3 ‘HIGH’, ‘POPULAR’ AND ‘LOW’ CULTURES IN EVERYDAY LIFE INTRODUCTION In this chapeer, am going co present some of the ways one can undet- stand the fields vaciousy called ‘high culeue’, ‘mass culeure’, “Popular culcute’ and Tow culture’ and bow they might impace upon our every- dey acciviies. What I am interested in doing here is t0 unpack the ‘means by which everyday life mighe be influenced by both ‘art and ‘popular culeue’ and how, conversely, everyday lie impacts upon and shapes them. Whar I wane ¢0 do is to gee away fom a view that sees these as wholly separate social and culeural spheres, Instead, what I will emphasize is chat both such Belds can only folly be understood if we look ar che similarities beeween them in terms of how they ‘work’; chese Similarities are understood in tetms af how everyday practices impinge 1a: much upon the apparently elevated world of ‘art as on the world of "popular culture’, Looking at the everyday aspects of both these ‘realms highlights cersinfescures of thee tha migh thecwisecemain hidden fom view. On the other band, undecstanding what ‘art and ‘popular culture’ are ~or could be — can greatly illuminate the nacare af everyday Lie ‘My task here is complicated by the face that whether there really is such a thing as genuinely ‘high culeure’ that is superior to other forms of culture is a mater of great dispute, For some people, ie is jost “unquestionably the case thae ‘geese works of art’ are intrinsically better a Je inglis, David (2005) Culture and Everyday Life. London; New York: Routledge, ch.3. shan ocher cultural forms, For others, high culture’ and art’ are merely labels stack on certain objects or practices by those social groups with the power both to define them in that way and to make sure the label sticks, Arguments over whether ‘high culture’ embodies ehe best of Inuman achievements ~ che ‘best’ ovels, music, paintings, and so on ~ for whether ie is con trick perpetrated by socal elites, are a matter of ‘much heaved debate. My position here willbe to emphasize how a focus fon everyday activities can help us negotiate our way through this thicket of controversy. Twill iret Jook ae the claime made for seeing ‘high cultwre’ and ‘tt’ as “extaocdinary’, involving ideas, valves and responses that are somehow ‘above’ and ‘superior’ to mundane concerns. T will then ‘examine how ‘popular culture’ ~ the realm of popular films, TV pro- ‘srammes, magazines, nd so on ~ ean be regarded as having pernicious cffecs on everyday life, I will thea eura c consider how viewers and readers may actually respond in everyday seetings to such mass media products, Next I will lok at how we can see rhe world of ‘ae’ as aceu- ally ehoroughly wrapped up in everyday concerns and practices, before ‘going on 20 look at how cultural dispositions associated with social class membership might well be greacly implicated in what tastes in culeural goods different people have. Finally, having looked at ‘high’ fod ‘populae’culeuses in lighe of everyday concerns, I will carn co ‘reflect upon what “low culeure’ might be and whose everyday activities ik mighe characcerize "HIGH CULTURE! AND THE EXTRAORDINARY J this section, I will look at ‘are’ and ‘high culture’ from the perspec: tive of thote who claim that the latter ate indeed somehow ‘special, clevated above and finer than other forms of culture. For such people, there is huge gap between ‘high culeae’ on che one hand and ‘pop: tlae culture’ on the other. The gap is measurable in cerms of both artistic quality and iotellectual stimulation, While ‘high culeure rates highly on these scores, ‘popula culture’ eates very low indeed, (One of the mest famous definitions of what ‘high culeure” involves was put forward by the nineteenth-century English author Matchew Arnold. For Arnold, ‘high culrure’ was characterized by qualities of ‘sweetness and Light, that is great beauey and great incelleccaal n8 “wich, roruian’ an ‘Low cuLTURES insight. Avnold (1995 (18691: 199) argued thac “high culture’ involved: 8 pursuit of our total perfection by means of geting to ko, om all, ‘the matters which most concern us, the best which has been thought and said in the world, and through this knowledge, turning a stream ‘of fesh and free thought upoa our stocknotions and habits ‘There were therefore two axpects to what Arnold meant by ‘high cul- ture’, In the fise place, he said that such culeure invalved ‘the best ‘which has been though sod ssid in the world. In effec, what he meane was thatthe teem ‘high culeure’ encompasses the ‘best’ watks of ar that have ever been produced. On thie view, certain cultural prpdicts erly sre genuine works of at. Such wosks, like symphonies by Beethoven 1nd paintings by Picasto, are juse of mach higher quality chan other things oftheir type. Thus @ Beethoven symphony is just natucally “bet- ‘er’ than a single by one of today's ‘boy bande’. The symphony is more ‘musically complex sophisticated and sefined than the pop song. The lacrer complecely lacks these qualities, and is cheraccerized by musical simplicity and lack of sophistication. Arewoeks ace just intrinsically bet- er than the culeural products chat can be labelled under the heading ‘popalar culture “The second aspect of Arnold's view of “high cultuze’ is about che effects of works of art on the people who are exposed to them on 8 regi- lar basis, For Arnold, and for later authoes who have generally shaced his views, engaging with great works ofa isa thoroughly spiritoal mates, "High culeure’ ie noe just collection of objects, but is a process ‘whereby the best works of arc constantly challenge us, compelling us t0 sche ous views and attiudes about che world. If we egularly expose ourselves to the greatest artistic achievements, out lives will be coor seancly cleansed by a ‘seream of fish and fece thought’. Our capacities for thinking and reflecting are made superior ~ that is, more refined, ‘mote subtle ~ if we are engaged wich great novels, paintings, sculprures, and so o0. Arnold understands ‘high culeure” aot simply as made up of ‘che most important works of are the world has seen, bu also az the ben- ficial effects these can have on our thinking and oa imagining. ‘Great works ean ruse our sonls co higher levels of imagination and understanding than if we had never been exposed co thee. I is possible co understand the viewiag of «rest painting or paying care atcen- ton to. great symphony as almost religious expesiences. The viewers ot liseeners are mentally pulled out of their everyday existence, into a higher’ realm of spirituality and beauey. For some authors, such as Scruton (1998), ‘art can have the same effects as « genuine religious ‘experience: it involves a transcendence of mundane and everyday con- ‘eens, towards reflections upon the great questions of human life ~ ques- tions as ro che nacure of beaury, morality, euth and the purpose of Inumankine!s existence on earth. On this view ‘high culeure’ and every- ley life ae aatitheically opposed to each other, While the later is filled up wich petey concerns ~ will Ibe able to pay che bills that have jst come in? is there enough money in my bank account co lase until the end of the month? will T get lucky wieh thac gil at woe that T fancy? ~ igh cular’ ealy is 4 higher and more tanscendene aspect of Inuman experience, in that ie points cowards the profound), and possibly tnolvable, mysteries of the universe, che great rides that puzzle both teach and every one of ws and humanity asa whole. rom this perspective, the culeural situation we live in eoday is a dis- srous one, Ie privileges mindless ‘entertainments’ over “high culcute', td he later gets marginalized as the former expands its power and influence. When greater i not being marginalized, ie i being cival- ined. For example, Picasso's signature has recenely become an emblem fora particular ange of Renault ears, Beethoven's symphonies and ocher ‘greac works of music are ransacked by advertising execuives for the purposes of creating sounderacks for advertising cars and soup. The nose ‘easy listening’ aspects ofclasrcal music, ehe bits that have ‘nice tunes’ are packaged up and sold as compilations wich names such as “The Top Feenry Classics of All Time’. Each piece of music is ripped ‘out ofits original context ia an overall symphony ar oeher larger musi- fal structure and reduced co lttle eay-to-digest nuggets that have no meaning except thar they sovnd ‘nice’, the musical equivalent of vail fee cream — pleasant and iniially enjoyable ~bue after « while you real- ine they have no substance co them at all (Adocoo, 1967). What were fence complex, challenging musical works become aothing more than jingles and runes co hum along to es you do the iting. Works of art fare therefore subjugated co the needs of consumer capitalism, where ‘money, image and profc are everything, sd quality, choughefulness snd reflection count for very litle. 79Zo ‘THE ROUTINIZATION OF CULTURE (On a view like chac of Arnold, great works of ar are important aspects of what makes life woeth living. Without chem, we would be fed on a diet of culcural rubbish thae would be bad for the mind and ruinous for ‘the soul. The absence of great art from ous lives impoverishes us iatel- leccually, morally and aesthetically. Thus while “high coleure’ is seperate from and ‘sbowe' everyday life, fe nonetheless can enrich and augment four everyday existences, iF we cultivate out tates and open ourselves up to the novel and challenging, rather thao pusively accepting a never changing dice of uackallenging, preftbricaed aad predictable popular caleurl products, ‘According to this sor of viewpoint, doing such ching as listening to pop music or eading simplistic and unchallenging ‘best-selling’ books Ihelps to diminish ous faculeies (Leavis, 1993 (1948). In the words of a ‘ewentieth-century author who shared Amolds views, che American cal- ‘ural critic, Dwight Macdonald (1978 (1953), moet forms of popular culcute are nothing but “bubblegum of the mind’ — they require ao ‘thought, the plessuce they give is insubstantial, and they are throw- sway and disposable. A the German thinkers Theodor Adorno aod Max Horheimer (1992 (1944): 126) pur ie, what eranspies is ‘the stunting ofthe mass-medis consumer's powers of imagination aid spontanccy. For Adorno and Horkheimer, ‘poplae culeue’ is vastly inferior co ‘high culeue’ because, whereas the geauine ‘work of art? generally ‘expresses the singular vision of a single creative atat, the former is designed by commiteee, planned out ro generate as much profi es possi- ble, designed co reach oue co the lowest common culeusil denominator and curned out on 2 production line. On this view, "popular culate” is “ima culeures mass produced, chougheless, unsophisticated aad hollow. “Modern sociecy is in large pure characterized by che indatrialiation of ‘altar. With the coming to dominance in the twentieth century of mass media like film and TY, inscead of people making their own entertain ments, entertainment is laid on for them, mae produced and mass ‘catered for the bulk ofthe population by Culeure Indusis, These are ‘made up of large proftdriven conglomersces like Hollywood studios sod big publishing enterprises, Bvery tingle consumer is entered fot, as the Caleare Industries serve up standardized products designed co meet ‘very possible markee niche: ‘something is provided forall 0 that none may escape... Everybody must behave (as if spontaneously) in accor. dance with his for hee} previously determined and indexed level, and Choose the category of mass produce razed oue for his type" (Adorno and Hockbiimes, 1992 11944): 123). "Whar Adorno sod Horkheimer are here pointing o is cha so-alled ‘populae” culture can be seen as being based around vase and incicace procestes of market research and audience testing (Seallabrass, 1996) ‘Whae is served up tous by TV and other mass media has nothing novel or challenging abour ie. Ie has been made for the express purpose of being sold, not oF gesting us to think or reflect. ei ‘enteresioment and ‘nothing more. Once ehe makers of culeural products think they have hie fonto a winning formula, they stick with het formula, because they [know thae repeating ic will be hicrative. Conversely, innovation and novelty are scorned as being too cisky’ and chus aze avoided. Asa seslt, tve get an endles paride of, for example, lms all cenered around stan Gardized stories and character. In the 1940s, whea Adocao and Hockheimer wese writing, the ‘cowboy’ movie was one of the great ‘movie genres, identkie versions of i being earned ouc by che bucket- lead in. che cinema end later on TY, year after year. If we lok se lm sod TV today, curent stereotypical produces include eccion-driven police movies ~ where the lead character i almost always a ‘maverick’, ‘out to ‘avenge’ his dead partner, killed off early on in the movie by rug ‘dealers or suchlike ~ and ‘chick Ack’, so-called ‘com-coms’ where after Initial dislike of che leading man, the leading lady falls head over heels jn love with him, and after « whole series of trials and rxibulaions familiac From loss of other films, they end up happily in each other's fnms as the end-ceedits roll. All such products are cotally predicable, lacking the capacity co stimulate and open people up to aew experiences that Adorno and Horkheimer, ike Arnold, argue thae “high culeue’ "From this sore of view, throughoue the ewentiech cearury and to en even greater extent rodsy, ‘cure’ is manufactured, processed, packaged td sod tous, ll inthe name of profit. Our everyday culeural eccivites, uch as reading newspepert, magazines and novels, watching TV and {ing to che movies, ae all thoroughly influenced, if not co say wholly ftruecured, by Culture Industries. These churn’ out endless highly ereocypical products. We may thiak we have a huge choice of movies ‘when we goo the multiplex cinema or when we switch on srellie TW, abut, so the argument goes, whac is on offer accually involves very litle ‘genuine choice at all. How can there really be choice when everything is ‘made co standard designs and templates, when all quiz shows are like all ‘other quiz shows, and when every chick flick is like every ather one? Even more than chat, there ie a tendency for the products of the CCuleaze Industries co be in some ways inescapable. When a new film comes out which has @ very hefty advertising budges behind it ro maz- lee ie, one has co be Living a very isolated sore of existence not co hear bout ie i some way. Advertisements forthe fm sppear on cosnmercial ‘TV and radio, in movie review programmes, in aewspaper advertising, in newspaper reviews, on hoardings in che streets, in posters at bus” ‘cops and on buses, and in numerous ocher ways Ie is «fila aimed at a family audience, advertising can also appear on special promocion packs of breakfist cereal and other foods, snd tie-in toys can appear i foy-sores and fase-food ouclees. Vase networks of advertising and dstri- bution exist nor only eo slere ws to the existence of the new movie but also to extol to us, in more direct and mote indirect ways, the mesage that if we don't participa in the ‘event’ chat is chia fla, we ace some- how missing ove on an imporcant experience (Adorno and Horkssimer, 1992 19441: 136). “Adorno and Horkheimer’s point was that in the concemporary world, thee exise many ways in which the Caleure Industries can tay to make us wane whae chey give us, even if we have in effec experienced che same sors of things thousands of times before. Advertising above al isa ‘way of convincing us ehat we want more of the same. Bu we aze led co believe char what we are gerting each time a new best-seller is launched ar 2 new movie is released is totally navel and unprecedented. The aew James Bond film is bigger and better than ever, che new Bridger Jones ‘ick is much funniee than the last one, the new album by Kylie is sexier tha all her previous ones, and so on and so on. Although we aze being fed a constane diet of the same old scuff, we are led ra chink that every lsh served up is beter dhan the las, In che way, the Caleure Industies ‘manipulate our desis, making ws deste the very things they ae going { glve us anyway (Horkheimer, 1972) ‘Our leisure time, and what we chink and feel when we ate engeged in leisure activities, are to a large extene influenced and moulded by the power of the Culeure Industries in order to gee ws to epend both axe ‘ime and our money in certain ways that benefic them. ‘Leisure’ is nae just « master office choice on behalf ofthe individual i i about the Individual feling he or she has 2 fce choice when actually what che individual is doing is choosing fom a limiced repertoire sec by ‘Hollywood studios, record companies, publishing enterprises and such. like. What you do out of working hours might seem like the fest thing in che world: you can appureadly do whac you want, when you ‘wang, sce what you like, do what you choose. But if we look a che ubig- tity of che products of the Culeure Industries in our lives, then we may begin to se another image of ou leisure bouts emerging, one charscrer- ined by constraint and lack of individual scape for action, rather than 2 otlly fre exercise of indivilal tases and desires INSIDE MASS CULTURE So far, I have been pretenting the views of Arsold, Adorno and Horlcheimer, and ochers who agec asco the superior nature of high cul- cute’ and the correspondingly inferior nature of ‘popular culture’ as if ‘we could simply take cheie ideas ae face value. Yer we have co remember ‘hat while such views may be compelling in some ways, chey ae open to challenge in others. In particular, msny critics have charged. such suthors with having, despite all cher all about eeflection and culural Sophistication, ether unsophisticated biases against “popular culeue’ bates chey have filed eo reflect upon and account for. For these cities (eg. Shils, 1978 [1961), authors ike Adorno have failed to realize chat they are making the culcural standards of the rocial groups in which they were bora ico universal standard, ehus Forgetting thae different social groups have different understandings of whet is ‘good’ and "ba, in culture asin everything else. Whae defenders of ‘high caleur’ forget is thae chey are defending whae che social group they are pare of — of ‘would like 10 be pare of defines as ‘good, “superior ‘refined’, and so fon, But juse because « parcicular social group, even = powerful one, fefines something ia a certain way, does not mean hat we should “uncricically acepe cha definition From these critics’ point of view, we have to get away from looking at hinge in terms of «simplistic divide berween "high culeuze’ on one ‘de and “popular culeue’on the othe. There may for example, be ways jn which we can say chaechere i good’ as wel a ‘bad! popular culeure “some ofthe films of Allred Hiechcoc, say, 2x opposed tothe callected %84 ‘works of Michael Winner (Hall and Whansell, 1964). Conversely, what 8 simple opposcion becweea ‘high coleue’ and ‘popular culere’ misses is cha particular works, and in face whole genres, can change thei cul= fuel sanding over time, For example, depending on the socal coatext Jn which ic is peeformed and watched, opera can either be ceganded as popular form (sit has been in Itsy) oc one reserved for che sole enjoy- ‘mene of socal elites (as historically has been the cise in Britia), Similarly, jaze started out in the easly ewentieth cencury as a type of ‘music made by poor blac musicians; by the middle ofthe century, cer- ‘ain espects of janz had been defined ~ mainly by whive middle-class af- ionados ~ as ‘ae’, with is own ‘canon’ of great works’. Bven the plays of Shakespeare, apparently the most unmistaeable examples of ‘great art inthe field of drama, weve ociginally played in fone ofall social classes tnd were written for diverse audiences (the dramatic and eragie porery for the upper classes, che often bawdy comic interludes for the lower clases) It was only in che ninereench century that Shakespeate was well sd erly canonized and elevated to become one of che cultural stints, ‘his reputation as a dramatist being much more mixed before thea (Williams, 1980 [1961}- 193). The poine here is chae what counts as “are depends 0a context; what is viewed very positively atone time and place can be viewed very negatively ar snather ‘According to critic of defender of high culeure’, we alzo have to get ‘way ftom che view thee just beeaue a particular culearel produc could be std co be formulaic and stereotypical, we deduce from chat thee the people who would enjoy such a product muse be unthinking, passive dupes of the Gulrure Industries. A very large assumprion is made here that ‘the observable badness of so much widely diseribured popular cul- cur is a erue guide tothe state of mind and feling, che essential quality of living of its consumers’ (Williams, 1989 (1958): 12). As Richard Hoggare (1970: 32) pe the point, ‘views like chese ... simplify the relationship beeweea the producers snd theie audiences, the producers and thei material, che audiences and he material, and the intersctions beeween different forms and levels of taste’. Writing i a similar vein, ‘Raymond Williams draws the conclusion that “che telly-glued “master do not exist; chey are the bad fction of our second-rate socal analysis (1980 (1961: 361). The eam ‘dhe maser’, when itis wsed «o describe the vast majority of the population, all of-whom are asrumed to be ‘unthinking consumers of whac che Culeuse Industries give them, always describes ether pple, aever ons. We might be happy to describe ocher people as unceflecive and uncritical, but how happy would we be to be Aescribed in that fchion ourselves? For Williams and Hoggar, as for ‘chers unbappy with a simple divide being drawa beeween tbe ‘high’ land the ‘popula, instead of asaneing we know what goes on when peo- ple warch movies of eead novels and so on, we should endeavour co find. feat what actually transpites in eheie everyday lives, creating thote lives ‘with some respece and sympathy, alehough not wholly uncticically cher (artis, 1992) ‘Le us turn co cosider other posible representations of how people engage with what can be clled ‘popular culture’. We have seen how it ‘ould be said thae the coming of the mass media in ehe ewentiech cen- tury dmpowersd people, in cha ie made them dependent for eaereain ‘ment and leisure on produces that had been prepared for ‘mass ‘consumption’. On the other hand, we could say that the coming of the ‘new media allowed an expansion of people's horizoas, opening up to a lange number of peop ideas and things ehey had never bad exposuse before, In that sense, we could see the mass media noc as debilitating bbae as empowering and enziching of people's experience (Shls, 1978 (1961). The American writer Joha Steinbeck (2003: 391) put this point, in the context of cinema-going in che 1930s, in chis way For the pice of ticket, a person whose Ife was dull, sad, unexciting, ugh, and without hope could enter and become part of «dream ie in ‘which all people were sich and beautiful - or violent and brave ~ and In which, after the storied solution ofa foretellably solvable problem, petmanent happiness came like a purple and gold sunset... The ‘ewer knew that he for she] would emerge fiom the glory the vice land the violence, and return to the shrieking street, the evetless town, ofthe humdrum job; bt [the] poor .. were drawn to. golden dreams and the promise oThappiness. Seeinbeck recognizes thar there is a big gep beeween movie dreams and ‘mundane reality. Bue he aso holds out ehe posiblicychac the ‘average ‘inemagoer? would thermusives realize that, rather than naively beliew- vg that what Hollywood promised would ever come ere in chee own lives. Moreover, be notes that che “golden dreams’ afforded by the movies can be a eremendous source of comfore to che downtrodden and 8536 ‘he poor They at least offer a glimmer of colou ia what can fle ro be a ‘rey-bued life of general benaliey and drudgery by eho living i. The point we may draw ffom what he is saying is that, despite che posi ity chae the fae offered up io the cinema for e ‘mass audience is pre~ procested and-undemanding, we should pause before we uttedy scorn ‘what we might regard asthe tawdry glamour of the movies, if they do indeed provide a modicum of enjoyment and comfort for chase whose lives at fr from enjoyable and comforable Similar themes are dealt with in Jackie Seaceys intersting seudy of female moviegoers in Britsin in the 1940s and 1950s, Storgezing: Hallywond and Female Spctatorsbp, Seacey (1994) here eeconsructs from lewers and questionnaires whae her sample of whice working-class ‘women fle thar they experienced when chey went co the cinema, at that ‘me the dominane type of entertainment in Brtsin and other Western countries In a similar vein to Steinbeck’s point above, Seacey found that hberespoadents tended to view the cinema very much ae an escape from everyday, mundane realty, What Hollywood films provided for the Women was a sense cha thete was more eo life chan jure everydy rou tines, that theee could also be glamour, romance and fantasies acted out tnd realized. This was especially important in the rather dreary context of a post-war Briain churacesized by food shoreage, raining sad, in certain quarters certainly, « general feling of malaise. File musicals sarring Fred Astaire, Judy Gueland or Gene Kelly, or glossy melodea- ‘mas with Cary Geant or Rock Hudon, could lift the sprite and make fone temporarily forget about all of life's troubles, leaving them st che ‘door of the movie these. Furthermore, whac Saceys sespondents ato indicated was chat the ‘piceure palaces’ chemselves were well aumed, ehe more expensively fur- ished ones offering « lite este ofthe glezy Hollywood liferyle right in the middle of the local high tree. Once one had entered inside, and taken in the often omace decor and the general buze of excitement sctendane upon the sreening of ‘big piceue’, the concerns of mundane existence drifted away into che very back of one's mind, probably t0 remain sfaly ensconced there for che next few hous. As Stacey (1994: 99) phrases i, {eh physical space ofthe cinema provide a cransitional space berween everyday life ourside the cinema and the fantasy world of ‘the Hollywood film about to be shown’. Racher like seligious ceremos ls davolving ‘sacred’ matcers chat happen in places (eg. the spaces We call “churches? chet age marked off as sies which are seperated from ‘rdioary and mundane afaie, 20 t00 did the cinema act asa locale in wich the everyday world was kepe outside, such ehat the people inside fete thatthe experience they were having was somehow ‘special’ and not call commonplace. 1f money far these workingrclass women was tight —as it most have bacen in many caser ~ then the weekly cip co che ‘Bick’ already had a special aura sbout it, the oae time of the week when one could fully immerse oneself in an aleernative tealicy, having experiences chat were different from, and in certain seass superior’ to, one's everyday activi- ties, Jus as defenders of “high culewe tal ofthe quasi-religious dimen sions of experiencing great artworks, Stacey case study aln-suggests that in certain contexs, che enjoyment of poplar culrure can involve the separation of ‘sacred! teal of unusual experience from the more banal concerns of ones routine existence In the age of the multiplex cinema, it might be a litle dificuleco imagine the shiver of excitement tnd the feling of doing something ‘special’ char was attendant upon these women's cinema-going fifty year ago. But the feelings of excite- ‘mene end anticipation people today still get from dressing up for a spe- Cal event andl going tan upmarket restaurant they would noc aotmally 120 to, captures fo some extent che sense of oceation that can go slong swith even thar most apparently routine acivity of going to watch mov- ing and speaking images projected coro screen "A similar uncovering of che complexities of viewing habits is posi- bile if we consider the case of watching TV. A ‘top-dowa' view which regards viewing TV as simply involving people accepting the ideas and pespectivesolleved by the programmes they watch seems overly sim- plistie if we consider what actually happens in living tooms across the ouitry (Ang, 1995). TV news and current affairs programmes, for fexample, despite journalist’ often quite self-conscious attemprs a ‘neu tralcy’ in the presentation of sores, peshaps inevitably present things from particulat angles, We might then expece to find certain types of people fully agrecing with the preeneation of a story (to the point of fot being aware a all eh eis being presented witha particular stan), some partly agreeing with ie and pardly disagreeing, and others fund ‘mentally disagreeing wich ic. We have all probably been in a situation ‘where someone we know is loudly and enaoyedly zesponding eo some- thing they have jase heard on the news, either because what has been 87a8 ‘reported has provoked a respoase in them or becaute they have been iti- faced by the way the story bts been presented: ‘Bloody welfare scrounge!” or “They always demonize asylum seekers, don’ they’ and David Morley’s (1980) well-known study of different groupe of viewers, all of whom watched che BBC current affairs programme ‘Nationwide’, found chat ie greatly depended on which social group fone belonged co as to how much or how Lisle one agreed with the presentation of particular issues on the programme. Those with con- servative political views, such as bank managers, generally had no problems with the presentation of stories thar were about political and economic issues (eg. the alleged influence of trade unions on ‘government policies), while chose wich more left-wing views, sich as ‘ade union officials, were very concerned with what they regarded as right-wing bias’ in such programmes. In the same vein, thase occ ying more ‘comfortable’ positions ia socieey, such at whice middle- class viewers, felt more accepting of the programme and che way it presented things than chose in socially marginalized groupe, such a8 black farther education seudenes from inner-cicy areas, who generally rejeced the programme and what it stood for as they saw ity namely ‘midlle-class and suburban values. As one of these students acgued, the programme seemed not eo reflect in any way their experiences and ways of life: Itdlidet show one-parent families, no the average family in 2 coun ‘estate ~ all these people they showed seemed to have car home, property thelr own don’t they ever think ofthe average family? .. And they show It. like all the husbands and wives pitching in to cope With problem. .. They don’t show conf, fighting, things we know happen. mean i's just aot, to me it's ust nota true pture~ i's too harmonious, artifical (ory, 1981: 59) ‘The geoeral poinc chat Mosley was making wa that how people actualy respond co what chey view ~ or read of listen to ~ depends greatly on ‘what their social and culeual background is. How we each sake sense of what we are given by che mass media ie made porsible by the ideas and values we already possess, both fom socialization ae we have grown ‘up and from the cultural situations we are par of i everyday life. How 4 whice working-class Tory man understands a media produce could be ‘very diferent from how a black middle-class socialise woman responds to the same thing. The mass media may give us a plethora of messages, dens and perspectives every day of our lives, but whar we mighe take from chat media exposure depends both on who we are and who we think we ae ‘As Raymond Wiliams said, “the elly-ploed "masses" do noe exist ‘Rather, what does exist i a series of mpaviations berwoen media messages snd people’ responses to them. What goes oa in everyday concexts of viewing snd reading cannot simply be deduced fom the messages themselves Fiske (1987: 316) for example goes so far as to claim chat ‘TV viewers engage in ‘semiotic guetrilla warfare’, by reincerpreting televised cents 2 their own liking and often in a way that is opposi- tional so the inerets of programmers and, moce broadly, the capicalist ‘ystem. However, ic would be naive eo think chat viewers, readers and lsten- crs always think just as chey please and are never influenced by what ‘hey view, read of hear. In addition co a focus on how people atively ‘make sense of what is offered co them by the mass media, we also have to examine che ways in which cercsin powerfal interests can indeed influence everyday contexts of interpreting and adertanding. Ie may ‘well be the ee, for erample, cht tabloid newspapers can Whip up "pop ‘lac fling” (i.e. che opinions of cersin social groups) on ‘controversial issues such at paedophilia and asylum seekers. Looking at how on an everyday basis people make sense of, respond to, and give cheir opinions ‘of, stories they read of hear about, does aoe fule out our seeking to lunderstand the ways in which Feelings and belicfi can be sweyed by the ‘mass media and che Culture Industries. Ic is pechaps mort sensible 29 ‘see the operation of ce mass media as tomtimer, for paricular rezons, bnaving an identifiable effece on the thinking of areair people wiehin ‘rian social groups, and se other times having little or no diseraible fffect at all, Everyday reading, listening and viewing habis aze neither ‘wholly shaped no wholly unaffecred by whae newspapers, aio and TV ppreeae and how chey present ic. The overall point here is chat such hhabies ate complicated, just ae everyday life is complicered, and what ty involve canooc be prejudged one way of the other (McGuigen, 1992) 8990 “Wich, ‘roPULAR AND Low" cuLTURES ‘ART! AND EVERYDAY ACTIVITIES, ‘We saw above that defenders of “high culeue’ claim thie a “great wock cof aris just nacurally ‘great’, whatever way you lok ati, and is nate ‘al greatness will just shine forth regardless. This igooces the fac that ‘ar, far fom floating (ee in some ethereal realm ‘above’ everyday co cerns is always pare of society and connected co what people do on a2 everyday basis (Williams, 1958: 127). The view of 'artas independent ‘of mundane life in particular does nor recognize che possibility that the ‘ways in which a work is presented co people can profoundly effec how people understand and respond co ic. What we take co be ‘great in ate coald be as much @ function of how it is presented ~ and represented ~ fo us, ait is of any ‘intinsc’ qualities che work itself possesses (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1990: 39): ‘In recent poll of 500 are critics, Marcel Duchamp's “Urinal” was vored at the greater work of wistal art in modern times (Reynolds, 2004). Thie mighe scem at fist glance ro be rather surprising, because the work is simply a urinal, made ina factory like any ocher sich imple- rent t0 be found ia = male public roller. When Duchamp fre di played ‘Urinal’ in 2 New York gallery in 1917, observers were baffled se 1 how such a mundane ching as toile could be defined as an ‘are ‘work’. Ie had not even been made by Duchamp, but had come off the factory production line like thousands of other urinals before ie. However, Duchamp was playing an exeremely clever game. What di ‘inguished his urinal ftom all other urinals was that he had signed ie. Since he was recognized at an aes’, chen, he sui, surely the fact that I have signed ie makes i¢ a work of at? I, the artist, say his isa work of are; therefore it muse indeed be a work of are. Moreover, Duchamp had ‘his urinal placed in a locale hae was socially recognized ata place where reworks live ~ an art gallery Ifthe urinal had been allowed enteunce such an exaleed place as an are gallery, and since ie was sitting there amongst arrworks, chen ic too mute be an artwork. Thus Duchamp con- cluded, since both the artist and the art gallery define end legitimate this urinal asa work of ar, x0 ie aust be one. ‘The point chac Duchamp was makiag was that, in a modern soieey, something becomes ‘aif those with the culeual power o define i as such do indeed define ie that way. But if those with the power of defi tion do noc define ic thar way, thea ic is noe ‘art’ a all, buesomeehing clse: popular culture, mass culeure ot just a facory-made urinal. Those ‘with the power of definition have a certain ‘magical’ capacity: they have the power w teansform the mundane ~ like a urinal ~ into something regarded a: interesting, stimulating, provocative, important ~ in ocher swords, ate “The “aagical’ power of certain people, such as att ciccs, gallery owners and patrons of the ats, co define what counts a8 ‘art’ and what ‘does not, i phenomenon peculiar to modern societies in the last 200 yeatso¢ so. Before that, no one had seriously entertained the view that {ie and ‘everyday life’ were cally separae from each other. The terms ‘are, “arework’ and ‘artist axe bistvcal mentions, primarily of the nine cecnth century, Before thea, these terme did aoe exist. People in the medieval world produced ceresin cultural items for use in certain spe= Clic ways. Thos pictures with religious themes were noc regarded as ‘art’ but were viewed as religious icon, cheie purpose being to decorate horches snd to give « sense to worshippers of the presence of God (Williams, 1981: 96) The people who made such chings were regarded ts being just like any other craesmen, they were noc seca as ‘acst'. The ides of the aris as « unique peron ~ apd one often moody and unpre- dicable — endowed with s special ‘artistic’ vision of their own, dates primarily from the early nineteenth eeneury and did not exist much before that. Indeed, the idess of ar ‘artworks’ and ‘artists’ are not just modare inventions but ate specifically Wate inventions oo. Societies Surside che West have ao historically possessed chese categories and the ‘ways of seeing culeual produces that they encourage Shiner, 2001), Te is not an accident char jase as eligion was beginning co be less influential in Western sociecies, the idea of are’ appears, partly aking its place. Fm the beginning ofthe 1800s onwards, ar” was seen co be lost ‘holy’ in nacure snd ‘above’ odinary and mundane socal actvi- ties. In cereain senses, ‘art’ came increasingly to replace God, atleast among, social elites, asthe storehouse of aesthetic ane! moral values that svere seen to be higher than, and under ehrea fom, ehe vulgar pursuit oF money, the dominant feature of capiealst society (Hforkheimes, 1972). Likewise, the special pesson now defined at an ‘aris’ replaced prophets, saints snd oeher religions gues asx character co admire and Yenerae, because of his (and ‘artists! were generally males) privileged Fasighes into spiritual affis and maccer the sere out of che ordinary Tn sum, hac happened ia the nineteenth century was the erection of « ”