A Folk in High Culture

High Culture- Art forms that require a great deal of capital to participate in.

Folk Culture- The art of ordinary people such as fairy tales, weaving, singing, and the use of
simple instruments.

2 contrasting ideas, 1 society. Which will win out? Which is better? Is one better? Is one worse? How do these to types of "culture" shape the society we live in?

These and many other questions were raised in my mass media and society class recently. We examined how high and folk culture affect the world that we live in. High culture requires a lot of money if you want to participate in it. Buying paintings, sculptures and other high culture items is something that many people want to participate in, but simply cannot support with their income. Interestingly enough, high culture was the only type of culture until the printing press was created. The printing press allowed folk art to actually get out and into the general public, for others to consume than just those who created it or lived close to people who performed it.

So what does all of this mean to us today? Does high culture and folk culture still exist? Yes, they do, and some believe they are causing problems in our society today. Some say that high culture has contributed to the increasing gap between rich and poor in the U.S. Others argue that folk culture or "popular culture" will erode civilization entirely because of it's massive spread. Those who create items of high culture status have to spend years upon years being taught and learning their trade. People in folk culture almost never receive any professional training for the art they create. So which one is better; Folk art that is original, or High culture art that is only considered high culture art if it meets the standards laid out by people in the high culture itself?

Personally, I don't think that there needs to be a choice between which is better. I believe that both have something to offer to the general public. I love things from both sections of culture. I love to listen to some good classical Bach, but at the same time I like to hear a self made artist named John Rueban who never had the training of such an esteemed artist. I love the art of many artists from the high school I graduated from, but at the same time I could spend hours upon hours inside a museum of art in any major city in the world looking and appreciating the art work of those who spent lifetimes in training to complete their works. I don't think it should be a question of credibility because of who had more training, but rather a question of the quality of the works.

It is undeniable that many artists of high culture create and have created masterpieces over the years. Furthermore, it is also true that many common folk create their artwork that in it's own way is phenomenal. I think we should have a respect for artwork from each of the two respective "categories" of culture. I will continue to consume media from both categories and even try to maintain a balance between this seemingly controversial issue. I think that everyone has something to contribute to the "world of art," and I will continue to respect that. Art will continue to be created by those who are considered trained and skilled, and by those who come out of the woodwork. I think all who create high quality works should be considered great at the things they do, and that the individual threads of high culture and popular culture should be melded into one single strand. Culture.

~DeLiRi0uS~

Celeb Originations

Just the other day in class, we spent most of the time talking about the originations of celebrities. Also, we discussed how we use celebrities in our lives, and how celebrities are constructed. The discussion was very insightful into a topic that many people don't even stop and take a minute to think about. We are more concerned with "consuming" the celebrities and the myths they lay before us, than actually learning and understanding about them as an actual media text that affects our lives.

The reading in our class packet, that this discussion was based off of, was very informative and provided many different "facts" and examples in the area of celebrities. When examining the origination of celebrities, a road of transformation was laid out. Going back to ironically stars themselves, that is where many "heroes" or celebrities of the past originated. From Orion to the Bull to many other objects in the sky, stories and tales were created for their origination, and how they actually lived out their lives in the sky. Another form of celebs from the past were all the Greek and Roman God's and Goddesses. From there, examples of actual Kings from the bible were given. The esteem that people held kings in back in the bible, has been compared to the way that many people today hold celebrities.

Inspiration, the embodiment of our best values, scapegoats; these are just a few of the roles that celebrities play in our world today. Constructed by a personal publicist, who in turn has a team of publicists, each celebrity has an image to uphold and project to the general viewing audience. Most are very successful at this, but some start good and end up down a road that reveals celebrities are also people. As discussed in class, Celebrities, referring to their image that is constructed, are NOT real people. Beneath that superficial layer, every celebrity is a person who has a life just like anyone else. A prime example of this is the one and only Britney Spears. Nuff said...

When examining how I use celebrities, I found that I use them in very similar ways. I blame them for causing others problems, and I also fall into the trap of thinking that others are more affected by celebrities than I am. Although I don't worship celebrities, I still have my favorite movie actors, singers, and even sports icons. I have fallen into the trap more than once of thinking that the image that I see of these people on T.V. is who they actually are. After this discussion from class, I have a greater understanding of celebrities and I think I can now more effectively consume the media text of "celebrity" without having all the seemingly realistic misconceptions surround my psyche.

~DeLiRi0uS~

Media Conglomerates Pt. 1

The recent debate in class about Media Conglomerates, has left me feeling somewhat like a hypocrite. I was on the side of the debate that was arguing that media conglomerates are good for our society as a whole. One of our arguments included the idea that conglomerates don't force people to be individuals, they produce thousands of options, from their billions of capital, for people to either accept or reject as their own. When the other group that was arguing against media conglomerates said that conglomerates keep people from letting their voice be heard, and that the little man is left out, we responded with the aspect of internet blogging as we see lived out in these very words. There are multiple outlets, provided by media conglomerates, where people can express their views on the internet for the whole world to see. There is only one problem with all of my groups "solid" arguments, I don't really agree with them, which is where the hypocrisy steps in.

While I will agree that media conglomerates do provide some of our modern day services that we seemingly "couldn't live without" (which makes me wonder how my parents are still living?), most things that conglomerates do in concept hurt rather than help our society as a whole. That is where my quibbles begin. As noted in a recent reading and class discussion, there are only 6 to 10 major companies that own the majority of every type of media that we partake of on a daily basis. That means, when you wake up and flip on the T.V. at breakfast, nearly every news broadcast will be reporting the "news", when really the reporters are just there to draw viewers in and make more money for the CEO in a starchy suit. I say "news" because, the "news" is brought to us, is almost ALWAYS biased in some way shape or form, especially in the area of political news. We hardly ever hear the whole story in any aspect of an election or any other political happening, we only hear or see what will draw viewers and thus draw more capital to the already Multi-Billion dollar franchise that owns the news we choose to watch. Let's take a little deeper look into this area of "selective media."

Recently, I was home with my girlfriend, and her father was talking about a plan that would literally change the United States of America as we know it FOREVER. There have been papers signed, by our president, in agreement to an elimination of the Canadian-American border AND more surprising the American-Mexican border. This would make a unified North American Union. So say bye bye to border patrol and hello to a Meximelt of Canadian Bacon and American Cheese! You may be pondering, why haven't I heard anything about this? I'll tell you why! The writers, and actors of and upon these laws don't want us to know. This is a quote from an article from a website called Accuracy in Media about the topic that you can find at http://www.aim.org/aim_report/5102_0_4_0_C/

"Major players are secretive and are trying to keep the media out of the loop. But that does not let the mainstream media off the hook. There is enough stonewalling, secrecy and there are plenty of telltale signs, so that any assignment editor whose curiosity is not aroused is probably in the wrong business."

Media Conglomerates Pt. 2

They don't want us to know, so media conglomerates keep it out of mainstream media, because that would be looked down upon, and possibly cause a loss of millions of dollars (God forbid!) This is a classic example of how we are presented with slanted news that doesn't really give us the big picture as to what really is happening in and around our lives.

One local news station's motto here in North East Ohio is "Honest, Fair, Everywhere." I'm really starting to second guess that, in every area of the media that we partake of. I think we, as students learning the truth about the media in a mass production and distribution not only have a reason to react to these things, we have an obligation. The media will only keep swallowing the society we live in, taking out the little independents to make more capital and further insure that the "real news" doesn't get out, UNLESS we decide to do something about it. We have to find a way to get out of this capitalistic hurricane that these conglomerates have us caught up in, and start to let the masses, which is the target audience of all media anyways, that something isn't right about the whole system.

In closing, I must say that I am a little disappointed to learn all of these things, even though I probably could have assumed that many of these things are true.I wish that more people understood the things that we are being presented with in this class, so that people could really make their own decisions for themselves instead of a news editor, who only wants to produce news that will please his superiors and bring in more capital, make those decisions for them. Our society has many more loop holes than we actually are lead to believe, and that has got to change if our Country is going to keep going as it has in the history books. I think its time we get back to the foundations of our capitalistic approach to economy, and start basing our country on the standards that our founding fathers solidified for us over 200 years ago.

~DeLiRi0uS~

Mid Semester Recap!

Smack dab in the middle of my second semester of College, specifically inside the context of my mass media class, I have many things to reflect upon. So far in this class, we have talked about many different topics and ideas that apply to the media we consume daily, how it affects us, and how we categorize it, along with many other things. Some of the things we have talked about include THE SEMIOTIC DOMAIN, signifier vs. signified, paradigmatic vs. sytagmatic, film shots, Semiotics, The Merchants of cool video, the Hollywood Simulation, and the list goes on. I am very happy with how the class has been going so far this semester.

Going into this class, I didn't really have any idea as to what I was getting myself into. I had heard from a guy on my floor that the class was really cool, and a lot of fun, but that was about all the more exaplaination I recieved. After the first couple of days in class, I had fallen in love with the ideas we were discussing, the ways we approached topics, and the many actual life ties that were uncovered. For me, taking an idea, and thinking in-depth about it and actually tying real-life experiences to it, is a very effective learning tool. I think that is why I love this class so much. With each idea or topic we discuss, we have real life connections that we make. Whether it be talking about slippage from first level significance to second level significance in the case of the yellow ribbon around a tree, or actually naming movies that fit into each of the "Mythical" Categories that we discussed, there is always a connection being made that is different from any learning I have ever done.

In mass media, we strive to get away from the traditional types of learning, or as I like to say regurgatation. In many classes, you study out of books, and from lecture notes, and the regurgatate the information on a test. In mass media, we make these real life connections that allows actual LEARNING to take place. Because of that, I am able to sit here, without looking at any notes, and name all of the different things that we have talked about thus far in the semester. I absolutly love that about Mass Media. I think that is how many if not all classes should be designed, as much as possible while still sticking to standards that are in place.

I am excited about what is still yet to come in the second half of the semester. New topics to be examined, and many more connections to be made. Also, I have to opportunity to investigate whether or not video games have an effect on teenagers, and if yes, how do they affect them. That is my topic for my final paper for this class, and I am very eager to begin in-depth research on the topic. Overall, I am very pleased with this class, I love everything about it, and I can't wait for what is in store for rest of the semester!

~DeLiRi0uS~

Dogme 95

The art of filmaking is a very diverse world, as seen from my last three posts. Although there are many films that follow the normal path of special efects, murders, and weaponry, there is another type of film that tries to abstain from these things. These are the Dogme 95 films. These films have a very strict set of rules set out for them to follow as seen on Wikipedia.com. Here is the list of basic rules and guidelines.

Filming must be done on location. Props and sets must not be brought in (if a particular prop is necessary for the story, a location must be chosen where this prop is to be found).
The sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice versa. (Music must not be used unless it occurs within the scene being filmed, i.e., diagetic).
The camera must be a hand-held camera. Any movement or immobility attainable in the hand is permitted. (The film must not take place where the camera is standing; filming must take place where the action takes place.)
The film must be in colour. Special lighting is not acceptable. (If there is too little light for exposure the scene must be cut or a single lamp be attached to the camera).
Optical work and filters are forbidden.
The film must not contain superficial action. (Murders, weapons, etc. must not occur.)
Temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden. (That is to say that the film takes place here and now.)
Genre movies are not acceptable.
The final picture must be transferred to the Academy 35mm film, with an aspect ratio of 4:3, that is, not widescreen. (Originally, the requirement was that the film had to be filmed on Academy 35mm film, but the rule was relaxed to allow low-budget productions.)
The director must not be credited.

I think all of these things are very interesting, and that they contrast the normal way of film making very strikingly. Although, not many Dogme films have been made that follow every one of these rules to the T, many have included several of the guidlines in their processes.

In my opinion, I think these films are genius. Too often, we see the same story told over and over again on American theatre screens. Murder, guns, ext, fill the plots of almost every movie that is even interesting at all in this day. These Dogme moveis seek to stay away from those ideas, but still provide a movie experience that is interesting and will draw people in. Because of there off the beaten path approach, these films are not very sucessful like other mainstream movies are. But, I think in theory, these movies are an excellent escape from the over worked, fixed up movies we see in the theatres. I would like to see a Dogme film myself sometime to be able to draw some more conclusions on the differences between these films and other "Normal" Hollywood films.

~DeLiRi0uS~

Hollywood Simulation Pt. 1

About a week ago, I was thrust beyond the walls of a Malone College classroom, and into the room of a Hollywood producer. I was part of a team that owned a production company, that was looking to find a cheap actor/actress, a good script, and stay under budget. Although my transformation was short-lived ( held within the 50 minute class period) I gained some very good expeirences with the simulation. It was a very beneficial exercise.

The Hollywood simulation was a class "experiment" that took place last Wednesday in my Mass Media in Society class. There were several different roles that my classmates and I had the chance to "play." There were 4 actors, 4 agents, 5 writing teams (consisting of 2 writers each,) and 3 different theatre groups of producers (consisiting of 3 to 4 members each.) I was part of a group of four, and we were handed a few sheets with a bunch of information on it, that we had to try and make sense of. On the sheet, were all the costs of making a movie. Things like special effects costs, average actor/actress costs, general shooting costs, location of shooting costs, and every other cost under the sun that one could imagine for makign a movie. The other sheet revealed the information that would shape how we, as a producing group, would go about making our movie happen.

The sheet revealed that we had a budget of 40 million dollars to follow. We were a little dissapointed, because we knew that we were the underdog theatre group with the lowest budget, but we still sat down to strategize. On the sheet of costs, there were also a few sections of predicted income. If we had a certain group of writers, we would get X amount of money gaurenteed from DVD sales, or X amount of money from overseas. There was one group, the sci-fi writers, that would provide us with a boost of $20,000 in our budget because of the money we KNEW we would make if we had them on our team. After about 5 minutes, our overseer said time was up, and deliberations would start.