Yes, I borrowed the line, it doesn't mean quite the same thing here but it does evoke a feeling that I've been thinking about recently. You see I've been listening to my iPod, pretty much exclusively since I got it. Thus, no radio, no CDs, nothing. Also I just got Digital Cable which has the OnDemand feature. Not quite as good as TiVo or DVR, but it's the same concept. Basically, this has left me only listening or watching exactly what I want to, without have to be exposed to anything outside of my own taste. Now some people would say that this is a good thing. Commercial radio is loathed, but tolerated by most people. Most Television is just utter crap, even (or especially) the shows we love to watch.
However, this also leads me to ask a question: Is this the end of popular culture?
If we are not exposed to anything besides things that we want to be, thus our entertainment is completely tailored for and by ourselves. The end result of this is that there will be no common experience among everyone. It used to be that everyone was exposed to the latest trend/fad/whatever since we were deluged with the sights and sounds of it all the time. Now we don't have to be. Some would say "thank God". But I wonder if (1) we will not be exposed to anything else, because the means of doing so are outside the little bubble we've created. But more importantly (2) we will loose a common experience that is the basis of our culture.
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Here is the problem, how can we be exposed to things we like without venturing into the "outside" world. If we choose a few things that we like and then isolate ourselves, we will be stuck in that time. Then the next question would be, how many items (music, clothes, etc.,) do we need for it to be acceptable to shut ourselves out from these outside influences. If I were to shut myself out when I was thirteen, my music selection would suck.
Lastly, too many people thrive off popular culture. Why else does Ashley Simpson still have a career? You (and hopefully me) may be the enlightened ones, but unfortunately we are in the minority!
I hope this sets up a good discussion because I think it is an excellent topic!
I guess my underlying assumption was that people are inherently lazy and would not be bothered to go find anything unless it comes to them while they passively sit on the couch. I understand that some people like to be exposed to new music, but that all takes work, which seems to be far beyond the capacity of most people.
Yeah, but it is that inherent laziness that makes people inclined to sit on the couch and watch MTV instead of listening to great music from their IPod.
It's all love man...relationships...our forced interaction with other people whether driven by biology or notions of loyalty or political aspirations or whatever. At a bare minimum almost everyone seeks contact with other communicating human beings and although many mediums such as radio and television have allowed us to commercialize and desensatize our exposure to other people no matter how isolated we try to become, it is our manifest destiny to seek interaction and interaction brings with it influence and so your girlfriend will have a band she likes, your mom will read westerns, your kid will like pokemon and you will be assaulted with their likes and dislikes. Unless your not into interacting with others. Pop culture as it is popularly defined is just an amplified exaggeration of common shared experiences. Generally. So pop culture, even in snailish one on one interaction will not allow you to hide behind your white ipod wall.
so is this good or bad in your opinion? I think we seek pop culture...everyone does...it is a gauge used to judge what is not pop culture...the ipod itself is just more pop culture...so 1. i think people will seek out pop culture if only as a means of justifying their own solo culture and 2. we will thus not lose our shared experience or we would lose what defines ourselves...though I have to say i think i'm either being too broad in attacking this question or i'm missing the jist you are trying to hit at. But I'm intrigued.
Actually, another thought...I think we need pop culture...as human and social animals we take our "cues" from it...both positive and negative. We've always needed to look over at what the next guy is doing...in some cases it has helped the species survive...fire...good idea. Um, Ashlee Simpson bad idea and those who enjoy the music will not mate and die and save our species...okay bad example if they're hot, they'll mate but the point being is that you would no longer be human if you could not set your compass in some relation to what the rest of humanity is doing. I don't think you can choose to disengage, at least not in a meaningful way. I mean what is left without pop culture? if you could imagine removing it? You would have to make your own music by tapping your empty ipod against the bare wall in front of you.
But what I am saying is that there will be a diminishing or complete erradication of a common shared experience. If we only allow those people that we choose to interact with, then yes there will be experiece with them, but that is not the same as a pervasive pop culture machine.
Okay, new idea or take then...i think i heard/read/was lectured to that pop culture is a product of the poor...it's cheap thrills and so in that sense until everyone can afford these luxuries there will always be pop culture and people transitioning into and out of a need/desire to tap into the poor man's ipod: the music on the street on the tube on the radio. As for those who live with ipods and tivo, well they are the elite and cutoff...but this is not a new concept. Maybe those that can afford such luxuries and just demonstrating that you don't necessarily have to be inclusive, but rather can be exclusive (see: red states).
Am I getting closer?
Also, I like the new format...better than the crappy popup box.
Oh...this is how you use it.
I think it is an interesting idea that pop culture is a product of the poor. Pop culture might be a product of the poor, but it is certainly enjoyed by more people then just poor people. Sure there have been elite people before, and this leads to more of what some have called "high art", which would include orchestral music, plays, ballet, etc. Now it may be me just not wanting to say that I am elite, but it seems to me that more people have access to the tecnological resources and can thus be considered "elite". The result is that while pop culture may come from the poor, it may not be consumed by the people it reaches now because they can cut themselves off from it.
Second I want to clarify my position I may have said pop culture in the original post, but I may have meant a broader "shared common experiece". Whether this is just another way of say pop culture, I don't know, but it seems to evoke something a little different to me.
B, perhaps you thought about this too quickly and that is your knee-jerk reaction. I have no doubt that pop culture is funded by people with disposable income. However, the question is who is it created by. If you think of the rise of Rap or Rock music in this century, you could argue that the musicians behind it were for the most part low, or working class. They played in front of people who were likely of the same economic background. It is only after it is approved by the "poor" people that it is considered "cool" and that is when you people with disposable income come into the picture. I know you are probably going to say something about culture just being manufactured by Big Business, i.e. Record Companies, and that might be true now, but perhaps they are just trying to recreate pop-culture. But maybe not, think of the Punk culture, that was arguably poor people, then it became "cool" and the punk style was availible for sale to the masses. Companies just responded to the demand, and continually look to the poor or other fringe group for the next "cool" thing to sell to those with disposable income.
the internet is the new shared common experience...and yes, you can select what pages you view...but you effect others even by your inaction...so unless others all choose to cut themselves off too...basically I don't think you can ever defeat the shared experience of being human. we will always be connected...how far can this apply: food, clothes, architecture, politics.
I like this dialogue...but i can't really come up more arguments b/c it's just so abstract. let's talk about the robot army our military is building.
Post a Comment