Culture Indistry: Bottled water

HISTORY: The first bottled water was sold in the US by Jackson's Spa in Boston in 1767. The water had supposed therapeutic benefits. In the 1850s bottled water was a status symbol, it was seen as clean and stylish (Elite culture). During this time it was also widely purchased due to fears of typhoid and cholera in municipal water supplies. It hit its big break into the mass culture in the1970s after the development of the PET plastic bottle. The 2000s saw a war between tap and bottled water, and more recently, environmental concerns have led to the creation of much lighter plastic bottles.

There are many aspects that invoke the idea of standardization and pseudo-individualization.  Bottled water is everywhere. You go to any event and you can't get a cup of water or find a bubbler anywhere. In most cases you can't bring your own, so you have only 1 option if you choose to drink water: buy a bottle. We also see bottled water in TV, movies, advertisements, music videos, print ads. Many restaurants now ask you if you want water from the tap or bottled.

Pseudo-individualization comes from thousands of water brands available worldwide. Check out this site that lists the world's bottled waters. I was astounded at the numbers. There are numerous types: spring, purified, artesian, well, glacial, deep sea, rain, and iceberg....BUT it's all just WATER. This artifact is a prime example of commodity fetishism. A bottle of Poland Springs costs 1/4 of Voss, and as such it's perceived as better. While there are subtle differences in mineral content and acidity, there is no reliable data proving one is necessarily better than another.

This example contributes to distracting us from authentically changing the world and reinforces our connection with popular culture by just existing. Plastic is becoming a global problem. There is far more in existence than will ever disintegrate or be recycled. Advances in public water systems and filtration systems worldwide have reduced the need for bottled water and yet as Americans, we are addicted to it. It's not much more difficult to use a reusable water bottle and fill it as you go, but we don't. Purchased water bottles carry a warning on the back to not refill them, contributing further to the problem. Much of the world is addicted to convenience and we don't make lasting, meaningful changes unless forced to do so.



Sources:
https://myownwater.com/blog/history-of-bottled-water

What we can learn from Newspaper

I chose the newspaper from my hometown, Decorah Iowa. The header of the paper still looks similar today. This issue is from November 24th, 1915, the day before my paternal grandfather was born. The issue is 12 pages long and is roughly 25% advertising.

I found this ad interesting. Keeping in mind that this is before women could vote, it talks about the skirt being an approved style. The company that made the skirts is Korrect. I was surprised to see it talked about sizing for larger women. These must have been the best around. Comparing prices (capitalism!) this skirt was significantly more than admission to the theatre to see a motion picture.

The first article on the first page was about a series of sermons being given on what businessmen of Decorah think of the church. Back then the church had significantly more role in day to day life than it does now. The article talks about the church being an educator of youth to decrease delinquincy, as well as maintain health, prevent, and heal disease.

There was a political article stating a large number of Germans (roughly 50% of the population of the town then and now) were going to change from the Democratic party to the Republican party due to the handling of foreign affairs.

Part of a page was dedicated to the theatre and pictures that were coming. One that caught my attention ties back to the cowboy unit. "Tile Exposition's First Romance"  was billed as a "Western with a lot of action...with a love story thrown in" It was also called a comedy. For 1915 this was quite a mix of genres in a single picture.

There were several pages dedicated to the townships and what everyone was doing, where they traveled, and who they had dinner with. I noticed there were few instances of news of single women, and married couples were referenced by the husband's name. Our unit on gender and sex ties well into this. In this time there were very deeply ingrained roles and societal expectations of men and women. Their sex was their gender and everything was heteronormative.





I did find it interesting that the newspaper was not totally written to and for men. There were grocery, clothing, and shoe ads; as well as the goings-on (Gossip!) that were geared toward women. Though this does paint a picture of a "woman's place" in 1915, she was completely removed from politics and business.

A rags to riches story

When reading through the materials and thinking about rags to riches narratives, I had to explore this one. The film Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971) is certainly a tale of rags to riches, and also a narrative, perhaps a warning, of the evils of excess.

This story centers around Charlie Bucket, a boy who lives at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. He is being raised by a single mother, his home is falling apart, they are food insecure, and they have elders in the home to care for. Charlie walks by the Wonka factory every day, dreaming about what must be going on inside.

Wonka creates a massive demand for his bars by hiding 5 golden tickets in bars around the world. The promise is an experience and prize beyond their wildest dreams if they are the lucky winner. Winning would mean fame and a rise in status. The first 4 winners do so from the efforts of their parents who want them to win. They are upper-middle and upper-class families who have the income to support the purchase of a massive amount of candy. Their children are coddled, spoiled, gluttonous, and disrespectful...and yet they still go to great lengths to make them happy under the premise of wanting them to have a better life than they did.

Charlie's story is only different in where he comes from. His mother still wants the best for him. In this song for him, she's using powerful imagery surrounding the American Dream. She states "the world is still your toy" and "look up Charlie, you'll see a star. Just follow it and keep your dream in view." Charlie has a newspaper route to help his family. He works hard and yearns for the life he sees that others have around him. This is evident in the scene where he walks by the candy shop and watches all the other kids having fun inside.

Once at the factory, Mr. Wonka sets out to find the person he deems worthy to win his ultimate prize. The kids are eliminated one by one due to their greed. Though Charlie and Grandpa Joe breaks the rules, they can find a solution and help themselves. (Ingenuity leads to success). Mr. Wonka starts to throw them out even though Charlie is the last child left. After an argument, Charlie makes the decision to be honest and return the "everlasting gobstopper" instead of giving it to the competition. This honesty changes Mr. Wonka's heart and he gives Charlie the factory (Honesty and being a good person leads to success.)

Beyond being a rag to riches story, this film highlights morality. In the time of sex. drugs, and rock&roll this movie shows the dangers of "sin". Clearly depicted in the winning children are sloth, greed, gluttony, and pride. Though it is portrayed comedically, the "how to be a better person" lesson is there. The Oompa Loompa songs articulate the lessons.

Those Dank Memes

Oh supreme Meme Lord, I pray that thou shalt bestow upon me the most precisely perfect worded image that coincides with my situation!

Pepe the Frog (source)

Though the term itself was not coined until 1976 by Richard Dawkins (source) the meme has been around for about as long as humans have. Memes are most common today in the forms of images, words/phrases, songs, and the like. They are ever-changing and evolving along with the people who distribute them. As a culture itself, one is considered a knowledgeable "Meme Lord" for using the right meme in the right place at the right time. The aforementioned KnowYourMeme.com is a very good resource for those wanting more information on a particular meme, where it originated, and what it best relates to or what context it should be used in.

Even if you yourself do not wish to allocate time and effort towards constantly downloading and sharing every meme you can find to relevant places (for instance, your friend posts that they just lost their job, so you reply with a meme to cheer them up instead of actually writing out your condolences and best wishes) you can still be well-versed in Meme culture by simply understanding as many of the references as you can possibly remember.

Memes extend to more than just ridiculous satirical additions to everyday happenings and conversations. In fact they can actually lead to some very profound commentaries on current events and other negative things that happen instead of just existing for the sake of comedy alone. For instance, during the past Presidential Election, candidate Bernie Sanders (and probably others) had a Facebook page dedicated just to making memes of him, even if the captions or voice clips were of very important topics:

This photo is set up meme-style, but the words are true and important. (source)

I find that Memes can be a way of saying things in common terms to others who also understand what that common term is. It's a complex visual representation of what centuries ago would just be a simple fashion style or phrase that was universally understood. Posting a link to a short video or a silly image has become modern shorthand on social media. Instead of saying to someone, "that's ridiculous, who has the time to deal with such a thing?" we instead use the meme image of the southern black lady quoted saying "Ain't nobody got time fo' dat!" It then became a .gif animation, a voice clip, and even a song!

As our society lives on, I see that older memes are still appreciated even though new ones are being generated. Though sometimes they are regarded as slightly less relevant a response than a newer meme, you will also see that you get brownie points for using a more archaic meme that newer social media users may not have been around for in its respective heyday. In fact, there's an entire genre of meme images based on historical happenings or portraits. Some are meant to instruct, some for commentary, and some purely for comedy.

In many cases, modern memes combine multiple elements together to form a finished product. For instance:

(source)

The above meme of Teddy Roosevelt combines a historical portrait of him and incorporates his original quote of "Speak softly and carry a large stick." However, it's put together in the format of a previous meme, that of "The Most Interesting Man in the World" from the Dos Equis commercial, in which the original slogan is, "I don't always drink beer, but when I do, it's Dos Equis." This evolved into an entire category of memes, sometimes using the original ad's photo but changing the subject, following the "I don't always ____, but when I do ________" type of format. (source)

One last important aspect of Meme culture it's how wide-spread it has become even outside of social media. You'll often hear people speaking the words of meme images and videos out loud in conversation and a majority of people can understand what that person is talking about. In one of the most famous examples I can think of is the BuzzFeed video in which former President Obama took part; almost making a mockery of himself at times, but cementing his place forever as the Dankest Meme Lord President the United States shall ever see!

Love him or hate him, either politically or personally, President Obama involved himself publicly in Meme culture - thus proving it's importance and value on the world's scale. Thanks Obama!

How Netflix is Changing Mass Culture

This week I found an interesting video called "Netflix's War on Mass Culture" and I immediately thought, "Oh no, they're not going to tell me that Netflix is bad! Are they?" The reality is both yes, and no. As I watched the video, despite its daunting title, I found that the narrative was somewhat open for interpretation and I will answer to that later on.

The video basically outlined how the normal practice of watching television had gone on in previous generations and how Netflix is different from that. At first the video accuses Netflix of trying to replace the foundations of television with a new system based on the current values of the internet generation and also of trying to change viewer behavior. Of course in my mind I say, "That's great that such things can evolve as we do!" However, this video takes the opposite approach and claims that Netflix has a hidden agenda.

Even the Netflix logos have a cool history! (source)

The origin story of Netflix is generally known by the average American; it was at first a DVD mail order service that after a while began to offer some of its most popular shows and films via online streaming. Its also infamously known as the company that eventually brought down Blockbuster Video, a VHS movie rental store that refused to "get with the times." Therefore proving that evolution of entertainment is imperative.

In the history of entertainment, many shows and events were broadcasted live, as reliable technology for recording video and audio didn't come until much later. Thus live entertainment was, for much of history, seen as commonplace. Even as pre-recorded shows began to air, live television did not disappear, as today we still have live news, sporting events, award shows, reality shows, etc. Though the focus now has shifted to pre-recorded shows being the majority and live television being the minority. Having our choice of scripted shows to watch echos the retail market, just like people could go to Blockbuster and pick out only what they wanted to watch rather than being subjected to "what's on." Also, unlike cable companies, Netflix pays attention to their viewers, what they watch and what they like, and uses algorithms based on the genre or starring actors to predict other shows you might be interested in.

Netflix knows what you like! "OITNB" was their top rated show last June. (image source)

The video states that mainstream entertainment is based on a large pillar of popular culture, flanked by smaller sub-cultures and that Netflix is attempting to change this architecture into a world of “fandom islands” where people rarely interact with others outside of their island. It gives people less exposure to things that they wouldn’t normally watch but I don’t see that the unity of people loving a show will cease because of this. It in fact adds a more profound sense of connection. For someone to find another person who likes the same obscure show that they do, instead of being crowded out by the overall tone of what the majority of people are watching, makes that show and that connection even more special. They argue that entertainment only based on fandom is non-traditional and un-American, but I have so far seen very little change in the unity and passion of people who have made the transition to online streaming.

In the past, network “event television” aimed to get a large group of people watching the same thing at the same time - but what is the harm in a large group of people watching the same thing, but at their own pace? Netflix is viewed by a large amount of people, but that doesn’t make it less valuable, in fact people are watching more hours of television than they did in the 1990s. This makes it even more important that we pay attention to what we are watching and make it more readily available, rather than restricting people to less choice because of tradition

Even cable networks have "On Demand." They have to admit it is part of our modern era of entertainment. (image source)

The anti-Netflix argument in the video uses the viewpoint of Vladimir Nabokov who believes that humanity’s “highest yearning” should be to leave behind all desire to be “current.” I however, argue that modern people have a very high regard for being up-to-date on all parts of culture, especially where they consider it to be a part of their identity. This does contrast to a time, even a hundred years back, when people were wary of new inventions such as television or even electricity - but today a vast number of people take great pride in wearing the latest trend, going to see the newest movies, and sharing the most popular memes. What’s wrong with that? I say nothing!

The Death of Rock 'n' Roll?

Noel Gallagher, songwriter and guitarist of the 1990s Britpop band Oasis, considers himself "the last of a dying breed" of rockstars.  In his lengthy cover interview with Esquire UK for their December 2015 issue, Gallagher decries the current state of rock 'n' roll.

 According to Gallagher, who is as well known for his music as he is his unapologetic cultural commentary, "Rock’n’roll is all about freedom and honesty. Freedom of thought, freedom of expression. You have a duty to be honest [...] To me, it’s about fucking utter gobshites just being fucking headcases." Bands like his own, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, the Stone Roses, the Smiths, and the Kinks meet this criteria. These bands, for their personas as much as their music, are considered legendary and elite. Because of this, his critique of modern rock music can be analyzed within mass culture theory.

"Record companies now can sell a billion Ed Sheeran downloads tomorrow morning. They don’t want someone like [...] me. They want professionals. That’s what it’s become now." By 'professionals', Gallagher means musicians who make calculated decisions in relation to their careers and public personas, who participate in social media, and are conscious of their actions, and the public reactions they will garner. This hyper-awareness quickly snowballs into a perceived lack of authenticity, the very backbone of Gallagher's rock 'n' roll, which discredits the artist and removes his/her work from the elite tier, and into the common world to be celebrated by the masses. Gallagher continues his lament, tearing into contemporary rock bands: "This new generation of rock stars, they look great: [Arctic Monkeys frontman] Alex Turner, [...] the guys from Royal Blood. They’ve got the fucking skinny jeans and the boots, and all that eyeliner. I’ve got a cat that’s more rock’n’roll than all of them put together." Though they may look the part, their music is considered less valuable because they aren't rock 'n' roll by his standards. Neither Alex Turner nor Royal Blood are ever in the headlines for outrageous partying or insulting other bands, like Oasis were in their heyday; they're usually just selling out Madison Square Garden or putting out well-received albums. Though their success is comparable to that of the elite, they are not considered elite because they lack the spirit of rock 'n' roll.

Gallagher's ruthless take-down of modern rock has a lot of room for criticism itself. Firstly, it is very elitist. Since he considers his own now-defunct band among the greatest of all time and then juxtaposing himself against these newer groups, he is implying and sometimes directly stating that he is better than them-- he is one of the best that's ever done it, and they can never touch him. Additionally, his argument is hedged on his own taste. The quality of music is ultimately subjective, and each person hears it different. Though the artists he calls out may have never played a show on the level of Oasis' legendary Knebworth gig attended by 250,000 people (referenced throughout the article), they are very successful in their own right, and are clearly enjoyed by both fans and critics alike. Ed Sheeran recently sold out Gilette Stadium, and I have personally attended two Arctic Monkeys gigs that were packed to the brim with fans shouting out every lyric. Finally, Gallagher is clearly bitter that his generation is being replaced by an entirely new breed of rockstars. "Ten years ago," he tells Esquire, "I said we’d be the last. I just felt it. [...] And I've been proved right. And I don’t like that." So maybe the 'gobshite' rock 'n' rollers of the 1900s really are dead and gone, but as long as someone out there has a dream, some tight pants, and an electric guitar, rock 'n' roll will never die.

Is Beavis and Butt-Head too intelligent?

 Has popular culture degraded to such a stage of stupidity that the satirical humor of Beavis and Butt-Head is no longer widely appreciated?

This is the question posed by the article Has American pop culture become too dumb for Beavis and Butt-Head? by Rex W. Huppke and published in the Chicago Tribune .

Beavis and Butt-Head, the 90's metal head duo who has been heckling and belittling society on MTV throughout the 90s, made a return to television but didn't quite have the same flare. The show had seemed to have "Gone flat" and lost the "Edginess" that has so worried parents and conservatives when it had first come out.

Why was that? Well culture had changed since the show had been on the air. Focus had shifted from more intellectual entertainment to the reality tv shows of the Kardashians or the latest celebrity meltdown. While Beavis and Butt-Head may on the surface seem unintelligent and crass but when given a chance it proves to be  quite the social commentary, with satire of popular culture and the mainstream. These days we are too focused on the ridiculousness of politics or the silly antic of celebrities to really pay any attention to the duo who used to bring shock to many viewers. The level of stupidity and profanity that people are used to has increased so that Beavis and Butt-Head are no longer surprising. People seem to prefer the flavor of overly processed and fake reality than a clever satire.

Is Rex right? Has popular culture become too stupid?

That is truly hard to say, for people throughout time always seem to think that society is constantly devolving into unintelligent waves of violent profanity. They have a fondness for the culture of their youth, preferring that to the drivel of the present. The lack of intellectual elements in reality tv in undeniable, as is its prevalence throughout the channels of cable. But that doesn't mean that television in general is getting more unintelligent. In fact over the past few years show have gotten more complicated and writers have been working hard to keep expecting audiences on their toes. So sure, some tv may have gotten stupider, but really not much has changed.