Pamela Anderson
the living embodiment of pop culture sex
(for the 90s. Today, its Paris Hilton)
I don’t remember how the conversation started, but I was talking with some people earlier today when someone made brought up Pamela Anderson and how they didn’t think she was attractive. I have no problem with that. She’s not really my type either. But the person then said that they had no desire to see her naked whatsoever. This stuck me as weird. Not that they weren’t attracted to her, mind you. And I can certainly believe that a person might not go out of their way to see her. But, I can’t imagine anyone possibly knowing who Pam Anderson is and not having seen her naked. I have trouble believe that anyone could have walked into a convenience store in the 90s and not accidentally tripped over a naked picture of Pammy. Some people even mentioned that while they knew vaguely who she was, they weren’t sure they’d be able to pick her out of a lineup of similar busty blonde actresses.
My jaw dropped. These people might as well be living on a different planet than the one I live on.
I’ll leave the “what makes someone sexy” conversation for another time. But what I’m interested in right now is ignorance of pop culture. I don’t mean that to sound insulting. Really when I want to sound insulting, I’m certainly capable of doing that here. Instead, I am kinda curious about the place pop culture plays in people’s lives.
Obviously, its a huge part of mine. With over 500 DVDs, uncountable comic books, satellite radio subscription, and a lifetime lived in front of the television, I’m pretty much a media junkie. But I’ve never understood people who say they don’t watch TV. While I certainly won’t pretend that every show on television is quality, or that people should watch anywhere near as much as I have in my life, I just don’t get how people proudly proclaim that they don’t watch any television, or people that think its somehow healthier to raise their children without television. Do you need to be a slave to media? No, of course not, but there is a whole world happening out there and I don’t understand the desire to castrate yourself from a part of it, not matter how menial you consider it.
Back in the day, it used to be considered intellectual to not have time for TV. Perhaps you were too busy reading The Brothers Karamazov to watch The Honeymooners. Similarly, perhaps listening to Große Messe in C minor didn’t leave you with time to waste on the Beatles. But at the end of the 20th century it turned out that Jackie Gleason and the John Lennon were just as important to defining the history of culture as Dostoevsky and Mozart were in their day. I’m not saying that 50 years from now history is going to remember 30 Rock and Chamillionaire as culture changing phenomenons. But then, how do we know that it won’t?
I’ve told the story before of how beststephi and I took her nephew to see a movie a few years ago when he was four and were amazed when he saw a poster and didn’t know who Bugs Bunny was. I simply didn’t understand how a four year old could not have any idea who he was. I feel similarly about grown-ups. I’m not a Barry Manilow fan, but I know who he is. And I expect non-hip-hop fans to know who Snoop Dogg is. Whether you are a Pam Anderson fan or not, its simply indisputable that she pretty much was the sex symbol of the 90s. Fifty years from now she’s going to be remember with Marilyn Monroe.
So that’s what I want to know. How important do you think pop culture is? Movies? TV? Music? Video games? The Internet? How much do you watch? How much did you watch as a kid? Do you let your kids watch? Why or why not? If you don’t watch TV, what do you hope to gain by not doing so? What rules do you set for your kids if you have them (or hope to set for your kids in the future)? Do you care about the pop culture that happens around us or do you think its ultimately unimportant?
Oh, and have you seen Pam Anderson naked before?
I had a moment of realizing how out of pop culture I was when I heard Weird Al’s latest poka medley and recognized only 2 songs from it.
Hmm, pop culture. Television. I find there to be something strangey entrancing about pop culture, even if I don’t like it. I was addicted to VH1 when I was in college. I have found myself basically bored with it, though. It’s not a concious effort to not keep up or not watch TV or whatever; I just don’t. I’ve sad down probably 5 times in the last two weeks intending to watch movies and just gotten bored and not finished them. Theoretically I believe there to be some sort of delightful artifice to pop culture, but it’s just come to bore me.
I don’t think I’ve completely lost the fascination that pop culture holds. It’s just that nowadays I only appreciate that delightful artifice of various subcultures with which I identify. Knowing all the latest internets crazes and game console gossip has a very similar flavor to it to knowing fully mainstream pop culture; one’s just held my interest in shiny objects a bit better.
And I don’t think I’ve seen Pam fully naked and not censored. I’ve seen plenty of magazine covers covering the naughty bits or clips of the sex video with the naughty bits blurred out. But I don’t recall actually seeing it all hang out. I’m sure the internet can fix this for me. There, now I’ve seen her naked.
well, I wasn’t saying you had to see Pam naked. It just surprised me. If you google for her, the top image shows her naked. I actually had to do quite a bit of searching to find a good pic of her for this post that was reasonably work-safe.
I would have counted seeing censored footage of her as having seen her naked. I was more shocked by people who hadn’t seen her at all.
Anyway, how far off of being pop culture aware are you? I’m not advocating being glued to the tube, but I think having a base understanding of celebrity news is pretty important. Are you aware that Britney Spears is getting divorced? Are you aware that Madonna is attempting to adopt a little african boy? Are you aware that OJ tried to publish a book about the the Brown/Goldman murder and it is now being pulled? That sort of thing.
Anyway, how far off of being pop culture aware are you?
Given an LJ handle of “lonelocust”, I imagine you were at least in tune with Space Ghost at one point.
This is interesting in that I was thinking tonight of the fact that there is a rock and roll band coming to the benedum in january that I have never heard of (they are called the fray). It weirded me out because its the first time in 10 years that I have worked there that I didn have some periferal knowledge of a pop act. I attribute this a bit to the fact that I have sirius and have narrowed my music option and also that I don’t find my music magazines worth reading anymore…
I have seen pam anderson naked but don’t fine her attractive bacause she paints in here eyebrows
They said on the news tonight that snowflakes were spotted in orlando. And I don’t care I’m off to mgm
I have heard of the Fray.
So do you think you’ve lost something by having lost touch with the kids and such?
I’m definitely one of those people who isn’t in touch with pop culture and it’s not because I’m a snob or too busy being an “intellectual”. It’s more that it’s just not something that actually interests me very much and I always seem to find some other way to “entertain” myself. I asked this the other night and I really do mean it: *HOW* do you have so much time for TV/pop culture? And as I said the other night, it might be that when you are watching TV, I’m busy playing video games, cleaning, surfing the net, reading, writing, who knows. Of course, if Hollywood and/or pop culture interested me more, then I’d probably make it a priority. beststephi also brought up the other night that she tends to multitask during TV watching time; I sometimes do that with the little bit of TV/movies that I watch… but in the sense of filing my nails while watching it, something mindless, not like I read while watching, just cannot. I find that to actually enjoy what I’m watching I have to be fully present. Otherwise, it just feels like I’m cheating myself. But I can understand that: that’s exactly what I do with the Internet/while on the computer, my primary medium of entertainment. I can type this AND listen to a new CD AND answer IMs AND toggle back to my game basically seamlessly. (Obviously I can’t type in more than one place at once, but the multitasking comes pretty easily.) (Right now I’m effortlessly reading/writing/editing this, listening to a CD, answering emails, and playing poker, for what it’s worth, though I’m losing at poker, probably the result of the multitasking.)
Back in grade school and even part of high school, I spent a lot more time watching TV and being into the latest music (well, in grade school anyway; in high school I became a social pariah who was interested in nothing but classic rock–music of 20 years earlier–and I literally didn’t know who Pearl Jam was until about 5 years after their debut); I think that was perhaps because that was what we talked about in my social circle as an adolescent. Today I find I can usually strike up a conversation on other topics, and, when necessary, I “read” enough about pop culture (mostly just headlines) to be able to participate or at least understand.
Even so, I’m often the person in the group who is like, Snoop Who? Paris Hilton–is that a new landmark in France? I don’t really feel dumb about it nor left out, though I will admit I sometimes wish there were times when I cared more about what everyone around me seems to, if for no other reason than to feel like I fit in.
I guess to sum this up: *shrug*
🙂
Well, that was my point really. I’m not saying you have to be a fan of whoever the latest flavor is, but when we were talking about OJ the other day, you knew who he was. You knew about the book deal. You weren’t wondering why we were talking about orange juice or something like that. You know enough to keep up. Some people seem proud of not knowing enough to keep up. To me, that just seems silly.
I ask you the same questions I asked above: Are you aware that Britney Spears is getting divorced? Are you aware that Madonna is attempting to adopt a little african boy? Are you aware that OJ tried to publish a book about the the Brown/Goldman murder and it is now being pulled?
I wasn’t aware that Britney was getting divorced until you told me and then posted about it a while ago. I was aware of the Madonna thing. And I am aware of the OJ thing–I learned about his book deal through your LJ and I read on some major news site like CNN that it was broken. I’m aware of these things not because I really care but because I feel like I need to be to talk to some groups of people. Keep in mind how I find out about these things: from LJ or CNN, not from, say, Entertainment Weekly (is that even a publication?). If I didn’t have to spend any time around people who cared about this stuff I probably wouldn’t stay updated. I seriously only know the bare minimum.
Entertainment Weekly is in fact a magazine. I don’t read it anymore. But I used to. I’m not arguing that anyone should. More that, it is important to maintain that bare minimum knowledge that you are referring to. I mean, sure, you wouldn’t keep abreast of it if not for the need to converse with people, but when a conversation breaks out like the one at Bryon’s the other day, its nice to be able to be involved, right? It makes far better sense than just having a random understanding of the finer points of bass fishing. Unless of course you enjoy bass fishing. But since its unlikely to come up, if you don’t enjoy it, why waste your time. But the essence of pop culture is that celebrities and media are a reflection of our society, and as such a base understanding is more likely to serve your daily social development and intercourse.
At least that’s my feeling.
I’m not sure I’d call celebrities a reflection of our society… I am more of the stance that life imitates art. But maybe they do reflect back and forth forever?
yes, they are a constant feedback loop. The media influences culture, but the culture creates the media. Marilyn Monroe could never had been a star in 2006, and Paris Hilton couldn’t have been one in 1956. They are two completely diffferent worlds. It’s kinda like you were talking about the Bond movies before and slapping women. The answer is simple. It was 60s. It was ok to slap a woman. Especially if she were hysterical. It was also ok to have a brandy to warm you up before you went for a drive on a snowy night. And if you went to the hospital and found out you had consumption, they’d give you a cigarette to calm you down.
The last point was just bad science, not the media, but I don’t disagree with what you are saying. Even throughout my James Bond post I got it. And right, what was ok in the 60s isn’t today… but I don’t choose to support it today.
Anyway, back to your original questions: you had asked how important pop culture was to me and it’s pretty low on my list of priorities. You’ve mentioned it’s pretty important to you. So I’ll ask you a few questions: how important? Where does it fall in the spectrum of everything you do (i.e., you’d rather watch TV than spend time with your family)? Give me a breakdown of how you spend your time, x hours doing this, x this, etc. I’m honestly curious just how you fit in all this pop culture 🙂
Sure it’s bad science. My point was that the fact that people did those things all the time is what made people put them in the movies. It was a sign of the times. Paris Hilton is famous today because she is an archetypal representative of of a cultural ideal that is popular right now. A carefree, bisexual, promiscuous party girl with more money than God. Like Pam and Marylin before her, she is basically a fairy tale princess come to life. In a different time, she’d just be a no talent slutty spoiled brat, but given where our world is today, instead she’s nigh royalty. Understanding Paris helps us understand the world, and vice versa.
As for how I view pop culture. Yeah, its quite important to me, because I really do believe there’s no better way to understand the world than understanding its artifacts. Cultural theory is basically archeology. in my pipe dreams, some day I get to leave all of this IT work behind and return to school and do pop culture research professionally. So yeah, its pretty important. Will I put watching TV over spedning time with Steph? No, but I wouldn’t put much of anything above that. But its not like I am constantly in the space of having to choose. I just make sure I have time to do all the other things I do as well. For one thing, as you said, I can multitask. There are plenty of TV shows that Steph and I watch together, and the others I watch while she’s not around. On top of that, I can do other things at the same time. I frequently read, or work on my computer while watching TV. Most TV doesn’t take my full attention to absorb. If its something I really want to see, then I’ll devote my full attention to it, but I can easily do other things and kind of passively absorb what’s on the tube. Similarly, I listen to satellite radio the entire time I’m at work. It doesn’t slow me down, and in fact, I find it hard to concentrate when its too quiet.
Also, I don’t really sleep. Not very much anyway. It’s extremely rare that I go to bed before midnight, and frequently I’m up til about 3am or later. That gives me plenty of free time and seeing as how there’s no one else up to socialize with at those hours, the TV can be your best friend.
I have no idea what the hourly breakdown would be. It varies from day to day.
Nope, I have not seen Pam Anderson naked.
I think part of my pop-culture ignorance comes from being raised as an Air Force brat. I spent about 10-11 years of my youth overseas. In Germany, we had two television channels in English (military-run), and in Turkey, we had one. I’m not even sure that we had a TV in Rome; we weren’t there very long, so we didn’t move all our stuff out there.
Television-wise, Simpsons is pretty much the only thing I routinely watch these days. I have my nice 27″ Sony TV… with rabbit-ears, since it’s mainly used for DVDs and console games. I’m at work for most of my waking hours, and I don’t surf the web or listen to the radio or watch TV there, so my free time is precious to me, and I’d rather spend it reading, at the gym, dancing, playing video games, or with my honey than with catching up with the latest pop-culture news. I’ve got too much stuff of my own that I want to do… not enough time to spend following stranger celebrities’ lives.
Also, I have a habit of picking up music about 3-10 years after it was super-popular and played to death (I don’t do this on purpose… just how it works out). I don’t listen to the radio; I have plenty of stuff on my iPod, so it takes me a while to catch up. There’ve been more occasions than I can count where I’ve stumbled over some music, gotten super-excited about it, made listen, and he replied with, “Oh, yeah… that was popular when we were college/high school/elementary school.”
I do, however, try to keep up pretty well with bellydance culture (though I’ve even been pretty poor at that lately). I couldn’t tell you more than a couple of words about most of the people in the tabloids… but I could talk your ear off about Rachel Brice or Suhaila or Sharon Kihara. I guess I still have my celebrities… they’re just more sub-culture than pop-culture.
ok, but don’t you feel lost when something happens and the entire world is talking about it, and you have no idea what’s going on? I liken it to world events. It would suck if it were Sept 18, 2001 and you were like “World Trade Center? What’s that?” Obviously, the divorce of Britney Spears, what happened on Lost or when the next Harry Potter book is coming out isn’t as “important” as the 9-11 attacks. And yes, I agree that there is something to be said for having in depth knowledge of your own particular little subculture (i could talk for days about little nuanes of pro-wrestling or comic book history that have no effect on culture-at-large at all, much like you with belly dancing), but I also feel that without at least a basic understanding of the popular culture of the day, you are essentially lost and unable to relate to society at large. Or maybe not. Do you never have that lost feeling, or does it just not bother you? (sorry, if that sounds like an attack, its not meant to be… just don’t have a better way of stating it. I’m really quite curious here)
I do pick up on some of the pop culture headlines, if they happen to come up on a teaser for the news, or if a coworker or friend mentions it, or if I scan the Google news headlines. I knew about the Britney Spears thing because it came up on the one occasion lately when my iPod battery died and I turned on the radio while commuting. I didn’t know about the OJ book until you posted about it. No clue about the Madonna thing until reading your comments. I knew about Steve Irwin’s death because my mom called me to tell me. I try to keep up with major world news (like, say, September 11th), and sometimes picking up tidbits of pop culture is inevitable. But I don’t seek it out.
Mostly, I just don’t care if I don’t relate to society at large, so I guess it doesn’t bother me. I’ve never felt like I’ve fit in with society at large, and that’s fine… I’m quite happy to do my thing and let them do theirs. I have the things that I’m interested in, and generally I share at least a few of those interests with the people I spend time with, so it doesn’t matter much if I’m not conversant on large swaths of popular culture.
(I’ll also note that, despite being a technogeek, I didn’t know that the PS3 was out until after the fact, nor had I heard of the Microsoft Zune until this past weekend when brought it up.)
See, I find that fascinating. I’d think that with that level of separation youd feel kind of shut off, but I know for a fact that you aren’t. Btw, I’d consider video games and other geek culture as pop culture as well. I’m not talking specifically tv or music or anything. But you pointed out that you were unaware of the console launches last weekend.
So it really doesn’t bother you at all if you go to get some coffee at work and everyone is always talking about the X and you have no idea what X is?
Much as I love video games, the computer game I’ve been playing lately is Jagged Alliance 2… which came out in 1999. I do have a game or two that were released this year, but they failed to hold my attention for long, so I’m happy to reach for an old classic. So I don’t even manage to keep up with the current popular stuff in fields that I *am* interested in.
And nope, it really doesn’t bother me at all. The majority of conversations that go on around me — with work colleagues or with friends — don’t get around to pop culture topics much. The rare times when it does come up, I either listen politely and comment when it’s appropriate, or they know me well enough to start the conversation with, “Do you know what The X is?/Do you know who Person Y is?” If yes, they tell their story. If no, they preface it with a sentence or two of background. Most people are very happy to talk, so nobody seems to mind if spend more time listening than talking when topics aren’t things that I keep up with.
Really, I feel more shut off when I’m around and a couple of our other medically-inclined friends… when I’m in the company of EMTs and medics and the topics are exclusively firehouse gossip and news, and medical jargon that leaves me completely clueless, that’s a lot harder to keep up with. Pop culture doesn’t usually take any kind of deep understanding, so it’s easy to figure out what’s going on in a couple of sentences, even if I don’t start out knowing anything about the people or the subject.
makes sense… thank you for the indepth explanation.
Dora the Explorer is the new Bugs Bunny. She has a far more aggressive marketing and merchandising push than Bugs, and is somewhat more attractive to parents because it is (relatively) educational and non-violent. Bugs is rather anachronistic these days. He’s not on tv much, and is on Cartoon Network or some other channel for kids aged maybe 7 and up when he is. Kids age 4 are watching Noggin or Toon Disney, or Nick Jr., which all air shows that strongly bound to the channel. Steph’s nephew probably knows Franklin, Little Bear, The Backyardagins, and Wonderpets.
I have seen Pamela topless (in Barb Wire), but not naked. I doubt she will be remembered like Marilyn Monroe in 50 years. I still think of Cindy Crawford as the penultimate sex symbol, and I haven’t seen her in a decade. Maybe Madonna. Pamela is too fake to make such a lasting impression.
I was close to writing a dissertation on popular culture. I think that I would insist on exposing my children to specific pieces of culture for the reason that they would then be able to understand references and communicate more effectively with other people who use those pieces of culture in conversation.
I am well aware of who Dora the Explorer is. You’re missing the point. I wasn’t bothered by Ethan having an interest outside of Bugs Bunny. I was bothered by his total unawareness of the icon. For the record, Bugs Bunny was huge at the time. It was 2003, and he was being quite heavily advertised for his movie that came out, Looney Toons: Back in Action. As a note, the movie flopped, losing like $50M or something, but it was a big budget deal at the time. The reason Ethan didn’t know who Bugs Bunny was is that his parents intentionally kept him unaware of the character feeling he as inappropriate. There were always kids like that even back in my day in school. Kids who’s parents would only let them watch PBS or CBN (christian broadcasting network) and were completely unaware of whatever the cool cartoon was of the day, as well as any classics.
Maybe I wasn’t detailed enough. I would have counted Pamela topless as Pamela naked.
Pam not only will be remembered as a cultural icon, she pretty much already is. You’re equating your tastes for the individual with their place in history. Pamela was without a doubt the sex symbol of the 90s. Cindy was more an 80s invention, despite the fact that she didn’t really hit it big til 1989 with House of Style. Pam’s place in history clearly overshadows Cindy’s. Keep in mind, I’m not saying she’s hotter. That’s debatable. I personally don’t find her nearly as attractive as her rep maintains she is. What I’m saying is that she is easily the female most identified with sex in the 90s. In the 80s, I’d say you’re right and could make a strong argument for Madonna. In the 70s, the honor without a doubt goes to Farrah Fawcett. The 60s, I’m less sure of, but I’m betting you’d have to go with Sophia Loren. Maybe Anne Margatet. I’d say Jane Fonda, but she wasn’t really famous til the 70s, and although she ultimately amounted to much more, Farrah Fawcett was clearly the wet dream of choice in the 70s. And the 50s was easily Marilyn Monroe. If you look back, you’ll see that Marilyn really never did all that much. She’s mostly famous for being sexy and for the way she died. She’s more legend than anything else. Same with Pammy. It’s not her work that interests people. Its her life. Anyway, Marilyn was far more artificial than Pam. Her entire face was reconstructed as well as her body and the thing that made her remarkable was that doing so was FAR less common in Hollywood (or the general public) then than it is now.
Anyway, as for making a last impression, Pam certainly has. The 90s are over. Her initial Playboy pictoral was almost 17 years ago. She landed her first major role in 1992 and was definitely considered the It Girl that year. In that time, other It Girls have come and gone and most of them are probably more talented as actresses than Pam is. But when people go back and make the list of sex symbols stars that defined history, they’re not going to name Chole Servigny for the 90s. They’re going to name Pam.
And that’s the point that I was getting at. Basically where you got with your final point. I don’t expect random people to know Chloe Servigny. It’d be great if they did. She’s a wonderful actress. But if a conversation about sexy actresses comes up, I expect everyone to at least know who Pam is, at the very least to be able to have a baseline to start the conversation. (If I’d used a picture of Servigny on this post, most people would be like “who the hell is that?”)
so… I’ve never seen Pammy naked. but really only through a true lack of desire to do so. I have always known that with a simple internet search I could remedy that situation. but my opinion on it has always been more “meh. why bother?” she’s just not my type.
as for pop culture… I don’t watch tv. because my roommate and I don’t want to pay for cable. Tho’ actually what I don’t watch is current tv, because I have netflix and will get dvds of tv shows, I’m just at least a season behind. The plus there being I don’t have to watch commercials and I can watch only the shows that have already shown themselves to be of high quality and interest to me (most recently it’s been Lost and Battlestar Galactica). The downside is having to make at least a small effort to not hear what’s going on in the current season that’s on the air if I want any element of surprise. I kinda split the difference with that…I don’t tend to read the pop-culture magazines (I used to subscribe to EW) but I don’t get pissed if people are discussing the shows while I’m around. Usually by the time I’ll get around to seeing the season they’re talking about Ill have forgotten most of the details anyways.
But I don’t think I’m better than anyone because I don’t watch TV. And I don’t really end up avoiding pop culture anyways. It still permeates everything and the fact that I don’t go out of my way to investigate what happened on “Dancing with the Stars” doesn’t mean I don’t know what it is (or often who won last week). People talk, magazine covers get seen at the grocery store checkout, radio ads are everywhere… if it falls into “Pop Culture” it’s because it’s Popular and thus many people are interested and aware and advertising it intentionally or unintentionally. I don’t know if or how that makes it important per se, but it certainly shapes our society to a degree that it can’t be entirely ignored and thought of as ultimately pointless.
that’s my $.02
yeah, that doesn’t count as not watching TV. And it doesn’t count as pop culture ignorance. Perhaps it counts as limited exposure, but the point is you’re at least aware. You know there was a show called dancing with the stars, you know the basic concept, and you even know who won. I imagine you were aware the Superbowl last year and knew who was playing in it. That sorrt of thing.
Like I said, I’m not saying everyone should be an addict, I just think there’s a minimum amount of exposure people need to be able to speak with other people at all.
Not only do I know who Snoop Dogg is, I know that his new album came out Nov. 21, thanks to the signs posted as I enter the
hoodself-described middle-class community in which I teach.I’m not sure why the signs only appeared today, and not before Nov. 21. I’m guessing someone forgot to check their calendar. Just sayin. This is what I notice when I go to work. Is all.
its called CP time. That’s how we roll.
CP? Can Procrastinate?
Do I even need to respond, or is my status as 70 year old woman already secured.
Well, detailed knowledge of black and white films and such is still popular culture.
As is Scrubs.
I thought pop culture referred to what is currently popular?
I guess I don’t consider myself pop culture knowledgable because what shows I have been addicted to (Scrubs, Friends, Sex and the City) I have only watched via DVDs. I don’t know what happened on any show last night/week, nor have I since 1997 when Seinfeld ended.
I don’t know what’s playing on the radio in the US. I have never seen Pam Anderson naked. I haven’t had cable since moving out of my parents’ house. I found out yesterday that The Science of Sleep and Marie Antoinette, which I assumed had come out ages ago since I vaguely remember seeing ads and thinking “I want to see that!” just came out this week. Which means I don’t know what is ont on video or came out less recently.
The last 4 films I saw in theaters were seen on: August 24, July 9, July 2, and November 25 (2005).
I did know that Britney Spears was getting divorced – Mav posted about it on LJ. However, I could not tell you who she is getting divorced from.
I like to know enough about current films and TV shows to follow discussion had by the 100,000 people obssessed with Lost, Grey’s Anatomy, or 24. That only requires knowing either character or actor names or what they look like. I don’t bother to know celeb stories or pop music though, because for the stories people are generally happy to fill you in if they mention one, and I just don’t LIKE most of the music, so why waste my time?
Not necessarilly. Technically, it refers to the popular media of any given time period. Shakespeare is pop culture. Just not for us. But you’re right, I was more specifically referring to a general awareness of the world around us today. Knowing there was a movie called Borat is more useful at this particular moment than knowing there was a movie called Star Wars or a movie called Casablanca, but knowing about Star Wars and a Casablanca still makes you somewaht pop culture aware, and especially given their popularity, likely gives you at least some stake in the ground to converse about movies with others.
That’s what I’m mostly looking for. So I’d say you’re less unaware than you claim to be. I’m not a fan of Lost or Grey’s Anatomy, but if I happen upon two friends talking about Lost I’m not relegated to not knowing what Lost is. I know its a TV show. I know the basic premise. I’m aware of who a couple of the actors are. As opposed to if I happened upon a couple friends talking about semi-conductor physics and I’d understand very little.
Because it makes you well rounded and you get a chance to like new stuff. I mean, I like chicken. I know I like chicken. Why should I ever try to eat anything else when I might not like it?
I’d say you’re less unaware than you claim to be.
To be fair, I rarely ever refer to myself as 75 or as pop culture illiterate. More often than not it’s other people who refer to me as such when I’m going on about how the hell they have lived to be x age and never seen The Sting/To Have or Have Not/Charade – you actually coined the “75 year old” one on an interview meme, and it amused me, hence referencing it here.
Why should I ever try to eat anything else when I might not like it?
I didn’t say I MIGHT not like it. I hear it all over the place in the US, generally on different radio stations, at friend’s houses, in clubs. I really dislike the vast majority of it. Every so often I come across a beat I like, but I can’t think of a single pop song I’d say I really like. There are very few I can even tell apart.
ok, so would you consider your inability to tell things apart a failing on your part? Not saying you can’t have preferences. I more mean don’t you ever sit around thinking “i wonder what the fascination is with that MC Hammer and those New Kids on the Block all the kids are listening to?”
I don’t consider it my failing that I can’t tell pieces apart – I consider it a failing on the artists’ part.
I can tell any Mozart piece by the music, the specific style. I can tell any Dave Matthews Band song by the same telltale signs. I can tell when it’s John Mayer and everyone’s like “Dude, his voice is just like DMB” and no, he’s not, he sucks, he has no backup melody and nothing interesting going on, just 3 chords over and over. And then there are the 100,000 artists who all DO sound the same, because they ALL use the same 3 chords over and over and either scream or chant or whine into the microphone. A few of them are “popular” and a few others were last year or the year before. I have no idea why, and this brings me back to my point – no, it’s not my fault they suck.
You have to be careful there. I don’t think its a failing on either part. I think its a lack of familiarity. People who aren’t a fan of any particular type of music like to say “all ______ sounds alike” and I’ve heard blank replaced with heavy metal, hip hop, bubblegum pop and classical. Its not you can tell Matthews from Mayer because the specific inflections of their voices are dramatically different whereas Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson’s are too similar. With few exceptions, the entire human vocal range is a pretty small subsection of the audible spectrum (I know you know this, as a voice major, but I’m recording for posterity). It’s more that you are (self-)trained to recognize the nuances betwee Mayer and Matthews or different Motzart pieces and not trained to recognize the nuances between, say Lil John and Dem’ Franchise Boys. It’s the same as how some people can’t tell the difference between Chinese people and Japanese people, but anyone from either of those races will tell you that they don’t look alike at all. Or the way some people think all black people look alike. It’s just exposure.
That’s where I disagree. Yes, people say “____ all sounds alike” when they don’t know any of them. But I am saying in a literal sense that most pop music uses the same chords, the same inflections – they’re all copycatting one another and because of that they all sound alike.
I understand what you meant. And I disagree. The specific chords are not what makes one group sound like another anymore than the specific instruments. If that were the case, it would be your failing as you would only be able to tell music apart by recognizing huge distinctions. I mean, yes, I’m sure you can tell Ozzy Osborne from Jay-Z. But that’s not the case. You can tell different Mozart pieces apart because you’re listening for specific things. But can you tell two different orchestras apart who play the same Mozart piece? Or two singers who do the same aria? But they’re using the same chords and the same inflections. Different pop groups aren’t using the same inflections. They’re not copying each other. influenced, sure, but not copying. You’re just not experienced enough to tell the subtle differences. They’re not even subtle. They just feel that way through non-exposure. A life long hip hop fan with no classical exposure wouldn’t be able to tell Motzart from Beethoven for the same reason. But with out a doubt, I can guarantee you that no hip hop fan would ever confuse Biggie Smalls with Tupac Shakur (even though they were always thought of as similar and copying from each other). And no pop fan would ever confuse Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson.
Technically, it refers to the popular media of any given time period. Shakespeare is pop culture
You have to be careful here. Shakespeare as it was played at the Globe 400 some odd years ago was pop culture. Culture that was popular in a historical context doesn’t really qualify as pop culture now. You can’t really call cave paintings pop culture in a modern context either.
That said, the debate over what is high and low culture is a big one and neither side has that great an argument.
This thread sort of reminds me of the Great Books debate that was hot when we were undergrads.
What it comes down to is cultural literacty. I’ve heard it argued pretty well that not to know Shakespeare at some level is to be ignorant of both high and low culture since it is referenced constantly (even in things like kid’s cartoons and ads).
I think you’re really talking about current mass media content awareness moreso than pop culture.
granted on the Shakespear issue but you are are being a million times more technical than I intended in this specific instance.
That said, no I was talking about total cultural awareness. Not just current mass media. I merely used a specific example to illustrate it. My real question in essence is “why do people take delight in being ignorant to what they consider low brow entertainment?” But saying it that way seems insulting, and it isn’t meant to be. Point being, if I don’t know something when other people are discussing it, I feel stupid and insignificant. No matter what the topic. Especially if everyone else in the room knows about the topic. I’d hate being the only guy in a room full of russian literature scholars who didn’t know everything about all the books, or at least know enough to intelligently ask questions and follow the conversation. I’d also hate being at a brain surgery convention where I was the only non brain surgeon and everything was going over my head. And I think American Idol and the Borat movie come up in conversation with the general public far more often than The Brothers Karamazov or treatment for hydrocephalus, and most of us are around the general populace a lot more often than we are around russian scholars and neurosurgeons, so it seems to me that having a working knowledge thereof is only practical.
The last 4 films I saw in theaters were seen on: August 24, July 9, July 2, and November 25 (2005).
2005?
Are you sure?
When did we see Prarie Home Companion?
While it’s possible that I’m missing one, these were the ones on my list:
Pirates of the Carribean2 (with Kristen)
Prarie Home Companion (with you – remember, that was the night before my birthday?)
Devil Wears Prada (right before 4th of July with Dar)
Walk the Line (with Eri and Ari last T-day)
Ok, I see.
I misunderstood “November (2005)” to mean that all the dates were in 2005 so I was thrown off a bit.
So that’s what I want to know. How important do you think pop culture is?
I think some knowledge of what is popular now is important as some sort of cultural baseline for communication. Cultural literacy includes television and recent music.
That said, I would also ask you to what extent current events play into pop culture. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are included in this. Is knowing about Saddam’s trial as important to being able to communicate as knowing about OJs or Michael Jackson’s? How important is it to know team sports? Your question seems focused on familiarity with professional entertainment and performers in the artistic sense moreso than the athletic sense. I’m not a spectator of organized sports at all but I can talk about Michael Jordan and Babe Ruth and so on. Where are you drawing the lines for what constitutes popular culture?
I would also add that that you should differentiate between pop culture as a general catagory and youth culture as a subset of it. What we are aware of as general consumers may or may not include what’s being marketed specifically to teenagers, this includes all mediums of mass communication as well as food, clothing, and other trends.
Agreed, and exactly the same answer I gave several people above.
I’d say that knowing about current events is just as important, yes. In the case of Saddam, I’d say having a passing knowledge of his trial is far more important than having a passing knowledge of Michaels or OJs, simply because Saddam’s is more current.
My question was only focused on tv and media as an entry point, but absolutely I also mean news and sports. My point isn’t so much that “people should know what I know” but more that people need to have a passing knowledge of what society is talking about at large in order to function, and if you don’t believe that, please tell me how you do manage to function without it.
TV is easy to pick on, because even today, after some 80 years of broadcasting, a lot of people still like to consider it trivial. TV will rot your brain. There are so many more important pursuits, like reading. But at the end of the day, TV is a more efficient means of information transfer than reading, and the content passed through television much more likely to play a part of your daily life than the content of a book. And that was my point. That said, yes, I think general knowledge of all culture is important. Indeed, that was the point of the Mavrosexual makeover project a while back.
Yes, I am differentiating between pop culture and youth culture. I don’t specifically mean what’s hot with the kids right now, so much as what’s hot with someone, hence my more or less agreeing with you in regards to Marli, above. I don’t think you necessarilly have to know about Chamillionaire (even though he was one of my examples) but I think you do have to know about something that’s going on right now, or you end up living in a vaccuum. For instance, Marli admitted that while not a fan she has a general knowledge of Lost, 24 & Grey’s Anatomy.
Oh, and p.s. my knowledge of Lost is basically people on a plane? Or a forest? So I hope I wasn’t lying when I said I understood that one. 24 I’ve seen 2 episodes of, and Grey’s Anatomy I saw once in French – doctors who sleep together, and important because of strong female characters. Right?
Double p.s. my reason for not knowing much about present pop culture is simply that I am generally too busy reading Brothers Karamazov (well, Madame Bovary at present and then Three Muskateers, but you get the point) or traveling around Europe to realize that I even HAVE a DVD player where I might finally see Finding Forester or the one with Robin Williams and Matt Damon with the math genius/janitor thing?
see my answer to your other comment or my answer to Meron above for my question about the why and the being too busy. To sum up, I get having other interests. I have plenty of non-popular interests, but don’t you feel like you’re missing out by not being aware at least on some level of general knowledge?
Not at all. In fact, I don’t understand other peoples’ obsession with many of the “popular” interests. I’ve always lived by the philosophy (though I would not have termed it a philosophy until just now) that you should be interested in what you enjoy, not what other people say you enjoy. Sounds pretty obvious, right? People say it all the time. But then they turn around and chew you out for not knowing the show or film Reality Bites. (This happened to me yesterday.)
But I actually believe it; I’m not missing out on anything on TV, because I don’t enjoy sitting and watching TV. Unless I’m sitting with good friends, and we’re watching TV as background to conversation/are amused by the show at the moment. But I won’t watch it because it’s popular. That’s stupid. Double that for music.
I don’t mean watch things because they’re popular. I mean know enough about things that people might be talking about to follow the conversation. For instance, I actually don’t watch Lost. But it comes up enough in casual conversation that its worth it for me to know itsa show about people who were on a plane and crash landed on an island and there’s a mystery going on. That’s pretty much all I know. But its better than not knowing at all. In the case of Lost you seemed to be on par with me. But you’ve acknowledged before that you don’t always know that much.
I mean, take for instance my examples from before of Pam Anderson. I’m not saying go out and see every piece of tripe she puts out. That would be stupid. But I actually talked to a person who wasn’t sure which actress she was. I can’t imagine not knowing who she was well enough that you couldn’t pick her out of a line-up.
I don’t think I could pick her out of line-up either. Where would I have seen her?
she’s the person in the picture on this entry. As an actress she’s probably most famous for having been on Baywatch. But really, she’s more famous for being her.
Wouldn’t you say that Jessica Simpson is more the sex-symbol of our decade than Paris?
Also, something I found was that one can stay fully abreast of pop culture need-to-know with minimal time effort. Simply watch any one of the late-night comedy shows (monologue and skits, skip the interviews).
Nope, I’d say Paris is going to get that honor. I mean, its hard to say. We’re only halfway through the decade but I think I’m pretty good at predicting this sort of thing.
Jessica’s fame is topical. And while you might not be a fan, it is actually based on her talent. People started paying attention to her because she can sing. Now I’ll grant that her being hot took her a lot farther than her voice or her acting ability. And I’ll even say that I find her MUCH more attractive than Paris Hilton (whom I actually personally think is kinda ugly ). But this doesn’t matter. I thought Bettie Page was TONS hotter than Marilyn Monroe. But Paris Hilton is essentially identified with sex. She is sex. From the tape to the hamburger commercial, she simply is symbolic of sex. Jessica’s fame kinda ebbs and flows given the project she happens to be on at the moment. Does she have a TV show on? Has she dropped an album lately? Is she in a movie? While Jessica is a pop culture icon, she has to be doing something for us to pay attention to her.
Paris on the other hand, never really does anything. She’s just Paris and that’s worthy of attention. If Paris Hilton gets drunk in a bar and goes home with some guy, that’s news, despite the fact that she does it all the time. Its a different kind of celebrity, and one that I think is going to make her memorable as being sexy for years and years and years to come.
Yes, watching DailyShow/Letterman/Leno/whoever monolouges is a pretty good way to get a lot of news and media reports, or at least the gist of them, condensed into a daily dosage of 5 minutes.
I was raised by wolves and pop culture just like you. You know the deal.
who knew that the wolves got cable… *shrug*
Yes, I do believe I’ve seen Pamela Anderson naked.
I was raised in a very anti-TV family. My parents are the kind of people who will proudly announce to that /they/ don’t /watch/ television (public channels excepted). They do have broadcast reception so I didn’t have an entirely TV-free childhood but I didn’t watch much of anything that wasn’t shown on PBS. I did pick up on the Simpsons and some cartoons. For many years I was so socially inept that I effectively had no friends, so I didn’t get my dose of popular culture that way either. Up until sometime in high school I watched very little TV, listened only to music written before I was born, and saw almost no movies in the theatre. I read voraciously, but much of what I read was not at all intellectual– mystery novels, teen dramas, and the like. I think the notion that reading is inherently more intellectually valuable than watching movies or TV is crap.
One summer when my first round of depression was really kicking my ass I spent a lot of time watching soap operas and talk shows. That was an interesting look at our culture. Some time in my junior year of high school I started going to movies and listening to current rock and electronic music. My long media fast was over. When I was in college I made a point of seeking out the most brainless TV I could find. I watched a lot of MTV and VH1, and retain a certain amount of affection for it.
Now, I’d say I eat a moderate diet of popular culture. I listen to the radio a lot so I have some clue about what’s going on in the musical world. I am a net junkie. Netflix lets me see fewer movies in the theatres but I do watch them often (Netflix has also allowed me to backfill a lot of my missing cultural references). I don’t watch TV per se (my broadcast reception sucks and getting the cable package I want is too expensive) but I do watch various series when they come out on DVD. That can get slightly interesting as I have some clue about those reference points but am often a couple seasons out of step with people who watch on TV.
If I had kids I feel pretty strongly that I would /not/ raise them in an anti-pop culture environment. It actually has been something of a social handicap for me, not being able to share that common ground of pop culture references with people. I’ve also seen that– surprise!– smart people can watch TV, see recent movies, and listen to current music and remain smart and intellectually active. I now have very little patience with people who think that broadcast media always rot the brain or that they stopped making good music in 1969. There isn’t “pop culture” and Culture. It’s all culture.
that’s a good example of the kind of thing I am getting at. Its kind of like the theory that gay marriage devalues hetero marriage. Appreciating the value in mass media should have no effect on the value of traditional literature. The two things are completely separate and both have value.
It’s very much my feeling that a lack of awareness of popular media does lead to the specific separatism that you were referring to, and really I just don’t see the point. Its one thing to not care from popular media yourself, but it just seems wrong to me to rob your children of it.