Intertextuality is the shaping of
texts' meanings by other
texts. It can refer to an author’s borrowing and transformation of a
prior text or to a reader’s referencing of one text in reading another.
The term “intertextuality” has, itself, been borrowed and transformed
many times since it was coined by poststructuralist Julia Kristeva in 1966. As critic William
Irwin
says, the term “has come to have almost as many meanings as users, from
those faithful to Kristeva’s original vision to those who simply use it
as a stylish way of talking about allusion
and influence”
Glenn Ligon is an American conceptual artist
whose work explores race, language, desire, and identity.He
engages
in intertextuality with other works from the
visual arts, literature, and history, as well as his own life. Glenn
Ligon is represented by Regen
Projects,
Los Angeles
and in Paris by Yvon Lambert Gallery.
Bronx,
he
graduated with a B.A. from Wesleyan University and currently
lives and works in New York City.[4]
He works in multiple media, including painting, video, photography, and
digital media such as Adobe
Flash for his work Annotations. Ligon's work is greatly
informed by his experiences as an African American and as a gay man living in
the United States.
In 1989, he mounted his first solo show, "How It Feels to Be Colored
Me," in Brooklyn.
A show established Ligon's reputation for creating large, text-based
paintings in which a phrase chosen from literature or other sources is
repeated over and over, eventually dissipating into murk.
CRT rejects interdisciplinary legal studies' belief in the
transformative power of society. It emphasizes the socially constructed
nature of race and considers
judicial conclusions to be based on inherently racist social
assumptions. Analyses of racial inequity as the social construction
of race and discrimination are present in the scholarship of such
established critical race theorists as Derrick
Bell, Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw,
Richard Delgado, Neil Gotanda,
Cheryl I.
Harris, Charles
Lawrence III, Mari Matsuda, and Patricia J. Williams in the legal
field. In the field of education, notable scholars include Gloria Ladson-Billings, Laurence
Parker, Daniel
Solórzano and William
Tate.
A
quick question about her influences brought up 1 Inuences:
Warhol, Cezanne, Frank Stella, Andy Warhol, Philip Guston,
Lee Krasner, etc.) Elizabeth Murray Pat Steir Snyder, Susan
Rothenberg, Cynthia Heilman, Shman, etc. In The '70s, Barbara Kruger,
Sherry Levine, Cindy Sherman, Feminist Literary Criticsm And Critical
Race Theory of The '80s and Early '90s.
Barbra Streisand, Sondheim, Johnny Mercer, Harold Arlen,
Broadway, Movies, Laura Nyro, Carol King, etc., etc.
Streisand has long been an active supporter of the Democratic Party
and many of their causes. Streisand said, "The Democrats have always
been the party of working people and minorities. I've always identified
with the minorities."[36]
Streisand has personally raised $15 million [37]
for organizations through her live performances. The Streisand
Foundation, established in 1986, has contributed over $16 million
through its grants to "national organizations working on preservation
of the environment, voter education, the protection of civil liberties and civil rights, women’s
issues [38]
and nuclear disarmament."[39]
In 2006, Streisand donated $1 million to the William Jefferson Clinton
Foundation in support of President Bill
Clinton’s climate change initiative.[40]
This made Streisand the only artist in history to achieve #1 albums in
five different decades.
Philip
Guston (June 27, 1913 – June 7, 1980) was a notable painter and printmaker in the New York School, which included many of
the Abstract
expressionists, such as Jackson Pollock and Willem De Kooning.
In the late 1960s Guston helped to lead a transition from Abstract expressionism to Neo-expressionism in painting,
abandoning the so-called "pure abstraction" of abstract expressionism in favor of
more cartoonish renderings of various personal symbols and objects.
In the
late 1960s, Guston became frustrated with abstraction
and began painting representationally again, but in a rather cartoonish
manner. The first exhibition of these new figurative paintings was held
in 1970 at the Marlborough Gallery in New York. It received scathing
reviews from most of the art establishment (notably from the New York Times art
critic Hilton Kramer
who, in an article entitled "A Mandarin pretending to be a Stumblebum"
ridiculed Guston's new style). One of the few who instantly understood
the importance of those paintings was the painter Willem de Kooning who, at the time, said
to Guston that they were "about freedom" (cited in Musa Mayer's
biography of her father, Night Studio).[citation needed]
As a result of the poor reception of his new figurative paintings,
Guston decided to move from New York and settled in Woodstock, far from
the art world which had so utterly misunderstood his art (see the
initial reaction of Robert Hughes, critic for Time Magazine, who later
was to change his views, and that of Hilton Kramer from the NY Times).[citation needed]
His contract with the Marlborough gallery was not renewed and, after a
short period without any dealer, he joined the recently opened David
McKee Gallery (he had known McKee at Marlborough) to which he would
remain faithful until the end of his life. When criticized widely about
the impurity of these later paintings, he responded, "There is
something ridiculous and miserly in the myth we inherit from abstract
art.
That painting is autonomous, pure and for itself, therefore we
habitually analyze its ingredients and define its limits. But painting
is 'impure'. It is the adjustment of 'impurities' which forces its
continuity. We are image-makers and image-ridden. There are no wiggly
or straight lines..." In this body of work he created a lexicon of
images such as Klansmen, lightbulbs, shoes, cigarettes, and
clocks. Guston is best known for these late existential
and lugubrious paintings, which at the time of his death had reached a
wide audience, and found great popular acceptance. Guston died in 1980
in Woodstock, New York.
Barbara
Kruger is an American conceptual artist. Much of her work
consists of black and white photographs overlaid with declarative
captions—in white-on-red Futura Bold Oblique. The phrases in her
works often include use of pronouns such as "you", "your", "I", "we",
and "they".
Much of Kruger's work engages the merging of found photographs from
existing sources with pithy and aggressive text that involves the
viewer in the struggle for power and control that her captions speak
to. In their trademark white letters against a slash of red background,
some of her instantly recognizable slogans read “I shop therefore I
am,” and “Your body is a battleground." Much of her text questions the
viewer about feminism, consumerism,
and
individual
autonomy and desire, although her black-and-white images
are culled from the mainstream magazines that sell the very ideas she
is disputing.
The juxtaposition of imagery and text containing criticism of sexism
and the circulation of power within cultures is a recurring motif in
Kruger's work. The text in her works of the 1980s includes such phrases
as "Your comfort is my silence" (1981), "You invest in the divinity of
the masterpiece" (1982), and "I shop therefore I am" (1987). She has
said that "I work with pictures and words because they have the ability
to determine who we are and who we aren’t." A larger category that
threads through her work is the appropriation and alteration of
existing images. The importance of appropriation art in contemporary
culture lay in its ability to play with preponderant imagistic and
textual conventions: to mash up meanings and create new ones.
For the past decade Kruger has created immersive video and audio
installations. Enveloping the viewer with the seductions of direct
address, her work is consistently about the kindnesses and brutalities
of social life: about how we are to one another.[says who?]
Elizabeth Murray (1940 – August 12, 2007) was an American
Painter,
printmaker and draughtsman. Her works are in many major
public collections, including those of the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum,
the Hirshhorn Museum and
Sculpture Garden, the Museum of Modern Art[1],
the
Whitney Museum of American Art,
the
San Francisco Museum of
Modern Art[2],
and
the Art Institute of Chicago.
Semiotics
Semiotics is frequently seen as having important anthropological
dimensions; for example, Umberto
Eco proposes that every cultural phenomenon can be studied as
communication. However, some semioticians focus on the logical
dimensions of the science. T
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In linguistics, semiotics, also called semiotic
studies or semiology, is the study of sign processes (semiosis),
or
signification and communication, signs and symbols.
It is usually divided into the three following branches:
In critical theory, and particularly postmodernism,
a
metanarrative (from meta-narrative,
sometimes also known as a master- or grand narrative)
is an abstract idea that is thought to be a comprehensive explanation
of historical experience or knowledge. According to John Stephens it
"is a global or totalizing cultural
narrative schema which orders and explains knowledge
and experience".[1]
The prefix meta-
means "beyond" and is here used to mean "about", and narrative
is a story constructed in a sequential fashion. Therefore, a
metanarrative is a story about a story, encompassing and
explaining other "little stories" within totalizing schemes.
There is only one metanarrative as defined by Lyotard. Modernists and philosophers address the
problem by telling a story—the story of progress through universal human reason,
as
Logos
triumphs over Mythos. The problem is that once a proof is
accepted as the standard of believability not only must we prove our
claims, we must also prove our proofs, and so on, ad infinitum. This is
what Lyotard was referring to when he made the claim that the
postmodern condition is one of incredulity toward metanarratives.
Contested ideological terrain
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contested ideological terrain is, in sociology,
a
theoretical
framework that looks at sport as a cultural practice that
reinforces both the certain existing power dynamics and the agency of
human groups and individuals. Instead of looking at sport as a purely
positive force, where individuals and groups of people can use sport as
a means of achieving social mobility and success, or as a cultural
practice that is solely detrimental, where sport reinforces the social
inequalities in our world, this framework looks at sport as something
that encompasses both.
According to Douglass Hartmann: “Sport
is a ‘double-edged sword’ not just a place (or variable) whereby racial
interests and meanings are either inhibited or advanced but rather a
site where racial formations are constantly- and very publicly-
struggled on and over.” [1]
The contested terrain framework focuses on looking at the interplay
between structural organizations (like, businesses, the media, and the
government), the individuals who are involved in sports (the individual
players, coaches, and fans), and the common ideologies that revolve
around sport. By looking at these three levels, sport can be seen as a
site where racial meanings and social inequalities are constantly being
contested. According to Kathleen Yep: “These multiple and sometimes
competing functions [of sport] shift us away from analyzing social
reproduction and domination only, and allow us to examine the interplay
between domination and agency.”
This framework also looks at the interplay between oppression and
resistance, where both oppression and resistance exist simultaneously
in the realm of sports. Michael Messner
has showcased this aspect of this framework in his article, “Sports and
Male Domination: The Female Athlete as Contested Ideological Terrain.”[2]
Cultural turn
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The cultural turn describes developments in the humanities
and the social sciences brought about by various developments across
the disciplines. Most noted amongst these was the emergence of cultural studies and the rise of the sociology of culture within the
discipline of sociology, but also the effects of postmodern
and post-structuralist criticism. It
describes a shift in emphasis towards meaning
and on culture rather than politics or economics. This shift of
emphasis occurred over a prolonged time, but particularly since the
1960s.
Culture can be defined as, “the social process whereby people
communicate meanings, make sense of their world, construct their
identities, and define their beliefs and values” (Best). Culture is a
large part of the cultural turn because American citizens began
constructing identities for themselves in a new world.
Poststructuralists overlooked cultural studies until Fredric Jameson
brought the cultural turn to term. Jameson (1998) said,
“The very sphere of culture itself has expanded, becoming
coterminous with market society in such a way that the cultural is no
longer limited to its earlier, traditional or experimental forms, but
it is consumed throughout daily life itself, in shopping, in
professional activities, in the various often televisual forms of
leisure, in production for the market and in the consumption of those
market products, indeed in the most secret folds and corners of the
quotidian. Social space is now completely saturated with the image of
culture (p. 111).”
Jameson declares that consumerism has become what is modern day
culture. People find their identities in their activities, jobs and in
leisure. This depiction is true in modern day America. Many Americans
work 40 hours per week and their leisure time is wrapped around daily
life. The culture of the modern American is found in what they do and
participate in. The 1960s divided America politically and a focus on
political change came into importance. After the period focused on
political change, America never returned back to the Victorian and
literacy era that came before it. The linguistic turn of the 20th
century caused part of the cultural turn because the importance of
linguistics was lifted and placed on activities like those that Jameson
refers to. More so, importance was placed on art and culture for
education and moral growth. Social criticism and change became more
important to teach than linguistics.
Advertising, amateur photography, yellow journalism and an
assortment of other forms of media arose after the politically charged
1960s. Entertainment and media changed from a very organic and folk
feel to the mechanical and brightened popular culture in the 1980s and
1990s. The “new media” of the postmodern America brought about a new
culture that all were able to take part in. This media was focused on
all races, ethnicities and age groups instead of the more exclusive
media before the 1960s. The “new media” and art of the 1980s and beyond
helped to create the cultural turn because art and advertising became
embedded in the new American culture.
The changing of the American culture brought about a change in
American politics. Sociologists have begun to study power and politics
and how culture relates since the cultural turn. The cultural turn
brought about more emphasis on meaning and culture over politics.
Culture must be seen at the root of politics because people have become
focused on the modern culture that Jameson defined (Nash, 82). While
the earlier twentieth century experienced a linguistic turn, mostly brought about by
the thought of Ludwig Wittgenstein and Ferdinand de Saussure, the cultural
turn of the late twentieth century absorbs those criticisms and adds on.
The introduction of social constructionism
has helped this development a great deal. With the shift towards
meaning, the importance of high arts and mass culture in cultural
studies has declined. If culture was about things (a piece of
art, a TV series), it is now more about processes and practices of
meanings.
The cultural turn has helped cultural studies to gain more respect as
an academic discipline. With the shift away from high
arts the discipline has increased its perceived importance and
influence on other disciplines.
Linguistic turn
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The linguistic turn was a major development in Western philosophy during the 20th
century, the most important characteristic of which is the focusing
of philosophy
and the other humanities primarily on the relationship
between philosophy and language.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
can be considered one of the ancestors of the linguistic turn. This
follows from his ideas that philosophical problems arise from a
misunderstanding of the logic of language in his earlier work, and his
remarks on language games in his later work.
Very different intellectual movements were associated with the term
"linguistic turn". It became popular with the anthology by Rorty
(1967), in which the linguistic turn is taken to be the turn towards linguistic philosophy.
According to Rorty, who later disassociated himself from linguistic
philosophy and analytic philosophy generally, the phrase "the
linguistic turn" originated with the Austrian philosopher Gustav Bergmann.[1]
The fact that language is not a transparent medium of
thought had been stressed by a very different form of philosophy of language which
originated in the works of Johann Georg Hamann and Wilhelm von Humboldt.
In the 1970s the humanities recognized the importance of language as
a structuring agent. Decisive for the linguistic turn in the humanities
were the works of yet another tradition, namely the structuralism
of Ferdinand de Saussure and the
ensuing movement of poststructuralism.
Influential theorists include Judith
Butler, Luce Irigaray, Julia Kristeva, Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida.
The view that language 'constitutes' reality is contrary to
intuition and to most of the Western tradition of philosophy. The
traditional view (what Derrida called the 'metaphysical' core of
Western thought) saw words as functioning like labels attached to
concepts. According to this view, there is something like 'the real
chair', which exists in some external reality and corresponds roughly
with a concept in human thought called "Chair" to which the linguistic
word "chair" refers. However, the founder of structuralism, Ferdinand de Saussure,
held that definitions of concepts cannot exist independently from
differences between words, or, to put it differently, that a concept of
something cannot exist without being named. Thus differences between
word-meanings structure our perception; there is no real chair
except insofar as we are manipulating symbolic systems. We would not
even be able to recognise a chair as a chair without
simultaneously recognising that a chair is not
everything else - in other words a chair is defined as being a specific
collection of characteristics which are themselves defined in certain
ways, and so on, and all of this within the symbolic system of
language. Thus, everything we think of as 'reality' is really a
convention of naming and characterising, a convention which is itself
called 'language'. Indeed, anything outside of language is by
definition inconceivable (having no name and no meaning) and therefore
cannot intrude upon or enter into human reality, at least not without
immediately being seized and articulated by language.
The power of language, more specifically of certain rhetorical
tropes, in historical discourse was explored by Hayden
White.
