― kvrc, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
Mass culture is the average level of acceptance of any given social dogma.
Music fits in wherever you want it to.
Music can liberate yr head, or sell you doughnuts...that's what really scary about it.
― Gage-o, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
flexible powah of music = what's GOOD about it ie john oswald on cover of wire = part of entire whole wacky world of music even tho he is a worthless peabrained parasite (heh)
― mark s, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
― John Oswald, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
― plunderphonic, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
But I suppose demarcating things in this way serves a purpose.
It distances and alienates the thing, making us think of it as something worth studying in its own right, something culturally-determined and ideological, rather than merely 'the air we breathe'. In other words, it removes the thing's immunity, removes its invisibility, and removes its claims to be, simply, reality. From our new distance, we see it as just one mode of representing reality, competing with others.
Using the term 'pop culture', I think, allows us to imagine alternatives:
- The world where culture is unpopular and what's popular is not culture. (The elitist world of Modernism or Classicism, for example.)
- The world where there is unpopular popular culture (the world I believe we now live in, a world of culture which uses the basic language of mass media, but speaks to minorities rather than 'the masses').
- The world where 'popular culture' is made, paradoxically, not by 'the people' but by a highly professional, technically-advanced elite.
- If the term 'pop culture' makes visible a world in which pop music (its energy, its model of the artist, its marketing strategies) has become the template for all the arts, we're free to imagine alternative worlds in which pop culture has been modelled on different things: worlds where all culture had to reflect religious themes, for example, or worlds where culture is based on the latest discoveries in science -- God culture, sci-culture.
And we can ask ourselves, are these other worlds better or worse than the world we know, the world of pop culture?
― Momus, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
Popular = of the people, but also 'successful'. Culture = everything people make, but also 'art'. Pop = popular but also 'a genre of music' (which may or may not be popular, and may or may not be made by 'the people'). The people = the masses, but also anybody.
And so on...
Culture makes a statement; art matches the couch.
― Lee G, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
Of course, pop culture is already highly self-conscious. Every pop record is already a metatag, already a comment on other pop records, made by experts. Just ask Daft Punk or the Basement Jaxx!
"The Arts and Culture: Adding Balance to Our Lives."
So Pop Culture must be the the kind that leaves our lives unbalanced.
― Curt, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
― Nick Southall, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
Mass cult is non-judgemental. Pop-cult positive.
― Sterling Clover, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
― Tracer hand, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
It got me a 2;1.
But in a world where culture = culture about culture -- in other words, in post- modernity, or the world of Daft Punk et al -- it's debatable whether we need metatags. I mean, if 'Discovery' is itself a hyper-intelligent comment on 'popular culture', what more can some media studies lecturer add? Which brings me back to my first point, about 'Woman's Hour'. What's the point of 'Woman's Hour', except in a (vanished) world where women are elsewhere repressed and invisible? And what's the point of discussions of 'popular culture' in a world where all media products are comments on all other media products?
The only point might be to alienate the conversation usefully, hence my second point about the 'metatag' helping us to imagine alternative worlds.
sterl your defn of metatag and momus's are surely now identical?
― Lord Custos II, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
― nathalie, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
I say they are all identical of course.
-Richard Meltzer
― Yancey, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 25 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)
www.vulturekulture.com
― Emily, Monday, 17 November 2003 22:37 (twenty-two years ago)