Archive for the ‘Popular Culture’ Category

#399 – Flexible Regime of Accumulation

Friday, June 25th, 2010

the system is flexible, resistance is futile, we are all popoids now.

Flexible accumulation has been accompanied on the consumption side, therefore, by a much greater attention to quick-changing fashions and the mobilization of all the artifices of need inducement and cultural transformation that this implies. The relatively stable aesthetic of Fordist modernism has given way to all the ferment, instability, and fleeting qualities of a postmodernist aesthetic that celebrates difference, ephemerality, spectacle, fashion, and the commodification of cultural forms.

—David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity: An Inquiry into the Conditions of Cultural Change

#388 – Smells Like Mid-Life Crisis

Wednesday, May 12th, 2010

it’s like rain on your wedding day: a.o. scott on the ironies (are they ironies?) of the gen x man’s mid-life crisis.

A.O. Scott has a typically intriguing and well-written essay of cultural criticism in which he detects a crisis of the Gen X male’s mid-life crisis. Scott knits together, in a threadbare grunge-flannel tapestry, recent films such as Greenberg and Hot Tub Time Machine and Sam Lipsyte’s novel The Ask to argue that the meta-crisis for Gen X men now arriving in middle age is that they never grew up in the first place.

I think Scott has it backward. The real crisis of Gen X men is not that they can’t grow up in order to have a mid-life crisis, but rather that they were never young in the first place. That is to say, they were never young by the criteria of the baby-boomer definitions of youth (“hope I die before I get old” and all that). These constructions of youth and adolescence—forged in the 1960s and 70s—dominated American middle-class culture in the 1980s and 90s. But they were also imploding as baby boomers clung to youth into their middle years and redefined, along with corporate marketers happy to help them, what young meant.

The need to establish youth as generational difference remained an imperative for Gen X, but it no longer functioned well to establish difference. This was the experience of “vintage postmodernism” that Scott describes in the essay. (As a side note, “vintage postmodernism” a fabulously strange phrase, as if to suggest that now we live in a post-postmodern moment—and perhaps we do; and perhaps therein lies a way out.)

What happened in the 1980s and 90s was that the temporal organization of life stages exploded  across biological ages, thus making it both necessary and impossible for Gen Xers to validate their experiences of youth on baby boomer terms. I think this might well apply for women as for men of this generation.

Gen X was itself a manufactured label born of the 60s impulse to define generational cohorts. This group came of age with the need to talk about their generation, but they themselves had to manufacture both the talk and the generation out of categories that no longer caused a big sensation. And they’ve been uncomfortably numb ever since.

#354 – Content and Its Discontents

Tuesday, January 19th, 2010

meditations on the message of the medium.

When the Internet went mass in the 1990s, we thought that content would be king.

But it turns out that content is free.

The question now is free for what and for whom?

Is Web 2.0 the commodification of the desire to create freely: you provide the content for free on Facebook and the company makes the profit?

Or is something else going on? Something more sneaky?

Is the human urge for free-ranging creativity slowly invading the networked links of commodity capitalism: are the distribution systems of mass commercial cracking open in bittorrented cloudbursts?

As competing forms of the network tangle, what will give our content contentedness?

#329 – Highest Common Denominator

Tuesday, August 18th, 2009

envisioning the dream of the commons in mass culture.

An increase in scale does not always entail reductiveness: one effect of the best mass culture is to trace or forge the connections among the unprecedentedly diverse experiences of its unprecedentedly broad audience. When artists find this common ground, the experience, however fleeting, of so enormous a community is visionary and exalting. When they fail, they can retreat into an irony that thrives in the vast range and dense detail of American consumer culture.

- George Scialabba, writing against Dwight Macdonald’s “Masscult and Midcult”

#327 – Culture Rover’s Unfamiliar Quotations

Friday, August 14th, 2009

the economic democracy/cultural democracy problématique.

Lumping humanity into two categories, the noble and the rest, may seem to lend itself to anti-democratic sentiments or even to a violently reactionary form of politics. But Scialabba affirms the distinction without snobbery. Perhaps he suspects that the division runs right down the middle of most of us. Even so, it can undermine the will to egalitarianism. Economic leveling means giving more to those who have less. Cultural leveling seldom has that implication. How, then, to resolve the tension?

- Scott McLemee, “A Worried Mind,” Introduction to What Are Intellectuals Good For? Essays and Reviews by George Scialabba.

#323 – Does Not Compute

Saturday, July 4th, 2009

cheeful robot, ghost in the machine, or imprisoned soul?

We know that men can be turned into robots—by chemical means, by physical coercion, as in concentration camps, and so on, but we are now confronting a situation more serious than that—a situation in which there are developed human beings who are cheerfully and willingly turning themselves into robots. – C. Wright Mills

For anyone who spends inordinate amounts of time in front of a computer, “HI, A Real Human Interface,” a video by Multi-Touch Barcelona, will resonate. The short film imagines the personal computer as, quite literally, a person, the proverbial little man inside the machine.

The video is at once playful and distopian, cute and dark, fluffy and profound. Transforming complex computer codes into summer-camp art projects of cardboard, construction paper, and glue, HI seems warm and fuzzy at first. But the more you watch the man inside the machine, the more uneasy you grow with his labors, his containment, his monotony. He seems more and more a slave trapped in a cubicle, at the whim of buttons and buzzers, not running the machine but run by it.

His last glances seem restless, as if he longs to bust out of his cell.

The video is not particularly didactic, but it does raise the question: if machines are increasingly becoming like people, and people, if Mills was right, are more and more like machines, then where do they meet? What will the human-machine interface be like?

If Touch-Barcelona are onto something, this future will be simultaneously — and ambiguously — friendly and ominous.

Hi from Multitouch Barcelona on Vimeo.

#317 – My Baby Don’t Care

Monday, June 8th, 2009

when “i don’t care” is caring deeply: tom stoppard’s rock ‘n’ roll & the sixties.

If the genre of rock ‘n’ roll proposed that pop music could be theater, then Tom Stoppard’s play Rock ‘n’ Roll proposes that theater could be rock ‘n’ roll. At least in Charles Newell’s staging at the Goodman Theatre in Chicago this was the case. Featuring rows of stacked amplifier speakers and stage spotlights behind all the scenes, whether they took place in Cambridge, England cottage gardens or Communist-era Czech flats, the set hinted at how rock music suffused the most informal spaces of everyday life with an energy of the theatrical.

As the play conveyed quite well, rock circulated a pulsating dreamworld light that was at once semi-secretive, a glow concealed in the grooves of LPs and hidden within inner sleeves of record covers, and roaringly present, exploding the listener into an alternative universe of drama, comedy, and catharsis. Not unlike its precise opposite — state surveillance — rock was both always there, lurking in the shadows, and front and center, mesmerizing the citizenry.

stoppardrocknroll

Rock ‘n’ Roll, by Tom Stoppard.

“I don’t care,” is the final line of the play. It is spoken by the middle-aged English daughter of a Cambridge Marxist philosopher to her father’s ex-student, a Czech lover of Western rock who stumbles into becoming an anti-Communist dissident. She declares “I don’t care” after she runs off with the student decades after they first met in the months after the 1968 Prague Spring. By play’s end, it’s 1990, the year after the fall of communism, and she says the line moments before she and her new lover witness the Rolling Stones performing in Prague.

In the immediate context of the scene, the line teeters between an admission of failure and a shout of astounding victory.

Most directly, “I don’t care” is about the daughter finally forgiving herself for her own sense of a wasted youth.

But it also sounds like Stoppard himself finally giving up on the conventional Marxist politics that guided key characters in the play, such as the daughter’s father, a stalwart Stalinist and CP member. At the same time, “I don’t care,” also sounds like a suspicion that, even when rock music kept the spirit of dissidence alive in the Eastern Bloc, the Rolling Stones’ performance feels surprisingly like a shallow victory over communism. Thrilling, yes, but anything more than that? Knowing that the fall of communism only presented the new, and deeply troubling, problems of global capitalism in Eastern Europe, we’re not sure.

As the play ends, the spotlights turn up and glare into the audience’s eyes. We’re blinded for a moment. We care deeply, and in a blast of bass, guitar, and drums, are swept up, carefree.

But there’s more.

“I don’t care.” This line is spoken, I think, in the spirit of the Plastic People of the Universe, the Czech rock band who haunt the play along with the ex-Pink Floyd singer and Cambridge, England, recluse Syd Barrett. Like so many counterculturalists, the Plastics just wanted to be free. They sought self-expression and group experimentation and a space for art-making. The Plastics merely wanted to play their music and thought of themselves as apolitical. They “didn’t care.” Yet they became dissidents, co-conspirators with Vaclav Havel, and a cause célèbre in the West, simply for not caring.

Not caring, when you get to thinking about it, actually turns out to be a complex idea. Stating that “I don’t care” is, oddly, a declaration of caring. In negating concern, it winds up communicating concern. Intentionally foregoing control, the speaker of this declaration asserts a strange kind of autonomy. Far from apathy, “I don’t care” comes across in Stoppard’s play as a carefully-wrought carefreeness rather than carelessness. The choice not to choose is to care enough not to care.

Okay, so it all starts to make sense, perhaps, the more stoned one gets. Fine, so be it. That does not make it any less intriguing as a speech act or the staking out of a position. To not care is to ask whether any of one’s past was worth it at all. To throw in the towel. To cease to matter. And yet, to not care is also the encapsulation of what Stoppard notices as the strange politics of the sixties counterculture: the refusal of “I don’t care” is what, in fancier language, the historian Julie Stephens has called, an “anti-disciplinary protest.”

“I don’t care” becomes a kind of paradoxical statement close to the heart of the sensibility that guided the sixties counterculture. If not exactly political, then the declaration “I don’t care” was certainly public.

It was, after all, a declaration of independence — one with all the dangers of living in, and living out, the paradox of caring not to care.

Addendum: “Can theatre and rock music ever mix?”

Image: Goodman Theatre

#315 – The People’s Republic of Miller High Life

Tuesday, June 2nd, 2009

of beer and advertising the proletarian revolution, or, workers of the world, you have nothing to lose but your hangovers!

In CR #301, we explored the spate of new commercials that almost instantaneously incorporated the current economic crisis into their advertising. These commercials — for fast food, cars, and even for financial investment products (!) — seek to absorb the anxieties of the current crisis into the fantastical dreamworld of consumerism.

Perhaps the most fascinating recent advertising campaign of this type is the Miller High Life “Delivery Guy” series, which features a delivery man re-appropriating bottles of Miller High Life from elites who are out of touch with the common man. The beer is taken back from a luxury box at a sporting event, from the fancy-hats crowd at a Kentucky Derby-like race, and from the hip elites behind the velvet rope and bouncer at a nightclub.

The message of the ads, delivered by a working-class delivery guy, is a strangely sublimated version of disaccumulation, of redistributing private property from the top to the bottom. But instead of smashing the state, or smashing the machines of capitalist alienation, here proletarian revolution is merely bottled and redistributed in a consumer fantasy of working-class reappropriation.

As such, the advertisements speak in the realm of leisure (and of beer, which has a long history of involvement in class struggles — just think of all those German socialists in the 19th century U.S.) to class resentments and fantasies of class resistance. So too, the ads keep those feelings and ideas bottled up and puts them on ice, then pours them out into humor and intoxication rather than actual revolution.

The true high life remains for some, but not for all.

Miller High Life “Delivery Guy” Ad Campaign

#307 – Sign of the Apocalypse

Monday, April 20th, 2009

exit only, indeed.

resurrection healthcare

#301 – Buying Into It By Buying Out of It

Saturday, April 4th, 2009

advertising the recession.

Remarkable to see how quickly the current recession is surfacing in television advertising.

Perhaps it marks how much of a challenge the economic crisis is to the existing order of things. Where once advertisers urged us to spend conspicuously, since happiness was “priceless,” now ads caution us against profligacy. Turns out there is a price tag. The debt is coming due.

But, these ads insist, just because we misled you before does not mean that you should question the larger logic and system of consumerism. Instead, these ads seek to contain the new mood of thrift and anxiety within the old consumer order.

Various fast food commercials, car rebate ads, and other ephemera from the consumer spectacle interpellate us: “Quick! You, Consumer, you can buy your way out of this mess by buying into it even more!”

At this juncture, there is no space within the ads to address the deeper problems and issues we now confront. All they do is associate (brilliantly) their products with the new desires, regrets, and urges of our times. The affective economy of consumerism remains intact even as the affect changes.

Yet, it remains to be seen where these new emotions, desires, angers, loathings, and worries will carry us. Can we see glimpses of alternative worldviews and ideologies through the cracks of the consumer dream machine? Or just new ways of authorizing the same old orders and charges?

Most stunning of these ads is Fidelity’s “Turn Here” campaign, which urges us — against all other evidence — to trust our money to the very financial system that screwed things up so badly in the first place.

Addendum: “The Hard Sell: How Mad Men Spin the Recession,” Mother Jones