Musings on Answers...
Tuesday, November 23rd, 2004 05:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rolanniSome chewy answers on the "What is popular culture" question. ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
jerrykaufman brings up the issue of accessibility, and suggests that "popular culture" comprises the most easily accessible works of art, literature, music... kaygo makes the point that culture doesn't happen by itself, and that popular culture has an economic component -- if the production of a particular artform is not economically rewarding for somebody, it goes away. malkingrey observes that in a university setting, those who study and/or produce ...classic culture? -- those works which require some specialized knowledge to enjoy and are therefore less immediately accessible to a casual auditor -- are more respected, and more often rewarded economically, than those who study and/or produce popular culture.
mickiescaper mentions the ephemeral quality of "popular culture," which would also seem to tie in with the economics.
My understanding of popular culture (and why I'm increasingly puzzled by those articles which point at it as the reason for the decline of "moral values" in the US), falls somewhere betweenkaygo's and jerrykaufman's. Popular culture, to me, is the lowest common denominator; that experience which is relevant/meaningful to the greatest number of people. 'Way over there on the left, that's classic culture, and 'way over there on the right, that's the experimental stuff, neither of which is easily accessible to a casual auditor, or, in its extreme cases, to more than a few specialists/innovators. Popular culture is that area that contains such things as Star Wars and Thomas Kinkade.
Trouble is, "popular culture" is a moving target, since it depends on the perceptions and the industry of human beings. Weird things tend to leak in from over there on the experimental side, which is good, because it keeps the popular culture pool from getting stagnant. If the new form speaks to enough of us, the creators are rewarded economically and the form enters the "popular culture." If the form fails the accessibility test, the creators lose their shirts; the form fades and is forgotten.
What I think I'm understanding from the folks who want to blame "popular culture" for a perceived "moral decline" is that they're using the phrase "popular culture" to mean "things that I and/or those who partake of my family and/or micro-culture find offensive." I don't wish to be unfair, or to dismiss the apparent distress felt by these folks without consideration, so if someone can demonstrate where this reading is faulty, I'd be glad of it. But it does seem to me, that, no, culture doesn't happen by itself in the dead of night while there's no one around to stop it. It's not dropped by the crateload onto unsuspecting small towns by aliens. It's created and rewarded by us, over a length of time, and that the culture we share is the culture we have because we -- the majority we -- want it.
jerrykaufman brings up the issue of accessibility, and suggests that "popular culture" comprises the most easily accessible works of art, literature, music... kaygo makes the point that culture doesn't happen by itself, and that popular culture has an economic component -- if the production of a particular artform is not economically rewarding for somebody, it goes away. malkingrey observes that in a university setting, those who study and/or produce ...classic culture? -- those works which require some specialized knowledge to enjoy and are therefore less immediately accessible to a casual auditor -- are more respected, and more often rewarded economically, than those who study and/or produce popular culture. mickiescaper mentions the ephemeral quality of "popular culture," which would also seem to tie in with the economics.My understanding of popular culture (and why I'm increasingly puzzled by those articles which point at it as the reason for the decline of "moral values" in the US), falls somewhere between
kaygo's and jerrykaufman's. Popular culture, to me, is the lowest common denominator; that experience which is relevant/meaningful to the greatest number of people. 'Way over there on the left, that's classic culture, and 'way over there on the right, that's the experimental stuff, neither of which is easily accessible to a casual auditor, or, in its extreme cases, to more than a few specialists/innovators. Popular culture is that area that contains such things as Star Wars and Thomas Kinkade.Trouble is, "popular culture" is a moving target, since it depends on the perceptions and the industry of human beings. Weird things tend to leak in from over there on the experimental side, which is good, because it keeps the popular culture pool from getting stagnant. If the new form speaks to enough of us, the creators are rewarded economically and the form enters the "popular culture." If the form fails the accessibility test, the creators lose their shirts; the form fades and is forgotten.
What I think I'm understanding from the folks who want to blame "popular culture" for a perceived "moral decline" is that they're using the phrase "popular culture" to mean "things that I and/or those who partake of my family and/or micro-culture find offensive." I don't wish to be unfair, or to dismiss the apparent distress felt by these folks without consideration, so if someone can demonstrate where this reading is faulty, I'd be glad of it. But it does seem to me, that, no, culture doesn't happen by itself in the dead of night while there's no one around to stop it. It's not dropped by the crateload onto unsuspecting small towns by aliens. It's created and rewarded by us, over a length of time, and that the culture we share is the culture we have because we -- the majority we -- want it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-11-24 12:04 am (UTC)The claim is that the aliens are the people who control the entertainment industry. If it weren't for TV and movies and novels, our children would be chaste, just as we were.
Quite seriously, the popular media are controlled by city people. Urban people feel that their lives and values are underrepresented, and they're probably right. Witness such phrases as "the flyover states".
no subject
Date: 2004-11-24 12:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-24 02:39 am (UTC)I used to read a *lot* of Hollywood history. Blaming movies for the moral lapses of the nation was standard in the 20s and 30s. My mom remembers being told in church to not see Gone With The Wind.
I wouldn't be surprised if a Legion of Decency/Will Hays equivalent was formed/appointed in the near future.
I watch little if any network TV, but it was my impression that at least a few of the sitcoms were set in small towns.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-26 12:23 am (UTC)I sometimes wonder if the people who control something are the ones who simply can't stand the lull between the good products, so they are willing to watch/read/play the average-to-poor versions that follow the creative beginnings.
Opposite tack here--I stopped watching TV years ago, except for an occasional news program--only have seen things recently because friends pushed me, and if it was too inconvenient (or life was melting down, so the "suggestion" kept getting pushed to the bottom of the pile...) It was news and B5 until by SO, who has cable, hooked me temporarily on GOOD EATS and LANDSCAPE DESIGN, with occasional forays into the History Channel.
I hated the 1/2 an episode of Seinfeld I saw--didn't like the characters, didn't like how they treated each other and newcomers--at that time of my life, it just was not funny. So it is one group of things where I will miss the referral gags, in years to come.
But "All in the Family" is rarely quoted anymore for specifics--it's only mentioned for the barriers it broke down and a particular vision of blue collar america it displays.
So--perhaps it's okay if I never see a Van Diesel (or whoever he is) movie?
Antihistamine Warning
Date: 2004-11-26 01:20 am (UTC)I'm counting on my fingers and toes, and heckifIcan remember the last time I watched television. Let's see...not since we've been in this house, so that's twelve years. It might've been that we had network at the rental in Waterville -- yes, must've had, because
ALL That Said (phew) -- if that large lump of folk in the middle of the culture line want and support shows like "Seinfeld" or the various reality shows, then that's what we'll have. And I don't know about you, but it strikes me as kinda strange that nobody knows who those people are. The people who are screaming that "popular culture" is wrecking their "moral values" don't know who they are. You don't know who they are. I sure as heck don't know who they are -- the only people I know are writers, musicians, artists, and SF fans -- as shady a looking bunch as ever I saw.
If people are concerned about the erosion of their "moral values," they can choose not to watch movies and television shows that they find objectionable. They can stop reading books that they find objectionable (note: "stop reading" NOT "ban or burn"). If enough find the same things objectionable, "popular culture" will shift. It'll take time, and it will marginalize some people -- just like some people (like me, to take a handy example) are marginalized now. That's life.
I think (and I may be wrong, here, see "antihistamine," above) is that what the people who say they want to preserve their "moral values" really want is for everyone to be like them. Which is unfortunate, not to mention unrealistic.
Re: Antihistamine Warning
Date: 2004-12-04 06:00 pm (UTC)I think (and I may be wrong, here, see "antihistamine," above) is that what the people who say they want to preserve their "moral values" really want is for everyone to be like them. Which is unfortunate, not to mention unrealistic.
I waited on this to see if anything brilliant to add might come to mind, but the best I can do is agree with you--if America truly wants to become a "highly moral" country (and in the process stifle scientific and artistic curiosity) then it must truly not buy things it disapproves of, etc. etc. I already see evidence of this in religious games and books--but there's a hitch. Many, many of these people want to totally ban these items so we can't get them, either (cloning, or a fantasy novel, or allowing some poor gay person to simply have a secure legal future with their loved one) because they don't trust their children to continue resisting these things once they leave the home. I seriously think that's a large part of it--like the mullahs who ban drink and sex movies and music because "they lead to evil things". It never seems to occur to these paragons of virtue that if you introduce things at the right time and in the right way, it's not a big deal--and the kid doesn't want to smoke, or drink to excess, or become a sex fiend.
It's the same thinking that led to the amendment against alcohol. And it will have the same results.
I begin to think that the best we can hope for is to continue writing and speaking about people trying to find common ground and simply respecting each other. BALANCE OF TRADE was a great song to that--two people decide to deal differently with previously accepted ways of doing things, and the ripples are spreading. I know that once you've met talking trees, getting along with anything is a worthy goal...Tolkien worked for me. (I tried not to absorb too much "technology is bad, strange people are bad" subtext, as the Tolkien haters like to point out.) And I'm way too tolerant--ask my near and dear. %^)