Nicholas Garnham
Nicholas Garnham worked in television before starting his academic career. He worked for the BBC, serving as film editor from 1961 to 1964 and then director and producer from 1964 to 1968. His credits as a freelance Director/Producer include Through the Eye of a Needle, Border Country, In Search of Paradise, and The British Museum. He also served as the Governor of the British Film Institute (BFI) from 1973 to 1977.
Garnham teaching at the Polytechnic of Central London (now Westminster University), where he established his name as an expert in the political economy of communication and communication regulations. Today, he is Head of the Media Studies School of Communication and Director of the Centre for Communication and Information at Westminster University and a member of the European Association for Evolutionary Political Economy.
Garnham published a version of this paper in Cultural Studies 1.1 (1987). In it, he introduces a neglected dimension of cultural formation within cultural studies, i.e., the constitution and the formation of cultural industries, the intensification of cultural distribution, and therefore access to audiences and what contribution cultural studies can offer to policy making. We do not often see this level of analysis studies of cultural consumption (p. 2).
CONCEPTS OF CULTURE:
PUBLIC POLICY AND THE CULTURAL INDUSTRIES
1. introduction
In conceptualizing the cultural industries as central to any analysis of cultural activity and of public policy, we stand against a whole tradition of idealist cultural analysis. This tradition--Raymond Williams critiques it in Culture and Society (1958) and other works--has defined culture as a realm separate from, and actively opposed ...
... middle of paper ...
...of high culture by vulgar commercialism or as a suppression of authenticate working-class culture, but should be read as a complex hegemonic dialectic of liberation and control. What this analysis of the cultural market brings home to us is the need to take the question of scarcity and thus of the allocation of cultural resources seriously, together with the question of audiences: who they are, how they are formed, and how they can best be served. The only alternative to the market which we have constructed has tended to subsidize the existing tastes and habits of the better-off or to create a new form of public culture which has no popular audience.
Works Cited
Garnham, Nicholas. 1987. "Concepts of Culture: Public Policy and the Cultural Industries." In Studies in Culture: An Introductory Reader, ed. Ann Gray and Jim McGuigan. London: Arnold, 1997, pp. 54-61.
In Highbrow, Lowbrow, Levine argues that a distinction between high and low culture that did not exist in the first half of the 19th century emerged by the turn of the century and solidified during the 20th century, and that despite a move in the last few decades toward a more ecumenical interpretation of “culture,” the distinction between high art and popular entertainment and the revering of a canon of sacred, inalterable cultural works persists. In the prologue Levine states that one of his central arguments is that concepts of cultural boundaries have changed over the period he treats. Throughout Highbrow, Lowbrow, Levine defines culture as a process rather than a fixed entity, and as a product of interactions between the past and the present.
“Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception” is a chapter in Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer’s book “Dialectic of Enlightenment” it goes onto discus the conflicts presented by the “culture industry.” Adorno states that the culture industry is a main phenomenon of late capitalism, encompassing all products from Hollywood films, to advertisements, and even extending to musical compositions. Adorno is very deliberate in noting the term “culture industry” over “mass culture” this was done to specifically distinguish, that it is not to be understood as something which spontaneously stems from the masses themselves.
The effects of the Cultural Revolution are seen on a nationwide level, with national trends and ideals rapidly changing
American Cultural Studies: An Introduction to American Culture. New York, NY: Routledge, 1997. Print. The. Marger, Martin N. Race and Ethnic Relations: American and Global Perspectives.
Fiorina, Morris P., Samuel J. Abrams, and Jeremy C. Pope. Culture war. New York: Pearson Longman, 2005. Hunter, James. A. James Davison.
9.Uschan, Michael V. A Cultural History of the United States: Through the Decades,the 1910s. San Diego: Lucent Books, 1999.
22 Apr. 2014. The 'Standard' of the 'Standard Edwards, Michael. A. Review "MARY AND MAX " What is a Culture? N.p., n.d. Web.
"American Cultural History." American Cultural History. Lone Star College, June 2012. Web. 16 Apr. 2014.
The issue of the relationship between the mass media and the popular culture has always been a controversial issue in social sciences. The political economists insist on the role of the media industry in the creation of this phenomenon of the twentieth century. Though, advocates such as John Fiske, argue that popular culture is actually the creation of the populous itself, and is independent of the capitalist production process of the communication sector. Basing his argument on the immense interpretive power of the people, Fiske believes that the audience is able to break all the indented meanings within a media message. He also believes- by giving new meanings to that specific message they can oppose the power block that is trying to impose its ideology to the public. Consequently, this anarchistic activity of the audience creates the popular culture as a defence mechanism. Even when we accept Fiske’s ideas, we can not disregard the manipulative power of the media and its effects on cultural and social life.
Canada, G. o. (2013, 05 13). Defining Culture. Retrieved 03 12, 2014, from Statistics Canada: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/87-542-x/2011001/section/s3-eng.htm
“According to, Stuart Hall, “Cultural Studies: Two Paradigms” from Media, Culture and Society, Raymond Williams and E.P Thompson summarize about the way they saw culture, they refer it to the way of life and saw mainstream media as the main role in capitalist society. “Williams says that, his perspective and ideas are referred to culture as to social practice, he saw “culture as a whole way of life” and as to structuralism that makes the concept of
“Culture” is a term that over the years, has taken many forms, served many purposes and has been defined in a variety of contexts. At the rise of the industrial era, inhabitants of rural areas began to migrate to cities, thus starting urbanization. As this new era began to unfold, urbanization, mass production, and modernization became key ingredients in the transformation of culture. As more people became literate and the production of mass media such as magazines, pamphlets, newspapers etc. increased, many had the option and desire to identify collectively – popular culture began to rise. Popular or “mass” culture can be described as a “dynamic, revolutionary force, breaking down the old barriers of class, tradition, taste, and dissolving
Hartley, John (2002), Communication, Cultural and Media Studies: The Key Concepts, London, Routledge, pp. 19-21.
The purpose of this essay is to firstly explain what John Fiske means by ‘popular culture lies not in the production of commodities so much as the productive use of industrial commodities’ (Fiske, J. 1990 p.28). Secondly this essay will go on to compare Fiske’s interpretation of popular culture to MacDonald’s theory of mass culture.
Kroeber, A. and C. Klockhohn, Culture: A Critical Review of Concept and Definition New York: Vintage Books, 1989.