<underfire> chaos, illusions & the 60's

[joy.garnett at gmail.com]

hi All,
cutting in here for just one second to point out: it is precisely because of
this "cavalcade of images from all sides" (presumably, images distributed by
mass media) that the "power" of images as such is severely undercut. Whether
the emphasis is put on "cavalcade" or "from all sides", images of war must
compete for our attention with all manner of seductive images, ranging from
sheer fantasy (American Idol; Dancing with the Stars) to "natural" disasters
(Tsunami of '04; Katrina; take your pick). That the images depict a current
war (winning or losing) seems hardly to matter.

which leads me back to this statement of Allan Siegel's:

> The point is that today there is a disparity, rather an abyss, between
> theoretical discourses entrenched within academic circles and the more
> popular dialogues that shape public opinion. No matter how prescient the
> discourse or the information it has little affect on the neo-liberal
> corporate trajectory. One, because there are few if any political
> institutions capable of altering the course of events and utilizing,
> absorbing this analysis.. And, two, particularly in U.S., this extremely
> knowledgeable academic elite has either become part of the spectacle
> (Chomsky is a good example) or neutralized in some think tank.


This speaks to me.

best,
Joy Garnett

-- 
530 laguardia place #5, nyc 10012
http://joygarnett.com

On 11/3/06, Eugene Wyatt <wyatt at catskill-merino.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: "Michael H Goldhaber" <mgoldh at well.com>
>
> "Now a comparison to today: In the US the level of opposition to the
> Iraq war has risen much more swiftly than a comparable movement did
> 30 years ago, although the form of opposition is very different.
> Polls already show a majority quite opposed to the Iraq war, even
> without the draft, without a major youth movement, with one-twentieth
> the number of US deaths. Why? I think largely through the much vaster
> cavalcade of images from all sides that are seen from the Internet
> and other sources."
>
> Perhaps this is somewhat off topic and too obvious, but I suspect that if
> this "cavalcade of images," etc. were showing that the invading forces
> were
> 'winning' in Iraq, the polls would NOT show that a majority at home were
> opposed to the invasion of Iraq.  'Winning or losing' very largely
> determine
> war's acceptability for many.  And the sad thing is:  if the war in Iraq
> were to turn around, if the invaders were to be seen as 'winners', so the
> polls would turn.  'Winning and losing' here make temporary bedfellows,
> "Oh
> you're antiwar my dear, since when and for what reasons?"
>
> Eugene Wyatt
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://underfire.eyebeam.org/pipermail/underfire/attachments/20061104/483f2a41/attachment.html