COMM-201 Discussion: 26 Jan

I just had to comment on my first COMM-201 discussion of the semester, since it and IML-101 use the same text by Sturken and Cartwright. While I might not have any particular insights beyond that which has already been discussed in both hours of class, I do have my opinions about what individuals perceive in regard to the punctum.

As of (roughly) 10:10 am this morning, I have been greatly disillusioned by the misunderstandings of some of my peers. This morning, we touched upon the "inherent value or meaning" or things, if the reader will, and generously created discourse about what each of us thought about this oh-so-profound topic. In little time, much to my dismay, it was clear to me that many of my peers were disillusioned by the materialism they are entrenched in. For many of them, things had interpretive value. And I don't mean value as per our giving it value. I mean value as in: God, for instance, created it and it had original value (whatever this value would be, I don't know). While it probably is a topic of debate in scholarly circles, I would argue that the very computer I am working on has no inherent value. Likewise, the bottle of Perrier sitting next to my hand has no value as well. Without saying, my books, worth $200+, which I bought from the devilish USC bookstore, have no instrinsic value as well. Clearly, these material goods only have meaning and value because others impose meaning and value on them.

I know this idea is unsettling, because, if this assumption were to hold true, quality of skill, design, framing, etc. would all have no value either. This would mean that your average kindergarten doodle would be equated to that of Picasso's. Or a van Gogh would be worth as much as shredded papers. This ambiguity of difference is what the Taoists of ancient China believed in, and we are more than likely all averse to this idea.

That's not to say that we should all become monks and nuns and devote a life to ascetism. No. That would be unbearable and insane. But what we can do is recognize that what we, as viewers, bring to a photograph, a painting, film, and anything else, is merely according to the whims of our minds per the influences of society.