Why does popular culture matter?

This question is an interesting one to try and tackle as it seemed too natural for me to quickly retort “of course it matters!” without fully understanding the reasons why I was so quick to defend popular culture.

Having given this a lot of thought I realised that it’s due to the fact that popular culture is all around us. It would be near impossible to live a singular day of our lives without experiencing some form of popular culture or media texts, short of retiring to live in a cave, that is... We encounter popular culture in various different ways and we consume them almost subliminally as they have become such a normal part of our every-day routines.

For me personally I will start my day by turning on my radio in order to hear Chris Moyles or Fearne Cotton’s voice (depending on what time of the day I wake up.) I will then drive to work or university with the radio on, or a particular CD on. I will then pick up a newspaper or magazine to flick through during breaks or browse 'The Gaurdian' app on my phone. I then go home and watch a film or read a book, in order to have 'me time' away from work or unviersity. Popular culture will always be a large part of my day and without it I would have no means of identifying myself, learning about the world or connecting with others. 

What is one of the first things you ask somebody you’ve just met? “What type of music/films do you like?” That’s how we first start a connection with other people.We identify ourselves as individuals through the music we listen to, the films we watch, the newspapers we read. It all totals up in order to say something about the type of person you are.

Popular culture, although sometimes mass produced enables us to connect with each other, educates us and guides us. Without it our lives would merely become a routine of: wake up, go to work, come home, sleep, repeat.

John Storey - 'Cultural Theory and Popular Culture - Postmodernism'

Storey, John (2007) Cultural Theory and Popular Culture. London: Pearson, pp181-211

What Storey was trying to achieve in this article was to introduce the complex theory of ‘postmodernism’ to cultural studies students. He introduces the passage by stating that the term ‘post-modern’ can now be described to explain a vast majority of different things ranging from furniture to fashion to technology. However, in this lengthy article he will be only focusing on the term postmodern as it relates to popular culture.

History of postmodernism

The history of postmodernism as we know it today starts in the 1960’s as an attack on modernism. Cultural texts considered ‘shocking’ had become ‘canonized’ and apart of every-day culture. Works from Picasso and Brecht were no longer considered radical but as classic. Postmodernism as a theory argues that due to shifting culture the distinctions between high culture and low culture is less meaningful.

Pop art and the works of Andy Warhol and Lawrence Alloway became very popular around this time and both articles refused to acknowledge a distinction between the classes. Pop music also started to be taken seriously for example Bob Dylan and The Beatles.

Storey outlines three key postmodern theorists in this article; I am now going to outline some of their basic principles and ideas.

Jean François Lyotard

• Lyotard wrote ‘The Postmodern Condition’ (1984) and it is argued that he is the first theorist to introduce the term ‘postmodern’ in academic study.
  
• He was interested in the collapse and rejection of metanarratives and their frameworks. E.g. Marxism, Christianity etc.
  
• He believed that there is no absolute or universal truth.
  
• He believed that science was the only way towards absolute truth and freedom; however, since WW2 people are less interested in truth, and more concerned with a means to an end. For example instead of asking “is it true?” people began asking “what use is it?”
•  
• He believed that postmodernism would be the start of a new wave of modernism.
  
  

Jean Baudrillard

• Baudrillard was interested in the shift in western society. Instead of being based on the production of products, western society now bases itself on the production of information.
  
• He uses the term ‘simulacrum’ a lot during his writing. This means an “identical copy without an original.”
  
• There is little relevance to the distinction between the original and the copy. E.g. Mass production of music and films.
  
• ‘Hyperrealism’ is another term Baudrillard coins. This means that there is no divide between the real and simulated. E.g. Soap Opera characters receive letters from fans, New York offer a ‘Sex and the City’ bus tour. These are both examples of “the dissolution of TV into real life.”
  
  

Fredric Jameson

• Jameson is an American Marxist. He believes that postmodernism focuses on the cultural dominance of capitalism.
  
• He outlines capitalism in three stages: Market, Monopoly, late or multinational capitalism.
  
• He uses the term ‘pastiche’ to describe media texts as a ‘blank parody’ or ‘empty copy’.
  
• He argues that there is nothing original in today’s culture and that we are living in a “culture of quotations” that was born from previous cultures.
  
• Due to this we receive recycled media texts which thusly create a loss of history.

Romantic Comedy: A 'Frankfurt School' critique

I have chosen to give a Frankfurt School critique of the film genre romantic comedy. This is due to the fact that, as much as I hate to admit it, I am a fan of this genre of film making, despite being aware of its mass production and unoriginal plotlines.

The nature of the romantic comedy is to provide a light hearted and humorous plot promoting the ideology that love conquers all. As shown by the selected film posters, the plot revolves exclusively around the male and female protagonists. 'Friends' of the characters often appear, but only to provide guidance to the main characters. They have no significance in the plot as a whole. 

The actors’ names are prominent on the posters suggesting that their star quality is more important than the film title. The usual offenders crop up time and time again: Drew Barrymore, Jennifer Aniston, Cameron Diaz etc. If any of these names appear on a film poster, the audience are subconsciously aware that the film will be light hearted and end on with a romantic kiss between the couple who appear on the poster.

The couple in romantic comedy are usually from different backgrounds or classes. This provides the conflict in the plot. For example in ‘Pretty Woman’ Richard Gere plays a business man, whereas Julia Roberts portrays a prostitute. And in ‘The Ugly Truth’ Katherine Heigl’s character is a hopeless romantic with high morals whereas Gerard Butler is laddish who can only commit to one night stands. The romantic comedy suggests that, regardless of different character or background, a fairy-tale style ending will eventually happen. A large concern with romantic comedies is that it ends on the big romantic kiss, refusing the reveal what happens afterwards in the relationship.

Pseudo-individualisation relates to this industry as characters and backgrounds are replaced, however the general plot remains the same. Despite this, the difference in characters and situation gives the illusion of each film being different. Sometimes hybrid-genres will also emerge to promote pseudo-individualism. For example Knocked Up: the stoner-comedy-rom-co.

These types of films are risk-free to make. They will always be popular and consumed by audiences, and will usually be more popular with women. They act as a distraction from our own personal love lives. This might suggest why the romantic comedy is and will continue to be such a successful film genre. 

Stuart Hall - 'Notes on Deconstructing the Popular'

Hall, Stuart (2007) ‘Notes on Deconstructing the Popular’ in Storey, John (ed) Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: A Reader. London: Pearson.

 In this article Hall tries to tackle the difficult terms of both 'popular' and 'culture'. They are both difficult terms as they both are ambiguous and can be explained by numerous definitions. This is why putting the two terms together can become problematic for a theorist such as Hall.

Hall discusses how researching histories of popular culture is unbeneficial to this study as histories can be inauthentic, yet to be written and inaccurate. With this is mind, Hall tries to tackle this by outlining three different definitions of ‘popular’ instead and the problems within each.

• Definition 1: ‘Popular’ is what the masses consume.

This is the ‘market and commercial’ definition of popular. Produced culture is described by many theorists as being ‘manipulated and debased’ by the ruling classes. By using this definition of culture it suggests that the masses are ‘cultural dopes’ and consume culture passively. He explains how this is a very unsocial view of the masses and is discussed by theorists who feel superior to the people.

Most cultural theorists view cultural texts as either ‘wholly corrupt’ or ‘wholly authentic’. Hall suggests that they are both and all cultural texts hold contradictions within themselves, as people do connect to them, but not passively. 

e.g. 'Daily Mirror' is written for the working class, imitates their style of speech, however is written by the ruling class. 

• Definition 2: ‘Popular culture’ is what ‘the people’ do or have done.

This is an anthropological view point. The problem with this definition is that it is too broad and would account for everything people do, much like an inventory. It is a descriptive way to describe culture and does not account for social and cultural change within popular culture.

e.g. Corronation Street imitates the lives of working class culture. Although inaccurate, people are still able to connect and identify with it.

• Definition 3: Popular culture is a struggle between classes.

This is Hall’s preferred definition. It focuses on the tension towards dominant culture and the constantly changing field of culture. He uses the example of a radical symbol within a year will become neutralised into fashion.

Twilight: A Leavisite analysis

Dear Twilight,

I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you have no idea the types of values you are promoting to young audiences, particularly girls. In that case let me inform you: you are not a love story! Do you hear that Twilight?! Most Twilight fans are so quick to label the film with tags such as “love” and “passion”. Surely, these should be changed to “creepy” and “obsessive.”

Why you ask? The relationship between Bella and Edward is completely obsessive. Firstly, he stalkers her and before they have even uttered a single word to each other he breaks into her bedroom and watches her sleep. Surely that is grounds for a restraining order, not the starting platform for “the greatest teen love story of our generation.”

What with Edward being a vampire, he also has the ability to harm or even kill Bella. In the first film he is very open about the fact that he would like to bite her neck, but eats animals instead to curb his appetite. He also invites her back to his house, where his vampire family live, because this is a very good idea. Obviously. Upon meeting her his entire family look at her as if she was a giant cheeseburger with legs. They might as well be licking their lips and nibbling on her arm at this point.

So to sum up, this film promotes obsessive and dangerous relationships, and yet audiences drink it in like nectar. One of the things I hate the most about this entire franchise is that it has sparked off a million other vampire related media texts imitating Twilight. ‘The Vampire Diaries’ and ‘True Blood’ appeared suddenly, quite coincidently, after the world wide success of Twilight. These two shows, particularly ‘True Blood’ are aimed towards a slightly older audience, as it concerns itself with sexual desire, and as one of my friends so politely put it: “It’s practically porn, but with vampires.”

Lovely.

Call me old fashioned, but I miss the days when love stories where love stories and horror films were exactly that. The two never met, and I was okay with that. So I beg you, Twilight, please, please, make this mass produced nonsense end?!

Yours sincerely,

Amanda Johansson

BBC Newsnight: Sweetness and Light?

The media text I have chosen that might be considered to provide ‘sweetness and light’ is BBC ‘Newsnight’. This programme provides in-depth analysis of current affairs in not just the UK, but issues happening around the world. The most current episode that was aired 13^th February 2012 discusses the Greek riots, sexual abuse in Egypt and ‘The Sun’ newspaper. I feel that this illustrates that Newsnight does not just associate itself with news from the UK.

The BBC was created in order to inform and educate the masses and I feel that ‘Newsnight’ attempts this by discussing current news stories, explaining why they are important and then sparking in-studio debate with panel members. In the social age we live in, viewers are able to contact the studio and get involved in the topical debates by tweeting their opinions followed by ‘#newsnight’.

‘Sweetness and light’ can be found in this text as it is informative, unbiased and encourages debate and discussion. The show first began in 1980 so has always been a part of my culture. This text helps me understand current affairs more in-depth and offers me the opinions of others. I use ‘Newsnight’ as a tool to deciphering news and current affairs stories. 

Theodor Adorno - 'On Popular Music'

Adorno, Theodor (1941) ‘On Popular Music’, Studies in Philosophy and Socail Science, No. 9.

Adorno introduces this article by identifying “two spheres of music”, that being popular music and serious music. He explains how popular music is a standardised text that is feed to the masses, whereas serious music is unstandardized and is enjoyed and understood by those who are musically educated for example the music of Beethoven.  

He puts forward the idea that popular music is emphasised by its chorus, which is limited to 32 bars, and the range is restricted to one octave and one note. This is used in popular music in order for the song to sound familiar as audiences are aware of genre, and song structure. This means that popular songs are unable to experiment with their sound and create something innovative. In order for a song or musician to become popular they must stick to the rules of ‘popular music’.

Using ‘Jessie J – Domino’ as an example, which is currently in the top five of the UK charts, I feel that this song is relevant to Adorno’s theory as it is recognisable, familiar and generic. In other words, this song follows the rules of standardised popular music.

Adorno puts forwards the theory of 'pseudo-individualism' which is the illusion of individuality. He uses the example of jazz music to illustrate this point further. During 'break-downs' and jazz 'improvisations' the audience are tricked into believing that the music is original and unstructured whereas in reality it conforms to a musical note structure and does not vary away from that.

Adorno uses Beethoven as an example of serious music being the polar opposite of popular music. He explains that Beethovens music is understood as a “whole”. Each musical element is treated as ‘cogs in a machine’ all working together in order to create something that is musically great. This process is not found in popular music as it has not gone through the same intricate musical process.

With this is mind, it begs the question of why is popular music so popular? Surely audiences’ would have become bored by being sold the same music, just repackaged, over over? Adorno’s solution to this question is that popular music acts as a distraction from worries over war, unemployment etc. The masses need standardised music for leisure when they are not at work. I.e. They need something that doesn’t demand their attention.  

What defines my culture?

I had a really difficult time deciding on a singular media text that I felt accurately defines my culture. When the task was assigned to me so many different and varied ideas ran through my head: albums, radio stations, books, magazines, celebrities. I feel that this in itself proves how much I define myself through the media texts I consume and use them in order to construct my own personal identity.

But after much deliberation, and writing three separate blog entries, I have finally decided that the films of Woody Allen define my culture. My favourites being ‘Annie Hall’, ‘Whatever Works’ and ‘You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger’. For the purpose of this blog post I will be focusing on ‘You Will Meet…’ This is due to the fact that this film is set in London as opposed to many of his other films that relate more to his own life as a Jewish man living in New York. The film was also released in 2010 which is more recent than the other films I have mentioned, for example 'Annie Hall' was released in the 1977 and due to the fact I was born in 1990, 'You Will Meet...' is a much more appropriate choice in media that defines my culture.

Allen’s films appeal to me as I find his films very realistic. To me, they epitomise art imitating real-life. When I first watched ‘Annie Hall’ I adored the fact that it did not follow the typical ‘boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy wins girl back’ structure that most relationship centred films follow. They were a real couple, with real problems.

I also really enjoy the references to films and literature throughout the dialogue of the characters, that are unique to a Woody Allen film. His films have a dark cynicism attached to them, and yet still remain to be classed as comedies. I find this style very refreshing compared to mainstream cinema.

I have always been fascinated by the way people live their lives and the relationships they keep which is why I enjoy Woody Allen’s films so much. In my opinion, when it comes to film making, Allen is in a league of his own. 

F.R. Leavis - 'Mass Civilization and Minority Culture'

Leavis, F.R. (1930) ‘Mass Civilization and Minority Culture’ in Storey (2007) Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: a Reader. London:Pearson.

When reading the first paragraph of Leavis’ article, he expresses many of the same values and theories about culture as Williams and Arnold, he mentions the elitist system of culture, and also touches up on how “generations find it hard to adjust themselves to each other”. He blames the shift in culture due to lack of tradition.

Throughout the article Leavis expresses his desire to keep the traditions of the past alive. He points out that culture is reserved to “the minorities”, these are the Elitists who are educated enough to understand literature. This restricts the working class from gaining access to culture as education was limited.

The raise in mass media at the time made Leavis believe society was in a “culture crisis”. He blames America for this, and how as a society we have become ‘Americanised’. This is due to the fact that the society and culture changes much more rapidly in American, and the rest of the Western world follows suit, therefore creating an Americanised culture in Britain today. This was a problem for Leavis as he believed that living in an Americanised society would result in the lack of British culture, and also create a singular universal culture for everybody, rather than separate individual values and traditions.

He discusses ‘Hollywood Cinema’ a lot in this article and blames it for the “levelling down” of society. Films were mass produced and contained no intellectual process to enjoy, unlike reading a novel for example.  He accuses the American film industry of evoking “cheap responses” from their audience. As Hollywood films imitate real life, it has a certain amount of emotional appeal to certain audience members.

According to Leavis the mass production of media has made ones pursuit of becoming ‘cultured’ much harder to obtain. He speaks about the plight of culture and how the lines and boundaries of high culture and low culture have been blurred; therefore class is no longer an issue in the debate of culture.

Matthew Arnold - 'Culture and Anarchy'

Arnold, Matthew (1869) ‘Culture and Anarchy’ in Storey (2007) Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: a Reader. London:Pearson. 

‘Sweetness and light’ is a phrase used frequently in this article. By ‘sweetness and light’ Arnold is referring to the “happy moments of humanity” through texts such as literature, art and classic music. 

The main focus of Arnolds article is that culture is needed in society in order to distinct the social classes. He discusses how culture is the enemy of anarchy as literature; art etc. distinguishes the class system, but also teaches morality and civilization. He puts forward the theory of “the social idea” which suggests that through culture members of society can become equal.

However, Arnold puts forward the idea that authentic ‘sweetness and light’ would be unobtainable for the populace (working class) as the Barbarians (Aristocratic)  “will try to give the masses, as they call them, an intellectual food prepared and adapted in the way they think proper for the actual condition of the masses.” I find the use of the word ‘masses’ relevant as it suggests the populace class were treated as cattle. This reinforces the upper classes fear of the masses.

Arnold explains that the working classes or ‘masses’ have become unhappy with their way of life and would enjoy living similar to the elitists who are able to go places and communicate with whoever they please. However, through culture, the populace are able to become distracted from their shortcomings. This was vital to society in the 19th century as there was wide spread fear of working class anarchy, as civil uprising was on-going in France and the USA at the time.

Raymond Williams - 'The Analysis of Culture'

Williams, Raymond (1961) ‘The Analysis of Culture’ in Storey (2007) Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: a Reader, London: Pearson. 

The term ‘culture’ is one of complexity. There is no neat definition for this term, and many people have different definitions of its exact meaning. Raymond Williams starts off his analysis of culture by outlining three main categories of culture: 

• ideal – “culture is the state or process of human perfection”

• documentary – “culture is the body of intellectual or imaginative work”

• social – “culture is a description of a particular way of life”

Williams explains how each of these categories and definitions of ‘culture’ have equal importance when researching culture. It is vital for any media and cultural scholar to consider the ‘ideal’ i.e. where our values and ‘absolute truths’ come from, documentary, which refers to our intellectual and imaginative texts we use to identify ourselves, for example music, films etc., and lastly our social cultures, and this focuses on how we communicate with each other.   

He then recognises that culture is ever-changing. To fully understand someone’s or something’s culture you must first analyse their role in society and how they gained their values. He explains that in order to successfully achieve this we must look at the wider context and discover cultural history, and what caused it to change. This can be seemingly difficult as cultural histories can be subjective and bias.

He describes society’s constant change as ‘the structure of feeling’. Williams suggests that with every generation young people respond towards society, and by doing so they create their own values and own cultural identities. This can be executed through their fashion choices, books they read, music they listen to etc. This theory can be used to explain why many of us hold different cultural texts than that of our grandparents, because with every generation, we control and drive forward cultural change.