Taste and Cultural Politics @carlyandcomm - Tumblr Blog

Posts

Being my last post, I thought this would be a good time to question what taste truly is. We make all these assumptions as to what defines good taste, and have attempted to classify it in categories of good and bad, high middle and low, and what is acceptable in society. However, I believe that the quote above explains it perfectly:

"A man of great common sense and good taste - meaning thereby a man without originality or moral courage."

Now, this is not to say that if one lives their live based on what is "normal" or around the boundaries society has inevitably set around taste, that they are then not unique, interesting or original. But, it may suggest that for those moments in one's life where a person can choose to be completely their self but instead follow they follow the suit of others than they are the definition of "tasteless."

Looking back at what I used to like, how I used to behave and ideally how I viewed the world around me, my perception of originality and/or good taste was extremely different. Doesn't that go to show that "taste" is a circumstantial thing. It cannot be defined by one group or another, claiming it to be along the lines of following a preset idea.

Throughout this course we have gone back and forth learning taste and cultural politics and attempting to determine a clear understanding of taste as a whole. This class taught me a great amount about the history of such a topic, however, I can still say at this point that I cannot define taste overall. This is not to be taken in a poor way though, because I do not think anyone will ever be able to provide a distinct classification of what taste truly is. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder is a statement that applies directly to such a concept and will remain that way forever.

It was discussed in class the musician that is Celine Dion, and the idea that she is so bad she is good. Do you agree with this though?

The rock critic analyzing her kept referencing how she is simply a "vessel for a voice" and just a completely media-made product for the masses. However, I do not see her this way whatsoever. Yes Celine puts on this extreme productions, with cascading waterfalls, shimmering lights, over-the-top features, and extravagant outfits. But who cares? Why does that make her just a mass-produced, mass-consumed item and not the artist and talented individual that she truly is.

The article associated to her is titled "Let's Talk About Love: A Journey to the End of Taste." With such a name being associated to Celine Dion, it is clear that the critic sees her as the epitome of bad taste. Listening to her voice though, this claim cannot be true. Regardless of the way she presents herself or how overzealous her performances and shows are, Celine is a phenomenal musician.

There are various elements that may convey this "bad taste" idea, however, if one just lets their self enjoy her music and ignore all the over-used symbols than they will truly see the quality that is in her work.

No matter what a person says, they will always have some sort of guilty pleasure hidden behind all their normalcy. There is nothing wrong with having that small thing that you enjoy watching, doing, or participating in that may not be considered exactly "tasteful" or in good quality. Why is it though, that we call it a guilty pleasure? Why are we stating we are guilty about enjoying something, if we in fact are finding pleasure in doing or consuming it.

One would say that they have a guilty pleasure in some low quality reality show, or dark chocolate and peanut butter, or even just reading really bad gossip magazines. These things that are identified as such are not necessarily that bad or out of the ordinary, but as a society we have condemned certain things to be identified as a guilty pleasure so that we don't feel as though we'll be judged for saying it out loud.

These guilty pleasures we indulge in... do we label them as such because we think a connection to them would lower our social standing? Or potentially classify our taste as less? Society has become so dependent on the opinion of others that we subject ourselves to conforming to the "norm" and fitting specific groups (or labels). We shouldn't feel guilty for the things we find pleasure in but rather embrace them even more.

The concept of punk and the rotten has been discussed since Punk became the "controversial trend" in the media. Through incorporation, those within the media (such as advertisers, entertainers, and marketers) were attempting to conform punk into the norm and make it apart of mass consumerism. Elements of "punk" however could not be integrated into society even if it was demanded of consumers. The action of taken items and food that had been thrown into the trash, public garbage, and waste disposal units had become a staple activity of those within the punk community. Such food that had once been "conformed to fit the political needs and desires of mass media and the elite" was now seen as being transformed into its natural state; such being raw or rotten.

This idea translated over to the "wear" and appearance of those representing the punk subgroup. In the quote displayed above, the influential Johnny Rotten of The Sex Pistols describes how he chose to counteract what was considered "normal" and change the media industry from the inside out. Looking at his description of wearing garbage bags and basically becoming walking trash, I am overwhelmed with the question as to "Why?" Why would an individual think this is a form of rebellion when in actuality they just look as though they can't afford to purchase actual clothes. I understand that through his appearance and what he wore, Johnny Rotten was forcing the media to change - rather than the other way around. Nonetheless, I would definitely consider the lengths that individuals within the punk community went to to be a call for help or just pure attention-seeking.

When looking at Madonna in terms of camp, one could argue that she is a clear representation of what it means to be a camp object. At the beginning of her career, Madonna wanted to push the boundaries and change the music industry "for the better" so to speak. However, in the midst of her changing genres, creating albums, and subsequently, getting older, Madonna has slowly devalued her credibility and become this almost tasteless, over-the-top, over-extravagant product in the entertainment world.

If one looks at the way in which she choose to dress now, who she dates (i.e. younger men), the music she is producing and performing, and what she says in interviews, Madonna is a prime example of camp - which could also be considered feminist camp. Reflect back to when she decided to talk with a British accent all the time. No she did not pick that up when she visited London, England, and no was just doing it for a "movie role" coming up. Madonna was attempting to create buzz about her image, she was being completely and utterly serious about her accent and did not view it as a joke but instead as a characteristic of "art" and a representation of her music.

The once reputable and influential woman that was Madonna, has become the present day model of camp in the music industry. Not all will agree with this statement but we can just let her music speak for itself.

We have constantly been told that what we watch on television is a reflection of who we are as a person. Similar to the saying, you are what you eat, it has been deemed that you are what you consume in the media as well. There is this undeniable anxiety about the influence of reality television, especially makeover shows, on consumer habits and individuals self-perception in society. What is even the purpose of watching makeover shows? Are we doing so to acquire valuable information as to how we can improve ourselves, or is it for the purpose of feeling better about who we are in comparison to those being criticized on TV?

Media reflexivity assumes that we are completely mindless consumers, taking in the content that is divulged on shows such as Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, Extreme Makeover, and Style by Jury, and reflecting it on our own personal behaviour and decisions. Do I agree with this notion? Well, I am not completely sure actually.

I always believed that the more entertaining I find a show, the higher the likelihood I would have to seek out similar products or re-evaluate myself (positively or negatively). However, for a show such as Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, I used to find this program extremely interesting and entertaining; nonetheless, there was no content or "advice" they gave on the show that I felt beneficial or relatable to myself. Yes I am aware that I am a female and they are addressing straight men; at the same time though, they go through health regimes and beauty care ideas that could easily be translated onto female consumers. The inverse relationship between entertainment and learning, which states that viewers are less likely to learn something from a show if they find it thoroughly entertaining, is a concept that applies directly to Queer Eye For the Straight Guy.

When viewing shows such as Extreme Makeover and What Not to Wear, or even Style by Jury, the likelihood of comparison to those on the show is definitely higher. It is difficult to say if we have become a completely media reflexive society or are still passive consumers viewing shows but not taking in the content. The answer to this may be subjective to audience members themselves, rather than a complete label of consumers as a whole within society.

Upon discussing middlebrow culture in class and the consumerist items that were categorized within this section, in comparison to high and low brow products, one would see that Pabst Blue Ribbon (PBR) fell within all three realms. At first this confused me, considering we had stated various times that most things that are classified as middle brow are simply attempting or wanted to be accepted by the high brow culture/society. If a beer brand such as this was able to situate itself among all varying classifications, then how do we truly define middlebrow itself?

This is where I justified it as a "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" moment. Nonetheless, being an avid beer-lover and drinker myself, it made me wonder as to how is beer as a whole labelled. Are there specific types of malts, tastes, distilling methods, and so on that determine whether a beer is high or low (or in the middle)? The chart above shows the numerous identifications of beer and where on the spectrum certain types fall. Is darker more for highbrow? Do those apart of lowbrow culture select lighter beer brands more often?

The beer connoisseur is a term that is slowly but surely entering society as a legitimate label. One can deem themselves to be professional beer makers, tastes, drinkers, and lovers.

The idea of beer becoming a highbrow product is a matter that I do not deem possible. Yes there are certain brands and tastes that may be more refined or exclusive than others, but inevitably the majority of beer drinkers/lovers expand across all realms. Whether the lifestyle you are living is considered highbrow, middlebrow, or lowbrow, Pabst was right when it was placed within all categories; beer is a neutral product, whether you agree or not.

Have you ever watched a movie that is so bad it is good? Or have a guilty pleasure television show that you watch religiously every week, even though you are completely aware of how low taste it is?

We are all guilty of this; I know I definitely am. But why do we decide to consume such content when there is an endless amount of options of good quality, high taste films. Though it is claimed that some directors attempt to make incredibly good bad movies on purpose, I do not believe that this was their initial intention until it became an acceptable group/phenomenon to be part of.

Look at shows and movies such as Blades of Glory, the I Know What You Did Last Summer series, Jersey Shore, any Scary Movie film, and so on. All of these have been extremely successful and become audience favourites, even though their content and even presentation is horribly wrong and in bad taste. In the end I think our consumer society has become partially mindless. We enjoy watching content that is not thought-provoking or that requires a viewers' direct attention. This is not to say that we do not enjoy quality films; I am a big movie buff but I have tons of favourites that are definitely not in good taste or quality. There comes those times though that a mindless, senseless film is just what the doctor ordered.

In terms of these movies being considered kitsch. That depends completely on whether the movie was obviously made to be bad; if in any sense it is attempting to be in good taste and not "tacky" or "overzealous" then it cannot be classified as kitsch.

Overall, the movies we consume may be extremely well written and presented, or they made me so unbelievably bad that we love them. Do our interests in specific films then correlate to our level/sense of taste? I don't think so. Do you?

Disaster Kitsch offers an intensification of ideas of kitsch, which are typically circulating in relation to death. This mass-produced, over commodification was definitely seen (and is still seen) with 9/11.

It is said that "kitsch is now used as a folding screen set up to curtain off death." In my opinion, I don't think kitsch necessarily covers up what has happened with such traumatic events such as this, but instead it puts up a velvet rope and leads the way to view the tragedy as though it was a prized show to see. There is an endless array of products that have been produced since 2001; tower snow globes, osama toilet paper, 9/11 earrings, collectable 'burning tower' money, and so on. The distortion of what happened on 9/11 can be seen through the commodities created; the event in history has undergone kitschification and the true story and connotations behind the tragedy have been lost.

It has been deemed that kitsch helps events appear less horrendous to the world in the hopes of bringing about positivity and hopefulness. Though I am all for commemorating those we have lost, creating tributes and remembrance items, and paying homage to specific events, there must be a boundary to which we say 'enough.'

Though there are dozens of examples of disaster kitsch, I find that 9/11 has become the primary example of such a concept. The transformation of America's most impactful tragedy and attack has been turned into the "Americanized everyday commodity."

When considering the way in which we connect with movies, is this reliant on who we are with, how the story is told, where we watch it, or even a combination of everything? The convention of connection in regards to movie-going and watching is a matter to be addressed.

Being an individual who thoroughly enjoys going to the theater, I wholeheartedly look forward to getting that popcorn, finding the perfect spot, and sitting back and enjoying a great story (whether it be funny, sad, action, crime, and so on). Nonetheless, there have of course been dozens of time in which I did not form a connection with the story that was being acted out on the screen. There have actually been moments where I couldn't even handle sitting there and I ended up leaving the theater.

Leo Braudy discussed the conventions of connection. He looked at the world as if it was in a frame and analyzed all of it; the good, the bad, and the ugly (yes, that was a movie reference). The idea of critics assessing a movie and classifying it for the future masses is a matter that I understand. At the same time though, there are movies that I truly love which have been ostracized or deemed in bad taste by society. Does this mean my level of taste is poor? OR is it just that i found a convention to connect to within the film and focused on that.

Movies are subjective to who is watching them. Critically acclaimed or not, you be the judge.

Before this course I never really considered Oprah's Book Club to be a matter or criticism. I took it at face value, a club promoted through television enticing viewers to broaden their horizons and read a quality book every month; which would then be discussed with the crowd and one could watch and learn from home.

In actuality, through our analysis of this Book Club phenomenon, I was completely wrong. Oprah's Book Club is the perfect example of illusion. Her monthly review and "assigning" of a novel to viewers appears to be an activity for all demographics and groups. However, it is instead geared towards specific people who have experienced certain things in the life but marketed to the masses. Rather than being for middle brow culture, it is instead for high brow. The narratives and content of these novels are not relatable, nor applicable to the general public; they are instead exemplary of a distinct group of individuals such as Oprah, who are in turn trying to place their thoughts, values, and experiences on others. Those who are middle brow are then wanting to be high brow and feel as though they can relate to them; though this is not ideal.

We have discussed numerous times the language of taste, but what exactly constitutes 'best' and 'worst' taste in the literal sense. In today's media we are consumed by awards shows. From validating actors to musicians, and writers to producers, we are bombarded with seeing individuals being recognized and admired. In turn, the shows such as The Oscars, Grammy's, CMAs, Teen Choice, MTV, and VMAs all look to identifying who is the "best" and "worst" dressed. Instead of performers, entertainers, and artists being acknowledged for their talent and work they are criticized for how they present.

We have discussed inconspicuous consumption, but this is a matter of complete and utter obvious consumption. What these individuals have "consumed" and chosen to put on their bodies has now transformed them into products of consumption as well.

What is considered tasteful though? There are numerous times in which I do not agree with the "experts" on how they identify as wearing the best dress or suit, and vice versa. The question as to what is defined as tasteful is apparent. We as a society all have a different understanding of taste, especially in regards to clothing. For the media to classify the best and the worst is a matter that should be subjective to audiences, rather than a set of (somewhat self-) proclaimed professionals.

navarrocomm

This is so funny. The article for today touches a lot on the fact that trash reality television, constantly showing us the matter and metaphor of dirty, creates audience anxiety, causing us to want to look away and stop watching. However with shows such as What not to Wear and How clean is your house, you are captivated by the first scene and therefore you just HAVE to watch until the end to see the final transformed product.

carlyandcomm

I find myself in this situation all the time - watching television shows that I actually have no interest in yet I end up dedicating a full hour to seeing how it ends or where it will lead. This is especially relevant for the MTV Network; their endless array of reality shows is mind-numbingly captivating that all of my roommates are guilty of watching such "trash television" every week. In the end, I think such shows will always exist and be popularized regardless of their quality and taste; they are so bad they're good.

rc10fb

Going back to our discussion on subcultures I really tried to relate it to something other than punk because I don’t have a lot of connection to the punk subculture and find it difficult to understand in terms of punk culture. When someone mentioned the gym rat subculture I began to relate to it a little more.. Being a girl i find I am on the outside of this subculture as it is primarily a boys club.. that being said there is now an emerging subculture of women who lift #girlscanlifttoo. I thought this was really interesting because I found myself in a subculture I didn’t know I was in. That being said I can now see how this subculture displays itself. Women in this culture don’t dress to impress at the gym, they value skill and technique and simply want to workout to better themselves. In this way I can connect more with this understanding of a subculture and it has become more evident to me how a subculture displays themselves by being able to relate it to myself! #gymrat

thedistinctionoftaste-blog

I like this idea! I could see how a lot of people in our class probably were not familiar with the punk subculture. There are many subcultures out there that we participate in- probably without realizing that they are a definite and distinct subculture. Where as the punk subculture really tried to oppose mainstream, I find subcultures like gym rats are a different form because they don’t necessarily challenge “mainstream” but they still are a distinct subculture with different values than the rest of society, i.e working out to stay fit and wearing distinctive clothing like Luulemon or other work out clothing!!

Good post very insightful

carlyandcomm

I agree with you both of you on the idea that there are various subcultures that many of us in our class may not have been aware we were apart of. Upon entering the class I was under the impression that I knew what taste was, or what classified something as "tasteful" so to speak. Nonetheless, through the exploration of such groups like Punk, and even looking at your identification of #gymrats, the fact that we have all this cultures and subgroups surrounding us is rather enlightening. One can truly find where they fit and feel comfortable with who they are with such categorizations inexplicably existing.

It's crazy to think how many commercials a week, even a month, we watch and are impacted by without even knowing it. This is definitely what I would call inconspicuous consumption. Whether it be a new advertisement by Red Bull, a hair dye being launched by L'Oreal, or even a Dyson vacuum being introduced, our society has become a mass of mindless consumers with no control whatsoever. We can decide what we buy, but the brand names, songs, and actors associated to such commercials inevitably stick out in our mind when we are making that decision between this product or that. Even I can recite various jingles used on commercials, or the slogans associated to such companies. Overall, regardless of if we say we are conscious consumers, in the end it is impossible to truly say if one has been influenced by a commercial, advertisement, or campaign or not when making a purchase.

When analyzing The Dandy aka Beau Brummell, it is interesting to see how such basic, "clean-slate" sort of fashion has evolved to today's idea of wealth and class. There are many individuals who continue to suit up and dress very upscale, but still monotone. On the contrary, there are then those who choose to redefine such tailoring and taste, and conform it to the exact opposite of what The Dandy originally anticipated.

One can look to an entertainer such as Marilyn Manson (see image right). This rather ambitious character, when choosing to wear a suit or dress in a more refined way, choose to do so with boldness, extravagance, and almost "loudness." When comparing Brummell to Manson their style has the same basis but in two very opposing manners; that being nonvocal and "humdrum" versus rebellious and attention-seeking.

Has anyone every wondered how certain movies are eligible for the Toronto Film Festival (TIFF) every year? Yes, many of the films, short or long, provide a new perspective on something, a different look at a once normal topic, or a story that is thought-provoking or emotionally captivating. Yet at the same time there are numerous productions that I read through and eventually watch that make me wonder how they were even considered as high enough in regards to taste to even be considered for the festival.

The critics and "academy" that work to select such movies clearly know what they are talking about; more so than a 4th year university student of course. However, do they choose such films because it appeals to their "higher understanding of what is tasteful" and possibly art? Are we (meaning the general public) too underprivileged or uneducated to be able to appreciate such works?

In the end, I may never be able to appreciate certain pieces selected for TIFF; regardless though, I see this as a matter of a difference of opinion rather than understanding of taste.

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Taste and Cultural Politics