Just Looking ...

I agree that we are "unaware of the degree of influence that pop culture has on our lives." And I think you had a valid point that "everything is popular culture". But I dont think this is because they exist in oposition to what is really "popular," but because when a group such as the goths form to resist the popular culture, they are actually creating their own realm of popular culture. They like certain music, dress a certain way, and probably even talk about things in a certain way.

So maybe, there is one ultimate popular culture made up of several mini-popular cultures. For example, by chance I know a lot of people who skateboard, and they seem to have their own language, style of dress and musical taste as well. But there will always be things that over-lap through all mini-groups. Maybe there are things that are popular across all mini-popular groups, maybe something such as the Beatles? And those who resist are those who outwardly express their disdain of the Beatles BECAUSE they are so popular.

Or maybe popular culture only exists within these groups of skateboarders, gothics, athletes, and so on? But then how can we have a popular culture of Canada of the U.S.?

I know this might be a bit late but I thought I’d see if anyone felt the same as me regarding this topic.

When we discussed shopping as resistance, can it really be seen as resistance? How do we know if we are truly resisting what we are meant to conform to? How do we know that it is just the act of purchasing that we are to resist? Going to the mall alone would be a form of conforming, would it not? Although the woman did not keep anything she purchased, she still did conform to society’s idea of what a women’s place in the mall should be; she should browse, spend time and inevitably, she will buy something, thus, conforming. Theoretically, even if she never bought anything, her refusal to buy is so that she avoids conforming to what pop culture wants, so pop culture continues to have an influence on her and her resistance should be seen as a form of conforming. Can anything be seen as resistance?

I believe that the idea of “resisting” comes from pop culture. So if society says that one way is correct, I think that ‘it’ knows that there are people that will “resist”*, but I also think that the people resist because the culture itself expects them to. So in a sense, they are conforming. For example, I don’t see that gothic individuals directly fall under pop culture the way the average person in society does, however, because they are attempting to be different (because society pressures them to be different), to resist pop culture, they are still conforming to some extent. Those same individuals that are gothic right now probably would not be gothic if the gothic culture was “pop culture”. So really, everything is pop culture. It influences us all whether we admit it or not. We are all conforming regardless of how resistant we think we might be.

It kind of reminds me of real and reality in a weird way. The way that language and myth are said to take us away from the real, I think that pop culture takes us away from what we really think we want. What we may really want, we might resist because we feel that we'll be comforming. So we will never really know if we are resisting or conforming because we are unaware of thedegree of influence that pop culture has on our lives.

It’s difficult for me to get across what my idea’s are, but I hope I have displayed some idea of what is in my mind. It is also possible that I am thinking of these terms in a way that differs from its intended meaning, thus, making my idea void but I still wanted to share it…

* that form of resistance is what they’re looking for, making it a form of conforming.

Hello students,
The Mitchell book is now in the U of T Bookstore.
As for the essay proposal, I apologize for the fact that some outdated web pages may have confused you as to where it is to be sent. The problem should be fixed now. The address is kalmarcourses@yahoo.com.

Hey, is anyone else having problems with Emma's e-mail address, it keeps on bouncing back when I try to e-mail her!

Hello students,
In case you haven't heard, there will be a tutorial on Friday after class. Attendance is voluntary.

To go back to what we discussed in the first class, in my personal experience - or the personal experience of two of my closest friends, who are both in long-term relationships - it's generally the men who drive in relationships. However, this isn't so much a matter of deferral of power, as much as a monetary issue. In this instance, the seating actually relates back to the deeper issue of men generally earning a higher income. (Another issue altogether!) For one friend, the man is the owner of the car, and therefore drives it. For the other, she's too cheap to pay for more gas than absolutely necessary. If he can drive - whether to the grocery store or out of province - she will more than happily take the maps. The driver, of course, is the one who leaves the car to fill up the tank and thus pays.

Secondly, both the men are far more interested in cars than either of my friends. Neither care to drive, and find the responsibility of maintaining a vehicle that is enjoyable to drive (with toys like GPS and crazy sound systems) cumbersome, so they pass the responsibility on. I do have a female friend who does enjoy being behind the wheel, and has pride of ownership in her vehicle, so much so that she's put "Princess" decals on her vehicle and a big pink ribbon for breast cancer on the back. Her boyfriend refuses to drive it, so she drives, even when they're together.

To get back to the title of this post - and agree with Nadine's statement - all of these women find themselves in the position of driving their boyfriends home in the evening. The man WOULD be driving home - if he wasn't incapacitated! At most social events, the woman is expected to drive. Most men might typically enjoy driving, but they enjoy drinking more. I wouldn't say that this circumstance of female driving and men in the passenger's seat shows any liberation or empowerment on the part of the women. They drive because the men tell them to - they get put into a mothering position.

In short, during the day - "regular" driving - it is not an issue of female subservience. The men drive more because they enjoy driving - putting the money necessary into making is enjoyable, as well as the act itself. We let them have that, primarily because we don't care. When drinking is involved, and the woman actually is driving, ironically, it is less of a choice on her part. It's an issue of safety, and taking on the responsibility of having someone in your care.

[Image credit: www.art.com]

Today Prof. Kalmar spoke about incorporation, and the ways in which the 'power block' immediately incorporate any methods of resistance that it perceives. That comment immediately brought to my mind those 'Che Guevara' T-shirts that can be seen everywhere recently. This is a perfect example of incorporation in that Guevara, one of the most tangible symbols of non-capitalist thinking, has been incorporated into the Capitalist system to such a degree that everyone has seen his image at least once. I wonder, however, if we questioned these people wearing these shirts - how many of them would know of Guevara's extensive contribution to Cuba's revolution? Or, has the author of 'Socialism and Man in Cuba' become merely a symbol of trendy fashion?

Maybe these fashion-conscious consumers should instead be wearing a shirt I saw while walking downtown the other day: it had the usual image of Guevara printed in white on a black background. However, below the print was written - 'I do not know who this man is.'

Thoughts, anyone?

Today in class Professor Kalmar talked about some technologies that have changed the way we live, including different musical technologies. If anyone is interested, there is a very good article by Reebee Garofalo regarding the evolution of the music industry. Here is the full citation:

Reebee Garofalo, "From Music Publishing to MP3: Music and Industry in the Twentieth Century." American Music 17/3 (Autumn 1999), pp. 318-354.

It talks about how technology has changed the music we listen to (for example, prior to the printing press, music was limited to church/religious music (ritual); but with the printing press, music became more secularized. The invention of the gramophone led to the ability to mass produce records (initially, they were made out of shellac, which was very fragile), and led to people having more choice in the music they listened to. Professor Kalmar talked about the influence of television, but what is also interesting is the impact that television had on radio. Prior to TV, radio stations were mainly network radio (CBS, NBC), but when TV overtook radio, that was the end of network radio, and paved the way for independent radio stations who chose the music that they wanted to play. Of course, today with the Internet, people have even more control over the music that they choose to listen to, and in some cases, have more direct access to artists.

In class today the professor brought up his observation that men drive while women are the passenger, I do agree with his statement but I have notice and from my personal experience, men may start the night off driving while women usually are the ones who drive home from an evening night! Any thoughts???

Here are some pictures that might help you to visualize what we meant by "fascist and communist art" in class (not what Benjamin meant, because to him the two things were quite different while visually, you will see, they were quite similar). You can find many more examples browsing the web. The building is in Mussolini's EUR area of Rome. The Soviet posters can be recognized by the Russian writing. The rest are pictures from Hitler's 1936 rally in Nuremberg.
For those with a more serious interest: have a look at Susan Sontag's review of Liefa Riefenstahl's photographs.