How to determine what constitutes bourgeois culture?

[Scrooge]

I was thinking specifically when it comes to media analysis, but I welcome input on general culture. I assume media which demonizes the proletariat, labor unions, minorities, etc is "bourgeois". I also assume media which portrays wealth, luxury, etc as positive is bourgeois. However, what about film/TV which depicts the current system as neutral, or at least not necessarily positive or negative? Is it bourgeois because it doesn't question the current state of affairs and thus doesn't address the plight of the working class?

More simply, what is bourgeois culture?

[hatzel]

Culture is as much about aesthetics as it is about content.

Whilst I happen to think the clean division of culture into distinct and well-defined categories - 'bourgeois' on the one hand and 'proletarian' on the other - is grade A baloney, if it's 'mainstream' I would dare to say that it's more 'bourgeois' than it is 'proletarian.' Even if this is sometimes more through recuperation than due to its 'inherent' nature at the time of creation. One can make a film as social commentary, one which you may be so brave as to call 'anti-capitalist,' yet if it conforms to roughly the same structure, with the same aesthetic make-up as a clearly 'bourgeois' film, how can these two be split into separate categories? If one continues to utilise the norms and expectations of cinema forwarded by the bourgeoisie (in this case those in the movie industry who have decided which films are to be made and displayed to a wide audience), the creation is necessarily 'bourgeois' in nature. Though simultaneously 'proletarian.'

In fact, with the pervasive commodification of culture, calling any artistic creation totally devoid of 'bourgeois' elements is ludicrous; as mentioned, the film industry itself decides which films we - as a collective mass - see, whilst record companies and publishers do the same for music and literature. The decision here is most often made on predominantly financial grounds, with those works which see the light of day being those with commercial appeal, those which will sell enough for their release to be financially viable - as such 'bourgeois' culture is partly defined by proletarians, by what people are and are not willing to buy, though of course these preferences can and are implanted in them by the culture industry, muddying the waters somewhat. Of course this means that those released to a wide audience have already been 'vetted' by an element of the bourgeoisie, and said to conform to the standards they have created, and as such are partially recuperated. The early noise musicians, for example, rejected 'bourgeois' aesthetics, and sought to create something which challenged prevailing concepts of artistic beauty, yet now noise music is commercially released, it too has been made a commodity, and transformed from an anti-aesthetic to an aesthetic of its own, in the hands of bourgeois elements who see in it a business opportunity.

One may, then, seek to exclude the bourgeoisie from the process, to self-release the works. For a professional artist - one who lives off of their work - they remain in fundamentally the same position, the only difference being that it is now their own responsibility to decide what will and will not sell - the bourgeoisie and 'bourgeois' expectations are not here excluded, merely bourgeois individuals. Whether they will be able to retain authenticity, and find a big enough niche for their works, without having to abandon themselves to a more commercially viable style, who knows?

It falls, then, to amateur creators (or at least those who do not live exclusively off of their artwork), those who can create anything and everything, who needn't worry about how wide an appeal their creation will have - the internet is a splendid resource for these people, allowing anybody to upload their creations for free, removing the financial burden whilst still allowing exposure to a relatively broad audience. Yet even these people are unable to avoid 'bourgeois' influences, to totally reject the artistic zeitgeist and create something outside it. They remain unavoidably inspired by already 'bourgeois-approved' culture, and they always run the risk of recuperation, of their works being appropriated and rendered impotent. 'Anti-bourgeois' culture in this respect cannot be said to be culture without the bourgeoisie, but of 'bourgeois' culture revisited, redirected, used towards new ends. Of course there may be influence from non-bourgeois sources, from 'folk' culture (though claiming this has not itself been partially moulded by the clearly more pervasive 'bourgeois' culture would be woefully naive, as would suggesting that 'bourgeois' culture lacks 'folk' elements), but artistic 'purity' is an impossibility.

One can speak of 'bourgeois' culture as culture created by the bourgeoisie (though this does not preclude the presence of 'proletarian' themes), advocated and/or supported by the bourgeoisie (though this does not prohibit proletarians from creating it) or merely non-critical of the capitalist system (though even anti-capitalists can create such works)...but I see no point in trying to do so. There is culture which supports the current system, culture which opposes the current system, lots of stuff in the middle...trying to label it in terms of a single class allegiance, however, just feels like a painfully futile activity...

[el_chavista]

Social realism Vs. 'socialist realism'

http://www.huntfor.com/arthistory/images/socrealism.jpg http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/8383/42104072.jpg

[Red Noob]

More simply, what is bourgeois culture?

It's something like this....


LMEUrbizyxU