This week, respond to your reading: David Lubin, Shooting Kennedy: JFK and the Culture of Images (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003).
Consider especially the way that Lubin compares images of JFK to other types of images--paintings, sculptures, art films, popular films, advertisements, and so forth. Are these kinds of comparisons valid and why?
4 comments:
In David Lubin's, Shooting Kennedy: JFK and the Culture of Images. I really got into it as a whole.
He talks about the famous movie of JFK being assassinated shot by Abraham Zapruder. David goes on to talk about how that film can be related back to iconic parts of our lives. Hollywood movies, famous prices of art works and also how advertising shapes what we see and I believe what we feel when seeing them.
Some things I found very interesting about the reading is one in the first chapter and how he states that “home movies remind us that we rust” I never though of it that way. Additionally in the first chapter he talks about how the film relates to a commercial film in all three parts. I found it quite interesting how he came to that conclusion and explained them all.
The one thing that stuck out to me the most though was in the final chapter where David talks about chapter 6 again and how advertisements are more than ironic. One examples of this would be the ad for a Lincoln Continental following the blown up version of Jackie on the back of the Lincoln Continental. He goes on to state “It reminds us that images beget images, gestures, gestures, and symbols, symbols---that political, historical, and commercial mythologies reverberate off one another and draw sustenance from the same deep wellsprings of culture.” It’s funny in a way to think of magazines really doing this but this is proof and it still happens today. They use ones misfortune, sad historic events such as this one, JFK’s assignation to capitalize on consumption. They “might” not think they are doing it at the time but its clear looking back at it now that it was being done consciously or unconsciously. I do think these comparisons are valid because It got me to think and look at this hugely historic moment in time, the images, film etc, in a new way.
To me the most interesting points made by David M. Lubin in "Shooting Kennedy: JFK and the Culture of Images" were the comparisons of the Zapruder film to avant-garde theatre (Happenings).
For me, having seen the Zapruder film multiple times throughout my life, the film cannot have the same effect as it did on those who saw the film for the first time. I had been told what to expect when I saw the film; I knew JFK and Jackie were in a convertible, in Dallas, and that JFK was shot in the head. Therefore the footage, while brutal, was not very moving. I felt I had been desensitized to the film before I had even seen it, as teachers and adults would preface viewing with descriptions of the film's content and a reassurance that everything was okay, look away if you get scared.
The Happenings of the 1960s start to get at the idea set forth by this attitude of "this is the most horrific thing you will ever see; let's watch!" It is almost a kind of rubbernecking. Avant-garde theatre groups of the time such as Coum Transmissions challenged audiences to endure performances in their entirety, despite the disturbing qualities therein. The theme of these performances, along with Lubin's mention of "Autobodys" seems to be a reversal of this desensitization; overexposing people to the human qualities that make us all want to watch what we deem horrible.
I had never seen THE video, i had always seen the PC video from the street, where you hear a shot and it gets kind of chaotic. So around the middle of the reading i YouTubed it.
You see it happen. In a contemporary upbringing, it is up to the individual on how they take their rare occurrences with mortality.
It is mentioned more than once, the relation to the JKF assassination to that of a Greek tragedy. Pushing the reader to absorb and appreciate the immense amount of emotion caused by such a story.
But this is anything but a story, this actually happened to someone. And not just someone but a man who acknowledged and took it upon himself and his family to be role models for a country
Personally, when referring to the Kennedy assassination, i never had a crisp mental image, only that video from the crowded street and stories. This yielded for heroism and honor, but i never felt the grief that came over me when you see a video on the internet of a man becoming an object, and an object broken at that.
Aside from the prying of frames, each piece becoming a blown up still abstraction embodying a tragedy not seen before by this nation, you witness in 22 seconds the true evil that man can be capable of, to destroy. Or attempt to, in this case the assassin only made JKF an immortal image of mid 20th century Americana.
This was an enriching read. Similar to Marie, Jacky and her children were turned into material culture. They were the twin towers, pearl harbor, oklahoma city. A means to inspire and unite people, and all it takes is a devastating tragedy
Personally I think like everyone else they read about the video. We're very intrigued about the footage and the conspiracies built behind JFK being assassinated. The message that I got from chapter six is how easy it is to turn a moment in history into something very iconic. An image that still burns through everyones mind that can't be completely erased. The mere fact that it has replay value is something that amazes me. No longer do we sympathize for the family of JFK and the man himself in the video. We don't find amusement in the fact that he is shot but we find pleasure that there is an obvious mystery behind the event.
It is very fascinating how we can take anything in history and make it seem more precious or just nothing at all. Examples of this is when the author David Lubin discusses the advertisements shown next to the blown up stills from the Zapruder film. This chapter made me sit back and actually look at the events happening in the present. Of course the fact that Barack Obama won the presidency was a major monument in the history of the country but can we say we're not treating his situation like how the magazines treated the death of JFK.
Not even sworn into office yet but we're already holding up iconic stature in favor of Obama. I'm not against what he speaks about but like many other political figures in the past. There is a symbol that now follows Obama that makes him recognizable. Why as individuals do we do this? What is our fascination?
Post a Comment