Sunday, October 08, 2006
Intellectualising Personal Taste
So I'm walking through some department store in Nottingham at the weekend and a display of chocolate advent calenders catches my eye. Amongst the various brands exploiting Jesus is Little Britain, the inevitable "I Want That One" calender.
Paul's internal monologue: "Little Britain, ferrchrissakes! Have you guys not made enough money yet? What the hell's wrong with you? Seriously! Is there no piece of merchandise you wouldn't agree to having your name plastered across? Don't you think the market is saturated enough with your tacky exploitative sell out crap? Don't you think the cool/honourable/smart thing to do would have been to leave us wanting more, to back away from this sort of insane dollar grabbing capitalist frenzy and disapeer for a year or so? Don't you think you're ripping off your fans? Don't you think you've compromised your artistic integrity and prostituted your talent for a deal with the devil? WHAT PRICE YOUR SOULS, LUCAS & WALLIAMS??!!! WHAT PRICE YOUR SOULS??!!!...........Oh, cool! A Homer Simpson calender! I'm gonna get that!"
Y'see? I could talk to you for hours (ask my girlfriend) about why/how Little Britain is a terrible capitalist evil, but as the above anecdote reveals, the reality of it is simply that: I Don't Really Think Little Britain Is Very Funny, It Isn't My Cup Of Tea And I Can't Understand Why It Is So Monsterously Successful. Everything that enrages me about Little Britain vis a vis merchandising etc is even more true for The Simpsons, but: I Really Like The Simpsons Alot And They Can Do What The Hell They Like As Far As I'm Concerned, Heck, They've Earnt It. Ergo, if I found Little Britain funny, I wouldn't have a problem with the merchandising etc. I guess this is pretty much a dictionary definition of hypocracy, on the other hand I think it's pretty much unavoidable and I don't think there's any shame in it; you are naturally more inclined to forgive the faults of someone you otherwise like than the faults of someone you don't like. I was talking last Christmas with an indie/alternative orientated friend about Girls Aloud, a group who I consider to have produced half a dozen genuinely excellent pop songs and, until they lost all the weight, were a pretty attractive bunch to boot. Joe Indie: "Girls Aloud? Are you kidding? Chav culture blah blah blah...production line pop blah blah blah...shameless sexploitation blah blah blah blah...X Factor Heat Magazine celeb culture blah blah blah." The truth of the matter was simply that he doesn't like commercially minded pop music and Girls Aloud aren't his cup of tea, but - and it's easily done - he unconciously felt the need to wrap this preference up in some sort of cultural critique. As the conversation went on it really started to bug me. The point isn't that sexploitation/celeb culture etc aren't serious, fundamental Girls Aloud issues, they most certainly are, and without question they should form part of any discussion about Girls Aloud you choose to have...BUT: I'm not sure if they are valid answers to the question "Why don't you like Biology by Girls Aloud," any more so than my Little Britain issues are valid answers to "Why don't you like Little Britain?"
Hmm. I don't know. What do you think? Are these valid answers to those questions? If not, what ARE the valid answers? Do we have a vocabulary for talking about 'taste'? Perhaps the reasons Joe Indie gave for not liking Girls Aloud are the type of things which make up one's 'taste.' I've begin to think & rethink this too much now. I really just wanted to tell you the funny advent calender story. ¶ 2:33 AM
Paul's internal monologue: "Little Britain, ferrchrissakes! Have you guys not made enough money yet? What the hell's wrong with you? Seriously! Is there no piece of merchandise you wouldn't agree to having your name plastered across? Don't you think the market is saturated enough with your tacky exploitative sell out crap? Don't you think the cool/honourable/smart thing to do would have been to leave us wanting more, to back away from this sort of insane dollar grabbing capitalist frenzy and disapeer for a year or so? Don't you think you're ripping off your fans? Don't you think you've compromised your artistic integrity and prostituted your talent for a deal with the devil? WHAT PRICE YOUR SOULS, LUCAS & WALLIAMS??!!! WHAT PRICE YOUR SOULS??!!!...........Oh, cool! A Homer Simpson calender! I'm gonna get that!"
Y'see? I could talk to you for hours (ask my girlfriend) about why/how Little Britain is a terrible capitalist evil, but as the above anecdote reveals, the reality of it is simply that: I Don't Really Think Little Britain Is Very Funny, It Isn't My Cup Of Tea And I Can't Understand Why It Is So Monsterously Successful. Everything that enrages me about Little Britain vis a vis merchandising etc is even more true for The Simpsons, but: I Really Like The Simpsons Alot And They Can Do What The Hell They Like As Far As I'm Concerned, Heck, They've Earnt It. Ergo, if I found Little Britain funny, I wouldn't have a problem with the merchandising etc. I guess this is pretty much a dictionary definition of hypocracy, on the other hand I think it's pretty much unavoidable and I don't think there's any shame in it; you are naturally more inclined to forgive the faults of someone you otherwise like than the faults of someone you don't like. I was talking last Christmas with an indie/alternative orientated friend about Girls Aloud, a group who I consider to have produced half a dozen genuinely excellent pop songs and, until they lost all the weight, were a pretty attractive bunch to boot. Joe Indie: "Girls Aloud? Are you kidding? Chav culture blah blah blah...production line pop blah blah blah...shameless sexploitation blah blah blah blah...X Factor Heat Magazine celeb culture blah blah blah." The truth of the matter was simply that he doesn't like commercially minded pop music and Girls Aloud aren't his cup of tea, but - and it's easily done - he unconciously felt the need to wrap this preference up in some sort of cultural critique. As the conversation went on it really started to bug me. The point isn't that sexploitation/celeb culture etc aren't serious, fundamental Girls Aloud issues, they most certainly are, and without question they should form part of any discussion about Girls Aloud you choose to have...BUT: I'm not sure if they are valid answers to the question "Why don't you like Biology by Girls Aloud," any more so than my Little Britain issues are valid answers to "Why don't you like Little Britain?"
Hmm. I don't know. What do you think? Are these valid answers to those questions? If not, what ARE the valid answers? Do we have a vocabulary for talking about 'taste'? Perhaps the reasons Joe Indie gave for not liking Girls Aloud are the type of things which make up one's 'taste.' I've begin to think & rethink this too much now. I really just wanted to tell you the funny advent calender story. ¶ 2:33 AM
Comments:
<< Home
Honestly Paul, your blogs always make me go into "thought" overload. Too...many...things...to...say!
But. I think that when we don't like something we try and find as many things as we can to criticise it for. So your indie mate (does he sing in a band by any chance?) doesn't like Girls Aloud but instead of leaving it at that ("Girls Aloud? No, I'm not really keen on their music!") He has to list millions of things (heat, Celeb culture, bla bla) that are bad and thus make them sound as bad as possible. And often these things have very little to do with the thing itself.
Also, in an atypical comment, why shouldn't Lucas and Walliams milk the merchandise avenue as much as possible? I'd rather they did it than some pathetic boy band. Also, whatever you think of the comedy, Little Britain has been an important milestone in terms of attitude to comedy, boundries of taste etc. So lets give a little bit of credit where its due.
But. I think that when we don't like something we try and find as many things as we can to criticise it for. So your indie mate (does he sing in a band by any chance?) doesn't like Girls Aloud but instead of leaving it at that ("Girls Aloud? No, I'm not really keen on their music!") He has to list millions of things (heat, Celeb culture, bla bla) that are bad and thus make them sound as bad as possible. And often these things have very little to do with the thing itself.
Also, in an atypical comment, why shouldn't Lucas and Walliams milk the merchandise avenue as much as possible? I'd rather they did it than some pathetic boy band. Also, whatever you think of the comedy, Little Britain has been an important milestone in terms of attitude to comedy, boundries of taste etc. So lets give a little bit of credit where its due.
Uh huh. I dunno about Little Britain. The problem here surely is that whatever 'boundries' they pushed etc pale into insignificance in the face of the obscene merchandising frenzy surrounding the show, and even if I were in a charitable mood the fact that you can't walk through a high street store without some sorta LB tat on display means I am entirely less inclined to make grudgingly positive noises about the show's actual content. I never really dug the show, I thought odd bits here and there were ok, but it has become a commercial monster, impossible to ignore, and consequently I am forced to have more of an opinion about it than I do about the millions of other shows I could care less about and happily ignore every day. BUT, like I say, there are few merchandising monsters worse than Teams Simpson, Star Wars & Beatles, and I love all those things so what you gonna do?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
