![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Media Iconoclasm
Dogme 95 is a Danish film-making movement which calls for a “return to plausible stories in filmmaking and a move away from artifice and towards technical minimalism.” Lars Von Trier, known in the United States for films such as Dancer in the Dark, is one of the founding members of this movement, though his films do not always follow its rules explicitly.
Some of the more interesting aspects of the Dogme 95 filming rules is that props and music must not be used unless they are naturally occurring where filming is being done. As I see it, these rules are tentative steps towards a type of media iconoclasm, designed to “smash” the iconic explosion-laden post-production-heavy aesthetic common to Hollywood movies.
Taking a cue from that, and from our recent conversations here about iconoclasm in religion though, I wonder if we can’t push their rules a few steps farther and see what happens. What if we applied these rules to real life? We might come up with a lifestyle which disallows the use of things like recorded music (no more iPods or mp3’s, folks!), movies and television just to name a few. Presumably, under these strictures, we could still go see live music or stage performances. But could we read newspapers, books or websites? Taking media iconoclasm a step further all these would be out (ie, a conscious choice not to use the internet).
At this point, we’re trying to reduce or eliminate our reliance on representation, and go more towards direct experience. If we wanted to be true media iconoclasts, then, where would we stop? Could we still use language at all? Could we still speak to each other? What about body language? Hugs? Kisses? What about thoughts and memories of objects and events? Aren’t these a type of media? And then there is sensory input - itself a type of media: replacing representation (taste, touch, sight, sound, smell) with an abstraction of the actual object.
So we wouldn’t be allowed to watch movies, think about our past, rely on our thoughts at all, or pay any attention to our sense data. What would we be left with? Who would we be? Where do you stop with something like iconoclasm, or is the simple point of it that you don’t stop - ever?
[See also these recent relevant posts:
Enjoy!]
- Best Recent Articles
- Kill Your Idols!
- Infinity, Idolatry & the Need for Form
- Media Literacy and Theology
- Media something something, hoo-ha
- Prev: Compline & The John Coltrane Church
- Next: Atomic Bomb Dream
October 26th, 2006 at 10:14 am
One of the most interesting aspects of David Abrams’ The Spell of the Sensuous was his point that it isn’t language per se that alienates. As I see it, we have genes for language and symbolic culture, therefore this is part of “nature” that we have to integrate with. Language and media that entwine with nature is what we need to look for (and yes, this may exclude many forms of modern media).
This is also a strong thread in a book I’m just reading now, Nature & Psyche: Radical Environmentalism and the Politics of Subjectivity by David W. Kidner. I’m only halfway through but already it feels like one of the most important books on the subject I’ve come across - certainly the best academic book on consciousness, psychology and ecology I’ve read. Anyone interested in the things we’re talking about here will find it fascinating. Kidner stresses that a regression to pre-cultural life is just a reaction to our alienation from nature - not something that will untangle us from the industrial mindset. He thinks that the conceptual division between “nature” and “culture” is the problem, not our allegiance to one side or the other. Seeing psyche and culture in “nature”, and finding nature in “culture”, is the only way we can re-engage with the natural world.
I like the concept of “media fasting”, though. What you’re suggesting is an excellent temporary tactic to “detox”. And I wonder if taking these food metaphors for media seriously is a good first step to binding culture and nature together more closely
October 26th, 2006 at 10:17 am
I think your last point stresses the danger of iconoclasm: nihilism.
October 26th, 2006 at 10:24 am
The example of Dogme 95 holds no water, IMO. They’re pushing an aesthetic, not smashing icons. The end result is still a film. If they prefer homemade cellphone movies on VidGoog for being more natural, I’ll just stick with the pompous Hollywood schtick.
As you seem to imply, one’s perspective is either that nothing is real, or everything is real. But beyond that, the choice one has to make is whether to learn from the cosmos’ neverending pantheon of icons, or deny all of existence and simply snuff it. Anything in between is a waste of consciousness, really.
October 26th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
A few more things that have spun off from this post for me…
First, Tim, I assume you know Immediatism by Hakim Bey. One of the best and most succinct pieces of writing on this subject.
Also, I thought about the Tibetan Buddhist tradition of butter sculptures. Now, I recall reading that some monks make these and then let them just melt, the process being a reminder of impermanence. Certainly an interesting fusion of idolatry and iconoclasm. However, I can’t find much info on the web about this - anyone? There seem to be a lot of articles lamenting the loss of long-term butter sculptures…
I couldn’t help thinking of this tradition, though, when I went to the fireworks festival, Las Fallas, in Valencia, Spain, this year. Each Falla, a large sculpture in one of each of the many plazas in the city, is built by the local community. After a week of parading them, they’re all burned on the last night (apart from one which is kept in a museum). It was one of the most amazing events, certainly the largest art event, I’ve ever been too. I’m sure Burning Man may top it… but all this tells me that there are “in between” states in our relationship to manifest images that are far from a waste of consciousness (fuj, I just don’t go for either/or choices
).
Finally, on a similar “both/and” note, a quote from the David Kidner book Nature & Psyche that seems relevant. He’s in turn quoting from Clifford Geertz’s The Interpretation of Cultures:
I should stress that Kidner’s not quoting this in support of some cultural reductionism. He says:
October 26th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
Gyrus, I’m not sure what you meant by your response. Please know that my either/or choice was only about deciding whether or not to see all manifestations as having value in the scheme of learning about oneself/the world. Choosing to reject particular “images”" (e.g. icons, idols) in this context does not appear to benefit growth.
Sounds heavenly
October 26th, 2006 at 3:34 pm
Isn’t it ironic that the comments on this article are full of references and citations from *books*? It seems that even when we’re invited to face the world as naked as the day we were born, we still can’t resist putting on the costumes we’ve borrowed from someone else…
October 26th, 2006 at 5:17 pm
fuj, I was talking about the very last comment you made:
Seemed a little extreme. I always gravitate to “in between” areas, so I’m bound to defend them
Anyway, know what you mean about the lure of being a basket case! Anyone with an active brain in this society needs regular breaks. I think that’s what I got out of things like moshing and drugs. These days it’s yoga and walks in the woods, but… I guess Kidner’s guy was talking about the big picture, where to take society and culture, not the rhythms we have within that.
Even in what he sees as “healthy” cultures, people (usually shamans and teens) go off into the wilderness and lose their humanity for a bit - but they always come back and have a cultural matrix that embraces and nurtures this sort of vacation from culture. That’s Kidner’s whole thing, having a culture that embraces the non-cultural, allows the mysterious its place, as well as interacting with it. He talks of the industrial mindset as a “colonization” of the unconscious, a more dominating attitude that in turn legitimizes colonization of “primitive” cultures and wild areas.
Anyway, it’s a complex book, so I’m maybe missing important bits out by throwing snippets around…
October 26th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
corky, good point. That said, blog comments aren’t the best place for unmediated interaction
Give me some moors or a dancefloor any day…
October 26th, 2006 at 8:59 pm
I really like the whole “media fasting” concept and want to work on that some more.
That book you mentioned Gyrus sounds cool, and Corky’s point about us all referencing other people’s media to have this conversation is a good one as well.
[ Speaking of which: Michael Pollan’s “Second Nature” deals very well with a lot of the “nature/culture” issues and I have quoted a lot from it here in the past. ]
Anyway, I realize though too that media cuts both ways: that it can alienate us from personal experience and actual interaction with one another, but it can also give us common ground to share our value systems, interests and personal experiences as well. I think any “healthy” approach to media has to integrate this aspect into a more whole picture… such as media fasting, media literacy, etc
October 27th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
I think the idea of “media fasting” is essentially the same as the renunciation and asceticism you see practiced in many mystical sects.
October 27th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
I think so too, but in what way do you personally see a connection? And also, do you think updating this idea for modern usage has much value?
October 28th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
I speculated a long time ago that the inner monologue was food for the ego, and that by cutting it off, you essentially starve the “false self” to death. I think this is the same principle, in the sense that media provides you with continual abstractions to get wrapped up in, and continually diverts your attention from the thing that is most essential (generally speaking.)
What’s also important to note is something Mcluhan talked about, and that’s how the nature of consciousness is essentially formless and that media acts as a kind of shaping mechanism or filter for it. You become changed by it, in otherwords. Your physical body might the closest media there is to your “true” soul, so simply residing within it consciously might be truest way for your consciousness to manifest in this world.
Yeah, I do — I don’t even know if it needs to be updated, at all (aside from maybe reworking the connotation attached to the idea of “fasting.”) Since it’s been practiced for centuries, I would think that it has always been modern to some extent.
I think when one meditates, they’re practicing the most basic form of media fasting. That’s not to say that I don’t think you can use media as an adjunct to your spirituality (which might be essential to the Magickal path, as opposed to the Mystical, which might be more based on renunciation.)
What works for me best, personally, is being very critical and selective with what I take in. Media dieting, I guess.
October 28th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
Wow, really good comments. Thanks Jacob. I want to think about this for a while cause I think there are some important things in what you said.
I really like this:
Also curious about this:
Could you expand at all on how you might use media as an adjunct to spirituality within a magickal framework?
Good way of putting it!
October 28th, 2006 at 7:05 pm
The idea is that the magickal man is constantly mediating his awareness and intentions through symbols, tools, and rituals that take place in the “outer” world. In this case the media might be the wand, sword, coin, or cup. Not to mention that artists have long been likened to magicians and sorcerors; to me a movie is often like a two hour ritual.
I think the magicians realized the transformative powers of wielding certain items. You’re consciousness isn’t quite the same if you’re holding a sword (for example), and the better you are, the more harmonious you become with the item — the more the item changes you and you may become more like it even when you’re not holding it.
People often describe their thought patterns like flipping channels on a TV set, and researchers have discovered many more people dream in color than they had before the invention of the color TV. In this word where people watch TV six hours a day, it shouldn’t surprise us if we become modelled after it in terms of our thoughts, and even physically as we all generally lead a more sedentary life than we had in the past generations (naturally, TV sets also don’t have much of a habit of moving around.) You might say that the more we use something, the more we complement it, and by extention of that, the greater our propensity towards manufacturing and using that item. The physical make-up of the item is generally inert (but not always!); however, the “intention” of the item (which comes all the way from the platonic dimension) is what might end up taking us over.
What bugs me is that not all items are malignant if you use them a lot. If you master the art of the sword, for example, you’re expected to have transcended it, and by extention, to have mastered all arts by virtue of even their vaguest association with the sword (”To know one-thousand things, know one” as Musashi said.) If we learn to look beyond the items (like Mcluhan did with his media analysis), maybe we can tell what their truest intent is. I believe this issue transcends the human element and leads us to the archetypes.
October 30th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
Man, awesome stuff again Jacob. So much to assimilate here. I really appreciate it!