During the
Roman Empire the Coliseum was the site for fourteen-hour long spectacles
where an assortment of Roman people (senators, artisans, prostitutes
(male and female), gladiators, cinaedi ("effeminate males"), and
emperors) gathered for their weekly entertainment. So as not to
be bored, programs at the Coliseum were structured in such a way
that at least nine different stages offered some sort of spectacle
(gladiator fights, theatrical performances, live animal battles).
A Roman was never bored with merely one show at a time. One could
always change focus (channel surf?) to experience something different.
And if the Coliseum did not offer enough distraction, the Circus
Maximus around the corner provided the thrill of chariot racing.
There was always something to do!
Romans reveled
in their urban splendor and the sense of enormity that accompanies
urban life (the city of Rome was populated with over a million people
at the time - same as contemporary Auckland - New Zealand's largest
city). They marveled at the sporting and theatrical events staged
not only for their entertainment, but at the power with which the
political ideology of the day demonstrated itself through such multi-media
events. Entertainment was all well and good, but the presence of
the Emperor over - looking his subjects and, more importantly, controlling
the performance agenda (quite literally life and death issues) during
the day's program surely had its political value.
These cultural
circuses or these Roman media events are perhaps an instructive
point of departure. Certainly Romans were not the first to introduce
the site of theater as simultaneously an entertainment and ideological
sphere (one might turn back to Greek and Egypt and forward to Mussolini
and Hitler-origins and its followers aren't important here). The
dazzle of the Coliseum spectacle, however, might help us to put
into perspective our understanding of contemporary mediated events.
The Roman spectacle further puts into historical perspective the
terms "media event" and, relevant to our theoretical concerns, spectacle.
How different is antiquity from the "modern" age?
In the Film
and Media course we considered how and what constitutes media. What
is its cultural and historical significance? How are ideas mediated
and communicated in order to disseminate knowledge and, simultaneously,
power? How is cultural meaning made? The new millennium has ushered
in a seemingly intensified and radically different concept of communication
processes. The speed of virtual information has purportedly surpassed
the wildest dreams of past technology inventors (and not to mention
those who have made millions of dollars in the early investment
days of this technology). But, has there truly been a "technology"
or "communication revolution?" Has the hegemonic cultural
ideology altered in some radical way or have the technological terms
under which this ideology operates simply shifted so as to enhance
the efficiency of capitalism?
Indeed, technology
has always offered the promise of dynamic change and progressÑthe
dream of a better life is served (ironically) by the built-in obsolescence
of the technology itself. In other words, things break down so that
we can buy the "new and improved" product to live even more efficiently
than we did before with the previous product. Is "progress" really
the promise of a better existence? Does technological progress turn
us into ideological automatons or does the detritus of technology
provide some subversive tools for dealing the dominant political
ideology (which is what exactly?)? The ideo(ology) of progress is
a cultural phenomena that complexly inscribes a number of political
and economic global structures.
Importantly,
where is the body in this mediated sphere. The operations and effects/affects
of media necessarily rely on human production and consumption. Where
does the human body fit in the mediated cultural fields of everyday
life? How is the body defined in relation to the cultural logic
of media? How does race, class, and gender delineate the relationship
of the body to cultural media? Is there, in effect, such a thing
as media without a relationship to the body? What discourse and
discursive practices of media maintain the long-standing mechanisms
of ideology? What are the metaphors that link the body with media?
What reinforces the implications of such metaphors? What is the
phenomenological affect of media on our "life experience?".
