No 404 I don't think you sound boring at all ~ I'd like to know more of your views on this.
I think it is a really interesting debate about 'the place' of popular culture in our society vs high brow culture.
So many people are about the exhbition being in the V&A, yet there was a Che exhibtion there not that long ago I seem to remember & that got a from the general public. I know the Che gig was extremely popular but I suspect thee Kylie exhibition will be a sell out & lets face it, has given the V&A more press than they've had in years.
Che Guevara was a man of revolutionary politics yes, but the exhibition was not just a celebration or exploration of left wing Marxist ideology, but a celebration of his capacity as a cultural icon (as is the Kylie one). I am guessing, but I suspect that not all of those people that visited the Che one care too deeply about socialism or its legacy. Che has also been celebrated as a figure of popular culture ( in the folk sense of the word), and in the representation and mediation of his image, within media culture i.e Motorcyle diaries, the iconic ‘Korda’ photo of him on posters, club flyers and T-shirts all over the world. I brought him into the discussion because he has come to signify a ‘pop’ version of a peoples’ hero, the handsome face of revolution, political subversion etc
Kylie is a media personality who represents multiple aspects of mainstream culture/ ideology for the masses, such as the music industry, camp, anglo-austrainlian relations, the significance of soap stardom in our culture, and audiences identify with her as a pop princess, fashionista, gay icon, girl next door made good - whatever. One could argue that the exhibit represents these aspects of our national identity and popular culture, which are just as valid as high-brow notions such as some of the ones Che represents, and Kylie democratizes a place like the V&A making it accessible for the masses.
I can't disagree on that one pea. But I am still disappointed with the result. I don't know how people reacted to the exhibition, when it was displayed in Melbourne. But it was obvious that an exhibition like this would shock the critics in here. Isn't that the idea in the first place? It's almost saying "let's fill the museums with fun things, gatgets or pop idols' costumes, so people will come to see it".
The role (at least the concept of the role) of museums are constantly changing. As there isn't enough money, museums have to find other ways to bring the public in. This includes entertainment. I think the museum should be about the collection and how the collection can be made accessible for all. But these days it is about engagement. I am working with new technologies, to create access for everyone to the existing collection, but my work gets interest because it is using new technologies. I find that upsetting. I don't wish to offer another gadget for the museum but the museums are more interested in the engagement value then its use.
Masters Degrees
Search For Masters DegreesPostgraduateForum Is a trading name of FindAUniversity Ltd
FindAUniversity Ltd, 77 Sidney St, Sheffield, S1 4RG, UK. Tel +44 (0) 114 268 4940 Fax: +44 (0) 114 268 5766