“To entertain means to be in agreement.” (57)
“Amusement always means putting things out of mind, forgetting suffering, even when it is on display. At its roots it is powerless.” (57)
We discussed these two quotes in class this week. Placing these quotes together I felt a strong connection with Eco’s quote on Disneyland, “a place of passivity, its visitors must agree to behave like robots” (205). One must not question where all of the African Americans are because then Disneyland would no longer be fun. A place is only fun if you take it for what it is, instead of analyzing every aspect there or not there. One must agree with what they are seeing rather than oppose it.
We also discussed as in any entertainment, racial stereotypes and gender stereotypes must be put aside in order to enjoy what is being presented to you. If one looks too deeply into what is actually going on and the suffering that is taking place in order to make people laugh we may feel sympathy towards them and be unable to enjoy the “amusement.”
Horkheimer and Adorno say that amusement is powerless but I beg to differ on that. I think amusement can be very powerful. If amusement is able to put suffering out of our minds even when it is right in front of us, I would have to say that it is a pretty powerful tool. Personally I do like movies like Saw because I do not understand how people can enjoy watching others being tortured. Whenever I watch a movie, I always find myself putting myself into characters places, seeing how I would feel in situations. It is for that reason that I could never watch a movie like Saw, because I could not imagine myself having to mutilate myself in such a way and I certainly do not find it to be entertainment.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Juice15 3/24
There were a few interesting quotes this week that really made think deeper about them. One quote was from Hebdige. This quote was “Advertising and the culture industry are merging technically no less than economically. In both, the lame things appear in countless places.” In CMC 100 I wrote a critical analysis paper about how athletes are portrayed in magazine advertisements. After reading this quote I realized that I have seen many of the same advertisements in that magazine appear on many different websites. Also, I have seen advertisements for the same products with the same athletes on television commercials. I have even seen a few of the advertisements in newspapers. I feel this is what Hebdige is talking about when he said “countless places,” which today means almost every possible medium. Trying to defamiliarze myself with this idea is something that I have never thought of. There are so many different pop ups and online advertisements today that I have learned to get rid of them or ignore them without any trouble. Pop ups have been part of my Internet usage ever since I first started to use it. Some advertisements cover up the whole screen, some just pop up, some show up when your mouse moves over a certain area of the website and the rate and repetition which these are used or seen is very high especially online.
I feel this can tie into another Hebdige quote “Mass culture gives tragedy permanent employment as routine.” I looked at this more as how mass culture can turn something into routine. Even though some people feel pop ups all the time are a tragedy. I just see how this merging of advertising and the culture industry is a very routine thing to do and is not seen as anything new or excited, but more of an accepted fact.
I feel this can tie into another Hebdige quote “Mass culture gives tragedy permanent employment as routine.” I looked at this more as how mass culture can turn something into routine. Even though some people feel pop ups all the time are a tragedy. I just see how this merging of advertising and the culture industry is a very routine thing to do and is not seen as anything new or excited, but more of an accepted fact.
ashlayla, 3/24
During Tuesday's class, I was able to relate two quotes from the Horkheimer and Adorno essay together. The first quote is, "The standardized forms…were originally derived from the needs of the consumers…” (42). To me this quote is saying that the want becomes the need. I today's society we want new and we want better. If a new model of a cell phone comes out on the market we want it because it is new and better than the old model. We wanted and needed transportation, so car companies like Ford began making cars for the consumers. We are transitioning from like homemade products more to liking homogenized products more. We are blending products together that have very few similarities to create a new and better product. This is where I was able to tie in the other quote, “Culture today is infecting everything with sameness.” (41) We have to have similarities with each other in order to be a culture, which is similar to mash-up culture, when we combine the different elements and make them something new. I was also able to relate this to Jencks' notion of radical eclecticism...when you take two things that are as far apart as possible and put them together. Like, for example, at the Louvre where there are classical and modern types of architecture present. Or when a power plant was turned into the Tate Museum in London. I was able to connect all three of these ideas together because, in today's society we are constantly wanting something new but we want it to be better. So, we create a product that is unique and much better than the original by combining two different elements. For example, people wanted a phone that they could also use to take pictures with, so we "mashed" together a phone and camera to create a camera phone. Camera phones were new and better than the original cell phones which pleased the consumer. Our society will continue to bring together different products to create newer and better ones because consumers are going to always want something that is new and better than what they currently have.
coolbeans, 3/29
This week in class there was a quote that particularly stuck out for me. "To be entertained means to be in agreement” (57). This was particularly interesting to me because I was trying to think of ways in which this statement could be false. The statement is true in every scenario that I could think of. The quote seems strange because we never think of entertainment as agreement. If someone were to ask me if I knew a synonym for entertainment the first word to come to my mind would certainly not be agreement. Usually, entertainment is associated with fun, leisure, amusement, or hobbies. I found it interesting that Horkheimer and Adorno had equated entertainment with agreement because it is a highly critical way of viewing entertainment. Entertainment which is seen as something fun, interesting, exciting, is shown as something to be conformed to. It is as if those who agree to buy into this “entertainment” are being suckered into believing something. It just goes to show that everything does require ideology in order to be something. If nobody bought into entertainment then it would be nothing. It is a little bit similar to the idea that for something to have value people must place a value on it. A product will not be considered valuable if nobody cares about it. Similarly, entertainment cannot exist if people do not agree to the terms required of them to be entertained. For example, a person who goes to see a hypnotist show will not be entertained if they go into the experience having already decided that hypnotism is not real. Whereas a person who allows himself to be open to the experience will be entertained when he sees the people undergoing hypnosis. It is strange to view such an ordinary everyday concept such as entertainment in a critical way, as something that needs to be bought into.
Smiley Face - 3/29
What stuck with me most from class this week was the clash between the presence of subcultures in society and the concept of multinational capitalism. Culture, from the perspective of Horkheimer and Adorno, 'infects' everything with the notion of 'sameness.' They believe that culture takes different formats of culture and mashes them together in order to make one generalized culture that is accessible to all as well as being a safe way of ensuring profit. In previous classes we discussed the development of certain shows (such as Lost from Guilligan's Island) that are in fact the same format but have been reproduced to seem 'newer' and 'better,' bordering Habermas's "cult of the new." The sameness originally came from the needs of the consumers, yet over time that 'need' gets easily mistaken for 'want' and therefore the sameness of culture emerges. One way Horkheimer and Adorno recognize as a way of the ruling class maintaining control over the reproduction of sameness is culture is by creating and re-creating the 'success' myth, the American Dream in the US, to have the masses constantly following the ideology and consequently accepting the repetition of culture. Another means of keeping that control is by the presence of 'pseudoindividuality,' the individual personalization of the same thing available to everyone else. Here it is obvious to contrast the American ruling class ideologies of fast, new, active, and many to slow, old, passive and few (going back to Marx). Culture presents itself to the consumer as unique, yet it is appealing to the consumer because it is similar to what they have previously experienced.
To go further with the idea of sameness to guarantee profit, Jameson introduces the term 'multinational capitalism' in reference to the guarantee of profit from a global stand-point, and holds many similarities to postmodernism. Culture creates an 'economic urgency' to reproduce the 'new' not because it is necessary but because consumers are lead to believe they 'nee' it.
Culture, from the view of Horkheimer and Adorno, is progressing in an unoriginal fashion while Jamerson recognizes culture as being dominated with a corporate need for profit. The consumers and producers understanding of 'need' has altered over time to having a 'want.' Greed now rules culture.
To go further with the idea of sameness to guarantee profit, Jameson introduces the term 'multinational capitalism' in reference to the guarantee of profit from a global stand-point, and holds many similarities to postmodernism. Culture creates an 'economic urgency' to reproduce the 'new' not because it is necessary but because consumers are lead to believe they 'nee' it.
Culture, from the view of Horkheimer and Adorno, is progressing in an unoriginal fashion while Jamerson recognizes culture as being dominated with a corporate need for profit. The consumers and producers understanding of 'need' has altered over time to having a 'want.' Greed now rules culture.
000ooo000ooo Chomsky
I found Herman and Chomsky's essay to be kind of refreshing because I could actually understand what they were talking about all the way through it. It was also good to brush up on some of the basic CMC ideas. Reading this article I began to wonder what could possibly be done to change the situation. When the government, the media, and corporations are all in on the same system, it is going to be incredibly difficult to challenge or take down this system. However, I think the internet could pose a major challenge to the current system. The internet offers a way for each of Herman and Chomsky's five filters to be avoided.
First, through Jenkins we have seen how participatory fan communities can put control of information into the hands of the public and we have seen the internet's ability to break down spacial barriers and connect people from all over the world. This would help break through the first filter, "Size, Ownership, and Profit Orientation of the Mass Media". The size of the media makes it nearly impossible for new media outlets to compete with the well-established ones. It costs so much to start up a newspaper, TV station, or or radio station that only the elite can afford to do this. However, it is virtually free to post a video online. Additionally, it costs a lot of money for one outlet to cover stories from all over the world. Using the internet, a bunch of different people from all over the world could contribute to a single outlet and none of them would have to worry about anything but "local" news, which is much cheaper and easier to cover. Also, "profit orientation" would not be an issue because corporations and stockholders would not be involved.
"The Advertising License to do Business" would not effect this kind of internet based news because costs would be so low and advertising works differently on the internet than on TV. Costs would be low because people would just be covering pseudo-local news for themselves, you wouldn't have to pay celebrities like Dan Rather or Katie Couric, and the only technology people would have to invest in is a camera and a computer - both relatively cheap technologies today. Additionally, without the need for major advertising, reporters would not have to worry about upsetting sponsors.
"Sourcing Mass Media News" could be an issue because it would be difficult for individuals to get access to the same first hand information as other large news sources but these other sources publish what the sources say so it is easy enough just to see what is reported and then look more in-depth into that.
"Flak and the Enforcers" would probably still exist but if a media is not dependent on the approval of corporations and the government then this kind of "flak" cannot do much. Even lawsuits would be risky for corporations to carry out because they would simply draw more attention to the charges made against them.
Finally, I do not think that anti-communism is still much of an issue because the Soviet Union has collapsed since this essay was written and it is rare to ever hear people talking about communism anymore.
Although I see a lot of promise in the internet, it also seems that the hegemonic system we have in place is capable of commodifying and swallowing up just about any threat that it sees. I'm sure that as soon as a viable alternative to mass media news springs up some corporation will buy it out or find a way to overshadow it and its effects will be marginalized.
First, through Jenkins we have seen how participatory fan communities can put control of information into the hands of the public and we have seen the internet's ability to break down spacial barriers and connect people from all over the world. This would help break through the first filter, "Size, Ownership, and Profit Orientation of the Mass Media". The size of the media makes it nearly impossible for new media outlets to compete with the well-established ones. It costs so much to start up a newspaper, TV station, or or radio station that only the elite can afford to do this. However, it is virtually free to post a video online. Additionally, it costs a lot of money for one outlet to cover stories from all over the world. Using the internet, a bunch of different people from all over the world could contribute to a single outlet and none of them would have to worry about anything but "local" news, which is much cheaper and easier to cover. Also, "profit orientation" would not be an issue because corporations and stockholders would not be involved.
"The Advertising License to do Business" would not effect this kind of internet based news because costs would be so low and advertising works differently on the internet than on TV. Costs would be low because people would just be covering pseudo-local news for themselves, you wouldn't have to pay celebrities like Dan Rather or Katie Couric, and the only technology people would have to invest in is a camera and a computer - both relatively cheap technologies today. Additionally, without the need for major advertising, reporters would not have to worry about upsetting sponsors.
"Sourcing Mass Media News" could be an issue because it would be difficult for individuals to get access to the same first hand information as other large news sources but these other sources publish what the sources say so it is easy enough just to see what is reported and then look more in-depth into that.
"Flak and the Enforcers" would probably still exist but if a media is not dependent on the approval of corporations and the government then this kind of "flak" cannot do much. Even lawsuits would be risky for corporations to carry out because they would simply draw more attention to the charges made against them.
Finally, I do not think that anti-communism is still much of an issue because the Soviet Union has collapsed since this essay was written and it is rare to ever hear people talking about communism anymore.
Although I see a lot of promise in the internet, it also seems that the hegemonic system we have in place is capable of commodifying and swallowing up just about any threat that it sees. I'm sure that as soon as a viable alternative to mass media news springs up some corporation will buy it out or find a way to overshadow it and its effects will be marginalized.
Trapnest, 3/29
As someone who is interested in going into advertising and marketing as a profession Adorno’s comments on the world of marketing and advertising were of particular interest to me and raised particular mention. These two quotes seems to work together:
“The Dominant taste derives its ideal from the advertisement, from commodified beauty.” 64
“Only those who can keep paying the exorbitant fees charged by the advertising agencies… that is, those who are already part of the system… can enter the pseudomarket as sellers.” 68
The reason why I chose these two to begin my discussion is I believe they set up the framework for our world of advertising. Firstly, it is advertising that establishes what we want, what we “Have to have.” Think of (a classic example in the CMC major) the pet rocks that were popular back in the sixties. Everyone knows a pet rock, is a rock, and will not do anything. Yet advertising sets in motion the proverbial snowball, once a few people have to have it, everyone does. The next quote exemplifies who has power to do this within the market. Everyone knows about that actually useful product that’s out for five years and you only eventually hear about it though one of your friends because all the company had money for was a 20 minute infomercial on Lifetime at 3am in the morning on a Tuesday night. Whereas there are hundreds of products that may not be as good as my hypothetical example but you see them everywhere so you’re more likely to consume them.
Another great example of these working in tandem is the movie industry. Think of the last movie you saw that was a let-down. Everyone has gone to the movies, sat down, excited for what you’re about to see and then realizes they put the “best parts” in the preview. Advertising creates an artificial hype about its products. Companies with money pay millions of dollars to have their posters in every theatre, previews on every channel, and cardboard cut outs in every movie store. When you constantly hear and see something you cannot help but having an invested interest in it.
While this is a theorist/theory that is brought up a lot I believe this exemplifies the cult of the new. Advertising continually creates “new” and “better” things that you have to have. And it could not have this power to usurp the old products if it was not present in all aspects of society, a constantly convincing and present force.
“The Dominant taste derives its ideal from the advertisement, from commodified beauty.” 64
“Only those who can keep paying the exorbitant fees charged by the advertising agencies… that is, those who are already part of the system… can enter the pseudomarket as sellers.” 68
The reason why I chose these two to begin my discussion is I believe they set up the framework for our world of advertising. Firstly, it is advertising that establishes what we want, what we “Have to have.” Think of (a classic example in the CMC major) the pet rocks that were popular back in the sixties. Everyone knows a pet rock, is a rock, and will not do anything. Yet advertising sets in motion the proverbial snowball, once a few people have to have it, everyone does. The next quote exemplifies who has power to do this within the market. Everyone knows about that actually useful product that’s out for five years and you only eventually hear about it though one of your friends because all the company had money for was a 20 minute infomercial on Lifetime at 3am in the morning on a Tuesday night. Whereas there are hundreds of products that may not be as good as my hypothetical example but you see them everywhere so you’re more likely to consume them.
Another great example of these working in tandem is the movie industry. Think of the last movie you saw that was a let-down. Everyone has gone to the movies, sat down, excited for what you’re about to see and then realizes they put the “best parts” in the preview. Advertising creates an artificial hype about its products. Companies with money pay millions of dollars to have their posters in every theatre, previews on every channel, and cardboard cut outs in every movie store. When you constantly hear and see something you cannot help but having an invested interest in it.
While this is a theorist/theory that is brought up a lot I believe this exemplifies the cult of the new. Advertising continually creates “new” and “better” things that you have to have. And it could not have this power to usurp the old products if it was not present in all aspects of society, a constantly convincing and present force.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)