In my “the moving image in contemporary art” class I’m required to read ranciere’s “the emancipated spectator.” I was looking forward to this after uroskie showed us the syllabus. I’ve heard so much about ranciere, mainly from uroskie, and reading other theorists I was pumped to read it. And, thanks to no work today, I actually got to read it and re-read it and take notes! What a luxury. Amidst all of the questions I have regarding the essay, which will be addressed in class on Wednesday, I came across a quote that I think might relate to our theme of “vitalism contra materialism.” I’m thinking of vitalism as what is vital, necessary for us, as humans to exist. Materialism, on the other hand, means that the only thing that exists is matter and things composed of materials. Ranciere says, “a process of subjectification is certainly a materialist process of action on the environment.”
I take this to mean that the way we subjectify things is done in a materialist way on our surroundings. Meaning, we bring our own experiences, wrought with materialism, to our surroundings. Is this true?
In the case of our theme “vitalism contra materialism” does ranciere’s quote speak to the idea that everything we think is vital would consist of materialistic tendencies and so the two are not so different from each other? Let’s think of an example, what is vital to us? Well, if we’re going to go with food, clothing, and shelter then I guess that is pretty materialistic. Materialistic in the sense that those are all objects. But not materialistic in the sense that we’re not specificying that the food has to be from umberto’s of new hyde park (the best pizza on long island,) the clothing from urban outfitters, and the shelter crafted by frank Lloyd wright.
But if we’re talking about emotional or mental vitalism …how can those be materialistic? Can an emotion or a mental state be materialistic? I would argue, no. why? Well, for one thing they are born from us. From the individual. From our mind. I guess these aspects of us can be influenced by materialism. But how can am emotion be influenced by materialism? Maybe you’d get angry if your sister borrowed your favorite shirt from said establishment of urban outfitters without asking (happened to me many a time.) but what about the emotion, and mental state for that matter, of love. Can that be materialistic? No? I want to say no. I want to say that that is an emotion that we can separate from materialism. But I’m not sure why…
I do see a difference between what is vital and what is materialistic. Yet, I’m afraid they may influence each other and so, is anything purely vital or purely materialistic? And why am I so weary to see a connection between the two?
Human connection. For me - that is vital. Not for reasons of greed or money or the acquiring of objects but for mental and emotional reasons. I like a strong community, the more the merrier, we’re all in it together, let’s sing kumbaya (I like living in a fantasy world where we all get along, is that so wrong?!) but I don’t see a material connection there. I see a vital connection to a feeling that I am linked with and to the rest of the world. A feeling that I am an individual making a difference within and with the collective. I don’t see a link to materialism.
So, ranciere, are our opinions perpetually influenced, and shaped, by materialism? Are our emotional, mental, nontangeable thoughts and feelings influenced by matter and objects?
No comments:
Post a Comment