Sunday, October 6, 2013
'Low Brow' Genres
How does Horace Newcomb's essay complicate Newton Minow’s assessment of television as a “vast wasteland”? Why does he believe that 'low brow' genres such as the western can be more complicated than they seem? Do you agree? Perhaps give an example of a contemporary 'low brow' show and explain why it might or might not have social relevance.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In the compelling article, “From Old Frontier to New Frontier,” author Horace Newcomb addresses the argument that ‘low brow’ television of the 1950s, especially westerns, was an unsophisticated art form that failed to educate and inform its audience. This argument was famously illuminated in a speech by former Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission Newton Minnow in 1961 where he criticized and condemned commercial television, labeling the medium as a “vast wasteland.”
ReplyDeleteNewcomb argues, however, that westerns were socially relevant and purposeful in numerous ways. First, westerns were a militaristic art form that was easily relatable to a nationalist American society entrenched in the Cold War struggle with the Soviet Union. “There was a kind of moral certitude, a degree of political simplicity, an implicit nationalist fervor. These elements were easily, perhaps too easily, accepted by a generation who had survived both the Depression and World War II,”(Newcomb). Americans developed a very loyal and lovable relationship with western telefilms throughout this era of early television as this genre identified with a sheltered and easily impressionable American population.
Newcomb illustrates that westerns had the potential for complex story tellings which could engage the audience as well as offer guidance and inspiration. “Americans understood themselves and their civilization in terms of the genre,”(Newcomb). Although ‘low brow’ genres failed to educate the viewership and advance culture to the extent of modern television, I agree with Newcomb in that this genre was incredibly influential in forging a uncompromising American identity that is still visible throughout our culture today.
Newcomb argues that though a genre can often be dismissed as lowbrow, popular, or artless, he uses the TV western as an example of how even these shows can demonstrate the morals, social conflicts, and national politics of the time. He points to the heroic and stoic protagonist as a serialized constant and cast of guest stars and recurring characters as a parade of vehicles for social commentary. From Wong, oppressed to his breaking point much like frustrated African American protestors, to Keith Loring's representation of the dichotomy between masculine hunger for power and family values, these side characters told a narrative of the 1950s. Though Newton Minow chided the TV western's violent content, Newcomb argues that the violence was never the focal point of the western genre, but instead the contrast between traditional society and some new, mysterious frontier.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Newcomb's assessment. As a consumer of all types of television (from soapy ABC melodramas to cable antihero fare to reality trash to, yes, modern examples of westerns), I see value and cultural commentary in each. One striking example might be Here Comes Honey Boo Boo, which is universally panned for its stereotypical representation of the American South and (debatable) exploitation of a young child. Honey Boo Boo's ratings and media success says a lot about America today. First off, it does not seem so far off from The Beverly Hillbillies and other '60s redneck comedies (city folks interacting with country bumpkins is awfully similar to etiquette coaches counseling burping 6 year olds). HCHBB is part of a long tradition of poking fun at the South, but reworked within the framework of the popular "reality" TV format that endears so many to the "real" and relatable people and situations it portrays. Although I'm not sure Newcomb would be a fan of Here Comes Honey Boo Boo, it's undeniable that even the trashiest elements of today's "vast wasteland" of reality TV can offer a bit of cultural commentary besides being ridiculously entertaining.
Horace Newcomb is more positive in remembering television of the mid- 1950s and 1960s, specifically along the genre of Westerns. From Newcomb’s argument, to take Westerns at face value is to focus on its masculinity, glorification of violence, and strong nationalism, but in looking at the connotations that were being formed through these programs it is noticed that they were incredibly self-reflexive. In what was then the present time, television may have seemed like a “vast wasteland”, but thinking back, it is obvious now that they were broadcasting strong social messages that were relevant to the times, such as issues of race and violence to gun control. In a large context, the Western genre was an assessment of the Cold War in terms of conflicts between eastern and western civilizations: Westerns portrayed new frontiers in the American “wild west” opposed to the civilized east, just as the Cold War escalated conflicts between the western U.S and the eastern USSR.
ReplyDeleteSpecifically relevant to our screenings, Horace makes a point to the episode of Have Gun—Will Travel that we watched. In the episode (“The Misguided Father), Paladin kills a murderous son whose relationship with his father was failing as a result of his actions. This episode not only contextualizes growing violence, but it also plays on the role of the father struggling against teenage angst that would grow in the 1960s counterculture. The role of the rebellious teenager was just beginning at this time.
In today’s context, a ‘low brow’ genre may be considering the reality TV program. Shows like Honey Boo Boo, Duck Dynasty, and Keeping Up with the Kardashians are all criticized for their pointlessness today, but perhaps looking back on them we will see that they were perfect representations to youth culture dominated by social media and materialist vanity. Honey Boo Boo and Duck Dynasty could kick start a boom of uncommon celebrities who are famous for something other than their looks and social status, as opposed to the stars of Keeping Up With The Kardashians who are more commonly “beautiful” to today’s standards.
I think the fact that Newcomb goes so in depth about the problems that the Western illustrates makes it a solid argument against Minow. Newcomb explains, "the television western is as conflicted as more long-lived genres, that its ability to engage audiences involved more than simplistic narratives of male power and dominance, glorification of violence, or celebration of national ego." Newcomb believes that the western portrays the same amount of issues about the outside world that other genres were able to portray.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the idea that these low brow genres are capable of having values and life lessons that are important to viewers. Although the genre itself is pretty simple and has stereotypical values, there are plots within the genre that go farther than just the good guy vs. bad guy western belief. Newcomb explains that the episode with Wong helps to "illustrate the range of topics, the social and cultural allusion, that could be accommodated in the anthological western."
I agree with Newcomb's discussion on the western and how certain low brow shows can still contain valuable characteristics in the show that are relevant to today's society. An example I can think of is the Honey Boo Boo show. There's one episode I watched where Honey Boo Boo gets a pig and she explains that the pig can be gay if he wants to. The premise seems ridiculous and the show itself is made fun of constantly, but you can argue that the main premise of the show is that you can be whoever you want to be. Honey Boo Boo does what she wants and she doesn't care what anyone else thinks. Although the show itself seems pointless and stupid, I think this is an important lesson that people in society should pay attention to, especially in the recent years of the rise of media glamour and how you need to be perfect to be accepted in society.
Newcomb believed that ‘low brow’ television, particularly Westerns, could offer much social commentary on racial, gender and political issues. He recognizes the fact that, just like history itself, these shows are not neat, and sometimes are not entirely understandable.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that, in a way, it is perhaps harder to see the connection between this type of television and social commentary when looking at them from to close, i.e. while living in the time. It is when they are compared after the fact that these connections become more apparent. By that time, as Newcomb points out, the personal connection to the time is gone, and there is an ability to look at the connections more objectively. People are meant to connect with these ‘western’ genre shows on a personal level, and sometimes separating fact from personal memories and emotions is not easy. I agree that shows like Honey Boo Boo, or Duck Dynasty, which right now to others, and me, seem pointless, will eventually be seen as holding some sort of social commentary. After all, there has to be a reason why people connect with them. We are just too close at the present time to see the bigger picture.