In the field of cultural studies, there have been disagreements over the definitions of culture and its implications for society. In the past, the lifestyles and art of the general public were dismissed by elitist scholars as inferior to "high brow" culture of the upper class. According to Barker's Culture and Cultural Studies (that I mentioned in the last post), the term "popular culture" has been used to "refer to that which is 'left over' after the canon of high culture has been decided upon" and "to the mass-produced culture of the culture industries" (page 51). Some involved in cultural studies see this as damaging to an authentic culture on the grass-roots level of society, but others argue that this is simply "romantic nostalgia'. The author states that "contemporary popular culture is, primarily, a commercially produced one...however, it is argued that popular audiences make their own meanings with the texts of popular culture. They bring to bear their own cultural competencies and discursive resources to the consumption of commodities"(page 52).
I would suggest that there are many cases where popular culture is a compromise between the commercial manufacture of a media product onto which the public then accepts and projects their own meaning. A perfect example is the phenomenon of The Beatles and the world-wide frenzy they inspired. Watch this video of the band performing "Long Tall Sally" to a vast and perpetually screaming audience:
The band began as four leather-clad Liverpudlian "teddy boys" that got into fights and sustained themselves with alcohol and Preludin. Before they became internationally famous, however, they were molded by their manager and record company into clean-cut (minus the shocking hair-dos) pop group that wore matching suits and bowed politely at the end of every number they performed. So, in a major way The Beatles were commercially produced to appeal to mass audiences across the globe. However, the millions of hysterical teenage girls (as well as well-educated music lovers) clearly have added cultural meaning of their own to the band. The Beatles are a hybrid of commercial success and deeper cultural meaning. In this case, the Beatles did not lose their most creative freedom in writing music (although earlier their more pop-y singles were created with the intent of appealing to the masses). Their outward appearance was the most dramatic change and made them appropriate to present to audiences outside their own hometown. But as soon as the band began playing music, the masses were free to put their own meaning into the product and took possession of it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with you about the Beatles as a hybrid. The temptation with which I struggle is to delineate artists on the basis of how commercial they are and then judge them on that basis. In other words, a band that is more commercial calculation than artistic freedom is lower on the respectability scale than the opposite. So, Ani Difranco is cooler than Alanis Morrisset. Are these kinds of calculations valuable from a cultural studies perspective? Are they even possible?
ReplyDeleteI think a cultural studies perspective would suggest that an artist cannot be ruled out as a viable contribution to "culture" simply because of its mass appeal. In fact, it might even go further in saying that because such a large percentage of the population finds meaning in it, there has to be cultural worth in the product (even if there was limited artistic freedom). Personally, I don't mind commercial appeal if there is an obvious lack of control over the content of the music (as with the Beatles). Some artists operate very well with corporate backing, and still produce interesting and creative songs.
ReplyDelete