Volume 02 R,W & RM

From Media Design: Networked & Lens-Based wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Brief synopsis on Ruling Class and Ruling Ideas by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (still draft)
In “The Ruling Class and the Ruling Ideas Marx and Engels argue that what makes one class ruling class is the ruling ideas of its dominance. The ruling class controls the material production throughout mental production. The ruling class is empowering of being the producer, regulator and distributor of ruling ideas. Whenever the ruling ideas reveal to or benefits the general society’s interests then they became form of ideal – or the valid to the masses. Therefore every new class achieves domination not only by building over the top of each other (expended foundations) but surpassing common illusions of the previous. Marx and Engels introduced three predominant ways for creating an illusion that philosophy and ideology exist separately from politics. First, the ideas are separated from those who rule into empirical or material condition of how they appear. Secondly the ideas are given “mystical connection ” regarding them as “self – determined” and then they are personified into particular persona -"the thinker".

Synopsis on Subaltern Classes by Gramsky
(i) History of Subaltern Classes
According to Gramsci the ruling class is unit between political society (The State) and the civil society( the subaltern classes).
"The subaltern classes are not unified and cannot unite until they are able to become a State”.
Gramski speculates how the dominant class is formed. In order to a social group to become the dominant the group has to demonstrate “domination” and “intellectual and moral leadership”. The main principal for winning the power is continuously exercising “leadership” followed by dominating prosecution of the gained power.
(ii)The concept of ideology
Gramski inspects the ideology as an aspect of its “sensationalism origin” known as “science of ideas“ or “analysis of ideas” (“investigation of the origin of ideas"). Gramski opposes Marxism usage of the term ideology as “negative value judgment" or link only to the superstructure without concerning the philosophy and historical prepositions. This leads to misinterpret of the “ideology” by itself. Gramski argues that there are sufficient distinguish between the functions of the ideologies – psychological - the ones who serves to organize masses and arbitrary who creates individual movements. He also applies a symbiosis between the form in the face of the material force and the content or the ideology. In this interconnection the content is precondition to trigger or upraise the form.
(iii) Cultural Themes: Ideological Material
Gramsci emphasizes how the dynamic role of the press and different public structures( as libraries, schools, various associations etc.), whoever potentially imply great influence to the public opinion, maintain the ideological “front”. (or the most efficient way of spreading the ideology). The one who is aware of the “fortifications”of the dominant class has the “resources” to defend himself/herself.

Make notes on how Gramsci developed Marx’s idea

  • according to Marxism structure produces ideologies. Therefore ideology could not effect the superstructure on the contrary Gramski shares the belief that the ideology is the one that change the superstructure.

Posit your own definition for cultural hegemony

Cultural Hegemony

Cultural hegemony reflects upon power(the original of the word hegemony (leadership and rule). Or the inevitable indirect dominance of certain “structures” maintaining ideologies. The cultural hegemony works on unconscious, invisible level through constant media brainwashing where these ideas are passively accepted or taken for granted. For example cultural hegemony applied for 21st century is blogging. According to Alec Ross, Hillary Clinton’s senior adviser for innovation, “bloggers are a form of 21st century dissident”); and the Internet itself becomes a new and improved platform for Western broadcasting distribute non-censored, non-conformist literature were criticized in the official newspapers. One could argue what is the exact impact of the blogging counterculture as the ultimate democratic system, which creates freedoms or it serves as an political effective instrument of exercising power.

--->comments & feedback: to expand it and provide arguments.

State _of Emergency

Brief comment on “East of Best” exhibition took place in R’dam Roodkapje 2011, when selection of fourteen young artists where invited to take part in group exhibition or sharing the questions: How they see the contemporary art scene in Bulgaria and their role in it? I highlight the contemporary art scene (though it could be implied for new media discourse) because it is limited only to a narrow group of people.

A brief response to the collapse of regime / cultural hegemony and contra culture in Bulgaria.
• Synopsis on Viktoria Draganova critical text accompanies the exhibition.
• cultural hegemony in BG to what extend it could be implied ?
• counterculture /action vs non action.

While I was reading the critical text written by Viktoria Draganova I partly found answers to some trivial, but relevant questions I have been asking myself: What happen in the twenty years of transition in Bulgaria and what is happening now? Why Art fair such a RAW, RE-Rotterdam & ART Rotterdam won’t happen in Bulgaria in the near future ? What are the condition of existing massive cultural apathy and the role of counterculture?

Since the political change in 1989 Bulgaria has experienced changes from communist state into parliamentary democracy and market economy (capitalism). This time and structure changes – but the transition is still going on. Some idealistic ideas for an economical, social, cultural changes constantly become an utopian delusions(or never tend to happen). Despite of the disillusionment, many Bulgarians continue to look to the government to solve problems and provide services—as if they did during the socialist era. The transition of twenty years and so accompanies and impacts the contemporary art scene. “The contemporary art in Bulgaria has neither become commercial nor public.” There is sufficient lack of state funding and institutional support for developing even establishing the art scene as recognized, distinct and functional one. Another eminent evidence of a lack of state position is the missing museum of contemporary art, which plays a significant role in ever expanded art discourse. In the critical introduction Draganova argues that the role of artist/ art has been neglect and often disparage not only by the state but from a large part of the public. There is common view of the artistic practice as an elitist, privileged form of occupation - non pragmatic enough to face up the status of urgency - where the State seeks fast economic development dismissing the cultural sector. But the social aspect of the discourse is interesting why the society is apathetic why there is no contra culture or social movements - opposed to the non-working structures (art and culture)? What is the role of the individual (the artist) who faces up a wall of indifference?