We have discussed in lecture the definition of popular culture, which is popular culture as something that is mainstreamed by ordinary people rather than elite communities. Government can be seen as elite communities in most circumstances because of their power and control. It was very interesting to pay attention then to the fact that stamps, and the controversy of weather or not they can be considered part of popular culture or not because they were created by governments.
In Jack child’s article it speaks about the two functions of a stamp, where the stamp it self serves a function of location and geography but the image on the stamp can be looked at or is popularized because it relates to the culture and identity or the place that it comes from, or it has subliminal messages of propaganda, politics or nationalism. Stamps are not necessarily something that is thought about in relation to pop-culture, sure some people may collect them and in those communities it may be very popular; but it was interesting to think of stamps in the Latin american culture as this messaging board, secret language, image of cultural identity and so much more because the people had popularized it and given meaning to it even though it was created by governments. Popular culture has a very general and broad meaning but yet a very narrow meaning to me, popularized by the ordinary. However this article made me think that t it doesn’t need to be created by the ‘ordinary’, as long as something has a large enough following it can become popular even if created by the elite. It also made me think about he circumstances of stamps being popular in Latin american culture and if it just became popular because of the significance of their roles in politics, instead of using political cartoons this became their version where it appeared on stamps. This became popular because this was their way of broadcasting their political identities and cultural views it was their medium or social platform and through this the popularity grew.
I do wonder if we should start thinking of popular culture as something that is popularized by the people rather than by these groups of ordinary vs elite?
Hey!
I just seem to have a problem with the idea that something that the government puts out there would be popular culture. The reason why stamps are “popular” is because they are required in order to able to send a letter, right? I don’t think anyone would go and by stamps just for their own personal entertainment (unless you’re a collector) and so I feel like it cannot be popular culture. Someone could argue against me, but wouldn’t it be the same to call the dollar bills popular culture? They have pictures on them that are often “culturally very significant” and for sure, they are very popular for obvious reasons. What do you think?
I like this idea that something can become part of popular culture if and when it is (to use what I think may be a helpful word) appropriated or claimed by the “people” (whoever they may be! 😉 ). I’d only point out that surely this process goes both ways: that we can think of instances when the state or official culture claims or appropriates elements of popular culture, to give them authorized status of some kind. For instance, when a musical genre or dance is framed as a country’s “national” music or dance. Or even when a popular icon is reproduced on stamps (or paper money or whatever). In other words, we can see a fluidity that goes back and forth, which may also involve a struggle over what these icons, images, or genres mean or signify.