Hello world,
So I had my first official Visual Culture strand lecture and seminar today and I have to say I actually really enjoyed both. Up until now I’ve felt like I’m doing a ‘drop out’ course – not to say that this is the case by any means, it just felt like it – and this module serves to remind me that actually I am not. Whilst arguably this is the only ‘academic’ module to the course I have chosen, I remain hopeful for the out come of the past two years and indeed the further one to go. Whilst I appreciate the industry I have chosen to work in is ruthless and unforgiving, I hope by the time I reach that stage I am more than prepared to meet it.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand. So I guess the best way to start would be to summarise a few of the key points made during the lecture;
1. Tastes and values are NOT individual, instead they are influenced and shaped by historical, social, cultural and politics processes and forces.
2. Tastes and values are intertwined and cannot be separated; you value something you like, you like something you value.
3. Tastes and values have changed and adapted through the different eras (classical, traditional, modernism and then post-modernism).
4. Industrialisation and mass production have changed the way we perceive things and have ‘replaced’ folk culture and critical thinking with commodity culture and conformity.
5. Suggested hierarchy system; highbrow – the educated elite; obscure, abstract art. Middlebrow – the desire to have refined tasted; highbrow manqué. Lowbrow – lacks cultural knowledge/competence; likes popular culture / the obvious.
Whilst these are not all of the points outlined in the lecture, I believe these five are some of the key aspects of what was said. Whilst I agree fully or partially with most of the above points I completely disagree with points 1 and 2. Whilst there is no denying that external influence – be it cultural, political or social – do affect the way we think and indeed the things we like and value, I disagree with the lack of individuality. The ‘lack of individuality’ would suggest that every person in the world has similar, if not identical, tastes and values; this clearly is not the case. Whilst I will not base my argument solely on this point, I think that it speaks volumes to assume that no single human being has exactly the same tastes (likes) and values as another, therefore a degree of ‘individuality’ must exist. This is further expanded by the second point; I need not like something in order to value it. For instance, I do not like the concept of placing a monetary value on an object but I appreciate and value the need for doing so in order to keep society as we know it in exsistance. On the flip side, I like having a mobile phone but I do not value it; whilst I appreciate having one, I could do without just as easily. Now I know these are fairly small, insignificant and and personal examples to myself, but if I were to ask any single person whether they could think of an object that they like but do not value or vica versa, I’m sure many more examples could be formed.
Returning to my earlier point, would someone change their opinions, tastes or values solely based on their upbringing and ‘class’ at time of birth. Arguably yes as parents and family tend to be the biggest influences whilst growing up, however there is also the aspect of ‘rebellion’. Certainly in a post-modern society this notion of ‘rebelling’ seems to be getting stronger with children and young adults going out of their way to break away from the conventions and values laid out in front of them. This again leads me back to my argument that a certain degree of ‘individuality’ must exist and that tastes and values ARE actually still individual to each being and are NOT intertwined; you can infact have one without the other.
Anyway, this post is perhaps getting a little on the long side so I shall leave it at that. I merely wanted to share my ideas and views on my earlier lecture and will begin posting more regularly as I delve further into this module.
Chris
