I think this really plays into the idea of how artists become known, both on a professional level and from a perspective of importance in the field. It's all about the buzz they can generate from people that matter; the more 'it' people come to an opening, the better off the artist is going to sell, because it becomes hip to own his/her work. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, per se, but it helps to know that's how artists like Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst get to be so renown.
What's even more interesting is the notion of the places that don't generate buzz; are they necessarily not trendy or used? Or are they just not getting the right kind of crowd or the right kind of media attention?
This article is spot-on when it refers to the media as a "cultural gatekeeper." From the Darfur genocide to celebrity breakups, photographs, articles, and TV broadcasts help define what is popular and important. The media, in its constant presence and extensive history, holds a certain kind of authority.
There are some disturbing issues that arise as a result of this. First, if my experience in journalism has taught me anything, it's that journalism is never truly objective, even though it claims to be. A reporter or photographer will always approach a story from a specific angle, one that expresses that person's interpretation of the event at hand. In allowing the media to define what's important, then, we're essentially assuming others' perspectives. Our own opinions about what's important can easily be lost.
Second, the journalism industry is collapsing. Newspapers are declaring bankruptcy or going out of business. There have been huge layoffs in news outlets across the country. What will happen to our culture when the media is no longer there to define it?
The self-fulfilling, cyclical nature of buzz is interesting. An event is labeled as big, important, and buzzworthy because of its location, content, etc, so many people attend and it receives a good deal of attention. And then of course it is indeed a "big deal." Self-fulfilling prophecy.
Reminds me of the economy. When economists predict positive developments, people gain confidence in the country and fulfill those predictions, and vice versa. All of these factors, whether it be the government, media, etc, all the talking heads essentially, tell us what we should care about, what's going to be important, and what to watch for. And we tend to listen regardless of how "alternative" we believe ourselves to be. In fact, an "alternative" attitude is in itself a formula, one could argue, and is certainly dictated by its own set of rules and norms.
3 comments:
I think this really plays into the idea of how artists become known, both on a professional level and from a perspective of importance in the field. It's all about the buzz they can generate from people that matter; the more 'it' people come to an opening, the better off the artist is going to sell, because it becomes hip to own his/her work. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, per se, but it helps to know that's how artists like Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst get to be so renown.
What's even more interesting is the notion of the places that don't generate buzz; are they necessarily not trendy or used? Or are they just not getting the right kind of crowd or the right kind of media attention?
This article is spot-on when it refers to the media as a "cultural gatekeeper." From the Darfur genocide to celebrity breakups, photographs, articles, and TV broadcasts help define what is popular and important. The media, in its constant presence and extensive history, holds a certain kind of authority.
There are some disturbing issues that arise as a result of this. First, if my experience in journalism has taught me anything, it's that journalism is never truly objective, even though it claims to be. A reporter or photographer will always approach a story from a specific angle, one that expresses that person's interpretation of the event at hand. In allowing the media to define what's important, then, we're essentially assuming others' perspectives. Our own opinions about what's important can easily be lost.
Second, the journalism industry is collapsing. Newspapers are declaring bankruptcy or going out of business. There have been huge layoffs in news outlets across the country. What will happen to our culture when the media is no longer there to define it?
The self-fulfilling, cyclical nature of buzz is interesting. An event is labeled as big, important, and buzzworthy because of its location, content, etc, so many people attend and it receives a good deal of attention. And then of course it is indeed a "big deal." Self-fulfilling prophecy.
Reminds me of the economy. When economists predict positive developments, people gain confidence in the country and fulfill those predictions, and vice versa. All of these factors, whether it be the government, media, etc, all the talking heads essentially, tell us what we should care about, what's going to be important, and what to watch for. And we tend to listen regardless of how "alternative" we believe ourselves to be. In fact, an "alternative" attitude is in itself a formula, one could argue, and is certainly dictated by its own set of rules and norms.
Post a Comment