History, asked by jessamark71, 3 months ago

in your own words and understanding) 200 words


Why is it important to study Philippine Popular Culture?

Answers

Answered by ankajvaish2016
1

Answer:

Studying pop culture reveals the underlying assumptions, power structures, and philosophical and moral constructs of the society that produces those cultural products.

Answered by Limafahar
5

Answer:

Studying pop culture reveals the underlying assumptions, power structures, and philosophical and moral constructs of the society that produces those cultural products. In other words, it reveals “culture” in a different sense. As Pierre Bourdieu, Clifford Geertz, Zora Neale Hurston and other notable anthropologists have pointed out, what is forefront, daily, and broadly experienced and produced reveals much more about a culture than the relatively rare ritualistic elements formerly associated with culture.

Studying pop culture gives us an accessible vehicle through which to explore philosophical and moral questions, as well as the functioning of society on a smaller scale (e.g. fandom, consumption), through which we can make larger assumptions.

Pop culture studies can be as broad or specific as one likes in any given project. In general, if a set of cultural artifacts (books, films, television episodes) has franchise markers (an economic component), a dedicated set of consumers (a social component), and a sense of social commentary (an intellectual component), it's ripe for anthropological study. For example, there is a small but busy branch of culture studies known as “Buffy studies"; it's even part of a Masters program at Brunel University, London. Topics include moral philosophy, gender constructs, textual analysis, and linguistic culture, all of which are explored using examples from “Buffy” and its spinoff “Angel.” The surely delighted show creator Joss Whedon said,

If it’s successful or made a dent in culture, then it is worthy of study to find out why. Buffy, on the other hand is, I hope, not idiotic. We think very carefully about what we’re trying to say emotionally, politically, and even philosophically while we’re writing it… it really is, apart from being a pop-culture phenomenon, something that is deeply layered textually episode by episode. (at NYTimes.com)

So one can examine the show through various lenses; anthropologically, we can look at “Buffy” through its writers’ social commentary, through the characters as symbols or extensions of their real-life counterparts (i.e. the writers and actors), and through the mythological, cultural, and philosophical content of the show, and compare it with data from the “real world.” The conclusion is, of course, that the real world is both reflected in the cultural work and partly constituted by the work’s impact upon the imaginations of the culture’s members. “Buffy” is additionally interesting because of the loyal audience and dedicated fan base it had and still has; the phenomenon of fandom is anthropologically interesting because it functions similarly to tribal or cult allegiance (hence the term “cult hit” for certain TV shows and movies) and encompasses particular terminology, understandings, and rules of acceptance for “true fans.”

Of course, one could still wonder — and indeed I have — about the importance of “low” art such as TV and comic books. Not everyone can be convinced of the intrinsic artistic value of creative efforts in these domains. That much art is in fact produced for entertainment and profit today makes it "low art," and the significant monetary incentives and hefty price tags on most forms of popular entertainment leads to plenty of cynicism about the state of art today.

But aside from the philosophical argument on what makes art art (for that may never be resolved), we can still find cultural value, if not artistic integrity by whoever’s standards, in all forms of art entertainment. As noted above, as “popular” art and culture, moreso than so-called “highbrow” art and culture, are produced and devoured by people at all levels of society, and at clearly higher rates of consumption. We could compare numbers about theatre and opera attendance versus movie and rock concert box office tickets (there were 1.3 billion movie theater admissions in 2008 versus about 12 million Broadway tickets sold), but it is easily observable that most people who attend theatre also attend movies, while the reverse is not true, and that iTunes downloads and movie tickets sales number far more than opera and art museum tickets sales. This is in part due to the exclusivity of theatre, opera, and art museums, but that the “low-brow” forms are less exclusive also means they’re more available. “Low-brow” basically means for the lowest common denominator; even plays considered “low-brow” in their day are now “high-brow” by virtue of being theatre. So while all forms of art entertainment reveal culture, to an anthropologist the “lowest common denominator” means the broadest spectrum of data with which to work.

Similar questions