Shattered Glass

1 2 3 The Taste Hierarchy Although postmodernist theory argues that the distinction between popular and high culture is diminishing and thus the boundaries between classes have blurred, social stratification still subsist due to the social hierarchy of taste that relies on capital rather than accessibility. This argument is reinforced by the case study of Dutch television conducted by Kuiper. The stratified audience revealed by the ethnographic research unveils that, despite its’ accessibility and ties to popular culture, “television has not led to homogenization, democratization or fragmentation of taste” (371, Kuiper, Television and Taste hierarchy). These findings signify that a specific sort of knowledge, or what Bourdieu has coined as capital, is required. The taste hierarchy is dictated by the economic, cultural and symbolic (etc.) capital of a demographic, thus social class and education often determines an individual’s interests. However, many other factors can contribute such as age, religion, ethnicity and gender - further complicating the notion of cultural liberalism. Yet regardless of the accessibility rendered by technological developments and glocalization or the social fragmentation brought on by subcultures, the "taste public'" will always remain socially stratified. As Kuiper illustrates from her survey: “people 4 look at the same thing, to which they have equal access, but they don’t have the skills to decode it meaningfully” (371, Kuiper, Television and Taste Hierarchy). Though popular culture has debatably blurred the boundaries between class and taste in that an individual of high culture may be partial to something of low culture, this appreciation is unilateral. The average ‘joe’ will never to fully comprehend the works of high culture due to the absence of some form of capital. Despite the fact that the conceptual demarcation between high and low culture have slowly deteriorated in the wake of popular culture, there still remains a political and economic dimension that fortifies this distinction. This liberal pluralist view accounts for televisions stratified audience in the context of today’s contemporary popular culture. 5 Popular Culture & High Culture The American sociologist Herbert Gans analyzes in his work, Popular Culture and High Culture: An Analysis and Evaluation of Taste, whether the distinction differentiating popular culture from high culture remains relevant in the contemporary society we live in today. With the borders of imagined communities incessantly shifting, commercial culture, due to the multi-linguistic nature of the media, breaches the subdivisions of pride regardless of religious, political, societal, or language barriers. This transgression of borders not only metastasizes the mass circulation of products, but also facilitates the spread of hegemonic ideologies that appropriate cultural codes. The recent debate arguing that it is no longer pertinent to distinguish between high and popular culture may be true, however high culture has not ceased to exist but rather it’s been, on the contrary, redefined. To consider the repercussions of the aforementioned it is important to first reconsider the relevance of the past distinction between high and popular culture. Popular culture, although a vexed and indisputably polemical term, can be loosely defined as everything outside the particular interests of the elite class whose allegedly refined taste falls under the category of high culture. However with 6 museums, orchestras, ballets and higher education open to the general public, the territory formally occupied by the educated and privileged is now becoming a cultural arena open to the masses. The boundaries marking the disparity have blurred. As the separation between popular culture and high culture slowly diminishes, the argument for distinction becomes frail. As my Professor Nico Vink wrote in his book Dealing with Differences, “the traditional opposition between elite and popular culture has almost disappeared. In modern times, they were each other’s opposites, yet now they are mix.”1 (13) To further support his point, Vink refers to Andy Warhols’ lithographs rendering the repetition of icons quintessential of American pop culture, such as Marilyn Monroe. These works of art not only serve as a social critique mirroring America’s inclination towards mass production and ceaseless consumption, but furthermore blur the lines dividing high culture from pop. Yet, I suggest that this bleeding together of cultures is not unilateral in the sense that the mainstream is inundating a space formally occupied by the upper class, but rather the elite have also recognized the economic and political potential lacing the mass media. 1 Vink, Nico, Dealing with Differences (Amsterdam: KIT Publishers, 2005) 12-13. 7 The global onslaught of the multinational conglomerates owned and controlled by the elite must not be overlooked, as their role in the production of television, music, advertisement, films, brand names, commercials, magazine and fashion is indisputable. The pervasive and transitory nature of pop culture is not only subject to change but also an initiator of it. Infused with political propaganda that fuels the naturalization of stereotypes and globalization of capitalism, the hegemonic agenda mediated by the mass media is veiled by ideological innocence. Due to popular cultures faculty to sway the minds of the masses, it harbors a political dimension in its ability to manipulate the public via infiltrating the media with hegemonic ideologies that support the socioeconomic interests of the power that be. Popular culture in its multitude of forms engenders the possibility to be lived vicariously through, thus influencing not only the way people think but also live. In short, although the distinction between popular culture and high culture has become increasingly irrelevant, it is important to acknowledge that high culture has not disappeared but rather redefined and disguised itself within the realm of popular culture. 8 “Thoughts on Audiences” Martha Rosler’s article, “Lookers, Buyers, Dealers, and Markets: Thoughts on Audience,” positions the photographic medium within the art world, while deconstructing notions of the spectator and high culture. Rosler’s discursive argument is concerned with when and how photography penetrated high culture, which she claims occurred in a “moment of hesitation” (Rosler 37) in the art world. Furthermore, Rosler begs the question of how the ownership of culture is determined and who defines the dichotomy of taste. The art world is constituted of a set of relations. The cultural capital of great works of art translates into economic capital. Thus, art can be understood as a form of currency. When uncertainty is lacing economic conditions, as now, many investors look to buy art. The commodity fetishism of art is unique in that its use and exchange value is hinged on taste and is thus ambiguous. As it were, there are works of art out there that the hegemonic order has deemed priceless. These masterpieces are in the possession of a select few individuals of the elite. In short, those who can afford high art, define it. This just goes to show “how closely art is tied to commodity production” (Rosler 32). 9 High culture may be owned by the elite, however, “the widest audience is made up of onlookers- people outside the group generally meant by the term ‘audience’” (Rosler 14). This article is in many ways temporally tied to the time in which it was written, as the distinction today differentiating low culture from high is in a state of decay due to pervasive nature of popular culture. I dare not be so bold to suggest that high culture cease to exist, but rather I’d argue it has been redefined. After all, popular culture, although a vexed and indisputably polemical term, pertains to everything outside the particular interests of the elite class whose allegedly refined taste falls under the category of high culture. However with museums, orchestras, ballets and higher education open to the general public, the territory formally occupied by the educated and privileged is now becoming a cultural arena open to the masses. The boundaries marking the disparity have blurred, and the argument for distinction becomes frail. This bleeding together of cultures is not unilateral in the sense that the mainstream is inundating a space formally occupied by the upper class, but rather the elite have also recognized the economic and political potential lacing the mass media. The pervasive and transitory nature of pop culture is not only subject to change but also an initiator of it. Due to popular cultures faculty to sway the minds of the masses, 10 it harbors a political dimension in its ability to manipulate the public via infiltrating the media with hegemonic ideologies that support the socioeconomic interests of the power that be. Photography’s role in the aforementioned is unparalleled given that it is a medium that has the propensity to manipulate images of the world. It’s relationship with truth, reality and representation positions photography in a category of its own. However, like other art forms photography had to “reconfigure its own high culture/ low culture split: a central matter for photography, which has penetrated daily life and informed our sense of culture as no form of visual representation has before” (Rosler 35). In short, although the distinction between popular culture and high culture has become increasingly irrelevant, it is important to acknowledge

Load more