A Look at Reality TV in our Culture

 https://thehornetonline.com/2020/03/06/reality-television-is-destroying-societal-values/

The article above gives its opinion on why reality television is ruining American societal values. The author makes some good points on how reality television portrays only a small glimpse of reality and promotes “irresponsible behavior, unhealthy relationships, and degradation of family values”. They talk about how directors and producers of these shows need to fill a typical 44 minute time slot and edit down all of this footage to tell a narrative and create drama and excitement which in turn has created that negative influence on societal behaviors. Americans view shows like Keeping up with the Kardashians as a glimpse into the life of luxury when all it really does is stimulate those negative behaviors they portray.  

The article is making a mass culture theory argument by taking the stance that reality television is worthless in our society because of all the negative themes and actions that shows highlight and promote for their viewers entertainment. It goes into how the influence reality tv has on the masses has created a culture that enables bad and confrontational behavior. The author’s views on reality television would indicate that they believe that reality television is below us and that it should have no value in our society as it only has a negative and manipulative effect on those who are fans of it, warping reality of their viewers into believing that is either the life of luxury or that is how everyday people should be living/dealing with relationships. 

I wouldn’t say that reality television is completely worthless or doesn’t have a spot in our popular culture, it does show a gateway into people’s lives. Being exposed to the public eye can be comforting for people if they see someone they idolize going through a hard stretch of times and coping with that if they are also going through some hard times as well. Feeling that human connection that how they are feeling is normal and that they are not alone. For me, reality tv has its value in the emotional connection with people. So while I do agree that reality television does promote poor behavior and not an accurate portrayal of reality for the average person, there are aspects of it that can be taken away and do hold some value to its viewers.

Is Pop Music losing its fun?

I found this article in BBC by Fraser McAlpine, discussion over the question “Has pop music lost its fun?”. The article gives some studies that show a suggestion that our parents or older people might have been having more fun or enjoying more popular music than our generation. It starts with the claim that popular music nowadays is sadder and slower, giving an example of James Arthur’s song, Naked. With this song the article expresses that popular music is losing its fun, and it is becoming even more slower. Another claim given is that the popular music nowadays is simpler and louder, comparing to earlier times. Also, popular music today is antisocial and angry is another critique given, with an example that according to researchers the top 10 most popular songs in America from 1980 to 2007 can transmit anger, or sometimes contain words that are antisocial, but yet everyone listen to it because is the trend. The last two claims given in this article about popular music are that it is not just as good as it used to be and also it is more repetitive, using the example of Big Shaq’s song, Mans not Hot.

Now my question is, who reached to this claims or conclusions? Because I think it all depends and by that, I mean not everyone could share the same opinion about the popular music nowadays, especially not everyone can participate in those conclusions. There are a lot of elements that have a totally different point of view or definition of fun, a definition of an amazing popular music, of taste, of style, and of enjoyment. Everyone has different experiences, different feelings and music is something that is related to the emotions, feelings, experiences, moods and so on. I could say that someone finds fun on a slow music because that is what they are feeling. Music is listened not because you have to, but because you need to. I am not going to deny that nowadays people tend to be on trend, tend to be out there with the new not with the old, but that is not something to be considered obligation. People find fun in different kinds of music, experiencing different situations in life. Music has meanings for each and every one out there, maybe it is related to their culture or else. What I am trying to say is that the past has a great influence on the present, and the popular music that once was could return again nowadays as a lot of examples that I have seen. Old song’s rhythms, melodies, words and more have been returning nowadays in another style but the same idea. Therefore, we can’t say that pop music it is losing its fun, on the contrary people create the fun with the popular music.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/music/articles/fb84bf19-29c9-4ed3-b6b6-953e8a083334

An assault on popular culture

Ooooooh boy, where do I start?! I was looking for a critique of mass culture theory and I came across this video. This video is blaming pop culture for the end of society as we know it. He's touting it's all trash, hyper-sexualized, vulgar, immoral, and even the reason for the rise in teen suicide. While I do agree that television shows and music have become much more sexual and violent in nature over the last 20 years, I don't agree that anything that strays from that isn't or can't be popular. Reality TV isn't all bad. I am a BIG fan of Chopped. While most of us will never have to make a dinner using Cheetos, cinnamon candy, and tuna cheeks, it showcases critical thinking and ingenuity.

He states that "postmodernists want to annihilate the distinction between high culture and popular culture. They want to turn everything on its head." The goal in this, he says is to "completely undermine the foundation of Western civilization  and leave us open for subversion and capitulation." I don't agree that the distinction should be annihilated, but nor should it be what it was. Our heritage and art should be available and accessible to anyone and not all modern art are bad.

A prime example is the Okuda installation in the Seaport district. It's an outside installation and therefore accessible to everyone. I think the pieces are cheerful and intriguing. This art is popular and encourages healthy activity, going for a walk.

He references one of my favorite movies "Ideocracy" in his rant. While I used to agree that we were heading down that road, and the current world situation seems to support it, there are rays of light everywhere. I don't agree that if we do end up there, that popular culture will be the cause of it. More information is available to anyone at any time of day than at any time in history. Of course, turning on a screen and jumping on the internet immediately immerses you in pop culture. Designs, colors, ads, and paid search results are all there to try to influence your thinking but it's not a guarantee that they will.

 Paul attempts to make the case that counter culture doesn't exist anymore, that teens are depressed because they have no outlet for their angst. I don't find this to be true. In music, alternative music is huge, and one of my favorite genres. Skater culture and grunge are still very much alive. Rock and roll is still alive.

There is so much in this video, I could write for hours analyzing every minute of it. Perhaps I'll come back to it again in another post.

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.

Mass Culture Theory in Youtuber Commentary

Commentator and YouTube Cody Ko has a video titled "It's Everyday? No. (Jake Paul reaction). I believe that in this, although I completely agree with the video, and am a fan of it, critiques an element of popular culture through the lens of mass culture theory. This is an older video, being at about a couple of years old. It is about YouTuber Cody Ko reacting to another YouTubers, Jake Paul,  music video to his song It's Everyday Bro. At the time of the video, around the summer of 2017, the song had made it to the number 2 spot on iTunes music charts, second to Justin Bieber's Despacito, making it popular culture. Cody Ko tears the music video apart humorously, but the video as a whole tends to have a gatekeeping elitist feel to it, similar to the ideas in Mass Culture Theory. Cody Ko compares the song to mainstream rap music, which would be the equivalent of someone comparing a teenager's drawing to a Renaissance painter. It focuses on Cody Ko's taste and aesthetics versus the taste and aesthetics of Jake Paul, and in the end devaluing Jake Paul's work. The YouTuber makes a list of things that shouldn't be rapped about, and talks about the quality and creativity that the lyrics are lacking. He says things such as "It's a sad day for music," and  "don't rap about YouTube. It's not cool" (Cody Ko 2017). Although I agree with Cody Ko on this, it is putting down one aspect of popular culture and devaluing it due to believing that the quality that would have been spent on any other mainstream rapper would have been immensely better. YouTuber Cody Ko addresses that music is much harder to make than it seems, and makes the comment: "This video was wrote, shot, and edited in one day... Yeah. It's pretty [explicit] clear, bro" (Cody Ko 2017). Which comes from the Mass Culture Theory of things that have value in them must take time and not be quick and easy. This video is satire, of course, but within that has some pretty elitist views that I would not have recognized at first.

Mass Culture Theory - Art

In the past and even today, artwork done by famous artists has been viewed as more high class than part of mass culture. Pieces of artwork hand painted by famous artists, most of which are thought to have some sort of deep meaning behind them that people are willing to pay thousands and sometimes even millions of dollars for. This artwork was so valuable because it was unique, it is hand drawn by the artist not something that is mass produced and reproduced that everyone can get their hands on. However Andy worhol took a different route than most artists. Instead of wanting his art to be one of a kind and hand painting everything he created he wanted to make mass produced art. He is known for his Campbells soups cans painting which was very popular with the public. After this he did not paint but switched strictly to silk screen printing all of his works of art. He created mass-produced pieces of artwork that changed art from being more distinguished and exclusive to a part of mass culture. His artwork did not pretend to be something with deep meaning or exclusive only to the high class or those who could afford it, he made mass produced works of art. "However, when his art still sold, without having meaning, it showed the world that fine art, commercial art, and even marketing were not so very different after all." (Andy Worhol: Mass Produced Art with Popular Appeal) 

http://emptyeasel.com/2007/05/22/andy-warhol-mass-produced-art-with-popular-appeal/

Pop Music / Pop Culture

For my post, I decided to use an article I found based on current day music, coming from Dave Grohl in the Foo Fighters. In this article, Grohl talks about how he can’t stand when he asks his kids what they are listening to in today’s day in age, and hears that it has to do with songs coming from singers such as Katy Perry. Grohl goes on about how he thinks that the music that people are creating, as well as listening to in modern day society, is basically trash in comparison to what used to be considered “Chart Toppers”. I found this article to be extremely one sided, although I may not necessarily agree or disagree with what Grohl was arguing. He uses the line “It’s fun to listen to, to turn up in your car when you’re in traffic, but there’s no substance at all. It’s devoid of any meaning.” While Grohl may not see the meaning behind certain songs and genres played on the radio today, such as Katy Perry for instance, that does not necessarily mean that they lack meaning, but perhaps just the meaning he is looking for. For Grohl to argue that there is no meaning behind these songs and lyrics, it is just as easy for someone to say that there is no meaning behind songs that Grohl was a part of, as well as listened to in prior years if it lacks the meaning they are looking for. 

www.nme.com/news/music/foo-fighters-140-1219744

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!

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.

Seth on Pop Culture

Nostalgia is an odd, very peculiar thing. We look back upon the past and romanticize the pictures that we see float through our minds. Yet it is often the case, when we return to the location where those memories occurred, that idyllic locale almost always fails to measure up.
                                                                                                       
Canadian cartoonist Seth, aka Gregory Gallant, is often characterized, much to his annoyance, as a nostalgic. He certainly understands the 'why' he is so labelled but "you realise that the word nostalgia has a real pejorative quality to it. It tends to imply looking back with a certain kind of sickly sweetness" [Q TV interview, October 15, 2009, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m5D9kGmxlk]. However, I think we can safely assume that Seth ascribes to the notion that Mass Culture Media is very much at work in today's society.

 

                   ( From Its a Good Life if You Don't Weaken, by Seth, 2011, p. 89)                      

When we look at Seth's work through the lens of Mass Culture Theory, there are two characteristics of MCT that stand out in both his artwork and his ideology: 1) Today's Pop Culture artifacts are somehow inferior when compared to the culture, including Pop Culture, of the past, and 2) There is an embedded fear of change with respect to the future that includes the demoralization of society. This melancholia is consistently apparent in both the characters and stories that Seth creates.

In the over-sized Picture Novella George Sprott, 1894-1975, Seth explores the history of the local television industry prior to the deregulation of Cable Television, through the biography of a fictitious local television personality. In Seth's sketchbook The Great Northern Brotherhood of Canadian Comics, Seth the character, treats us to a tour of a fictitious museum that celebrates Canadian Comic Artists--both real and imagined--filled with many anecdotal reminiscences.  However, it is in It's a Good Life if You Don't Weaken (IAGLIYDW), a story which was originally serialised in Palookaville issues 4-9, that Seth's penchant for the past truly shines.

Briefly, in IAGLIYDW, Seth the character, is tracking down an obscure--and fictitious--Canadian gag-cartoonist by the name of Kalo, aka Jack Kalloway, that in effect is an exploration of art and artistic legacy. Throughout the ongoing search to find this elusive Kalo, the character Seth, through the author Seth, treats us to a narrative that seeks to discover the fading past and justifies his own ever-present dissatisfaction with  present day existence. Again, both Seth the character, and Seth the author, dissociate from the ongoing advancement of today's society and in this instance we are privy to Seth's subtle commentary that nostalgia and/or the past is already a construct, rather than a reality.

(From Its a Good Life if You Don't Weaken, by Seth, 2011, p. 43)                 

The documentary Short documentary on Toronto Graphic Novelist, Seth, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Rjy3c2YFZI  recreates a film from an era long ago; the film looks as though it has suffered over time. The soundtrack harkens to the Jazz clubs of the 30's and 40's. This documentary also examines IAGLIYDW and Seth's attraction to the Pop Culture of the past. We visit Seth in his home, and it is clear from his manner of dress (yes he does indeed dress like this all the time) Seth has recreated himself in the image of a man from the 1930's. He addresses how, in his opinion, 'Culture' has "become increasingly cheap and vulgar as years go by. The quality of the Pop Culture that they are selling us is a very shoddy bill of goods that we are just accepting because we are trained to." Much of society then, to Seth's way of thinking, is simply composed of passive consumers and the products available to society lack any true value. This documentary clearly showcases Seth's drawing techniques, his attention to detail, further reinforcing  his position regarding the value contained within today's Pop Culture media.

In another video, taken during Seth's interview with Jian Ghomeshi for CBC Radio's program Q (feel free to skip to the 6 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m5D9kGmxlk, Seth discusses his work, describing it "is about people going over their lives. I don't think it is about longing for a golden age" ... "I make it a point to really clearly show that I am confused, that I don't know what I really think about this time period"... "but not seeing it as some sort of, you know, beautiful golden age".  Seth concludes the interview stating that he does think there has been a cultural decline that depresses him.

Seth perpetuates this construct of the past in his attempts to create an artistic alternative to our present day now (Hoffman, E. & Grace, D., 2015, p. 219). Reclaiming the aesthetics and ideas from the past would, according to Seth, improve our present day existence (Hoffman, E. & Grace, D., 2015, p. 219). Seth believes that this utopian alternative present day, were he to create it "would be something incorporating favourite elements from the past --aesthetics from the past, ideas form the past" (Hoffman, E. & Grace, D., 2015, p. 219).  However, Seth himself contradicts his own ideology, through his creativity, the clean lines in his artistry, his choice of presentation: paper, book size, and packaging; there is no present day decay in quality nor does Seth produce a "shoddy bill of goods" with his comic material. The following that consumes Seth's Graphic Novels quite obviously consciously chooses to purchase his product rather than a substandard alternative. Seth himself, in a very meta way, is motivated by what he perceives as lacking in today's society in actuality provides consumers of his media with superior consumer goods, outperforming that which was available in the very era that  he himself seeks to immortalize. Seth, through his artistry, passionately applying his knowledge of the past, in concert with the materials and resources we have in the the present day publishing houses is in effect creating his own "utopian" Pop Culture media.

Works Cited:

Hoffman, Eric and Grace, Dominick, eds. Seth Conversations. USA: University Press of Mississippi, 2015. Print.


 

Module 4: The Culture of Overconsumption

Walmart and The Culture of Overconsumption
 This article discusses the mass culture theory that states mass produced products have less value and also the point of buying from stores like Walmart who are mass produced, the products will be less valuable then if you bought your products from Target, Whole Foods, or Crate & Barrel. The article discusses how Walmart grew and the tactics they used. "Cheap prices and overwhelming selection have a powerful effect on consumer behavior" With so many of the products at Walmart being mass produced they can sell them at a lower price compared to the other retailers and make a bigger profit. Yes, Walmart was cheaper than the other leading stores, but the push for low prices led to cheaper goods, which then leads to unhappy customers. The price may be low but the quality is bad which means I'm going to have to keep going back to get the same product over and over. "In many ways, Walmart is the quintessential 20th century American company. It took an industry as old as time — retail — and revolutionized it by thinking critically about its conventions. And it used cutting-edge innovations like information technology to revolutionize supply-chain management." I thought this quote was great because it explained how Walmart was an ideal "American company" and this week we focused on the American dream.


http://business.time.com/2012/07/02/ten-ways-walmart-changed-the-world/slide/the-culture-of-overconsumption/

Module 4 Example: Bennett on Today's Music

Prompt 

Find an article, podcast, or video on the web that critiques some element of popular culture through a mass culture theory approach (Note: The piece does not have to directly say "mass culture theory" but should clearly invoke the ideas of mass culture theory). It should have been published within the last 5-10 years.

1. Provide a brief synopsis of the piece and the link  (1 paragraph)
2. Identify how the article is making a mass-culture theory argument  (1 paragraph)
3. Then provide a counter-argument that identifies some of its flaws--especially those that are relevant with the Problems of Mass Culture Theory video  (1 paragraph).

Relevant Tags:  mass culture theory, [name of popular culture being explored]

Example:  Bennett on Today's Music

This article is a partial interview with the famous singer, Tony Bennett.  In it, Bennett says that modern music has gone down the drain in that they don't produce "quality" music.  He believes that the music industry is just pumping out music geared towards youth and is solely focused on making money.  He also believes that the general audience is largely "ignorant."  

All of these comments represent the mass-culture theory approach in that somehow the capital focused companies are producing lots of irrelevant music.  They are not investing time and money to produce real music (supposedly like what Bennett himself produces).  Ultimately, Bennett is arguing that the public has simple and unsophisticated tastes that the companies are capitalizing on.  

Of course, this line of thought doesn't really consider how people who listen to modern music appreciate or make sense of it nor does it consider what is authentic about Bennett's music that is somehow inauthentic about modern music.  How does he know what "quality" is or means?  After all, he is not the sole musician and there is much variation among musicians in his time and since.  The only difference is that some of his music has withstood the test of time, but he would have been also labeled "popular" in his time and seen the same criticisms that he now places upon today's musicians.  He relies on elite taste rather than fully exploring individual artists and music and exploring how fans actually experience such music.