The authors of Signs of LIfe in the U.S.A., broadly define sign as a shift in what an item of popular culture means to us, as Americans and consumers (of American culture). This is different from signifier, which is simply the item which has changed. Maasik and Solomon use vampires as their example: "But these vampires are not the same. It's as if Dawson's Creek were set in Transylvania and Nosferatu moved to Melrose Place" (1). Of course, here they are noting the dual meanings of vampires - what they used to represent to people, bloodthirsty creatures who were vaguely sexual, but not accepted or normalized as according to the strict societal and moral standards of the time. The other meaning would be the one given today, which most pre-teens and teenagers, could tell you: vampires are now 'sexy', to use modern terminology supplied by the authors, and normalized. They lend real life a certain danger, but do not deviate from most other adolescents - they go to school, work, and have romantic interests.
So, how was popular culture formed? Well, it is a fusion between 'folk culture' and 'mass culture'. Folk culture is entertainment by and for the people, literally. As Maaskin and Solomon write, "Self-produced by amateur performers, folk culture can be best envisioned by thinking of neighbors gathering on a modest Appalachian front porch to play their guitars, banjos,.....to perform, for their own entertainment, ballads and songs passed down from generation to generation" (3). Clearly, while this is a form of entertainment that is shared by multiple people, it is far too localized and specialized to be recognizable as the kind of entertainment we have today, although it was a start to the culture we have today. Mass culture is the kind of popular culture we have today - it is sold and marketed as a commodity. It caters to a large scale of people and is made by a few, rather than by some individuals within the area.
The semiotic method can be used to analyze this newly formed popular culture by deciphering 'sign's and seeing how they relate to the community and time period, at large. Semiotics seeks to look beyond the literal message of an item of popular culture; the authors give an example of 50s sitcoms that were perfectly acceptable at the time, which then a modern feminist can critically analyze, using semiotics, saying they perpetuate a misogynistic culture. Maasik and Solomon writes of the way a feminist can view these sitcoms, " Such images - or signs - did not reflect reality; they reflected, rather, the interests of a patriarchal, male-centered society" (11). If feminists can use semiotics to incorporate their world view into a seemingly minor popular culture phenomenon, then semiotics have obvious advantages - they can be used to critically analyze a trend from any school of thought or from any platform, rather than simply pointing out obvious, surface-level ideas from any trend or item.
Using semiotics to interpret the modern phenomenon of vampires, as mentioned earlier, Maasik and Solomon first point out the history of vampires - they have been in popular culture for quite some time, but why the sudden resurgence? And why are vampires not so scary and more relatable, nowadays? Again, according to Maasik and Solomon, the shift came by an item within popular culture, a sign - specifically, Interview with the Vampire - in 1976. The vampire story there was charged with eroticism and relatability, rather than revulsion and horror. In even more modern culture, vampires now have stories that appeal to young adults, teens, and even preteens. They are set in suburbia and have touches of eroticism that play into the adolescent love stories described, like in Twilight, rather than overt sexuality that is seen as satanic, as in Dracula. A good love story always reels teens in, especially when it is set in high school and there is a touch of danger to it. The resurgence of vampires makes perfect sense when viewed in this context.
Maasik, Sonia, and Jack Solomon. Signs of Life in the U.S.A..
Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2012. 1-22. Print.
So, how was popular culture formed? Well, it is a fusion between 'folk culture' and 'mass culture'. Folk culture is entertainment by and for the people, literally. As Maaskin and Solomon write, "Self-produced by amateur performers, folk culture can be best envisioned by thinking of neighbors gathering on a modest Appalachian front porch to play their guitars, banjos,.....to perform, for their own entertainment, ballads and songs passed down from generation to generation" (3). Clearly, while this is a form of entertainment that is shared by multiple people, it is far too localized and specialized to be recognizable as the kind of entertainment we have today, although it was a start to the culture we have today. Mass culture is the kind of popular culture we have today - it is sold and marketed as a commodity. It caters to a large scale of people and is made by a few, rather than by some individuals within the area.
The semiotic method can be used to analyze this newly formed popular culture by deciphering 'sign's and seeing how they relate to the community and time period, at large. Semiotics seeks to look beyond the literal message of an item of popular culture; the authors give an example of 50s sitcoms that were perfectly acceptable at the time, which then a modern feminist can critically analyze, using semiotics, saying they perpetuate a misogynistic culture. Maasik and Solomon writes of the way a feminist can view these sitcoms, " Such images - or signs - did not reflect reality; they reflected, rather, the interests of a patriarchal, male-centered society" (11). If feminists can use semiotics to incorporate their world view into a seemingly minor popular culture phenomenon, then semiotics have obvious advantages - they can be used to critically analyze a trend from any school of thought or from any platform, rather than simply pointing out obvious, surface-level ideas from any trend or item.
Using semiotics to interpret the modern phenomenon of vampires, as mentioned earlier, Maasik and Solomon first point out the history of vampires - they have been in popular culture for quite some time, but why the sudden resurgence? And why are vampires not so scary and more relatable, nowadays? Again, according to Maasik and Solomon, the shift came by an item within popular culture, a sign - specifically, Interview with the Vampire - in 1976. The vampire story there was charged with eroticism and relatability, rather than revulsion and horror. In even more modern culture, vampires now have stories that appeal to young adults, teens, and even preteens. They are set in suburbia and have touches of eroticism that play into the adolescent love stories described, like in Twilight, rather than overt sexuality that is seen as satanic, as in Dracula. A good love story always reels teens in, especially when it is set in high school and there is a touch of danger to it. The resurgence of vampires makes perfect sense when viewed in this context.
Maasik, Sonia, and Jack Solomon. Signs of Life in the U.S.A..
Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2012. 1-22. Print.
RSS Feed