The Pop Culture Addict’s Blog

What is it about anything Mac? It’s quality assurance plus the undisputable sleekness of design. The newest Macs are always so darn pretty. Of course, at present I am thinking about that Mac Mini they just uncovered. It has the same amount of memory as an iPod. Speaking of which, I am totally and completed fascinated by the iPod evolution.

Originally, iPods (up to 40 gigabytes or 10,000 songs) experienced steady sales due to hipster appeal – it couldn’t have been affordability. But then then iPod Mini (4 gigabytes or 1000 songs) hit the market. In a day when kids carry around $200 gaming devices (I’m thinking specifically of those Nintendo DS’s) in their backpacks (or really in their hands) it is easy to justify dropping $250 on the adorable iPod Mini . Now we hear about the iPod Shuffle! $99 for 120 songs (half a gigabyte) or $149 for 240 songs (a full gig).

Here are the pros and cons all rolled up into a jumble: you get the sleek design, you get something that plugs in directly into your computer, it’s the size of a pack of gum, it’s always on shuffle, there’s no way to know what song is playing unless you already know. It’s like having a radio station playing without a dj announcing the song list. Sometimes I wish I could press a button while I’m walking that would announce in my ear the title and artist name of the current song. So you’d need a secondary speaker on your headset. It’ll come to be, baby, just you wait. But in the name of streamlining – something I’m down with but not practicing – the iPod Shuffle gets high marks.

It is a few days later. I meant to put this up earlier but now EW has beat me to it although their story was kinda lame. They talked about how with the iPod Shuffle comes the end of hip hop skits. First off, I admit liking the De La Soul ones on 3 Feet High and Rising but after that…eh not anyone else’s.

I remember Chris Rock saying he has two iPods – one with only comedy on it and the other only music. I guess he’s Chris Rock and can afford two iPods. But now more of us could afford two iPod Shuffles for our various audio needs. Hm, the possibilities are endless… if you really need those kind of distinctions. Anyway, I haven’t seen the iShuffles around yet.

Added 2/2/05: Thinking about iShuffles made me remember that I did enjoy that movie about iPeople…um…I have to look it up…Robot Stories by Greg Pak. As my brother and I love to say, saw it a film festival. It was the Asian American International Film Festival which has a lengthy name with lots of promise but rarely lives up to it. But I guess I’m trying to be supportive of the arts particularly of Asian and Asian American movies. Some of them rock (Cafe Lumiere) and some of them don’t (Woman is the Future of Man). But I’m ever hopeful.

Anyway, let me revise my review of Robot Stories now that I remember it better. I liked 2 out of 4 parts – the one story about the mother collecting toys for her son and the iPeople temp one. Spoiler alert…stop reading if you don’t want to know what happens…

It was this tongue-in-cheek tale about how in the not so distant future, Apple will come out with robots/computers who can temp in offices and they might be called iPeople. They can work all night but you do need to recharge them. In the end, a male and female get together contrary to the idea that they don’t have human desires and needs.

Tweet This Post 

I must say that I loved The Aviator and was glad it won and that Leonardo DiCaprio’s work was recognized. I just would’ve enjoyed a speech from Martin Scorcese. You could tell the Million Dollar Baby table was feeling deflated. But I did not disagree with Hilary Swank receiving an award. She did an incredible job and Clint Eastwood won best director so his movie was acknowledged. Also, Sideways got it’s props in two categories – screenplay and best non-drama (although it was a dramedy). I loved Sideways but I would’ve really loved for The Incredibles to have won something.

Jamie Foxx gave the most likeable speech. Clint’s speech was cute. Mick Jagger was hilarious. Even tho’ Leo DiCaprio is a hip hop guy, he looked pretty psyched when Mick walked by him.

All the tv people were sitting pretty far away from the stage making me wonder were they surprises? Then again, the Closer people were sitting right next to the stage and I did not see Clive Owen or Natalie Portman as winning. I admit, I haven’t seen Closer yet so I can’t really comment although after my brother described the play in detail to me, I finally remembered having seen it. He was like, remember that play about those people who were really mean to their significant others?

Jim Carrey with “human units” comment and Will Ferrell with his reading glasses over the eye patch gesture did not disappoint in being unique and funny presenters. Meryl Streep was funny too with her “congratulations, Natalie” comment and look. She has said, “I’m not going to lie: I always want to win.” Teri Hatcher in her acceptance speech was adorable. I thought she was being pretty sincere about being the biggest “has-been” when she got her Desperate Housewives gig. I was reading how the Lost people only got 2 tickets because Desperate Housewives got the rest. Well, I enjoy both shows and I guess the buzz was on for DH so ABC wanted them properly represented.

Oh, back to tv – I was happy for Jason Bateman – he really is good on Arrested Development. I don’t know how William Shatner or Anjelica Huston were in their roles but as I said, they were all sitting way in the back of the room. I’ve said how I liked Popular – created by Ryan Murphy of Nip/Tuck fame. I don’t know if I’ll ever watch Nip/Tuck though especially after watching VH1’s Remaking of Vince Neil. It was entertaining but the plastic surgery was so graphic!

I liked how when Prince was announced, you could tell Naomi Watts was saying, “I love Prince.” And I always enjoy seeing Ewan McGregor. I wonder how The Island will be – his movie with Scarlett Johansson.

So I guess I still have time to catch up on movies before the Academy Awards ceremony on Feb. 27. I know, so soon! Didn’t it used to be at the end of March?

Tweet This Post 

I was enlightened about the power of fashion while viewing an exhibit about Jacqueline Kennedy recently. The exhibit, Jacqueline Kennedy: The White House Years—Selections from the John F. Kennedy Library and Museum, is from the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC and first ran a few years ago from May 1, 2001–July 29, 2001. The exhibit heavily emphasizes her famous wardrobe with sprinklings of her personal notes.

Seeing this exhibit really changed, or rather, formed my opinion of Jacqueline Kennedy. I had never given her much thought beyond her iconic image. But this is what i mpressed me:

1) At first she tried to draw attention away from her wardrobe but the public was riveted and couldn’t get enough. One interpretation is that her attractive and forward sense of style was symbolic of the promise of fresh, youthful leadership in the White House and of America.

2) Jacqueline Kennedy worked with designers to incorporate other cultures into her wardrobe especially when visiting other countries. For example, in Mexico, she made an effort to wear sunny, bright colors and in India, she also wore patterns and styles helping her blend into the aura of the country.

She used style as a form of diplomacy. Her natural openness and desire to carefully consider her wardrobe for each trip and meeting was nothing short of brilliant. The world embraced Jacqueline Kennedy for her humanitarian outlook evident from her actions and appearance.

I never thought of fashion as a political tool let alone an effective one. One story that stood out was how a Saudi Arabian leader presented her with this beautiful silk fabric and she had it made into an evening gown. How complementary was that? And she looked stunning. Think how favorably the gifter looked upon that gesture. I also loved the long black dress and headdress she wore when visiting the Vatican. Click here to see the black dress in question and other images.

3) Apparently, Jacqueline Kennedy also had the ingenious idea to use natural gemstones from each state (in the US) to make paper weights as presents for foreign dignitaries and such. This accomplished so many diplomatic points. The states felt honored and represented and the country in general could feel respected and cherished by the White House by the production and gifting of these paper weights. Paper weights! So impressive.

4) I really enjoyed reading Jacqueline Kennedy’s handwritten and typed personal notes, i.e., her personal travel itineraries, notes to designers, and in one case, written responses to an interview by Helen Thomas. But what I really loved was her impassioned letter to the Mayor of New York in 1978 urging the conservation of Grand Central Station.

---

The other pop fashion topic I must comment on is my latest addiction to the Style Network’s show How Do I Look?. I would rather watch the Sopranos than the Style Network but somehow I caught a marathon running of How Do I Look and became hooked. It is a makeover show, a genre I shunned previously, that somehow manages to touch me. The charming host, Finola Hughes, gently eases the victim through the process of being trashed and then re-styled. I can’t get enough!

So, while I believe my green tea bag quote from last night (giving credit to a fellow tea-loving pal for giving me this tea in the first place), “Beauty without grace is as a rose without scent,” my appreciation for the meaning of pop fashion has been heightened.

But let me point out that I’ve always said I like that swan dress of Bjork’s!

Addendum 2/1/05: I just wanted to add that I’ve now become a fan of “Pulled Over” on the Style Network. It’s a very sweet but not too sappy family makeover show. Plus, the family car always gets revamped. And it’s all done in a 30 minute slot. Gotta like the efficiency in editing and activity. I know what you’re going to say, have I seen Extreme Home Makeover? The answer is no. People seem to like that one though I’ve heard it’s a bit OTT with the sentimentality. It probably conflicts with something else I watch and probably something I feel. But I’m all for a good cause. Maybe one of these days I’ll watch it.

Tweet This Post 

When I’m done writing, I will file this under my definition of pop culture but I want to write it out here first:

So, I thought I had come across all these illuminating ideas during my winter break and couldn’t wait to piece them together for a coherent definition for myself and for everyone else who is interested. But now that I look at my notes, they don’t seem particularly profound.

Let me give it a go. The following will be a loose mix of paraphrasing, quotes and my interpretations. But I will make appropriate attributions not following any strict rules of citation.

By chance, I happened upon a textbook entitled Rethinking Popular Culture, eds. Chandra Mukerji & Michael Schudson published by University of California Press in 1991, and starting reading it.

I will refer you to the actual book if you’re looking for more in-depth analyses. I will just tell you the few ideas that stood out from the introduction written by the editors which was a review of their thoughts and theories as well as overview of the book chapters.

1) paraphrased from p. 3 : Authentic folk cultures have metropolitan or elite roots and mass culture is incorporated into ordinary people’s everyday lives so we can’t make distinctions between pop culture and high culture or authentic people-generated folk culture from unauthentic, degraded (their word), commercially-borne mass culture.

So, what I got from that is that the origins and roots of pop culture and elite culture can be traced back to the same sources. What the book also indicated was that the distinction is more of a political one rather than aesthetic or intellectual.

I must say that I agree with that. They point out that back in the day of Shakespeare, the typical audience of a play performance was that of say a Yankees game (my example, not theirs) today, i.e., diversified across all cross-sections of the socio-economic map. And they also note that in Boston, the “Brahmins” made an effort to make art and classical music class-divided rather than of the people as it naturally was.

Other things to think about are the role of literacy in the development of culture. Oral traditions included literate individuals reading outloud either verbatim or more likely, interpreting outloud written accounts for those unable to read themselves. So, if we consider the “elite” as being those with access to education and thus able to read, then does that mean their culture is not pop culture but rather what is defined as elite culture? Then again, think of how the non-literate population was still able to access so-called elite culture. They could hear about it from the storytellers and attend plays and concerts.

Then next idea that I found relevant is apparently well-known in the academic field but previously unknown to me:

Max Weber said that we should study and consider how we make meaning in our world. Clifford Geertz in The Interpretation of Cultures published by Basic Books in 1973 said: “Weber showed us human beings are creatures who live suspended in webs of meaning they themselves have spun.”

The ideas of Robert Park and George Herbert Mead from University of Chicago as well as those of John Dewey and William James can be distilled in this context as studying the emergence of: “how people make meaning and make society through the experience of everyday social interactions….” (p. 29)

Hold on because I just have a couple of more ideas to throw out to you:

Michel Foucault, Roland Barthes and Christian Metz considered the sensual nature of the process of reading, that is, “what makes reading a book or watching a film pleasurable” (p.48).

Further, the ideas of Jacques Lacan make us consider how are basic needs of humans addressed through culture?

The last ideas of the day come from Foucault’s question of what does it mean to be an author and Janice Radway’s question of what does it mean to be a reader. The authors in the intro ask us to think about how the more we consider objects and ideas (movies, music, books, etc.) interpretable, or to be more academic, “textual,” then, the more relevant the interpretations and interpreters are to the meanings of these objects and ideas. Interpretation produces meaning. It’s a cyclical thing.

So, the definition of pop culture is deep and more than simply youth culture although youth culture is often a sub-culture of pop culture. Pop culture is more than what’s accessible although it is part of the definition. As I’ve mentioned before, sub-cultures or underground cultures are also part of the vast world of pop culture. For example, the gaming world is part of pop culture, but not everyone is part of it. The manga/anime world is part of pop culture but it’s still a specialized area. Underground, unsigned music is part of what I would consider pop culture, as indicated by its inclusion on this site but obviously if a group is unsigned, how accessible is their music?

I think pop culture is what we, the people, consider important, interesting, fun or just plain entertaining. I guess the question is, is there a worthwhile distinction between what’s considered high culture and pop culture? Or is it just political? I know I’m backtracking here but is accessibility, or appeal to a typical consumer or individual without particular training or education about a topic, form of communication or entertainment of whatever the medium and product/idea/object part of what makes something of pop culture vs. high culture? I don’t think so.

I realize I’m using the term “accessiblity” or “accessible” in two ways: 1) actual physical availability and 2) intellectual availability – is it presented in such a way someone without specialized knowledge can understand and enjoy it?

The more I read over what I’ve written, the more ideas become clearer to me. So, it seems that the original term “pop culture” is derived from the idea of commercially-produced “culture” as opposed to individually-produced, more organic culture.

But what I consider pop culture is more refined than the idea of mass-produced culture or elements of culture because, and this ties into the ideas of authorship and readership mentioned above, if we don’t care for what is produced, then is it relevant? I don’t mean, if only a few like something, is it relevant. Of course it is still relevant. I mean, if someone tries to force-feed an idea or object to the public and say, this is cool, like it and we reject it, what does that mean?

I think at some point, and perhaps some people would argue that still, pop culture comprises only those ideas, movies, books, music, etc. churned up and out for the general public using the proverbial lowest common-denominator.

But I would argue, and it seems I’m not alone, that the concept of pop culture now encompasses something different, something more substantial. The term refers to what is cool, what is in, yes, what is popular. I’ve already said yes, I mean currently, but I think there is a timelessness to pop culture as well. The more I try to define and analyze, the more I feel like I’m trying to explain. I might have to retract what I said about how my ideas are becoming clearer to me. But I’m trying!

So, the discussion continues…

Tweet This Post