This is the haiku I wrote for portfolio eight (obviously). I tried to encapsulate an idea from each of the theorists we read (Deleuze/Guattari, Lyotard, and Baudrillard) while creating an image of postmodernism (through fragmentation!). Let me know if I'm on point.

A parade route runs
over uneven pavement;
the result of roots.

The first line is an attempt to signify the precession of simulacra through the image of a parade, an event that encapsulates Baudrillard's idea of the hyperreal. Think of all the miniaturized units that are on display during a parade (which is its own sort of weird idolization of hyperspace) and the idea seems rather apt (1557).

Next, I tried to bring in Lyotard's concepts of modern and postmodern architecture. The pavement (and perhaps the parade itself, in a certain reading) is an expression of modernist sensibilities, given that it is built atop the roots that are beginning to disrupt the surface. These roots, then, are an obvious reference to Deleuze and Guattari's rhizome schema, the hidden lines that disrupt any singular progression (1458). Read of that what you will.

Hope that makes sense. If you have questions or critiques, please let me know.

Fixing the Cross

Christians tattoo crosses
on their wrists to replace those
removed from their necks.




My haiku was inspired by Stuart Hall's idea of fixing terms for meaning and power. I think that the cross is a term that is continuously having to be reclaimed by Christianity. Maybe not necessarily "reclaimed," but it is an icon that Christians have always used to physically represent their identity in the Christian faith. Not too long ago, a significant fraction of the Christian population wore necklaces with crosses on them, and these necklaces were typically a resemblance of their beliefs in the Christian faith. Not too long ago, I remember more and more people began wearing these cross necklaces, including individuals in pop-culture who were commonly frowned upon by the Christian community. In contemporary culture, most people that see a cross think of religion or Christianity. I still remember seeing 50 Cent in grade school with a huge golden cross and chain dangling around his neck and thinking, "wait... 50 Cent isn't a Christian, is he?" Eventually wearing a cross around your neck became a fashion statement, rather than a faith statement.


In hindsight, I think it was incredibly judgmental of Christians to point fingers at people like 50 Cent and Snoop Dogg and claim that they weren't Christians and gave the cross a bad name, but many of them did and still do. Because of people like 50 Cent, I think a lot of Christians felt that they had to find a new way to physically display their faith so that they wouldn't be associated with people who they thought misrepresented the cross; they had to "fix" or "reclaim" the cross for its appropriate use--to represent the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Personally, I hardly see cross necklaces these days. However, I constantly encounter people (who claim themselves as Christians) with a cross tattooed somewhere on their body--commonly on the wrist. I feel like this is the Christian's attempt of "fixing" the representation of the cross, and rendering it the authority of Christianity. Though, I wouldn't be surprised if cross tattoos lost their representation of faith in the next couple of years.

In Praise of Lint

Broken fibers leave

behind lint—the machine builds

on half-burned layers.

Megachurches & Hyperrealism

In our class discussion today on Hall, Katie used the example of the word "church" for a term that is being "unfixed" by a group of people. Currently, there is a move away from church being synonymous with a physical institution into a meaning that represents a body of people in active faith. This transition is understandable especially in the context of mega churches, a cultural phenomenon I am particularly fascinated with. While a definitive cap on an acceptable congregation seems overly prescriptive and silly, mega churches do seem to cross a line. By mega churches, I'm specifically referring to churches with over 20,000 members, though the formal definition is any congregation over 2,000 members. I'm looking at the extreme end of congregation sizes in order to talk about the hyperrealistic implications of services like this.

Baudrillard provides the example of Disneyland as "real" disguised in the imaginary, and the surrounding areas as hyperreal. Analogously, American values in a mega church like Lakewood (pictured above) are "embalmed and pacified" (1565). The sports arena vibe with the stadium seating and flat screen TVs, the flashy lights, the snazzy music (I’m assuming they have snazzy music), it’s all there. From the picture, it’s hard to differentiate the service from a concert or some kind of celebrity interview. The prosperity gospel of Lakewood is a main criticism, and one I think that again fits into the list of American values. While under the “ideological blanket” (1565) of religious teaching, the church actually functions to conceal it’s essential Americana distillation. It’s easy to mistake the service for a concert for a reason- it functions as the same thing, as an entertaining and comforting product to consume. Outside of the church, the same values are saturated throughout other spaces, and a service simply functions as a kind of kairotic moment in which those values all come together at one time.

I don’t have specific questions for this example. If you have thoughts you should share them!


.

A Visit to Phoenix

This weekend, I was in Phoenix. I live about ten minutes away from this crazy thing. Designed by Frank Lloyd Wright in 1950's, the spire was actually built in 2004 by Scottsdale city. Having never moved, I grew up hearing many theories about what the obelisk actually was: a weird geometric Saguaro, a weird nondescript desert plant, a weird architectural thing.

I never really figured out what it was, so I researched. The spire was originally intended to be a part of Wright's State Capitol renovation, which was never carried out due to budget issues. Many architectural theorists link the design to Wright's tree obsession. It has a taproot foundation, one of Wright's trademark designs. The S.C. Johnson Research Tower in Racine is another Wright design, a tree-like structure built on a taproot foundation that sinks far into the ground. Our class discussion of Modernist v. postmodernist architecture involved Wright, and he was classified as a Modernist. Though his designs resemble natural elements of the Arizona desert, a flat surface had to be razed in order to prepare the land for the foundation. Scottsdale is pretty flat anyhow, but the landscape still needed to be altered for the landmark, and it clearly stands out.

Wright's taproot foundation effectively evidences Modernist ideals, specifically the hierarchal structures that all function "above ground." Deleuze and Guattari, in contrast, characterize the rhizomatic structure as a more effective means at looking at power. The hierarchal reality of Wright's design is analogous to the positions of power at the State (interns, supervisors, elected officials, etc). Is this way of understanding power ineffective? Are more prestigious positions only powerful in their relation to others (a web of connections on a flat field vs. vertical levels of power)?