Shirley Bi
SOC 125: Midterm 2
Dr. O
May 30, 2018
Culture is a contagious process that is dynamic and is subjected to changes over time. Cultures vary among different societies based on the political, economic, religious and even geographical locations. The American culture, for instance, is different from the culture of the people in England or in the Caribbean. Cultures also vary depending on timelines, even among the same population. The American culture in the eighteenth century is totally different from the twentieth century culture. What was regarded as popular culture or trendy at that time is most likely not viewed the same in these modern times. The progression and processes of cultural change can be termed as cultural production. In a way, these processes result in producing of other cultures, different from the ones they have emanated from. Sociologists view cultural production using different approaches. Some approaches include the following. For example, the first approach is art world which looks at works of art as a collaboration where intersecting and overlapping cooperative activities are involved in producing maintaining, and presenting fine art. This can be applied to mean that cultures are produced through collaborations with others. The second perspective is that of production of culture such as popular and elite cultures. The third approach is the field of cultural production perspective (Ferguson, 1998). This paper compares and contrasts art world perspective and the production of culture perspective using the transformation of Shakespeare from popular to elite culture.
Both perspectives point out on the importance of the presence of the artists and innovators who create the various arts that evolves into the culture. Using the culture production perspective, this concept is referred to as the supply side (Peterson, 1990). The supply side includes the individuals who enable the emergence of a given culture. These individuals are often innovative and inventive and come up with creative and often less popular ideas. The innovations are often a build-up on the existent norms or a complete deviation from what is presently available. Using the art world perspective, this refers to the artists, the sculptors, the painters, the actors and the singers among others. They create the art for consumption by the audience. Without this group of people, there is no art to be consumed. The writers write and the audience read these literary pieces. Without them, there is no cultural production as they are involved in the initial creation. In Shakespeare’s case, he had to keep writing to provide material for supply. Shakespeare did not just write one piece and wait on it to spread a culture around romance and other popular topics he covered. He kept the supply steady by providing a continuous flow of plays. The multiplicity of these plays offered a variety while still building onto one culture that would mark the Shakespeare era. The creators involved in this supply end can be more than just the artist. The art world insists on collaborations amongst several parties in creating the art (Kordsmeier, 2017). It is in this concept that we can see how Shakespeare’s work became popular in America. Shakespeare’s work would not have been popular in America if not furthered by other parties such as the actors and the theatre producers who played his work alongside other American playwrights.
According to both perspectives, the audience and their demand for particular art results in cultural production in a society. The demand aspect is important in the production of culture. This side mainly comprises the audience to whom the art is targeted. If the audience cannot relate to the music, painting, plays, stories, films, television programs or any other form of presentation of the art then it ceases to be popular. When artists create pieces for the audience, they are keen on audience response. For instance in creating of music, the artists involved try to create a familiar tune which the audience can respond to appropriately (Becker, 2008). When the audience cannot identify with the art it ceases to be popular. For example, in the social production of blackness, the loss of older and affluent viewers to cable TV forced the most popular TV networks in America to create content for the African American people to sustain high audience. Their programing was mostly for the older generation comprising mostly affluent white people living in rural areas. When this population shifted, they had to tap onto the available audience which comprised mostly minorities like black people living in urban areas (Gray, 2004). This resulted in inclusivity of races, genders, and recently sexuality which demonstrates cultural production. In a similar manner, the popularity of Shakespeare in America can be attributed to the responsive audience in the eighteenth and nineteenth century audience. This audience revered his work, memorized the words and even made parodies out of it. The parodies and satires further spread the works. However, the generations after these did not identify with Shakespeare. His works ceased to be plays meant for entertainment because the audience viewed them as classics. They became educational pieces. Reading Shakespeare’s work became a mark of class for the learned and those not. It therefore became an elitist category of classics.
Despite the two perspectives having similarities in their arguments on cultural production, they present various contrasts. In the production of culture perspective, the audience has a higher say compared to the creators of art, which contrasts the Art Worlds approach. Creation of Art is often pegged on standing out and sort of novelty (Becker, 2008). The artists who stand out even in modern times created pieces which were viewed as magnificent and out of the norm. For instance the impressionist art stood out from the paintings which had perfected finishing and polish in France. At the time they were not viewed as great but they later caught on. Using this approach, Shakespeare’s work should have moved from elite to popular instead of the vice versa way in which it has. Based on Art Worlds, Shakespeare’s work would have faced intense criticism in America as it first got introduced. It would not have got the warm reception it did. The books would have not been available even in common spaces or areas but would be available only to the elite few who could and would afford it. Afterwards, following years of ‘struggling’ to get into theatres, it finally caught up and became popular among the people. The audience at the time was however receptive and enabled the popularity of Shakespeare’s work. The audience were aware of the work that they kept the actors in check as themselves they had a mastery of the works (Levine, 1993). The audience therefore played a bigger role in cultural production compared even to the artist. The actors in this case form part of the audience of Shakespeare since they were well read of the work which made it easier to cast and produce the plays. When the audience changed, it did not matter how good Shakespeare’s work was. The fact that they could no longer relate to it pushed the popular work to the elite corner. This means it has less influence in culture compared to when it was popular culture.
The production of culture perspectives is affected by symbols such as technology but in the art world, technology furthers and improves cultural production. Previously referred to as constraints by earlier authors of the production of culture perspective (Peterson, 1990), technology has shaken up the cultural production. As Gray narrates using the black culture perspective, technology shook the TV network in a way that forced them to start including black people in their programming. This was the only alternative to keep the revenues from advertisements by sustaining high audiences (Gray, 2004). The advent of technology could be among the explanation of the shift of Shakespeare’s work from popular to elite. At the time when his work was popular, theatres were very popular. Everyone went to the theatre from the elite people in the society like the professionals and affluent, the political leaders, the middle class and even the lower people in the economic spectrum. The theatres were set up in a way in which they could accommodate all these groups which were segregated with the sitting alignment as class differences were inherent. This was both a good and bad thing. It was good because the entire population irrespective of the classes would get access to watch the performances. It was bad because it was difficult to create content that would cut across the diverse population. With technology however, people have migrated theatres and turned to film and television for entertainment leaving Shakespeare’s work to being educational. Even when the work is documented in a film, it is not consumed as any other entertainment media like movies and situational comedies. It is accorded seriousness which would have otherwise not been the case in the theatres.
Culture as discussed above is a process that is constantly changing. Cultural production is therefore an important aspect as it enables an understanding how the cultures are created and how they move about and shift form. The case study in this essay is on the work of Shakespeare which transformed from a popular culture in the eighteenth and part of the nineteenth centuries and is currently categorized and viewed as part of an elite culture; despite the fact that the work in itself has not changed. Using the production of culture and art world perspectives, the shift can be traced to various approaches. Both stress on the importance of supply and demand of the art, in this case literary pieces, for the culture to be produced. Shakespeare ensured a steady supply of plays and the audience provided the demand needed witnessed in the theatres where the plays were staged. The role of audience however differs in both approaches. When the audience changes, the popularity of the works shifts depending on whether the audience relates to that work. Technology also explains the transformation of Shakespeare’s work. What remains true is that culture keeps changing from generation to generation. Understanding how cultural production happens is important for a sociologist as it gives insight on why certain cultures have prevailed and why others have shifted in the manner in which they have. Some cultures become more popular as time goes by while others lose popularity and with time might even get erased.
References
Becker, H. S. (2008). Art worlds. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Gray, H. (2004). Watching race: Television and the struggle for blackness. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Kordsmeier, G. T. (2017). How Support Personnel Shape Artworks: The case of stage managers. Music and Arts in Action, 6(1), 48-62. Retrieved from http://musicandartsinaction.net/index.php/maia/index
Levine, L. W. (1993). William Shakespeare and the American People: A Study in Cultural Transformation. The Unpredictable Past, 139-171. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195082975.003.0008
Parkhurst Ferguson, P. (1998). A Cultural Field in the Making: Gastronomy in 19th-Century France. Food History: Critical and Primary Sources. doi:10.5040/9781474220132-ch-017
Peterson, R. A. (1990). Why 1955? Explaining the advent of rock music. Popular Music, 9(01), 97. doi:10.1017/s0261143000003767