I\u2019ve been struggling for some time, trying to come up with a more elegant way of presenting this argument. I don\u2019t think I\u2019ll be finding one anytime soon. In any case the revelations here are neither of the shocking nor groundbreaking variety so I\u2019ll be taking a steadfast out-out-damned-spot, full-steam-ahead, approach:<\/p>\n
Since really focusing on my professional practice, I\u2019ve spent a disproportionate amount of my time thinking about literacy (access to, and change in, etc, etc). This post serves as a critical inspection of some of the literacy skills I\u2019ve cultivated of late.<\/p>\n
Specifically, I wanted to talk about (flaunt?) the lowbrow literacy skills I\u2019ve been mastering. <\/p>\n
A Disclaimer<\/strong> What is Lowbrow Literacy?<\/strong> There was a time when I was a qualified music snob: I could identify what borough of New York an indie band hailed from, even though I had yet to actually visit the city. Similarly, I would casually ask about someone\u2019s musical taste at a college party. After hearing a few artists, I could\/would immediately judge and (more importantly) hold disdain for this person based solely on their taste. I am not proud of this cheap parlor trick (I kind of think of it now like tarot reading \u2013 but that\u2019s another story for another day) \u2013 but it shows the kind of interwoven connections I\u2019m partially trying to illustrate. On the other hand it also shows a major shortcoming of mine: I wasn\u2019t willing to embrace the lowbrow at the time \u2013 I was afraid to publicize my adoration for Prince, Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston, radio friendly pop-punk, and the commercially besmirched failures of Robin Williams\u2019 \u201890s catalog (see Toys & Jack as prime examples). To the shock of many close friends, I\u2019ve come to publicly embrace and celebrate the aforementioned artists.<\/p>\n As such, the same way I\u2019m able to traverse a conversation about Frankfurt School philosophical implications in classroom pedagogy, I\u2019m similarly able to question Chef Gordon Ramsey\u2019s attitude and Paula Abdul\u2019s commenting faux pas and the general ripples such behaviors will cast on the web of network television. This too is a literacy; it\u2019s just not one that\u2019s especially appreciated or valued by the people that bother to write about or place value on things like literacy (and yes, I\u2019m fully aware that I\u2019m included in the elitist population). <\/p>\n Reality Television: A Case Study in L.L.<\/strong> You\u2019ll see similar growth in shows like Survivor and Big Brother (thought he fact that the house in Big Brother was constantly being monitored online detracted from the general storyline\u2019s pacing). Ultimately, through understanding this television grammer, we\u2019ve gotten some elegant by products. A personal favorite, for example, would be the Joe Schmo show. A meta-reality show in which everything is staged by professional actors except for one of the game\u2019s contestants. A brilliant and underappreciated work, the Joe Schmo Show reads (yes, \u201creads\u201d) like a Reality Television 101 course and is required viewing (reading) for anyone looking to appreciate the genre\/medium.<\/p>\n What\u2019s the Point?<\/strong> At the same time, folks like Henry Jenkins place a tremendous amount of value on things like \u201cmash ups\u201d and \u201cparticipatory media.\u201d Daye and I had a brief conversation about her distaste for all things mash-up. I think I\u2019ll tip that iceberg at a later date. <\/p>\n
\nBefore really launching into a real description of what I mean, I need to address the concerns with the naming problem here. I am again at a loss as to the original text I encountered that explained the history between \u201clowbrow\u201d and \u201chighbrow.\u201d However, a quick google confirms my understanding of the terms coming out of phrenology. As such, the history of \u201clowbrow\u201d and those individuals with said lower brows is one of racial undertones. As the word is part of our common vernacular today emphasizes the miscegenated journey of the lowbrow\/highbrow binary. <\/p>\n
\nAs much as I enjoy pretentious literature, art gallery soirees, and excursions to the the-a-tre (to be spoken in a thick, British accent \u2013 three syllables oh-so-necessary), I pride myself on the breadth of bottom-of-the-barrel cultural knowledge. Forget The Simpsons and forget secretly smart commentary from the likes of the Daily Show \u2013 that stuff\u2019s for the birds. I\u2019m referring to My Super Sweet 16, Justin Timblake, and American Idol. You know, rubbish. As much as I enjoy top-tier art, I frequently revel in the kinds drivel that make grandparents call the TV the \u201cidiot box.\u201d Comic Books. Entertainment Weekly. The Soup. Bad \u201880s Sex Comedies. Florida. VH1\u2019s Top 50 Insufferably Unnecessary Lists of All Time. Like I said, not only do I subject myself to this stuff, but I love it. I study it, I read about it online, I stay awake thinking about it. <\/p>\n
\nMaybe it\u2019s best to briefly look at one case study of lowbrow literacy in action, a personal favorite of mine: reality television. I\u2019m a sucker for it. From the Bravo channel\u2019s ([only] slightly) more sophisticated stew of the now to the pure crockery of current iterations of the Real World to the rather bizarre incarnations in the outer regions of cable television (really, did anyone else see the elimination show for motivational speakers??), I\u2019ve waded through it all. Not only am I wading through it, but I am confident that other reality TV junkies like myself are able to enjoy these shows even more because we are more acclimated to the reality TV grammar that has been prescribed for these shows. It\u2019s worth looking at the first season of the Real World (and yes, I was hooked from day one \u2013 confused that Beavis and Butthead had been ousted from its 4 p.m. time slot) \u2013 the show didn\u2019t know what it was doing. The drama was missing. A single heated argument about race is the only real highlight most viewers can recall. Similarly, look at the casts of these early seasons \u2013 many \u201ccharacters\u201d are simply not in a bunch of episodes \u2013 it was too real. Take the doctor in the San Francisco season \u2013 she was busy being a doctor and didn\u2019t have time for this MTV crap. On the same season we also get our quintessential reality TV rabble-rouser: Puck \u2013 the kind of house villain that nearly every show has attempted to replicate (on an interesting side note, I think the Shakespearean connection in Puck\u2019s name was both an intentional inclusion for the show and something that was lost on most viewers). <\/p>\n
\nAnd while I realize much of this description comes as jest and lighthearted endorsement of musical rubbish and televised pap, I do believe there are real implications in analyzing this kind of literacy. For one, this is precisely the kind of literacy skill that is typically mined in the culturally relevant curriculum wars being waged in LAUSD in the name of \u201cequity.\u201d I\u2019ve stated before that I don\u2019t think our school system\u2019s been getting this right and that the approach is all wrong. However, if we\u2019re not able to read and participate in the literacy practices that our students are fluent in, it seems unlikely that they\u2019ll be willing to compromise in valuing an esoteric literacy practice like engaging with a 5 paragraph essay. Similarly, there\u2019s real value in recognizing the conventions of lowbrow sub-genres: looking back on the middle portion of this rant reminds me about how I\u2019ll be able to play with reality TV grammatical pacing in structuring the tension and dynamics of the Black Cloud game. <\/p>\nTell people this is awesome:<\/h3>