Wednesday, February 4, 2015

Creators and consumers



Popular culture has often been made by people who differ (in terms of race, class, ethnicity, sexual orientation) from most of those who consume it.  Can popular culture create meaningful ties or understandings between performers/creators and audiences/consumers, or does it further alienate them from each other?  

16 comments:

  1. I would argue that ties are created between producers and consumers, but these relationships are not exclusively positive. So both alienation and understanding can occur. To consider one of these relationships the vehicle through which the culture is delivered to the audience must be considered—how much is admission, who is allowed to participate, who is represented, etc. The questions we discussed during the class on January 8th should be asked again. The “Mass Culture” reading by MacDonald is useful because it discusses how commercialized culture becomes—something that is created to turn a profit, has broad appeal, and can be easily consumed. This type of culture can both alienate and connect. Examples of this are shows that represent minority groups, like Transparent and Orange is the New Black. These shows can connect to the majority and inform them of the minority, but the people who gain economically are different from the ones represented. This can also be seen in culture that describes the life of the poor or middle class, but is created by the wealthy. “Culture is Ordinary” asks us to consider culture within the local group, so who is truly gaining from these productions? We discussed the Boaz reading in class too, and the idea that the conceptions of the world are only relative to the individual supports the idea that culture can create bonds by introducing groups to each other. Culture can both bring people together and alienate.

    ReplyDelete
  2. One example that could be used for evidence that could be used to argue that the creators and consumers differ is the creation of Central Park. Central Park was created by Fredrick Olmstead who was an upper class man, but the park itself was created to be used by everyone. It wasn't exclusively made for the upper class. Olmstead's original plan for the park was to be a place where people of different classes would mix and poor people may be inspired when seeing the rich. Instead, it was a place for the rich to show off and there were no interactions between the rich and the poor. Although his intentions were for the park to be a way to unite people, it continued to sustain the divide that occurred outside the park. A different example, which describes the way that popular culture created meaningful ties would be department stores. These were created by people of the upper class who wanted to create a place that made shopping more convenient, but extravagant for customers. Department stores, in a way, united people from all classes. Previously, nicer stores were only for the rich, but departments stores created a grand and elegant feeling, but was available to everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Producers of popular culture have the ability to create both positive and negative relationships with the people who consume it. The questions regarding primary sources that we discussed in class can be used to determine how specific sources negatively or positively impact the audience. Popular culture may create meaningful ties between the races, ethnicities, sexual orientations and classes that they are aiming towards, while alienating from the ones they may be offending, whether intentionally or unintentionally. For example, the movie Selma can create meaningful ties with some viewers while alienating from others. This movie can attract any race, sexual orientation, ethnicity and class, but it may attract those of African descent more than others. Those of the Caucasian race may feel offended, while some may have a great understanding for it. It is also possible that those of African descent can avoid the movie. Another example is the introduction of department stores rather than "mom and pop" type of stores. This could have caused alienation with those who did not have the money, or time to spend more. They could have felt that it was not necessary to have such large stores that carried more expensive goods than what some were used to. Meaningful ties could have been built with those who were able to spend more money and who had more time on their hands to possibly travel farther to shop. According to McDonald, popular culture is meant to manipulate and control, therefore many factors can determine whether a certain piece of popular culture is creating positive relationships with the audience or distancing them from it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. After considering the points of my fellow students, I can agree that the relationship between producers and consumers can be positive or negative (or possibly a mixture of the two), but I question how much the creation of popular culture actually impacts the producers once they see how the audience receives it. While considering the relationship of producers and consumers, I had in mind only modern media, but I frequently came back to the idea of McDonald’s “manipulative and controlling” popular culture, as Dajunonna mentioned. My concern with the producers of today arises from the trend in industries like the film and video game industries in which minority groups are severely underrepresented and repeatedly speak out against this lack of diversity with little acknowledgement by major producers. In terms of a modern day example, it takes only a quick search to reveal that most protagonists of the multi-million dollar media of today are written from the perspective of a physically fit, white, heterosexual male, which is an archetype that only represents a small portion of the Western population. The video game industry seems to be the worst perpetrator of the “hyper-masculine hero,” with franchises like Call of Duty, Assassin’s Creed, and Halo having 2014 releases but little effort to diversify the target audience – a target audience consisting of 48% women but only roughly 24% of female video game protagonists. Movies like American Sniper further the idea that the “hyper-masculine hero” is the only hero worth focusing on, even if that hero is a ruthless murderer. This idea can be related far back to those of the saloon, a concept that revolved about the “hyper-masculine male” and all his inherent qualities of whiteness, heterosexuality, and macho attitude. Judging by the repeated failures of U.S. producers to release media either written by or written with minority groups in mind, it seems as though the relationship between producers and consumers is becoming more strained as minority groups begin to speak out against the lack of representation that exists for them. On the other hand, media that is aimed directly at otherwise “forgotten” groups in American culture is beginning to rise as some producers see the opportunity to cater to specific groups who normally do not see themselves being represented in television, film, and video games such as Orange is the New Black, Fresh Off the Boat, and Dear White People. In general, it seems that producers are struggling from two different angles, with one making “hyper-masculine male” media, as tradition would have it, and the other using the underrepresentation of minority groups to build a better relationship with the consumers who have been forced to buy media of a paradigm they have no identification with. Based on the readings in Middletown, it is evident that the focus on white, heterosexual individuals is of lasting tradition, as even the authors of a book meant to detail the lives of city folk was only concerned with the white couples that lived within its limits (with a clear indication that the authors actively avoided including people of color in their studies), which leads me to believe that producers have taken the shifts in society and higher demand for diverse media very lightly, as the focus still generally continues to be on white, heterosexual people.

    ReplyDelete
  7. In regards to creators and consumers it would beneficial to look over the readings that pertain to the classes P.T. Barnum’s American Museum, Central Park, Buffalo Bill, Wanamaker’s Department Store and Coney Island. Each of these main points pertains to the idea of consumption or creation that enhanced the culture of its time. For instance in looking into the details of Central Park one can learn about how difference classes used the park. While we know that the upper classes used it to show off their wealth, and that the working class used it as an escape, but it would be nice to understand how different races interacted within the park. Further, most of these creations were in a top down manner. I question if within other readings if we could find instances when the creations lessened the divide between classes, races, or ethnicities.

    ReplyDelete
  8. MacDonald's "Mass Culture" addressed the commercialization of culture, which can be heavy and many times, negative. The way culture is presented and to whom it is presented results in both alienation and understanding between the creators and the consumers. Popular culture causes alienation many times because only certain groups are targeted as the consumers, excluding the rest of the public. An example of alienation created by popular culture is the use of henna tattoos, which are made from powdered leaves of a shrub found in India and the Middle East. They are used to temporarily decorate women's skin for festivals and weddings for Hindus, Muslims, and Jews from India and the eastern Mediterranean. Celebrities have displayed their decorated hands on social media platforms like Instagram and Tumblr. I have seen advertisements for henna tattoos at the beach. I have found "henna kits" at craft stores that most definitely do not contain real henna. Many people that get henna tattoos in America, do not fully understand the implications of the commercialization of the traditional henna that is used for sacred ceremonies. For example, henna is a very auspicious part of Hindu weddings. It symbolizes the love and strength a bride has in her marriage. The darker the henna, the stronger the marriage. That cultural significance is completely ignored by people who are uneducated about it. However, when such a beautiful art-form is shared and understood for exactly what it is, then meaningful ties are created. Value is given to something like henna once people understand the meaning behind it and the designs for it. When culture is shared and shown value, I consider it to be something that creates understandings between creators and consumers. Recently, as henna has become increasingly popular, it has also become more widely valued and appreciated by the audience that knows nothing about it. From there, it has come a long way in terms of popular culture.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I agree with what a lot of everyone is saying about the role of the producer and the role of the consumer in popular culture. My question is- who are the producers who get to decide what we, as a culture, will blindly follow and consume? For example, who decides what colors are going to be the "fall trends" this season? And why do we agree and follow that? Or who decided on what to put in the Sears catalog, and how did they guess what the people were going to buy?

    With this debate I automatically think of the television industry and what that does for our society as a whole. The writers, producers, creators, directors, and actors all create different television shows, and certain ones become extremely popular and others are canceled for a lack of viewership, and I wonder why. Ronnie talked a lot about the "white, hyper-masculine man" and the huge role that that type of person plays in society, and while I don't necessarily disagree, I then wonder why shows like Modern Family and Family Guy and King of Queens are so popular when they all display a white male that is very stupid, and the joke of the family that the woman has to constantly control. Why would the hyper masculine white male create a show that is making fun of himself? Is "he" the one who created it? Nowadays the television industry is investing more money in a job titled "researchers." They are the ones researching their audiences, seeing the kind of people they are, so that they can better create a television show that would fit with what they would want to see. In this example, I think the role of the producer will be less alienated with the role of the consumer. They are taking strides to lessen this gap and create a more cohesive relationship, and I think that is progress. I would just hope that other industries start taking similar actions so that popular culture is not always made by people who differ from those who consume it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. To answer the question, I would say that the relationship between consumers and producers does produce meaningful ties as well as alienation. The proof of this can be extended from my first comment, along with the comments of my peers. One of the biggest factors in deciding the relationship between producers and consumers is power. The power dynamic can decide if a culture is mass, educational/shared, or imperialistic. I use these words after reading the other comments, the examples people bring up show how culture is used to exploit certain groups, maintain stereotypes, or to turn a profit. Alienation occurs when a piece of culture is not being used to showcase other populations as people, when a distortion occurs. When certain groups are not capable of consuming culture,or are misrepresented, or not shown at all. We discussed this in class with Middletown, and the comments above show many other examples. I think that the ties that bring people together show up when an understanding is reached between producers and consumers, when the driving factor is not entirely profit or distilled mass entertainment, but an effort to create a relatable piece of culture.

    ReplyDelete
  11. In thinking about modern popular culture I cannot help but notice a great divide in the people who create our culture and the people who appreciate the culture in terms of class. While meaningful ties are created between creators and consumers, I believe the divide the relationship creates overshadows the ties. Economically speaking, corporations, who produce most forms of culture are only 18.6% of the total firms in the United States, however their total sales are 89.5% of total US sales. This great divide in statistics often further alienates producers and consumers in terms of class. In order to consume the majority of culture today, one faces a financial burden. For instance, an entrance into a museum, a ticket for a movie, the newest form of technology, or a trendy outfit all places a financial burden of its consumers. For those people who cannot afford to submerse themselves in as much culture as they would like often feel ridiculed for not being as “worldly” or “cultured” as others, or even by themself. This, in turn, creates a great amount of animosity towards the producers. While modern popular culture is more accessible than that high culture of our great-grandparents generations, it is still rather difficult to obtain.
    Further, many forms of popular culture create divides by the people who consume it. Shows such as “Fresh off the Boat,” “Black-ish,” and even “Modern Family,” have attempts to find a comedic way to show off certain races or sectors of society. However, in doing so, those who are part of that sector fell ridiculed (unless they too could poke fun at their own kind). Additionally, those who are not a part of the group have false interpretations of the group. These two consequences creates greater divides between people who consume culture.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I greatly agree with the post above regarding how many forms of culture can create divides based on what they portray. This can include poking fun at comedies about different races etc., but also giving false interpretations to those who do not directly identify with what is being portrayed. When popular culture is created, the producers usually have in mind what group of people they want to attract. Even though, people in this ideal group may not be attracted to the particular piece of culture, and those who were not intended to fit into this category may be attracted to it. When popular culture is produced by those who differ in terms of race, sexual orientation, etc, this can cause both positive and negative effects depending on the purpose of what is being produced and the background knowledge of the person producing it. If someone creates a show of the opposite race it can go two different directions A) It can cause those to alienate from it because they feel it is not a correct interpretation of those it is meant to represent, or B) It can create meaningful ties by correctly portraying what it is supposed to which may help the group to connect to the producer because they feel like they took the time to accurately depict the group of people or situation.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I agree with what you have said, Dajunonna, about the results of the producer creating a show that is depicting a race that differs from their own race. However, I think what you have said, that it can cause a bond between the consumer and producer or cause a bigger alienation, can also relate to gender, class (as Samantha mentioned) and sexual orientation. For example, Jesse Tyler Ferguson's character on Modern Family, one of the gay men, is getting a lot of criticism in the media recently because people are offended by his character. They are saying that his depiction of a gay man is "too stereotypical" and that they look forward to a television show that represents gay men without making them "just another punchline." However, Jesse Tyler Ferguson has responded to these criticisms by saying that he, as a gay man, feels like his character is very similar to himself, and doesn't understand how it could be viewed as stereotypical.

    I think this is a very good example of how the producer's creation can alienate or form bonds with those who consume it. In this instance, I think it is doing both. A lot of people love Jesse Tyler Ferguson's character, thinking he is hilarious, but it seems that people have also been offended by it, thinking that it is just the producer's version of a gay man created in a very stereotypical and offensive way. Personally, I can see where both parties are coming from in this conversation. So I guess I am arguing that in the end, it is up to everyone's interpretation on the show, the product, the "thing" being produced and consumed as to how they feel- whether it is alienated from the producer or connected to them.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Culture has the effect of creating meaningful ties as well as alienation between creators and consumers. Many times, the products of popular culture are only for entertainment or profit. As we discussed in Middletown, consumers cannot “consume” all of popular culture because the culture is sometimes not represented well or people are unable to relate to it. Once consumers on a large-scale are able to relate to the producers, an understanding is created. On the other hand, alienation is a significant part of what happens when popular culture creates a division between creators and consumers. If the producers are vastly different from the consumers in terms of race, gender, sexuality, etc., then consumers may not be as inclined to give into the popular culture being produced, or it might help them relate more to the producer because the culture is depicted in such a way that the consumers are attracted to it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Unfortunately, some see the evolution of the producer as an attack on the traditionally white and heterosexual media that America is so used to, and those within the minority groups being represented sometimes feel “trapped” in the narrow options of representations being offered to them (such as in Orange is the New Black, where only one of the main characters is transgender). This means that, while some ties to consumers are getting increasingly strained, newly formed connections are not performing as well as could be, either. The only way to lessen the tension between producers and their consumers is by introducing more producers into the mainstream that are actually members of the minority groups who often go unacknowledged, thus utilizing the manipulative and controlling nature of media that McDonald had it mind and using it to change the minds of otherwise narrow-minded Americans. By replacing the predominantly white, heterosexual powerhouses that are currently making media with a more diverse group of people, more meaningful connections can be made by producers and consumers because producers will have an idea of the lives they are representing and what consumers will want to see. This shift will drastically “level the playing field” for minorities who consume media in the sense that they will have a variety of representations to pull from rather than a small, possibly non-existent pool. It is with this in mind that I conclude the relationship of producers and consumers to be more about alienation than about understanding, at least at this time, because the producers generally try to maintain the white, heterosexual majority in media that has held for so long rather than acknowledge the rapidly expanding diversity in the United States. Thinking back to popular culture like Barnum’s oddities and Buffalo Bill’s exaggerated Wild West shows, it becomes apparent that the producers of such entertainment were, generally, white men with the power to put minorities on display when it catered to their wallets, not to their minds, behavior that today’s producers also exhibit.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Some popular culture has been used as a way of uniting people of different classes, but others have continued to sustain the divide between different classes. As seen in Central Park, the original motives of the park were to create unity, but it did continue to show the differences in classes with the rich showing off in their carriages and the poor using it as a place to get outside. On the other hand, places had been created where people from all classes could go and enjoy themselves. Coney Island and department stores were places where people could enjoy themselves and interact with different people. Depending on how the community ends up absorbing and using the popular culture determines if it alienates the people or creates ties. Places that seemed to create equal ground between the upper and middle class were the ones that created the meaningful ties, while places that allowed for a divide created further alienation.
    I also agree with Divya, about the fact that if the consumer is vastly different from the creator, that a divide can be created there as well. If the creators can not relate well or create popular culture that is desired by their designated consumer, then the differences are exposed and can continue to show that divide.

    ReplyDelete