Class Picture

Bigger if you click on it.

"Anything But Heavy Metal" ... - Bethany Bryson

On p.894, Bryson notes that "What is surprising is that country and gospel music are two of the three most favored genres among the general population, while they are the two genres most likely to be rejected by tolerant respondents." Yet, she equates education and political tolerance as being associated with decreased overall exclusiveness, but caveat to that, it's patterned in a specific way that seems to cast off genres like country and gospel as the pursuits of uncultured, enclaved Philistines. Might the country and gospel genres visible ideological associations with Christian Evangelism be responsible for this? What else could account for their seemingly purposeful exclusion from the tolerant crowd's pool of acceptable genres?

Craig Morgan's uplifting hit, "That's What I Love About Sunday" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgyVKUJYHNk I figured this may be a case in point as to what Bryson is referring to.

"Understanding Audience Segmentation"... - Richard A. Peterson

It's interesting that Peterson concludes elite taste "is no longer defined simply as the expressed appreciation of the high art forms and a corresponding moral disdain of, or patronizing tolerance for, all other aesthetic expressions."(252) In situating this comment within a 21st century context(YouTube, mashups, mixtapes, the iCulture), what are some specific examples of this union between revered, high art and pop culture? (ex. The Grey Album - Beatles/JayZ)

"Changing Highbrow Taste"... - Richard A. Peterson, Roger M. Kern

Peterson and Kern seem to chalk up the erosion of rigid, exclusionary cultural affinities to an "increasingly global world managed by those who make their way, in part, by showing respect for the cultural expressions of others."(906) But is cultural omnivorism really about respect and this "elective affinity between today's new business administrative class and omnivorousness" or does it simply tie back into one of the many narratives of this course discussed throughout the semester: In order for the dominant groups to maintain their position, they have to neutralize the threat posed by movements coming from within the dominated classes by reappropriating them within a consumer-culture context...a la The Gap using The Ramones in TV ads, etc. In light of this, wouldn't it render the supposed element of "respect" in cultural omnivorism moot?

Questioning Omnivorism

1. Forgetting habitus - In a footnote on page 886 Bethany Bryson entirely sets aside what she calls "an important mediating variable in [her] description of Bourdieu's theory." This seems to me a crucial concept for her discussion of 'cultural tolerance' and knowingly ignoring it to make her argument 'simpler' seems like quite an oversight. Does Bryson's critique of Bourdieu's study stem mainly from this simplification?, that is, does American class mobility (at least for upper & lower ends of the middle class, which is really all we're talking about here) account for the perceived 'increase' in cultural omnivorousness?

2. Eclecticism vs. Omnivorism - To what extent do our authors (Peterson, Kern & Bryson) and/or do we truly believe in the cultural omnivore? It seems to me what the authors are really talking about is cultural eclecticism (which Peterson makes a very fleeting reference to in "Changing Highbrow Taste, p. 900). Bryson bases her use of the term omnivore on cultural tolerance, which doesn't seem like the same thing to me. Just because i don't dislike (or disdain) country music, and may even have a song or artist or two that i like does not make me a connoisseur (or even really a consumer) of it.

3. Social Taylorism vs. Social Darwinism - What is generally overlooked in each of these articles is Bourdieu's (and Veblen's) central Marxist critique about the commodification of leisure time. In "Understanding audience segmentation" R.A. Peterson paints a very simplistic picture for explaining discrepancies found in leisure activities (and by some extension musical tastes) (p.251). I would suggest two alternative explanations for our author's findings:

ST - Given the increased commodification and organization of leisure time & activities, lower class/less educated workers spend less time (if any) pursuing their 'actual' cultural interests and so can be conversant in only one or very few as opposed to Peterson's model of the inverted pyramid (254-5).

SD - The discrepancy between high-end omnivorousness and low-end univorousness might be explained by relative 'coolness' or the security each has in their social stature, so that a high-class/highly educated person can 'take the risk' of enjoying lower-class endeavors, because they have enough cultural capital to do so, whereas an attempted move in the other direction is more likely to get you branded a wannabe.

What do you think?


Bonus Question (Meta-Question) - To what extent do sociologists (or social scientists in general) take into account the question of how honest their survey respondants are? When answering surveys or interviewers about any sorts of questions (but particularly relatively 'personal' questions) to what extent are people likely to answer with (a) what they 'want' their answer to be, rather than what's true, (b) random answers just to get through/get finished/get paid, (c) what they think the interviewer 'wants to hear', particularly if there is some potential reward, but only if they fall into the 'correct categories', (d) outright lies, because they don't want to support the seemingly corporate causes most of this 'market research' seems to be for? In the articles, i only saw one brief indication of this possibility in Bryson's "Hypothesis 6" (p. 888), when some people are "less likely to report they are unfamiliar with any music genre", and even this is likely a result of phrasing and not any kind of doubt in the systems of data collection.

Cultural Omnivore Questions

1. In "Understanding Audience Segmentation: From elite and mass to omnivore and univore," Richard Peterson claims that contrary to previous studies which have claimed that the upper class are elite in their tastes and lower classes like a lot of different low brow entertainment, it is actually opposite in a way. It is now the upper classes which have a wider array of tastes while the lower classes tend to like only one or a couple things. However, he bases this theory primarly on music tastes and the fact that the upper class respondents were far less likely to be able to name one favorite type of music, while the lower class (determined by occupation) could. Is that a good enough measure? Could there results be different if they took into account other measures?

2. In the second article, "Changing Highbrow Taste:From Snob to Omnivore," Peterson and Kern discuss some of the reasons for the shift from elitism to omnivorism. Are there reasons comprehensive? As I was reading the list, I kept thinking of the whole atmosphere of change in our country surrounding how important and politically correct it has become to be open-minded.

3. As I was thinking about the high culture versus low culture, I couldn't help thinking about independent cinema, and how even though one of their characteristics is poor film quality and low budget (something which might be considered low culture), there is a certain high culture attached to liking independent cinema (at least in my opinion). How might this new theory of culture discussed in these two articles account for it?

4. The articles talk about how ominovirism is replacing snobbery among the high class, but I wonder if there really isn't as much difference between the two as the authors would have us believe. Could not omnivorism be a new form of snobbery? While obviously omnivorism isn't exclusive in the classical sense, doesn't it in effect still distinguish them from the lower cultures, and isn't that overall the purpose of elitism?

Questioning the Omnivore

"Changing Highbrow Taste"

Paterson and Kern seem to attribute growing omnivorousness to increasingly tolerant values and "rising levels of living" (905). They even go so far to say that this omnivorousness is "antithetical to snobishness, which is based on... exclusinon." What do y'all think about this in relation to their characterization of the omnivore as appreciating and critiquing low-middle brow culture "in light of some knowledge of the genre and its great performers - they do not embrace the music as representing how they identify themselves" (904). The power of distinction provided by Cultural Capital seems to loom like the elephant in the room. Does the sophisticated enjoyment of country music for the snob really put her on equal terms with the "real" fan - or are class distinctions maintained by this relationship?

"Understanding Audience Segmentation"
While cultural taboos may have dissolved for the upper classes allowing them to partake in low-brow pleasures, what are the implications for lower class cultural univores? Do the univores mainly like one genre by choice? Or, might they still be systematically excluded from omnivorousness using the old barriers, like education and wealth, to obtaining cultural capital? Considering this, can omnivorousness really be called a step forward, away from "taste-exclusive highbrow snob," and toward a more egalitarian culture (252)? As Bryson's reference to Jackman and Muha in her "Anything but..." article says, "political [& cultural?] tolerance displayed by educated responents is, in fact, only a carefully cultivated status symbol."

"Anything But..."
Bryson says that rather than being "indiscriminately broad, omnivores' tastes may include high-status types of music that are popular among non-whites, while excluding low-status genres like gospel" (887). Thinking critically of our own tastes, do you see this pattern in your own preferred types of culture? How much of this is really "symbolic racism" that subconsciously excludes culture of undesirables and how much of this pattern relates to the way different types of culture are marketed? I seem to see those Putomayo world CD's in a number of higher-class places and they are not placed beside Dangdut albums - mainstream music of indonesia that developed from the Muslim working class.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwlkSy1Dn9M
We should always be wary of the way we unconsciously reinforce the domination of groups of people but at least some of the responsibility for patterns in taste must be attributed to marketers and taste-makers. But how much responsibility?

Indie changes!

Since we reported on indie culture a couple months ago, two places have closed and another has moved out of its indie neighborhood.

- Broad Vocabulary on KK is closing, and Atomic Records on Locust/Oakland is closing. Plus, the tool shed moved to the Eastside (I guess its been there for a while now).

Interesting.

Round 3 of Tzioumakis Questions (James C)

Chapter five of Tzioumakis’s book really sparked my interest in the Hollywood Renaissance. I actually never thought of film playing an important role in the then pivotal time in our nation’s history. “As a result, American cinema entered a phase characterized by the production of stylistically diverse and narratively challenging films that were much more tuned in to the social and political climate of the era than the films made for the majors by top-rank independents.” (170) “Besides their status as independent productions, the above group of films shared a large number of other characteristics the most important of which were their conscious targeting of a young audience and their emphasis on questioning established traditions, both in terms of the types of stories they presented and the manner in which the presentation of the stories occurred on screen. These films set new trends in their treatment of controversial material such as the representation of violence (Bonnie and Clyde); sex (Midnight Cowboy and The Graduate); and drugs (Easy Rider) and struck the final blow to the already weakened Production Code, which was replaced in 1968 with the Ratings classification system.” (178) Why were these films so successful during this time period? What made the content an integral part of youth culture and society? Were independent filmmakers just creating films in reaction to an already determined successful target audience (young people) of the general public? Does independent film during this time period just serve as a reinforcement of the culture of young people rebelling against societal norms?

Another element that was brought up that I found interesting and somewhat hard to grasp was the idea of being a successful 100% independent filmmaker. “By borrowing a model of filmmaking again from European art-house cinema, whereby filmmakers were able to produce and distribute commercially successful films without the institutional support of a national distributor, and by subscribing fully to the auteur theory which placed the filmmaker at the centre of the creative process, the independents attempted to bring about these fundamental changes in the structure of the film industry.” (181) “Their ‘dependence’ on the old studios for marketing and distribution automatically signaled the failure of their attempt ‘to overthrow the studio system’ or ‘to democratize filmmaking’.” (183) As long as we live in the capitalistic society of America, will this ever be a possibility for filmmakers to be successful and controlling 100% of what happens to the film in terms of production and distribution? Is it better for there to be this relationship between the independents and the film distributors? Could independent films be successful without this and would that further define independent films and the authenticity of the auteur? What were your thoughts on the rise and fall of Orion?

As the book wraps up by outlining how the major studios have entered the independent film world and basically taking over. Tsioumakis credits the success of Sex, Lies, and Videotape for this invested interest or in some ways takeover of the major studios into the independent film world. Should American independent filmmakers be thanking Soderbergh? Are they giving Sex, Lies, and Videotape too much credit for this change (ie: popularity of the Sundance film festival, the creation of other festivals, creation of the Sundance channel, etc)? What were thoughts on films being financed through the pre-selling of ancillary rights to avoid working with one of the majors? Tisioumakis used Lions Gate as an example of a company that has still stayed strong. Is it possible that they will meet the same fate as Orion if the majors get too powerful and have more long lasting ability to be financially sustainable than Lions Gate? What were your thoughts on the examples of the models that Phoenix and Revolution Studios went by to allow them to keep making films and be successful?

QUESTIONS (pt. 2) Tzioumakis Readings (Molly B.)

1. In Chapter 5, Tzioumakis discusses the New American Cinema and the films of John Cassavettes. I watched his film Faces, and the accompanying “extras” DVD, which included interviews with many cast members who discussed the making of the film. Cassavettes, as director and screenwriter, basically took no outside funding, and used friends and favors to come up with resources needed to make this film, and it won awards at Venice Film Festival, and its actors received prominent award nominations, as well. Faces took over 3 years to complete, and despite major technical difficulties in the post-production (e.g. the entire soundtrack was out of sync!), Cassavettes never sought out help from the Hollywood industry, and therefore, his film retained the aesthetic qualities of that independence, as well. He said he took “mainstream acting jobs” to fund his film outside of the system. He had a strong belief in working with actors and forcing them to be emotionally free in the process of developing characters, and believed Faces could only be made if he had full control over the means of production. He said he didn’t know or care what would happen when he finished the film, that it was about the “process.” In this sense, Cassavettes seems, to me, to have been a rare example of a true “independent filmmaker”in this era, as opposed to most directors who simply work within the existing system as independent directors, in co-agreements with the major studios. What do you think? Are there other directors who seem to define this style of independent filmmaking today? Would this be possible today?

2. Later, Tzioumakis discusses the state of independent films in the early 1980’s, during the conservative political movements in the USA and the shunning of directors with dissenting political views. During that era, many independent filmmakers made low-budget films that found a voice and a home in alternative sectors of the market. One interesting source of funding was from public broadcasting, which Congress asked to assist in financing independent films. Do you think that government grants and assistance should be more involved in the film industry in the US, in order to create a more consistent framework for directors and talent from the margins to make films? Should public funds be diverted to boost the creative sector of the independent film industry, like in other countries (e.g. Canada, Europe)? Or, are cable outlets like HBO, Bravo, etc. filling in this gap for distributing films that may be lower budget and non-mainstream?

3. It seems in the current period of independent cinema, that the major studios have found a way to co-opt the indie producers/directors by providing them a comfortable way in which to work. They are, for the most part, given control of their own work, provided a budget to work within, and guaranteed distribution, which has been the toughest situation for most indie filmmakers, if working “outside of the system.” If such films have content that relates to the human condition and diverse subject matter (e.g. not Blockbusters) can be made within the system, why do we need “indie” film as a term anymore, if these aren’t actually independent? Is there a better term, such as “underground,” that might represent filmmakers that are truly at the margins, producing and distributing films through other channels and financing? Is “indie” just another means for Hollywood to sell movies to new audiences? Is the true meaning of independent cinema lost in the current conglomerate-dominated movie system? Are audiences getting enough disparate viewpoints? Can these new styles of "indie film" be challenging (or merely entertainment) within this framework?

independent film

hey everyone,

i found this link and thought you might enjoy checking out some interesting cinema verite -

‏http://cdn1.ustream.tv/swf/4/viewer.45.swf?cid=317016

Indie Film Questions (2nd Half)

Much of the discussion in this course has centered on taste distinctions. These tastes are often manifested in the alternative media a particular audience favors, who seek out avant-garde circles that share their tastes. It seems to me that the so-called independents of the film industry define success by getting their product out to the most amounts of people possible, which is done by exploiting the channels of the mainstream film distribution apparatus. Until recently, independent films and mainstream films were indiscernible aesthetically, since at any given point a majority of mainstream films were made by independent filmmakers. My question is then; does an independent film offer viewers a taste distinction at all, since the means that all films are brought to the public is almost always through the same mainstream channels?

The film industry offers the most unique discourse on the independent/mainstream dichotomy. The mainstream is often represented simply through the economic advantages they hold, as they are the ones that own the means of distribution. However, they are fundamentally dependent on the indie producers for the content. Without the mainstream, the independents would not have a cohesive distribution apparatus, and without the independents, the mainstream would have less content to distribute. The relationship between independent and mainstream filmmaking is, and apparently has always been, functionally symbiotic. The independents are constantly trying to out-mainstream the mainstream by creating films that are more attractive to massive audiences in order to gain enough capital to compete with the majors, but since they ultimately depend on those majors for distribution, is this a futile effort? Is it not irrational to believe that the independent media can use the mainstream distribution channels to compete with the mainstream?

Since the studios and the independent producers are essentially linked in the business of making films, it becomes hard to understand exactly what an independent film looks like. The Tzioumakis (I just wanted you to have to say his name in your head) book goes to great lengths to discuss the films that were produced independently, and even when he does explain the aesthetical nuances of indie films, he fails to mention mainstream studio films that were aesthetically similar to the indies (I imagine there had to be some). In the case of Juno, a movie I have no problem saying I loved, the subject matter is nothing new for Hollywood. However, teenage pregnancy is simply told in a way that pleases indie consumer tastes (which explains the Kimya Dawson soundtrack and comic book intro). This leads me to wonder if independent films today are nothing more than a clever genre branding for the studios, a way to distinguish films that are targeted to moviegoers that prefer a bit more edge in their Hollywood produced drivel. Are indie films just classic Hollywood narratives retooled to fit indie tastes?

Indie cinema questions

In Chapter 7, Tzioumakis concentrates on “the measures the company took to avoid the possibility of a corporate takeover and thus retain its independence amidst a small number of fully diversified entertainment conglomerates.”(p225) Geoff King also discusses this phenomenon, by stating that the major difference between independent cinema in 1950s-early 1960s and 1980s is the “extent to which any sustained infrastructure was created.” Later on, the most important requirement for independent cinema is its own distribution networks, where Hollywood studios still control the main markets. Is the relationship between the conglomerates and those satellites or mini-majors truly symbiotic, with fair value exchanged in the form of content generated by the smaller studios and infrastructure and finance provided by the conglomerates? Or does the fact that the economic power and incumbency of the conglomerates forces this on the smaller, potentially independent studios mean this is more accurately a parasitic relationship? Is independent cinema nowadays a pure independent territory, which has its own value system, aesthetic standard and ability to resist the organizational gravitation, or an incubator for big companies to discover the talented people? When the independent cinema faces the fact that if it does not stir the market like a bomb then people won’t pay much attention to it, then what is the difference with Hollywood?

Jean-Luc Godard says that “All you need to make a movie is a girl and a gun.” However, for those independent filmmakers, from funding and distribution, it is still as dangerous as “walking through the swamp.” In Chapter 8, Tzioumakis continues to talk about the institutionalization of independent cinema. There we read about the efforts leading to resurgence of independent cinema in the 1990s, that were supported by many organizations, which are separated from the conglomerates. However, if there is an audience ready and receptive to the truly independent cinema, are such measures really necessary? Or would independent cinema spontaneously develop to satisfy the audience’s appetite? In other words, if the designers of the market support independent cinema when they develop, does society still need to deliberately or consciously support it, festivals or whatever. Or will the same designers act as the driving forces to bring about an independent element to the market?

I am sort of interested in the selection of music in some indie movies. Look at Juno first, from the interview with Ellen Page, she reveals why she would choose the Moldy Peaches/Kimya Dawson. Ellen describes the music is full of “so much heart and so much simplicity”, “humorous”, “novelty”, which is just as quirky as for Juno. Not only the Moldy Peaches/Kimya Dawson’s music, most of which are self-published, brings to the success of the movie, there are also many other well-known songs in Juno, such as the song written by David Bowie “All the young dudes” (one of my favorite songs) and Sonic Youth. Then let’s look at the soundtrack of the movie Happiness again. There are many masterpieces, which are from Mozart and Vivaldi. I realize that even with those masterpieces the soundtrack did not give me more impression of the whole movie than Juno. So what is the respective value of music used in both movies? To a wider extent, how possible could a movie be successful by the value of its soundtrack, which is highly recognized by those previous music fans? I know the movie Once is a good example in Europe. Another interesting is that after the success of Juno, Kimya Dawson’s fans are unsatisfied with how widely those songs are presented to the public, by stating that “not indie anymore”, “the movie spoiled her music.” Still an old question, how do those indie musicians and filmmakers balance between their original creativity and the potentially huge money-making market in front of them?

Juno Dossier

Entries by Karina Longworth on the Spout blog:
Review of Juno from Telluride film fest

Juno Release Plan Changed

Oscar Odds: Juno

Where is Juno Crossing Over From Exactly?

More on Juno and the Crossover Issue

Juno crosses $100 million



IndieWire review



Interview with Ellen Page about the Juno music at Pitchfork



Entertainment Weekly: Diablo Cody profile



Filmmaker mag interview with Reitman and Cody



Slate on the Juno backlash






Trailer.

***

And the latest on Fox Searchlight's fortunes in the LAT:

Fox Searchlight is one of the premiere specialty labels in Hollywood, releasing successful movies such as "Little Miss Sunshine," "Sideways" and the pop-culture juggernaut "Juno."

But lately Searchlight has been in the dark.

The unit of News Corp.'s 20th Century Fox, known for picking quirky films that resonate with the public, has released only a handful this year, far fewer than in the recent past. Two pictures it had high hopes for flopped. Others performed adequately but hardly with distinction.

For the rest of the story, follow the link.

Indie Cinema II illustrations

Re Tzioumakis 160-164, a scene from Rock Around the Clock (1956)



And the movie's poster.

***



VW "Sunday Afternoon" commercial



VW "Milky Way" commercial

Deanna's Questions on American Independent Cinema

Hey, Mike. Deanna was having problems logging in to blogger, so I'm posting her questions through my account. Hope that makes sense - John V.

1. On p.140, Tzioumakis cites Steven Brody’s characteristics of Monogram’s approach to producing exploitative films in the 1950’s: “[The film should be] based on news headlines with a title that is as outspoken and controversial as the headlines; Covers subject in form of expose that illuminates illegal activities; Promises, but never delivers controversial visual material; Produced quickly and cheaply while the subject it is set to exploit is still in public discourse (still marketable).” He mentions that these criteria, along with successful exploitation/marketing during the film’s distribution and exhibition stages will attract maximum public awareness and generate interest. Maybe a more obvious modern day version of the 50’s “teenpics” may be today’s straight to video National Lampoon’s college movies; however, do you consider a certain group or demographic to be targeted as heavily and exclusively by film producers today as teens were in the 50’s? Aside from demographics, what personal characteristics or posturings define this/these group(s)? Rather than a specific group, what dispositions or ideologies are targeted and exploited today, and are films necessarily “unethical,” regardless of author intent, if they exploit a specific group or topic? Is film exploitative in its nature, or how much does the aesthetic and narrative context make a difference in representing the targeted topic or group?

2. When interviewed on his latest film W, Oliver Stone (JFK, World Trade Center, Nixon, Platoon) said, “If you don’t examine your environment, you live in ignorance.” W began production in May 2008 and was released on October 17, 2008 with little pre-release press or hype (for a movie with its specific subject matter) and received a PG-13 rating. Stone claimed that his target viewer is an intelligent 10 year old- like he was when he was a child. Although the context in which the subject is presented greatly differs between exploitation films and social commentary, do viewers go to social commentaries, like exploitation films, to see a show rather than a “picture?” Do today’s political satires sacrifice quality for profit to exploit, through the presentation of lurid subject matter, cynicism and public distrust, especially that of a young adult audience? Do political commentaries need to be marketed with strong “showmanship” to be profitable or economically successful? What recent films or directors would you consider to have been marketed with strong showmanship or through exploitative marketing? How much of a part does a film’s release date play in qualifying it as an “exploitative” film?

3. Tzioumakis mentions that the emergence of drive-in theatres were the result of the late 1940’s migration to suburbs, the accompanying auto culture, and the absence of socializing patterns, such as “cafes and strolls in the park or a town’s central square,” that are characteristic of European countries (142). He goes on to say that, “Drive-ins turned into a very significant hub for social interaction, especially among a younger generation.” Why are these “Euro” socializing patterns absent from American culture, and to who’s or what’s, if any, benefit. How does centering social interaction or meetings around viewing scheduled mediated entertainment affect the amount of time and money we spend during our leisure time and the enjoyment we get from it? How does the amount of time we spend on leisure activities affect the production of entertainment?

11-12

1.) The catering to teen markets due to their level of disposable income began in the 1950’s when low-budget independent producers capitalized off of them. Were independent studios more concerned about profit over art in this era because of the absence of an independent tradition? These exploitation films were produced cheaply and quickly with the promises of controversy (narrative and visuals) for the sake of finding an audience. Even though some of those same subject matters are evident in contemporary independent film (at least in the three that we are watching) they seem more legitimate today, why? Now independent movies target a completely different demographic (those with the cultural capital- professors, artists). Does independent cinema always cater to the audience left out of the mainstream target demographic? When did this shift occur? What events led to it?



2.) “The oppositional stance that defines indie culture is one key to its status as a source of distinction, a means by which its audience asserts its superior taste. By seeing independent cinema as the alternative to Hollywood films, the indie audience makes authenticity and autonomy into aesthetic virtues that can be used to distinguish a common mass culture from a more refined, élite one.” (Newman 10). It seems as though people create this division with all media products they consume. The line between those that like country music and those that like rap music is just as powerful culturally as the division between mainstream and indie. Entire identities are created around music and even if the cultural snobbery do not attribute elitist tastes to either group, they may still see themselves in such a light. What is the motivation behind creating such hierarchical divisions? Forget about indie, if we are only exposed to the mainstream why do we still define ourselves as what we are not?

3.) One observer wrote, “working outside the studio system is no longer a guarantee against interference and censorship. Since the majors dominate the distribution system, they also—in effect—control the independent sector” (Newman quoting a Hwd observer 16). When did working outside of the studio system guarantee against interference and censorship? Even in the 1940’s, independent cinema was shown as part of a double feature in conjunction with mainstream film, did the MPPDAA not deal as much with content? Since the MPAA in the 60’s, it seems like even if you operate “outside” of the studio system, indie film producers’ goals were “interfered with” (if going by “augment, diminish, or otherwise affect one another”) because opting out lead to diminished distribution and exhibition options since the beginning. Am I being too literal? Maybe.

reading questions for 11/12 discussion

Tzioumakis brings up a different approach in understanding independent cinema as a discourse constructed by “authorized social institutions.” The author argues that the definition of independent cinema is contributed by such “legitimate social groups” as “industry practitioners, film critics, academics and publications, etc.” that have close association to the field of independent cinema. He further clarifies his argument by applying Foucaultian theory of “naming and defining the object.” Nevertheless, while legitimating the authority and power in construing the conception of independent cinema, Tzioumakis apparently omits the agency of audience. Tzioumakis would agree to the point that, based on the nature of cinema, one may inevitably wind up in misunderstandings if he sees cinema as “a one-way communication.” Therefore, if the discourse is also a process of reciprocity or mutual communication between film and audience, as the author himself suggests, would audience equally (if not less) have the power or authority in the construction of this discourse? If so, in what way would audience’s participation be significant? How may mass audience be able to bring independent cinematic culture into being then?

Following the clarification of his argument regarding the conception of discourse, Tzioumakis holds that independent film represents the issue of power. He claims that in the course of constructing this discourse, different parties compete against each other involving the field of independent cinema. According to Tzioumakis, independent cinema seem to be a tool for marketing strategy that contributes to the survival and development of either major or non-major film makers. In this sense, independent becomes truly “independent” only when it is necessary to certain extent. Independent film appears to be an optimum choice of expediency for concerns like financial achievement rather than for the sake of the films per se, perhaps. Off of this point, are we fair to say that the competition of a privileged power in the construction of this discourse may virtually sacrifice a true autonomy of independent film in the sense that a power-related force could keep a true independence at bay? Or curiously enough, is it correct that there is not such a thing as true independence at all, at least for in the case of films?

This question still follows the key topic of power that runs through the book. To illustrate his point, Tzioumakis delves into the case studies of the major film conglomerates’ growth and finds that, on the one hand, early American film makers struggles hard for the powers to get rid of being “depended upon,” but on the other hand, they oppresses the nascent and keep they from gaining power when they are in control. Michel Foucault interprets the connection between truth and power in the way that truth cannot be true without the sustainment of power, and power could no longer be powerful should it be stripped of truth. In the case of American independent films, what truths are the filmmakers trying to project along their way of growth? Are there any differences in telling the truth concerning independent cinema during their different stages of power?

Discussion Questions

1. The article is primarly about the marketing strategies of Miramax, and they talk a lot about how they didn't want to market it as a "starving artist" or "avant-garde" film. The author says that it is impossible to distinguish between the interest created in the film as a result of marketing by Miramax and the interest created by the subject matter and storyline itself (33). Would you agree with that? Or if not, how critical a role did Miramax play? The film was already popular in underground circles before Miramax purchased it. Do you think it could have or would have become such a cultural icon without the Miramax marketing plan? And do you think that this more commercial marketing plan compromises the "indie-nature" of the film?

2. In "The New American Cinema," discusses how "dreams by independents are often the stuff of fantasy and illusion" (314) because even if the film is low budget, it works under the umbrella of the dominant capitalist system. Do you think its possible to still be independent while working within this system or is the idea of independence a myth (that we believe in b/c we like the idea of it)? And if so, how? If everything works within this greater system, what makes some things independent?

3. As some of these indie movies gain more financial backing from big studios (or small studios owned by big ones), do they lose some of their "indieness"? It does seem like much of the credibility of indie movies hinges on the movies being low budget and independent of studios (and I almost feel like those are the only two criteria). Are indie movies more legitimate if they are done without the help of a studio, even if that hurts the overall production quality?

4. After watching Sex, Lies, and Videotape, I have to say I wasn't the least bit impressed. I know its a cult classic, but I honestly didn't think it was any deeper than any big studio drama. Do some movies take on this great importance simply because they're classified as indie, even if they aren't really that special? Or am I missing some great quality in the film?

1. Kleinhan’s article discusses the “success myths” (308) and legends associated with independent films –production (accessibility and process), success (critical and economical) and overall autonomy. In so many words, he claims that production companies have cashed in on aspiring filmmakers’ false sense of accessibility and attainable success that scholars’ and film teachers “most attracted to legends of authors/directors who succeed on their own terms within the system” and who tell the legendary stories, discuss the careers as tragedies, and “construct the canon of works” (321) have glamorized. He mentions that the appeal of authorship helped to fuel this aspiration and to create a scene of “Hollywood wannabes.” How could this group be described in terms of gender, age, class, style, and artistic ideology? What other cultures or groups might they be similar to or whose ethics might they oppose? How is the Hollywood wannabe culture more diverse today than it was in the 90’s? And for Hollywood wannabes not exposed to this glamorization that, according to Kleinhan, originates in academic settings and through discourses of distinction, what other institutions, sites, or political structures might contribute to this glamorization? What are the implications of these aspirations existing among and in specific groups and sites?

2. Perren’s articles cites how the video market in the 80’s helped “spur the emergence and expansion” (30) of independent distributors. Personal viewing technologies have changed the way we watch films, with whom, and when and where we watch them; how has the shift in popular formats affected more than just the economical capital of producers, but also the cultural and social capital of viewers; how does the way we consume art or cultural artifacts, specifically alone or in groups, affect production, ideologies surrounding certain genres and tastes, and the overall social environment and wellbeing of consumers? How have different groups’ viewing habits changed over time? Kleinhan’s article cites Michele Wallace’s quote about what we should expect and not expect from certain art forms. Rather than expecting films to have policy or ideology-shifting narratives, how can the way viewers react to and watch films have a larger impact on social structures?

3. Do podcasting networks allow for a more democratic production process and system? Who benefits financially from such networks?

Qs: Indie Cinema I (Week 10)

1.       In Perren’s paper”Sex, ,lies and marketing”, two of the important terms are “quality” and “high concept”. As stated in P31, the “quality pictures” were films that aspired to the status of ‘art’ in the terms of style and narrative construction. Can we say this “quality” is a new standard for “taste” in indie films? Despite their distinct aesthetics, do “quality independents” and “high concept films” have anything in common? “The film marketers-even before Miramax- obviously believed that an independent movie carried connotations bearing specific ‘qualities’” (P33). What on earth were these “specific qualities” at that time? After the success of sex, lies and videotapes, quality independents were distinguished by virtue of their gritty look or edgy content (controversy), hence “independents of the 90’s stood out either because of excessiveness in style, sex and violence, or because of a minimalist aesthetic that emphasizes dialogue over camerawork. (P38) So why a minimalist aesthetic could be aspired to the status of “art”? Are “sex, violence, and controversy” a must for indie blockbuster? Is the “quality” decided by marketing/distribution strategy or on the merit of director’s unique vision? Simply put, for these indie blockbusters, have they been marketing-oriented at the beginning of filmmaking? How to distinguish an “indie movie” if it is packed as if it was a major studio release?

2.       Perren mentioned that during 80’s Miramax was interested in a range of documentary, foreign langue film and art house-oriented films.  What is the role of foreign language film in the world of independent distribution?

3.       After Miramax and many other distributors have become subsidiaries owned by major media corporation, the film industry is now dominated by a combination of studios releasing big-budget films and specialty distributors handling niche films. The term “indie” and its value have been questioned. Perren argued “if a strict structural definition of quality indie blockbusters were to apply, then very few independent films would qualify for it.”  (P37)How to examine the value of “indie” from an industrial standpoint and an aesthetical perspective? Furthermore, Perren seemed to hold a negative viewpoint on the future for newer filmmakers and independent distributors struggling to find a pace in today’s market place (P38). Was the success and transformation of Miramax (plus the imitators) a boon or a bane for the indie movie nowadays? 

Céline week, more videos

"I Don't Need Anything But You," from the 1999 ABC TV movie version of Annie. This is schmaltz.



Céline sings in French 1998, "S'il suffisait d'aimer" live.



Céline sings in French 1988, Eurovision contest, "Ne partez pas sans moi."



New Found Glory, "My Heart Will Go On" (a punk cover...ironic?).

Let's talk about Celine and tastes

1. In the first two chapters Wilson mentions the story of Celine and Elliott, and how things got personal to him at the Oscars. From what Wilson states, he gives me a feeling that there are always gaps between mainstream pop stars and underground artists, and the tastes of each other are always mutually exclusive. Then at the end of the second chapter, he introduces the story that Wilson was defending Celine Dion in front of others who dislike Celine. All of these make me think about the relation between “tastes and interpersonal relationships.” I guess my question is does people having different tastes really matter that much? Does having different tastes really hinder interpersonal relationships? If not, why we are paying so much attention to it? It seems that people always like to manifest or declare their own tastes, the my-taste-is-better-than-your-taste postures. It seems like people believe what we consume is always a representation of who we are. Yeah, people do have different tastes, but so what? Why we like to make “taste” such a big deal?

2. In chapter four “Let’s Talk About World Conquest”, Wilson brings up the case of Celine in China (P40). “What’s the biggest misconception the Chinese had about the West?” “The Chinese believe Celine Dion makes good music.” “Out of the whole catalog of American, Canadian and British music, the Chinese seem to enjoy primarily four artists: Dion, Mariah Carey, Elton John and Kenny G.” It’s really interesting when I read to this point. I guess one thing I’m thinking about is the marketing strategies. It’s all about accessibility. If Celine and Mariah are all that Chinese media present, these are all that Chinese audiences can get. Wilson wants the Chinese to appreciate Elliott, but I’m sorry, no major Chinese media inform us that there is an Elliott. Another observation of mine is that it seems that Chinese music lovers are more critical/ skeptical about our own Chinese pop music, but hold more open attitudes (even worships) toward western pop music/ stars, just like Americans are more critical about their own pop culture, but maybe more easy-going to Japanese/ French pop culture. They say “distance creates beauty.” Do you think it can be fit in this case—tastes of Chinese fans and Celine? I guess the point I’m trying to make is that the nature of taste is really a complicated matter. One cannot just stand at one place and give the judgments about what is good and what is bad. What do you think regarding this?

3. Just one simple question: People generally think Celine’s French songs are much better than her English songs. Not only Wilson thinks so, but her fan says her French work “seems to have a deeper soul or meaning of it (P109).” Why is that? Let’s put aside the issue of taste, why do people generally enjoy her French songs better? Is it simply because she’s better at conveying her emotions through French?

Celine Dion has got to go - - I've got to Go Celine Dion

So, given the (perhaps) less than critical/scholarly tone of Wilson's book i would like to pose a series of (again perhaps) slightly less-than-purely-scholarly questions to this work (please note that while reading Wilson's book has somehow actually made me pause to consider the fact that i might actually like Celine Dion {and/or her music} my questions run on the assumption that we all start from the point of view of hating her music):

.08 . In chapter 6 Wilson introduces the concepts of the 'genuine fake' and 'authentic inauthenticity', which (to me at least) bring to mind these ideas we've mentioned of indie culture searching for its "authenticity" in older medium (vinyl, black & white film, lo-fi). Is it a fair assumption to accept these terms, but not consider the 'fake genuine' or 'inauthentic authenticity' as equally valid 'positions'?

1. On p. 67 Wilson ventures into questions about finding 'the self' & the "self-assemblage" that makes up modern identity. I wonder if the complex "bricolage" of self-identity isn't simplified in every kind of fandom (mainstream or indie), so that rather than having to create a version of 'the self' for every given situation, a fandom (and maybe especially an indie fandom) fashions a specific posture (say an ironic posture) to cover all sorts of social situations. Can we consider conformity (rather than the 'bad' mainstream sort or the unacknowledged indie sort) to taste cultures simply a way of managing the complex nature of modern social interaction?

2. At the very end of chapter 5, Wilson gives us a version of why Dion will never enjoy an ironic indie revival: "schmalz...is never purely escapist: it is not just cathartic but socially reinforcing" and so it "rots faster than other ingredients in the musical pantry" (61). First of all, this assumes that schmalz (and perhaps any unseemly outpouring of emotion) is trying to be escapist, ignoring possibilities for it to be, say, subversive, but the conclusion also ignores a 'schmalzy' artist who did enjoy a revival like, say, William Shatner whose acting could quite easily be characterized as 'schmalzy' and whose first "musical" foray was what i might categorize as experimental schmalz. In 2004, though, Shatner (and Ben Folds) released Has Been, an album that (at least somewhat) revives Shatner's career & 'indie cred'. Who gets to decide what can be retrospectively appreciated (albeit ironically) & what gets re-invented (read co-opted)?

2.5 . In the late '90s when i was living in Germany, a cultural/television phenomenon had developed known as "Deutsche Schalger" (German Hits). The phenomenon amounted to old German crooners (and some unknown younger artists) singing classic German 'schmalz'. These shows were popular with young and old audiences alike, but the sense i got was that the youth audiences watched/enjoyed these shows 'ironically' while older audiences saw them nostalgically. This seems to me to parallel our earlier 'Monster Truck' conversation where indie culture can consume 'mainstream' (or trashy) culture 'ironically' and remain indie, but i'm curious where this line breaks down, or how/why we draw it (i thought of this around p. 43-44)

2.73 . on page 42, when a 2003 Chicago Tribune article that Wilson is citing makes such a big fuss about the use of the word titanic in Afghanistan... isn't "titanic" just a word that means big?

3. Wilson posits the idea of 'difficult listening' vs. 'easier [not easy] listening' as a possible explanation to why we hate Celine Dion (p. 20). This is an idea we've come to previously in this class, particularly when talking about indie rock & early REM, but i wonder if we haven't overlooked the promise of 'complicating' simpler texts. Why do we (or why does indie culture) preference the 'deep text', the text you have to work at in order to understand over the simple text that you have to work at to 'complicate'? I'm thinking here of the the distinction between avant-garde art that (at least at some point in its history) valued texts that were at least on the surface level utterly simple (such as Rauschenberg's "White Paintings" or Michael Snow's Wavelength), that were, essentially works of art without content. Their complexity comes, then, from how they are read by the viewer.

"Let's Talk about Love"

To me, Chapter 6 seems to be more of a criticism against the ways in which Celine Dion’s voice is in contact with the audience. Wilson would argue that it is essentially “a volume business” which identifies Dion’s music as a piece of luxurious commodity and a technical plus ethnic role model that both intimidates people into low-creativity and engenders didactics to persuade audience into mainstream incorporation. It looks like the critics of mainstream highlights the evaluation of the cultural impacts upon the receivers. Not only do they emphasize the quintessential values of the “high brow/low brow cultures”, but also are they highly concerned about what values the different cultures would bring to the mass audience. Wilson’s examination of Dion’s music indicates that mainstream may fall short in enriching the audience in terms of personality cultivation and perhaps creativity as well. In this regard, I was wondering would the music (or other cultural forms) community of subculture help improve the shortcomings that the mainstream fails to bring. If so, in what ways would subculture contribute to enhance the connections between cultural outcomings and audience in terms of the influence over the receivers?

Wilson also argues in the illustration of the case of Dion that corporate mainstream culture has become globalized and hybridized with indigenous cultures. In this sense, the globalization and hybridization in fact create a popular mainstream identity that is recognized by worldwide audiences in a variety of areas. It seems to me that this global commercialization in the form of popular music establishes such an “imagined community” that people from different countries with different cultural backgrounds are assimilated into this community and are together identified as “citizens” of pop music world. And yet, how would local subculture distinguish itself in front of the juggernaut of globalization? Would it see this trend as an opportunity to expand its sphere and connect to its outside counterparts communities by joining this “shrinking world?” Or, could it be that the globalization eventually erodes the autonomy of subculture and harms its chances for future development?

Off of my second question, I have long been struggling with the question that does the definition or conception of subculture designate to a more universal application wherein worldwide subcultural community members recognize and enjoy a commonality? Or could the term of subculture be redefined according to various geographical norms so that one mainstream cultural form might be transformed and localized into a culture of underground or non-mainstream? Wilson’s example on this issue is the Iraqi copycat of American Idol and the Iraqi barber fights all the way against all odds through the competition, which irritates the mainstream in Iraq. The fact is that when Dion’s mainstream music bothers critics at home, “My Heart will Go on” seems to arm the Iraqi barber with an identity of subcultural taste that separates him from mainstream. So what would we make of the story regarding the cultural transformation in this sense?

Céline Dion is amazing

Isn't she?

*

Carl Wilson has a blog, Zoilus.

The 33 1/3 series of books does too: 33 1/3. See also: Wikipedia.

Oriental Theatre Images

Here are some pictures from a recent visit to the Oriental Theatre in Milwaukee for my Indie Culture Site assignment.

Indie Site: La Blogotheque

I'll be discussing the indie rock video site La Blogotheque in class.
I am posting a separate blog, with video examples and a little background on
the site, should any of you be interested.

http://mjbmutterings.blogspot.com/

Thanks,
Molly

The Pedal Pusher Society

It is important that I disclose my involvement with the site of indie culture that I chose to document. The Pedal Pusher Society (PPS) is Milwaukee’s premiere all girls and trannies bike gang, and I am one of four founding members. This group is incredibly dear to me, and I have been involved in its development and implementation on every level. It is challenging for me to speak objectively about the group, which is exactly why I wanted to use this opportunity to critically examine what PPS is and how we function in relationship to the larger underground bicycle culture.


The dominant underground bike culture in this city is a thriving independent culture. It promotes a healthy, sustainable lifestyle that is a direct rejection of the fundamentals of capitalism that fuel the mainstream’s automobile addiction. To begin to understand this culture and its values, the video After the Fall is a great entry point. The director, Marshall Pierce, is a member of the group he’s filming, and he summarizes his video as “A look at underground Bike Culture in a growing industrial city.”^[1] The viewer is introduced to things that are important to this culture – road bikes in general, but fixed gear bicycles as an ideal (especially if it is somehow customized); the sport of bike polo; using the bicycle as a primary mode of transportation and also a means of employment. Pierce shows us these things by juxtaposing images of Milwaukee with clips of members of his culture speaking about and participating in that culture. These images and clips serve to highlight the greater subtext of the film - this is a culture that celebrates bad-assery ^[2] and competition among straight, white men.



After the Fall by Marshall Pierce. For a prime example of bad-assery, please view the exchange that begins at 7:34.


Despite the proclamation that this is an examination of Milwaukee’s underground bike culture, at no point in the video is a woman featured as a cultural participant. What is the explanation behind this obvious gap? The dominant underground bike culture is extremely male dominated and heterocentric, and this video, made from within the culture, is a prime example of its exclusivity. Men have always been granted immediate access to this community, and they are privileged in having a support network already in place for them upon first entering. Women, on the other hand, must create a place for themselves, and it is exceedingly difficult for a woman to attain the same status that is automatically granted a man.^[3] Women are simply not taken as seriously. That is why only one female bicycle messenger is employed in this city. That is why there are not any girls featured as cultural participants in this video. That is why the Pedal Pusher Society exists.


We formed PPS in 2005 as a direct response to the dominant underground bike culture. For many of our members, the Pedal Pusher Society is the first bike culture that has made them feel welcome and comfortable. We accept members no matter what their level of performance or type of bicycle, which is truly uncommon in bike culture. We have even taught ladies how to ride. Many of our most active members are women who were intimidated by city riding and wanted to practice in a supportive group. One of the more seasoned riders in the gang commented that she enjoys riding with PPS because “we know how to keep a steady pace without leaving anyone behind”. It seems that members of all ability levels find it empowering to help transform a normally exclusive culture into one that instead encourages more women to become actively involved in cycling.


One of the things I find most exciting about the Pedal Pusher Society is the ways in which we encourage that involvement. In creating PPS, our intention was not to carve out a place for ourselves in the dominant bike culture, but rather to create something different and new. So we focused on opening up bike culture to include other interests, in the hopes that PPS would not become as insular as the dominant bike culture. In so doing, we knew we would appeal to more women who might feel more comfortable being part of a culture that wasn’t just focused on bikes. When we plan rides, we try to cater to these multiple interests. We’ll go to farmers markets and then make lunch from our ingredients. Or we’ll end up at a member’s house for a dance party or campfire. We have also screen printed and hand-embroidered gang jackets, to serve as subcultural signifiers for our members. In this way, the Pedal Pusher Society has become an important social outlet for many of our members, and a culture they are truly invested in.


Interestingly, the events that tend to empower members the most are the making of music videos. In 2007, we decided we needed to find a creative way of inviting people to join the gang. Participation was lacking, and it seemed that this was due partly to the stigma that surrounds underground bike cultures. We were viewed as an underground bike culture, so we, too, must be exclusive. To bridge this gap, we decided we had to create something that went beyond the confines of normal bike culture, and the idea for Eye of the Tiger was born. It was filmed over the course of two evenings with a camcorder that we bought from Wal-Mart (due to their generous 30 day return policy on opened electronics). Most of the participants had never ridden with us before, but were somehow connected to the group through common acquaintances. We used the shoot as an excuse to get these people involved, in the hopes that they would want to continue to participate. It worked – many of the people in that video have become some of our most active members.^[4] When asked why, credit is often given to their participation in the video - none of us had made a video before, and none of us knew what we were doing. It was the shared process of creation that fueled the group with a sense of accomplishment and community.



Eye of the Tiger by the Pedal Pusher Society.


Last summer, we made a new music video, with even more participants, this time set to Michael Jackson’s “Beat It” (and essentially a direct response to the original Michael Jackson video). The video portrays two rival girls bike gangs who are brought together by the benevolent Pedal Pusher Society. In both of our videos, the characters present both a parody of male toughness and an alternative to it. The women in the videos are allowed to occupy spaces and roles that are usually inaccessible to them in dominant society. In so doing, the Pedal Pusher Society is changing the sphere of bike culture and claiming new spaces for women outside of the dominant bike culture. This is an important point of cultural differentiation – PPS is not trying to carve out a place for women within the dominant bike culture. We’re trying to create something new, something that hasn’t existed before. This is essentially the mission of the Pedal Pusher Society – to create a supportive, independent culture while simultaneously having an awesome time.



Beat It by the Pedal Pusher Society. This is a very large file, so please let it fully upload before attempting to view - otherwise the video is jerky. You might miss the subtle nuances! Embedding of Michael Jackson's original video has been disabled, but if you'd like to see what we worked in response to, you can view it here.


By and large, PPS and our videos have been met with a great deal of support, from those within the larger underground bike community and also from people functioning wholly outside of that culture. But the fact that PPS exists is very threatening to some male cyclists, as their exclusion from any area of underground bike culture is unprecedented. On a web community where the Beat It video was posted, one male cyclist responded by saying “If I start a bike club and hang a big sign on the metaphorical door that says 'boyz only, girls keep out' that would be wrong, right?”^[5] The fact of the matter is that men don’t have to hang that sign on their club’s metaphorical door. The dominant underground bike culture is a definitive boy’s club – the message of that sign is enforced without it being there, resulting in the systematic exclusion of women, or any other group that would fall within an “other” category.


I always detest it when authors skirt around issues of race and queerness in their work, acknowledging that problems are present, but refusing to take the space to examine them. Nevertheless, I find that this is what often happens within the Pedal Pusher Society. As an example, I want the spaces we create to be open to people who are transgender. I have pushed this agenda on the group, touting PPS as Milwaukee’s premiere girls and trannies bike gang. But our inclusion of trans folks has ended there – we haven’t gone to any other lengths to make the space welcoming. I worry about what would happen if an out trans person showed up for a ride. On the one hand, I would be absolutely elated – I have experienced transphobia and I desperately want PPS to function as a space that is inclusive beyond the traditional gender binary (and also to not define itself in terms of that binary). On the other hand, I would be horrified that gender queer individuals might be pummeled with questions regarding their identity or of who they “really” are. Furthermore, what would it mean for the group’s perceived identity? These are questions and issues that have not been properly dealt with and, frankly, need to be.


It should also be noted that the experience of this culture is more or less limited to people residing within the confines of Riverwest and Bay View. While we usually take our rides well outside these areas, our outreach efforts end there. Consequently, our culture is predominantly young, and mostly white. This certainly impacts our agenda and the group dynamic. In an effort to diversify the group, we have talked about hosting a series of workshops around the city that aim to educate women about safe urban cycling skills. We would also like to hold open “fix-it” sessions in which we use our collaborative knowledge to repair bikes. These ideas are good ones, but I’m not sure how effective they would be.


There is a need for an alternative to the dominant underground bike culture. The Pedal Pusher Society actively works to help fill that need. I feel strongly that, even when we’re not riding, PPS is fulfilling its mission, because it’s helping more and more people to become empowered cyclists. There are so many other bike subcultures that would be a boon to cycling, and my greatest hope is that the Pedal Pusher Society would help to empower individuals to start these subcultures. In essence, that’s what we did – we saw a need, and we responded to it.


For more information, or to join, or to stare at pictures of us, please check out our not oft-updated website, our myspace page or these flickr photosets (set 1, set 2)

^[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivtP1Ihg1qA, accessed October 20th, 2008.

^[2] Colloquial as this seems, I believe it provides the most accurate description. Traditional “masculinity” is not specific enough.

^[3] There is the possibility that men might find it challenging to access this community, but exclusion would be due an obvious violation of subcultural style (for instance, riding an upright bicycle, or something equally uncool). A woman, on the other hand, might be in possession of all the subcultural tools of the trade, but she will still have to fight for a place in this culture.

^[4] Most of our other members are women who saw the video and wanted to take part in the culture we created. Our e-mail list jumped from about 20 to over 90 after Eye of the Tiger was released.

^[5] http://www.metafilter.com/74328/this-is-bad, 15th comment, accessed October 20th, 2008.

Independent Gaming Examples

Here are three examples at Indiecade that I think represent distinctly indie aesthetics in gaming.

And Yet It Moves



The Misadventures of P.B. Winterbottom



Dark Room Sex Game

Brew City Bruisers Video

I've been trying desperately to get this video properly updated, I think this may be it. Anyway, I was going to show this video during the presentation but thought this would be more convenient.

Caught in a (handmade) Rat Trap: On Cynicism and Incorporation

Read Frank’s “Why Johnny Can’t Dissent” and it becomes abundantly clear he subscribes to, like Hebdige, Gramsci’s notion of Hegemony and co-optation. However, Frank explains, “What’s happened is not co-optation or appropriation, but a simple and direct confluence of interests.” He argues that modern day dissent is ineffective preciously because its tradition, dating back to the Beats, has long ago been assimilated into corporate culture. It seems, Frank might argue, the only thing separating the hippy on Wisconsin Avenue holding a sign for Revolution and the hippy in a boardroom, singing the same mantra to his colleagues, is not a desire for change or rebellion, but their venue. With that in mind, and considering Walker’s “Handmade 2.0” article, it seems indie crafters aren’t opposed to the fetishism of brands, styles, and unique products, they’re just opposed to that fetishism if it’s for corporate products. In other words, are these Indiepreneurs just future corporate moguls who have not yet risen to power? Is there a difference between Nike and aNYthing? Are hip, rebellion, and counterculture, as Frank suggests, really things that can be co-opted? And if so, what separates the motive of A-Ron from the motive of MTV?

Side Question: In this way, Frank comes off as cynical and uncritical of the motives the capitalist might have in comparison to the grassroots organizer. If Frank is right to call for a change in the culture of dissent, what might it look like? Is the rebellious culture propagated in office complexes really analogous to the counterculture of the 60s, which, unlike profit-motivated corporations, sought egalitarian principals?


Frank attacks the recent trends of cultural studies when he proclaims all the contextual readings of Madonna – as a woman who bends notions of sexuality, gender, and race - as nothing more than the academizing of public relations. He more than suggests that cultural theorists, as well as anybody who has an affinity for Madonna, are simply dupes playing into the corporate game of modifying, packaging, and selling notions of rebellion or alternativeness to the masses. Of course, what gives his musings an element of humor is how accurate he is in some of his barbed observations. However, the alternative he does offer to what he calls “popular culture” is shrouded in its own smoke of elitism and mystery. What is this “well-screamed no” he describes? A subculture so underground that it’s beyond aesthetics, beyond labels, beyond any tangible or ethereal element that could otherwise be adopted by corporate interests? Can DIY culture fit into this conception, or does the simple act of making something physical, and thus identifiable and marketable, contradict the ethereal resistance Frank speaks of? Are these the ramblings of a disaffected, alienated, nihilistic, bitter subculturist, or can these ideas be grasped and grounded to become something other than the lofty threats of a precocious underground man?

Finally, what subcultural attributes can we attach to the term Indiepreneurs? Hebdige argues one main quality of subcultures is their youth. However, Walker mentions that the average age of many DIY crafters is 34. What about the quality of resisting the parent culture? The mainstream? In this case, can these things be likened to Corporate Culture? Finally, if the aesthetics of this DIY culture have already been or will soon be incorporated into future corporate product lines, what distinguishes these products as subcultural? Is it the handmade process of production? Is it the economic restrictions on the creators? Are the politics, which are “against the dehumanizing global supply chain” important? In other words, are these Indiepreneurs, or just garden-variety DIY entrepreneurs?

in today's USA Today...

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2008-10-12-karmaloop-selkoe_N.htm

This story is from today's USA today's Money section. I grabbed my free USA Today at the Library and
found this article to be pretty relevant to what we're reading... so I am posting a link. Hmmm...
Molly

Reading Questions: Hip + DIY Consumerism (For 10/15)

1. A reoccurring theme in most of the readings we’ve analyzed thus far is that of authenticity. In his article, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” Walter Benjamin argues that “The unique value of ‘authentic’ work of art has its basis in ritual, the location of its original value” (p.4). In other words, a piece of art is intrinsically linked with a culture’s (or subculture’s) history. In Rob Walker’s article, “Handmade 2.0,” the founder of “the online shopping bazaar Etsy,” Robert Kalin, is quoted as saying, “When you get an item from Etsy, there’s this whole history behind it. There’s a person behind it” (p.6). If a product is handmade and/or original, does that increase the value of the work of art? If so, why does this matter to certain consumers? Is it mainly because of social status, or does it voice a political statement of some sort, such as the fact that the handmade nation carries out a more personal, environment-friendly business? (See p.1)

2. In his article, “Alternative to What?” Thomas Frank argues that countercultural entrepreneurship is part of the “rebel ideology that has fueled our culture ever since the 1960s” (p. 149). In “The Brand Underground,” Walker introduces us to several young grass-roots brand-maker entrepreneurs who carry out the rebel ideology: A-Ron and his “aNYthing” t-shirts, Daniel and Michael Casarella and “Barking Irons,” and Bobby Kim and Ben Shenassafar’s “The Hundreds.” Walker exemplified the rebel ideology when he quoted Bobby: “‘It’s just the idea of trying to be rebellious,’ he said. ‘Or trying to be a little bit anti, questioning government or your parents. Trying to do something different’” (p.7). How does this (rebel) entrepreneurial ideology compare to that of music subcultures? Is this ideology as much of a political statement as what the punks were trying to do with their torn t-shirts? (See Hibdige.) How does it compare to indie rock’s DIY ethic? (See Hibbett p.61) Further, how does the fact that A-Ron dropped out of high school and was still successful play into the rebel ideology?

3. In “The Brand Underground,” Walker examines minibrands and “quasi art objects”—sneakers as form of expression (p.8). He emphasizes the fact that corporations are working with the counterculture to make a new product. Walker states, “Instead of stealing ideas from the underground, the big sneaker makers positioned themselves as supporting it. The strategy seems to work” (p.8). For instance, graffiti writers Futura and Stash designed co-branded products with Nike. However, doesn’t a co-optation lower a hip product’s subcultural capital? Should fans be upset that Futura and Stash co-opted if the reason they did so was to keep their lifestyle-as-a-business dreams alive? Walker notes that “sneakerheads were willing to treat athletic shoes made by multinational corporations as cultural objects” (p.9). Why were they willing to see this collaboration as cultural objects? Was it because it’s a good business decision for both parties? In other words, on the one hand, Nike gets a new, hip product and makes a lot of money while showing it supports underground ideas. While on the other hand, Futura and Stash get wider recognition, a potentially larger audience, and a portion of the profits.