Practices of Looking

Sunday, October 09, 2005

Practices of Looking Introduction Responses

The Practices of Looking should be an interesting book to study, it is trying to analyse Visual Culture, which is defined as the influence of visual media in shaping our values and beliefs.

I agree that culture is cited as one of the most complex words in the English language. It is incredibly difficult to quantify and is always open to subjective opinion. I also agree with Stuart Hall that a culture can be a set of processes or practices through which individuals and groups come to make sense of various types of media. For example, it is commonplace for members of a subculture to better appreciate the work of an artist from that subculture, as they are influenced not only by the piece itself, but also by its creator. Similarly, someone involved in a different subculture may not interpret the same piece in the same way. This can be for a number of reasons, such as naiveté, lack of understanding, or precepts derived from their own subculture. However, there are cases when visual media can cross or fuse cultural boundaries. E.g. the acceptance of black rap music into ‘middle’ America and white youth culture. This is still opposed by some as it is seen as one of the mediums of low culture, the sometimes-derogatory term to describe the opposite to high culture. Such visual artefacts as fictional novels, popular music and television can be described as low culture. I think that one of the traits of both high and low culture is that they both differentiate themselves from each other where possible, therefore does that make each a subculture?

This book is defining culture as “the shared practices of a group, community, or society, through which meaning is made out of the visual, aural and textual world of representations.” Which means that the classical definitions of both High and Low cultures given in the book are open to interpretation. Does current ‘popular music’ become a different part of culture when it ceases to be popular? Or is the fact that certain types of music are never likely to be popular that makes them high culture? If so then why is thrash metal classed as low culture? My opinion is that much of the supposed ‘high’ culture is descended from historical ‘blinkered’ perceptions of greatness. High culture used to define high class and low culture - low class. I think it is true to say that culture and social grouping are inextricably linked.