Friday, September 17, 2004
- THE US AS A CULTURAL PRESENCE IN EUROPE
Lecturer: R. Kroes
Weekly discussion paper on Bernard Gendron ("Jamming at Le Boeuf") and NIAS Statement: "On the European reception of American Mass Culture")
(Comments on NIAS Statement by João; comments on "Jamming at Le Boeuf" and NIAS Statement by Agustin.)
___________
Questions of Cultural Interchange: The NIAS Statement on European Perception of American Mass Culture
João Tiago Duarte Martins
Kroes' article affirms the existence of American mass culture, one that is comprised of various elements, and one that reaches Europe and demands a wide-scope cultural study.
For Europe, America has always been synonymous with the idea of new and the idea of future. But not necessarily in a good way.
European perspective on the two cultures is one of opposing fields, in which the American side is rejected for three main reasons, all dealing with America's cultural shortcomings:
1 - American culture is shallow (lacking the amplitude and depth of European culture)
2 - American culture lacks a historical foundation (being excessively new)
3 - American culture lacks a cultural inheritance that would group all its constituents under a notion of wholeness (as opposed to the idea that Europe, supposedly, has one such notion).
This vision of American culture often translates into an anti-American sentiment.
Kroes then sketches a general idea of the expansion of America, accompanied by the gigantic development of media, technology and transportation means.
The blooming of America is simultaneous with a self-discovery and self-praise. Whitman was the herald of the vernacular "Americaness", of its democratic and all-encompassing art. This breakthrough served as the backbone of what later became American Studies.
America's economic pragmatism has also been a key factor in the development and dissemination of American mass culture. A giant in airline, oil, telecommunications and film industries (with the obvious example of Hollywood), America picks up, incorporates and transforms into a sales item almost everything, including the most rebellious elements of its cultural society.
The influences of industrial management exported to Europe, coupled with the Marshall Plan and the American cultural offensive sponsored by the U.S Information Agency in 1948, paved the way for an American assault on European culture and mentality. Obviously, each European country has accommodated and adapted American influences in its own particular way, due to specific political, economical and cultural conditions.
With the advent of mass tourism and, especially, satellite broadcasting, the ideas of national culture (and sometimes proud containment) have been shattered and replaced by transnational "communities". Culture is now a product of multinational conglomerates that distribute and disseminate local products from one area in other areas of the world.
With the uprise of global communications possibilities, America may stand to lose some of its influence as a key creator of mass culture. But that is not yet the case.
This article raises some rather interesting points. Fundamenting its reasoning on historical and economical facts, it shows how American mass culture has spread throughout the world (with an empashis on Europe). Truly interesting are the issues of recycling and appropriation of marginal and "rebellious" art forms by information and entertainment conglomerates.
One could argue about to what extent do these conglomerates rip out essential elements of the art products that they sell in order to make them more appealing. The idea of "authenticity" comes back to haunt every consumer of culture.
Another interesting aspect, one that could be not be discussed at the time the article was written, is the enormous influence of the Internet. Working beyond the notion of a "satellite broadcast" (which allows access to only some aspects of some cultures), the Internet is an extraordinary tool for cultural dissemination. Whether it will mean unlimited possibilities of cultural interchange or, on the contrary, a conglomerate-run market for the lowest common cultural denominator, only time will tell.
_______________
Comments by Agustin:
(1) “Jamming at Le Boeuf” (On Darius Milhaud: see here, here and here; on Stravinsky: see this site; on Jean Cocteau: check out this.)
In order to provide insights into the "scope and nature of modernism's engagement with popular culture", the essayist provides a contextual review of Darius Milhaud's The Creation of the World (1923), the first symphony for a jazz orchestra.
One way to analyze the paper is to look at the parallel portraits of Mihaud and Stravinsky, on the one hand, and Milhaud and Cocteau, on the other hand.
. Milhaud & Stravinsky. There are striking contrasts between the two. First, whereas Stravinsky had not actually listened to jazz music, Milhaud had heard the Billy Arnold Band "straight from New York" in 1920. Moreover, he visited New York in 1922 to get direct exposure to Afro-American jazz.
Second, Milhaud viewed jazz as "an innovative art form in its own right", and not as raw material for "modernist experimentation or avant-garde shock tactics." Thus, The Creation of the World was technically consistent with jazz ("sober authenticism" - Although Hodeir disputes this.)
Whereas Stravinsky was a playful and irreverent bricoleur –"the great scavenger of twentieth-century music-, Milhaud held an "authenticist posture" towards jazz. The contrast between Milhaud and Stravinsky is somewhat attenuated, as both are seen as flaneurs, defined by Baudelaire as people who look to extract poetry from fashion.
. Milhaud & Cocteau. Both were flaneurs, but with different goals. Whereas Milhaud declared (only a few years after 1924) that he was "no longer interested in jazz" (because it had become “official”), Cocteau acted more like an entrepreneur. Thus, while Cocteau was had much less musical knowledge than Milhaud, he managed to act as the leader of a non-political avant-garde movement centered on jazz (while at the same time striving to keep its "frenchness.")
Thanks in part to the success of the restaurant-bar Le Boeuf sur le Toit, the Montmarte culture of poverty and social marginality gave way (at least in some influential circles) to Cocteau’s vision of "upscale pleasure and fashionable consumption."
In other words, while Mihaud was the ultimate flaneur, Cocteau was an "impresario of the first order."
(2) NIAS Statement: The nature of American mass culture
One key idea here is the role of innovation. Innovation is correctly defined here –in Schumpeterian terms- as an invention that finds a market. The high speed press, roll film, the gramophone, the movie camera, etc., all contributed decisively to facilitate both mass production and mass marketing strategies.
American mass culture is best defined by Hollywood, and, to a certain, extent, by music companies. Interestingly, the authors add other --"often more hidden"-- elements: management (which has "transformed Europeans into consumers of American products and images"), therapy and education.
While this analysis his very helpful –because it broadens our perspective of American mass culture- Law is only mentioned in passing, and not at all in its connection with language. One is reminded here of Fustel de Coulanges's book Les institutions politiques de l'Ancienne France, where he analyzed the impact of Latin and Roman Law on the Gallic society of the early empire.
Language, according to Fustel, was absolutely critical in terms of the expansion of Roman Law, which was in turn regarded as the key vehicle of "romanization." A similar phenomenon seems to be occurring right now with Anglo-Saxon Law, in particular with respect to the notion of stare decisis, the doctrine of the supremacy of the precedent (*).
_______________
(*) Hans W. Baade: "Stare Decisis in Civil Rights Countries: The Last Bastion", in Peter Birks & Adrianna Pretto: Themes in Comparative Law (Oxford, 2002.)
Lecturer: R. Kroes
Weekly discussion paper on Bernard Gendron ("Jamming at Le Boeuf") and NIAS Statement: "On the European reception of American Mass Culture")
(Comments on NIAS Statement by João; comments on "Jamming at Le Boeuf" and NIAS Statement by Agustin.)
___________
Questions of Cultural Interchange: The NIAS Statement on European Perception of American Mass Culture
João Tiago Duarte Martins
Kroes' article affirms the existence of American mass culture, one that is comprised of various elements, and one that reaches Europe and demands a wide-scope cultural study.
For Europe, America has always been synonymous with the idea of new and the idea of future. But not necessarily in a good way.
European perspective on the two cultures is one of opposing fields, in which the American side is rejected for three main reasons, all dealing with America's cultural shortcomings:
1 - American culture is shallow (lacking the amplitude and depth of European culture)
2 - American culture lacks a historical foundation (being excessively new)
3 - American culture lacks a cultural inheritance that would group all its constituents under a notion of wholeness (as opposed to the idea that Europe, supposedly, has one such notion).
This vision of American culture often translates into an anti-American sentiment.
Kroes then sketches a general idea of the expansion of America, accompanied by the gigantic development of media, technology and transportation means.
The blooming of America is simultaneous with a self-discovery and self-praise. Whitman was the herald of the vernacular "Americaness", of its democratic and all-encompassing art. This breakthrough served as the backbone of what later became American Studies.
America's economic pragmatism has also been a key factor in the development and dissemination of American mass culture. A giant in airline, oil, telecommunications and film industries (with the obvious example of Hollywood), America picks up, incorporates and transforms into a sales item almost everything, including the most rebellious elements of its cultural society.
The influences of industrial management exported to Europe, coupled with the Marshall Plan and the American cultural offensive sponsored by the U.S Information Agency in 1948, paved the way for an American assault on European culture and mentality. Obviously, each European country has accommodated and adapted American influences in its own particular way, due to specific political, economical and cultural conditions.
With the advent of mass tourism and, especially, satellite broadcasting, the ideas of national culture (and sometimes proud containment) have been shattered and replaced by transnational "communities". Culture is now a product of multinational conglomerates that distribute and disseminate local products from one area in other areas of the world.
With the uprise of global communications possibilities, America may stand to lose some of its influence as a key creator of mass culture. But that is not yet the case.
This article raises some rather interesting points. Fundamenting its reasoning on historical and economical facts, it shows how American mass culture has spread throughout the world (with an empashis on Europe). Truly interesting are the issues of recycling and appropriation of marginal and "rebellious" art forms by information and entertainment conglomerates.
One could argue about to what extent do these conglomerates rip out essential elements of the art products that they sell in order to make them more appealing. The idea of "authenticity" comes back to haunt every consumer of culture.
Another interesting aspect, one that could be not be discussed at the time the article was written, is the enormous influence of the Internet. Working beyond the notion of a "satellite broadcast" (which allows access to only some aspects of some cultures), the Internet is an extraordinary tool for cultural dissemination. Whether it will mean unlimited possibilities of cultural interchange or, on the contrary, a conglomerate-run market for the lowest common cultural denominator, only time will tell.
_______________
Comments by Agustin:
(1) “Jamming at Le Boeuf” (On Darius Milhaud: see here, here and here; on Stravinsky: see this site; on Jean Cocteau: check out this.)
In order to provide insights into the "scope and nature of modernism's engagement with popular culture", the essayist provides a contextual review of Darius Milhaud's The Creation of the World (1923), the first symphony for a jazz orchestra.
One way to analyze the paper is to look at the parallel portraits of Mihaud and Stravinsky, on the one hand, and Milhaud and Cocteau, on the other hand.
. Milhaud & Stravinsky. There are striking contrasts between the two. First, whereas Stravinsky had not actually listened to jazz music, Milhaud had heard the Billy Arnold Band "straight from New York" in 1920. Moreover, he visited New York in 1922 to get direct exposure to Afro-American jazz.
Second, Milhaud viewed jazz as "an innovative art form in its own right", and not as raw material for "modernist experimentation or avant-garde shock tactics." Thus, The Creation of the World was technically consistent with jazz ("sober authenticism" - Although Hodeir disputes this.)
Whereas Stravinsky was a playful and irreverent bricoleur –"the great scavenger of twentieth-century music-, Milhaud held an "authenticist posture" towards jazz. The contrast between Milhaud and Stravinsky is somewhat attenuated, as both are seen as flaneurs, defined by Baudelaire as people who look to extract poetry from fashion.
. Milhaud & Cocteau. Both were flaneurs, but with different goals. Whereas Milhaud declared (only a few years after 1924) that he was "no longer interested in jazz" (because it had become “official”), Cocteau acted more like an entrepreneur. Thus, while Cocteau was had much less musical knowledge than Milhaud, he managed to act as the leader of a non-political avant-garde movement centered on jazz (while at the same time striving to keep its "frenchness.")
Thanks in part to the success of the restaurant-bar Le Boeuf sur le Toit, the Montmarte culture of poverty and social marginality gave way (at least in some influential circles) to Cocteau’s vision of "upscale pleasure and fashionable consumption."
In other words, while Mihaud was the ultimate flaneur, Cocteau was an "impresario of the first order."
(2) NIAS Statement: The nature of American mass culture
One key idea here is the role of innovation. Innovation is correctly defined here –in Schumpeterian terms- as an invention that finds a market. The high speed press, roll film, the gramophone, the movie camera, etc., all contributed decisively to facilitate both mass production and mass marketing strategies.
American mass culture is best defined by Hollywood, and, to a certain, extent, by music companies. Interestingly, the authors add other --"often more hidden"-- elements: management (which has "transformed Europeans into consumers of American products and images"), therapy and education.
While this analysis his very helpful –because it broadens our perspective of American mass culture- Law is only mentioned in passing, and not at all in its connection with language. One is reminded here of Fustel de Coulanges's book Les institutions politiques de l'Ancienne France, where he analyzed the impact of Latin and Roman Law on the Gallic society of the early empire.
Language, according to Fustel, was absolutely critical in terms of the expansion of Roman Law, which was in turn regarded as the key vehicle of "romanization." A similar phenomenon seems to be occurring right now with Anglo-Saxon Law, in particular with respect to the notion of stare decisis, the doctrine of the supremacy of the precedent (*).
_______________
(*) Hans W. Baade: "Stare Decisis in Civil Rights Countries: The Last Bastion", in Peter Birks & Adrianna Pretto: Themes in Comparative Law (Oxford, 2002.)
# posted by Agustin @ 1:16 PM 
