In the reading, “Semiotics and Television,” by Ellen Seiter, the author discusses the definition of semiotics as “the study of everything that can be used for communication.” In class, we discussed how semiotics analyzes how meanings are created and determined that there a signs that go along with everything. What I took from the discussion was that meanings are in the signs and not in the words or the thing itself, which is something I think about often. It baffles me that the entire population, or at the very least, the vast majority of society, follow the rules and meanings assigned to words or objects, with little to no objection. While I was watching TV, I saw an advertisement for Bruce Rauner during a commercial break. On the screen, there was an image of the politician’s wife, saying, “I’m a life-long Democrat and I’m voting for Bruce Rauner.” In this 20 second advertisement, semiotics strongly comes into play. First off, the image is of Diana Rauner leaning against her kitchen counter, with a clean, white back-drop. Like we discussed in class, there is a detonation and a connotation with signs. In this example, the denotation is the obvious, the white background. The connotation could be that the neutral and clean background represent class and a clean agenda perhaps, since this is a political campaign. Another example of semiotics in this advertisement is the statement itself. I interpreted the reading to mean that words are empty without our signifiers behind it. Diana Rauner’s statement lies in the context that her husband is going to do great things, such great things that she, a Democrat, is even going to vote for him, a Republican. The commercial is a great example of an iconic sign, since it resembles the expected attitudes of voters (or the signified), but uses Diana Rauner as a symbol of a voter (or the signifier). 

Symbolism in V for Vendetta

V for Vendetta is arguably one of the most well-done movies about a societal revolution ever done, and probably one of the best movies Natalie Portman has been in. It is also full to the brim with symbols and symbolism, the signifiers and the signified, and can give quite a bit of what Ellen Seiter describes as the three different kinds of symbols; symbolic, iconic, or indexical. V's mask, the rain, and the shaving of Evey's head  all are major symbols in the film. To begin with, V's mask. This could classify as an indexical symbol, as in it specifically identifies V and his ideals. Because his face is never shown beneath the mask, the mask, in a sense, becomes his face, because when we see it we immediately identify it as his character. One particular portion in which we see many symbolic symbols are the imprisonment of, and subsequent release of, Evey. When Evey is taken into custody by what she believes to be The Party, in actuality an illusion by V, she has her head shaved. This works our minds on a subconscious level, as particularly in women we see hair as a source of femininity, of power, of humanity even. When she has it removed, it is dehumanizing and degrading on such a level as to almost make us cringe, though we may not know why. When Evey is finally released and realizes her entire time in prison has been a ruse, she runs onto V's balcony and stands in a rainstorm. This is extremely symbolic because while in prison she found a letter from a former prisoner that V was incarcerated with named Valerie Page, who believed God was in the rain. As Evey stands underneath the rain, we understand that it means redemption, the washing away of the past, and an almost religious awakening to the true state of things. In such ways are our emotions manipulated and we understand on an almost subconscious level all of the emotional complexities and subtle nuances happening in the film, thus catapulting it into the spotlight and into its place as one of the best revolution movies made.

Does Popular Music Make Us Unconcoiously Hypnotized?

In Adorno's article "On Popular Music" he touches base with the fact that we may be unconscious to what we listen to because of the media's way of "getting to us". We discussed in class on how he may just be right. We were shown this through "the 4 cords" by Axis of the Awesome. They explain in this video how just four cords are the key base of many of the catchy songs we listen to, but does that have to relate to every popular song? Could we just like a song just to like it, or does it have to due solely with our unconscious mind? Popular music is defined in different ways depending on the way you look at it, but overall it is simply defined as music that is appealing to the majority of people. I do agree with his view on Popular music, but I also question it because people could like a wide variety of music from Punk to EDM to Rap. Just because someone listens to popular music, does not mean other things do not spark their interest. For instance, I like to listen to popular songs from artists such as Nikki Minaj and Taylor Swift  because their songs are catchy due to the standard Versus-Chorus-Versus-Bridge-Chorus-Versus. But I also like songs from people who are not as popular, artists like Phora, Logic, Kids These Days, etc. because they spark my interest for reasons other than the use of the basic four cords. Therefore, is there really an answer to his theory of popular music vs. serious music or do we just define it ourselves?

Serious Pop Music

Theodor Adorno's article, "On  Popular Music," was a really interesting read for me. I found the way he discussed popular music to be very interesting. Though I didn't agree with all of his points I thought he made some pretty legitimate claims. His whole idea of standardization in popular music, I thought was pretty accurate. Most of the music heard on the popular radio stations tends to all sound the same and for a reason. As Adorno points out, a lot of that music is made for the masses. All the songs have very similar, if not identical song structures. Verse, Chorus, Verse, Chorus, Bridge, Chorus. As we discussed in class, and as those Australian guys showed in their video, most of these songs also use the same four chords, just played a bit differently. Adorno discusses how people have become comfortable with music like this and seek nothing more when listening to music. This is one of the issues I have with his argument. I do have to take into consideration that this article was written in the 40's so people back then didn't have the resources they do today but I do believe that if one truly wanted to listen to, "smart music," as Adorno calls it, they would. For me personally, I found myself become less and less interested in what was playing on the radio as I got older. Though part of that may be attributed to my desire to be edgy and rebellious as a young teenager, I truly was becoming bored with all the pop music I would hear. It's not like I immediately started listening to better music all the time, but it was a gradual process. I found interest in music that was not like all the other music I heard on the radio. I believe that Adorno is not giving people enough credit and thinking of the population as a mass; a giant herd of people who think alike and unless they are told/taught differently won't deviate from the norm. I don't believe that popular music functions as social cement in the same way that Adorno does.
Something we brought up in class that we discussed very briefly was the recent occurances of more indie, non pop bands becoming big and mainstream such as The Shins, Arcade Fire, Daft Punk and others. We were asked why we thought this was happening. After thinking about it, I realized, all of these musicians do make pop. It completely is radio pop, similar song structures, nothing too unfamiliar. They are just talented bands that put a lot of work into making pop music. Daft Punk went from being two super talented, unknown french guys who wore masks to conceal their identities, to becoming the artists behind one of the biggest radio songs in the year 2013. All of the collaborators on their most recent album spoke about their work process and described in great detail how meticulously they worked. This wasn't just a simple album produced by some guy pumping out tons of top 40's hits, it was an album that drew many inspirations from popular music of the past and put it's own spin on it. Though I don't think it's one of Daft Punks best albums, I do think it is a great album that was produced very well. Adorno says that in serious music, "Each component is intentional and builds to something greater." I think that is exactly what this Daft Punk album, which I'm sure Adorno would have despised, does. It is a very intentional album, everything that was done on it, was done for a reason. It doesn't feel like an album that was just produced for the masses, it sounds like an album that a lot of work was put into, yet it was considered pop music.
I disagree with Adorno when he says that pop music can't also be serious music, though I do agree that most pop music isn't serious music.

On Popular Music

While I think Adorno's "On Popular Music" sounded awfully pretentious and snotty, the man does have a point.   I immediately thought of Bo Burnham's comedy sketch, "Repeat Stuff"  where he states that the same love songs have been sang before "in a thousand ways, in a thousand songs, sung with the same four chords." The stuff that Adorno points out is quite obvious just listening to the radio.  It's mostly fluff to cash in on adolescent teens and young adults.  There is a standardization in music with it's structure, harmonies, octave ranges, and harmonies.  While I agree that a lot of popular music is generic, and perhaps a "familiar experience" as Adorno states, I really don't see the problem with it.

It's catchy, and it makes us want to dance.  The lyrics are repetitive so you can know all the words after a couple listens.  Soon you're singing in your car on the way home from work as loud as you can.  It's relaxing, it's enjoyable; what's the problem with that!?   Personally, I like to call these musicians "performance artists" because with them it isn't all about the music.  It's about the costumes, the dance team, the light shows, and the gossip. We don't have to put deep philosophical thought into it, but that's not the artist's attention.

Sure after you hear the song for the 32nd time on the radio, it starts to bug you, but why does it matter?  A few days ago you were singing as loud as you can in your car, and now someone else you know probably is too. It's stupid, but it's pleasantly stupid.

He's a Damn Music Critic, Listen to Him!

After reading Theodor Adorno’s “On Popular Music,” all I could do was disagree with him on his theories regarding popular music.  I was just confused, at first. I was asking my self, how can all popular music, in lack for a better terms, be all the same?  I just couldn't wrap my head around what Adorno was trying to preach.  All of the popular music songs don’t necessarily sound the same, so what is Adorno trying to sell to his audience?  

To the average listener, every song on the radio is amazing.  But truthfully, that might be because every song on the radio is the same…When I say “the same,” Im talking about the musical build of the songs: in terms of the notes, chords, and the anticipation build-up to the chorus.

I still wasn’t convinced of his theory.  But then, I remembered a YouTube video I found back when I was in Middle School.  The video does a GREAT job of representing what Theodore Adorno is trying to state in his theory regarding popular music.

The video is a basically a mash-up of Ke$ha’s song, Tik Tok, and Katy Perry’s song, California Gurls.  Now, before I post the link, I want to make it clear that I do not actively listen to Ke$ha, nor Katy Perry. No hating on them, they just aren't in my field of listening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2dPA2dCRNY

Well look at that, Mr. Theodor Adorno is correct on his theories concerning popular music after all!

These two songs are exactly the same. They just two have different sets of lyrics.

I'm convinced...

Rhythmic Obedience of EDM

The article “On Popular Music” by Adorno touches the subject of popular vs. serious music. Adorno was concerned about effects of mass media in music and how it reaches out to mass audience, as well as how it’s related to capitalism. One of the most interesting parts of this article for me was, The Social Cement. In this part of the article, Adorno argues that pop music acts as “social cement” it basically is brainwashing the people into accepting limited impoverished and unhappy lives. In fact, people are aware of the unhappiness of their lives and use the music as a release.  He specifically elaborates about a type of social cement; rhythmic obedient, which is the mechanically, collectivity of the beat of the song. As I read this part of the article I couldn’t help but relate it to myself. I love EDM (electronic dance music) and most of this genre of music there is no lyrics to the songs, is all about the beat. With EDM the most important part is the beat or bass drop. It basically is repletion of multiple beats. So I started thinking am I just obeying  to the beat of EDM and just going with the crowed ,paying attention to one DJ while  losing my individuality. I have been to many EDM concerts all around the country and there is parts in the festivals when the DJ’s playing that everyone becomes one and gets lost in the beats. All united as one ,experiencing one feeling, but I don’t necessarily see that as something bad. I guess in a way EDM is an escape of daily release, but isn’t all music an escape?  If  you look at it that way, I guess we are all just stuck in a rhythmic obedient point. I thought this article was very interesting and a little mind blowing.  EDM is becoming one of the  most powerful genre around, so I wonder if Adorno was alive today what would his thoughts on EDM be?

Although I did not enjoy the reading On Popular Music by Adorno, I think that it is important to realize how many things Adorno listed that I as well as others agree with. First off, it was very interesting and pretty cool to see how many songs use the same four notes, however, it's also kind of sad (for a lack of a better word) because it just shows how many artists don't put any effort in creating something different and original.  Although, yes, there is that question of whether or not the they should take risks, and what will sell, it's clear to see that songs are just made to sell and not for the reason of connecting with people through another language, being music.





Relatively, I don't agree on the fact that Adorno essentially says that people that listen to "popular" music are pretty much lower class, nobodies, and the people that are high class and education listen to " serious" music.  Everyone and as mentioned in class, has their thing.  So if coming home and listen to Lady Gaga helps you ease the pain of a stressful day, than who cares?!  Some people like to relax to Frank Sinatra, which Adorno would I think say is "serious" music while Britney Spears, being "popular" music, regardless, both are music (although some might argue other wise) and both achieve the same feelings and emotions. You never know how a person is behind closed doors, regardless how rich, fancy or low class they may seem to be.  For now, enjoy one of my favorite songs by Frank himself


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9ZGKALMMuc


At the end of the day, and unfortunately, everything is made to sell, which is why in class I had mentioned that brand names vs generic brands are practically the same.  Although I will argue that Coke and way better than Pepsi, and tastes way better.  ANYWAYS, unless we want to fall into this trap of the state running what we consume (Hegemony) because of a brand name, I think socially we have to change in order to stop everything from being brandified (if that't even a word) and just focus on the fact that tooth paste is tooth paste, and chips are still chips if they say Lays or some other name that you don't recognize, you're still going to receive the same outcome, being clean and fresh breath and a happy tummy.

                                                                

On Popular Music: Essay for the Advancement of Pop

Adorno’s views—regardless of any amount of perceived snobbery, or perhaps unfounded judgments on pop music (and jazz in particular)—are incredibly incisive, and could be interpreted, rather than a denouncement of all pop music, as constructive criticism (even if it isn’t Adorno’s intention) which seeks to free pop music from the constraints it has imposed on itself, and ultimately elevate it to the level of art. To a certain extent, pop music has developed in accordance with Adorno’s assessments, and in those cases has benefited greatly. Take for example his judgment of jazz.  While his focus might be in particular “commercial jazz,” his judgment applies to even the more compelling variations of jazz from this time.
He asserts that there are established patterns that artists adhere to, and even improvisation is subject to limitations. I would agree with Adorno that classical music in the 30’s and early 40’s, was—on average—much more exciting than jazz of the time. What Adorno does not account for is the possibility of convergence of popular music styles, and art music. Jazz and classical are not entirely separate from each other. The multi-instrumentalist Eric Dolphy, for example, showed a strong influence from Bela Bartok, mixing jazz and classical composition to create what Adorno might have considered to be, as I do, much more interesting jazz than the swing and big band music of earlier decades (but of course there was some pretty fantastic jazz from the get go, that perhaps Adorno was not aware of): 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ7xBggveyY

And now for some Bartok: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E18snckRCxM

Bartok, who Adorno would probably approve of, even largely borrowed from "popular music," with folk songs from around the world informing much of his composition. This mixing of styles is what creates the most interesting music, but that is something Adorno does not allow for, or at least does not specifically address. I wonder what Adorno would have thought of Shostakovich's Jazz Music, which is essentially the reverse of Dolphy's appropriation of classical:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDSeqqEN9Rg

Adorno's assertion about the structured nature of improvisation could perhaps be seen as a prophecy for the creation of free jazz, and he is correct in saying that when the constraints of improvisation are removed, the music does become more interesting. A chronological listen to Coltrane's discography illustrates the true potential of jazz--after years of playing bop, and adhering to certain chord structures and relying on recurring motifs and themes, Coltrane felt he had reached a dead end. His music, upon turning to free jazz (and probably LSD), is elevated to what I think Adorno would certainly consider art (and perhaps does have more in common with the avant-garde classical music of Adorno's time, than it does to earlier forms of jazz). 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtlEX9NKeRo

Alice Coltrane (John's wife) combined both a resemblance to classical music--though more specifically Indian and other eastern nations' classical music--and the lack of limitations on improvisation to even further the genre. And being that her main instrument was the harp--a predominantly classical instrument--I think Adorno really would have dug her:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eACC7W5xX9I

All of these examples are most likely exceptions to Adorno's diatribe, being that no one would consider any of it to be "pop music." But this music came about because the musicians were approaching their music with ideas similar to Adorno's in mind. It came from pop music, but becomes art. Other artists, in other genres as well, exhibit similar progressions. I will not provide any more links, as I've already posted hours of music, but I would not hesitate to say that, in the decades since On Popular Music was written, every genre within pop music has had artists who have approached their own music with the intention of creating something truly unique, and have done so with sentiments very similar to those expressed by Adorno, and have in this way truly elevated their craft. In this way, I think the views of Adorno have been validated.

Contestants and Capitalism

In class yesterday, we discussed Theodor Adorno and his criticism of popular music. Adorno defines popular music with a few characteristics, including: standardized, pseudo-individual, and capitalized. In other words, Adorno believes popular music is easy to make for the producers and easy to listen to for the audience. This “mass culture” approach also ties the concept into capitalism, because if the masses keep listening to this popular music, then we will remain in the same place, which is what is wanted from us. The example that came to my head was of televised singing competitions. Like popular music, the gist of these shows is basically the same. On The Voice, American Idol, The X Factor, etc, aspiring artists audition for the show and then spend a couple weeks/months performing (sometimes) live shows until they are either eliminated or win the competition. Using Adorno’s framework, the shows are standardized. While the competitions differ in certain ways, like The Voice’s blind auditions, the structure and content of all of these shows are incredibly similar. The contestants have to audition with a song they chose and then, if they are liked by 3 or 4 judges, they move on to higher rounds and the shows become elaborate productions. The aspect of pseudo-individualism also comes into play, since these different networks and channels offer their shows exclusively and reel the audience in by advertising the competition as “Nothing like you’ve ever seen before!” Adorno’s definition of pseudo-individualism is “endowing cultural mass production with the halo of free choice or open market on the basis of standardization itself.” These singing competition shows, and also variety and talent shows, regurgitate the same ideas and content to the mass, but add bells and whistles to make themselves seem new and original.

~ POP IS DEAD! ~

Earlier this month, the illustrious NME Music Magazine critic Paul Morley denounced his past (1976-86) in the world of pop and rock music. In a recent article (September 20) in The Observer, the critic stated (much like Adorno) that "Pop belongs to the last century. Classical music is more relevant to the future." His reasoning for this includes the claim that pop and rock music in general has "become the status quo" and is manufactured. In fact Morley's article and opinions seem so similar to Adorno's in their views on popular music and classical music, it's scary!

"The alluring, addictive sound of pop does still evolve, but what is sung about remains more or less the same; the poses, controversies and costumes repetitive and derivative. It is machines that are now the new pop stars, the performers and singers like travelling sales workers whose ultimate job is to market phones, tablets, consoles, films, brands and safely maintain the illusion that the world is just as it was when there was vinyl and the constant, frantic turnover of talent, genre and style." -Paul Morley 

Perhaps the most interesting thing about all of this, (aside from the astounding similarities and accurate prediction of pop music by Adorno) is that Morley was practically as close to the music of his time as humanly possible. He was immersed in the business and surrounded by the stars of his time. So if he makes decides to makestatement like this, no matter how much I would like to disagree, it's probably true because he sees the inside.

Paul Morley and the late Jerry Garcia in 1981

Hegemony

Hegemony is a kind of leadership or dominance that certain social groups have over others. When Gramsci talks about hegemony having leadership and dominance, he explains that a dominant group must already be leading for them to continue to lead over other groups. My understanding of his point is that a large social group must be already somewhat leading society in order for it to continue doing so. For example in the media, you have a social group who believe that woman should be rescued and that men need to do the rescuing and be in control of every situation. This is prominent throughout society and a recurring theme in media. Classic Disney prince and princess movies are a good example of this and speaking from personal experience, I grew up thinking that that's how it should be because that's the way it was presented to me as a young child. So to sum up Gramsci's point, the social group who believe that women are to be rescued and men should do the rescuing are a more dominant group than other groups who don't believe this.

Another point that Gramsci brought up in his article were the "moments" of "self-awareness, evaluation of the degree of homogeneity, and organization attained by various social classes" (86) The first moment was the economic-corporate level which explains that people who are from the same social group will stand by others within the same social group. It also touches on the point that people don't feel obliged at all to stand by others from another social group. The second moment is "a consciousness is reached of the solidarity of interest among all the members of a social class..." (86) I was confused a little bit on this one because I couldn't quite grasp at what Gramsci was trying to say. The third moment is when an individual, within a social group, becomes aware of his own self-interests and must make a decision on continuing to be in that social group or to follow his/her own interests.
I think to sum all three up, certain groups identify with certain groups, and if you are in a social group and start to develop different interest outside of your group then you have to make a choice. People tend to identify with others within their social group and don't branch out to bring the groups together as a whole.

Hegemony as a trend

In the reading “Hegemony” by Antonio Gramsci, he defines hegemony by defining the word itself as well as by discussing its relationship to intellectuals and the state.  One example of hegemony as Gramsci states; is when “the supremacy of a social group manifests itself in two ways, as domination and as intellectual moral leadership”. (12) Therefore, the interests of one particular social group are made to be the interests of all the other subordinate social groups through a combination of force and consent.  In order to better understand this definition of hegemony, a quote from the reading “Hegemony” by Storey stood out to me as well, because it paints a clearer picture of what Gramsci means when he describes hegemony in relation to a state having control over the interests of its citizens whether political or social as well as how intellectuals use their knowledge and ability to profit from hegemony. 

In this reading, Storey states that “popular culture is what men and women make from their active consumption of the texts and practices of the culture industries” (65). He uses youth subcultures as an example because even though youths try to break free from the commercialized material goods and music that corporations are coercing them to like,  the move away from mainstream culture does not last long because “culture industries eventually succeed in marketing subculture resistance for general consumption and profit” (65). With this being said I was reminded of the store hot topic. It’s a store where you can find all the rebellious clothing, accessories, and albums you need but the store itself and the clothing it sells as well as the meanings attached to this kind of image has become commercialized and just  another profitable hegemony trend.  

Popular Music

As I read through On Popular Music, I felt very lost and confused. I was reading the words, but not comprehending many aspects of the text. I feel like it would be easier for me to understand the text if I had some previous knowledge of music, its language, and the history. I’m not literate in the music world, so I didn’t know what several of the terms meant, for example the word “bridge”, “major trio”, and “scherzo” in context to music. My understanding is that there is a distinct difference between popular music and serious music, and the way each piece is composed and preformed. Serious music like that of Beethoven is composed of a whole. Each piece with a lot of individual detail, it’s more sophisticated. If one part of the composition is removed the music isn’t the same and therefore isn’t a complete piece. It is very concrete. Popular music is very standardized and simple. Much like typing a paper, it has a layout or format. Parts of the music are interchangeable. This is also why I think so many popular music pieces are so popular, because no matter the song the framework is similar. When analyzing popular songs I like, I realize although the lyrics are different the way the song flows is the same. I feel when music is composed like this it is catchy because I, as many, remember the chorus, or the most repetitive part of the song. This reminds me of my brother, who is constantly telling that the music that is currently on the radios or playing in every store you walk into, all sound the same. Which is a sense they do, because as the article points out artists chose to use this general format when making music. After the discussion in class, it made me think about how many of the songs or artists I find and start listening to aren’t part of popular music at the time. I like to listen to music that is new and maybe not a lot of people have heard of because its interesting and to me more enjoyable. What upsets me is when a song that I have come to love months back is mass produced in the sense that every store and radio takes that one song and plays it what seems like every second of the day. It ruins the song and the art of music, in finding something that you can escape and making pointless. Now something that I once associated with happiness, I now associate with annoying.  

On Popular Music

Adorno's "On Popular Music" touched on the issue of standardization. Adorno concentrated on "2 spheres of music". Which he called serious and popular. Adorno explains how all popular music is the same or in his words "standardized". Popular music sounds the same which is why people love it. No matter how many times people here a different song, if you can listen to it without thinking about the song or engaging this is what will draw the listener in. This is how popular music becomes so quickly to sell. People look for the same things in songs to receive a meaning of how life should be. People by music of the same genre faster than they will if a new song comes out telling something different each time. An example of a popular song, even though this song is not as popular as it was back then, it still portrays a standardized song. The song "promises,promises" is a song that constantly repeats the word "promises" throughout the whole song. This song is portraying to the world how someone close to you can make promises and then don't keep them. From childhood to falling in love, many promises will be made that wont be kept in the end. A lyric from the song says "You made me promises, promises. You knew you'd never keep. Promises, promisesWhy do I believe?" This is how people in the world really feel. Sometimes it takes a song that your listening to, to portray how you really truly feel about certain situations. People feel they are tired of being lied to and having their hearts broken. Adorno said this is what popular music is cause it expresses the feelings that some people are too scared to say. These type of songs follow the same rules throughout all the verses.

Naked Eyes- Promises,Promises (1983). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8Q83DPZy6E

Takashi Murakami: high and low

Following up on the example I mentioned in class on Tuesday:

Here is Takashi Murakami's Louis Vuitton store at the LA MOMA, from his exhibit and collaboration there in 2003:



here are some of the designs:


clearly BOTH art and commerce are at work here. It's worth pointing out that something like 2/3 of Japanese women in their twenties own a Louis Vuitton bag, so this collaboration was aimed at selling highly collectible, limited edition commercial goods as much as it was a conceptual experiment in bringing the iconography of fashion into the museum space.

here he is posing with another work:



His style, called Superflat, is clearly also informed by Japanese popular culture--anime in particular.

Consumed by Media

Throughout my life I have always followed and kept up with popular culture. My view was that pop culture was anything trending on all media. I know and keep up with trends mostly by keeping up with the news. This is extremely easy to today because of the way social media connects us with text. I can follow BBC news on Twitter and scroll through what has happened in the US and rest of the world and I can do something as small as follow a fashion blog to reassure me that Doc Martens are in fact back in style- as is the 90’s grunge look as a whole.

Before reading Storey’s article I did not take into consideration that popular culture could be divided into so many sectors and cause me to really think about the amount of information I consume. I now realize that much of the culture I experience is mass culture. We are surrounded by it; passing multiple McDonalds’ on the way to class while thoughtlessly checking Instagram and hearing Pharrell’s Happy for the fifteenth time, hating it, knowing every word but ultimately accepting it and singing along.

I think that this is the way that a lot of popular culture and media we experience is like. Mass culture is built to surround us and create a fantasy-like atmosphere we subconsciously agree with whether we truly like it or not.

Popular culture for the high class

While reading Storey's article, "What is Pop Culture," I found some of the points he made extremely relevant to the society functions. His understanding and explanation of how different classes choose to represent themselves culturally I found to be very accurate. He constantly discusses the idea that in high culture, popular culture is thought of as inferior and simple. This is something that I have often thought of as ignorant and incorrect. It is true that there is a fine line between high culture and popular culture but to discredit one is wrong. The examples he gives of popular culture eventually becoming considered high culture such as film noir, Shakespeare and Charles Dickens are good examples because they have already transcended popular culture and become high culture. Something that I think is hard to see and grasp is that certain things that are now considered popular culture will soon be considered high culture. An example that comes to mind for me is video games. When it comes to video games, they are often thought of as popular culture and it is constantly debated whether or not they should be considered art. I personally think there are certain video games that have come out within the last few years that will be looked back as works of art. The Last of Us is a video game made about a post apocalyptic world where zombies have taken over. It is not played like a conventional video game, rather it is played like a video game interlaced with a movie. Though this game has been highly reviewed and rated, because of it's popularity it is not considered to be high culture. I believe that in years to come, people will look back on this game and give it the cultural appreciation it deserves. This is not the first game to have done this, another example is Hideo Kojimas Metal Gear Solid, which is similarly played like a video game interlaced with a movie, creating a unique playing experience no other game can offer. Metal Gear Solid has actually been out long enough that it is one of the few very popular video games that is slowly being considered to be a work of art and being appreciated by "higher culture". I think for high culture to be a more legitimate thing, people need to understand that there isn't a strict line dividing popular and high culture, in fact the line is very blurred and there are many things that very easily can fall into both categories.