You know, the more I read about cultural studies, I realize how dead-on I was in naming this blog "It's All Relative." So far, pretty much every aspect of cultural studies totally confuses me because I can't help but think it all comes down to what perspective you're looking at it from, and I really hate that. My main concern with taking this course has been that I get really frustrated when I don't know what the answer or solution to a particular question/problem is. And the more I read about cultural studies, the more discouraged I seem to become! But maybe that's a good thing. Maybe some things in life really do just come down to what perspective you're viewing it from.
One of the sections in the reading addresses the issue of taste and aesthetic value within culture, which is kind of what I touched on in my previous post. The example used in the reading was soap operas versus fine art, or something like that. My mind automatically began to compare soap operas to the Mona Lisa, and I questioned which is a "real" form of art. Most people would argue that the Mona Lisa is, but why? Is it because that's what their culture has told them? Or because it's "weird" looking so it must be fine art? Or maybe it's because they're embarassed to admit that they're an avid One Life to Live fan. Although (as a former actor) I can't say I'm the biggest fan of soap operas, I would argue that they are indeed a form of art. Maybe not as "good" as the Mona Lisa, but who am I to say that? What constitutes art (or music, literature, etc.) to be "good" or "bad?"
Although some might not consider the arts to be as important as other aspects of culture such as religion and politics, I personally consider it to be a crucial part of culture and of humanity as a whole. Something that I tend to struggle with is being (what I refer to others as, but certainly not myself, haha) a music snob or a movie snob. For example, I like to think that I listen to "good" music, but do I consider it "good" because that's what I personally like listening to? Or do I consider it to be good because of the instrumental and lyrical value? For me, it's a little bit of both. I truly enjoy listening to and learning about music that is unique, beautiful, and challenging. So does that mean that my music preference is better than someone who listens to the Pussycat Dolls or LFO? Well.....yes and no :)
That's where my struggle is. A huge part of me thinks that MY music is better for a myriad of different reasons. But the person who listens to LFO could make a similar argument (...I guess). And then there's the question of entertainment value when it comes to music. While I am entertained by bands like the Smiths and the Arcade Fire, someone else might find it boring and/or "weird." And I am also entertained by artists like Lady Gaga and Britney Spears, which some MUSIC SNOBS might consider a travesty. Hm....I think I may have just answered my own question...
Bottom line: I certainly believe that some music (and films) carry with them a more advanced artistic value. But, I cannot bring myself to say that certain forms or art are better than others because, well, it's all relative. And, it's all a part of culture. For something to be a part of culture doesn't mean that it has to be the "Mona Lisa" of it's particular category. This is along the lines of the stance that Raymond Williams took when it came to the nature of culture - "...it is always both traditional and creative; that it is both the most ordinary common meanings and the finest individual meanings" (page 41). Now I know that I'm stretching it a bit by using music as the example because by "traditional" Williams is referring to the working man's everyday life patterns, but at least I know what I'm talking about (haha). I guess my point is that no aspect of culture is necessarily better or "more cultured" than another. Or, at least I think so....?? Ugh.
Anyway, to illustrate my thoughts, here are two songs/music videos to check out. I'll let you notice the difference. Which do you prefer?
1 comment:
I wrestle with this particular area of cultural studies, too--music and art. My dad is a classical music professor, so it's always been pretty clear to me that Mozart's music is more complex than, say, Madonna's. I think that is a fairly uncontroversial statement, at least if we're talking about aesthetic or strictly musical complexity. The problem comes when we try to say that Mozart's music is *better* than Madonna's or even that it's *more artistic* than Madonna's. The difference is that, while we might be able to come up with a fairly mechanical and descriptive definition for "complexity," any definition of "goodness" or "artistic quality" is a discursive formation of a particular cultural regime. There are cultural consequences to dividing Mozart from Madonna and calling the former "high culture" and the latter "low culture," and those consequences work in favor of certain groups in our society and against the interests of other groups. Moreover, it's arguable whether there is anything inherently "better" about Mozart, i.e., anything that we can point to that does not come down to a culturally-determined standard.
Then there's the question of comparing similar things. Since Mozart and Madonna were attempting to accomplish such very different things, how fair is it to compare them? (Of course, there are also similarities in what they tried to accomplish, since both were professional musicians and, therefore, needed to satisfy whoever was paying them for their musical output.)
Post a Comment