Media Mismatch
I'd like to draw attention to the cliche and tired topic of the media's influence on pop culture. Although I find it true that the standard of achievement has fallen far below what it once was, I feel that the media is hardly to blame for this erosion of artistic creativity.
Tossing aside the fact that ones culture and childhood greatly affect their sense of perception, I'd like to look at what really is driving these advertisers toward a social kingdom topped with gold encrusted rims and skeet infested walls. While there is a call for a counter-strike within the underground "scene", both sides vary indirectly with no other motivation than the status quo. It's a given that art is not measurable in any way shape or form. But, there will always be forms that relate to the public better than others.
It's the medias and big business's job to distribute the most called for to its customers (supply and demand). It's true that big business tends to change its representatives in order to BETTER APPEAL TO THE PUBLIC. Their motivation is to appeal to the most common aesthetic. So while the direction is still focused on money, money would not be made without the support of the consumer. If the lemmings continue to take that leap, they will continue to spread this disease of decaying quality. Advertising and marketing is a business.
Art included or not, the goal of a business is to make money. Don't blame the media for encouraging the ever lasting display of hocus pocus, blame yourself and those around you.
Tossing aside the fact that ones culture and childhood greatly affect their sense of perception, I'd like to look at what really is driving these advertisers toward a social kingdom topped with gold encrusted rims and skeet infested walls. While there is a call for a counter-strike within the underground "scene", both sides vary indirectly with no other motivation than the status quo. It's a given that art is not measurable in any way shape or form. But, there will always be forms that relate to the public better than others.
It's the medias and big business's job to distribute the most called for to its customers (supply and demand). It's true that big business tends to change its representatives in order to BETTER APPEAL TO THE PUBLIC. Their motivation is to appeal to the most common aesthetic. So while the direction is still focused on money, money would not be made without the support of the consumer. If the lemmings continue to take that leap, they will continue to spread this disease of decaying quality. Advertising and marketing is a business.
Art included or not, the goal of a business is to make money. Don't blame the media for encouraging the ever lasting display of hocus pocus, blame yourself and those around you.
People like to complain, but sit on their ass at the sametime. I know, because I do it.
Maybe it IS time to stop being passive.
Posted by
Matt |
3:11 AM
As I've said many a time, most things suck. This applies to everything, not just pop culture. However, we need this suckiness to make the good stuff even better in comparison, because if everything kicked ass, nothing would kick ass. It would all be of the same quality.
Posted by
Anonymous |
6:07 PM
I do agree that all declarations of the good and bad are relative, and that the only way to appreciate the good is through the bad. I do not think that the less capable should be tolerated in order to glorify whatever it is we hold in higher standing. I'm going to put up a quote on this topic in a few minutes so this analagy is whats on my mind. Freedome is one of the most important "freedomes" a person can have. Does this mean that slavery or lack of freedome must be held in order to appreciate or understand its existance? Weather or not we could comprehend freedome without having seen the lack of it, does not extinguish the fact that it must be granted to all who possess a soul.
Posted by
Andy S. |
12:29 PM
Read Strinati's theory of postmodernism. I had to use it in an english paper. You might like it.
Posted by
Anonymous |
3:21 PM