I'm writing this post, as usual, at a time which barely qualifies as on-time. As usual, I've got the usual excuses, though it seems pertinent enough that in another week, graduate school will no longer be an available excuse. (In the meantime, I will mention that I was busy this week assembling the most recent online issue of Gulf Stream Magazine -- my main success in the coding of this one, incidentally, was finally figuring out how to center a horizontal list with CSS (the biggest flaw--to my mind--in Online #2).) That's right, I'm--barring any last minute complications--graduating. So now I'll never mention graduate school ever again. Luckily, though, I'm starting a job right away (co-founding a new poetry festival in Miami), so I'll have plenty of fresh excuses for not getting these articles written on time.
Not that I have all that much to write about at this point. What I've been thinking about this week--and many of these thoughts developed last week while I was in Denver, Colorado (and neglecting to post an article) for the annual AWP conference, which puts something like 8,000 writers into one convention center and lets the fun commence. What it is that I was and am thinking about: I think, since beginning to write these articles a year and a half ago, I've been steadily trying to be less and less of a "hater" (I think the presence of Super Haters on the site has made it that much easier). Basically, I suppose, it comes down to not wanting to even bother with most of the culture that is out there and available to be engaged with in this country. Which doesn't mean that I haven't been negative about various things (especially towards hating itself, and irony-at-large), but I think that it really has given me what I would call a cultivated ambivalence towards almost all popular culture.
It came up for me in a conversation with a friend about poetry (which is to be expected), where I found myself arguing that it's good that lots of people in the country write what is essentially terrible poetry. Because the activity of poetry is better than the activity of watching television, and many other activities as well. Sure, sometimes bad poets are annoying and self-absorbed (of course, most good poets are also self-absorbed...), but the fact that they're doing poetry is a good thing. I'm not sure if I'd feel differently if poetry were more popular than it is--in fact, I think that if poetry was more popular, America would be a better place. But my friend was rather shocked at my stance, since I'm also something of an unrepentant cultural elitist, so how could I claim to support so many bad artists in their quest to make art which turns out to be bad?
Am I just being condescending? I don't mean to at all claim that my writing is any good; really, I support myself as a poet, good or bad. On some level, there's really no such thing as "good" or "bad," if one just looks at the activity taking place. For example: Capitalism is evil and destroying humanity and much of the planet's ability to support human-like forms of life. So, insofar as an activity doesn't participate in actively destroying the world, it doesn't matter what it's value-as-an-output is. So long as you write your poems in a green-friendly way (on recycled paper, with responsible ink, etc.) it doesn't matter what they say. There's nothing really to talk about, content-wise.
So, in a similar vein, admitting that there's something to talk about for products of popular corporate-sponsored culture already allows it too much sway. Hating is participatory, so already more harmful than ignorance. Which isn't to say that I haven't spent a bit of time watching television in the past handful of months, but it's been dipping steadily (and Conan leaving late night helped that out quite a bit, since that was the last time slot that I still found myself turning the tube on). The main thing that's finally pushing me to actually just getting rid of the TV that I own entirely are the increased presence in, say, the past six months, of advertisements by oil companies that basically say "oil is good, America" in a similar way as beef corporations say "beef is good, America" (it not being a coincidence that factory-farmed beef is as devastating to the environment as fossil fuels). So here's the last time I participate in admitting that there's such a thing as television advertisements. A list bit of hating: fuck you, oil companies (and an extra negative shout-out to Phil Mickelson for all those "partnering with ExxonMobil" commercials during The Masters (which I wound up watching in an airport bar while waiting for an hours-delayed flight out of Denver)--it is not okay to partner with ExxonMobil, for anything, ever).
I realize that ambivalence doesn't actually represent much, as far as oppositional behavior goes, but within the realm of "culture," it's got to be at least better than nothing. And if we can erase notions of good and bad when it comes to home-made or independently-made, or community-made cultural artifacts, realizing that most industrial culture is similarly devoid of actually identifiable qualities of value, then maybe everybody's cultural lives will get better.
i definitely agree with you about "more bad poetry is better than no poetry" or "TV commercials, on the whole, are giant annoying wank-fests." however, i think there's something to be said on a conceptual level for corporate-backed cultural expression such as TV programming and American pop culture in general.
you come from the view that you dislike capitalism and its fallout. i come from the other side, which is that i dislike when capitalism goes bad, and i love when it goes right.
i say that to say this -- i find corporate-backed cultural expression (which is not ALWAYS pop culture, nor is pop culture ALWAYS corporate-backed (though it is the majority of the time)) to be an interesting lens into attitudes, shared social values, and shared desires of the people i'm surrounded with every day.
millions of Americans desperately want to express their individuality in a socially acceptable way, even if their individuality isn't that individual. i've learned that from American Idol. people are positively afraid of brutal actions that cross ethical and moral boundaries which we're asked not to cross in America. i've learned that from Law and Order and its continuing popularity.
now i'm not saying AI and L&O are the best forms of cultural expression, but rather solid examples. in fact, i would agree that the best forms of cultural exchange are the most personal forms, done with the notion of self-expression first and profit secondary (if at all, really). but AI and L&O are still valid forms of expression to me.
what's magical about TV is that i can choose when and what i'll be exposed to. however, because it's not interactive like the Internet, i'm at the mercy of its message. thus i enjoy playing a fun mental game while watching TV -- can i make it through the forced message without changing the channel? if so, has that forced message somehow transformed me?
in some ways i know that sounds sick, like "how did those advertising dollars affect me? am i now a better person?" but, see, that sentiment is the negative side of capitalism's fallout. the positive side is "how did that forced message challenge my beliefs? what sort of social and ethical questions did it pose? how have i decided to define myself (both morally and socially) now that i've had this experience?"
so while i think you've got the right idea by saying that corporate-backed cultural expression is inferior to the alternative, i also personally feel that your view is far too anti-corporate-backed cultural expression for me, because even when i disagree with the message of such expressions, i still find something to be gained from experiencing them and analyzing resulting attitude.
I think that when you admit that consumers' individualities aren't really all that individual, you get at an important point: there's really no such thing as an "individual." Humans don't exist in a vacuum, even when in solitude, we are held up by other humans--and not necessarily ones that we even know or directly interact with.
So when I talk about taking a particular action--whether that's writing poetry, starting band, making indie comics, starting a blog, whatever--I also feel like it represents an entire demographic making that choice, and that's where the power of social interaction lies.
So rather than all of us allowing ourselves to be reduced to the level of "individuals" and sit passively consuming what's produced for us to consume--whether or not there's still value to be eked from what's on the TV--we're still always better off recognizing communal action and knowing that these interactions will happen no matter what. So, why take the bad with the good of capitalism, when instead we might find a less problematic way of making culture?