the cycle

To weigh in on some of Conor’s thoughts regarding the existence, or not, of the artist (or genius) and his place within the theorized ideological super-structure that is Hollywood cinema in American capitalist society, I’d like to bat around further this question of the level (for lack of a better word) at which ideology enters into the creative process and how it goes on to affect the sort of ideological cycle discussed in this week’s readings. As we’ve indicated for the past two weeks, the creative process that occurs during/within film production is especially problematic and tenuous because it is such a collective process. And indeed, this idea that Althusser proffers that film reflects the collective ideological worldview of its producers speaks to the way in which that film product becomes imbued with ideology. But while the production process constitutes a portion—or an arc—of the cycle through which the ideology of a society at large reproduces itself, the other portion of that cycle comes from the spectator collective at which the Hollywood film product is targeted. I find the sophistication of capitalist advertising systems—the ability to categorize every individual subject and provide him/her with generic commodities of all forms suitable to their group (even those of us of the individualistic, multiculturalist, “Whole Foods” variety who relentlessly buck such categorization)—to be not a sign of overt manipulation, but simply evidence of this ideological cycle. I think Conor hit on an important quote from Althusser that speaks to the level at which ideology can be articulated at a fundamental level: “‘ideas’ of a human subject exist in his actions” (168). Not to be overly simplistic, but this seems the root of the process: the act of creative/film production creates a product that reflects the ideas of those involved (this is definitely too simplistic, as there is an indisputable hierarchy within the structure of production—nowhere more pronounced than in the film industry) which goes to creating the individual subject, which will then, at various levels, adhere to the ideology that created it. So does this mean that no individual is outside of this ideological cycle in their society? Even if an individual subject alters slightly the ideology under which it operates, has it just moved from one distinct demographic to another?