Here are the meeting times for the writing workshops. The meetings will take place in my office (221D Merrifield).
Tuesday, Oct. 20
12:30: Stephanie W.
12:45: Ronny M.
1:00: Angi K.
1:15: Allison L.
1:30: Amy U.
1:45: Dylan W.
Thursday, Oct. 22
12:30: Page W.
12:45: Aaron H.
1:00: Katie C.
1:15: Leah K.
1:30: Lacey E.
1:45: Alison K.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Alison Kelly Midterm
Jenkins and Conway and the formation of ‘Participatory Politics and Progression’
Communications 405
Kyle Conway
Alison Kelly
Participation is an oft used term in the realm of communication and social theory, one that is heartily used by Professor Kyle Conway in “Technology/Form - An Introduction to Media and Cultural Studies” and by Henry Jenkins in “Convergence Culture - Where Old and New Media Collide.” Both of these authors address many facets of their related thoughts and various questions involving the way in which our current technological and information society is progressing towards, both authors address the mode in which we ourselves are evolving into participants of the media.
At a certain point as well, both address the changes in political structure and the way in which individuals are migrating toward not only becoming more involved in their election process, but establishing how policy makers are attempting to relate to their constituents through the evolving media. Also, the authors both agree that the public and the varying media outlets could work more towards bettering our society in one form or the other.
However, the two authors clash on their idea of the public and what the publics involvement is currently or what it has been in the past. Also, Jenkins has much more of a focus tuned towards politics while Conway’s work is of a much broader spectrum, therefore I am pulling towards the ideals that Conway represents instead of clear-cut political specifics.
In this paper, I am going to outline the forms in which these two authors conflict and compare and note specifically on their thoughts as to where the progressive participation in either politics or media are transcending towards.
Similarities
The two authors see the importance and both express a small amount of excitement in the potential of participatory media. Jenkins views it as something that has already occurred and goes on to say “… as this book has demonstrated, we are already living in a convergence culture. We are already learning how to live betwixt and between those multiple media systems.” (pg. 223)
This quote is in reference to the idea that people should be fighting for their right to participate, but that the fight is less heated than in the past due to availability.
Conway places a little less importance on the idea that the participatory is already in place, mainly because his text is meant to educate a certain group, one that is possibly not as well-versed as the other. However, participation is a large part of his message, for example “Understanding the media system means first of all our place in it.” (pg. 84).
Differences
As mentioned above, both of the authors see the importance of participation, and again the biggest difference was views placed in a timeline. Conway would want to have his students ask themselves what these varying theories mean and how can we, as individuals, upkeep the trend of participation. However, in the deeper recesses of the text, one can infer that he is really wanting to have students ask the questions to themselves and others, whether or not it is ok to be digesting the media as we do - that of entertainment. This previous question is addressed by several other authors during the semester as well, DeeDee Halleck and Susan Boyle to name a few, none of which seem to give an answer, which one could argue is important to a persons own education. In fact, Boyle and Halleck seem almost doomsday-ish when describing their views on the current media system, citing that none of it is natural or pertinent.
Jenkins on the other hand, has a much more embracing and positive view on the media and how we are converging, involving ourselves. However, he thinks that the next best way to connect politically, or one could argue in any other way, is to create a venue where all forms of media work together and harmonize. He goes on to state, “If we want to bridge between red and blue America, we need to find that kind of common ground and expand upon it. We need to create a context where we listen and learn from one another. We need to deliberate together.” (pg. 250)
Now……doesn’t that sound nice. Pardon me for the sarcasm but this type of sentence doesn’t bode well with me, it seems too easy and unbelievable. This is something that Conway does not do also, Jenkins feels the need to enter a plea in the final sentences of his text and encourage people to create more of a utopian form of convergence.
This also seems to be the largest difference between the two, whereas Conway is still questioning and gathering information, Jenkins has already decided that we need to unite and conform in a way in order to make our political ideals mesh, which is something I don’t agree with when looking at the political party system and other processes that occurred throughout an election process.
Progression
Despite the previously noted differences, both Conway and Jenkins believe in progression just as much as they stress the importance of participation; however neither are sure as what avenue will be taken with media convergence and politics.
For example, Jenkins writes “ . . it is possible to choose communications channels that perfectly match our own political beliefs and assumptions and as a consequence to develop a less rounded or nuanced picture of what other people believe,” (pg. 247).
Conway shares similar sentiments, “What cultural form might television have taken if the inventors and policymakers responsible for it had made different decisions?” (pg. 71)
Both authors seem concerned with the route in which the media has taken, but for different reasons. In the above quote, Conway seems interested in the idea of a more ‘utopian’ or ideal society where we as a united people use our technology and cooperative intelligence towards a greater need.
On the other hand, Jenkins is questioning the idea that we as a people have more away from being ‘well-rounded’ or knowledgeable in all political varieties (Republic and Democrat, for sake of argument) and instead only want to educate themselves in areas in which they are personally invested. Jenkins compares this to blogging in the following, “Bloggers make no claims on objectivity; they are unapologetically partisan; they deal often with rumors and innuendos; and as we will see, there is some evidence that blogs are mostly read by people who already agree with their authors’ stated views.” (pg. 227)
Despite the differing spheres that these authors are presenting their arguments with a wary attitude and mainly ask the reader where they think media will progress towards, which I find to be the most interesting question.
The end of Conway’s chapter “If television weren’t TV, what would it be?” leaves the best thought presented by either, “On the one hand, technology is what we, -- make of it.” (pg. 85). Though simple, the sentence aids that despite all the questions that can be asked and the various individual communication theory ponderings, students, along with everyone else, get to decide on their own what their own technological impact will be and perhaps the best part of that individualistic view is that there is so far no answer.
Works Cited
Conway, Kyle. Technology/Form: An Introduction to Media and Cultural Studies. Grand Forks, ND: University of North Dakota Communication Program, 2009.
Jenkins, Henry. (2006). Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York University Press: New York and London.
Communications 405
Kyle Conway
Alison Kelly
Participation is an oft used term in the realm of communication and social theory, one that is heartily used by Professor Kyle Conway in “Technology/Form - An Introduction to Media and Cultural Studies” and by Henry Jenkins in “Convergence Culture - Where Old and New Media Collide.” Both of these authors address many facets of their related thoughts and various questions involving the way in which our current technological and information society is progressing towards, both authors address the mode in which we ourselves are evolving into participants of the media.
At a certain point as well, both address the changes in political structure and the way in which individuals are migrating toward not only becoming more involved in their election process, but establishing how policy makers are attempting to relate to their constituents through the evolving media. Also, the authors both agree that the public and the varying media outlets could work more towards bettering our society in one form or the other.
However, the two authors clash on their idea of the public and what the publics involvement is currently or what it has been in the past. Also, Jenkins has much more of a focus tuned towards politics while Conway’s work is of a much broader spectrum, therefore I am pulling towards the ideals that Conway represents instead of clear-cut political specifics.
In this paper, I am going to outline the forms in which these two authors conflict and compare and note specifically on their thoughts as to where the progressive participation in either politics or media are transcending towards.
Similarities
The two authors see the importance and both express a small amount of excitement in the potential of participatory media. Jenkins views it as something that has already occurred and goes on to say “… as this book has demonstrated, we are already living in a convergence culture. We are already learning how to live betwixt and between those multiple media systems.” (pg. 223)
This quote is in reference to the idea that people should be fighting for their right to participate, but that the fight is less heated than in the past due to availability.
Conway places a little less importance on the idea that the participatory is already in place, mainly because his text is meant to educate a certain group, one that is possibly not as well-versed as the other. However, participation is a large part of his message, for example “Understanding the media system means first of all our place in it.” (pg. 84).
Differences
As mentioned above, both of the authors see the importance of participation, and again the biggest difference was views placed in a timeline. Conway would want to have his students ask themselves what these varying theories mean and how can we, as individuals, upkeep the trend of participation. However, in the deeper recesses of the text, one can infer that he is really wanting to have students ask the questions to themselves and others, whether or not it is ok to be digesting the media as we do - that of entertainment. This previous question is addressed by several other authors during the semester as well, DeeDee Halleck and Susan Boyle to name a few, none of which seem to give an answer, which one could argue is important to a persons own education. In fact, Boyle and Halleck seem almost doomsday-ish when describing their views on the current media system, citing that none of it is natural or pertinent.
Jenkins on the other hand, has a much more embracing and positive view on the media and how we are converging, involving ourselves. However, he thinks that the next best way to connect politically, or one could argue in any other way, is to create a venue where all forms of media work together and harmonize. He goes on to state, “If we want to bridge between red and blue America, we need to find that kind of common ground and expand upon it. We need to create a context where we listen and learn from one another. We need to deliberate together.” (pg. 250)
Now……doesn’t that sound nice. Pardon me for the sarcasm but this type of sentence doesn’t bode well with me, it seems too easy and unbelievable. This is something that Conway does not do also, Jenkins feels the need to enter a plea in the final sentences of his text and encourage people to create more of a utopian form of convergence.
This also seems to be the largest difference between the two, whereas Conway is still questioning and gathering information, Jenkins has already decided that we need to unite and conform in a way in order to make our political ideals mesh, which is something I don’t agree with when looking at the political party system and other processes that occurred throughout an election process.
Progression
Despite the previously noted differences, both Conway and Jenkins believe in progression just as much as they stress the importance of participation; however neither are sure as what avenue will be taken with media convergence and politics.
For example, Jenkins writes “ . . it is possible to choose communications channels that perfectly match our own political beliefs and assumptions and as a consequence to develop a less rounded or nuanced picture of what other people believe,” (pg. 247).
Conway shares similar sentiments, “What cultural form might television have taken if the inventors and policymakers responsible for it had made different decisions?” (pg. 71)
Both authors seem concerned with the route in which the media has taken, but for different reasons. In the above quote, Conway seems interested in the idea of a more ‘utopian’ or ideal society where we as a united people use our technology and cooperative intelligence towards a greater need.
On the other hand, Jenkins is questioning the idea that we as a people have more away from being ‘well-rounded’ or knowledgeable in all political varieties (Republic and Democrat, for sake of argument) and instead only want to educate themselves in areas in which they are personally invested. Jenkins compares this to blogging in the following, “Bloggers make no claims on objectivity; they are unapologetically partisan; they deal often with rumors and innuendos; and as we will see, there is some evidence that blogs are mostly read by people who already agree with their authors’ stated views.” (pg. 227)
Despite the differing spheres that these authors are presenting their arguments with a wary attitude and mainly ask the reader where they think media will progress towards, which I find to be the most interesting question.
The end of Conway’s chapter “If television weren’t TV, what would it be?” leaves the best thought presented by either, “On the one hand, technology is what we, -- make of it.” (pg. 85). Though simple, the sentence aids that despite all the questions that can be asked and the various individual communication theory ponderings, students, along with everyone else, get to decide on their own what their own technological impact will be and perhaps the best part of that individualistic view is that there is so far no answer.
Works Cited
Conway, Kyle. Technology/Form: An Introduction to Media and Cultural Studies. Grand Forks, ND: University of North Dakota Communication Program, 2009.
Jenkins, Henry. (2006). Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York University Press: New York and London.
Stephanie Waltz's Midterm
Horkheimer and Adorno vs. Jenkins
Our current cultural media society is both an individual experience and a convergence culture. Everyday, people interact with technology to communicate. Whether it be using a cell phone, email, facebook, television, etc. technology is all around us. To elaborate on this, I am going to compare and contrast two different authors that we have discussed in this class. Horkheimer and Adorno and Jenkins’ chapters on convergence culture can both be compared and contrasted. These different authors use overlapping as well as specifically different concepts and theories to explain their views on convergence audience and participatory audience.
Both of these authors would agree that there is a definite audience convergence. Horkheimer and Adorno are extremely harsh when discussing the audience having any control over how they feel when interacting with media, especially in the matter of viewing or listening to media. According to them, “Industry robs the individual of his function. Its prime service to the customer is to do his schematizing” (Horkheimer, 1944, p. 124). They believe that the audience has been trained what to expect when watching movies, therefore, the audience already knows how to react. Thus, audience members automatically know how to feel. For instance, certain background music in a film may infer to audience members how they should be feeling during that particular scene.
Jenkins would agree with Horkheimer and Adorno that audience convergence exists. He uses the concept of spoiling as an example of convergence. It is in this way that he explains collective intelligence and the knowledge community. Jenkins uses the internet as a way for people to do spoiling, collective intelligence, and knowledge community, which he derives from Pierre Levy in his book. Using collective intelligence and knowledge community he points out that virtual communities help the audience stating, “What we cannot know or do on our own, we may now do collectively” (Jenkins, 2006, p. 27). The ideas of collective intelligence and knowledge communities have answers that an individual may be looking for. These may also be negative in a way that people may not even want to find out answers for themselves, but rather go to these virtual communities for information.
Jenkins’ ideas about audience convergence are focused somewhat differently from Horkheimer & Adorno. But they do overlap and both would agree that there is an obvious converging in today’s society. Yet, Horkheimer & Adorno and Jenkins will disagree about some issues involving audience convergence.
One of the key things that the two differ on is the idea of individual experience. Horkheimer and Adorno state that the audience is shown or inferred as to how to feel or react to media. In their view, an individual experience is not an option while being entertained by media. Simply put, they state that, “they remain objects” (Horkheimer, 1944, p.147). This means that every person in the industry is looked at as a whole unit, rather than an individual person. People have no control to make their own choices and their opinion counts for nothing.
However, Jenkins notes that there are exceptions to people converging to media. He goes on to explain that transmedia storytelling may be used for certain media produced franchises. Using the film franchise, The Matrix as an example, he describes this transmedia as showing a film, and then expanding it through other media outlets such as comic books and/or television shows. Simply put, he states, “The whole is worth more than the sum of the parts.” By this, he means that there may be things in other media outlets that weren’t previously shown or implied in the original media outlet. Thus, it is better for an individual to experience all of the different outlets of the franchise, rather than just experiencing one of the outlets. This is also a chance for the individual to use imagination and show other people their own view on the subject matter. This participatory audience gives them a chance to branch out of the converging audience and let them do what they want to do.
I do believe that these different authors give us insight to the title of our class. Horkheimer and Adorno explain that information and technology are taking over audience freedom and worth. They imply that humans are merely a number and don’t have any significance in this society. To them, if a media industry loses an audience member it’s not the end of the world.
Jenkins, on the other hand, seems to have more optimism for the human race and the information society. Although he may somewhat agree with Horkheimer and Adorno that there is an audience convergence, he also points out that there is participatory audience. In this sense, people are free to expand on media franchises, as opposed to Horkheimer and Adorno’s idea that people don’t have any control over the media they interact with.
Critiques discussed in the class for these different authors are overlapping yet have some differences. Horkheimer and Adorno have trouble making a thesis statement for their argument, whereas Jenkins had trouble with being too specific. He only gave one example, being the Harry Potter franchise, without comparing or contrasting another media franchise. Given that Jenkins didn’t compare his arguments to anything else, it’s hard to believe what he is saying. Similar to Jenkins’ credibility issue, Horkheimer and Adorno are also difficult to believe. Since they provide no thesis statement, they provide no solution to the problem, making it hard to believe their argument as well.
All in all, these authors are similar yet relatively distinct from one another. They would both agree that there is a definite audience convergence in our culture. However, they would disagree with the severity and gravity of the convergence. Horkheimer and Adorno see that the audience has no control over any of the situations around them involving media. Jenkins would argue that people do conform to a collective intelligence, but they do have the opportunity to use their own free will and imagination to expand on media franchises through transmedia storytelling. The different authors have shown that the media industry can have both an individual impact, as well as audience conformity.
Horkheimer, Max and Theodor Adorno. (1944). The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception. The Seabury Press: New York, New York.
Jenkins, Henry. (2006). Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York University Press: New York and London.
Our current cultural media society is both an individual experience and a convergence culture. Everyday, people interact with technology to communicate. Whether it be using a cell phone, email, facebook, television, etc. technology is all around us. To elaborate on this, I am going to compare and contrast two different authors that we have discussed in this class. Horkheimer and Adorno and Jenkins’ chapters on convergence culture can both be compared and contrasted. These different authors use overlapping as well as specifically different concepts and theories to explain their views on convergence audience and participatory audience.
Both of these authors would agree that there is a definite audience convergence. Horkheimer and Adorno are extremely harsh when discussing the audience having any control over how they feel when interacting with media, especially in the matter of viewing or listening to media. According to them, “Industry robs the individual of his function. Its prime service to the customer is to do his schematizing” (Horkheimer, 1944, p. 124). They believe that the audience has been trained what to expect when watching movies, therefore, the audience already knows how to react. Thus, audience members automatically know how to feel. For instance, certain background music in a film may infer to audience members how they should be feeling during that particular scene.
Jenkins would agree with Horkheimer and Adorno that audience convergence exists. He uses the concept of spoiling as an example of convergence. It is in this way that he explains collective intelligence and the knowledge community. Jenkins uses the internet as a way for people to do spoiling, collective intelligence, and knowledge community, which he derives from Pierre Levy in his book. Using collective intelligence and knowledge community he points out that virtual communities help the audience stating, “What we cannot know or do on our own, we may now do collectively” (Jenkins, 2006, p. 27). The ideas of collective intelligence and knowledge communities have answers that an individual may be looking for. These may also be negative in a way that people may not even want to find out answers for themselves, but rather go to these virtual communities for information.
Jenkins’ ideas about audience convergence are focused somewhat differently from Horkheimer & Adorno. But they do overlap and both would agree that there is an obvious converging in today’s society. Yet, Horkheimer & Adorno and Jenkins will disagree about some issues involving audience convergence.
One of the key things that the two differ on is the idea of individual experience. Horkheimer and Adorno state that the audience is shown or inferred as to how to feel or react to media. In their view, an individual experience is not an option while being entertained by media. Simply put, they state that, “they remain objects” (Horkheimer, 1944, p.147). This means that every person in the industry is looked at as a whole unit, rather than an individual person. People have no control to make their own choices and their opinion counts for nothing.
However, Jenkins notes that there are exceptions to people converging to media. He goes on to explain that transmedia storytelling may be used for certain media produced franchises. Using the film franchise, The Matrix as an example, he describes this transmedia as showing a film, and then expanding it through other media outlets such as comic books and/or television shows. Simply put, he states, “The whole is worth more than the sum of the parts.” By this, he means that there may be things in other media outlets that weren’t previously shown or implied in the original media outlet. Thus, it is better for an individual to experience all of the different outlets of the franchise, rather than just experiencing one of the outlets. This is also a chance for the individual to use imagination and show other people their own view on the subject matter. This participatory audience gives them a chance to branch out of the converging audience and let them do what they want to do.
I do believe that these different authors give us insight to the title of our class. Horkheimer and Adorno explain that information and technology are taking over audience freedom and worth. They imply that humans are merely a number and don’t have any significance in this society. To them, if a media industry loses an audience member it’s not the end of the world.
Jenkins, on the other hand, seems to have more optimism for the human race and the information society. Although he may somewhat agree with Horkheimer and Adorno that there is an audience convergence, he also points out that there is participatory audience. In this sense, people are free to expand on media franchises, as opposed to Horkheimer and Adorno’s idea that people don’t have any control over the media they interact with.
Critiques discussed in the class for these different authors are overlapping yet have some differences. Horkheimer and Adorno have trouble making a thesis statement for their argument, whereas Jenkins had trouble with being too specific. He only gave one example, being the Harry Potter franchise, without comparing or contrasting another media franchise. Given that Jenkins didn’t compare his arguments to anything else, it’s hard to believe what he is saying. Similar to Jenkins’ credibility issue, Horkheimer and Adorno are also difficult to believe. Since they provide no thesis statement, they provide no solution to the problem, making it hard to believe their argument as well.
All in all, these authors are similar yet relatively distinct from one another. They would both agree that there is a definite audience convergence in our culture. However, they would disagree with the severity and gravity of the convergence. Horkheimer and Adorno see that the audience has no control over any of the situations around them involving media. Jenkins would argue that people do conform to a collective intelligence, but they do have the opportunity to use their own free will and imagination to expand on media franchises through transmedia storytelling. The different authors have shown that the media industry can have both an individual impact, as well as audience conformity.
Horkheimer, Max and Theodor Adorno. (1944). The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception. The Seabury Press: New York, New York.
Jenkins, Henry. (2006). Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York University Press: New York and London.
Allison Lampert's Midterm
As a child, spending the night at a cousin’s house was really the most exciting thing you could imagine, other then spending a night at the grandparents’ with your cousins. For as long as a can remember, for me this meant playing Star Trek. I was little and had never actually seen the show but I wholeheartedly wore the budges and said phrases like “Beam me up!” regardless. As adults, my cousins were even more obsessed with Star Trek. One cousin found out that there was going to be Star Trek convention near where she goes to college. As it turns out there was a fan film competition. I happened to be visiting my cousins before they went away to college and got bribed into acting in their fan film. For them, and consequently me, Star Trek is more then a television show, it is a culture.
Star Trek is a widely popular, long running show with many variants. It is produced by the mass media. By all means this makes it part of mass culture. In Masscult & Midcult, Dwight Macdonald has a very clear view of mass culture. In fact he shortens the phrase into one word, masscult, because to him it is not even real culture. High culture is however something to be revered. The mistake often made is thinking high culture only consists of quality works. This is not true. It is just that only the high quality works from the past eras of high culture continue to be known and talked about today.
According to Macdonald, high culture is an expression of feelings, ideas and tastes. High culture has personality and is individual. By this definition, anything produced by the mass media cannot be high culture. That takes Star Trek out of the running.
Masscult is the very opposite of high culture. Macdonald even goes as far as to say that it is anti-art. This is a heavy accusation. Macdonald insists that with masscult, the audience is only a spectator, that there is no communication between individuals. He does say people are connected, not to each other directly, but through some impersonal abstract factor. For example, a television show such as Star Trek.
Henry Jenkins talks about culture in his book Convergence Culture. Jenkins’ ideas of the folk culture of America’s past are not unlike Macdonald’s ideas of high culture. Folk culture is personal and comes from grassroots movements. It is the quilting bees and square dances of the past. Folk culture in older America was a blending of cultures and traditions of a plethora of immigrant populations. Families passed down traditions and skills from generation to generation. No economical compensation or exclusives rights and ownership was expected.
This changed with commercial ventures like circuses and showboats. At first the commercial world tried to blend with the folk culture scene but that didn’t last. There came a time when a folk culture performer couldn’t meet the industry or technological standers. This pushed the folk culture scene underground, but not for good.
Like Macdonald, Jenkins also sees mass culture as something that is impersonal and mass produced. Unlike Macdonald, Jenkins looks at what happens when someone takes mass culture and makes it personal. This is when mass culture meets folk culture. This is popular culture.
There have been great technological changes since the America where quilting bees and square dances were common. It is easy for the inexperienced person to do what was reserved for the professionals in the past. With the advent of new production technology and the World Wide Web anyone can become a producer of media and can share that media with anyone else in the world. This makes things interesting.
With the new ability to participate is a willingness to produce. We participate according social and cultural protocols. Our participation is open-ended and not as controlled by the mass producers as in the past. The grassroots production and even distribution is controlled by consumers turned producers. According to Jenkins, this is how folk culture has returned. The folk culture of today models itself after mass culture. It is in dialog with and in reaction to mass culture.
A perfect example of that kind of folk culture is the Star Trek convention my cousin went to. Star Trek may have been popular and mass culture at one time, but that has changed. Today, many people laugh at it and call it “nerdy”. I am not judging; that is just what I have heard. This does not stop the fans, however. Thousands of people show up at conventions. These people, and Star Trek fans in general, even have a name, Trekies.
These conventions do reflect Macdonald’s idea of masscult connecting people through superficial means, such as a television show. Trekies, however, have made the show their own, like Jenkins’ ideas of popular culture. While at the convention, people come together with something in common, the love of Star Trek, but leave as friends. They talk about episodes they like and characters they don’t. They begin to connect on a personal level. They build communities.
For the fan film competition at the convention, Trekies produced films with characters, costumes, and settings that reflect the show. To be labeled a Trekie, weather this is viewed as good or bad, you have to do more than simply watch the show. I have seen the show and am not a Trekie. Trekies participate with the show. There are multiple online communities and blogs devoted to Star Trek. There are conventions, clubs, and fan film competitions. Obviously, Trekies produce works that are individual and show personality. The audience responds individually to the actual Star Trek show and to the fan produced media. Trekies put their heart and soul into the media they produce. I know this from experience. According to Macdonald, this is the definition of high culture.
Star Trek is a widely popular, long running show with many variants. It is produced by the mass media. By all means this makes it part of mass culture. In Masscult & Midcult, Dwight Macdonald has a very clear view of mass culture. In fact he shortens the phrase into one word, masscult, because to him it is not even real culture. High culture is however something to be revered. The mistake often made is thinking high culture only consists of quality works. This is not true. It is just that only the high quality works from the past eras of high culture continue to be known and talked about today.
According to Macdonald, high culture is an expression of feelings, ideas and tastes. High culture has personality and is individual. By this definition, anything produced by the mass media cannot be high culture. That takes Star Trek out of the running.
Masscult is the very opposite of high culture. Macdonald even goes as far as to say that it is anti-art. This is a heavy accusation. Macdonald insists that with masscult, the audience is only a spectator, that there is no communication between individuals. He does say people are connected, not to each other directly, but through some impersonal abstract factor. For example, a television show such as Star Trek.
Henry Jenkins talks about culture in his book Convergence Culture. Jenkins’ ideas of the folk culture of America’s past are not unlike Macdonald’s ideas of high culture. Folk culture is personal and comes from grassroots movements. It is the quilting bees and square dances of the past. Folk culture in older America was a blending of cultures and traditions of a plethora of immigrant populations. Families passed down traditions and skills from generation to generation. No economical compensation or exclusives rights and ownership was expected.
This changed with commercial ventures like circuses and showboats. At first the commercial world tried to blend with the folk culture scene but that didn’t last. There came a time when a folk culture performer couldn’t meet the industry or technological standers. This pushed the folk culture scene underground, but not for good.
Like Macdonald, Jenkins also sees mass culture as something that is impersonal and mass produced. Unlike Macdonald, Jenkins looks at what happens when someone takes mass culture and makes it personal. This is when mass culture meets folk culture. This is popular culture.
There have been great technological changes since the America where quilting bees and square dances were common. It is easy for the inexperienced person to do what was reserved for the professionals in the past. With the advent of new production technology and the World Wide Web anyone can become a producer of media and can share that media with anyone else in the world. This makes things interesting.
With the new ability to participate is a willingness to produce. We participate according social and cultural protocols. Our participation is open-ended and not as controlled by the mass producers as in the past. The grassroots production and even distribution is controlled by consumers turned producers. According to Jenkins, this is how folk culture has returned. The folk culture of today models itself after mass culture. It is in dialog with and in reaction to mass culture.
A perfect example of that kind of folk culture is the Star Trek convention my cousin went to. Star Trek may have been popular and mass culture at one time, but that has changed. Today, many people laugh at it and call it “nerdy”. I am not judging; that is just what I have heard. This does not stop the fans, however. Thousands of people show up at conventions. These people, and Star Trek fans in general, even have a name, Trekies.
These conventions do reflect Macdonald’s idea of masscult connecting people through superficial means, such as a television show. Trekies, however, have made the show their own, like Jenkins’ ideas of popular culture. While at the convention, people come together with something in common, the love of Star Trek, but leave as friends. They talk about episodes they like and characters they don’t. They begin to connect on a personal level. They build communities.
For the fan film competition at the convention, Trekies produced films with characters, costumes, and settings that reflect the show. To be labeled a Trekie, weather this is viewed as good or bad, you have to do more than simply watch the show. I have seen the show and am not a Trekie. Trekies participate with the show. There are multiple online communities and blogs devoted to Star Trek. There are conventions, clubs, and fan film competitions. Obviously, Trekies produce works that are individual and show personality. The audience responds individually to the actual Star Trek show and to the fan produced media. Trekies put their heart and soul into the media they produce. I know this from experience. According to Macdonald, this is the definition of high culture.
katie callison's midterm
Katie Callison
Macdonald and Conway
Home Improvement could be considered a classic American sitcom that uses humor to draw in viewers. The television show that originally aired on ABC has won many awards since it’s beginning over a decade ago. But what exactly makes this comedy series so popular? Do audiences actually find Home Improvement funny? Author of Against the American Grain (1952), Dwight Macdonald, would defiantly have answers to both those questions.
First, Macdonald (1952) might pick at the point that Home Improvement is a prime example of a Masscult television show. The plot of each episode is very predictable and is always very simple. This means that anyone in the audience will understand each episode without much thought. Also, each of the characters in the sitcom plays stereotypical roles. This helps audience members easily relate to the various cast roles. Macdonald would say that it is features such as these that have enabled Home Improvement to become so popular among children and adults alike for so many years. However, Macdonald would defiantly not approve of this show being so popular.
Next, Macdonald (1952) might argue that audiences may not find Home Improvement funny at all if they weren’t exposed to the laugh tracks entered into the show to that instructs them when to laugh. This show has been standardized so audiences know and expect what is coming next. This type of television is “easy” to consume. Audiences don’t have to think about when to laugh because the laugh track helps them realize when something is funny. Macdonald defines this as “The-Built-In-Reaction”. The audience’s reaction has been built into the sitcom (Macdonald). Those at home viewing the show do not have to come up with their own response to the dialogue or events throughout the show.
Much of Macdonald’s (1952) essay is a critique of Masscult, a genre of culture that Home Improvement and most everything else in the mass media slides nicely into. According to Macdonald, works of art that would be considered High Culture are no longer being produced. Instead, Masscult is filling the radio, television, and movie screens (Macdonald). Masscult entertains the mass man while High Culture is for the elite (Macdonald). For this is because not everybody can enjoy High Culture or even appreciate it. The works of art that are contained in High Culture are often ordinary, but are also authentic, educating, and challenging. In many cases they aren’t understood after the first view (Macdonald).
The circuit model for media study was talked about in great detail in Kyle Conway’s, Technology/Form (2009), and describes the relationship between the receivers, distributors, and the producers in television production. This model highlights the importance of producers understanding viewers’ tastes so that they can create programs that the viewers will be likely to watch (Conway). Producers must also use the model to determine where to distribute the show in order to attract the target viewer (Conway). A producer's ultimate goal is to obtain revenue and money is made through advertising (Conway). Producers will know when the model has failed because revenue is lost (Conway). Advertisers will no longer pay when they feel their commercials aren’t being watched because viewer numbers drop too low (Conway). Understanding the circuit model for media helps to realize what constitutes the success or failure of a program, and also recognize why certain genres of programs are made and aired on specific channels at particular times.
The media’s drive of producing a television show is to take in revenue. They try and create programs that will attract the largest possible audience because shows with a large or committed following will earn them the most money. The smart producers who wish to be successful know the tricks that will create programs that will sell and what has happened is that these programs have lessened our individuality and turned us into the mass man (Conway, 2009; Macdonald, 1952). Macdonald is angry that modern industrial societies have created the mass man, but what readers have found out in Conway’s book is that through processes such as the circuit model society receives the shows they want to watch on T.V (Conway; Macdonald). Producers may look at an audience as a whole without taking each of us into account, but through that we receive entertainment.
Macdonald (1952) feels that Masscult is taking over High Culture. What Macdonald doesn’t address is technologies interaction with audiences. Before the mass media, dramas performed in Britain were intended for the upper class (Conway, 2009). The invention of film helped bring drama for the masses to enjoy (Conway). Television has done the same. Technology has helped bring drama out into a scene that allows more than just the elite to experience. This reveals how entertainment for the masses began. Entertainment had once been only for the wealthy but with the help of technology ordinary people could view drama as well.
Technology such as television provides entertainment to ordinary people because it is cheap. Events such as plays, operas, and orchestras are special and usually aren’t attended to everyday. In general, people have easy access to television. Families can come home from their daily activities and sit down, relax, and enjoy an episode of Home Improvement together. The option of attending a play as a family on a weeknight just isn’t very possible in modern societies. Easy and cheap entertainment is sought after.
Macdonald is obsessed with the notion that Masscult is ruining everybody’s minds. Through Conway’s work we can see how Masscult has risen from technology and found a niche in society. Masscult aims at the ordinary man because so many people have the opportunity to enjoy the cheap entertainment. High Culture is for the elite and is created rather than manufactured (Macdonald). Through these two authors readers are able to understand how Masscult and High Culture serve different purposes. High Culture is not meant to be enjoyed by the masses so it does not need to serve the lowest common denominator. The purpose of Masscult, however, is different. It is put out for the masses to view. The “Built-in-Reaction” is important and expected. Macdonald fails to realize the importance of producing work that people will want to consume so that profit can be made just as Conway ignores other forms of mass media besides television. By reading these two works together readers begin to understand their place in the media system. Macdonald helps readers realize that there are other ways besides just television that make a viewer stream into the masses while Conway gives readers a glimpse into the reality of the media system and a producers ultimate but legitimate want of wealth.
Conway, Kyle. Technology/Form: An Introduction to Media and Cultural Studies. Grand Forks, ND: University of North Dakota Communication Program, 2009.
Macdonald, Dwight. “Masscult and Midcult.” Against the American Grain. New York: Random House, 1952.
Macdonald and Conway
Home Improvement could be considered a classic American sitcom that uses humor to draw in viewers. The television show that originally aired on ABC has won many awards since it’s beginning over a decade ago. But what exactly makes this comedy series so popular? Do audiences actually find Home Improvement funny? Author of Against the American Grain (1952), Dwight Macdonald, would defiantly have answers to both those questions.
First, Macdonald (1952) might pick at the point that Home Improvement is a prime example of a Masscult television show. The plot of each episode is very predictable and is always very simple. This means that anyone in the audience will understand each episode without much thought. Also, each of the characters in the sitcom plays stereotypical roles. This helps audience members easily relate to the various cast roles. Macdonald would say that it is features such as these that have enabled Home Improvement to become so popular among children and adults alike for so many years. However, Macdonald would defiantly not approve of this show being so popular.
Next, Macdonald (1952) might argue that audiences may not find Home Improvement funny at all if they weren’t exposed to the laugh tracks entered into the show to that instructs them when to laugh. This show has been standardized so audiences know and expect what is coming next. This type of television is “easy” to consume. Audiences don’t have to think about when to laugh because the laugh track helps them realize when something is funny. Macdonald defines this as “The-Built-In-Reaction”. The audience’s reaction has been built into the sitcom (Macdonald). Those at home viewing the show do not have to come up with their own response to the dialogue or events throughout the show.
Much of Macdonald’s (1952) essay is a critique of Masscult, a genre of culture that Home Improvement and most everything else in the mass media slides nicely into. According to Macdonald, works of art that would be considered High Culture are no longer being produced. Instead, Masscult is filling the radio, television, and movie screens (Macdonald). Masscult entertains the mass man while High Culture is for the elite (Macdonald). For this is because not everybody can enjoy High Culture or even appreciate it. The works of art that are contained in High Culture are often ordinary, but are also authentic, educating, and challenging. In many cases they aren’t understood after the first view (Macdonald).
The circuit model for media study was talked about in great detail in Kyle Conway’s, Technology/Form (2009), and describes the relationship between the receivers, distributors, and the producers in television production. This model highlights the importance of producers understanding viewers’ tastes so that they can create programs that the viewers will be likely to watch (Conway). Producers must also use the model to determine where to distribute the show in order to attract the target viewer (Conway). A producer's ultimate goal is to obtain revenue and money is made through advertising (Conway). Producers will know when the model has failed because revenue is lost (Conway). Advertisers will no longer pay when they feel their commercials aren’t being watched because viewer numbers drop too low (Conway). Understanding the circuit model for media helps to realize what constitutes the success or failure of a program, and also recognize why certain genres of programs are made and aired on specific channels at particular times.
The media’s drive of producing a television show is to take in revenue. They try and create programs that will attract the largest possible audience because shows with a large or committed following will earn them the most money. The smart producers who wish to be successful know the tricks that will create programs that will sell and what has happened is that these programs have lessened our individuality and turned us into the mass man (Conway, 2009; Macdonald, 1952). Macdonald is angry that modern industrial societies have created the mass man, but what readers have found out in Conway’s book is that through processes such as the circuit model society receives the shows they want to watch on T.V (Conway; Macdonald). Producers may look at an audience as a whole without taking each of us into account, but through that we receive entertainment.
Macdonald (1952) feels that Masscult is taking over High Culture. What Macdonald doesn’t address is technologies interaction with audiences. Before the mass media, dramas performed in Britain were intended for the upper class (Conway, 2009). The invention of film helped bring drama for the masses to enjoy (Conway). Television has done the same. Technology has helped bring drama out into a scene that allows more than just the elite to experience. This reveals how entertainment for the masses began. Entertainment had once been only for the wealthy but with the help of technology ordinary people could view drama as well.
Technology such as television provides entertainment to ordinary people because it is cheap. Events such as plays, operas, and orchestras are special and usually aren’t attended to everyday. In general, people have easy access to television. Families can come home from their daily activities and sit down, relax, and enjoy an episode of Home Improvement together. The option of attending a play as a family on a weeknight just isn’t very possible in modern societies. Easy and cheap entertainment is sought after.
Macdonald is obsessed with the notion that Masscult is ruining everybody’s minds. Through Conway’s work we can see how Masscult has risen from technology and found a niche in society. Masscult aims at the ordinary man because so many people have the opportunity to enjoy the cheap entertainment. High Culture is for the elite and is created rather than manufactured (Macdonald). Through these two authors readers are able to understand how Masscult and High Culture serve different purposes. High Culture is not meant to be enjoyed by the masses so it does not need to serve the lowest common denominator. The purpose of Masscult, however, is different. It is put out for the masses to view. The “Built-in-Reaction” is important and expected. Macdonald fails to realize the importance of producing work that people will want to consume so that profit can be made just as Conway ignores other forms of mass media besides television. By reading these two works together readers begin to understand their place in the media system. Macdonald helps readers realize that there are other ways besides just television that make a viewer stream into the masses while Conway gives readers a glimpse into the reality of the media system and a producers ultimate but legitimate want of wealth.
Conway, Kyle. Technology/Form: An Introduction to Media and Cultural Studies. Grand Forks, ND: University of North Dakota Communication Program, 2009.
Macdonald, Dwight. “Masscult and Midcult.” Against the American Grain. New York: Random House, 1952.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Ronny's Midterm Paper
Rhiannon McLane
Comm. 405
Mid Term Paper
10/15/2009
When you turn on your television and flip to the TV Guide channel has the thought ever occurred to you that most of the shows (even on different networks) look identical? Is there no creativity? Do script writers and Hollywood hotshots just copy each other in order not to loose a buck? Has society really become a “homogenized culture” as Dwight MacDonald states (MacDonald p.12)? Have Americans just settled for bad television because we are unable to recognize art or any other form of an innovative idea? Or do Americans care about their scheduled programming and understand that they have the power to change it like Kyle Conway suggests? In this essay I will address these questions by comparing and contrasting Kyle Conway’s Technology Form: An Introduction to Media and Cultural Studies and Dwight MacDonald’s Masscult & Midcult so that you can form your own opinion about the relationships between producers, distributors and the audience.
“They try this and that and if something clicks at the box office, they try to cash in with similar products…” (MacDonald p.14). This sounds a lot like what happened after the movie, Twilight came out. All of a sudden you see television shows like HBO’s True Blood, The CW’s Vampire Diaries, new movies like Cirque de Freak: The Vampire’s Assistant, Day Walkers, not to mention Twilight’s sequel New Moon. Producer’s are trying to profit off of each others’ success, “A second device is that of the clone, where producers model a new program after a hit show, possibly on another network. In some cases, they follow the hit show’s formula fairly closely” (Conway p.56-57). MacDonald and Conway agree that which ever shows are in the spot light will have more “clones” to satisfy the demands the public. Producers believe that what was popular at one time will continue to be popular until the public gets bored and ratings of certain television shows decrease. I don’t believe the cycle of cloning will ever end, we as viewers want to be entertained, and when something is not aesthetically pleasing anymore we’ll lose interest, ultimately becoming interested in something new and watching clones of that pop up all over our TVs. Dwight MacDonald would probably agree to my above statement whole heartedly, believing that, “… it is easier to say the public wants this than to say the truth which is that the public gets this so it wants this” (MacDonald p.10-11). The public wants what is popular so every network will give it to them. MacDonald and Conway would agree that producers and distributors do “cash in” on popular box office themes in order to make money.
A difference between Conway and MacDonald is that Conway believes that people do have a say in what they watch/ view on television. Fox’s Family Guy which was introduced to attract “the young male demographic in the late 1990’s,” (Conway p.13) was canceled in 2001 but brought back to Cartoon Network’s Adult Swim when the DVD of the first season sold over 2 million copies (Conway p.13). “Fox executives realized that they might not be able to use the show to attract a large audience, but they could attract a loyal audience…” (Conway p.13-14) According to the ideals of Dwight MacDonald, we as consumers are a mass unable to recognize what we want, and just allow producers to give us what we think we want. Obviously there is proof that viewers have power and opinion over what they watch or what they want to watch and can persuade networks to give to them.
Another similarity between Conway and MacDonald is the fact they believe that Masscult was born to entertain and inform the masses, and to help them feel included in the world around them. Masscult is a tie between High culture and Low culture. It’s a way for everyone to be included, not only can the rich and middle class watch/read something, but so can the poor. Its availability is made ready to anyone who can afford to pay the cost of the product either being a magazine, newspaper, or movie. Rich people and poor could form an opinion on what was going on in the world; it was no longer just upper-class conversation. “Masscult is a dynamic, revolutionary force, breaking down the old barriers of class traditions, and taste, dissolving all cultural distinctions. It mixes, scrambles everything together, producing what might be called homogenized culture…” (MacDonald p.12). Conway attributes mass culture to the fact that during the post-World War II era, people were moving out of the city and into the suburbs, which left them feeling isolated (Conway p.18), television was a way unite people who were geographically isolated, “The developers of technologies like television had specific goals in mind. For instance, they wanted to find a way to deliver programming to large groups of viewers who were geographically isolated from each other” (Conway p.18).
Contrasting Conway and McDonald on MacDonald’s idea of the “Built in reaction,” MacDonald to sum up in a nut shell thinks people react to certain television shows the way we do is because we get cues from the producers, “That standby for provincial weddings, “I Love You Truly,” is far more “romantic” than the most beautiful of Schubert’s songs because its wallowing, yearning tremolos and glissandos make it clear to the most unmusical listener that something clearly tender is indeed going on” (MacDonald p. 29). During scenes an audience knows it ok to cry when they hear a sad song, so it’s ok to cry when Lassie has just died and there is a sad slow song playing along in the background. Although heaven forbid if the music was not playing we would not know if it was appropriate to mourn Lassie’s death. Conway gives an example about the show Arrested Development, and how it was not what you would call the stereotypical sitcom, because there was no laugh track, the lighting was flat, and the show was filmed using a hand held camera. It was innovative; it let people decide for themselves what was funny. Although the show had a small following it was not enough to save the show from cancelation. The same idea can be attributed to the movie starring Adam Sandler, Punch Drunk Love. There was no music to guide you through the scenes. It was like everyone was a critic. Because there was no influence by producers, it gave viewers a chance to take what they wanted out of the movie and laugh cry or be disgusted if they wanted to and have different ideas about the making of a scene than someone else. Conway’s ideas about genre and Arrested Development gives credit to people in being able to understand television with out helpful cues provided by producers.
In conclusion by comparing and contrasting Kyle Conway’s Technology Form: An Introduction to Media and Cultural Studies and Dwight MacDonald’s Masscult & Midcult I hope I have given insight to the relationships between producers, distributors and the audience. Hopefully by reading this you will understand Masscult and how it the public is treated as a whole with similar tastes. Also how we as an audience are not powerless when it comes to the choices of television shows, we have a say in what goes on television.
Works Cited
Conway, Kyle. Technology Form: An Introduction to Media and Cultural Studies . 1st. Grand Forks: Neo Office, 2009. Print.
MacDonald, Dwight. Aginst the American Grain: Masscult & Midcult. New York City: Random House, 1952. Print.
Comm. 405
Mid Term Paper
10/15/2009
When you turn on your television and flip to the TV Guide channel has the thought ever occurred to you that most of the shows (even on different networks) look identical? Is there no creativity? Do script writers and Hollywood hotshots just copy each other in order not to loose a buck? Has society really become a “homogenized culture” as Dwight MacDonald states (MacDonald p.12)? Have Americans just settled for bad television because we are unable to recognize art or any other form of an innovative idea? Or do Americans care about their scheduled programming and understand that they have the power to change it like Kyle Conway suggests? In this essay I will address these questions by comparing and contrasting Kyle Conway’s Technology Form: An Introduction to Media and Cultural Studies and Dwight MacDonald’s Masscult & Midcult so that you can form your own opinion about the relationships between producers, distributors and the audience.
“They try this and that and if something clicks at the box office, they try to cash in with similar products…” (MacDonald p.14). This sounds a lot like what happened after the movie, Twilight came out. All of a sudden you see television shows like HBO’s True Blood, The CW’s Vampire Diaries, new movies like Cirque de Freak: The Vampire’s Assistant, Day Walkers, not to mention Twilight’s sequel New Moon. Producer’s are trying to profit off of each others’ success, “A second device is that of the clone, where producers model a new program after a hit show, possibly on another network. In some cases, they follow the hit show’s formula fairly closely” (Conway p.56-57). MacDonald and Conway agree that which ever shows are in the spot light will have more “clones” to satisfy the demands the public. Producers believe that what was popular at one time will continue to be popular until the public gets bored and ratings of certain television shows decrease. I don’t believe the cycle of cloning will ever end, we as viewers want to be entertained, and when something is not aesthetically pleasing anymore we’ll lose interest, ultimately becoming interested in something new and watching clones of that pop up all over our TVs. Dwight MacDonald would probably agree to my above statement whole heartedly, believing that, “… it is easier to say the public wants this than to say the truth which is that the public gets this so it wants this” (MacDonald p.10-11). The public wants what is popular so every network will give it to them. MacDonald and Conway would agree that producers and distributors do “cash in” on popular box office themes in order to make money.
A difference between Conway and MacDonald is that Conway believes that people do have a say in what they watch/ view on television. Fox’s Family Guy which was introduced to attract “the young male demographic in the late 1990’s,” (Conway p.13) was canceled in 2001 but brought back to Cartoon Network’s Adult Swim when the DVD of the first season sold over 2 million copies (Conway p.13). “Fox executives realized that they might not be able to use the show to attract a large audience, but they could attract a loyal audience…” (Conway p.13-14) According to the ideals of Dwight MacDonald, we as consumers are a mass unable to recognize what we want, and just allow producers to give us what we think we want. Obviously there is proof that viewers have power and opinion over what they watch or what they want to watch and can persuade networks to give to them.
Another similarity between Conway and MacDonald is the fact they believe that Masscult was born to entertain and inform the masses, and to help them feel included in the world around them. Masscult is a tie between High culture and Low culture. It’s a way for everyone to be included, not only can the rich and middle class watch/read something, but so can the poor. Its availability is made ready to anyone who can afford to pay the cost of the product either being a magazine, newspaper, or movie. Rich people and poor could form an opinion on what was going on in the world; it was no longer just upper-class conversation. “Masscult is a dynamic, revolutionary force, breaking down the old barriers of class traditions, and taste, dissolving all cultural distinctions. It mixes, scrambles everything together, producing what might be called homogenized culture…” (MacDonald p.12). Conway attributes mass culture to the fact that during the post-World War II era, people were moving out of the city and into the suburbs, which left them feeling isolated (Conway p.18), television was a way unite people who were geographically isolated, “The developers of technologies like television had specific goals in mind. For instance, they wanted to find a way to deliver programming to large groups of viewers who were geographically isolated from each other” (Conway p.18).
Contrasting Conway and McDonald on MacDonald’s idea of the “Built in reaction,” MacDonald to sum up in a nut shell thinks people react to certain television shows the way we do is because we get cues from the producers, “That standby for provincial weddings, “I Love You Truly,” is far more “romantic” than the most beautiful of Schubert’s songs because its wallowing, yearning tremolos and glissandos make it clear to the most unmusical listener that something clearly tender is indeed going on” (MacDonald p. 29). During scenes an audience knows it ok to cry when they hear a sad song, so it’s ok to cry when Lassie has just died and there is a sad slow song playing along in the background. Although heaven forbid if the music was not playing we would not know if it was appropriate to mourn Lassie’s death. Conway gives an example about the show Arrested Development, and how it was not what you would call the stereotypical sitcom, because there was no laugh track, the lighting was flat, and the show was filmed using a hand held camera. It was innovative; it let people decide for themselves what was funny. Although the show had a small following it was not enough to save the show from cancelation. The same idea can be attributed to the movie starring Adam Sandler, Punch Drunk Love. There was no music to guide you through the scenes. It was like everyone was a critic. Because there was no influence by producers, it gave viewers a chance to take what they wanted out of the movie and laugh cry or be disgusted if they wanted to and have different ideas about the making of a scene than someone else. Conway’s ideas about genre and Arrested Development gives credit to people in being able to understand television with out helpful cues provided by producers.
In conclusion by comparing and contrasting Kyle Conway’s Technology Form: An Introduction to Media and Cultural Studies and Dwight MacDonald’s Masscult & Midcult I hope I have given insight to the relationships between producers, distributors and the audience. Hopefully by reading this you will understand Masscult and how it the public is treated as a whole with similar tastes. Also how we as an audience are not powerless when it comes to the choices of television shows, we have a say in what goes on television.
Works Cited
Conway, Kyle. Technology Form: An Introduction to Media and Cultural Studies . 1st. Grand Forks: Neo Office, 2009. Print.
MacDonald, Dwight. Aginst the American Grain: Masscult & Midcult. New York City: Random House, 1952. Print.
Paige's Midterm Paper
Paige Wold
Professor Conway
Comm 405
08 October 2008
Midterm Paper
In this paper, I will be presenting the works of Walter Benjamin and Dee Dee Halleck. In his essay, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” Benjamin describes a theory of art that would be “useful for the formulation of revolutionary demands in the politics of art” (Benjamin 676). In her essay, “The Uses of Community Media,” Halleck details the potential for community-based media in a world dominated by mass media influence. In both cases, the essays center on the role of the audience in viewing media. It’s the audience relationship to the art they’re viewing or making that I will be exploring.
In order to appreciate the impact of each author’s argument I think it’s essential to know where their stance is coming from. Benjamin is a German cultural critic and his essay was published in 1935. Therefore, he’s at a disadvantage when comparing his work to Halleck whose essay was published in 1997. Obviously, in that 42-year gap, there were many advances in terms of media and technology. Just simply addressing mechanical reproduction of film—it has moved from the dominance of cinema and theater to VCR technology in the home during the 1980’s and more recently (1990s) the replacement of physical film stock to digital technology in making movies (Ellis). These advances have changed the face of the media that Benjamin was addressing in 1935. However, many of the questions he raises are still relevant.
Halleck, like Benjamin, is known for her criticism of cultural elements. However, she’s more of a media activist. She uses media and communication technologies in advocating for social movement. One example of this can be seen through her role in the founding of Paper Tiger Television a nonprofit public access outlet based in New York City, created as an alternative in response to the corporate-control media. Halleck’s leadership in alternative media is evident through her essay’s call to action for more support for the community media networks. “Community media deserves funds and space for local production and infrastructure for global exchange” (Halleck 392).
The most obvious difference between Benjamin and Halleck’s essays is their difference of opinion on the audience reaction to media. Benjamin sees film as mere entertainment and recreation for the masses. In his closing Benjamin states:
“The film makes the cult value recede into the background not only by putting the public in the position of the critic, but also by the fact that at the movies this position requires no attention. The public is an examiner, but an absent-minded one” (Benjamin 693).
Benjamin sees film as a distraction for the audience. Interestingly, Halleck would first agree with Benjamin—at least in terms of the corporate [or mass] media.
“The viewer may actively sodden an entire box of Kleenex watching Di’s cortege, but she is first and foremost passively receiving messages which are made for her, organized and produced in locations apart from her own daily life” (Halleck 385).
Both writers see mass media as having a numbing effect on viewers. Halleck’s disagreement comes in the form of her advocated alternative—community media groups and independent producers. In this form, Halleck sees the probable activism of its viewers, no longer satisfied with entertainment.
“This is media not bent on entertaining or amassing viewer numbers, though on occasion it can be the result. In the alternative media world there is a different operational framework—the relationship between makers and watchers is not at all the same. In fact, the term ‘watchers’ is not descriptive of that relationship at all. ‘Users’ or ‘user-participants’ is perhaps more appropriate’” (Halleck 385).
The second key difference I observed between these works was their judgment of the reproducibility of art. Benjamin sees the reproducibility of art as something positive. “For the first time in world history, mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual” (Benjamin 681). He sees reproducibility as allowing for the democratization of art, bringing it to the masses and out of the control of the bourgeois. Halleck on the other hand, sees reproducibility of media as negative—contributing to the totality of corporate media. “The more channels, the more content remains the same and the more eyeballs are harvested” (Halleck 384).
Though these essays were written in different decades, Benjamin and Halleck agree on some very important issues. The most notable agreement I picked up on was both authors core belief in the power of the people. Because of this belief, both authors can be categorized as technological optimists—defined as those who stress the possibilities for positive change resulting from new technologies and remain enthusiastic about the potential for increased empowerment of the individual. Benjamin sees this through the reproduction of art reaching the masses described in the transition of art from ritual to politics. Benjamin argues that the fading of the “aura” had the potential to equalize both contact and stance toward culture. Halleck sees this empowerment through community media.
“Public access can be a local forum for grassroots expression and active participation. The activity of making programs can be, in itself, a beginning step in civic engagement. People who take advantage of public access often increase their interest in civic issues” (Halleck 391).
I believe a synthesis of Benjamin and Halleck’s arguments provides greater insight into the social implications of an information society. Using the essays together allowed me to overcome critiques of each individually. For example, our class thought Halleck’s essay discounted the value of simple entertainment derived from media. Benjamin meanwhile emphasizes the simple entertainment and enjoyment value of art.
“A man who concentrates before a work of art is absorbed by it. He enters into this work of art the way legend tells of the Chinese painter when he viewed his finished painting. In contrast, the distracted mass absorbs the work of art” (Boyle 692).
Either way, entertainment is derived from the art.
Our class also agreed that Benjamin didn’t do enough to address or offer up a solution to the bourgeois [ritual]-controlled media. This is where I see the benefits of a synthesis between Benjamin and Halleck’s works. In his essay, Benjamin hints at common ownership when discussing mechanical reproduction bringing art out of ritual and into politics. However, at that point in history, Benjamin perhaps couldn’t see the potential for alternative community-based models as provided by Halleck.
“The value of this sort of exchange is on many levels: creating communities of interest across borders, exchanging information that has global relevance, providing models for popular organizing, and providing inspiration for creative production…providing documentation of local programs and solutions across borders and regions” (Halleck 392).
In other words, giving control of the media back to the people as Benjamin desired. In essence, Halleck offers up a solution to Benjamin’s quandary. Community-media provides common rather than corporate and private ownership.
Works Cited
Ellis, Jessica. “What is the History of Film?” Wisegeek.com, Wisegeek. n.d. Web.
Halleck, Dee Dee. “The Uses of Community Media: A Global Survey.” Hand Held Visions. Boulder,
Colorado: MacBride Round Table, October 1997.
Walter, Benjamin. “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” Film Theory and Criticism.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1985.
Professor Conway
Comm 405
08 October 2008
Midterm Paper
In this paper, I will be presenting the works of Walter Benjamin and Dee Dee Halleck. In his essay, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” Benjamin describes a theory of art that would be “useful for the formulation of revolutionary demands in the politics of art” (Benjamin 676). In her essay, “The Uses of Community Media,” Halleck details the potential for community-based media in a world dominated by mass media influence. In both cases, the essays center on the role of the audience in viewing media. It’s the audience relationship to the art they’re viewing or making that I will be exploring.
In order to appreciate the impact of each author’s argument I think it’s essential to know where their stance is coming from. Benjamin is a German cultural critic and his essay was published in 1935. Therefore, he’s at a disadvantage when comparing his work to Halleck whose essay was published in 1997. Obviously, in that 42-year gap, there were many advances in terms of media and technology. Just simply addressing mechanical reproduction of film—it has moved from the dominance of cinema and theater to VCR technology in the home during the 1980’s and more recently (1990s) the replacement of physical film stock to digital technology in making movies (Ellis). These advances have changed the face of the media that Benjamin was addressing in 1935. However, many of the questions he raises are still relevant.
Halleck, like Benjamin, is known for her criticism of cultural elements. However, she’s more of a media activist. She uses media and communication technologies in advocating for social movement. One example of this can be seen through her role in the founding of Paper Tiger Television a nonprofit public access outlet based in New York City, created as an alternative in response to the corporate-control media. Halleck’s leadership in alternative media is evident through her essay’s call to action for more support for the community media networks. “Community media deserves funds and space for local production and infrastructure for global exchange” (Halleck 392).
The most obvious difference between Benjamin and Halleck’s essays is their difference of opinion on the audience reaction to media. Benjamin sees film as mere entertainment and recreation for the masses. In his closing Benjamin states:
“The film makes the cult value recede into the background not only by putting the public in the position of the critic, but also by the fact that at the movies this position requires no attention. The public is an examiner, but an absent-minded one” (Benjamin 693).
Benjamin sees film as a distraction for the audience. Interestingly, Halleck would first agree with Benjamin—at least in terms of the corporate [or mass] media.
“The viewer may actively sodden an entire box of Kleenex watching Di’s cortege, but she is first and foremost passively receiving messages which are made for her, organized and produced in locations apart from her own daily life” (Halleck 385).
Both writers see mass media as having a numbing effect on viewers. Halleck’s disagreement comes in the form of her advocated alternative—community media groups and independent producers. In this form, Halleck sees the probable activism of its viewers, no longer satisfied with entertainment.
“This is media not bent on entertaining or amassing viewer numbers, though on occasion it can be the result. In the alternative media world there is a different operational framework—the relationship between makers and watchers is not at all the same. In fact, the term ‘watchers’ is not descriptive of that relationship at all. ‘Users’ or ‘user-participants’ is perhaps more appropriate’” (Halleck 385).
The second key difference I observed between these works was their judgment of the reproducibility of art. Benjamin sees the reproducibility of art as something positive. “For the first time in world history, mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual” (Benjamin 681). He sees reproducibility as allowing for the democratization of art, bringing it to the masses and out of the control of the bourgeois. Halleck on the other hand, sees reproducibility of media as negative—contributing to the totality of corporate media. “The more channels, the more content remains the same and the more eyeballs are harvested” (Halleck 384).
Though these essays were written in different decades, Benjamin and Halleck agree on some very important issues. The most notable agreement I picked up on was both authors core belief in the power of the people. Because of this belief, both authors can be categorized as technological optimists—defined as those who stress the possibilities for positive change resulting from new technologies and remain enthusiastic about the potential for increased empowerment of the individual. Benjamin sees this through the reproduction of art reaching the masses described in the transition of art from ritual to politics. Benjamin argues that the fading of the “aura” had the potential to equalize both contact and stance toward culture. Halleck sees this empowerment through community media.
“Public access can be a local forum for grassroots expression and active participation. The activity of making programs can be, in itself, a beginning step in civic engagement. People who take advantage of public access often increase their interest in civic issues” (Halleck 391).
I believe a synthesis of Benjamin and Halleck’s arguments provides greater insight into the social implications of an information society. Using the essays together allowed me to overcome critiques of each individually. For example, our class thought Halleck’s essay discounted the value of simple entertainment derived from media. Benjamin meanwhile emphasizes the simple entertainment and enjoyment value of art.
“A man who concentrates before a work of art is absorbed by it. He enters into this work of art the way legend tells of the Chinese painter when he viewed his finished painting. In contrast, the distracted mass absorbs the work of art” (Boyle 692).
Either way, entertainment is derived from the art.
Our class also agreed that Benjamin didn’t do enough to address or offer up a solution to the bourgeois [ritual]-controlled media. This is where I see the benefits of a synthesis between Benjamin and Halleck’s works. In his essay, Benjamin hints at common ownership when discussing mechanical reproduction bringing art out of ritual and into politics. However, at that point in history, Benjamin perhaps couldn’t see the potential for alternative community-based models as provided by Halleck.
“The value of this sort of exchange is on many levels: creating communities of interest across borders, exchanging information that has global relevance, providing models for popular organizing, and providing inspiration for creative production…providing documentation of local programs and solutions across borders and regions” (Halleck 392).
In other words, giving control of the media back to the people as Benjamin desired. In essence, Halleck offers up a solution to Benjamin’s quandary. Community-media provides common rather than corporate and private ownership.
Works Cited
Ellis, Jessica. “What is the History of Film?” Wisegeek.com, Wisegeek. n.d. Web.
Halleck, Dee Dee. “The Uses of Community Media: A Global Survey.” Hand Held Visions. Boulder,
Colorado: MacBride Round Table, October 1997.
Walter, Benjamin. “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” Film Theory and Criticism.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1985.
Angela Kitzan's Midterm Paper
Angela Kitzan
Comm 405
10/15/09
Jenkins vs Habermas: Round 1. Fight.
In rereading both Habermas and Jenkins, I struggle to find any agreement between the two since Habermas’ article talks about the history, liberal mode of the public sphere and the public sphere in the social welfare state of mass democracy while Jenkins dives into things I can relate too, such as reality television and Star Wars. Granted, if Habermas had more articles that I could compare to Jenkins rather than just one, I might not struggle so much in finding an agreement or common ground between the two.
However, I did find one thing that stands out to me and what I think is an agreement between the two is the idea on how there is still alienation in the media today, whether it be politics or a reality television show that everyone seems to be watching but you; no matter what, someone is going to be left out.
With all this technology readily available, it would be safe to assume that everyone can participate in media freely. Take the 2008 presidential election for example. The media was all there, ready and waiting to be used, and while the participation for this election was way better than most elections, not everyone participated. Why?
You could say that just because one has internet access that doesn’t mean there are limits as well as regulation. Yes, America is free but chances are if you post a video on youtube.com saying that you are going to assassinate President Obama, chances are you are going to get arrested and do jail time.
We talked about how Habermas said that the public sphere was accessible to all as the years go on and almost anyone can share and divulge in public opinion, yet Jenkins goes against Habermas and states that there is limits of participation. 400 years ago, the idea of copywriting something down wasn’t thought of yet; even 100 years ago it wasn’t thought of, which is why the Copyright Act of 1998 was put into play, so that things like Walt Disney ripping off the Brothers Grimm don’t happen again. The act prevents and limits our participation; we can’t rip off Harry Potter or Twilight; even if Harry Potter or Twilight do inspire us to write our own wizard or vampire series, we have to be very careful in what we include, who we show it to and where we post it at, what was just something fun and entertaining (fan fiction) now turns into a major lawsuit.
In class, we stated that one of Habermas’ points was that in order to gain access to the public sphere one must be educated. However if you jump, in this day and age, the internet gives anyone with an opinion access to the public sphere and even the most unintelligent people can put their thoughts and opinions on displace. Just because you own a computer and can type, do not mean you are an automatic political analysis, you need some training and education.
Jenkins is able to take his stance on participatory media with the help of fan fiction websites. According to Jenkins (177): “The value proposition for fans is a free venue where than can pursue their passion by creating, showcasing, reading, reviewing, sharing, archiving, discovering stories and by participating in fun events in a community with similar interests…The value proposition for media companies and publishers is to connect, engage, and entertain fans to their media properties in a new online storytelling environment.” That there says it all. The fans have needs and the companies and publishers have needs, which are met through participatory media.
The role of the newspaper helped Habermas take his stance on the public sphere. He quotes Karl Bucher (53): “Newspapers changed from mere institutions for the publication of news into bearers and leaders of public opinion—weapons if part politics. This transformed the newspaper business. A new element emerged between the gathering and the publication of news: the editorial staff. But for the newspaper publisher it meant that he changed from a vendor or recent news to a dealer of public opinion”. Since the internet wasn’t yet invented and public access cable still hadn’t happened yet, the only way people were able to participate in media was by writing letters to the editor, expressing their thoughts and opinions on a hot topic of the time.
Habermas gave us a view on how even then there were “social implications”. Newspapers, especially during revolutions, were the only way small political groups and organizations could get their name known and out there. Yet, the political newspaper meant joining the struggle for freedom and public opinion. What once was thought to be private suddenly became public for the whole world to see. I never even thought that 50, 60 years ago there were implications-just because the internet wasn’t invented yet, doesn’t mean there weren’t any road blocks.
One thing I realized while writing this paper is that some of the things we said about Habermas contradict themselves. For instance, we said that in order to gain access to the public sphere, you must gain access through education. Yet we all stated that the public sphere is accessible to all, which doesn’t make any sense if you can only gain access by getting educated. We need to come to a clear consensus on whether or not Habermas said you need to be educated to gain access to the public sphere or whether it is accessible to all before we dive in any further with his theory.
Things have definitely changed when Habermas wrote his essay, so we can use Jenkins to critique Habermas as well as compliment him. With all the technology we have, there are still limitations in the participation in media; now we have to be worry about copyrighting someone’s idea even when we are doing something simple, such as fan fiction.
In conclusion, doing a synthesis of the authors we have read gives us a better understanding on where they are coming from and where we can go from here.
Works Cited
Jenkins, Henry. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New
York University Press.
Habermas, Jurgen. The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article (1964).
Midterm paper (Genre vs. Built-In-Reaction)
Aaron Horak
10/15/09
Genre vs. Built In Reaction
If I asked a person off the street what their favorite movie or TV show was it wouldn’t take them long to tell me. They might say that it’s the movie 300 or the TV show Grey’s Anatomy or everything on the Discovery Channel. Every single person has a certain type of TV show or movie they love. So when they go and see a movie for the first time they usually expect a happy ending. Why is that? Why do people like certain types of movies?
Kyle Conway in his book Technology/Form and Dwight MacDonald in his book Against the American Grain talk about these things and about American entertainment industry in general. Kyle Conway will tell you that there are different “genres” of TV shows and movies and how they are important to the viewers and producers. Dwight MacDonald would say that these genres are nothing but the same old stuff we have seen a million times and now we have been instilled with a “built-in-reaction” to everything we watch because nothing is different it’s all identical.
Both have a very different take on the entertainment industry and how we as human beings entertain ourselves. I will describe how Conway would tell us that genre is important and how it is used by Hollywood and TV networks to satisfy their viewers and how MacDonald would disagree and say that genres only give us more of the same and how we already know what happens in the end. I will also show how even though both authors would disagree with each other on this issue, they both bring something to the table.
In Kyle Conway’s book Technology/Form he talks about “genre” and how it shapes movies and the TV experience for its viewers. Conway defines genre as “the categories we use to classify different types of programs. (‘Genre’ is French for ‘type’ or ‘kind’).”
Genre is very important to viewers of movies and TV. To list a few genres in movies there are action/adventure, children/family, comedy, documentary, drama, horror, romance, science fiction, etc the list is endless. Certain people like certain genres because they feel connected with those types of TV shows and movies at that point and time. Because human beings demand variety of genres the TV networks and Hollywood are more than happy to give them what they want.
Conway also gives us a glimpse into why the TV networks and Hollywood give us so many genres. Conway writes, “Genre serves as something like a tacit agreement between producers and viewers. Producing a new television program is a very expensive and therefore risky. Genre helps producers (and the networks they work for) limit their risk. If a program has proven that it can attract viewers, why not try to copy it and reproduce that success?” This is very true when it comes to cop dramas like Law and Order, NYPD Blue, CSI, Numb3rs, etc. when one show has success the networks copies it hoping it has the same success as the last show which is basically the same as the new one with different characters and a new setting.
Dwight MacDonald would look at genres of TV programs and movies as what he calls Massculture. MacDonald doesn’t give a certain definition of Massculture, but myself and others in my class would characterize it as homogeneous reproductions of culture, such as art, film, music, and distributing it to a mass audience. An example of culture to MacDonald would be anything by William Shakespeare; a popular play by Shakespeare is Romeo and Juliet. In 1996 Hollywood reproduced Romeo and Juliet into the Massculture version. They set the movie in modern day Los Angeles not in 14th century Verona and Mantua, Italy. It still had the same ending of Romeo killing himself because of Juliet’s faked death, but the movie was not the original drama that Shakespeare intended. This movie is not culture because Hollywood’s recreation is nothing like the real play.
MacDonald would look at genres and say that they possess what he calls the “built-in-reaction”. MacDonald quotes two authors Clement and Greenburg saying that the built-in-reaction “predigests art for the spectator and spares him effort, provides him with a shortcut to the pleasures of art that detours what is necessarily difficult in the genuine art.” MacDonald goes on, “because it includes that spectator’s reactions in the work itself of forcing him to make his own responses.” Basically MacDonald says that this quality of Massculture makes people know what’s coming next. We have all seen it in movies and TV programs before, in romantic comedies the guy gets the girl in the end, in horror movies the main character catches the murderer, in sport/dramas the team wins the championship, etc. This built-in-reaction happens all the time and there seems to be no end in sight.
Even though they would disagree on a lot of things I would say that Conway and MacDonald would agree that TV networks and Hollywood’s sole aim is to make money and stay in business as long as possible, that is why they usually don’t step out and take risks as often as both would like when making new movies and TV programs. I would also say that they would agree that people need to be individuals first and viewers second, but both would look at it a different way. Conway would say that different genres is one aspect that make human beings unique and why people should express themselves in any way possible to get what they want out of life. MacDonald would say that genres aren’t the way to be individuals, that genres brews conformity, that genres are fueling the Massculture and we need to get back to what he calls “High Culture” and by doing that we will become better human beings.
Looking back on the critiques of these two authors we found that MacDonald is a snob or thinks too highly of himself and his opinion, he contradicts himself, and has questionable taste in anything. I believe that MacDonald’s opinion on entertainment does have a valid point. That we do know what is going to happen next in a lot of instances of TV and movies, but that doesn’t mean that he can go around telling people that the certain things that they like are crap just because he thinks so. He can give his professional opinion, but then leave it at that. No one wants to listen to an old man talking about how Ludwig von Beethoven is more of a genius than Kanye West, everyone should know that.
Conway’s critiques were: not enough depth in some areas that he talked about, outdated strategies and had an unspoken favoring of participatory public in media. Now these critiques seem really mild compared to MacDonald’s and they are, because Conway really tried to take a stance on being in the middle of how genres are everywhere in entertainment today. He didn’t give his opinion throughout the whole book, even though some thought that he did. Conway really did a good job of giving examples that a college freshman or the parents of that student could understand. It was not a hard book to read, but it does give a lot of information for how short it is.
In conclusion genre is important to the viewers and producers of today’s entertainment and even though we know what’s going to happen in the end we as viewers still watch. Genre could be said that it is a quality of Massculture, but that doesn’t mean we have to eradicate it. Conway would say that genre helps us be individuals while MacDonald would say the opposite. So if you agree with Conway then you should keep watching your favorite genre.. If you agree with MacDonald you should stop going to movies and start going to William Shakespeare’s plays at the Globe Theatre in London.
Works Cited
Conway, Kyle. Technology/Form: An Introduction to Media and Cultural Studies. Grand Forks, ND: University of North Dakota Communication Program, 2009.
Macdonald, Dwight. “Masscult and Midcult.” Against the American Grain. New York: Random House, 1952.
10/15/09
Genre vs. Built In Reaction
If I asked a person off the street what their favorite movie or TV show was it wouldn’t take them long to tell me. They might say that it’s the movie 300 or the TV show Grey’s Anatomy or everything on the Discovery Channel. Every single person has a certain type of TV show or movie they love. So when they go and see a movie for the first time they usually expect a happy ending. Why is that? Why do people like certain types of movies?
Kyle Conway in his book Technology/Form and Dwight MacDonald in his book Against the American Grain talk about these things and about American entertainment industry in general. Kyle Conway will tell you that there are different “genres” of TV shows and movies and how they are important to the viewers and producers. Dwight MacDonald would say that these genres are nothing but the same old stuff we have seen a million times and now we have been instilled with a “built-in-reaction” to everything we watch because nothing is different it’s all identical.
Both have a very different take on the entertainment industry and how we as human beings entertain ourselves. I will describe how Conway would tell us that genre is important and how it is used by Hollywood and TV networks to satisfy their viewers and how MacDonald would disagree and say that genres only give us more of the same and how we already know what happens in the end. I will also show how even though both authors would disagree with each other on this issue, they both bring something to the table.
In Kyle Conway’s book Technology/Form he talks about “genre” and how it shapes movies and the TV experience for its viewers. Conway defines genre as “the categories we use to classify different types of programs. (‘Genre’ is French for ‘type’ or ‘kind’).”
Genre is very important to viewers of movies and TV. To list a few genres in movies there are action/adventure, children/family, comedy, documentary, drama, horror, romance, science fiction, etc the list is endless. Certain people like certain genres because they feel connected with those types of TV shows and movies at that point and time. Because human beings demand variety of genres the TV networks and Hollywood are more than happy to give them what they want.
Conway also gives us a glimpse into why the TV networks and Hollywood give us so many genres. Conway writes, “Genre serves as something like a tacit agreement between producers and viewers. Producing a new television program is a very expensive and therefore risky. Genre helps producers (and the networks they work for) limit their risk. If a program has proven that it can attract viewers, why not try to copy it and reproduce that success?” This is very true when it comes to cop dramas like Law and Order, NYPD Blue, CSI, Numb3rs, etc. when one show has success the networks copies it hoping it has the same success as the last show which is basically the same as the new one with different characters and a new setting.
Dwight MacDonald would look at genres of TV programs and movies as what he calls Massculture. MacDonald doesn’t give a certain definition of Massculture, but myself and others in my class would characterize it as homogeneous reproductions of culture, such as art, film, music, and distributing it to a mass audience. An example of culture to MacDonald would be anything by William Shakespeare; a popular play by Shakespeare is Romeo and Juliet. In 1996 Hollywood reproduced Romeo and Juliet into the Massculture version. They set the movie in modern day Los Angeles not in 14th century Verona and Mantua, Italy. It still had the same ending of Romeo killing himself because of Juliet’s faked death, but the movie was not the original drama that Shakespeare intended. This movie is not culture because Hollywood’s recreation is nothing like the real play.
MacDonald would look at genres and say that they possess what he calls the “built-in-reaction”. MacDonald quotes two authors Clement and Greenburg saying that the built-in-reaction “predigests art for the spectator and spares him effort, provides him with a shortcut to the pleasures of art that detours what is necessarily difficult in the genuine art.” MacDonald goes on, “because it includes that spectator’s reactions in the work itself of forcing him to make his own responses.” Basically MacDonald says that this quality of Massculture makes people know what’s coming next. We have all seen it in movies and TV programs before, in romantic comedies the guy gets the girl in the end, in horror movies the main character catches the murderer, in sport/dramas the team wins the championship, etc. This built-in-reaction happens all the time and there seems to be no end in sight.
Even though they would disagree on a lot of things I would say that Conway and MacDonald would agree that TV networks and Hollywood’s sole aim is to make money and stay in business as long as possible, that is why they usually don’t step out and take risks as often as both would like when making new movies and TV programs. I would also say that they would agree that people need to be individuals first and viewers second, but both would look at it a different way. Conway would say that different genres is one aspect that make human beings unique and why people should express themselves in any way possible to get what they want out of life. MacDonald would say that genres aren’t the way to be individuals, that genres brews conformity, that genres are fueling the Massculture and we need to get back to what he calls “High Culture” and by doing that we will become better human beings.
Looking back on the critiques of these two authors we found that MacDonald is a snob or thinks too highly of himself and his opinion, he contradicts himself, and has questionable taste in anything. I believe that MacDonald’s opinion on entertainment does have a valid point. That we do know what is going to happen next in a lot of instances of TV and movies, but that doesn’t mean that he can go around telling people that the certain things that they like are crap just because he thinks so. He can give his professional opinion, but then leave it at that. No one wants to listen to an old man talking about how Ludwig von Beethoven is more of a genius than Kanye West, everyone should know that.
Conway’s critiques were: not enough depth in some areas that he talked about, outdated strategies and had an unspoken favoring of participatory public in media. Now these critiques seem really mild compared to MacDonald’s and they are, because Conway really tried to take a stance on being in the middle of how genres are everywhere in entertainment today. He didn’t give his opinion throughout the whole book, even though some thought that he did. Conway really did a good job of giving examples that a college freshman or the parents of that student could understand. It was not a hard book to read, but it does give a lot of information for how short it is.
In conclusion genre is important to the viewers and producers of today’s entertainment and even though we know what’s going to happen in the end we as viewers still watch. Genre could be said that it is a quality of Massculture, but that doesn’t mean we have to eradicate it. Conway would say that genre helps us be individuals while MacDonald would say the opposite. So if you agree with Conway then you should keep watching your favorite genre.. If you agree with MacDonald you should stop going to movies and start going to William Shakespeare’s plays at the Globe Theatre in London.
Works Cited
Conway, Kyle. Technology/Form: An Introduction to Media and Cultural Studies. Grand Forks, ND: University of North Dakota Communication Program, 2009.
Macdonald, Dwight. “Masscult and Midcult.” Against the American Grain. New York: Random House, 1952.
Amy Unrau's Midterm
Amy Unrau
Comm 405
10/15/09
Professor Conway
Coinciding Themes Between Conway, Galewski and Jenkins
Conway, Galewski and Jenkins all have pieces of writing that reflect upon how involved people can be with today’s media. Conway and Galewski focus more on the participation of making the media, and Jenkins focuses more so on how involved people become with the media they see that is produced by someone else. Their focus deals with many aspects such as location of the participants, age, and also what kind of cultural groups they belong to. All of these factors lead them to agree that people are involved with media in a greater way than ever before in history.
Conway and Galewski wrote a piece called “Not the Voice Coppola would expect: Microcinema and Its Challenge to Publicness”. Throughout the piece, they discuss the main focus or goal that a producer of microcinema has. On page two of the printout, they begin to discuss how Jurgen Habermas believes microcinema has an artistic goal to be rational and become a form of mass media. On page four, the two authors of the piece argue against that with an example called “How To Be An Influential Woman”. They state that the piece is clearly trying to be ironic.
The authors discuss an argument with Sherman Alexie, Joel S. Bachar, and Francis Ford Coppola on the first page of their article. The three believe that absolutely anyone can make a movie, which will change the meaning of microcinema as we know it. Conway and Galewski go on to argue that this is not true.
One way to give respect to all authors who are involved with this article is to use YouTube as an example. Many people watch videos which are posted on the site for a form of entertainment. Also, everyday, more and more users are uploading videos that they have made. The ability to produce videos is becoming more readily available to “the average person”. Many people, however, are not what you can call “the average person”. There are people in very low social classes who have a very large inability to come in contact with equipment and time needed to produce videos. Monetary factors are a big influence in who can produce microcinema.
In the article, the authors provide an example of a fat girl from Ohio who can make art from her daddy’s video camera. Conway and Galewski argue against the opposing authors that people are not trying to convey a meaningful message and be the next winner of a prestigious film contest. When you look at many of the videos on YouTube, you find they have very poor quality and quite frequently have no meaning other than to make a person laugh. People do not browse YouTube for an artistic form of media. Therefore, under Conway and Galewski argument, Habermas’ definition of microcinema would not work.
The first chapter of Convergence Culture is entitled “Spoiling Survivor: The Anatomy of a Knowledge Community”. In this part of the book, Henry Jenkins explains how involved the average person is becoming with participatory media. Spoiling is the act of revealing information about a particular show before it airs on television. On page twenty-five, Jenkins goes on to describe a certain situation with the show Survivor . A man called “ChillOne” is a very dedicated spoiler who is right about most of his spoils.
Convergence Culture’s main point of reasoning is that media consumers are becoming more and more active in participating with all forms of media. Also, producers of today’s media are having a tough time keeping up with the changing times. On page thirty-eight in “Spoiling Survivor”, Jenkins mentions the struggle that the producers of Survivor have with spoilers. He mentions that Mark Burnett of CBS and other producers had to tighten up security of information because there were leaks of certain information which only people who are involved with the production process would know. This trickle of information then gets blogged and the show does not have as much dramatic surprise that the producers wanted.
Survivor is not the only show that has been spoiled. I have been guilty of participating in the spoiling community. I have not done actual spoiling, myself, but I have tried to figure out what will happen in the next episode. One of my favorite shows is NBC’s “The Office”. I am a huge fan who religiously watched every new episode when it airs, or if I am unable to watch it that night, I record it to watch sometime the next day. Through many years of watching the show, I have become attached to the characters and want to know everything that is going to happen in the future. I go to sites like OfficeTally.com, SpoilerNews.com, or even Wikipedia.org. All of these sites give people like me inside information that we would otherwise not find out until the actual show airs.
People can also become participants with media in more ways than just blogging. There is an example that happened during the Social Implications of a Technology Society class. Many times the class gets sidetracked on different tangents that are partially influence by the class discussion. If there is a show brought up that we all are fans of, we start conversing about our favorite characters and what we want to happen in the future episode. People want to talk about what they care about. In today’s world, media is a large way of communication, which in turn sparks other forms of communication between individuals.
On page fifty-eight, Jenkins mentions says, “… we will come to understand how entertainment companies are reappraising the economic value of fan participation.” This suggests that producers of shows will change their marketing and ways of viewer interaction to fit the needs of people who feel the need to spoil the next episodes.
Since the beginning of mass media, producers have constantly changed their ways of involving viewers. If you go to NBC.com, you can find ample amounts of ways that viewers can become closer with their favorite show. Under the show The Office, you can find links called “Pam’s Video Blog”, “Exclusives”, and “Visit DMI (Dunder Mifflin Inc.). All of these links give the viewers more ways to become closer with their favorite show.
Conway, Galewski, and Jenkins all argue that the general population is becoming more and more involved with participating in the production and interaction of various forms of media. The arguments are very different from each other, but have the same central idea. Media is expanding and “the average person” is involved with it more than ever. As time goes on, the concept of personal involvement with media will continue to expand.
Works Cited
Jenkins, Henry. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New
York University Press.
Conway, Kyle and Elizabeth Galewski. “Not the Voice Coppola Would Expect: Microcinema
and Its Challenge to Public-ness.” Bad Subjects 74 (2005). URL: bad.eserver.org/issues/2006/74/congalew.html
Comm 405
10/15/09
Professor Conway
Coinciding Themes Between Conway, Galewski and Jenkins
Conway, Galewski and Jenkins all have pieces of writing that reflect upon how involved people can be with today’s media. Conway and Galewski focus more on the participation of making the media, and Jenkins focuses more so on how involved people become with the media they see that is produced by someone else. Their focus deals with many aspects such as location of the participants, age, and also what kind of cultural groups they belong to. All of these factors lead them to agree that people are involved with media in a greater way than ever before in history.
Conway and Galewski wrote a piece called “Not the Voice Coppola would expect: Microcinema and Its Challenge to Publicness”. Throughout the piece, they discuss the main focus or goal that a producer of microcinema has. On page two of the printout, they begin to discuss how Jurgen Habermas believes microcinema has an artistic goal to be rational and become a form of mass media. On page four, the two authors of the piece argue against that with an example called “How To Be An Influential Woman”. They state that the piece is clearly trying to be ironic.
The authors discuss an argument with Sherman Alexie, Joel S. Bachar, and Francis Ford Coppola on the first page of their article. The three believe that absolutely anyone can make a movie, which will change the meaning of microcinema as we know it. Conway and Galewski go on to argue that this is not true.
One way to give respect to all authors who are involved with this article is to use YouTube as an example. Many people watch videos which are posted on the site for a form of entertainment. Also, everyday, more and more users are uploading videos that they have made. The ability to produce videos is becoming more readily available to “the average person”. Many people, however, are not what you can call “the average person”. There are people in very low social classes who have a very large inability to come in contact with equipment and time needed to produce videos. Monetary factors are a big influence in who can produce microcinema.
In the article, the authors provide an example of a fat girl from Ohio who can make art from her daddy’s video camera. Conway and Galewski argue against the opposing authors that people are not trying to convey a meaningful message and be the next winner of a prestigious film contest. When you look at many of the videos on YouTube, you find they have very poor quality and quite frequently have no meaning other than to make a person laugh. People do not browse YouTube for an artistic form of media. Therefore, under Conway and Galewski argument, Habermas’ definition of microcinema would not work.
The first chapter of Convergence Culture is entitled “Spoiling Survivor: The Anatomy of a Knowledge Community”. In this part of the book, Henry Jenkins explains how involved the average person is becoming with participatory media. Spoiling is the act of revealing information about a particular show before it airs on television. On page twenty-five, Jenkins goes on to describe a certain situation with the show Survivor . A man called “ChillOne” is a very dedicated spoiler who is right about most of his spoils.
Convergence Culture’s main point of reasoning is that media consumers are becoming more and more active in participating with all forms of media. Also, producers of today’s media are having a tough time keeping up with the changing times. On page thirty-eight in “Spoiling Survivor”, Jenkins mentions the struggle that the producers of Survivor have with spoilers. He mentions that Mark Burnett of CBS and other producers had to tighten up security of information because there were leaks of certain information which only people who are involved with the production process would know. This trickle of information then gets blogged and the show does not have as much dramatic surprise that the producers wanted.
Survivor is not the only show that has been spoiled. I have been guilty of participating in the spoiling community. I have not done actual spoiling, myself, but I have tried to figure out what will happen in the next episode. One of my favorite shows is NBC’s “The Office”. I am a huge fan who religiously watched every new episode when it airs, or if I am unable to watch it that night, I record it to watch sometime the next day. Through many years of watching the show, I have become attached to the characters and want to know everything that is going to happen in the future. I go to sites like OfficeTally.com, SpoilerNews.com, or even Wikipedia.org. All of these sites give people like me inside information that we would otherwise not find out until the actual show airs.
People can also become participants with media in more ways than just blogging. There is an example that happened during the Social Implications of a Technology Society class. Many times the class gets sidetracked on different tangents that are partially influence by the class discussion. If there is a show brought up that we all are fans of, we start conversing about our favorite characters and what we want to happen in the future episode. People want to talk about what they care about. In today’s world, media is a large way of communication, which in turn sparks other forms of communication between individuals.
On page fifty-eight, Jenkins mentions says, “… we will come to understand how entertainment companies are reappraising the economic value of fan participation.” This suggests that producers of shows will change their marketing and ways of viewer interaction to fit the needs of people who feel the need to spoil the next episodes.
Since the beginning of mass media, producers have constantly changed their ways of involving viewers. If you go to NBC.com, you can find ample amounts of ways that viewers can become closer with their favorite show. Under the show The Office, you can find links called “Pam’s Video Blog”, “Exclusives”, and “Visit DMI (Dunder Mifflin Inc.). All of these links give the viewers more ways to become closer with their favorite show.
Conway, Galewski, and Jenkins all argue that the general population is becoming more and more involved with participating in the production and interaction of various forms of media. The arguments are very different from each other, but have the same central idea. Media is expanding and “the average person” is involved with it more than ever. As time goes on, the concept of personal involvement with media will continue to expand.
Works Cited
Jenkins, Henry. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New
York University Press.
Conway, Kyle and Elizabeth Galewski. “Not the Voice Coppola Would Expect: Microcinema
and Its Challenge to Public-ness.” Bad Subjects 74 (2005). URL: bad.eserver.org/issues/2006/74/congalew.html
Friday, October 2, 2009
October 1st Notes. Jenkins Chapter 6
Questions:
-What is the role of participitory politics, over arching question.
-Participatory media may become danger
-Connection between politics and polular culture, twitter, facebook, blogs.
-Need fpr a common ground for deliberation.
Points.
-Pg. 222, Conflicting Forces.
Critique.
-Does or doesn't TV provide broad room for deliberation?
-Definition of mainstream media.
-Last paragraph he talks about the red and the blue. States we need to love eachother, more, could we, would this work?
-His perscriptions were somewhat probematic.
Mainstrean Media Vs. Alternative:
-Rush Limbaugh mainstream.
-Commercial corperate, motivated by profit.
-Broader Appeal
-It's not a usefull catagorey, it's only comparable to something else.
Alternative:
-Non Commercial
-Public broadcasting
-Niche market or narrowcasting
There are different ways we can classify the two, commercial/political/popularity. Is it easy to find, seek out?
-What is the role of participitory politics, over arching question.
-Participatory media may become danger
-Connection between politics and polular culture, twitter, facebook, blogs.
-Need fpr a common ground for deliberation.
Points.
-Pg. 222, Conflicting Forces.
Critique.
-Does or doesn't TV provide broad room for deliberation?
-Definition of mainstream media.
-Last paragraph he talks about the red and the blue. States we need to love eachother, more, could we, would this work?
-His perscriptions were somewhat probematic.
Mainstrean Media Vs. Alternative:
-Rush Limbaugh mainstream.
-Commercial corperate, motivated by profit.
-Broader Appeal
-It's not a usefull catagorey, it's only comparable to something else.
Alternative:
-Non Commercial
-Public broadcasting
-Niche market or narrowcasting
There are different ways we can classify the two, commercial/political/popularity. Is it easy to find, seek out?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)