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

Jump to: navigation, search

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

Jump to: navigation, search

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

Jump to: navigation, search

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

Jump to: navigation, search

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.