LIke many of my other classmates, I found Adorno's culture industry essay to be absolutely ridiculous and extreme, but could not let go of it throughout the quater. I absolutely loved it and Adorno's ideas on the whole media theory and role of media in our lives. Likewise, I also enjoyed Tomlinson's "Media Imperialism" as well as Anderson's "Imagined Communities". Having never taken an anthropology course before, I found these introductions to previously unknown theories fascinating. I also really enjoyed the Mirzoeff. I found it amusing that he incorperated teletubbies in such an appropriate way.
Some of the readings i found repetitive, for instance the Prins and the Tuner on indigenous media and national identity works such as Schwock and Davila.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Blogs: The Final Frontier
Blogging these last weeks was an interesting exercise to me. I am glad I was able to participate in what has started to become a burst of new media on the scene.
Blogs may be the most acceptable form of media to date. They are free, they are about anything and everything, and anyone can write them. Some are more popular than others but that is not because of accessibility but because of actual blogging ability and interesting viewpoints. Blogs are weaned out in the purest of ways: directly by the participation of the active audience.
And if any given individual does not like what they are reading, they can start their own blog. Everyone has the opportunity to say what they want to say, to represent themselves in whatever light they choose.
While I’m not saying blogs is the ultimate form of expression (Its often just a bunch of dorks with too much time on their hands, or a group of college students conducting a social experiment), they are interesting in the sense that they are not ruled by laws of profit, production, or outside representation. They are run solely by the individual and his ideas.
Blogs may be the most acceptable form of media to date. They are free, they are about anything and everything, and anyone can write them. Some are more popular than others but that is not because of accessibility but because of actual blogging ability and interesting viewpoints. Blogs are weaned out in the purest of ways: directly by the participation of the active audience.
And if any given individual does not like what they are reading, they can start their own blog. Everyone has the opportunity to say what they want to say, to represent themselves in whatever light they choose.
While I’m not saying blogs is the ultimate form of expression (Its often just a bunch of dorks with too much time on their hands, or a group of college students conducting a social experiment), they are interesting in the sense that they are not ruled by laws of profit, production, or outside representation. They are run solely by the individual and his ideas.
Critics and Media
I recently got a job in an area not surprisingly related with this class. For the last month or so I have been writing music reviews for the Chicago-based blog (“Web publication” as it says on my resume) Gapers Block. Doing this made me consider a unique medium that I believe we overlooked in the beginning of the quarter: that of the critic.
The critic is in a unique position because it is understandably both an audience and a producer of media. They are an audience obviously because they take in the media, but they are separate from others because their absorption of media is colored by the fact that they have to actively critique and write something about it for their own audience. They are certainly not Adorno’s passive audience, but they are a separate kind of active audience because their participation is also for their own media production and gain.
Critics also produce their own unique media. It is a secondary form of media in that it is not the actual production of art, but media produced about art. It does have its own audience, however, making it a unique form of media. I probably read more critique-based media (Op-Eds, music magazines, blogs) on a regular basis than any other form of media (except, of course, listening to music). This is interesting when you think of the fact that this time could be spent absorbing the media I am reading about instead of spending the time reading the critique. Does this concept mute the active audience because they are getting their ideas about media from an outside source or are they that much more active because it puts audiences in dialog?
Critics exist solely because of the world so saturated by media. They would not exists to such a degree if we didn’t have media in such a prominent place in our lives.
These various ramblings are just ideas that came to mind as I begin to see myself as a part of this unique form of media.
The critic is in a unique position because it is understandably both an audience and a producer of media. They are an audience obviously because they take in the media, but they are separate from others because their absorption of media is colored by the fact that they have to actively critique and write something about it for their own audience. They are certainly not Adorno’s passive audience, but they are a separate kind of active audience because their participation is also for their own media production and gain.
Critics also produce their own unique media. It is a secondary form of media in that it is not the actual production of art, but media produced about art. It does have its own audience, however, making it a unique form of media. I probably read more critique-based media (Op-Eds, music magazines, blogs) on a regular basis than any other form of media (except, of course, listening to music). This is interesting when you think of the fact that this time could be spent absorbing the media I am reading about instead of spending the time reading the critique. Does this concept mute the active audience because they are getting their ideas about media from an outside source or are they that much more active because it puts audiences in dialog?
Critics exist solely because of the world so saturated by media. They would not exists to such a degree if we didn’t have media in such a prominent place in our lives.
These various ramblings are just ideas that came to mind as I begin to see myself as a part of this unique form of media.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Adorno on illegal music piracy
Reading through the Nigerian Piracy article reminded me of an idea I maintain that most of my friends disagree with me on: that illegal music downloads/piracy/ this idea of mass distribution by those not in the “industry” actually sustains and promotes authenticity in a way. The music industry is a horrible corporate monster (as I like to think Adorno would agree with) that makes bands and artists struggle through years of toil before a profit-motivated record company CEO arbitrarily picks them because they have a hunch that’s where the market is going. With the internet all bets are off. Anyone can stream their music or put it up for download and get their name out there without having to suck up to the elite of the industry just for the chance to succeed. Bypassing this middle man, music spreading as rapidly as it does illegally through downloading puts essentially the “yay” or “nay” decision in the hands of the consumers who are, let’s not forget, also the fans. Of course this becomes problematic once a band wants to make any sort of money through their music, but that is what touring is for, right?
Radiohead just showed us all how fed up with the music industry they are by actually supporting this secondary system and releasing their newest album, In Rainbows, free on the internet. Ironically enough, even though I could have formally received it for free via their website, I still downloaded it illegally.
Radiohead just showed us all how fed up with the music industry they are by actually supporting this secondary system and releasing their newest album, In Rainbows, free on the internet. Ironically enough, even though I could have formally received it for free via their website, I still downloaded it illegally.
Monday, November 5, 2007
The Horrors of Programmed Music
Reading the Sterne essay “Sounds Like the Mall of America” brought back some frightful memories of the summer before freshmen year when I worked as a teller at a bank. While I have no complaints of working steady hours in an air conditioned building with little to no actual labor involved, the one horror I can recall is the programmed music. As an employee, not a consumer, I was on the other side of the programmed music. This means I sat for 40 hours a week listening to the same two CDs of “approved music” that the bank sends the branches. This music was meant to amuse customers so they wouldn’t notice how long they were waiting in line. What this music didn’t do was spark any kind of life into the employees. I don’t know all the songs included, since I am not that involved in pop music, but I do know that I heard Justin Timberlake’s “Cry Me a River” and Kelly Clarkson’s “Breakaway” at least 5 times a day. 5 times a day x 5 days a week x 12 weeks. That’s a lot of Kelly Clarkson. Sterne said “The music in question is not meant to be listened to, but to be heard.” Well I was in the unfortunate position that the music was not designed for, I had to listen to it.
I definitely agree with Sterne’s idea that this background/foreground music builds sound spaces for people, but it did it in a different way for me, in that it separated work mode from everything else not just in the way I dressed or acted or where I was, but literally in every sense with the music as well. I found it so constricting that the moment I left I had to listen to something I associated as intensely “me” on the drive home in order to shake this sense of programmed music that I had endured for eight hours.
Divesting from the reading for a bit, I want to say that programmed music is by no means a bad thing. I do it with every aspect of my life, though in a less “corporate” sense. Driving, walking to class, reading all feel awkward if I’m not simultaneously listening to music. Roadtrips are defined by the playlists more than the destinations, and I have in the past been late to class because I had to find my iPod first. So I understand the need for mundane life activities, such as banking or shopping, to be accompanied with music, but I feel this whole idea of “programmed” music in the corporate design sense only mutes these activities more by operating under the principles that one should not actually listen to the music, or that these are the best sounds to define any particular experience.
I definitely agree with Sterne’s idea that this background/foreground music builds sound spaces for people, but it did it in a different way for me, in that it separated work mode from everything else not just in the way I dressed or acted or where I was, but literally in every sense with the music as well. I found it so constricting that the moment I left I had to listen to something I associated as intensely “me” on the drive home in order to shake this sense of programmed music that I had endured for eight hours.
Divesting from the reading for a bit, I want to say that programmed music is by no means a bad thing. I do it with every aspect of my life, though in a less “corporate” sense. Driving, walking to class, reading all feel awkward if I’m not simultaneously listening to music. Roadtrips are defined by the playlists more than the destinations, and I have in the past been late to class because I had to find my iPod first. So I understand the need for mundane life activities, such as banking or shopping, to be accompanied with music, but I feel this whole idea of “programmed” music in the corporate design sense only mutes these activities more by operating under the principles that one should not actually listen to the music, or that these are the best sounds to define any particular experience.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
More Imagined Communities
Reading today’s readings in light of Anderson’s Imagined Communities, I could not help but notice the irony in the media producer’s intention of the audiences vs. what actually happened. In the first example of the Egyptian melodrama, the producers sought to bring a more modern attitude or feeling to the viewers of the soap opera, to connect them to their principles of kinship and community in this way. Abu-Lughod argues that instead, a sense of individualism is sparked. The viewers begin to view their lives in this melodramatic sense, isolating themselves in a sense by portraying onto people in their lives the positions or identities of people in the melodramas and making themselves the main characters. In addition, however, the producers unintentionally created a stronger religious community among the viewers of the show. The subtle religious praises ignited the sense of imagined religious community among the viewers.
In the Dornfeld reading on public television, the many different opinions and production aspects that go into public television all have a different assumed audience, and thus alter the direction of any given program to please this audience. Because of the so many different opinions that go into public television specifically, every one person’s intended audience never was the actual audience. Instead the “hybrid” audience that Dornfeld describes is the actual community watching public television as opposed to each person’s imagined community.
In the Dornfeld reading on public television, the many different opinions and production aspects that go into public television all have a different assumed audience, and thus alter the direction of any given program to please this audience. Because of the so many different opinions that go into public television specifically, every one person’s intended audience never was the actual audience. Instead the “hybrid” audience that Dornfeld describes is the actual community watching public television as opposed to each person’s imagined community.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Imagined Communities of "Cannibal Tours"
One of the things that struck me about the film “Cannibal Tours” was the “in between” nature of the village as described by one of the natives. As he said, the village he now lived in was not the village of his father, in the sense that it is no longer the isolated, untouched society that the people lived in. Now discovered by the “modern” civilizations and treated as a tourist attraction, however, the village is not yet “civilized” itself. It is in a limbo of development where the villagers are still living the lives they used to, but are now aware both of cultures and people different from their own as well as their status as a tourist entertainment for others. In a sense, this can be considered an “imaged community”. Their lives are forever altered by the presence of outsiders with cameras. They continue to live their former lives, but partially as display for the tourists, altering the finer points of their lifestyles. The tourists, as well, imagine what the native people live like but still are aware of how their presence has altered their way of life. For instance, their spirit house is actually in disrepair and missing practically all of its sacred relics, but it is imagined by the tourists that it is still a sacred space used by the natives for prayer important enough to pay to take pictures of it. The natives as well pretend that it is still sacred in order to get the tourists to pay for the pictures. Both sides are imaging and performing a community that no longer exists, a direct result of the very presence of the people who are doing the imagining and for whom the performance is happening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)