On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Karla Robinson < karlasrobin...@zoominternet.net> wrote:
> I beg to differ. > > If we, as a culture, spend a large portion of our discretionary time with > media, shouldn't we study it? Shouldn't we have symposia where we discuss > why reality TV is so popular? What it might be doing to our culture? > > I'm sort of shocked hearing that statement coming from you, Kevin, as you > are one of our most prolific writers about all things pop cultural. > > These types of symposia have been going on for a long time...anyone > remember > the heyday of "Madonna Studies"? While "Jersey Shore" may not qualify as > high art, there are TV shows that do, in my opinion, and I think discussing > them as high art is totally appropriate. > > (Yes, that's the Ph.D. in communications talking. Yes, I get a little > defensive when people question my entire field's raison d'etre. And yes, I > too hate the very notion of Jersey Shore, but I don't think that means we > shouldn't talk about it.) > To be fair to the University of Chicago (and academic institutions everywhere), note the following from the linked article: "David Showalter, a supremely self-possessed senior who secured financing for the conference outside the aegis of any particular academic department". I assume that the fact that Kevin, who as Karla notes is no stranger to using pop culture as a subject of academic study, is criticizing this particular event implies that he is not criticizing all pop cultural studies, but this particular one. Freud saw art as a sublimation of unconscious id impulses; while he himself tended to interpret high art (Sophocles, Shakespeare, Leonardo and Michelangelo for example) he opened the door to the study of any creative product not as high art, but as symptoms to be interpreted. In that sense, no matter how low the brow, there may be some value in studying pop culture phenomena, as they may provide clues about the underlying needs, conflicts and impulses of the culture in which it is popular. However, if pop culture is going to be studied, as Karla suggests, in the same way that high art is, then I think there should be at least some of the form of art - disciplined imagination, intentional use and play with underlying themes, skillful techniques. Star Trek, Buffy, The Simpsons, Seinfeld and the Sopranos are examples of recent pop culture that have been dissected and deconstructed as often or more than any Greek, British or Russian play or novel. As pop art these television programs are less complex, less subtle, less skillfully executed than their high art cousins (which is why they are more accessible and popular), but they approximate art sufficiently to justify and repay scholarly examination on their own terms, and not just in terms of the function they play and clues they provide to the primitive psyche of the subculture. I have never seen the Jersey Shore, but what I have heard of it makes me doubt it could pass even the most modest bar to justify study on its own terms. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
