In a post below I mentioned my praise of Reality TV. And I stand by it. But one thing that irks me is television programs still trying to convince viewers of its "authenticity"... basically im trying to make a rant against the show "College Life" on MTV. Its tag line is that "This is not reality- THIS IS REAL"*.... GIVE ME A BREAK. I really hope people aren't falling for this!@$# No matter how young they are, I still have hope that the viewing audience realizes that this can't be any more "REAL" than any other reality show out there.
"College Life" gives college freshman a camera where they film themselves and blah blah blah stuff happens. EDITED stuff happens. I don't like this show for a variety of reasons (one of them being that I feel these kids are exposing secrets that should remain secrets about undergrad life...yes underage drinking is heavily prevalent- its a tradition that should be left alone and shouldn't be so blatantly revealed to higher authorities (i.e. parents)).
But anyways, how dare MTV try to undermine my intelligence and tell me this stuff is "REAL"!!! Whenever you give someone a camera or put them in front of it they will consciously or subconsciously avoid putting the most horrible things about themselves out there. True, this show may not be as scripted as others, but that does not give it the right to label itself as being "real"!
I found an interesting article by Mike Vilensky for NYU Local criticizing "College Life" which I think is pretty funny and addresses the crappiness of the show quite well, but it does little to criticize the supposed "authenticity" of the show and he puts it in a separate category from "fake-reality" shows. That's where I think the author is wrong. I would lump them all into one giant "THIS ISNT REAL" category.
And because MTV tried to force its "THIS IS REAL" line in my face- I would also lump this show into the "THINGS ON TV THAT SUCK" category.
- Ari Maz
*for those of you who followed this link- I have no idea why someone would go through the trouble of taping the commercial to this show off their TV... but thank you to that person for having too much time on their hands!
Friday, May 8, 2009
Things That Restore My Faith in Humanity: Part I
Yes, I am a horribly jaded and cynical individual, although as Chuck Klosterman would argue, the fact that I label myself as such actually proves that I am not cynical, "True cynics would never classify themselves as such, because it would mean that they know their view of the world is unjustly negative... a self described cynic is secretly optimistic about normal human nature."*
Thank you Klosterman for outing me, but I really am secretly optimistic about human nature.
I am currently avoiding doing the work of data entry in an office in Anywhere, USA. Behind me two co workers are conversing about nothing particularly important, to the right of me a girl switches between doing data entry and playing the intense game known as Solitaire. This is humanity at its finest- people put together in an arguably shitty situation and collectively making the best out of it. We have this implicit understanding that doing your work slowly or not at all is ok- as long as it eventually gets done, of course. I barely know these people but I am 99.9% confident that they would not snitch on me to the big boss lady.
But if this kind of basic human connection can occur here at the work place without much effort it can happen everywhere! And yes, we are bonding over being lazy, horrible workers. But thats way better than for us to be cut throat bastards trying to tear each other down. WOOO go humans and humanity! I have faith you in you again! At least for the next few hours.
-Ari Maz
*This was taken from Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs pg. 14
Thank you Klosterman for outing me, but I really am secretly optimistic about human nature.
I am currently avoiding doing the work of data entry in an office in Anywhere, USA. Behind me two co workers are conversing about nothing particularly important, to the right of me a girl switches between doing data entry and playing the intense game known as Solitaire. This is humanity at its finest- people put together in an arguably shitty situation and collectively making the best out of it. We have this implicit understanding that doing your work slowly or not at all is ok- as long as it eventually gets done, of course. I barely know these people but I am 99.9% confident that they would not snitch on me to the big boss lady.
But if this kind of basic human connection can occur here at the work place without much effort it can happen everywhere! And yes, we are bonding over being lazy, horrible workers. But thats way better than for us to be cut throat bastards trying to tear each other down. WOOO go humans and humanity! I have faith you in you again! At least for the next few hours.
-Ari Maz
*This was taken from Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs pg. 14
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
In Praise of Reality TV: I Love Money 2 Rules
I know there has already been a lot of criticisms made out there over the last few years about "reality" tv and how it's not really real and blah blah blah
Now I totally agree with this. The only thing that can truly represent reality as you know it, is your own experiences and thoughts and research etc.
This being said, I'm starting to kind of think Reality TV is awesome. 1. because I find it highly entertaining and 2. the creation of Reality TV and its debate about how "real" it actually is, has shed light on just how fake TV is in general. People have started to become more critical about what they are watching. If Reality TV is deemed to be so fake, then what about regular television (like those shows with actors and stuff)? They are like, really REALLY fake. You see what I'm saying?
I personally believe that nothing on TV or on film should be taken as an accurate representation of anything except for the vision of the people creating it (i.e. the director, the writer etc.). This is what makes documentaries scary because they are generally thought of as being "real" and "accurate", when there can never really be such a thing, since all film has to be edited, and shown through some kind of perspective.
Now with that being said: I Love Money 2 is quite possibly the greatest show on TV right now. In my humble opinion of course. I'm wondering if there are others out there who enjoy it as much as I do. All the contestants on that show are like these exaggerated characters of themselves and its amazing. On top of that, the editors of that show really go crazy and have fun with it and in that way it is the most un-realistic reality show out there. And I love it.
All in all, Reality TV has prevailed despite constant complaints and negativity surrounding its name. There must be a reason for this. And I'm guessing it's because people do actually find it entertaining. And that's not a bad thing. As long as one realizes that Reality TV is just another show on TV, just as realistic as anything else out there, who cares whether it stays on the air or not.
- Ari Maz
Now I totally agree with this. The only thing that can truly represent reality as you know it, is your own experiences and thoughts and research etc.
This being said, I'm starting to kind of think Reality TV is awesome. 1. because I find it highly entertaining and 2. the creation of Reality TV and its debate about how "real" it actually is, has shed light on just how fake TV is in general. People have started to become more critical about what they are watching. If Reality TV is deemed to be so fake, then what about regular television (like those shows with actors and stuff)? They are like, really REALLY fake. You see what I'm saying?
I personally believe that nothing on TV or on film should be taken as an accurate representation of anything except for the vision of the people creating it (i.e. the director, the writer etc.). This is what makes documentaries scary because they are generally thought of as being "real" and "accurate", when there can never really be such a thing, since all film has to be edited, and shown through some kind of perspective.
Now with that being said: I Love Money 2 is quite possibly the greatest show on TV right now. In my humble opinion of course. I'm wondering if there are others out there who enjoy it as much as I do. All the contestants on that show are like these exaggerated characters of themselves and its amazing. On top of that, the editors of that show really go crazy and have fun with it and in that way it is the most un-realistic reality show out there. And I love it.
All in all, Reality TV has prevailed despite constant complaints and negativity surrounding its name. There must be a reason for this. And I'm guessing it's because people do actually find it entertaining. And that's not a bad thing. As long as one realizes that Reality TV is just another show on TV, just as realistic as anything else out there, who cares whether it stays on the air or not.
- Ari Maz
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Chuck Klosterman is Awesome.
I recently have fallen in love with the writer/journalist Chuck Klosterman. I heard him talk at UNC Chapel Hill not too long ago, and I went to his speech without knowing exactly who he was or what he was about, but it was a free event so I thought what the hell. Turns out he's uber smart, talks about shit that I love, and above all seems to be really invested in maintaining integrity in his work as a journalist (for example, he doesn't follow up with celebrity interviews or pretend to "know" them). And even though he's such an intellectual you can still connect with him and get on his level because he's witty beyond belief and quite humble.
After listening to him speak I checked out one of his books from the library, Chuck Klosterman IV: A Decade of Curious People and Dangerous Ideas, which was a totally awesome read and pretty much changed my entire out look on celebrities. So in essence, blew my mind.
A part of this book is a collection of interviews he's had with different celebrities over the years and he emphasizes the fact that celebrities are carefully crafted images. Whenever a celebrity talks to an interviewer it's already a conversation set on false pretenses. The celebrity already has the role of "interviewee" and the person reporting as "interviewer". The celebrity is already on guard that personal questions might be asked and already has an idea of how they want to represent themselves to the public. As real life tells us, to truly get to know a person involves more than just asking a couple dozen questions.
After reading all these interviews Klosterman has had with the likes of Radiohead, Britney Spears, U2 etc., I look at these "relationships" (aka fandom) I've formed with certain celebrities and feel like they have all been built on an imaginary ground. Any kind of connection I may have felt I had with them feels totally false, everything was just carefully crafted to make me believe what I believe about every celebrity, ex. "Jonny Depp seems so sensitive and so dark and edgy!" (note: I don't actually have any kind of attachment to Mr. Depp, but that is the impression I get from the image he's made for himself and what people tend to think about him).
And don't get me wrong, I always kind of knew celebrities were fake, and a construction of some sort, but the Klosterman book just kind of exposed another layer of what seems like a giant conspiracy to get me to like and obsess over people I don't know.
That's why it's such a shock to the public whenever a celebrity does something "out of the ordinary" but yet very regular- because it doesn't fit in with their constructed image. Like when Owen Wilson slashed his wrists, or Rihanna got beat up by Chris Brown. These things can happen to regular people but how could it ever possibly happen TO THEM?!
... I guess what I'm saying is, read some Chuck Klosterman. It's a good time.
After listening to him speak I checked out one of his books from the library, Chuck Klosterman IV: A Decade of Curious People and Dangerous Ideas, which was a totally awesome read and pretty much changed my entire out look on celebrities. So in essence, blew my mind.
A part of this book is a collection of interviews he's had with different celebrities over the years and he emphasizes the fact that celebrities are carefully crafted images. Whenever a celebrity talks to an interviewer it's already a conversation set on false pretenses. The celebrity already has the role of "interviewee" and the person reporting as "interviewer". The celebrity is already on guard that personal questions might be asked and already has an idea of how they want to represent themselves to the public. As real life tells us, to truly get to know a person involves more than just asking a couple dozen questions.
After reading all these interviews Klosterman has had with the likes of Radiohead, Britney Spears, U2 etc., I look at these "relationships" (aka fandom) I've formed with certain celebrities and feel like they have all been built on an imaginary ground. Any kind of connection I may have felt I had with them feels totally false, everything was just carefully crafted to make me believe what I believe about every celebrity, ex. "Jonny Depp seems so sensitive and so dark and edgy!" (note: I don't actually have any kind of attachment to Mr. Depp, but that is the impression I get from the image he's made for himself and what people tend to think about him).
And don't get me wrong, I always kind of knew celebrities were fake, and a construction of some sort, but the Klosterman book just kind of exposed another layer of what seems like a giant conspiracy to get me to like and obsess over people I don't know.
That's why it's such a shock to the public whenever a celebrity does something "out of the ordinary" but yet very regular- because it doesn't fit in with their constructed image. Like when Owen Wilson slashed his wrists, or Rihanna got beat up by Chris Brown. These things can happen to regular people but how could it ever possibly happen TO THEM?!
... I guess what I'm saying is, read some Chuck Klosterman. It's a good time.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Gender Neutrality on the Internet
Since this is my first post on a blog EVER I'm curious to see what the general impressions of me (the author) already are.
I've decided to try and remain pretty anonymous so far- I purposely have not made any allusions to my gender or age (as of yet) because I think that is one of the coolest powers of the internet- total anonymity, if one chooses it.
But try as I might to be gender neutral I can't control what thoughts and biases any readers might have out there (as of now I have zero readers, so this isn't an issue just yet). But often times I find myself being put into some kind of gender box whenever I go on the Internet. Case and point, when I play spades on Yahoo! games, my screenname (which is something like "elephant55" - don't ask why- it was the 8th grade and I was young and foolish) is pretty damn neutral. Elephants aren't really more popular among women or men. Also, my little buddy icon is a dog wearing a cap. Although, dogs are typically seen as "masculine" and cats as "feminine", it should still not be concrete evidence as to what gender I am. Yet, I've observed that during general chatting or heated shit talking, I'm referred to as "he's fucking cheating!@#$!" or "that guy is a total douchebag". And aside from thinking, "mwuhaha Ive totally riled these people up" I also wonder if it's truly possible to be gender neutral on the Internet.
For some reason, I have this suspicion that you are by default male unless you prove otherwise. So have I already given myself away of what gender I am by my template colors? My profile icon? (yes- pepe the prawn is male but I dont identify myself with the prawn species so in the end it shouldn't say much at all). Or perhaps I'm not even human at all- and indeed am a prawn. A totally awesome prawn that could probably kick your ass at spades
.
That, my friends, is the power of the Internet. So feel free to stay completely anonymous and leave me some comments, or reveal yourself. Either way strangers will probably still form unfounded opinions about you, but YOU still have the power to either dispell,confirm or not give a shit about these opinions.
Finally: without reader comments or messages this blog will be completely useless to me. I made this blog to create discussion about stuff I find interesting and to see whether I might actually be right or whether I've just pulled this crap out of nowhere.
- Ari Maz
I've decided to try and remain pretty anonymous so far- I purposely have not made any allusions to my gender or age (as of yet) because I think that is one of the coolest powers of the internet- total anonymity, if one chooses it.
But try as I might to be gender neutral I can't control what thoughts and biases any readers might have out there (as of now I have zero readers, so this isn't an issue just yet). But often times I find myself being put into some kind of gender box whenever I go on the Internet. Case and point, when I play spades on Yahoo! games, my screenname (which is something like "elephant55" - don't ask why- it was the 8th grade and I was young and foolish) is pretty damn neutral. Elephants aren't really more popular among women or men. Also, my little buddy icon is a dog wearing a cap. Although, dogs are typically seen as "masculine" and cats as "feminine", it should still not be concrete evidence as to what gender I am. Yet, I've observed that during general chatting or heated shit talking, I'm referred to as "he's fucking cheating!@#$!" or "that guy is a total douchebag". And aside from thinking, "mwuhaha Ive totally riled these people up" I also wonder if it's truly possible to be gender neutral on the Internet.
For some reason, I have this suspicion that you are by default male unless you prove otherwise. So have I already given myself away of what gender I am by my template colors? My profile icon? (yes- pepe the prawn is male but I dont identify myself with the prawn species so in the end it shouldn't say much at all). Or perhaps I'm not even human at all- and indeed am a prawn. A totally awesome prawn that could probably kick your ass at spades
.That, my friends, is the power of the Internet. So feel free to stay completely anonymous and leave me some comments, or reveal yourself. Either way strangers will probably still form unfounded opinions about you, but YOU still have the power to either dispell,confirm or not give a shit about these opinions.
Finally: without reader comments or messages this blog will be completely useless to me. I made this blog to create discussion about stuff I find interesting and to see whether I might actually be right or whether I've just pulled this crap out of nowhere.
- Ari Maz
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
