Sigmund Freud defines the id in his structural model of the psyche as the uncoordinated, instinctual trends of human beings; it is the most primitive part of our being. Our society has been fighting against its own “id”, imposing a super ego model full of taboos. Sexual and sensual expressions have been hidden from the public eye during the last centuries. Lust, sensuality, transgression have always been present in the different artistic trends. Dadaists and Surrealists started introducing sex and eroticism to burgueois circles, however sex was still something oppressed and forbidden. During the 50s, the 60s and the 70s the Beat Generation first, and the Hippie movement later, transgressed the public sphere with the sexual revolution. However, what started as the most subversive social movement has ended up as another part of the capitalist system.
One of Dick Hebidges methods to restore “subcultures” into the dominant culture consists of taking the subcultural signs and converting them into the dominant culture. The capitalist system knew how to take that subversive cultural expression and convert it into their own system. Sex is now a product, another consumer good held to the demand and offert laws.
We can consider Britney Spears as a great example of this phenomenon. Why the girl who started at the Mickey Mouse Club is now singing out loud about threesomes and stating that living in sin is the new thing? Britney Spears' transition to a sexualized image has been on of the most rentable marketing plans of the last decades. Everything was planned from the start. While she was swearing about her virginity, her lyrics and movements started to be more provocative little by little. Even her non sexualized image was part of this whole plan. Why was she talking about her “virginity”? Did she really have to? While her sexual life became part of the market, her products, her music and her performances started to include more implicit sexual content. But Britney is no the only artist who has suffered this transition. As Adorno claims, the “standarization”is proper of the capitalist system. Once one pattern has been proved successful, it is exploited to commercial exhaustion, culminating in the “crystallization of standards.” Britney is just the first one in a long list like Christina Agulera (remember her “dirty” époque), Jessica Simpson, Lindsay Lohan and why not? Miley Cyrus, (her skirts get shorter every day).
The consequence of this process can be considered as a “standarization of sexuality”. Sex has been separated from every religious, moral or spiritual meaning. The capitalist system has converted it into part of the market. It is true that sex sells. It appeals to consumers’ id, to their most primitive parts of their beings. In the public sphere the id has defeat the ego. I do not want to make a moral critique about this issue; however, I would like our society to think about this process. What is the next step? What used to be transgressor twenty years ago is now normal for 8 year old kids. How are media conglomerates going to sell their products when sex becomes not enough?
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta Cultural criticism. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta Cultural criticism. Mostrar todas las entradas
lunes, 16 de noviembre de 2009
miércoles, 7 de octubre de 2009
The Beatles, part of the capitalist machinery?
A critical review of the music video “Rain”
No way. That is the first thing that comes into my mind after reading this: "The Beatles did about as much to represent the interests of the nation's young people as the Spice Girls did in the 1990s." I cannot stop shaking. Posh Spice can be compared with John Lennon? No… Things get worse when I find out who has talked about such nonsense, David Fowler, a renowned Cambridge University historian. A cold sweat comes over my forehead.
Fowler supports the idea that The Beatles exploited fan worship, mindless screaming and nothing more than a passive teenage consumer, as away of gaining acclaim and notoriety. They were part of the capitalist machinery and their success was a result of the economic abundance that favored this passive consumption.
Here lies one general binary. We can consider The Beatles as part of the capitalist structure that established the patterns of the following commercial music trends or as a revolutionary band broke the structures of the common sense that ruled during the 1960s. In my opinion, The Beatles led a cultural revolution that broke the structures of society and the way music was understood. However, we can also tell that the Beatles imposed standardization in music that exploited successful musical features to commercial exhaustion (Adorno). I am going to analyze the music video “Rain” from the Beatles that was first shown in 1967. I am aware that during the 1960s music videos did not have the same aims that they started having after the 1980s but this video is one of the first conceptual music videos in pop music history.
The video starts with general shots of the members of the band walking around a green garden. They are all dressed in black modern ¨1960s styled¨ suits. These shots are followed by some close-ups and low angles of all the members of the band. The clip does not tell any story, it is just focused on the members of the group. The importance of the “stars” plays an important role in this video. I would also like to emphasize the great number of extreme close ups of some of the accessories of the members of the group (sunglasses, rings, anklets…). After reading Professor Fowler’s article, I cannot stop thinking about the commercial purpose of this video. These kind of video clips helped to establish a revolutionary fashion style that was followed by millions of young people around the world. This led us to the commercial purpose of the music video. Who were the interpretive communities of these kind of videos? Critical thinkers or just screaming and passive consumers?
I think that an infinite number of conclusions can be deduced from this music video. This is the beginning of a process that has led popular music to a wild consumption market where music producers only understand about profits and marking plans. Were the Beatles aware that they were founding this phenomenon? We will never know…however I will always enjoy listening to their songs again and again.
No way. That is the first thing that comes into my mind after reading this: "The Beatles did about as much to represent the interests of the nation's young people as the Spice Girls did in the 1990s." I cannot stop shaking. Posh Spice can be compared with John Lennon? No… Things get worse when I find out who has talked about such nonsense, David Fowler, a renowned Cambridge University historian. A cold sweat comes over my forehead.
Fowler supports the idea that The Beatles exploited fan worship, mindless screaming and nothing more than a passive teenage consumer, as away of gaining acclaim and notoriety. They were part of the capitalist machinery and their success was a result of the economic abundance that favored this passive consumption.
Here lies one general binary. We can consider The Beatles as part of the capitalist structure that established the patterns of the following commercial music trends or as a revolutionary band broke the structures of the common sense that ruled during the 1960s. In my opinion, The Beatles led a cultural revolution that broke the structures of society and the way music was understood. However, we can also tell that the Beatles imposed standardization in music that exploited successful musical features to commercial exhaustion (Adorno). I am going to analyze the music video “Rain” from the Beatles that was first shown in 1967. I am aware that during the 1960s music videos did not have the same aims that they started having after the 1980s but this video is one of the first conceptual music videos in pop music history.
The video starts with general shots of the members of the band walking around a green garden. They are all dressed in black modern ¨1960s styled¨ suits. These shots are followed by some close-ups and low angles of all the members of the band. The clip does not tell any story, it is just focused on the members of the group. The importance of the “stars” plays an important role in this video. I would also like to emphasize the great number of extreme close ups of some of the accessories of the members of the group (sunglasses, rings, anklets…). After reading Professor Fowler’s article, I cannot stop thinking about the commercial purpose of this video. These kind of video clips helped to establish a revolutionary fashion style that was followed by millions of young people around the world. This led us to the commercial purpose of the music video. Who were the interpretive communities of these kind of videos? Critical thinkers or just screaming and passive consumers?
I think that an infinite number of conclusions can be deduced from this music video. This is the beginning of a process that has led popular music to a wild consumption market where music producers only understand about profits and marking plans. Were the Beatles aware that they were founding this phenomenon? We will never know…however I will always enjoy listening to their songs again and again.
We aren't Van Wilder
If someone had asked me, one month ago, what the first idea that would come into my head when I thought about American University, I would probably have answered beer. Yes, I know I sound silly and that this reasoning is not true for all college students but I guess that I am another victim of American college films. Since John Hughes started making films like “Weird Science” or “The breakfast club” in 1985 a great amount of “acne-films” have helped to feed teen’s imaginations around the world. Why do we imagine an American college with beers and cheerleaders? Why do teenagers around the world dream of becoming the local football star and marry a blond cheerleader even if they have never played football before? I am aware that I am simplifying this fact (not every teenager around the world has the same stupid dreams), but these identifications do happen. Besides mediocre plots and flat characters, these films represent an interesting phenomenon in popular culture. Why does this Americanization of the ideal college happen? Why are these stereotypes made? What binaries work in these movies? There isn’t a unique answer for these questions, cultural studies work on a slippery field, however, I have analyzed a film called “Van Wilder” in order to provide an approach to these issues.
Van Wilder has been in college for more than seven years and he doesn’t want to graduate yet. From this common plot follows 90 minutes of easy gags and a fussy love story. Everything is stereotyped. Van Wilder falls in love with Gwen Pearson, the blonde but smart journalist who is trying to write an article about the life and the popularity of Van, however, the preppy Richard Bagg, Gwen’s boyfriend, is always trying to make things difficult for Van. There are constant references to sex and alcohol along the film. Two opposite binaries work in this movie; Richard and Van, they are both struggling to get the perfect girl. The two characters represent two different ways of life. On the one hand Richard wants to become a doctor and he is the leader of one of the most prestigious fraternities on campus, on the other hand Van is a party animal. The way fraternities are represented is immeasurably exaggerated: the clothes they wear, their hair, the way they treat freshmen students. They’re the rich bad guys. In contrast Van, although rich too (this is an interesting point) is the cool guy and the only thing he wants is to help his friends. I would also like to analyze another fact portrayed on the film, race. At a first glance this film tries to be politically correct and show a multiracial college community. Van’s best friends are a black and Hindu student. However, is this accidental? Of course not, this is not and innocent choice. Lots of American college films use black or latin actors as supporting actors, but they are just the white male main character’s best friend.
In my opinion Vin Wilder is a perfect example of how simplifications are made and how we just accept them. These kind of film just try to simplify a complex and rich environment like an American College, and they just help to fed the common topic that students just have sex and beer in their minds.
Van Wilder has been in college for more than seven years and he doesn’t want to graduate yet. From this common plot follows 90 minutes of easy gags and a fussy love story. Everything is stereotyped. Van Wilder falls in love with Gwen Pearson, the blonde but smart journalist who is trying to write an article about the life and the popularity of Van, however, the preppy Richard Bagg, Gwen’s boyfriend, is always trying to make things difficult for Van. There are constant references to sex and alcohol along the film. Two opposite binaries work in this movie; Richard and Van, they are both struggling to get the perfect girl. The two characters represent two different ways of life. On the one hand Richard wants to become a doctor and he is the leader of one of the most prestigious fraternities on campus, on the other hand Van is a party animal. The way fraternities are represented is immeasurably exaggerated: the clothes they wear, their hair, the way they treat freshmen students. They’re the rich bad guys. In contrast Van, although rich too (this is an interesting point) is the cool guy and the only thing he wants is to help his friends. I would also like to analyze another fact portrayed on the film, race. At a first glance this film tries to be politically correct and show a multiracial college community. Van’s best friends are a black and Hindu student. However, is this accidental? Of course not, this is not and innocent choice. Lots of American college films use black or latin actors as supporting actors, but they are just the white male main character’s best friend.In my opinion Vin Wilder is a perfect example of how simplifications are made and how we just accept them. These kind of film just try to simplify a complex and rich environment like an American College, and they just help to fed the common topic that students just have sex and beer in their minds.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)
