Time for Media..

I came out of the Monday afternoon lecture feeling pretty proud of myself for actually keeping up with what was being said and scribbled down 3 whole pages of notes on high, popular and mass culture.

The focus of the lecture was:

1. To explore what / how taste is constructed
2. What the distinctions between high art and popular culture is
3. Power within high art and popular culture

It is said that many believe that popular is not worth studying at a high level because it is seen as a 'soft' subject, but by studying it you can understand the world and your positioning within the world through popular culture. Also, as tuition fees for UK universities are increasing it is thought that a huge number of prospective students will reject media related subjects because they carry less value to some people..

Tastes are basically what people prefer and what people like and enjoy. Constructions of taste and quality constructed as a series of Binary Opposites, for example, good V bad, high V low, us V them etc..

One example of this is through the images of two celebrity women from two different eras yet in similar poses. - Audrey Hepburn and Katie Price AKA Jordan - together they represent the binary opposition of natural V unnatural and therefore, we make a judgement upon them which tells us about our tastes in relation to the naturalness of a women's image.

Or this?

This?

This linked in with the idea of taste or personal preference. Why are some tastes seen to be 'better' than others? Is there such a thing as 'Good taste'? Taste can also show a sense of individuality and/or a particular group identity, for example, many youth subcultures - 'emo'.
'Poor taste' - is usually associated with low culture and 'mass' appeal whereas 'good taste' is usually linked with high culture which have small and niche audiences.

PIERRE BOURDIEU - key theorist

• challenges notions of innate taste or 'authentic' sensibility 
• tastes and notions of quality are socially constructed and are used by different groups in order to gain status
• we learn taste - socially constructed
• cultural preference works as a form of cultural distinction 
• cultural knowledge and competence is displayed through consumer choice. 

CHOICES about who we are...

- cultural capital can be 'invested' into consumption practices

- producing symbolic capital or power

- cultural taste and notions of good quality organised as hierarchies of values

- characterised by different ways of perceiving and responding to culture

High culture can sometimes be referred to as being 'pure' with a distant appreciation of it from usually the highly educated.

Popular culture is described as something that is immediate with a close to proximity to the 'masses' along with a clear emotional response.

From these types of definitions I get a clear sense of stereotyping, people are instantly linked with a particular type of culture because of their education or their way of life. Is that fair? I, for one, like some forms of popular culture whilst enjoying and respecting forms of high culture as well.

The next part of the lecture focused on shocking pieces of art from two eras: Breakfast on Grass by Manet and Man in a Polyester Suit by Maplethorpe.

Whilst Manet's painting is not necessarily seen to be at all shocking in the 21st century, I can see why Man in a Polyester got some stick for being a bit out there... is it porn? is it art? or is it just a challenge?  

Manet's Le déjeuner sur l'herbe is now considered a highly valued piece of art, but in its day a naked prostitute in a park with two gentlemen was considered a taboo subject for a painting and highly controversial. The modern Man in a Polyester Suit by Maplethorpe was seen to be controversial when it first came out, being banned in some American states, does this mean it will be a masterpiece in several hundred years? Do taboo subjects loose their shock factor after a long period and become high culture? or is it a form of high culture in the form of high art? This can be said for anything that is now high culture, the majority of which have 'stood the test of time' and have become highly valued after its creator has passed and/or it has been around for a very very long time... Will Tabloids and The Xfactor be high culture one day? hmm, just worth thinking about...

Stuart Hall suggested that cultural items can shift in meaning. Nessun Dorma is an example of high culture (opera) that has been recognised by many through a form of popular culture (football ads). It shifts the meaning when two cultures are mixed together. Another example is in The Beatles, who shifted from a very small teen band into cultural icons. But who is it that decides what is good culture and what is bad culture? Hall suggested that popular culture becomes the 'site of influence' basically through a power struggle of hierarchy on what is 'the best'. 

"CULTURE IS ORDINARY" - RAYMOND WILLIAMS