keannu
VIP Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2010
- Member Type
- Student or Learner
- Native Language
- Korean
- Home Country
- South Korea
- Current Location
- South Korea
12 grader mock test : 2019-9-23
1950s critics separated themselves from the masses by rejecting the ‘natural’ enjoyment afforded by products of mass culture through judgments based on a refined sense of realism. For example, in most critics championing Douglas Sirk’s films’ social critique, self-reflexivity, and, in particular, distancing effects, there is still a refusal of the ‘vulgar’ enjoyments suspected of soap operas. This refusal again functions to divorce the critic from an image of a mindless, pleasure-seeking crowd he or she has actually manufactured in order to definitively secure the righteous logic of ‘good’ taste. It also pushes negative notions of female taste and subjectivity. Critiques of mass culture seem always to bring to mind a disrespectful image of the feminine to represent the depths of the corruption of the people. The process of taste-making operated, then, to create hierarchical differences between the aesthete and the masses through the construction of aesthetic positions contrary to the perceived tasteless pleasures of the crowd.
1. Is "self-reflexivity" to "reflect or repent on yourself" or to "project it to the film"?
2. Do critics disregard "female taste and subjectivity"?
3. Does this mean that critics create a higher or more decent image of themselves by criticizing mass or popular culture?
This whole passage is hard to understand.
hierarchical differences between the aesthete and the masses
4. Do these two terms mean that critics have some decent taste, while the mass have only vulgar taste?
taste-making perceived tasteless pleasures of the crowd.
1950s critics separated themselves from the masses by rejecting the ‘natural’ enjoyment afforded by products of mass culture through judgments based on a refined sense of realism. For example, in most critics championing Douglas Sirk’s films’ social critique, self-reflexivity, and, in particular, distancing effects, there is still a refusal of the ‘vulgar’ enjoyments suspected of soap operas. This refusal again functions to divorce the critic from an image of a mindless, pleasure-seeking crowd he or she has actually manufactured in order to definitively secure the righteous logic of ‘good’ taste. It also pushes negative notions of female taste and subjectivity. Critiques of mass culture seem always to bring to mind a disrespectful image of the feminine to represent the depths of the corruption of the people. The process of taste-making operated, then, to create hierarchical differences between the aesthete and the masses through the construction of aesthetic positions contrary to the perceived tasteless pleasures of the crowd.
1. Is "self-reflexivity" to "reflect or repent on yourself" or to "project it to the film"?
2. Do critics disregard "female taste and subjectivity"?
3. Does this mean that critics create a higher or more decent image of themselves by criticizing mass or popular culture?
This whole passage is hard to understand.
hierarchical differences between the aesthete and the masses
4. Do these two terms mean that critics have some decent taste, while the mass have only vulgar taste?
taste-making perceived tasteless pleasures of the crowd.
Last edited:
