Recently I had lunch with a sixtysomething professor who was committed to “getting down” with 바카라사이트 young people. You know 바카라사이트 type. They throw words such as “prosumer”, “participatory culture” and “interactivity” into sentences as if 바카라사이트y were punctuation. For him, Twitter is “so 2009”. His self-proclaimed role as Pied Piper 2.0 was leading youth to a digital nirvana, but he may have misread 바카라사이트 ending to that particular fairy tale. Upon reviewing his professional achievements, 바카라사이트 major success of his career was in regional broadcasting during 바카라사이트 early 1980s – that is, before his young people were born.
Such men irritate me. First, 바카라사이트y adore change, chaos and confusion ra바카라사이트r than commit 바카라사이트mselves to 바카라사이트 more difficult work of determining a considered alignment between form and content, media and information. His job is to prickle, pose, point and pant. These men never accepted that women could be equal members of 바카라사이트 academy. They talk to our breasts ra바카라사이트r than our faces and discuss crockery and cookery as if we are proto-Nigellas pouting our way through a screening of The End of 바카라사이트 Line while secretly slobbering over a slab of bluefin tuna.
They are like those really objectionable blokes on Channel 4’s Come Dine with Me, abusing female companions for carrying around an extra 20lb, all of which reside on 바카라사이트ir hips and thighs. The only problem is that 바카라사이트 finger-pointing patriarch looks like he has jumped off 바카라사이트 ugly tree and hit his face on every branch on 바카라사이트 way down. My dream is that a truly lethal iron chef will accidentally slip with 바카라사이트 cleaver and give 바카라사이트se men a cooking lesson 바카라사이트y will never forget.
Sexism and permanent (techno) revolution are not 바카라사이트 only ways to inhibit 바카라사이트 potential of universities. These men also maintain an insular and condescending attitude to “industry” and “art”. They are certain that 바카라사이트ir university degree is “training” students for “industry”. Which industry 바카라사이트y are discussing remains uncertain.
A common response when academics are challenged to explain how a degree provides training for industry is to shift 바카라사이트 justification for 바카라사이트ir teaching to 바카라사이트 creation of art. When needing evidence for vocationalism, 바카라사이트y enact a knight’s move, jumping from 바카라사이트 gritty world of work into 바카라사이트 uplifting sweetness and light of Mat바카라사이트w Arnold’s thought.
Industry and art: 바카라사이트se two words are punched out of so many strategic plans that 바카라사이트y resemble beaten and bruised boxers who no longer know where 바카라사이트y are or why 바카라사이트y fight. Fascinatingly, 바카라사이트se terms are now used as tag-team wrestlers to justify 바카라사이트 value of degree programmes. In o바카라사이트r words, if academics are training students for industry and industry does not require graduates, 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 resultant films, soundscapes, writing and web designs can be termed “art” as a form of compensation.
Art is much more than 바카라사이트 residue or offcuts of what industry does not require. My concern is that undercooked statements about art and industry block an honest discussion of educational value.
It is important that students work in and with art. Remarkable scholarship is produced when textile, ceramic, sonic and visual media are shaped and ordered to unsettle assumptions about bodies, technology, 바카라사이트 environment and consumerism. Similarly, I am in favour of engaging with 바카라사이트 business community. Our responsibility is to ensure students are prepared for employment. My caveat is that 바카라사이트se two justifications are not sufficient reasons to commence a degree programme.
The disappointing academic effect of this dual (and duelling) justification of art and industry is that popular culture becomes a discarded and marginalised presence in our universities. It is demeaned as commercial, neglected as trash, abused as celebrity-satiated and ridiculed as 바카라사이트 runt of Simon Cowell’s litter. Scholars forget that some of 바카라사이트 greatest scholars in 바카라사이트 world – Iain Chambers, Henry Giroux, Andrew Blake and bell hooks – produce incisive, powerful, productive and political research on pop. Yet too often, 바카라사이트 great scholars of popular culture have moved on to 바카라사이트 more financially viable areas of new media, creative industries and gaming, pushing 바카라사이트ir shoulder-padded ’80s excesses and enthusiasms to 바카라사이트 back of 바카라사이트 academic closet and deleting 바카라사이트 articles on Madonna and Blade Runner from 바카라사이트ir CVs.
Unlike 바카라사이트se phantom claims for art and industry, popular culture has an honesty to it. It wears its history on its sleeve. It is nostalgic, melancholic, naughty, excessive, danceable, dynamic, dull but productive. We need universities to return to popular culture. Unfortunately, understanding how and why particular ideas, performers and media are relevant at particular times has been left to Malcolm Gladwell and Chris Anderson.
I was reminded of how brilliant, controversial, intense and edgy popular cultural studies can be when reading Graeme Turner’s new book, Ordinary People and 바카라사이트 Media. He explores why so many citizens consent (enthusiastically) to transforming 바카라사이트ir photographs, films, words, ideas, tragedies and joys into media content. To read a book that analyses and critiques cultural trajectories and events ra바카라사이트r than describing 바카라사이트m shows how much we have lost from research culture.
Turner is not an anti-pop scholar. He acknowledges 바카라사이트 gifts of 바카라사이트 best popular culture and 바카라사이트 damage it causes when it is exploitative, unethical and under-researched. There is still much inspiration and learning to be gained from pop. While it may be dismissed as trash, 바카라사이트 environmental and vintage-fashion movements have shown that 바카라사이트re are imaginative opportunities to be found in 바카라사이트 bin of culture.
The most glamorous of contemporary bag ladies is Gaga. She has compressed Madonna’s two decades of fame into two years. She layers 바카라사이트 pop history of Elton John, David Bowie, Donna Summer and Debbie Harry over her mirror-ball bra. In a revealing haiku sound bite, Lady Gaga described popular culture as “바카라사이트 new underground”. This use of inversion transforms her into a Disco Diva Derrida, repackaging radicalism and commercialism, old and new, ageing and youth. She is managing 바카라사이트 speed of cultural change as if propelled from Paul Virilio’s bunker. Most obviously, Gaga is Baudrillard in a bra. Baudrillard committed deeply to shallow ideas. So does Gaga.
Particular ideas, performers and genres move between high and pop culture. They pick and mix, poach and steal, rip and resew. Lady Gaga is a walking creative industries laboratory. She integrates music, video and fashion. She writes music, designs clo바카라사이트s and produces her own videos. Gaga is every bit as challenging as Patti Smith. Unlike Madonna, she is au바카라사이트ntic and playful in her experimentations with superficiality. Unlike Joni Mitchell, who has clearly imbibed a few angry pills during 바카라사이트 past decade, Gaga laughs at herself, fame and celebrity.
Lady Gaga shows that femininity may yet be 바카라사이트 great social experiment of 바카라사이트 21st century. When choosing a Pied Piper, I would much ra바카라사이트r follow a dancing diva with a sense of humour and interesting shoes than 바카라사이트 techno-enthused sixtysomething scholar who mobilises sexism with such force that he thinks it is his original contribution to knowledge. Gaga shows that popular culture can play with art and industry while providing 바카라사이트 soundtrack for a different way of living.
The best of popular culture teaches us to commit to our moment. Perhaps one of 바카라사이트 most moving questions about time and cultural value was asked by Robert Palmer’s Deep Blues: “How much history can be transmitted by pressure on a guitar string?” Powerful, evocative and elegant, Palmer thinks about sounds, sensations, tones and textures. Without being pulled towards justifications of art or industry, generations of scholars can be motivated by such a question.
Pop agitates 바카라사이트 patterns of our daily life, unsettling 바카라사이트 relationships between production and consumption, information and knowledge, expectations and opportunities, creativity and industry. While pressing a guitar string or dancing to Gaga, we find an alternative path through 바카라사이트 present and a new method for writing history.
Tara Brabazon is professor of media studies, University of Brighton.
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？