It's been far too long since I spewed the contents of my mind onto my computer. Much of that is due to the fact that second semester has begun. As such, much of my brain power is being diverted from creative endeavors to scholastic work. This is a sad reality, but a reality nonetheless.
I wish I could say that my classes have given me a lot to ponder, that ideas are flowing between my professors and myself. Sadly, that is not the case. I am reading Beowulf, something I have wanted to do for some time and am now getting to do for class. It's a wonderful poem and I highly recommend it.
The only thing that has been kicking around my mind recently, aside from classes, is the fact that I am no longer a teenager. I turned twenty a week ago. I meant to write a post commemorating the occasion but was distracted by a number of things. Most notably, St. Valentine's Day.
My birthday happens to fall on Valentine's day, and every year I have mixed feelings about this. As a child, I was always a little angry that the decorations weren't for me, and that everyone got cards on my day. I have utmost pity for anyone whose birthday falls on or near Christmas or any other gift giving holiday. On the other hand, people respond differently to the fact that it's my birthday than they would otherwise.
As I grew older and came to understand what Valentine's day meant to our society at large, I became even more angry. "Should not people tell one another that they care on every day of the year?" thought I. "Of course they should!" I responded. This is, of course, not necessarily reasonable. What really irks me about the holiday is just how much stock people take in it. I simply can not believe how many relationships are made and broken on February the Fourteenth.
Now, I have a girlfriend. We've been together for over a year now, and have had two Valentine's Day's together. I was frank with her last year and said that I don't like the holiday. I feel like such a whiny bastard saying that because it is my birthday but, the fact is, I wouldn't like it either way. So I made a point to tell her that I appreciate her, but I make a point to do that anyway.
Another thing that irks me about the holiday is the number of people who make a big deal out of the fact that I do not make a big deal about the holiday. Here's my response to them: "Wouldn't you rather people celebrated you were it your birthday?" Sure, it's a little vain but, to be fair, I don't sound like such an asshole when I say it.
I guess it's my way of telling people to not take too much stock in a holiday on which a massacre occurred (and here I'm referring to the St. Valentine's Day Massacre of 1929, not the horrible tragedy that occurred at Northern Illinois University last week).
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Monday, January 21, 2008
...continued
This post is to continue the conversation that Miss Molly began with her post cansei de ser sexy, specifically Martha's response.
Martha brings up an interesting point; one that I hadn't crossed my mind. How much does the paparazzi contribute to the making of gossip, how much is the celebrities, and how much do we, as the public consuming this media, contribute? It's not a simple question to answer, and I don't want to propose that I have it all figured out.
However, we live in a capitalist society where the gods Supply and Demand rule. There are plenty of celebrities and, consequently, plenty of celebrity gossip. The public demands the gossip, almost nonstop, then we get bored. We're tired of Lindsay Lohan's alcohol issues, we no longer care about which one of the Olsen twins has an eating disorder. We need something new and the media supplies it, occasionally when there isn't really anything there.
What I'm saying is that it goes both ways. As the media-watching public, we're guilty of demanding a certain amount of celebrity gossip. On the other hand, the media needs to keep people interested. Magazines need readers, subscribers preferably. MTV needs viewers. How do they keep those subscribers and viewers? Give them what they want.
I agree, some celebrities pull through and do something good with their status. Martha mentioned Angelina Jolie. Bono is another (though U2 should give it up). These two realized that they are in a position to make change on a much grander scale than most people (though I hasten to add that most people, i.e. you, do have the power to make changes). I applaud those two for their efforts. They are noble and necessary.
Here's what I propose: Let's hold celebrities accountable. I have no delusions of getting rid of celebrity gossip but I think that the public has - we have - the ability to demand that our celebrities use their status to make changes. I want Paris Hilton to advocate for animal rights. I want Usher to teach voice lessons to kids whose schools cut music funding. We point out every other fault that celebrities have, why not point out their lack of humanitarian efforts?
Martha also mentioned that "sometimes the kitschy ending of an episode of "Grey's" is just enough to lull me into a restful sleep." And that's fine. That’s the entertainment side of television which, as I mentioned in my previous post, is still valid and, yes, necessary. Sometimes we need an escape, and allowing television to entertain us is a wonderful escape. I'm no different. My worry is that many people only follow that escape. Many people aren't aware of "the terrifying changes to our global environment, the unprovoked preemptive strikes and their consequences, and bigoted legislature and issues we need to take action upon" as Martha stated.
I'm not accusing Molly or Martha of this, I'm simply restating the point I made in my last post: television is a valid medium for entertainment, but that's not it's full potential. It also has the capability to educate.
I love and respect you both. I hope we can continue this conversation.
Martha brings up an interesting point; one that I hadn't crossed my mind. How much does the paparazzi contribute to the making of gossip, how much is the celebrities, and how much do we, as the public consuming this media, contribute? It's not a simple question to answer, and I don't want to propose that I have it all figured out.
However, we live in a capitalist society where the gods Supply and Demand rule. There are plenty of celebrities and, consequently, plenty of celebrity gossip. The public demands the gossip, almost nonstop, then we get bored. We're tired of Lindsay Lohan's alcohol issues, we no longer care about which one of the Olsen twins has an eating disorder. We need something new and the media supplies it, occasionally when there isn't really anything there.
What I'm saying is that it goes both ways. As the media-watching public, we're guilty of demanding a certain amount of celebrity gossip. On the other hand, the media needs to keep people interested. Magazines need readers, subscribers preferably. MTV needs viewers. How do they keep those subscribers and viewers? Give them what they want.
I agree, some celebrities pull through and do something good with their status. Martha mentioned Angelina Jolie. Bono is another (though U2 should give it up). These two realized that they are in a position to make change on a much grander scale than most people (though I hasten to add that most people, i.e. you, do have the power to make changes). I applaud those two for their efforts. They are noble and necessary.
Here's what I propose: Let's hold celebrities accountable. I have no delusions of getting rid of celebrity gossip but I think that the public has - we have - the ability to demand that our celebrities use their status to make changes. I want Paris Hilton to advocate for animal rights. I want Usher to teach voice lessons to kids whose schools cut music funding. We point out every other fault that celebrities have, why not point out their lack of humanitarian efforts?
Martha also mentioned that "sometimes the kitschy ending of an episode of "Grey's" is just enough to lull me into a restful sleep." And that's fine. That’s the entertainment side of television which, as I mentioned in my previous post, is still valid and, yes, necessary. Sometimes we need an escape, and allowing television to entertain us is a wonderful escape. I'm no different. My worry is that many people only follow that escape. Many people aren't aware of "the terrifying changes to our global environment, the unprovoked preemptive strikes and their consequences, and bigoted legislature and issues we need to take action upon" as Martha stated.
I'm not accusing Molly or Martha of this, I'm simply restating the point I made in my last post: television is a valid medium for entertainment, but that's not it's full potential. It also has the capability to educate.
I love and respect you both. I hope we can continue this conversation.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Re: cansei de ser sexy
This post is a response to this post by my good friend Miss Molly.
cansei de ser sexy is a interesting post to read, especially for me. Molly and I have talked about my distaste for celebrity gossip and television in general. Call me an elitist, I just don't like it. Some of it has to do with advertising, but that's not the extent of it.
I really appreciate Molly's ideas on why she enjoys celebrity gossip, etcetera, and I'm very glad to know that, at least for her, watching television is not an escapist thing. Molly uses television as a way to relate to those around her. This is a natural thing, I think. People look for ways to bind them to those they love and respect. Molly uses television; I use music. In short, Molly is saving up conversations for later, and that’s great. Not only is she being entertained, but she doesn't cut herself off from those around her. Rather the contrary.
Molly said one thing in particular that struck me, and that is this: "[H]igher culture ... tends to be more exclusive than something we can all do: turn on a TV." Essentially, this is true. Television is a very easy thing to do, and it's relatively inexpensive. On top of that, people are almost looked down upon for not watching TV, and even more so if they don't even own a television.
This gets to another reason I don't particularly enjoy television: I don't like the feeling of being conditioned to do something, especially when most media outlets are owned by six companies. This is probably hypocritical of me to say; I'm sure there are things that I do that are equally conditioned in me as television is in most others.
I recently (finally) got around to watching a wonderful film called Good Night, and Good Luck. It is about broadcast journalist Edward R. Murrow who, in the 1950's, took a stand against Senator Joseph McCarthy, a fear monger exploiting the Red Scare to his own advantage. The film follows Murrow who decided to take a stand against McCarthy at great cost to himself. Other journalists were afraid to say what he said for fear of being labeled a communist themselves.
One of the things the film highlights, aside from saying that journalists should be watchdogs, not lap dogs, is the role of television in society. Murrow argues, eloquently, that television can be a tool for educating as well as entertaining saying, "let us dream to the extent of saying that on a given Sunday night the time normally occupied by Ed Sullivan is given over to a clinical survey of the state of American education, and a week or two later the time normally used by Steve Allen is devoted to a thoroughgoing study of American policy in the Middle East."
I'd like to note than I'm only arguing that television should do more than entertain. As Murrow says at the close of the film, "[if] this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now… . This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box. Good night, and good luck."
Indeed.
cansei de ser sexy is a interesting post to read, especially for me. Molly and I have talked about my distaste for celebrity gossip and television in general. Call me an elitist, I just don't like it. Some of it has to do with advertising, but that's not the extent of it.
I really appreciate Molly's ideas on why she enjoys celebrity gossip, etcetera, and I'm very glad to know that, at least for her, watching television is not an escapist thing. Molly uses television as a way to relate to those around her. This is a natural thing, I think. People look for ways to bind them to those they love and respect. Molly uses television; I use music. In short, Molly is saving up conversations for later, and that’s great. Not only is she being entertained, but she doesn't cut herself off from those around her. Rather the contrary.
Molly said one thing in particular that struck me, and that is this: "[H]igher culture ... tends to be more exclusive than something we can all do: turn on a TV." Essentially, this is true. Television is a very easy thing to do, and it's relatively inexpensive. On top of that, people are almost looked down upon for not watching TV, and even more so if they don't even own a television.
This gets to another reason I don't particularly enjoy television: I don't like the feeling of being conditioned to do something, especially when most media outlets are owned by six companies. This is probably hypocritical of me to say; I'm sure there are things that I do that are equally conditioned in me as television is in most others.
I recently (finally) got around to watching a wonderful film called Good Night, and Good Luck. It is about broadcast journalist Edward R. Murrow who, in the 1950's, took a stand against Senator Joseph McCarthy, a fear monger exploiting the Red Scare to his own advantage. The film follows Murrow who decided to take a stand against McCarthy at great cost to himself. Other journalists were afraid to say what he said for fear of being labeled a communist themselves.
One of the things the film highlights, aside from saying that journalists should be watchdogs, not lap dogs, is the role of television in society. Murrow argues, eloquently, that television can be a tool for educating as well as entertaining saying, "let us dream to the extent of saying that on a given Sunday night the time normally occupied by Ed Sullivan is given over to a clinical survey of the state of American education, and a week or two later the time normally used by Steve Allen is devoted to a thoroughgoing study of American policy in the Middle East."
I'd like to note than I'm only arguing that television should do more than entertain. As Murrow says at the close of the film, "[if] this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now… . This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box. Good night, and good luck."
Indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
