SHOCK

Vattimo's idea of shocking the audience to capture their attention is quite apt in today's society. Often the media increasingly displays more and more shocking things to viewer as they have become numb to the previous "shock". This links back to the idea of overexposure and the same is true of shocking images. Initially television, radio and newspapers were highly controlled and their content monitored. A few decades ago a woman showing her legs to the knees was deemed inappropriate and "shocking" but nowadays it is common to walk into a supermarket and find the top shelf of the magazine rack filled with adult material. This demonstrates some of the change in our society in regards to acceptable levels of content and our created numbness to being shocked. It is the new, different and, quite often, extreme material that captures our attention if only to give ourselves the satisfaction of being horrified. It is strange part of human nature to be curious about horrendous things, to be fascinated by them and to be captured by them once we are given access.

The example I have chosen is one that many people have seen, a photograph of a Buddhist monk burning himself to death. This image shocks us. It scares us because we are made aware of the abilities of the human body, it hadn't been done before and it is a horrendous act that features so much pain. It is difficult to turn away from this image despite it's horrific nature.

Art, Shock & Disorientation

     I agree with Vattimo's idea that art is meant to shock the viewer and make them feel disorientated and out of place.  When a person wants an aesthetic experience they want to escape from our normal world and be put somewhere unnatural.  People wouldn't watch TV if it was just following an ordinary person around all day.  The viewer needs their attention grabbed by the art their looking at or they would simply pass it by.  People want to be in a state of " shock", according to Vattimo, and want their senses challenged, as cinema throws them into an abnormal situation.  I believe this is why horror, adventure, and science fiction movies are so popular.  It makes the audience wonder what if there was another planet with life on it with blue humans running around on it or if ghosts are real?  It makes us question the world around us, which is what fascinates people about art and cinema.  I think Vattimo's idea makes perfect sense, especially now when some people are literally becoming addicted to watching TV or playing video games.  TV and video games are getting increasingly disturbing lately to keep the viewers concentration.  Heidegger describes it perfectly when he says "The encounter with the work of art is like an encounter with someone whose view of the world is a challenge to our own interpretation."
     I choose a trailer for Paranormal Activity 4, for my example.  The Paranormal Activity movies have become extremely popular over the past couple years.  Its a perfect example because it is trying to "shock" and scare the audience.  Plus, the way the movie is made makes it very realistic and life like.  The camera is positioned like a security camera so the film doesn't seem like an act but real life.  I think this is what disturbs the viewer the most in these films because it makes them feel like it could happen to them and leaves some questioning if ghosts are real, which could blur their sense of what they thought was reality.

   

Shocking Media

Vattimo's idea states that disorientation is "the supreme mode of modern aesthetic experience." Personally, I disagree with this. Art is not solely meant to shock the viewer, but it can be aesthetically pleasing and depict the real world that the viewer/listener/reader lives in, in a way that does not require content that disturbes the audience in some way. A prime example of this is the Renaissance art period. This art form clearly demonstrated real and spiritual worlds in a way that brought awe to the viewer/listener/reader without shocking or dulling their senses. 

In this modern art age, however, schock does appear to be the prime method used by artists/writers/musicians to attempt and grasp the audience's attention in order to convey, what they believe to be, a deeper message of the real world. This constant attempt to shock seems to be taking a turn to the more disturbing corners of human life though, which could be detrimental to a society. It exposes people to aspects of life they should find disturbing, and conditions these images/sounds/words so they become normal. This new form on shocking art form appears to be at war with the classical forms of art and the new modern art wave, which seems to be less focused of real life and shock, and appeals more to our analytical nature. 

A prime example of how shocking art is beginning to become popular, though, is the current TV show "American Horror Story". 

It has a massive fan base in the United States due to it's strage nature, however this does not mean it depicts facets of the real world, on the contrary it depicts the abnormal. 

Art, Shock, and Disorientation

In response to this week's readings, explain why you agree or disagree with Vattimo's idea (based on the philosophies of Walter Benjamin and Martin Heidegger) that disorientation is "the supreme mode of modern aesthetic experience," and that art should shock a viewer/reader/listener into discomfort in order to confront him/her with the strangeness and uncertainty of a "real" world he/she usually takes for granted. Does Vattimo's concept rightly challenge the inoculating effects of art that only serve to coddle and dull the senses? Or is shock, like any other quality, constantly being made the norm, and thus in danger of forcing artists to search for even greater shocks at the risk of safety or simple aesthetic pleasure/value? Or, to go even further, is the basis of Vattimo's thought fundamentally flawed? Is disorientation "the supreme mode of modern aesthetic experience"? If so, why, and if not, why not?

Also, post or embed a link to a work of art you believe is primarily meant to shock the viewer,  and explain why it succeeds or fails in bringing to consciousness the disorientation of modern life. Here's an example: performance artist Chris Burden's "Shoot":

eXistenZ

In eXistenZ, there is one broad point that I believe Cronenberg is trying to get across: humans have become so reliant on technology that we can't tell the difference between our virtual, avatar selves and our real selves. When people nowadays go on Facebook or Twitter, or any one of those social networks, they believe that that is their reality. They get sucked into an online world and are mentally removed from the real world. This happens in eXistenZ, but in a more literal sense. Through the example of virtual reality video games, Cronenberg shows how new technology can be an escape from reality. In eXistenZ, the pods are "living" video game consoles that plug into humans and use their energy to power the game. The humans then play the video game and are put into a virtual world that is so realistic that it becomes difficult to distinguish between it and reality. This is analogous to our use of technology, since we become removed from reality and treat our virtual self as if it were our real self. It becomes an addiction, as it did in eXistenZ.
The fact that the "living" pods use humans for energy blurs the lines between humans and machines because the pods use the humans like a parasite. The fact that the pods are using real animal organs, but aren't alive like humans are alive (in the sense of emotion, communication skills, etc.) further blurs the line. However, it seems that they strive to be an actual living thing. And, in eXistenZ, the humans treat their bodies like a game console (which only furthers my belief that Jude Law is actually a robot). They use their body like a machine, which dissolves the human-machine distinction even more.

eXistenZ

This film was one that truly pushed the boundaries between the real and technological worlds through the use of one of the most common household items now a days: video games. The film's director took virtual reality to a new level by having the characters live in a world where the machine (video game console) and they became one of the same.
Much like a mother would nurture her child, player and game were attached via an umbilical cord allowing the game to feed off its host, indicating it had a life of its own. In the film the main female character was also made a remark that even though she she designed the game, you never knew where it could take you. This is pretty much her saying that while she designed this piece of machinery and data, what the game console decides to do with what she made is not in her control. This thought is possibly the biggest evidence towards the idea that the video console has a mind of its own and is a living thing, only in a different reality.
The film's lead male character appears to be much more conservative. He fears the idea of having an object live off of him, as well as the idea of his body being left defenseless as he explores another world. He can be seen as the advocate for the human world and what we consider to be our reality.
The ending of the film is quite possibly the most puzzling of all. While the "pods" they hold are not as grotesque looking as the previous ones in the game, its clear that they are on their way to becoming that. Also the fact that it is never explained if the game ended or not goes to show that even in our modern age, technology can pose a threat to our way of living. Some people may become susceptible to the idea that there is another reality out there and this can cause, as seen in the film, major paranoia. The film serves as a warning that while our improvements in the technological world are amazing, we should all proceed with caution.

eXistenZ

The film eXistenZ is very effective in blurring the line between man and machine, as well as reality and virtual reality. The "pods" which house the video games played by humans are hinted at being alive themselves, spoken about with phrases like "it took major hits" and "crying out for help" or "diseased." They do not have a life of their own, but connect to humans and live off of their energy. This brings up a strange symbiotic relationship in which the machine is like a parasite to the human, but it is important that the characters choose to enter these virtual realities. They almost seem to become addicted, to crave more experience in this world that is more exciting than their own. In the case of the game eXistenZ, though, the game is much like reality itself. In fact is it so similar that once entered, the players become unsure whether they are still in the game or not. Even the name sounds like "existence", implying a parallel between the game and reality. At one point in the film Ted pauses the game and then feels very uncomfortable because it makes reality seem less real. This makes a statement on the relationship between people and technology, and the way we rely on electronics so much that we feel we cannot live without them. Suddenly what we thought was real no longer feels natural, and it is hard to tell when one should stop indulging in "games." The complication is that when a game is so similar to real life, it brings up the question of whether we are players in the game of reality regardless.