Culture Calling

• “… mass culture was ‘imposed from above’ on audiences who were ‘passive consumers’”
• “… of ‘homogenized culture’”
• “As the mass production techniques of industrial capitalism could reproduce endless copies of the same, standardized objects, for example sit-coms, records, or paperbacks, fears grew that a similar process would occur in all cultural practices …” (page 292)
• “America, … became a symbol of both cultural and political leveling, in a manner that endangered educated values.” (page 293)
• “In such a world accepted notions of a clearly defined American national culture imposing itself on other cultures become increasingly contested by the ways in which the construction of the idea of America itself is constantly under challenge from both internal and external forces which are difficult to resist. (page 299)

These ideas from the last chapter of American Cultural Studies (Campbell and Kean) summarizng the author’s research, are distressing. I find it odd that while the “world” is wary of being “Americanized,” so much of it seems to readily take what is available. Is anyone, Americans included, actually being forced to eat at McDonald’s? Call it capitalism, commodification of goods, industrialization of world resources, the production of the throw-away society, there seems to be a ready and willing acceptance of what America exports.
Which brings me to my next question. What is “culture?” Is it only “high” culture – work that is produced by recognized visual and performance artists, classically trained musicians, and films produced by independent studios? Or do we also include “popular” culture – neighborhood art fairs, the local community theatre, “rock ’n roll”, general “kitch” that is mass-produced, our basic television sound-bit news, comedy and drama productions, and so on. From the discussion in this book, it seems that the authors more than usually include primarily visions of “low” art that America creates and exports. I’ve been having a discussion recently with my MFA students and other faculty in the art department about whether or not an “artist” should be aware of and sensitive to the audience of peoples who might view their artwork. On the side of “high” art I think that artists do see the world around them differently than others and that it is their responsibility to share the vision to those who do not see it. This “vision” is sometimes discomforting to the casual viewer. This, I think is good. When we get too accustomed and comfortable in our surroundings, we become complacent, making it even harder to accept another’s viewpoint. This only exacerbates the continuation of “myths.” On the other hand, an artist might want their work to speak more directly to the casual art viewer. In this case, I think the artist might indeed fashion their work so that it will appeal to that viewer. Some critics might then conclude that this artist has succumbed to “the masses” and lost their vision for “change” (since this is often what an artist desires).
Another idea that Andy Crouch suggests in his new book, Culture Making: Recovering Our Creative Calling, is that the process of actually creating takes cultivation, in the sense that it takes time. While he does not use this metaphor, while I was in grad school in Illinois, I heard someone talking about farming. How, when the farmer plants the seed, he has to just wait while it is underground. He cannot “do” anything. Oh, he can fertilize and whatnot, but he cannot make this seed grow. It is a matter of time, weather, other growing conditions that allows this seed to “cultivate” itself and become the corn plant. But the thing I most like about this, is that it takes time. Obviously, even after the seedling shoots its little head out of the soil, the farmer cannot make it mature any faster that is its custom. So, I do think that while opportunities for “creating” have been democratized, the process of cultivating talent is something that takes time. From my perspective also, becoming an artist is a calling (Bezalel and Oholiab).
Finally, I want to say something from these quotes that mention “passive consumers,” “fears grew that a similar process would occur in all cultural practices,” and “a clearly defined American national culture imposing itself on other cultures.” Why are people “passive consumers”? Why do other fear the “leveling” process in all cultural practices? Why can this American culture “impose itself on others?” Is it not because others have become too satisfied with what they have? They are no longer taking steps to build up their own culture? Is America really imposing itself on other cultures as much as others are not “fighting” to not only protect what they have but to also create again? Yes, I don’t like seeing McDonald’s on every corner across the globe (and other annoying American popular culture symbols) but is there not a choice given to retaining existing culture and also welcoming new visions of “new” culture? The Italian Futurists in the 1920s wanted to flood the canals of Venice and burn down all the old structures and “art” in Italy in order to establish a newer vision for Italy (they were fascists). Could they be right? that Italy had become complacent in its history?

Explore posts in the same categories: culture