Comments on: Britney Spears ex­plains the com­modity form http://blog.voyou.org/2007/05/23/britney-spears-explains-the-commodity-form/ Lazy rascals, spending their substance, and more, in riotous living Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:46:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: voyou http://blog.voyou.org/2007/05/23/britney-spears-explains-the-commodity-form/comment-page-1/#comment-6423 voyou Sat, 02 Jun 2007 06:05:53 +0000 http://blog.voyou.org/2007/05/23/britney-spears-explains-the-commodity-form/#comment-6423 <p>Sorry to take so long to reply; it's weird when the virtual and the physical intersect.</p> <p>Shykitten, your question is actually what we spent a fair amount of time at the meeting talking about, and to be honest, I really don't have an answer; I'm not sure what this argument actually implies for practice (except, I suppose, that it should put us off supposing that simply showing that some cultural artifact is produced by capitalism is in itself a critique).</p> <p>I guess my general thought would be that we should think about how pop culture is actually used (somewhat like Deleuze and Guattari's question about asking why so many people <em>liked</em> fascism; why do people like the Kaiser Chiefs?), and how we might use it. So that would include just thinking and talking about pop culture, as well as perhaps employing pop-cultural themes in political agitation, not necessarily to subvert them so much as to make them unfamiliar.</p> Sorry to take so long to reply; it’s weird when the virtual and the physical intersect.

Shykitten, your question is actually what we spent a fair amount of time at the meeting talking about, and to be honest, I really don’t have an answer; I’m not sure what this argument actually implies for practice (except, I suppose, that it should put us off supposing that simply showing that some cultural artifact is produced by capitalism is in itself a critique).

I guess my general thought would be that we should think about how pop culture is actually used (somewhat like Deleuze and Guattari’s question about asking why so many people liked fascism; why do people like the Kaiser Chiefs?), and how we might use it. So that would include just thinking and talking about pop culture, as well as perhaps employing pop-cultural themes in political agitation, not necessarily to subvert them so much as to make them unfamiliar.

]]> By: Jasper Bernes http://blog.voyou.org/2007/05/23/britney-spears-explains-the-commodity-form/comment-page-1/#comment-6124 Jasper Bernes Sat, 26 May 2007 01:47:59 +0000 http://blog.voyou.org/2007/05/23/britney-spears-explains-the-commodity-form/#comment-6124 And, oh yeah, I'm over here. And, oh yeah, I’m over here.

]]> By: Jasper Bernes http://blog.voyou.org/2007/05/23/britney-spears-explains-the-commodity-form/comment-page-1/#comment-6123 Jasper Bernes Sat, 26 May 2007 01:45:39 +0000 http://blog.voyou.org/2007/05/23/britney-spears-explains-the-commodity-form/#comment-6123 Funny, I've been reading this (anonymous, right?) blog off and on for a little while now. I thought that this post on the Frankfurt School and pop culture sounded a little familiar, especially since the local Marxist reading group sounded a lot like my local Marxist reading group. But the Judith Butler reference was what gave it away. That's why it sounded so familiar. . . I was there. Excellent post. More later. Jasper Funny, I’ve been reading this (anonymous, right?) blog off and on for a little while now. I thought that this post on the Frankfurt School and pop culture sounded a little familiar, especially since the local Marxist reading group sounded a lot like my local Marxist reading group. But the Judith Butler reference was what gave it away. That’s why it sounded so familiar. . . I was there. Excellent post. More later. Jasper

]]> By: shykitten http://blog.voyou.org/2007/05/23/britney-spears-explains-the-commodity-form/comment-page-1/#comment-6089 shykitten Fri, 25 May 2007 00:43:18 +0000 http://blog.voyou.org/2007/05/23/britney-spears-explains-the-commodity-form/#comment-6089 Wow, thanks for posting this, which oddly coincides with my current dissertation-in-progress on TV shopping channels; I had used Grandville's 'Flaneur of the Universe' (via Benjamin) to set up the historical context for my 'argument', such as it is. The idea of reversibility is interesting. Are you suggesting that specific instances of art/commerce as spectacle or parody can disrupt the usual commodity-discourse, as in the world fairs, Grandville's pictures, or jokes? Or is it purely due to the mischievous use (or lack of) that the viewer/consumer makes of <em>any</em> commodity (or any medium)? And is this reversibility as possible now as it has been in the past? Sorry if this is just a case of me misreading theoretical stuff but my excuse is I'm not a proper philosopher, more of an interested virtual <em>flaneur</em>. Very engaging anyway!    Wow, thanks for posting this, which oddly coincides with my current dissertation-in-progress on TV shopping channels; I had used Grandville’s ‘Flaneur of the Universe’ (via Benjamin) to set up the historical context for my ‘argument’, such as it is. The idea of reversibility is interesting. Are you suggesting that specific instances of art/commerce as spectacle or parody can disrupt the usual commodity-discourse, as in the world fairs, Grandville’s pictures, or jokes? Or is it purely due to the mischievous use (or lack of) that the viewer/consumer makes of any commodity (or any medium)? And is this reversibility as possible now as it has been in the past? Sorry if this is just a case of me misreading theoretical stuff but my excuse is I’m not a proper philosopher, more of an interested virtual flaneur. Very engaging anyway!   

]]>