Signs Address Somebody

Within an ideological “apparatus”, an individual is a subject. Ideologies are created “for” certain subjects; i.e. individuals or “agents, acting out freely” by particular people or institutions who have some reason to transfer meaning to subjects through belief systems using signs, symbols, signifiers and receivers. It is within the transference of such things where actual meaning occurs through the subject. It is within the transference through belief systems, and signs that continue the reproduction of such beliefs, reciprocating one set of values onto another set of values. A sign can only hold meaning, if it is meaningful to someone. “Therefore, all signs depend for their signifying process on the existence of specific, concrete, receivers, people for whom and in whose systems of belief, have meaning”. Ideology gains power through the process of people replacing significance within those signs. It is through the cycle of passing signifiers through signs to people or subjects; that the process maintains a constant. One may not continue survive without the other. Advertisers and marketing organizations use this transference of ideas to sell their products or continue a certain belief system that aids in the selling of their products. By turning products into signifiers, advertisements use signs that can be transferred in exchange for a plethora of meanings; but it is within the person where the meanings “autonomously” continue to flow. The space between “what means” and “what it means”, is the relationship between the sign and the receiver. The receiver is looked upon as being an active participant as an “active receiver” because a signs’ use is only created in the advertisements through the receiver. As an invisible force, ideology is created and continues on through the fact that we are active ‘within it’. We don’t perceive ourselves as receivers therefore we allow it to work through us. We continue the belief; with the idea of what is true never questioning it, and always allowing it to continue to be “true”. Ideology “is based on false assumptions”, of something that “need not be questioned”, because it is seen as already valid. Time and the acceptance of ideas over time also allows for ideology to continue on its path of blind acceptance. Advertisements use the blind acceptance of time in coercion with the idea of freedom to allow the subjects to believe they are free when choosing such products. The relationship between the ad and ourselves is a constant act, when creating ads, advertisers allow receivers to perceive ideas through a lack of content. Without showing actual purpose of the ad, subjects are “free” to choose meaning, the entire time being led to believe in something that isn’t even there. “Things ‘mean’ to us, and we give this meaning to the product, on the basis of an irrational mental leap invited by the form of the advertisement. By allowing its receivers to believe they are free, ensues the idea that its receivers have choices to freely choose how we “create” ourselves. We believe that by buying certain products we are freely choosing how we are to be perceived, who we are is created by what we buy. Currency’s value only becomes possible through an exchange. Prices are not fixed; but replaced as value through transference. What products are worth to the consumer, if the consumer chooses to buy such products are the justifications of prices. Just as currency is valued by its transference to one system to another, so are signs as they are set to replace something else. Many times advertisements use signifiers through transference of difference. Signifiers within ads usually hold significance outside the ad itself. “Ideas are maintained not in a vacuum of the abstract but through their active use: values exist not ‘in’ things but in their transference.” Signs are used to be associated with certain belief systems, by buying these products in connection to such signs one is buying into a certain belief system. Advertisers also use the ideology to brainwash the masses into buying their products. They turn on associations to through symbols, and connecting certain ideas with other ideas, such as, if you buy this car YOU will be as elegant and luxurious as this girl.

Corporations.

Corporations have evolved into an uncontrollable evil. They are psychopathic in nature. Whether it is double dipping into taxpayers’ hard earned money, drying up natural resources that don’t solely belong to them, killing endangered species or aiding in the perpetuation of slave labor. They contain no empathetic qualities what so ever. They hold no accountability to the wrong they commit legally or socially. Their main purpose for survival is money and really good lawyers.

Through mass production there are no ethics involved, its business, no value system. The only system enacted within a corporation is the necessity to reproduce the process of production through the sole purpose of profit. They make a product; they market a product, and sell the product. By taking natural resources, or ruining the ones that are already in place they make the product. Through expensive lawyers, marketing teams, public relations teams and advertising teams they brainwash the American public into thinking they need such product. Even though the product was created by some poor factory worker in a third world country, seeing less than pennies to the dollar for what the product is being sold for and or worth. They sell, for the most part faulty, if not dispensable products, which last for the least amount of time possible, only to be thrown in the trash and replaced by repurchasing. Continuing the cycle of production, thus making corporations richer than they’ve ever been.

The evolution of the corporation to what it has become today, took many years, and is in no sense a reflection of what they were originally created for. Riding on the coat tails of the 14^th Amendment, “Born men will be free” and meant to free black slaves after the Civil War, 50 years and after many court decisions the 14^th Amendment bestowed corporations with the rights of individuals. A right they would take and mold into the multi-billion dollar industries they are now. Initially structured as charters corporations use to build bridges and roads, they aided the community. After gaining their individuality they initiated a new kind of power though, the power no accountability. Corporations could and can now do just about anything they want, with little to no accountability. There is no defined role, therefore there is no one person responsible. Structurally run with board members and stockholders at the top, there is no one person to blame. Under the top tier lies management, and then there are workers or producers. The top tier has nothing to do with what happens in the factory setting; all they know is that stuff is coming out and they are making money.

To lessen the burden of exterior costs Corporations like to make other people pay for things they themselves think they shouldn’t have to pay for. Externalities are when something exists outside of production that a company has to pay for, such as pollution. Something that affects all Americans and is created by the company, but the company doesn’t want to deal with. So they attain government subsidies, and grants, they lobby for an estimated $20-50 million dollars a year in the “interest” of others, but end up taking for themselves. The American people end up taking the “burden” of Corporate Welfare for the idea that is for the “betterment” of society.

Dueling this omnipotent entity seems to be an idealistic impossibility. Like a blob of greed that grows without recourse, bypassing laws, transgressing human compassion for the lively-hood of a psychopathic profit machine. We can do something, there will be a better American tomorrow, and we do have a choice. Through educating the devastations that have occurred through the realities of wrongdoing of this “business”, we can choose to not give them our money. We can create alternative ways to get products we need, to not have to go through the product selection of these monstrous monopolies. By not buying into their ideologies, they will have to change their evil ways to regain our buying power, for us, the conversationalist consumer, the educated consumer, the responsible consumer.

Ideology and Ideological State Apparatus, Louis Althusser

From Althusser’s perspective we are all subjects, predetermined to social beliefs beyond our control, centralized within the State setting we are unconsciously being conditioned. The State Apparatus being any governing body and socially acceptable beliefs being ideology. These societal beliefs were set into place to alienate us into believing this is the way to be and that no other way exists. By doing this, us subjects are easier to manipulate, to control. Through alienation the power of reproducing ideology takes place, which is what brainwashes the subjects into continuing its current belief system. By believing such system is enacted without question thus continues the reproduction of the Ideological Apparatus.

In examining the central forces of ideology Althusser breaks down the entire State Apparatus from a productive standpoint. He begins this investigation by first looking through the cycles of productive influences. He says that economist judge and evaluate from the perspective of the necessity to acquire revenue, such that is the stance of the capitalist. It is under the firm, which the inner workings of the capitalist extend, they have no insight into the actual conditions of the production, because they only care about their own output and no one else’s. Their output depends upon supply, and the reproductive process to continue the demand of the supply.

To reproduce the labor power, the firm secures their ability to survive they continue to keep labor power going; they continue to stay in business. This process, which takes no place within the firm, takes place to further production through labor. Wages are what is used to keep the workers, who are in charge of producing, coming back day in and day out. Wages are in no way related to how the labor is, whether it be good, bad, hard working, how much is produced, etc. It is not a set worth. The lowest wage possible to continue production is what keeps labor power going through wages. Althusser continues on to connect the competence of the labor due to apprenticeships or education and later to ideology hidden within such education. Education splits classes leading some to blue color and the other into management, perhaps one day up into the superstructure. The educated are connected to ideology, which is passed through certain educational institutions.

Continuing to recite reproductive qualities into the relations of production Althusser then defines different layers embedded within the societal structuring. Breaking society into different levels based upon their play within the ‘social whole”, Althusser citing “Marist conception”, depicts the infrastructure and superstructure of a society. The infrastructure he delineates to be the “economic base”, the working class that supports the superstructure. The superstructure, which is broken down into politico-legal (the legislative system, as well as the State) and ideology (politics, religions, beliefs, values) holds at the top of the equation. As the lowest common denominator to production the worker is placed within infrastructure then the family apparatus, the church apparatus, the educational apparatus, etc. Each facet of a subject’s life leads to a new pre-conditioned apparatus. The infrastructure is a completely relevant existence due to the fact that the superstructure could not exist without the later.

Splitting the dimensions of “Marxist theory of the State” into two more realms of thought, Althusser adds a new degree to the progression of the repressive state. The State Power as well as the State Apparatus Althusser believes should be broken down even further into Repressive State Apparatus and Ideological State Apparatus. Both deal with reproductive cycles of regenerating their own conditioning, continuing their own such belief system but in different ways. The Repressive State Apparatus differs from the Ideological State Apparatus through the fact that the Repressive State Apparatus functions solely through “violence”, while the Ideological State Apparatus functions predominantly through “ideology”. The Ideological State Apparatus consists of such “institutions” as media, church, school, political systems, and family. While the Repressive State Apparatus, is apparent within the public systems of violence such as the police or military.

So we the subject are first put through a brainwash of conditioning through existing within a State Power, we then work within the Infrastructure/Superstructure, depending on education and ideology which we were meant to believe in through the growth and upbringing of our lives. We then continue such ideology through the private and public sectors of our lives, thus continuing the reproductive qualities in producing a nation of people that think, breathe, eat and do the same thing.

What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream, Noam Chomsky. Z Magazine, 10.97

Chomsky answers the question he poses within the title of this writing What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream, by first categorizing the different media types, associating them with intellectual contemporary institutions, and then historically referencing their emergence into the “whole intellectual culture”.

By deconstructing mainstream media, first through the idea that it is in of itself an institution to be hypothesized through a scientific method, he poses questions, to answer questions that slowly break down the purpose and product of such institutions. He then goes on to classify, based on the output target group, and private funding, of Mass Media versus Elite Media. The only difference between the two categories, Chomsky defines as mainstream, is the outlet they target and the large corporate funding backed by each. He classifies Mass Media, as sit-coms, reality television, sports programming, basically anything bastardized through Hollywood. Chomsky says these are created as a diversion tactic, taking people away from the things that really matter. This programming is set to target the masses, the Everyman.

On the reverse spectrum of communication sits the Elite Media, hidden from public view, for the most part, these organizations are much more powerful and manipulative than Mass Media. The Elite Media is supported monetarily through some of the wealthiest institutions found within the realms of the United States. These are large corporations set out to create an agenda, leading them to also be branded as the Agenda Setting Media. Run tyrannically, created for the privileged, having associations within the political arena, their full purpose is to “organize the way people think and look at things”. These institutions, which support the Elite Media, range from governmental organizations, other corporations within corporations, all the way to the scholastic Universities!

Chomsky reiterates over and over how within either of these institutions independent thought is not an option, ever. And if there were a possibility of a free thought it would get pummeled before it saw any light of day. There is in reality a forum of free flowing ideas, these which get censored, filtered and then reworked until they become part of the one massive set of ideologies that are the only agreed upon ideologies. There is no place for independence, true freedom of thought or a diversion for what is coined the “norm”.

Directing most of his blame within the university institution, an institution that prides it’s self on educating, Chomsky sites that such institutions are set to socialize to a predicted pattern and detour from freedom of thought. If taken off this predicted path, one is no longer part of such a system of learning. It is within this organization that the basic thought of “the general population (being) ignorant and meddlesome outsiders”, progresses and manifests to back-up the position that only the learned know what is really going on within society. Chomsky says this is a working example of Leninism, “we do things for you and we are doing it in the interest of everyone”. He believes this is connected to power, and who holds it. Whichever doctrine is more empowered is the one people will most likely be attracted to.

The evolution of this power structure, within the United States, surfaced during the First World War, and was sustained and encouraged within the second WW. It was through the propaganda machine of the British Ministry of Information that sought out the aide of the United States during WWI. The Ministry of Information “was mainly geared to send propaganda”, their intent was “geared to American intellectuals”, and whole purpose was to “control the thought of the entire world”. They believed the American intellectuals to be most “gullible and most likely to believe propaganda”. Which in turn is why the educational system is a great breeding ground for propaganda. Without the creation of propaganda aimed towards the Americans there would have been no way the British would have won the war.

It is within these internal mechanisms of thought that feed these inherent bred ideologies. The idea that the educated knows what’s best for everyone progresses these belief structures.

From Work to Frame, or, Is There Life After “ The Death of the Author”

“Death of the Author” ignites the perception of the artist as a “unique source of meaning”, without such acknowledgment the artist loses his appeal. An appeal which furthers his “mystique”, the mysticism of art and an expansion of its profits. It is because of this that Post-Modern art attempts to be a response of. Using Barthes beliefs that the author is dead protrudes the idea of focusing on the audience and all their possible interpretations. It is not within the art piece itself, nor within the artist as creator, but within it’s ending point, the frame. “The first, by focusing on location in which the work of art is encountered; the second, by insisting on the social nature of artistic production and reception.” The frame becomes the metaphor for institutional practices of framing, what is expected or was expected.

The writing continues with differing accounts of artists playing with the ideas of “framing” and some even breaking the frame. Along with “framing”, artists rebelled against containment for similar beliefs. Wanting to not be contained, artists made art in contradiction to the ideas of framing, and or being able to be contained. “The movements of deconstruction do not destroy structures from the outside. They are not possible and effective, nor can they take accurate aim, except by inhabiting those structures.” Moving into deconstruction, allows the artist’s work to not be appropriated, it is “impersonal”, anonymous. With this anonymity the artist no longer owns his own work, only by signing his work does it become his, and is transformed into a commodity. So by not taking responsibility for these actions, throws another layer onto a piece of art. Displacement is another construct used to disassociate the artist from the art piece. This is where “elements are either moved or removed from their ‘original’ contexts so that their contradictions can be examined”. By fragmenting certain ideas and beliefs this brings the ‘original’ elements more clearly into view. Post-modern practices are critical for artists, to step away from the art-machine, to not be apart of the institutions that continues their mystic. By doing this they can take ownership of their ideas, which aids and empowers them by breaking them out of the slavery that is within the art apparatus.

Death of the Author, Roland Barthes 1977,he Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism BY: Jonathan Lethem

“Writing is the destruction of every voice, of every point of origin. Writing is that neutral, composite, oblique space where our subject slips away, the negative where all identity is lost, starting with the very identity of the body of the writing.”

It is through “capitalist ideology” where the reoccurrence of placing emphasis within the power of the author, almost “tyrannically” occurs, asserts Roland Barthes in “Death of the Author”. Authors have always been viewed as creators, “persons” with identity whose presence was felt within their work, Barthes thinks differently of this initiative. Instead he breaks down these ideologies, to allow for a different look at the past belief system, the same system that has been is use for many years, mostly pre-modern texts. He cites that the relationship of the author to his text is like placing them side, by side on a bookshelf, the author is to the text as a father is to his son. It is before, and during the writing process the author is dead and has no identity within the writings he/she writes. The writing of the author has nothing to do with what he/she is writing, it is the writing that is the performance it is the language, which conveys the meaning.

With the author dead, and his identity superfluous this gives great power to the audience, to the reader, to those for whom the piece is written for. “The birth of the reader must be the at the cost of the death of the author”. This power is asserted through the plethora of meaning found within and or through language, linguistics, and vocabulary. “Language being system and the aim of the movement being, romantically, a direct subversion of codes- itself moreover illusory: a code cannot be destroyed, only played ‘off’” Barthes insinuates that “code” is language, and the author merely chooses the code to be deciphered by the audience. Each audience member could interpret the code differently, allowing for many flowing, perhaps unintentional meanings to occur within one piece. It is because of this multi-reading that allows each audience member to take away something differently from the exact same text and the other.

Barthes believes that the diminishing influence of the author to the text will correlate into writing and reading modern texts differently. For if the author is dead, then perhaps the text will expand, the reader will be the emphasis for the purpose of writing and the audience’s perception will be taken into account more so. This demotion of power comes from Barthes belief that there is nothing original. Language, text, ideas are not original, they have all been used before, they will continue to be used, it is through the use that makes text, language and ideas so meaningful. Opening his essay, Barthes cites correlations between past authorships, which have taken from others and expounded. He notices the absence of the narrator within modern texts, and the mentions the double meanings used within Greek tragedy. It is this multiplicity that gives the reader the power to take away which ever personal emphasis they choose from their perspective. “The reader is the space on which all the quotations that make up a writing are inscribed without any of them being lost; a text’s unity lies not in its origin but in its destination.”

The Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism BY: Jonathan Lethem

In an attempt to claim creative ideas, copyright laws are now in place to transfer art into property. Jonathan Lethem sees this as an unnecessary need to monopolize on what should be part of the “commons”. “Commons”, Lethem explains are everyone’s “right” he connects this “right” through the writings of Thomas Jefferson and in connection to the Constitution. An authority given to congress through “the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Rights to their respective Writings and Discoveries”, a power which ideally should be used to allow artists and scientist to have free range over expanding upon ideas, concepts, information, etc, from the past. Lethem cites that this discourse effects such work as medicine, finding cures for diseases which are obstructed because of genetic patents, through copyright laws securing ownership over scientific findings. Findings, with which if shared could further medical discoveries at a much faster rate. Our American tradition is held within the Constitution of the United States, which was written on the premise that it should and could always be amended. With such current copyright laws there will never be a possibility of drawing upon new ideas from the old without the use of such social “sharing”. To monopolize solely off of the rights of artistic creativity enables a generation to then rage against the machine, and work illegally to acquire information and art that should be a freedom to us all. How are we supposed to learn? How are we supposed to grow as a nation without such a freedom? Lethem even asks him readers to take advantage of his work after he has profited enough throughout the years, that’s how all-creative beings should be. For we would not be able to add to our own creativity without building upon the framework from the past, at least that what Barthes says.

Museums: Managers of Consciousness, Hans Haacke, 1986

Why are biotech companies suddenly sponsoring art about genes?, Jackie Stevens, 00

Haacke begins his article by classifying the art-world as the “consciousness industry.” He says that art is created from one conscious to another. That it is not a physical product and its worth or meaning can change depending on the spotlight it receives. Suggestive of religious connotations, art, the production and the object itself has a mystical inference. Because of these “romantic” ideologies there is no concrete assertion when it comes to art, or so it was believed. With the 19^th century credence that art is made for arts sake, reinforces the magical aspects of art that alludes to a higher power, and because of this allegation asserts it has little bias. Haacke says this is contradictory to the nature of art, and the meaning behind art. Because art is not “independent” it will always have a certain bias. The consciousness is a result of environment and social proclivity. Haacke goes on to suggest that the art world is more business than pleasure or romance. That there is a lot of money riding throughout the art world and most of it runs counter productive to the entire meaning of art and what art is suppose to represent, but not recognized. That by merely acknowledging the industrial aspect of art would ruin the “mystic” that is art. He indicates that new job titles have emerged into the forefront of the “industry”. From business schools, Art Managers are beginning to transcend into the art world like never before. These Art Managers care more about the branding, production and marketing of art, than arts nature. Haacke believes this could turn problematic for artists and the arts in general. It is the board member and top executives with business backgrounds that have the ultimate say in what gets shown and what gets dismissed. Haacke denounces this, and asserts it becomes similar to the way dictatorships and totalitarian governments publicize government propaganda. He concludes that if art is shown in this way it will push forward certain people’s personal gain (corporations, powerful collectors, or certain political views), instead of arts ultimate goal in allowing information to dredge the public in a more democratic fashion. It is because of the millions of dollars at stake, that the business aspect of art begins to impede upon the meaning of art. Haacke makes monetary connections from real estate to city government shows, as a way of “using” artists and art for the personal gain of profit. Using examples of small poor towns in Germany attempting to bring “cultural” changes into economically depressed cities is just one instance where art collides with business to engage profit. Haacke says art by nature is not an actual commodity, its meaning changes due to the amount of exposure it receives. He believes this to be the way to take down corporate conglomerates using art for personal gain. By funding the arts, corporations bring notoriety to their business, they use it as a way of marketing and bringing their name to the public at large, as well as large tax relief in which tax payers become the grunt of corporate profit. In the article “Why are biotech companies suddenly sponsoring art about genes?” has similar results. As a way to spread the word about biotech technologies, these large companies are funding art shows directly encouraging their own expansion of biotech information. Even if the art show condemns the companies themselves, their marketing still works, their work is still brought out into the public eye. As long as the attention is brought to the public, the biotech marketing has worked and at the expense of the tax payers once again. Haacke exclaims that artist can take back the power of art by using alternative showing spaces. That artist bypassing museums and corporate art funding all together, they can take back their meaning and their power. Haacke believes that by doing this art can remain democratic as it was intended to be. He concludes that corporations don’t have control over the consciousness, that they have to play by the rules of the “consciousness industry” which means that ultimately the artist has the power.