This past week we began by discussing broadcasting and recording. We focused our discussion on the differences between writing and the plastic arts. But later on in the week we connected writing, print and film because they are visual arts. Although what I found really interesting about these three forms of texts was their relationship to liveness. In class we discussed the different forms of liveness and provided multiple of examples, but we did not discuss whether liveness was less prevalent in our society nowadays and whether live-ness is preferred to the mechanical reproduction that has come about with the plastic arts.
The Dead Media Archive states “liveness is the absence of writing” but “it is encoding and decoding happening simultaneously”. This quote can be related back to our discussion on writing, specifically when Ong states that “writing is artificial”. Both of these quotes support the idea that speech allows the audience to connect more with the speaker and that everything can be perceived real and true since the individual can either be temporally or spatially live. I can’t help but agree with both the archives and Ong because I realize the impact a speaker or a live event can have on an individual. I think it has to do with the fact that the individual gets the chance to feel as if they were apart of something. Further Ong states that speech is more unconscious while writing is conscious and this can be related to liveness because a writer has more time to contemplate their thoughts contrary to the speaker that doesn’t have a speech prepared.
This leads me to my other point of whether liveness is held at a higher standard. I would argue that yes because liveness is “seen as more real” (Dead Media Archive). And by real I mean not being constructed. The archive also states that “liveness was once considered a marker of quality”, but it makes me question whether others don’t consider it a marker anymore. An example of a “live” event that I think is associated with the highbrow culture is opera. Opera to me is associated with the highbrow culture because the people who attend the shows belong the educated wealthy classes. I also believe that opera’s liveness allows it to be held at a higher standard because our society nowadays is overrun by technology that being able to separate oneself from elevates its quality. Finally I think that liveness is a marker of quality for opera because it reflects our societies prior to technology by emphasizing the importance of speech.
other, more flattering words to label people, especially women in this context? In Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown, the clear theme of women being seen as crazy and irrational (when being outspoken) by society resonates throughout the entire movie. In a similar light, The House of the Spirits also deals with men who perceive and will women to be the lesser beings; so that when the woman retaliates, she is seen as unreasonable and loony. This is seen when Esteban Trueba classifies Nivea del Valle as insane since she publicly stood up for women’s rights. The newspaper, The Guardian, protests against this injustice by unveiling the labeling of “men being historically associated with rationality, straightforwardness, and logic; women with unpredictable emotions, outbursts, and madness” (Nunn 15-16). Most notably, Almodovar and Allende’s works both portray heroines whose actions shatter this reasoning completely, which are Pepa and Alba respectively. The likeness between these two became apparent when I realized Pepa and Alba both were once very dependent on their lovers. However towards the end of their stories, they sprouted into individuals who were free to think for themselves. Furthermore, both female protagonists broke away from the vicious cycle of revenge and hate, which, “obviously”, was created by the wicked and corrupt men. How did they do it though? Instead of giving into her stereotype and basing herself only off of emotion (like Lucia), Pepa rationalizes her anger and hatred to the point of even saving the life of the man who undermined and ignored her. While Ivan was swept away in his desire of lust and the glamour of new women, Pepa had the chance to ignore his dire situation and let him bear what he deserved. However instead she became the bigger, levelheaded person and chose to save his life. Almodovar, in this perception, flipped the stereotype of women being “hysterical” directly back onto the men as he stated “It’s easier to learn mechanics than male psychology” (Kempley 31-32). The very charm of Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown bases itself off of the changed conservative perspective of only women being the crazy ones as humans. Almodovar and Allende both share the unseen viewpoints of what women go through, which give an explanation to why they were considered nonsensical in the first place ( it was because of the MEN). Nonetheless, both works left the audience thinking that the heroines were the only sane ones who overcame the barbarity of men at the end. Angeliki Coconi agrees with this by stating “[Pepa’s] realistic while outrageous, obsessed while reasonable” (Coconi 26-27), which indicate that even at the edge of a nervous breakdown a woman can still be sensible.
