rethinking the spectacle

Spectacle normally is referred to when one is speaking of live events that evoke grotesque violence, or that entice our more carnal nature, however considering concerts and live musical performances that "crude" factor that is often thought of regarding spectacle is non existent. For the purpose of this post eliminate any consideration of the musical and lyrical aspects of communication.

I went and saw James Taylor last week at the Orphium Theater in Omaha.  This is a venue that I have never personally been to, and was amazed at the visual stimulus of my surroundings.  The theater is normally used for events such as plays and operas, so it is designed where the seats are conclaved and rising. I was all they way up in the gallery, but still had an amazing view.  With the stage layout there was not the common digital screen in the background that you see at most concerts, but with lighted paper similar to the backdrop of most plays.  I found myself questioning whether this beautifully gold plated auditorium created a more appropriate setting to see an artist like J. T. who could be considered more as art now than simply a pop-culture icon.  I strongly decided by the end of the night that there could not have been a better place in Omaha to see James Taylor for the first time. The surroundings added meaning to the show by the physical ornateness that the Orphium provided.

Then to consider a polar opposite of the styles of J.T. and the visual performance, Deadmau5 is a performer in the electronica music scene, who provides a light show along with his performance that would make Electric Light Orchestra's shows of the seventies look like they were a bunch of flashlights and candles.  With the use of digital screens, and his digital "mouse head" this artist is able to provide a visual experience that is nearly overstimulating. Again music aside his visual communication of what is behind the music can be inundating.  His shows can go from a small venue to major festivals like Sasquatch and Cochello, regardless the visual is allways an important part of his show.  

Does it really require violence, or sexuality to be considered spectacle, or is the "calming of the masses" the effect that drives the spectacle.

I leave you with a short video of Deadmau5 to consider this, I challenge you to watch it initially without the music, and then with to see if the visual is the driving factor of this spectacle or music is the key.

Limits of possibility

Color plays an imperative role in visual communication. Throughout history the only colors that were available by production were those that were created from dyes that came from the local areas. Eventually the possibilities were widened through the trade routes of the region. In our current society we are inundated with a myriad of variations of color. To the point where it is nearly impossible to define a specific hue with the naked eye.  Immanuel Kant stated that genius was "a talent for producing that for which no definite rule can be given... and that consequently originality must be its primary property," (Kant, 1790). 
     As Michel Foucault suggests that "discourse is a body of knowledge that both defines and limits what can be said about something," (Cartwright, 2009), is it possible that our scientific endeavors have made it possible to produce every spectrum visible to the human eye?  With the readily available capabilities of high-definition televisions, paints for houses and cars, as well as print mediums, are we enhancing our visual communications or are we diving into sensory overload?
     By defining the color spectrum have we eliminated the possibility of a visual genius in colors as originality has been removed by limiting the possibilities through definition and discourse, or is this the moment that a genius is needed to take us to the next step in visual communications through colors?

Who do you trust

Is it our perceptions that create our reality, or is the reality we accept the driving force of our perception?      
People are judged daily on their appearance as if the way they present themselves is a window into their spirit, but is that only a shadow of what is inside or is their presentation of self image truly a maker for who they are.

My question here is of these two pictures who would you trust and who presents what image.