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.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

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.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

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

(Reply to this) (Thread)

I have heard of the Fray.

So do you think you've lost something by having lost touch with the kids and such?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

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*

:)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

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.

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 lonelocust 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?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

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 drfell 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.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

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)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

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.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

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?")

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

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

(Reply to this) (Thread)

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.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

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 hood self-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.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

its called CP time. That's how we roll.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Do I even need to respond, or is my status as 70 year old woman already secured.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Well, detailed knowledge of black and white films and such is still popular culture.

As is Scrubs.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

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.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

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.

Agreed, and exactly the same answer I gave several people above.

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?

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.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

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).

(Reply to this) (Thread)

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.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I was raised by wolves and pop culture just like you. You know the deal.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

who knew that the wolves got cable... *shrug*

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

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.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)