xinghuiii

[xinghuiii]

The Culture Industry (Xing Hui)

In The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception, Adorno and Horkheimer provided a rather critical view of culture industry. They assert that culture which used be an avenue for freedom of expression and creation is increasingly being commodified and commercialised. In the modern capitalist society, the increasing commodification of culture has led to a highly profit driven industry where culture loses its intrinsic value. The industry produces films and content that appeals to the masses (consumers) which in a way prevents the audience from thinking as they have grown so accustomed to previous films that they knew at once glance where the storyline would go. The films that the industry produces are mere “consumer products” which can be consumed in a state where consumers may be multi-tasking. For example, working or studying while watching a drama. In addition, the authors posits that there’s an element of sameness in every film or TV show where the shows may be different but is in fact, highly similar. The producers would produce films and TV shows based on the taste and preferences of their passive consumers in order to maximise their profits but this preference is in turned based off what they have watched before thus, leading to standardisation in the industry.

I agree with Adorno and Horkheimer that the culture industry has turned into a highly profit driven industry where all the films produced are similar to a large extent. Personally, I am a fan of Chinese dramas and my hobbies include binge watching them in my free time. After watching so many Chinese dramas, I seem to realised that there seems to be a common element among most films. While I do concede that some dramas do have interesting story lines that are highly unique, most of them have a common element of romance in it. Most films are centered around romance and to be honest many films reuse the rich guy poor girl story line. For example, one of the most popular dramas would be Boys Over Flowers and Fated to Love You and we see many different countries remaking the film. The country of origin is in South Korea, but we see Thailand, China, Japan etc remaking the film. By reusing the same story line and only changing the actors, these films are in a way riding on the success of the film in South Korea which allows the producers to maximise their profits.

This then begs the question – why do consumers watch the same shows over again if they already know the story line? As an avid Chinese drama fan, I tend to only watch dramas that is centred around romance which brings me to reflect why this is so. From my point of view, I really do enjoy it so I am constantly watching shows with the same story line however, I think my love for this genre of drama may have to do with the way the industry produce the drama. For example, they may cast the same two actors together in a new drama if the audience likes them and “ship” them together in their previous drama or they may remake a new film but this time the storyline would be focused on the second leads. Furthermore, the producers produce films which appeal to the masses and if it does well, they continue doing the same which makes it an endless vicious cycle. This way the films produced would have high level of conformity to what’s deemed as popular in the industry.  Aforementioned, consumers such as myself who watches the dramas despite knowing where the story line would go or the ending are what’s ensuring the success of the industry.

However, Adorno and Horkheimer’s argument has its flaws as the culture industry have since progressed. Consumers now have higher expectations of films and there is higher degree of uncertainty in whether a film will be successful. For instance, with the prevalence of the Internet and social media, many can now read reviews or comments that people have shared online before deciding if they want to invest time to watch the show. In order to flourish in this highly competitive industry, producers would have to be novel and creative but at the same time produce when the masses would enjoy.

References:

Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. W. (2012). The culture industry: Enlightenment as mass deception. Chapter 4 in M.G. Durham & D. Kellner (Eds.). Media and cultural studies: Keyworks (2nd ed.). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Media and cultural studies: Keyworks, 53-74.

#NM3205 #TW2 #media industries #submission

[xinghuiii]

Mobile Media (Xing Hui)

In Portable Objects in Three Global Cities: The Personalization of Urban Places, Ito, Okabe and Anderson (2017), aim to investigate how portable ICTs are able to “shape our relationships with urban spaces and services”. The author acknowledged that past research only focusses on mobile phone, hence they decided to focus on the different forms of portable media in this research. In the reading, they focused on the three genres of presence namely “cocoons”, “encampments” and “footprints” that are common across the 3 global cities – Tokyo, London and Los Angeles. The various ICTs have made the three processes possible in our everyday life. Firstly, cocooning refers to the usage of media devices in the public to create a cocoon to shield themselves from their direct environment and avoid engaging with people. This is especially prevalent on trains where people busy themselves with their phones, tablets or use their headphones to listen to music. Secondly, camping refers to the establishment of a personal bubbles in public spaces by bringing portable media devices to places of choice, for example, cafes or libraries. Unlike cocooning, people choose to spend time doing productive work in places they find aesthetically appealing and desirable. Thirdly, footprinting refers to leaving traces of ourselves in places that we have visited, which are usually in the form of reward cards or transaction data.

Given the proliferation of media devices, I agree with the author’s argument that portable ICTs have managed to shape our relationships with urban spaces and services, and these processes are far from unusual. If one observes closely, cocooning, camping and footprinting are processes that we see happening around us and even to us. Our mobile phone is something that all of us carry around whenever we go. Personally, I cannot live without my mobile phone as my day-to-day activities revolve around the usage of it. For example, I tend to use my phone whenever I am on the public transport while travelling to my destination. I would either read a book, scroll social media, play games or keep myself busy by texting my friends as this offers me a sense of security. I am sure I am not the only one as this is a common sight whenever I take the MRT or the bus.  In this case, I am “cocooning” myself by shielding myself away from the people on the train.

Secondly, I bring my laptop and charger along with me whenever I go out to study. For instance, my favourite spot is the window seat at Starbucks and that is where I would spend the whole day just catching up on schoolwork. Starbucks has a pleasant and cosy ambience, making it a conducive environment. Hence, “camping” at Starbucks is a way in which I interact with the built environment and infrastructure.

Lastly, “footprinting” manages our relationships with infrastructure as well as places that we have visited. In the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, it is compulsory for us to use the TraceTogether App to check in before we are allowed to enter public spaces. Records of the places we have visited, our personal particulars and the time we enter and leave the space are traces of data we leave behind whenever we visit a place. Another example would be a bubble tea shop that I used to visit weekly. Its customer loyalty system had changed from the use of physical cards to having customers’ handphone numbers keyed into a system. Hence, the three processes, namely “cocooning”, “camping” and “footprinting” are processes that are prevalent in our everyday lives and these processes influence and help us to maintain our relationships with the built environment and infrastructure.  

The advantages that digital devices have brought into our lives are undeniable. Despite this, the privacy of our data is something that should be of concern. For instance, people can easily look over our shoulders to peek at what we are doing on our devices. Although this may seem far-fetched, I look behind my back whenever I key in my password to access internet banking or PayLah! as someone might be able to see my password. In addition, an innocent action such as connecting to an open network in a public space to get access free WI-FI may have serious repercussions. Malicious people or hackers are able to make use of this to gain access to our private information, for example phone numbers, credit card information or any kinds of information available on our phones. Therefore, since digital devices are a double-edged sword, we should be conscious and discerning of how we use them.

References:

Ito, M., Okabe, D., & Anderson, K. (2017). Portable objects in three global cities: The personalization of urban places. In The Reconstruction of Space and Time (pp. 67-87). Routledge.

#NM3205 #TW2 #mobile media #submission

[xinghuiii]

Spaces of Everyday (Xing Hui)

In Understanding Media and Culture, Spigel (2015) posits that there are various approaches to studying television (TV) as a spatial apparatus that has played a huge role in influencing and “mediatising” the spaces of our everyday life. Most importantly, TV has managed to blur the lines that divide the private space (our homes) and the public space. According to Marshall Mc Luhan (1962), TV has “shrunk” our world and made it a “global village” as it affords us increased connectivity to different parts of the world. Firstly, TV has managed to “mediatised” our private spaces and impacted familial relations. As mentioned in the reading, TV is a double-edged sword that can either serve as an electronic hearth that bring families closer together or drive them apart due to conflicting interest in deciding on the shows to watch. Secondly, TV has allowed for the creation of new “social spaces” where people from different households would gather in a house to watch a programme together. Additionally, TV serves as compensation of racial inequality as the marginalised groups can watch shows on it from the comforts of their home. The presence of TV at home has in turn led to a fortress mentality where everything can be done in our homes thus, reducing the need to travel out to public space. According to Williams (1975), the phenomena of “mobile privatisation” affords one imaginative travel to distant places has led to time-space compression. Lastly, it was mentioned that the over-reliance of TV can lead to unintended consequences. For instance, we are more vulnerable to invasion of privacy as these technologies may be collecting our data or even hacked by hackers with malicious intents. This is a recurring problem in the digital age where many of us are over-reliant on technologies that are operating beyond our control. For example, under the guise of managing appliances more easily, companies collect data from TV they have sold to people. By analysing these data, companies are able to get a deeper insight into the consumer market which allows them to gain an edge over their competitors.

 I agree with the author’s claim that TV has mediatised our everyday lives and blurred the lines between the public and private space. This is evident as the evolution from TVs to portable TV (our modern-day smartphones) has enabled us to watch TV on the go no. For example, my journey to school takes me around 2 hours thus, I would always download my dramas just so I can watch it on my way to school. Additionally, public events can now be experienced from private spaces of home as TV promotes “telepresence” and “liveness” which allows people to feel as though they are present in person at live events. For example, I hardly switch on the TV as I mostly use my phone to watch shows but it’s a yearly affair for me to watch the end of year Kpop Performance shows live on TV. Watching the performances live, cheering for my favourite kpop idols and waving their light sticks at home has allowed me to feel as though I am part of the audience of the show. Aforementioned, I am now able to bring my private life around into the public and also bring my public life back home. While I concur with the author’s argument that TV has blurred the lines between private and public spaces, I do believe that the aforementioned phenomena does not apply to all. One would have more agency over their everyday life if one does not have access to TV or other forms of media. In parts of the world where technology poverty is prevalent, people may not have access to TV and thus, their lives may not be mediatised. For example, in rural villages, people may work in the farms or play outside their homes (public space) and go home just to sleep or eat (private space). In this case, they choose to do certain things in public spaces while others are done in private spaces thus, there would be a clear division between public and private spaces. References: Spigel, L. (2015). TV and the Spaces of Everyday Life. In Mediated Geographies and Geographies of Media (pp. 37-63). Springer,

#NM3205 #TW2 #domestic media #submission

[xinghuiii]

The World we Live in (Xing Hui)

In The Mediated Construction of Reality, Couldry & Hepp (2017) asserts that the social world we live in is constructed through communication and this communication is constantly being “mediatised” by the media. The social world is an intersubjective reality and media is how this reality is constructed. Media enables communication across time and space and act as a time stamp thus, people are able to develop a shared understanding of the world. In addition, Couldry & Hepp (2017) mentions that there is different domains of mediated reality and interplay and intersections of these different domains in turn institutionalises the mediated reality. Overtime, the more intersections between these domains, the stronger the pattern of institutionalisation which in turns translate to mediatisation. Over the years, deep mediatisation has occurred where increasing aspects of our lives are “saturated by new forms of mediated communication” (Coudry & Hepp 2017). For example, Zoom which became popular due to Covid-19 as many of us have turned to Zoom and used it as the main tool to communicate with our family and friends. Also, students started receiving education through Zoom while adults rely on Zoom to hold meetings from home with their colleagues.

In this digital age, media of any form has become utterly pervasive in our everyday lives and many of us are highly dependent on it sustain communication with our family and friends. In fact, we have taken its presence for granted and will only realise its importance in its absence.  For example, I feel uneasy if my phone is not in my possession, thus, I would hold my phone in my hand or leave it on my lap even when I am having a meal.

I agree with the author’s main claim that communication is the key process that drives the construction of the social world and this communication is mediatised by the media. Our daily activities are inextricably linked with media and media influences and mediates our experiences. Face-to-face communication is no longer central and is sustained and driven by mediated communication eg Instagram, Telegram or WhatsApp.  For example, when I want to ask a friend out, I would either telegram or WhatsApp her to ask if she’s free and we would set a date to meet face-to-face. As seen from this example, face-to-face communication is built upon online communication. In addition, we would unconsciously be scrolling our phones even when we are with our family and friends.

An evident example of deep mediatisation is seen during the pandemic when Zoom and Skype become our main source of communication due to safe-distancing measures. As seen on the Instagram stories and posts of many of my friends, many would videocall just to talk, watch a movie, have a simple meal together or even celebrate birthdays through the computer screen. In a way, this has become the new “normal” and Instagram is one way in which this norm is institutionalised.

References:

Reading: Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2017). The social world as communicative construction. Chapter 2 in The mediated construction of reality. Cambridge, UK;Malden, MA;: Polity Press. Pp. 15-33.

#NM3205 #TW2 #mediatization #submission