The Production of Culture

Carr begins his prologue by speaking about Marshall McLuhan and his popular saying, “The medium is the message.” I think this quote perfectly describes technologies impact, even now more then ever. It is true that technology poses a threat because it is so powerful. Nicholas Carr beautifully writes that we are not afraid of technology because we tell ourselves we are in control. He then agreed with David Thomson by saying, “The computer screen bulldozes our doubt with its boundaries and conveniences. It is so much our servant that it would seem churlish to notice that it is also our master” (4).

There is something very profound to this statement. It’s a bold statement, but in my opinion, an accurate one. We have become addicted to technology, and we rely on it so much, that the iPhone is never left at home. It is beginning to interfere with basic human interactions and relationships. We no longer have face to face conversations, when FaceTime is available. We are beginning to forget why we meet in person. It’s not the same when you text someone “I love you” and then when you actually say it in person, when you share eye contact and body language. Body language! Something you lose entirely when technology and its availability is so abundant.

I enjoyed reading Carr’s perspective on the influence that computers have over us. Although the writing bell saved Nietzche, there was a downside to this rescue as well. He lost his style of writing. “Nietzche’s prose had become tighter, more telegraphic. There was a forcefulness to it.”

Nietzche agreed, even saying, “Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts” (19). I still find it difficult to read a book on a computer. I think there’s something about holding a physical copy in your hand, or something as simple as a paper and pen, that is rather beautiful. Part of the reason why I fell in love with reading is because it was so simple to fall in love with an author’s words. All you had to do was flip the paper. Now, even English is becoming touched by technology.

I enjoyed reading this piece and I think it really is our duty that we don’t become “frozen concrete of received wisdom” (24).

I attached a clip of McLuhan. It is long and not all of it is relevant but I do think that it’s useful to watch, especially after minute 7:00.

Ms. Brown pretty much covered what I wanted to talk about but I would also like to elaborate on the need for image branding.

Image branding in this day and age is a must. This is the only way that a company can truly differentiate themselves from the competition. We as consumers know that there isn’t really a difference between the products provided by the various companies. They all basically  do the same thing and you get the same end result. What it all comes down to is your tastes and preferences(not for the product), but rather for the company. As Scott Bedbury, the Starbucks’ vice president of marketing puts it, its not about the product as they are quite similar, it’s about establishing “emotional ties” with the customers. Its about selling them a lifestyle and making them part of a family. I believe that once  they are part of that family, they will boycott the products of the other companies. That is why I think that every company should incorporate image branding in their marketing process.

The philosophy of manufacturing and marketing is one that many people buy in to.  It is typically agreed that brand names are just overall better and trusted by users.   The problem with this notion is that consumers become numb to what is really being sold to them.  According to Klein in “No Logo,” Big names in the market focus less on selling their products and more so on the image of that brand.  This is how brands become staples; with increasing images of these top sellers who can supposedly do it better people are lead to believe that name brands bare a mark of authenticity; are paragons of excellence for their generic counterparts and prototypes for their competitors.

The real reason that companies make it is due to increasingly clever marketing strategies that work to supplant the product with the image. Because of the similitude in the manufacturing of products, companies that want to become household brands work to create a marketing strategy that will set their generically manufactured products apart from the bunch.  Klein writes “Customers are like roaches and marketers must forever be dreaming up new concoctions for industrial strength raid.”  Meaning once the public becomes inelastic to the way a brand advertises it is time to think of something else bigger and better. Advertisers are perpetually thinking of ways to build brand image without reshaping the process of manufacturing.

It is because of this that advertising becomes an inundating experience, ubiquitous and even subliminal.  Klein cites Calvin Klein’s lacing Ticketmaster concert tickets with his perfume “CK Be” and Levi’s ads in public washrooms.  Regardless of place or time one is perpetually a recipient of some form of advertising.  But the empty world of marketing is problematic as we see as Klein discusses the events of “Marlboro Friday.”

Marlboro Friday radically called brand values into question when Philip Morris announced a price cut of Marlboro cigarettes by 20 percent in order to compete with bargain brands that were cutting too deeply into the tobacco market.  The fact that Marlboro was so quick to slash prices made people question whether Marlboro’s product price reflected its quality.  Big trusted brands like Marlboro that sell their images make people accept the prices that are prescribed to their products.  The belief is one that says this, Yes this cigarette has the right to be expensive because it not any old cigarette, it is a Marlboro cigarette.

But like Wall Street believes the companies who base their sales on the philosophy of selling their images will always be okay as long as they always believe that and never blink.  Like the aspirations of Absolut Vodka, all brands want to “quietly become integrated into the heart of culture.” And the ones that we allow to become big, they already have, they have solidified their way into our culture.  Apple, Nike, Burberry these are companies that have us convinced that they are necessities in the network of culture.  These kinds of brands are the ones that make you stop and think, what would this world be without iPhones, Jordans, and absurdly expensive trench coats?

Both of these writers walk us through the plot of two different movies. Anthony Lane reviews the movie Speed in a clear and concise manner. Although it was not a very formal review I still understand him. He engaged the reader and towards the end makes us feel empathetic with the movie plot even though it was not a very good one.

West however writes a review that is structured more like a ranting blog post rather than an actual review. It reminded me a lot of the articles that pop up on Facebook from Buzzfeed or one of the other sites. It was very distracting to read with all the cursing and the capital words. Although I do agree that Love Actually was “shit”, her review made me want to hate her more.

Each writer structured it this way for a different reason; most likely to reach a specific target audience.

Reading these two one after the other really shows the difference in writing culture. Writing online is a completely different style and form now.

I never watched an episode of Mad Men before but this first one was excellent. Women being inferior is definitely a recurring theme. I was not surprised to see how men treated women but it was interesting to see how women treated each other. When the “new girl” introduced herself to the other women workers, that appeared to be working in what looked like a giant walk in closet that was separated from the men, one of the workers told her to show a little leg because her boss Don Draper would like it. They were clear on the role they played in that company as employees and women, and were fine with it.

I thought it was interesting to see how Peggy changed as a character later on:

Zadie Smith’s “Two Directions of the Novel”

I read neither of these books but Smith uses them as examples of the contrasting nature in which the novel is taking: lyrical realism vs avant-garde constructive deconstruction. Lyrical realism is language used as “the smallest units of which still convey meaning, and so they will always carry the trace of the Real…this is another rule of lyrical realism: that the random detail confers the authenticity of the Real” (80-81). Smith claims that while it may sound nice, may possibly be reaching for something meaningful, it contains no depth at all – something like empty prose (83). In contrast, avant-garde concentrates on voice to challenge realism (85), more specifically, to become the criminal, “the freaks and the lost and the rejected,” the Other. However, both acknowledge their own limitations (93). Realism is temporal where as constructive deconstruction is spatial.

Anthony Lane’s Speed

This sounds like a pitch for a blockbuster film. Then it became a summary of sorts with commentary of one who is keen on the industry personnel – as if relating the movie to one who has never watched it. Unfortunately I am not in the know about many of these people and the action is too disparate to try to imagine the scenes in my mind, but I appreciate the effort. I appreciate the pun at the end more.

Lindy West “I Rewatched Love, Actually and I am here to Ruin it for You”

I never watched this movie. I don’t believe I want to. I ponder on how much this bias may be due to this article, whether it be from acknowledging the types of people who watch it and not wanting to participate in the flay or the content itself, I am unsure. Full of chatspeak (“2 tempting 2 believe” right?), hashtags (#competence), obscure acronyms (NBD – found out it meant “no big deal”), overuse of punctuation for emphasis!!! and ALL CAPS FOR DELIRIOUS OUTRAGE, this unwinding monologue speaks wholly on why the movie was so bad. Feminist, the writer appears to be staunchly.

Yet, such blatant criticism cultivates backlash, commentary, and digression prompted by random thoughts:

It appears rather popular nowadays to use animated gifs to express more than words can describe.

I remember I once perused blogs for summaries of shows I watch and wanting to know what others thought. The whole commenting system becomes like a chatroom broadcasted and ones thoughts are lost in the foray of competing minds who want to “authenticate” themselves.

I wonder if, in accordance with Smith, West’s piece would be considered the type of avant-garde writing proliferating with the advent of the internet, facilitated by the ease to post publically and freely in one’s own voice.

Well, at the very least, there always appears to be something to talk about.

In MFA vs NYC, Chad Harbach explores the two literary cultures that predominate the American publishing landscape. As the title suggests, Harbach presents the clear divide between the NYC agents and publishing houses versus the MFA degree programs in academic America. As a student uninvolved and without aspirations for the professional writing world, this paper gives me insight into sub-cultures that I would have otherwise remained ignorant of.

As an indifferent party, far more then the distinction between two publishing cultures,to me this paper brings attention to the phenomenon that is the sub-culture. Sub-culture is all pervasive and at the same time integral to the development of ideas, art, sophistication, and all the other elements that brings about value in greater society. But also, there is the primal need to belong, to belong to a larger social group. So it can be said sub-culture is no more then the union between the need to be a part of a tribe and the interest in refining a certain skill or interest.

The very nature of the tribe; an allegiance to one’s tribe versus the outsider, should be looked at critically and a cause of concern. If the tribal attribute of sub-culture is left unchecked and given the right catalyst, a divide such as that Chad Harbach is making might cause more harm to the greater society then good. Creating the MFA vs NYC distinction could insight these primal tribal urges and cause more harm within the writing world, as opposed to the critical lense into publishing culture as Harbach might have intended.

In art, we as artist have a similar goal: to share the way we see the world through of our own eyes. This could be through painting, architecture, writing, etc. These forms of art date back far before the beginning of technology. Although the art of writing predates technology, its mass production was only possible through the evolution of technology.

With that being said, many will argue that the evolution of technology has destroyed the quality of words. Hugh McGuire defines the quality of words as words “which are written, researched, edited, marketed for books” versus “ego noise” for the Internet. However, the start of the Internet was exactly that; it was seen as a way to share quality work with those around the world with a click of a button. Although that was the goal, the internet has now expanded to both intellectual and recreational purposes (recreation has taken the forefront at times).

As the use of the internet continues to expand so has its impact on the publishing industry. However, with the start of ebooks, the publishing realm has been able to stay current. As pointed out in McGuire’s article Why the Book and the Internet Will Merge, he points out the large increase of ebook sales over a 10 year span. From 2008 to 2011, ebook trade sales have increase from 1% to 20%. It is projected that trade sales will increase to 50% percent by this year. So why must we fear the rise of technology?

In his article What Is the Business of Literature?, Richard Nash discusses the connection between the preservation of literature and the business of publishing. He discusses the theory that if we lose publishing, we lose books. I do not agree. I agree that the rise of technology means an decrease of physical paper or hardback book copies. However this same rise provides us the luxury of reading on multiple devices (such as Iphones, Kindles, Tablets, and Ipads); ultimately making it more convenient. I also believe that the convenience provides us with the option to read in all situation, therefore giving us the option to read for our own leisure.

Removing the physical book from the forefront of entertainment allow elevates the creative aspects of its digital presentation. The content will not be lost, only elevated by its presentation. No longer do we simply open a book and depend of the book flap for a look into the purpose or plot of a story. Technology provides us with new was to not only present ebooks, but newspapers as well as magazines. It seems as if magazines have began to embrace technology before other forms of publications. In 2013, Vogue featured Beyonce Knowles of the cover of their January Power Issue. Although the published a paper copy, the digital version was seen as innovative. As you open up the digital copy, Beyonce turns in the sitting position in slow motion, ultimately looking at directly in the eye. The cover was not the extent of their creativity; offering both interactive videos and links to the vogue website throughout the digital copy. 2 years later, magazines like Garage, present us with the future of digital publications. Click this link to catch a glimpse of the 3-D covers presented by Garage to present the supermodels of our generation in a new form. Garage 3D Teaser

What is Business Literature?:

Exceptionalists . This is the word Richard Nash uses in the article to describe the “defenders” of the book. We have all encountered people like that in our lifetime. The ones who say, “technology is the devil! Print is dying and it is all technology’s fault”. I agree with Nash, in that the book does not need to be protected. The physical invention of the book was the way literature began to solidify. It was the turning point where people began to trust words on paper than just words coming from people’s mouths.

 ??????

*”Business of literature is publishing”: It is true. The actual money is within the publishing system. These companies are the middle men and it is understandable why they feel threatened by the increase in digital print.

Nash makes another excellent point when he remarks: “First, prior to recent innovations, manuscripts not published were unavailable for analysis. So the universe of knowledge we have about books, literature, and publishing excludes that universe of books that were never published”.

Everyone obviously knows that not all works get published. But if you really think about it, there are hundreds maybe even thousands of books that were not published because companies (The Big Six), determined they weren’t “commercial” enough.

What if some of that literary work had revolutionary ideas? Readers (us) would never know. This reminds me of “The Canon” and how the selection of these books were made while others just faded away.

Book Publishers Scramble to Rewrite Their Future:

Evan Hughes points out the flaws of publishing companies now and how they must adapt in order to flourish in this new digital print era. With more writers self-publishing and actually making more money, what future do these companies even have?

Although Hugh makes a good point that they have the connections, manpower and marketing strategy to blow up a book, it still might not be enough.

Anyone can self promote their school, job, or any organization they are a part of through social media and other channels. All it takes nowadays is enough “likes” and you can be getting interviewed by Ellen Degeneres the next day.

Why the Book and the Internet Will Merge:

The book and the Internet have already merged through Ebooks. All three of these articles are positive that technology, most importantly the Internet will actually build this new experience for readers everywhere. It creates a new type of market where the literary world meets the Internet. It will inspire people to be more creative and to do a lot more with the ideas from a book than just discussing it. Again, publishing companies may be in danger if they do not adapt but books will still be around for a very long time.

I thought these were some interesting articles on reading e books vs print books:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120765/naomi-barons-words-onscreen-fate-reading-digital-world

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/aug/19/readers-absorb-less-kindles-paper-study-plot-ereader-digitisation

This is a great video!:

The Aristocracy of Culture

After reading Bourdieu’s essay one can easily tell why Bourdieu was considered to be a renowned public intellectual. In the essay, The Aristocracy of Culture, Bourdieu draws a link between taste and culture, how consumers’ taste for the goods that they purchase on a daily bases is shaped by the culture they live in and the culture that they live in is shaped by what they consume. Furthermore, Bourdieu argues “that legitimate culture and the scientific observations it brings show certain cultural needs and based on the consumers upbringing determines their understanding.” I think that Bourdieu’s argument is not sound.  For example, Bourdieu’s would argue that a person of the upper class would be drawn to eating high end foods such as organic or very expensive foods, foods considered to be delicacies. But the following pictures show otherwise.

The people pictured above are all considered to be of the upper class due to their financial status, and yet they are all eating fast food. Bourdieu’s argument cannot really apply to these people, of course if one was to play the devil’s advocate it could be argued that eating fast food is a cultural norm for everyone. But why then is fast food associated to people of the lower classes, since it is priced down?

So even though taste and culture are very much connected the connection is not black and white. Culture can be defined in different ways based on the perspective of the person defining it.

According to Adorno and Horkheimer, the production of culture follows the rudiments of factory production as an industry derived from the rise of Capitalism. The whole concept of culture is aligned with a commercial structure, where media content is mass produced for the mass consumption of an audience of non-discriminating consumers. This type of content, or commodities, is streamlined to appeal to the masses and thus, the distinctions between what can be considered “high” and “low” culture begin to blur as leisure time becomes expendable and there are aspirations to be acquainted with high society. As an industry, culture is connotative of the active participation of the consumer to create demand. However, Adorno and Horkheimer suggest that the system has already influenced the tastes of consumers – through the manipulation of advertising what it can supply – to create a false consciousness of false needs and thus creates a cycle that is automatic and passive.  Ideologically, culture is a type of mechanism in which the totality is driven by repetition and as consumers, we are merely the victims of a monopoly.

Although Adorno and Horkheimer wrote this through the lens of of a socio-political environment after WWII in which the remnants of the totalitarian regimes influenced intellectual discourse, and the concept of the Culture Industry appears pessimistic and extreme, there are warnings that contemporary Capitalist society should still consider. The Culture Industry was meant to distract us from other obligations, to permit us a chance to become “enlightened” during our spare leisure time. However, Adorno and Horkheimer has proposed that finding an outlet in entertainment has become a prolongation of work. They claim that the type entertainment produced no longer needs the consumer to have thoughts of their own – “the product prescribes each reaction” for them (109). It comes to the point in which:

distraction becomes exertion. No stimulant concocted by the experts may escape the weary eye; in face of the slick presentation no one may appear stupid even for a moment; everyone has to keep up, emulating the smartness displayed and propagated by the production. (110)

In society there is a perceived need to conform to belong and through the production of mass culture, the strategic influence of advertising, a fantasy is created; the culture industry reinvents the “same everyday world as paradise” (113). Cultural products enable consumers to escape into “utopian” versions of our selves (the promotion and attention to self through such medium as selfies and social media is considered.) In this way, Adorno and Horkheimer believe the industry has cheated the consumers into being played into propagating the process.

I do disagree on the premise that consumers become merely passive automatons. Part of our contribution to culture derives from our own enjoyment and it is not the case that we are not interpreting the cultural works we engage with. However, with the exponential rise in the various stimuli that vie for our attention, there is a risk that we would soon become numb to mass culture.

I will end with this image because as an advertising product, it speaks loudly of what I think Adorno and Horkheimer believe how consumers are being subjected to the Culture Industry and it itself is indicative of products that are part of aspired “needs” that is promoted by the industry. (And the bold red color recalls Marxist ideology…)