Peterson’s whole idea seems interesting in theory, but once he starts laying out charts and actually starts categorizing people numerically, it gets a little ridiculous in my mind (similar to the scene in Dead Poets Society in which the editor of the book suggests that one can “graph” the successfulness of a poem). While it seems admirable to differentiate between the true “snob” and the more “omnivorous” consumer of mass media and culture (despite the entire article making me hungry), by categorizing music without any room for exceptions just seems silly. Especially in this day and age, there is obviously overlap between any and all types of music among all levels of class, economic status, or hierarchy of consumption. While it is interesting to note that people of an “upper” class of consumption of media are becoming more and more available to different types of media, at the same time this could be easily assumed considering the growth in technology and how media is now spread.
John Clarke • “bricolage” – the re-ordering and re-contextualization of objects to communicate fresh meanings, within a total system of significances, which already includes prior and sedimented meanings attached ot the objects used. (p.117) o Seems to be similar to pretty much the only way we come up with new plot lines for movies or TV shows today: pitching, Film A + Film B = NEW Film C (→ example of the evolution of “Mod” style in England) • “the music and fashion industries have generally been limited to working ‘variations on a theme” p. 187
• Chart on p. 183 reminds me of the map we've been looking at in class: "Cubism and Abstract Art"
• What’s interesting to me is that it seems odd when Peterson categorizes what he does, but in Clarke’s article it seems to make more sense when in reality what he’s doing is pretty much the same as Peterson, but instead of focusing on activities and class systems, he’s focusing on everything but in a more specific way. Does breaking it up into more specific social “groups” make it somehow more acceptable in my mind? Why is this? o Used to generalizing groups and/or stereotyping people within these kinds of subgroups, so there has always been an assumed truth to them.
The second point in Clarke’s article discussed generating style. He talked about the generation of styles is not created from nothing rather from transformation and rearranging what is borrowed into a pattern which carries new meaning. This resonated with Burger and the avant-gardiste who killed the medium and re arranged its fragments to create new meaning. Are these methods in a sense appropriation even if the whole of something is not borrowed? Furthermore does this appropriation even if partial take away from the aura of the borrowed/appropriated thing? If so is there anything with its aura completely intact?
The sixth point of Clarke’s article discussed consequences of stylistic differentiation. In the selection of symbolic objects by the group it is important that the group be able to recognize itself and define their own image in part by reference to their differences from the other group. This is kind of like the Mouffe with the concept of constructing an ‘us’ by differentiating it from a ‘them’. Is the differentiation between the styles of two groups related to language? In so far that a letter doesn’t mean anything alone, and when in a word like CAT the letter C only relates to A and T that it not either one of them. All three letters together as an ensemble create meaning of a furry animal?
Peterson's research deals with the shift from snobbish to omnivorous aesthetic taste. He mentions that at a certain point it became increasingly obvious that the quality of art did not inhere in the work itself, but in the evaluations made by the art world. What makes something aesthetically "elite"? Opera and Classical music are "highbrow" forms of music, but I wonder whether this elitism comes from something about their actual aesthetics or if it is completely a socially (critically) based phenomenon?
Clarke describes a key aspect of defining a group style as the positive and negative definitions that form an us and them. How does this way of defining group membership or style by what we are not, or what aesthetic taste we do not like, play into the trend reported by Peterson of a more omnivorous aesthetic in highbrow culture?
Are high-brow people really becoming more omniovorous, or is all culture converging on a middle-ground? Broadway musicals, according to the studies, are middle-brow, but it is currently popular for Broadway scores to be set to rock/r&b/pop music. Equally, in Beyonce’s “Single Ladies” music video, she uses Broadway choreography in her low-brow music. Will everything eventually converge into “middle-browness?”
Or… do the elite now have weak ties with low- and middle-brow culture? Is it simply that, due to an increased abundance in weak ties, we are more inclined to appreciate them, as if they were strong ties? Peterson’s article suggests that so long as a form can be understood, it can be appreciated (the reason why more high-brows can appreciate blues because there is high-brow writing that intelligently unpacks the music). Your friend’s friend is a weak-tie. So, if you are a snob, you are friends with scholars, and a blues scholar has a strong tie with blues music. Thus, you gain a weak-tie “friend” of blues music.
Is art changing to be more universal, or is our connection to the art simply shortening?
When I first started reading Peterson's article I was not sure if it was some kind of hoax. It is ridiculous to try to quantify social change, music taste, and artistic value. To categorize certain genres that are traditionally seen as "highbrow" or "lowbrow" is subscribing to a completely backwards system of stereotyping based on race and social status. I was hoping this was a satirical article on how people once rationalized social change, acceptance, and integration. There was a section in the article on Art-World change as being one of the major proponents describing the development of the "omnivore." It got me thinking of the movement in public art today, and art directed towards social change. How would Peterson judge and categorize this type of practice? It would go against his idea that "the quality of art did not inhere in the work itself, but in the evaluations made by the art world." How could he assess this, seeing as how social art is about the action and the value is in the work, the process, the interactions and is no longer necessarily being motivated by the gallery space and desire to please critics? Even if this article was written a little over ten years ago, its ideas are still unnerving. The statistics in the article seem misinformed and more like blanket assumptions. It was also interesting to see Peterson's reading in relation to Clarke statement about how a group is defined just as much by the positive aspects that hold them together as much as it is the things that keep them separate from everyone else. Again, it is this idea of "exclusion." Can you exclude and distinguish yourself without it having an elitist undertone? Clarke views this spreading of disparate styles as a result of the youth market highlighting differences, while Peterson sees the development of the omnivore as a result of more open-mindedness.
Clarke brings up the issue of dominant cultures exploiting subcultures through marketing and advertising. When discussing the public sphere many weeks ago, we talked about the disappointment many people feel when their local favorite bands suddenly become mainstream and massively popular. Does this disappointment stem from a a fear/repulsion of this exploitation that Clarke speaks of?
Peterson talks about a trend of less and less exclusion occurring in society today with respect to the fine arts. Where will this trend lead? Is it here to stay or is it a temporary fad? If it's here to stay, what are its potential effects on museums and art galleries?
I am very interested in Granovetter's discussion of class in relation to weak/strong ties and mobility. have we frozen the class structure indirectly, as weak ties are only available (or useful) with their relation to education? (ie. "The use of weak ties in finding jobs has a strong association with higher occupational achievement only insofar as the weak ties connect the respondent to an individual who is well placed in the occupational structure."....that is, you can only get ahead if you know people who are already there.) first, is it necessary to change things? if so, how can we create a shift in inter-class mobility? also, how does this link to the way we live (clustered according to class/income in cities/suburbs or sprawled out in rural areas) and how it has changed over time?
with regards to the Peterson article: i sense a theme of accessibility here. anyone can buy any album in a music store (provided they have the cash), but there is definitely a cultural distinction between these genres that Peterson classifies as "high" "middle" and "low" brow that we all have some feel for. In The Daily Northwestern they have (or at least used to have?) a section reviewing three new albums, split into "high brow" "middle brow" and "low brow". where did this construction originate and why is it so lasting? is it sustained by just the "snob", or might it also be sustained by the devotees of "lowbrow" culture?
1) Clarke introduces the Levi-Strauss' concept of "bricolage," to exemplify how signs, the products of objects given specificly attached meanings, when re-located or re-contextualized develop complete new meanings. However, what Clarke does not take into consideration are universal signs: objects, that when placed into a new environment, maintain the same meaning. How would he incorporate this aspect into his argument for generating style?
2) In Granovetter's article, he argues for the strength of weak ties (acquaintances) and consequently, the weakness of strong ties (close friends). In defending the case of weak ties, he mentions Simmel's view which states that "the fact that an individual can live up to expectations of several others in different places and at different times makes it possible to preserve an inner core, to withhold inner attitudes while conforming to various expectations." Her statement seems conflicting, for it seems to undermine the strength and value of peer influence. When people conform to environments/opinions that diverge from their own, aren't they more pressured and likely to accept those opposing views because human beings innately desire to fit in, to go "with" the norm and not "against" it. How does Simmel propose that such individuals maintain their inner core?
Granovetter argues that weak social ties are responsible for the majority of the embeddedness and structure of social networks in society as well as the transmission of information through these networks. Specifically, more novel information flows to individuals through weak rather than strong ties. Because our close friends tend to move in the same circles that we do, the information they receive overlaps considerably with what we already know. He highlights that in fact that the only thing that can connect two social networks with strong ties is a weak tie: "these clumps (strong ties networks) would not, in fact, be connected to one another at all were it not for the existence of weak ties." This reminds me of a discussion we had in class. Doesn't it follow then that in an all-covering social network with few weak links individuals are at a disadvantage compared to those with multiple weak links? How does this tie into the importance of mobility in today's world, and urban versus less developed/third world/rural demographics? What are economic realities come into play?
Peterson's theory seems to be missing interpretation, the deciphering of meaning of cultural objects as opposed to simply measuring their effect. If culture is a web of symbols and meanings, as we've discussed, than isn't any discussion of culture that solely integrates institutional factors, in fact a biased discussion? Could Peterson's "culture" be understood as only an abstract variable? Also, does Peterson's idea lack an evaluative stance towards culture and the culture industries? The term "production" sounds Marxist, but in this article it seems to function more as a metaphor than a concrete category. Instead of thinking of society in terms of class then, how does he organize or stratify society?
1. Peterson writes, "critical observers have suggested that when highbrows are open to non-highbrow art forms, they seek out lowbrow forms created by socially marginal groups while still holding commercial middlebrow forms in contempt" (901). This got me thinking about other forms of highbrow and lowbrow culture, namely, international travel. In today's increasingly global, networked society, one is looked upon favorably for traveling to foreign countries. Indeed, a highbrow person is someone who has traveled the world and cares about global issues. Similar to what Peterson suggests in the quote, the highbrow traveler has also become more of an omnivore. It's not just traveling that makes you a highbrow, but traveling to developing countries and places where there are "socially marginal groups." Travel to these sorts of places makes a person more worldly and elevates his status. It shows he is informed about global events and crises, and perhaps more aware of suffering. However, travel to these kinds of countries can be prohibitively expensive and becomes somewhat exclusive. Ironically, in trying to be more of an omnivore, one can easily become a snob. Does this occur in other arenas, as well? How does an increased openness to the world lead, paradoxically, to exclusivity?
2. Clarke writes, "the objects, the 'gear' used to assemble a new subcultural style must not only already exist, but must also carry meanings organized into a system coherent enough for their relocation and transformation to be understood as a transformation. There's no point in it, if the new assemblage looks exactly like, carries the same message as, that previously existing" (177-8). This quote reminds me of the myriad subcultures I've encountered. There are the punks, the goths, the emo kids, the bros, the bro-hoes, the skaters, the hipsters, etc. These groups seem to try to distinguish themselves, but ironically, I can't always tell them apart. Their clothing, make-up, etc. are often very similar. I guess I'm just wondering to what extent Clarke's assertion is accurate. It seems like the more subcultures try to set themselves apart, the more similar they become.
Peterson's ideas of snobbery versus omnivorousness were rather interesting, and I believe fairly accurately reflective of contemporary American society. Take the evolution of punk, for example. With a staunch doctrine of opposing the norms of mass culture, punk music and culture - arguably the most important subculture in the past century - asserted snobbery through highly specific tastes. Since the dominant subculture has since evolved and has fallen from it's power-cord driven, loud-screaming vocals, and studded leather, it has become significantly more eclectic. Currently, the dominant subculture - hipster culture - totes an eclectic taste. Whereas formerly dominant punk/hardcore/emo subculture scenes established snobbery, the new subculture establishes snobbery through a claim of universal appreciation of so-called good music and approved by the hipster bible Pitchfork media. With this outpouring of omnivorousness, however contrived it might be, raises the question: is punk dead? Arguably emo music was the last true incarnation of punk, with a driving DIY aesthetic and strict social and musical creed. Indeed, with the rise of stores such as Urban Outfitters, Free People, and Untitled - not to mention Hot Topic - populating downtown Chicago and suburban soccer-mom and pre-teen-girl ridden strip malls, "particular style is dislocated from the context and group which generated it" - is subcultural identity really subculture? The abhorrently cliche film Garden State seems to reflect this climate: by unabashedly dissenting for the mere sake of difference and a false claim of individuality, the film simply reinforces the cliches it so defiantly claims and attempts to subvert.
I found it highly amusing that I dropped a class about social networks early this quarter, only to find myself reading the Granovetter essay. Regardless, he argues that "social structure creates inflexibility in the form of arrogance." He also says that weak ties allow for mobility. Does this apply to political structures as well? If this is true, does this mean that weak ties form more easily in a communist or capitalist society? In communist society there is little to no class mobility, therefore there shouldn't be many weak ties. Does this make it so that there are less bridges between groups and informations does not travel like it would in a more politically structured society?
Regarding the Peterson article, I was also able to apply knowledge from my exploitation film class. PEterson focused largely on music, but in terms of film, many learned film scholars choose to study "lowbrow," camp films because there is opportunity to have "good taste in bad taste." There is mention that to be omnivorous is to be open to lowbrow art forms, but in a way, isn't the person being ironic and exclusive? Many scholars and highbrows still tend to be snobby by immersing themselves in lowbrow culture, but still maintain to be specific in taste.
I agree with Cassidy in that Peterson gets a bit carried away with his analysis. I'm not sure that it's even valid to characterize somebody who likes classical music and opera as highbrow to begin with, much less use it as a basis for comparison for other genres. His explanation for why he used music instead of other forms of artistic measurement was also fairly vague, although it has to do with the fact that just about everybody listens to some sort of music, and not everybody is exposed to the traditional notion of art. But is that even valid? How can visual media be broken down in similar ways? What would we define as highbrow v lowbrow visual culture, as opposed to musical culture?
In reference to Granovetter, I am particularly interested in the notion of 'utility friends,' a concept I learned about in an Art of Rhetoric class. The idea is quite similar to that of weak ties, but discusses how we form relationships based on the necessity of having people in particular situations in order to feel well adjusted. Utility friends, for lack of a better explanation, are ones one uses to achieve a particular purpose, much like the weak ties we have with acquaintances as noted by Granovetter.
13 comments:
Peterson’s whole idea seems interesting in theory, but once he starts laying out charts and actually starts categorizing people numerically, it gets a little ridiculous in my mind (similar to the scene in Dead Poets Society in which the editor of the book suggests that one can “graph” the successfulness of a poem). While it seems admirable to differentiate between the true “snob” and the more “omnivorous” consumer of mass media and culture (despite the entire article making me hungry), by categorizing music without any room for exceptions just seems silly. Especially in this day and age, there is obviously overlap between any and all types of music among all levels of class, economic status, or hierarchy of consumption. While it is interesting to note that people of an “upper” class of consumption of media are becoming more and more available to different types of media, at the same time this could be easily assumed considering the growth in technology and how media is now spread.
John Clarke
• “bricolage” – the re-ordering and re-contextualization of objects to communicate fresh meanings, within a total system of significances, which already includes prior and sedimented meanings attached ot the objects used. (p.117)
o Seems to be similar to pretty much the only way we come up with new plot lines for movies or TV shows today: pitching, Film A + Film B = NEW Film C (→ example of the evolution of “Mod” style in England)
• “the music and fashion industries have generally been limited to working ‘variations on a theme” p. 187
• Chart on p. 183 reminds me of the map we've been looking at in class: "Cubism and Abstract Art"
• What’s interesting to me is that it seems odd when Peterson categorizes what he does, but in Clarke’s article it seems to make more sense when in reality what he’s doing is pretty much the same as Peterson, but instead of focusing on activities and class systems, he’s focusing on everything but in a more specific way. Does breaking it up into more specific social “groups” make it somehow more acceptable in my mind? Why is this?
o Used to generalizing groups and/or stereotyping people within these kinds of subgroups, so there has always been an assumed truth to them.
The second point in Clarke’s article discussed generating style. He talked about the generation of styles is not created from nothing rather from transformation and rearranging what is borrowed into a pattern which carries new meaning. This resonated with Burger and the avant-gardiste who killed the medium and re arranged its fragments to create new meaning. Are these methods in a sense appropriation even if the whole of something is not borrowed? Furthermore does this appropriation even if partial take away from the aura of the borrowed/appropriated thing? If so is there anything with its aura completely intact?
The sixth point of Clarke’s article discussed consequences of stylistic differentiation. In the selection of symbolic objects by the group it is important that the group be able to recognize itself and define their own image in part by reference to their differences from the other group. This is kind of like the Mouffe with the concept of constructing an ‘us’ by differentiating it from a ‘them’. Is the differentiation between the styles of two groups related to language? In so far that a letter doesn’t mean anything alone, and when in a word like CAT the letter C only relates to A and T that it not either one of them. All three letters together as an ensemble create meaning of a furry animal?
Peterson's research deals with the shift from snobbish to omnivorous aesthetic taste. He mentions that at a certain point it became increasingly obvious that the quality of art did not inhere in the work itself, but in the evaluations made by the art world. What makes something aesthetically "elite"? Opera and Classical music are "highbrow" forms of music, but I wonder whether this elitism comes from something about their actual aesthetics or if it is completely a socially (critically) based phenomenon?
Clarke describes a key aspect of defining a group style as the positive and negative definitions that form an us and them. How does this way of defining group membership or style by what we are not, or what aesthetic taste we do not like, play into the trend reported by Peterson of a more omnivorous aesthetic in highbrow culture?
Are high-brow people really becoming more omniovorous, or is all culture converging on a middle-ground? Broadway musicals, according to the studies, are middle-brow, but it is currently popular for Broadway scores to be set to rock/r&b/pop music. Equally, in Beyonce’s “Single Ladies” music video, she uses Broadway choreography in her low-brow music. Will everything eventually converge into “middle-browness?”
Or… do the elite now have weak ties with low- and middle-brow culture? Is it simply that, due to an increased abundance in weak ties, we are more inclined to appreciate them, as if they were strong ties? Peterson’s article suggests that so long as a form can be understood, it can be appreciated (the reason why more high-brows can appreciate blues because there is high-brow writing that intelligently unpacks the music). Your friend’s friend is a weak-tie. So, if you are a snob, you are friends with scholars, and a blues scholar has a strong tie with blues music. Thus, you gain a weak-tie “friend” of blues music.
Is art changing to be more universal, or is our connection to the art simply shortening?
When I first started reading Peterson's article I was not sure if it was some kind of hoax. It is ridiculous to try to quantify social change, music taste, and artistic value. To categorize certain genres that are traditionally seen as "highbrow" or "lowbrow" is subscribing to a completely backwards system of stereotyping based on race and social status. I was hoping this was a satirical article on how people once rationalized social change, acceptance, and integration.
There was a section in the article on Art-World change as being one of the major proponents describing the development of the "omnivore." It got me thinking of the movement in public art today, and art directed towards social change. How would Peterson judge and categorize this type of practice? It would go against his idea that "the quality of art did not inhere in the work itself, but in the evaluations made by the art world." How could he assess this, seeing as how social art is about the action and the value is in the work, the process, the interactions and is no longer necessarily being motivated by the gallery space and desire to please critics? Even if this article was written a little over ten years ago, its ideas are still unnerving. The statistics in the article seem misinformed and more like blanket assumptions.
It was also interesting to see Peterson's reading in relation to Clarke statement about how a group is defined just as much by the positive aspects that hold them together as much as it is the things that keep them separate from everyone else. Again, it is this idea of "exclusion." Can you exclude and distinguish yourself without it having an elitist undertone? Clarke views this spreading of disparate styles as a result of the youth market highlighting differences, while Peterson sees the development of the omnivore as a result of more open-mindedness.
Clarke brings up the issue of dominant cultures exploiting subcultures through marketing and advertising. When discussing the public sphere many weeks ago, we talked about the disappointment many people feel when their local favorite bands suddenly become mainstream and massively popular. Does this disappointment stem from a a fear/repulsion of this exploitation that Clarke speaks of?
Peterson talks about a trend of less and less exclusion occurring in society today with respect to the fine arts. Where will this trend lead? Is it here to stay or is it a temporary fad? If it's here to stay, what are its potential effects on museums and art galleries?
I am very interested in Granovetter's discussion of class in relation to weak/strong ties and mobility. have we frozen the class structure indirectly, as weak ties are only available (or useful) with their relation to education? (ie. "The use of weak ties in finding jobs has a strong association with higher occupational achievement only insofar as the weak ties connect the respondent to an individual who is well placed in the occupational structure."....that is, you can only get ahead if you know people who are already there.)
first, is it necessary to change things? if so, how can we create a shift in inter-class mobility? also, how does this link to the way we live (clustered according to class/income in cities/suburbs or sprawled out in rural areas) and how it has changed over time?
with regards to the Peterson article:
i sense a theme of accessibility here. anyone can buy any album in a music store (provided they have the cash), but there is definitely a cultural distinction between these genres that Peterson classifies as "high" "middle" and "low" brow that we all have some feel for. In The Daily Northwestern they have (or at least used to have?) a section reviewing three new albums, split into "high brow" "middle brow" and "low brow". where did this construction originate and why is it so lasting? is it sustained by just the "snob", or might it also be sustained by the devotees of "lowbrow" culture?
1)
Clarke introduces the Levi-Strauss' concept of "bricolage," to exemplify how signs, the products of objects given specificly attached meanings, when re-located or re-contextualized develop complete new meanings. However, what Clarke does not take into consideration are universal signs: objects, that when placed into a new environment, maintain the same meaning. How would he incorporate this aspect into his argument for generating style?
2)
In Granovetter's article, he argues for the strength of weak ties (acquaintances) and consequently, the weakness of strong ties (close friends). In defending the case of weak ties, he mentions Simmel's view which states that "the fact that an individual can live up to expectations of several others in different places and at different times makes it possible to preserve an inner core, to withhold inner attitudes while conforming to various expectations." Her statement seems conflicting, for it seems to undermine the strength and value of peer influence. When people conform to environments/opinions that diverge from their own, aren't they more pressured and likely to accept those opposing views because human beings innately desire to fit in, to go "with" the norm and not "against" it. How does Simmel propose that such individuals maintain their inner core?
Granovetter argues that weak social ties are responsible for the majority of the embeddedness and structure of social networks in society as well as the transmission of information through these networks. Specifically, more novel information flows to individuals through weak rather than strong ties. Because our close friends tend to move in the same circles that we do, the information they receive overlaps considerably with what we already know. He highlights that in fact that the only thing that can connect two social networks with strong ties is a weak tie: "these clumps (strong ties networks) would not, in fact, be connected to one another at all were it not for the existence of weak ties." This reminds me of a discussion we had in class. Doesn't it follow then that in an all-covering social network with few weak links individuals are at a disadvantage compared to those with multiple weak links? How does this tie into the importance of mobility in today's world, and urban versus less developed/third world/rural demographics? What are economic realities come into play?
Peterson's theory seems to be missing interpretation, the deciphering of meaning of cultural objects as opposed to simply measuring their effect. If culture is a web of symbols and meanings, as we've discussed, than isn't any discussion of culture that solely integrates institutional factors, in fact a biased discussion? Could Peterson's "culture" be understood as only an abstract variable?
Also, does Peterson's idea lack an evaluative stance towards culture and the culture industries? The term "production" sounds Marxist, but in this article it seems to function more as a metaphor than a concrete category. Instead of thinking of society in terms of class then, how does he organize or stratify society?
1. Peterson writes, "critical observers have suggested that when highbrows are open to non-highbrow art forms, they seek out lowbrow forms created by socially marginal groups while still holding commercial middlebrow forms in contempt" (901). This got me thinking about other forms of highbrow and lowbrow culture, namely, international travel. In today's increasingly global, networked society, one is looked upon favorably for traveling to foreign countries. Indeed, a highbrow person is someone who has traveled the world and cares about global issues. Similar to what Peterson suggests in the quote, the highbrow traveler has also become more of an omnivore. It's not just traveling that makes you a highbrow, but traveling to developing countries and places where there are "socially marginal groups." Travel to these sorts of places makes a person more worldly and elevates his status. It shows he is informed about global events and crises, and perhaps more aware of suffering. However, travel to these kinds of countries can be prohibitively expensive and becomes somewhat exclusive. Ironically, in trying to be more of an omnivore, one can easily become a snob. Does this occur in other arenas, as well? How does an increased openness to the world lead, paradoxically, to exclusivity?
2. Clarke writes, "the objects, the 'gear' used to assemble a new subcultural style must not only already exist, but must also carry meanings organized into a system coherent enough for their relocation and transformation to be understood as a transformation. There's no point in it, if the new assemblage looks exactly like, carries the same message as, that previously existing" (177-8). This quote reminds me of the myriad subcultures I've encountered. There are the punks, the goths, the emo kids, the bros, the bro-hoes, the skaters, the hipsters, etc. These groups seem to try to distinguish themselves, but ironically, I can't always tell them apart. Their clothing, make-up, etc. are often very similar. I guess I'm just wondering to what extent Clarke's assertion is accurate. It seems like the more subcultures try to set themselves apart, the more similar they become.
Peterson's ideas of snobbery versus omnivorousness were rather interesting, and I believe fairly accurately reflective of contemporary American society. Take the evolution of punk, for example. With a staunch doctrine of opposing the norms of mass culture, punk music and culture - arguably the most important subculture in the past century - asserted snobbery through highly specific tastes. Since the dominant subculture has since evolved and has fallen from it's power-cord driven, loud-screaming vocals, and studded leather, it has become significantly more eclectic. Currently, the dominant subculture - hipster culture - totes an eclectic taste. Whereas formerly dominant punk/hardcore/emo subculture scenes established snobbery, the new subculture establishes snobbery through a claim of universal appreciation of so-called good music and approved by the hipster bible Pitchfork media. With this outpouring of omnivorousness, however contrived it might be, raises the question: is punk dead? Arguably emo music was the last true incarnation of punk, with a driving DIY aesthetic and strict social and musical creed.
Indeed, with the rise of stores such as Urban Outfitters, Free People, and Untitled - not to mention Hot Topic - populating downtown Chicago and suburban soccer-mom and pre-teen-girl ridden strip malls, "particular style is dislocated from the context and group which generated it" - is subcultural identity really subculture? The abhorrently cliche film Garden State seems to reflect this climate: by unabashedly dissenting for the mere sake of difference and a false claim of individuality, the film simply reinforces the cliches it so defiantly claims and attempts to subvert.
I found it highly amusing that I dropped a class about social networks early this quarter, only to find myself reading the Granovetter essay. Regardless, he argues that "social structure creates inflexibility in the form of arrogance." He also says that weak ties allow for mobility. Does this apply to political structures as well? If this is true, does this mean that weak ties form more easily in a communist or capitalist society? In communist society there is little to no class mobility, therefore there shouldn't be many weak ties. Does this make it so that there are less bridges between groups and informations does not travel like it would in a more politically structured society?
Regarding the Peterson article, I was also able to apply knowledge from my exploitation film class. PEterson focused largely on music, but in terms of film, many learned film scholars choose to study "lowbrow," camp films because there is opportunity to have "good taste in bad taste." There is mention that to be omnivorous is to be open to lowbrow art forms, but in a way, isn't the person being ironic and exclusive? Many scholars and highbrows still tend to be snobby by immersing themselves in lowbrow culture, but still maintain to be specific in taste.
I agree with Cassidy in that Peterson gets a bit carried away with his analysis. I'm not sure that it's even valid to characterize somebody who likes classical music and opera as highbrow to begin with, much less use it as a basis for comparison for other genres. His explanation for why he used music instead of other forms of artistic measurement was also fairly vague, although it has to do with the fact that just about everybody listens to some sort of music, and not everybody is exposed to the traditional notion of art. But is that even valid? How can visual media be broken down in similar ways? What would we define as highbrow v lowbrow visual culture, as opposed to musical culture?
In reference to Granovetter, I am particularly interested in the notion of 'utility friends,' a concept I learned about in an Art of Rhetoric class. The idea is quite similar to that of weak ties, but discusses how we form relationships based on the necessity of having people in particular situations in order to feel well adjusted. Utility friends, for lack of a better explanation, are ones one uses to achieve a particular purpose, much like the weak ties we have with acquaintances as noted by Granovetter.
Post a Comment