Machine

According to Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari (1972) , everything can be seen with a machinic function. For profit to be constantly created in a capitalist system, there must be a constant flow of consumption—that of which can only be sustained by a constant flow of production. Capitalism can be considered the biggest, all consuming machine. It is, however, a system of machines of which is made up by many other machines-a machine assemblage.

Humans are machines of their own. They are constantly in the state of becoming and affects. They produce thoughts, creativity, ideas etc.—these of which produces affects that lead to the way we react, relate, and do things. These processes, however, are brought about by the integration and the flowing pass and through other machines.

Commodities and Desire

In act of finding out and “knowing” the culture we live in, we shall work on this concept to find out what fuels endless flows of productions and consumptions in a capitalist system. Firstly, it is important to frame desire as the motivation of consumption.

Commodities are classified as goods that are given value. They are “the visible, material marks of invisible, immaterial, but highly significant, culture” (Douglas and Isherwood 1979 cited in Fowles 1996: 28). The endless desire to consume endless amount of commodities is what keeps the capitalist machine living.

Therefore, commodities function as just some of the many machines in our cultural machinic assemblage. As Guattari (1983: 5) argues, “desiring-machines are binary machines…there is always a flow-producing machine, and another machine connected to it that interrupts or draws off part of this flow”. Commodities are the product of machines (the raw, organic elements of the product) that encounters with other machines (marketers, salesmen, the media etc.). Its production, inevitably, comes with the flow of desire.

The masses are the machines that interrupts this desire-flow in commodity-machines. As the machines encounter, desire sometimes get caught onto the human-machine. Hence, the human-machine will usually strive to fulfill this desire (this is a state of reterritorialisation*, a state of becoming) by consuming the commodity (in hope that the affect of this becoming is similar to what they expect of this encounter). On the contrary, it is possible if more machines draws off this flow, the desire-flow may wear off. For example, when a good that is highly demanded turns into a good that everyone has, it may become less desirable because of its lack of uniqueness and effect of the expected affect. On the other hand, this commodity -machine can encounter other machines such that an even better commodity is produced and made even more desirable.

*Reterritorialisation: In the further study taken on by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari (1987) in exploring the concept of the machine, they introduce the concept of deterritorialisation. It is the “movement by which “one” leaves the territory” (Deleuze and Guattari 1987: 508). Reterritorialisation is what takes after deterritorialisation- “it stands for” the lost territory” (Deleuze and Guattari 1987: 508). Therefore, what leaves one machine (deterritorialisaition) attaches onto another machine (reterritorialisation).

Culture is a body without organ

Culture is made up of an assemblage of machines. According to Guattari (1995: 35), an assemblage is a ‘place’ “of possible fields, of virtual as much as constituted elements”. This suggests that machines of all types are constantly producing affects of some sort by encountering each other. They flow pass each other, collide against each other, and integrate into each other. However, this flow is a never ending process. There is no beginning and end to this flow of energy.

A body without organ (BwO) is a “connection of desires, conjunction of flows [and] continuum of intensities” (Deleuze and Guattari 1980: 161). In other words, it is the site where machine interaction can take place. Culture is probably considered the model of a BwO. It is constantly “in the process of constructing itself” (Deleuze and Guattari 1980: 164).

It is the BwO “function” of culture which fuels desire-production in the capitalistic society. There are endless means to capital making because there is never an end to the production of desire- this being brought about by the different encounters of machines in this machinic assemblage. As Guattari (1995: 37) states,

“The machine always depends on exterior elements in order to be able to exist as such. It implies a complementarity, …but it is itself in a relation of alterity with other virtual or actual machines—a “non-human” enunciation, a proto-subjective diagram”

In addition, machines are autopoietic. It is the process by which systems “mantain their organisation and regenerate their components in the course of the operation” (Naylor 2007). This means that machines have no fixed structure and is not totalising. Hence, they are capable of reproducing new machines, and not necessarily a replica of what it is.

“[Totalisation] is occupied by inputs and outputs whose purpose is to make the structure function according to a principle of eternal return. It is haunted by a desire for eternity. The machine, on the contrary, is shaped by a desire for abolition.” (Guattari 1995: 37)

Therefore, machines are constantly undergoing alteration and remodifying themselves. Thus, culture of a capitalist system is never fixed and constantly in the making. It changes with the various and new encounters of its system of machines- time, people, commodities etc. Culture is a never-ending and will never be neutral. It is in continuous production, consumption evolution and revolution.

Construction of the Celebrity

The celebrity-machine is important in serving the capitalist culture industry. It is arguably a collective site of us (Redmond and Holmes 2007: 258 ) and acts to present us with the desire for living a commodity-filled life. According to Dyer (1979 cited in Marshall 1997: 17), “the celebrity is the epitome of the individual for identification and idealization in society”. They present the life that seeks for endless human desires. Marshall (1997: 244) states that “celebrities often define the construction of change and transformation in contemporary culture.” Therefore, although celebrities are used by the culture industry (run by powerful businessmen) to sell commodities, As machines themselves, their human encounters with other machines (non-media-machines) can produce new affects that become sold to the audience.

American Next Top Model (Cycle 10)

American Next Top Model is a reality TV show which help contestants kick-start a modeling career in America. In this season, a group of fourteen girls are selected from a pool of more than a hundred contestants. They are made to undergo a series of challenges, makeovers, and examinations by workers in the industry to construct their image and model careers.

It can be seen that their human machine encounter with other machines (stylist, make-up artists, judges in the show) act to drive a greater personal desire-flow. Their growth in the show (the changing of images, interacting with various workers in the industry, improving their abilities to model etc.) serves to increasingly differentiate them from the masses. As Marshall (1997: 16) argues, celebrities are “acted upon by the media and constructed into appropriate icons”. In actual fact, the key differentiating factor between their old (before the entered the competition) and new (after they entered the competition) selves is that they are increasingly commodified as the series progresses. As they successful take on the becomings of commodification, they move one step closer to become the winner of the competition.

Here is Tyra Banks discussing and critiquing the contestants before their commodification:

Kimberly—the outcast?

Kimberly is an example where her desires for commodities do not drive her desire to actually be a celebrity. The modelling industry is ultimately about fashion. According to Wikipedia, fashion is an “applied art dedicated to clothing and lifestyle accessories created within the cultural and social influences of a specific time”.

In episode 2, she ironically states that fashion is not her interest and she decides to quit the competition. In the preliminary rounds, Kimberly is framed as one of the more intelligent and educated contestants. She is twenty years’ old, works as a teller in the bank, and speaks of hoping to go back to school. However, when it comes to high fashion and expensive clothes, she shows little interest.

Kimberly’s self-elimination and confession that she is not interested in fashion:

However, by declaring she is not interested in fashion does not thoroughly eliminate Kimberly from the fashion system. She admits she likes to model because it “looks pretty”. This, therefore, shows how her subjectivity as a consumer of the fashion model-machine has been constructed, glamourised and hence, desired. Moreover, it illustrates how her machinic encounter with the celebrity machine still proved effective in creating desire-flow in her (to the extent that she decides to take part in the competition hoping to be in those pretty pictures she sees).

On the contrary, what the modelling (celebrity) system failed to do was create that desire-flow in her such that she desired highly commodified clothing. Her encounter with the fashion-machine got interrupted and lasted to the extent that she desired the image but not the lifestyle. Instead, her channels of desire may be encounter with other machines (learning-machine, business-machine) such that she hope to get a further education instead. Kimberly’s “outside-of-the-show” encounter with other machines can create a commodification of her differentness and her “alternative” passion. The viewer may get bought into Kimberly’s attitudes and seek fashion as something that j”ust looks pretty”.

High Fashion

Throughout the show, the judges and contestants constantly mention the phrase “high fashion”. The judges’ critiques are often based on the level of ‘high fashion-ness” each contestant has achieved. Their actions, gestures, the way they dress, the way they behave—all these factors contribute to their assessment. It seems to suggest that a top model would have to be “high fashion”. However, what is “high fashion”? How and why is it portrayed to be made desirable by the contestants (who can be thought of as the representative of the masses (the non-celebrity)?)

High fashion derives from the upper social class (the bourgeois). Achieving the life of the upper social class is one that is constructed as highly desirable by the capitalist machine because it is the channel to a lot of capital. The capitalist machine is one that is desire-driven. Hence, it is important to build up this desire-flow (the drive to be an upper social class) such that it serves its purpose of living—to fuel capitalism.

Like culture, high fashion is a machinic assemblage. Therefore, it is a BwO—a site for machinic encounters. It drives desire and produces an endless flow of production and consumption.

High Fashion—disinformation?

The idea of disinformation is an important aspect which serves the top of the hierarchy in culture industries. Disinformation is a tactic where information is deliberately manipulated (Colman, 2008). It “directs the networks of consumerism which are feeding class machinery,…[and] the upward flow of capital accumulation” (Colman, 2008). What concerns us is the information that is involved in this process. How does disinformation affect our subjectivity of the world? Are the masses simply disillusioned and manipulated by the bourgeois class (the rich and the intellectual)? In this aspect, does “high fashion” even exist?

Disinformation seems to revolve around that of wealth, power, status and intellect. What are these really? Are these the top four desire-flows that can take place in machinic encounters? I would said that these desires are the successful “products” of the capitalist system. They bring result to the drive for more capital in attempts to satisfy their consumption “needs”.

Therefore, to achieve the state of “high fashion-ness”, the contestants are constantly in the making—taking on new images, changing their fashion sense, changing their attitude etc. Their own human machine encounters with the image-machine, fashion-machine and behavioural-machine to produce states of becoming-commodity. These “high fashion” becomings, on the other hand, can produce affects of self-confidence, “beauty” and perhaps celebrity status.

Dominique- I’m not commerical, I’m high fashion!

What is the difference between this photo

and this….

In the former photo (episode 3), judges critiques that Dominique looked more like a catalogue, commercial model, than a high fashion model. In the latter photo (episode 11), Tyra Banks commented that Dominique has managed to master the “high fashion” look. This comment probably further proves how “high fashion-ness” is a becoming. High fashion is becoming-celebrity, becoming-commodity and hence becoming-model (And maybe ultimately, becoming-Tyra? ).

On the other hand, on episode 11 and 12, the panel of judges constantly had problems with Dominique’s wardrobe. In episode 11, they criticised that her red outfit looked like that of a waitress at a casual restaurant. In episode 12, they critiqued that her wardrobe was not flattering on her. Therefore, abide her various encounters with machines of the “high fashion” assemblage, her occasional “fashion disasters” demonstrates how she can flow past these encounters without having it take much effect on her (working with fashionable clothes doesn’t mean Dominique can dress fashionable).

However, the aspects that build up her fashion taste (reflected in her wardrobe) can be commodified by the capitalist system. The audience can buy that becoming-model-Dominique is not perfect and have her moments of ordinariness. This can grow onto the audiences’ perception of her, leading to their support or their disapproval.

If you’re really interested in what Dominique has to think of her wardrobe:

Conclusion

In conclusion, we have studied that culture can never remain neutral because it is a machinic assemblage. Furthermore, a culture which serves a capitalist society needs to have constant desire-flow between machines to fuel this machine-system. Hence, it is desire-flow which keeps an ongoing production and consumption system going. The construction of a celebrity is important for producers to sell commodities. They serve as an important site for the audience/consumer’s recognition of “an individual who represents the ideological centre of capitalist culture” (Marshall 1997: 17). Everything they do, wear or present themselves doing can be commodified by the capitalist machine when it encounters with their audiences.

Bibliography:

Colman, F. (10/04/2008 ) “Wk 5: Disinform: Shameless”, Lecture.

Deleuze, G, and Guattari, F. (1987 [1980]), “Deterritorialization”, A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, B. Massumi (trans.), London and New York: Continuum, 508-510.

Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (1983), Anti-Oedipus: Capital and Schizophrenia, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press , (1^st pub 1972).

Deleuze, G. and Felix, Guattari (2002 [1980]) “November 28, 1947: How do you make yourself a Body without Organs?”, A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. London: Continuum.

Fowles, J. (1996), Advertising and Popular Culture, USA: Sage Publications.

Guattari, F (1995), “Regimes, Pathways, Subjects,”, Soft Subversions S. Lotringer (ed.) New York: Semiotext(e), 112-130.

Guattari, F. (1984), “Molecular Revolution and Class Stuggle,” Molecular Revolution: Psychiatry and Politics, R. Sheed (trans.) London: Penguin: 253-261.

Guattari, F. (1995), “Machinic Heterogenesis”, Chaosmosis: an ethico-aesthetic paradigm, P. Bains and J. Pefania (trans.). Sydney: Power Publications: 35-59.

Marshall, D. (1997), Celebrity and Power: Fame in Contemporary Culture. London and Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.

Naylor, M. (2007), “Glossary” in School of GeoSciences: personal homepage, Retrieved on 9 June, 2008 from http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/mnaylor/Glossary.html

Wikipedia (2008), “Fashion Design”, Retrieved on 9 June, 2008 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fashion

Filmography

American Next Top Model (Cycle 10) :episode 2, Tyra Banks, 2007.

American Next Top Model (Cycle 10): Tyra tells us soemthing about the girls, Tyra Banks, 2007.

The CW Source: Jason C. talks to Dominique, The CW Source, 2007.

]]> http://windmilofthought.wordpress.com/2008/06/11/culture-and-celebrity-construction/feed/ 1 Mils. http://windmilofthought.wordpress.com/2008/03/25/4/ http://windmilofthought.wordpress.com/2008/03/25/4/#comments Tue, 25 Mar 2008 07:14:02 +0000 Mils. http://windmilofthought.wordpress.com/?p=4 ]]> In Guattari’s (1995) “Regimes, Pathways, Subjects”, he introduces the concept of machinic subjectivation. As students of his work, it is for us to redefine and build on this concept. The idea of the ‘machine’ ties in closely with the term the ‘culture industry’, put forward by Adorno and Horkheimer (1944). It suggests the idea that we live in a culture which is made for the masses and “produces safe, standardized products geared to the larger demands of the capitalist economy” (During 1993: 29). Drawing from the idea that the media acts as a machine, this machine seems to have the power to construct us (the mass, the audience) into become ‘manipulated’ consumers who have immense desires. Moreover, these desires can only be satisfied if we consume commodities created by capitalistic-driven media producers.

Taking from here, machinic subjectivation becomes a concept that we as receptors of the media machine are susceptible to. How much of the products we receive from the media (these of which are supposed to be a representation of reality) are actually ‘processed’ by the machine into something that is actually deceiving and manipulative? Are we exposed to a reality that moulds us into consumers with endless consumption power? Does the basic idea boil down to us (the masses) being subordinates to the capitalistic nature of society? With all these factors to consider, it seems that the concept of knowledge acquired from the machine is highly subjective and the idea of “what is real” becomes an issue that needs to be acknowledged.

Firstly, we have to attempt to understand how the media machine works. Going back to the fundamentals of how a machine functions: it has to have input before it produces output. I put forward the abstract idea that the machine ‘sucks’ the audiences in as input. What they extract from us are our likes, dislikes, fantasies, discourses, experiences etc and our basic characteristics such as our biology, age, race etc. The media machine then packages these symbolic, identifiable information, into products (i.e. television shows, films, celebrities). At the same time, this capitalistic-driven machine commodifies these information, giving it value such that consuming certain commodities becomes highly desirable to the audiences. By consuming these commodities, they satisfy their desires to achieve status, identity, and perhaps ultimately, ‘happiness’.

Celebrities play an important function in this machine. They not only act as “an embodiment of collective configuration within individual representation” (Marshall 1997: 51), they act as a site for meaning and ‘representation’ to the masses. This coincides with the idea of ‘interpellation’, put forward by Louis Althusser (1971), where “ideology ‘calls on’ individuals and constitutes them as subjects of and to itself” (Martin 2003: 214). The audience constantly acts as the subject that is “temporarily positioned or called by himself or herself as having relational reality to the text” (Marshall 1997: 64). With celebrities acting as a site of collective of the masses, subjectivity of the audiences is enabled as they act to identify with, or get ‘hailed’ by the qualities or ideologies (i.e. what makes a man masculine? What makes a female masculine? etc) that these celebrities act to display. However, how do commodification come into the picture?

Ever wondered why the life of a celebrity is so desirable, yet far-fetched? I would argue that this is because the life of the celebrity is not realistic. It is one that is cleverly constructed by personal managers, image consultants, PR firms, advertisers– workers of the media machine. A celebrity is arguably a collective site of us, but the idea that it ‘represents’ us is one that involves “myth-making and power struggles” (Redmond and Holmes 2007: 258). According to Redmond et.al. (2007: 258), “[representation] has a relationship with social reality in the sense that it is informed by the real, is the ‘real’, and shapes one’s understanding of the real”. As a product of the media machine, celebrities work along side the capitalist ideology (Ricoeur 1986 cited in Colman 2007: Lecture) of “distortion, legitimization, and integration”.

Firstly, the machine works on the identifiable-with-the-masses qualities that these celebrities possess (male, female, short, tall, young, old etc). Next, it builds on this concept of identifiability. Let us put this into context. Take for example, I, an audience of television can relate to Blake Lively from “Gossip Girls” because by my standards, she is what I define as a beautiful woman.

Moreover, she may have been one I would deem as beautiful even before she was given the whole celebrity package (this of which is the stage where she has not been made into a commodity). However, she has since been ‘processed’ by the machine and her beauty becomes commodified. Distortion: Attached to her natural flawless skin comes with beauty products and cosmetics to make her look more beautiful. She is made to wear clothes that brings out her ‘natural’ qualities such as her lengthiness and good figure by wearing high-waisted, tight-fitting skirts in the photo shoot. Legitimization: These commodities i.e clothings (high waisted skirts), cosmetics (foundation, powder, bronzer) then becomes desirable to me as an audience/consumer because I see that Lively looks good in it. Therefore, if i want to look as “good” as she does, these commodities become essential. Besides that, I may prefer wearing high heel shoes to look taller because I think taller girls are more attractive. I may not exactly want to look like her, however, her qualities (tall, fit, long legs, long hair, blonde etc.) become desirable to me as an audience/ consumer. These ideas and qualities becomes “naturalized’ in my social realm. Integration: On the other hand, underneath these desirable qualities, promotes the dominant ideology of what makes a beautiful female. To achieve beauty, a woman would have to be slim, tall, have long hair, nice skin etc., this of which consuming commodities (signing up with a gym, buying high heel shoes, putting on makeup) can achieve.

On a side note, see how some audience take desirability to the extremes.

More examples of celebrity wannabes here.

Furthermore, celebrities can sell lifestyles as well. In pictures, celebrities seem to display immeasurable amount of wealth. Their everyday life seems to revolve around “no-brainer” activities such as shopping, eating, beautifying themselves, and attending parties. They seem to lead the lifestyle that the masses desire. One that consists of wealth, fun and enjoyment without having the need to work for it.

However, we as consumers know that such a lifestyle can never be achieved in our reality. We can only desire, envy, and consume some parts of their lifestyle (i.e. going for parties, shopping at places celebrities shop at), but we can never fully obtain it.

The food that these celebrities consume suddenly becomes one that is a high-end product as well because it represents the consuming of the taste that the high lifestyle enjoys. This, is an example of how celebrities have ‘unintentionally’ advertised and attached an added value to a coffee brand (of which i reckon serves only mediocre coffee):

Dyer (1991 cited in Marshall 1991: 19) suggests that the celebrity is the “epitome of the individual for identification and idealization in society”. If that is the case, this seems to suggest that consumers will have endless desires, of which they believe can be satisfied if they continuously consume commodities which are sold through these celebrities. However, the standards of idealization can never seem to be fully obtainable by the masses because social order is never stable. This means standards of idealization is constantly changing and redefined by the machine.

Therefore, this is the process which fuels the capitalist economy of which the machine is an agent of.

Lastly, is there any way out of this desirability of the celebrity lifestyle?

Music critiquing the mainstream celebrity industry is seen more commonly amongst underground bands who write about anti-establishment. However, why did the then, pop princess Britney Spears, attempt a song at anti-establishment as well?

It may be more ‘normal’ for P!nk to sing such songs because she was marketed to be that way– writing songs that expresses her angsty-ness individualism, political-ness. However, the fact that she is still categorized under mainstream music does not make her any much more different from a commodified product of the media machine.

Through these texts, you read that the life of a celebrity is not all about glitz and glamour. These songs talk about the misery and suffering these stars have to go through for being a celebrity. Does this mean that texts produced by the machine is becoming less ‘processed’ and more realistic? Does this allow for the audiences’ subjectivity to be one that is less influenced by the machine? Is what these songs singing about a real self-reflexive of what goes behind the media machine or is it just another media ‘scam’ to blur our subjectivity of the system (thinking that these are the negative aspects to the life of a celebrity, but in actual fact, it is much more chaotic than that?)?

With capitalist ideology as an active fuel for the media industry, I doubt our subjectivity can ever be one that is based on ‘real’ and ‘factual’ information.

Bibliography:

Felicity Colman (13/03/2008), “Week 2 lecture notes: Idols of the world: TV machines”, Lecture.

Felix Guattari (1995), “Regimes, Pathways, Subjects” in Soft Subversions, S. Lotringer (ed). New York: Semiotext (e), 112-130.

Fran Martin (2003), “Glossary” in Interpreting Everyday Culture, F. Martin (ed). Great Britain: Arnold Publishers, 209-220.

P. David Marshall (1997), Celebrity and Power: Fame in Contemporary Culture. London and Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.

Sean Redmond and Su Holmes (2007), “Introduction” in Stardom and Celebrity, S. Redmond and S. Holmes (eds). India: Sage Publications, 257-260.

Theodor Adorno and Max Horkeimer (1991), “The Culture Industry: enlightenment as mass deception”, in The Cultural Reader, ed. Simon During. London and New York.

Filmography:

David Meyers, Lucky, 2000.

David Meyers, Don’t let me get me, 2002

Dave Sirvulnic, MTV : I want a famous face: Vived (Carmen Electra), 2007