Taste and Cultural Politics

[amyfishy]

"Smart Film"

What I find most interesting about this topic is that there seems to be a lack of Smart film being created today. I am probably wrong about this, but to me when I think of Smart Film I can only think of movies from years ago. Before the lecture yesterday, I didn't really know how to characterize these kinds of movies and didn't know there was a genre for them. Two of my favourite movies that would fall into this category are Donnie Darko and American Beauty. These are both movies that I normally wouldn't of chosen to watch on my own but was persuaded by a friend or family to watch them at some point in my life. I'm glad I was persuaded because I actually enjoyed them. While Donnie Darko was a bit confusing when I watched it, I liked the way the director played with time and the future and present back and forth, one of the major aspects of Smart film. American Beauty on the other hand, although it wasn't a comedy, it had a sort of dark humour to it that I actually thoroughly enjoyed. Not to mention Kevin Spacey is a great actor. Both of these movies however came out years ago and if you asked me to name some from today I wouldn't be able to think of any. Maybe I am just uneducated within the film industry, or maybe there actually are less Smart Films coming out, or maybe they just aren't as popular anymore. Either way I would be interested to see some new ones!

[amyfishy]

Ah Spring Breakers, a perfect example of paracinema. When I first watched this movie I was actually so mad that i had sat through the whole thing without turning it off because it was that bad. After talking to a few people about how much I hated this movie I started to realize that this movie was purposely made to be this way. The whole thing is trashy, horrible acting, unrealistic plot line, guns and boobs, but at the same time you can tell that its so bad that it was clearly meant to be this bad. While most people would just watch it like I had and dismissed it as garbage, it can be viewed as something that would appeal to certain subcultures. The fact that it is trying to be bad and achieves this, makes this an example of paracinema. What I find most shocking is how much scholarly attention this cheap film has received. This brings up the idea that although these films are soooo bad that they would seem to be low brow, the amount of scholarly review they receive may mean that they are not necessarily as bad as we may think they are.

[amyfishy]

FOODIE CULTURE

I find that foodie culture has become very complex in North America. As someone who loves food, I have been watching the food network since I was a kid and in turn have watched in evolve. Back when I was a child, most of the featured chefs on the Food Network, could be called connoisseurs they were experts in what they did (cooking) and that is why they had their own shows, to teach people their high class skills in cooking. They were looked at as the best and represented a very exclusionary discourse in that many of the meals they made used more expensive ingredients and higher class meals were made. A shift then started to happen as we saw the rise of more wholesome cooking shows that were geared towards a stay at home mom or a busy household. These shows reprsented a more inclusionary discourse in that they appealed to more audiences as more people could relate to this kind of cooking. Today we have evolved to a whole different kind of show on the Food Network. Man vs. Food is an example of one of these shows. The host is never cooking himself, rather seems to be an expert in taste testing different foods around America. None of these foods or restaurants would be considered high class, they are more affordable, mass proportions, unhealthy foods featured on the show. The show isn't based on cooking anymore, but rather the fun of eating out. These types of shows pose as an alternative to snobbish connotations of gourmet.

[amyfishy]

Inconspicuous Consumption and Marketing!?

As previously stated, being a business communications student half of my courses focus on business courses rather then communication courses. One of my favourtie things about this program is when I can draw a connection between what I am learning in my communication courses and what I am learning in my business courses. An example of this happened in one of my marketing courses, Consumer Behaviour.

One of the concepts we learned and talked about in class was Conspicuous Consumption. Having already learned about this in this class I was eager to hear the concept brought up in another context. The concept fell into our chapter on social class, spending and buying. We learned about how marketers need to brand their products accordingly to the target markets who want sublte signs (inconspicuous), or loud signs (conspicuous).

To me its interesting to learn that marketers know what the target market of their brand wants. The really high end designers know not to overly market or overtly place status logos on the items because other people of this class don't need these louds signs to spot the designer on others, and the target market won't want to buy these overtly obvious designer items. Whereas other luxury brands feed off marketing their clothes with loud symbols because they know their target market wants these clothing items to be noticed.

[amyfishy]

Trashy Film

After listening to lecture today I noticed something interesting. Most of the students in our class are communication majors in pop culture, meaning that they have taken a lot of courses like this and a lot of film courses. I on the other had started out in the Con Ed. program and then switched to business communications. I have never taken a film course in my life or really had a course  about this subject matter.

So with that being said it was interesting for me to hear my fellow classmates discuss "trashy" film vs. "art" film. To me I just watch movies. If I like them then I like them, whether they are an oscar worthy deep meaningful film or a low budget romantic comedy. I dont spend time disecting the movies and trying to find deeper meanings, camera work etc. I can sit and watch "trash" movies and enjoy them for the sake of just relaxing and getting some entertainment, as Kael suggests that this is the way we are supposed to view trashy movies.

This however differs from what we are learning in this class, and how many of the people in our class view films. When they watch fiml, whether trashy or not they disect the film, and make it more academic. This makes me wonder if this bothers them, if they can ever just watch a film for pure enjoyment and no extra thinking. This also makes me wonder if I myself will start to watch movies with a more academic mindset after learning so much from this course!

[amyfishy]

Reality Television and 'Dirt'

When I first read this reading and watched the presentation I still wasn't sure about the concept of "dirt" and how it relates to reality TV. Did they literally mean physical dirt, such as the shows that were used as examples? Or did they mean dirt as in trashy shows?

After taking a closer look at this article when I was studying for the test , I drew out a new concept that I didn't see before. I got the understanding that when West would say that dirt is powerful she was suggesting that although these reality TV shows are seen as "dirt" they are attracting viewers away from watching mainstream hegemonic programming such as the news. 

I never thought of it this way, and I think that this can be a good and a bad thing. If you go from the view that the news only promotes dominant ideologies and consumerism, these "dirt" shows are helping us to stray away from that type of programming. On the other hand these dirt shows offer no actual benefits other then entertainment and comfort knowing others are watching them as well, which distracts us from shows that may be more educational, or valuable.

[thedistinctionoftaste-blog]

Ever wonder about the not-so-real lives of reality TV stars: when all the fighting, arguing, sex drama and lies are put away, the cameras are put down and the show is over? Do they go back to there homes and become mothers fathers friends and families? 

I found this article by Gerrard particularly interesting because it picks out the negative effects of reality TV on teenage girls. Gerrard outlines that  teenage girls are given a false sense of reality on shows like Keeping up with the Kardashians. Gerrard also says there is a call for more shows like The Cosby Show or Full House calling that “wholesome entertainment.”

After our discussions in class, I seek to challenge his notes. This is because we have discussed in class how shows like What Not To Wear and other shows like The Biggest Loser can actually have a positive impact on viewers. Perhaps teenage girls would watch What Not To Wear and dress more modestly because of it. Perhaps teenage girls who are currently overweight will watch The Biggest Loser and become motivated to lose weight.

There are definitely points for either side of the debate.

I just found the article an interesting perspective on the topics we are currently covering in class. 

[amyfishy]

I agree with you that Reality TV can be argues in both positive and negative ways. While shows like the Biggest Loser and What Not to Wear can be positive for the reasons you mentioned I also feel that they can be negative. The biggest Loser can promote a healthy lifestyle, but at the same time is extremely unrealistic in the weight loss regimes they put the contestants on. i agree that What Not to Wear can help women to dress more appropriately for their jobs, situations, life etc, however on the flip side the show is very "caucasian" in that the style is preppy and doesn't take into account other cultures or religions, and may make young girls think there is only one right way to dress. Just like everything else in our world these days, reality TV can be argued either way.

[amyfishy]

Although I do love a lot of different reality shows, including reality shows in the makeover genre, I have never been a fan of "The Biggest Loser". Im not sure what it is about the show but I have never found it entertaining. The purpose of these makeover shows are to educate while at the same time entertain audiences. I think that a lot of Americans can have sympathy for the contestants on the show and thats why it is so appealing to them. Many people do struggle with their weight, while it may not be as serious as the people on the show, it is still a rising issue in North America as a whole. I think the problem with this show is how unrealistic it is. The quality of instruction on this show is poor. They have the contestants on such serious diets and insane workout regimes that no normal person would be able to maintain in everyday life. They often also give these people reconstructive surgery to get rid of all the excess skin- something that most Americans would not be able to get even if they did loose all that weight. I think thats the main problem with these instruction reality TV shows, they just aren't realistic.

[beyoncegifs]

[cosmopolitanmagazine]

😂😂😂

[navarrocomm]

Someone in class mentioned Katy Perry as being kitsch. Although I do understand that she provides a different form of entertainment, these costumes that she uses are part of what she is trying to provide. Unlike lady gaga, Katy Perry dresses particularly normal in terms of mainstream but when it comes to her performance, she does use cupcake bras, etc. I do not think she is kitsch but maybe that’s just my opinion. She is caught in the middle of fitting in mainstream media and at the same time, trying to go against it. 

[amyfishy]

I agree with you on this and just want to add, as I have mentioned in another post, that with artists, especially pop artists in this day in age, to be kitschy is seen as a good thing rather then a negative thing. No one pays insane amounts of money to go see an artist in concert just standing there with a mic and nothing else. No people want to be entertained when they go to a show, that is the whole purpose of the show to make it interactive, fun and a total experience. While pop stars such as Katie Perry may be very kitschy in her shows and music videos, this is what we want to see and is part of her job. However Katie Perry herself is not kitschy on a daily basis so I think its unfair if people call her kitschy.

[thedistinctionoftaste-blog]

Todays discussion got me thinking about other celebrities with elements of Kitsch. I believe that especially in her roles in romance movies, Rachel McAdams displays elements of Kitsch. Especially with the unrealistic plots outlined in the movies. Also, she is always acting as the perfect girl that every man wants, and it is very cheesy in most cases….

This still doesn’t stop me from liking the movies and participating in consumerism though!

[amyfishy]

This is very true, although I love Rachel McAdams, her roles lately are often only in the cheesy love stories, or as playing the typical mean girl ( mean girls, and midnight in paris). When actors and actresses, participate in movies by taking on roles that are so stereotypical, kitschy and over done it makes me question their acting ability and credibility. When it comes to actors, kitsch is very detrimental to their career, unlike a singer whose career can thrive off kitschy elements.

[amyfishy]

Taste that is different from ours...

After reading Carl Wilson's book and doing my presentation on the second half of the book I started to look at taste in a different light. One of the main points of Wilson that really stood out for me was when he said that we need to look at tastes that we normally wouldn't enjoy in order to understand ourselves better. We cannot just dismiss things based on our initial observations of them. Just like how Wilson originally hated Celine Dion but he had never actually explored her more in depth until he wrote the book to truly understand the complexities behind Celine. This made me think back to an example of this. When I was in high school I always hated country music and felt that it was below me (very red neck). The summer going into university however, my friends jammed country down my throat on every road trip we went on. Although this may not have been the best way to change my taste, it did make me give country a chance and now I am the biggest country fan. It makes me wonder how many things I dismiss (which I know there is a lot of) without actually exploring and could potentially enjoy.

[amyfishy]

Reality TV and Gender

I think it's interesting what we talked about today in class in regards to women being over represented when it comes to reality television and dirt. This is because women have always stereotypically been cast as the caregiver who is supposed to be taking care of the family and household while the male goes to work. Even though times have changed immensely these shows seem to be bringing us back a step in women's rights rather then forward. It is not just these "dirt" reality television shows either. It is the whole genre of reality television that I feel reinforces stereotypes of women. Although it is contradictory for me to say this, but one of my favourtie shows is TLC's four weddings in which brides compete with one another for whose wedding is the best. The show reinforces the idea that women are obsessed with style, and girly things and a wedding is something that rests solely with the bride rather then the groom. As with other shows such as "Say Yes to the Dress" or "What not to Wear" which are all based on women's looks and reinforcing that women are superficial in their interests of what they look like and how they should look. So really to me, reality TV as a genre stereotypes gender roles. 

[thedistinctionoftaste-blog]

What does reality television say about us as a culture? Can arguments be made against whether or not it can actually teach us something, or is it all just trash?

The values associated with reality TV are very lowbrow in most cases. Most reality television shows, especially competition shows, like Fear Factor, teach us one value in particular, to do ANYTHING for money.

Why do we continue to watch? Probably because in certain cases, we imagine we could be on the show. Perhaps, we are comparing ourselves because we are disgusted and think we are better than the people on the show. Or, we may imagine that we could actually compete for money (Fear Factor) and win…

Reality TV, has that connection, and the ability to convince us that we as an audience could possibly be apart of it. By appealing to very basic lowbrow tastes, it has the ability to attract different audiences.  Besides for lowbrow, even middlebrow audiences that come home after a hard day of work want to watch something that they don’t really have to think very hard about.

[amyfishy]

I agree a lot of reality television shows these days are based on money as a grand prize and makes me question why we are so eager to watch these shows. Is it because of the money itself? The entertainment value? Or is it because we see ourselves in the contestants on the show who seem to need the money as much as we do, so it validates our positions in the middle class?

[amyfishy]

Celine Dion

I think that a lot of Wilson's arguments about Celine Dion and taste are interesting, but at the same time I find him very critical and a little biased. I am presenting on the second half of the book on Friday so I took a close look at his work and opinions. The book addresses a lot in only a few pages, but one of the things I absolutely agree with wilson about is Celine's over the top kitchyness. In the above picture from Celine's wedding day we can see how absurd she likes to dress and how over the top tacky she can be. If one watched youtube videos of her shows in Las Vegas they will see the over the top light productions, jumbo-tron screens and over the top special effects, which one could argue take away from her credibility of having an amazing voice. But on the other hand, people are paying good money to go see Celine Dion in Vegas, and not just Celine, but any artist in concert. We like a good song that will focus on just the singers voice however part of the reason we pay so much to go see these artists is to see a spectacular show- something that Celine undoubtedly gives her audiences. While this may make some resent her, and place her in the context of low taste, it also is what makes others love her. Does it necessarily mean she should be one of the most hates singers, as Wilson suggests in his book?

[tastenculturalpoliticsrach]

Bricolage 

After our conversation about bricolage. I immediately thought about Pinterest. It is like an entire site full of appropriation and do-it-yourselfs. We may have talked about punks but I always like to take what we’ve learned and relate it to my own taste. In recent years something I have noticed that has constantly been reappropriated is the mason jar. It is something that many people have taken and made their own. It has made a statement. 

This is just one example but the DIY world has been booming lately and it is the perfect example of bricolage because a lot of the time, it is taking things from a bunch of items and bringing it together. DIY’s are one of my favourite things, I love seeing the way that people take things and change them to make it their own. Or use everyday items to create an item that would regularly be very expensive. 

[amyfishy]

Great idea bringing up pinterest as an example of bricolage. When we first talked of bricolage in class in relation to punk subculture i sort of had a negatvie outlook on bricolage. However this made me realize how many different ways bricolage can be created. It also made me think of websites such as etsy, which like pinterest is a lot of DIY crafts, art and jewelry which is then sold online for people to buy. It goes to show that now bricolage is a very popular trend and even a way for creative people to make profit. I think that bricolage is only going to grow in the future!

[thedistinctionoftaste-blog]

While punk culture represents a link to consumerism (as discussed in class) I think there is something to be said about those followers who do not entirely practice consumerism.

Think about those people who fit into this subculture, by wearing clothing that is hand me downs, or literally just worn out. While they may still be dressing conspicuously, are they really practicing the same level of consumerism?

I don’t believe so. Don’t get me wrong, I know that people in this subculture often times spent a lot of money in order to have this clothing. But what about those people who did so just to try and evoke their difference from the mainstream and didn’t actually participate in spending a lot of money doing so?

[amyfishy]

I think that this is a better way of looking at punk then I did from my previous blog on punk subculture. I was busy looking at how punks participate in consumerism, however didn't look at the punks who are wearing the actual authentic clothing that makes up the subculture, without participating in consumerism. They are merely doing this just to be different from mainstream. Glad I read this!

[amyfishy]

Hardcore vs Punk

It is still hard for me to wrap my head around hardcore vs punk. I understand that hardcore in a sub-genre of punk. Hardcore can be related to badness and badness can be considered as an aesthetically unbearable style. The distinction between the two may be very clear cut for some people who are familiar to the style/taste, but as an outsider to this subculture the two look very similar. I would probably be able to identify the very extreme hardcore cases from just punk however I feel that the two do overlap quite a bit and the distinction between the two are overlapping, in that when someone who isn't part of the subculture, is subjected to "hardcore" they would just consider them as punk and not realize the distinction between the two.