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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)