American culture, maybe this is just where Americans will succeed.  If each country produces what they are best at making, maybe America will be the entertainment producers.  Many foreign countries however are very fearful of this taking over of American culture.  They are afraid it will stamp out their own and citizens will forget what it means to be a Canadian, or a French.  Not only are there economic concerns and cultural concerns, but many are worried that American pop Culture does not display the values of that country.  For example, Americans are very individualistic and competitive, in certain Asian countries more emphasis is placed on the whole.  These conflicting views can create revolutions and riots among the young.  Which society is right is still to be determined (Levitt, 2012)    

            Another cultural aspect that is being globalized is beauty.  Before this huge trend of globalization each country had its own standard of beauty based on the norms of that culture.  For example, in china oval faces were considered beautiful, other countries healthy weights are seen as beautiful.  However the western, or American, view of beauty is spreading throughout the world.  Pop Culture is a vessel for beauty standards to be conveyed. Starting with Marilyn Monroe and Barbie, and continuing into today’s actresses and cosmetic ads.  The western ideals of tall, shapely, and blonde standard of beauty started to spread, and is extremely prevalent today.  World beauty pageants started in the 1950’s to also spread the western ideals of beauty. A dark skinned competitor did not win until 1966 in the Miss World competition; and in Miss Universe not until 1974.  Many women in Asia are now trying to conform to these beauty standards.  Even in our own country there are debates as to how the media is affecting our youth on beauty standards.  Many in our own country believe these media standards are unhealthy, yet we are spreading them to other countries (Jones, 1980). 

There were plenty of other things to interest a teenager in 1962. Pop music was starting to grab the world by storm. The Twist, made popular by Chubby Checker in 1960 was still one of the most popular singles, and he followed this in 1962 with The Limbo Rock. Fifty years later my body refuses to believe it could stoop so low, as we teenagers challenged each other to slither under a poles as close to the ground as possible. 1962 was the year of the Elvis Presley hit, Return to Sender.

Image via Wikipedia

Becoming a teenager means leaving childhood behind, and at the girls high school I attended, we discovered paperbacks, portraying a grown-up world we previously didn’t know existed. A progression from reading novels was going to the movies, those classified R13 and even R16 when we felt more daring. In the movie world, 1962 was the year of the first James Bond movie, Dr No, starring Sean Connery. This began a whole Bond culture amongst the girls at school.

Cover of Dr. No (Two-Disc Ultimate Edition)

Amongst all the exciting developments in the changing world, sad things happened too. The most notable of these to our impressionable minds was the death of Marilyn Monroe in August 1962. Times were certainly changing. Parents were getting anxious about how quickly we were growing up and how different popular culture was becoming.

Any year is a good year to turn thirteen and become a teenager, but fifty years ago in 1962 we wouldn’t have chosen to be alive at any other time. Life would never be the same.

With a global economy that (for the past two years or so) hangs on a balance, it has become increasingly a need for archaeologists to justify the importance and significance of their work. What is truly the value of archaeology to the public? Is it necessary that it should continue to exist or is it something that humanity can do without? Would it contribute something to ensure the survival of our species should war, famine, or “climate change” strike? In third world countries, wouldn’t funds allocated for restoring run-down colonial buildings or prehistoric cave sites be better spent for such basic and current needs as food or shelter? Confronted with such enquiries which doubt the practicality of archaeology in the modern world, archaeologists suddenly find themselves in an awkward situation as they struggle to defend the legitimacy of their profession. The situation has, however, proven to have a positive effect as it reinvigorated discussions about the meaning of archaeology in society and the ethics of archaeological practice (Lynott 1997; Holtorf 2005).

            The book Archaeology is a Brand! The Meaning of Archaeology in Contemporary Popular Culture is author Cornelius Holtorf’s response to such issues that challenge archaeology and archaeologists today. Holtorf is an Assistant Professor in Archaeology at the University of Lund and the book was written during the author’s Marie Curie Fellowship of the European Commission at the Swedish National Heritage Board. The full title of the project Holtorf was working on and of which the book was an outcome was “The portrayal of archaeology in contemporary popular culture – opportunity or obstacle for the promotion of cultural heritage?” The book comprises of seven chapters, covering 183 pages. Examples of public archaeology which the author included in this book were primarily taken from three locations: Sweden, Germany, and Great Britain. However the United States is often mentioned due to its influence on European popular culture.

            Basically, Holtorf’s aim was to investigate the image of archaeology (or its brand) as it appears to the public and how this image affects the discipline and its practitioners. He begins with an introduction in chapter one. In this section he discusses why archaeology is “trendy”. Holtorf looks into other fields such as entertainment/ leisure industry, marketing, and social psychology to search for possible explanations as to why people are drawn to archaeology. In doing so he was able to show that archaeology’s total package of experiencing adventure as archaeologists excavate and extract relics, providing care, and attaining peace of mind through conservation efforts defines the appeal of the discipline to the people. In later chapters, the author refers to this as archaeo-appeal. Still in the first chapter, the author motivates readers to evaluate the impact of popular archaeology. To the archaeologists, he urges them to reconsider the public’s expectations for them and decide whether it is still practical to resist society’s “intrusion” into archaeology.

The second chapter is presented as a travel log (in the format of a travel journal) of one of the author’s “fact-finding missions” to the U.K. The author’s six-day trip to York shows the presence of archaeology almost everywhere as he travelled through this former Roman centre then Viking settlement. The guided  Roman walks, the state-of-the-art Jorvic Viking Centre, the airing of the popular TV show TimeTeam, the Indiana Jones poster complete with Harrison Ford’s autograph, and the advertisements for the (then) upcoming 2nd Lara Croft movie were just some of the manifestations of popular archaeology that the author encountered in his trip.

This chapter also introduces the readers to two interesting personages, Peter Addyman – founder of the York Archaeological Trust (YAT) and the Jorvik Viking Centre – and John Walker – who followed Addyman as director of YAT. Both have concepts of public archaeology. Addyman’s approach can be summarized by an excerpt from one of his lectures and which was quoted in the book. According to him

“…the Jorvic Viking Centre is a purpose-designed educating machine, developed on principles of efficiency and cost effectiveness; predicated on academic integrity, education values and the belief that learning can…be fun; and using advanced modern techniques of presentation, persuasion, delivery, and marketing.” (p 25)

Addyman takes on a conservative approach in delivering archaeology to the public. Walker on the other hand, being more liberal, is open to taking advantage of the popularity of archaeology to benefit the discipline. He (Walker) believes that archaeology only exists because people think it should exist.” (p 26)

            Still in both the conservative and liberal approaches of Addyman’s and Walker’s in delivering Jorvik Viking Centre to the people, both approaches have the public’s best interests in mind. The line is drawn on the methods to carry out each approach. Whereas Addyman’s traditional approach, a somewhat linear flow of information from the experts to the audiences can be expected; Walker’s, on the other hand, creates a scenario which allows the audience to get involved in the archaeological processes wherein they could possibly give and get real-time feedback to and from experts facilitating their archaeological experience.

In chapter three, Holtorf explores archaeology as it is represented in the mainstream media. The author presents three case studies of archaeology on television in Germany, Sweden, and in Great Britain to highlight the regional differences in how archaeology is portrayed and shown to television viewers in each of these three countries. Of the three, archaeology enjoys greater popularity in Great Britain than in Germany and Sweden. The hands-on approach to archaeology of the popular British television show – Time  Team – which is formatted in a way that gets the audiences to actively participate in certain episodes of their show thus enticing them to be involved in archaeology, could explain the wider appeal of the program compared to those aired in the other two countries. This brings to the reader’s mind Holtorf’s earlier premise suggesting that the popularity of archaeology lies in its potential as an “experience industry”.

The other form of media delivering the “archaeology brand” to the people and which the author examines is the newspaper. Here, Holtorf cautions the readers in interpreting the meaning of archaeology in newspapers as it tends to lean toward “archaeotainment” (p 46). For the television program, the author gives a hint that these tend to sensationalize archaeology – a tendency which most often than not, places archaeology in the mystery-adventure-thriller genre. However, as this is only hinted for archaeology on TV, it does not appear to be highlighted as Holtorf did on branding “archaeotainment” for archaeology as it appears in the news. Also of interest as one reads this chapter is the lack of investigation into the impact of the internet in bringing archaeology to the public.

            Moving on to chapter four, Holtorf examines public perception of archaeology based on previous surveys. He arrives at three conclusions:

(1)  that television is the single most significant source of information about archaeology;

(2)  that people commonly associate archaeology with digging; and

(3)  that people enjoy first-hand experience in archaeology.

The surveys Holtorf evaluated study the relationship between archaeology and the public; he notes the lack of study on the relationship between the public and the archaeologist.

            In chapter five, Holtorf presents the image of the archaeologist in popular culture. Traditional archetypal images associated with archaeologists being the scholar and the adventurer was aptly updated by the author. The images popularly associated with archaeologists now include: the adventurer, the detective, the revealer, and the caretaker. In the image of the adventurer, the archaeologist is seen as young and bold (like Indiana Jones and Lara Croft); in the image of the detective, the archaeologists is scholarly and methodical; in the image of the revealer, the archaeologist is the bearer of sensational archaeological claims (like Heinrich Schliemann); and in the image of the guardian, the archaeologist takes the form of museum curators or heritage site caretakers.

            Chapter six discusses strategies which archaeologists could use in engaging with the public. What Holtorf suggests in this chapter is for archaeologists to “allow” the public into archaeology and likewise for them (the archaeologists) to get involved in society. He presents three model strategies of engagement: the educational model (which entails the relaying of information from archaeologists to the public), public relations model (which is concerned with improving the discipline’s image to secure public support and funding), and the democratic model (which lobbies cooperation between the people and the archaeologists). The author discusses the problems of these models. With the first two, for example, it is assumed that the public is incapable of handling archaeology and thus archaeologists play an important role of “handling” the discipline and deciding how it should be “shared” to people. With the democratic model, on the other hand, Holtorf raises the issue of the consequences of public involvement in archaeological projects. He hints his preference for this last model though he maintains other models should not be overlooked.

            The last chapter encapsulates the author’s take on the brand of archaeology. Here he notes that archaeologists enjoy the perks and benefits brought about by the popularity of archaeology. The main point the author raises in this book and is reiterated in this chapter is that much of archaeology depend on how it is perceived and accepted by the public. Archaeologists simply could not go on resisting the public’s interest in them or in their field. He ends the book with a call on archaeologists to “celebrate the public understanding of archaeology” (p 148).

            The issues raised in Archaeology is a Brand! presents a challenge for archaeologists. It was written to make its readers ponder about the significance of archaeology in society today and the important role the public has to play in current archaeological practice. Archaeology already has the advantage of public appeal, archaeologists need only to use it to their advantage.

            Although Holtorf’s work concentrated on archaeology as represented in the pop culture of Europe and the United States, Filipino archaeologists and those who are into cultural and heritage studies will find this book useful. Public understanding of archaeology may not be that broad yet in the Philippines but the recent boom in cultural tourism may soon require archaeologists to work more closely with the people. This book is a good starting point for both practitioners and students of archaeology who ought to reconsider their position in and their relations with the rest of society.

            The book was written in light manner, using simple language, but with serious undertones. The author used different formats such as cartoons, text boxes, and a travel log to present, highlight, or reinforce key points and issues throughout the book. It is enjoyable to read as it is informative. The cartoon illustrations, for example, present issues in fun and simple ways yet it makes the reader pay more attention to the message which the author wishes to get across.

            Despite criticisms on Holtorf and his work (Kritiansen 2008), the book still stands out in its significance to current debates concerning public archaeology and proper conduct of archaeologists in society as well as their relations with the community. Holtorf should be commended for being bold enough to question the elitism of archaeologists in general. Both author and illustrator of this volume did a fine job of presenting to us an entertaining yet evocative book on archaeology.

References:

Lynott M (1997). Ethical Principles and Archaeological Practice: Development of an Ethics Policy. American Antiquity 62, 589-599.

Holtorf C (2005). From Stonehenge to Las Vegas: Archaeology as Popular Culture. Oxford: Altamira Press.

Kristiansen K (2008). Should Archaeology Be in the Service if ‘Popular Culture’? Antiquity 82, 488-92.

I mean honestly if an obnoxiously loud stereo and a couple of lights can both be pollution, I’m going to have to throw the flag on this one and call it pollution to a (generally) progressive society. I think modesty will no long prevail in such a numbers driven world. A football player makes a measly play and dances around like an idiot, teen pop stars talk about how they worked SO hard and how well deserved that car, which they can’t even drive yet, in the their driveway was. Ask any artist (say from Motown) and they never expected or deserved to change the world but they were sure as hell grateful for the chance to change it!
The writers of these shows, excuse me organizers, need no script, no cast (you’ll gladly oblige for a free flight and some screen time) and in some cases don’t even judge, they have you do it in precise calling windows along with a million other people. Let’s think that over. YOu do all the work while they cash the checks from promotions, which in turn take more of your money on many times, more American Idol crap. As far as looking at it like a “product”, just set up some lights and run the cameras!

To be completely fair, which I feel like being in this delightful mood, some of the contestants are talented but again, why do I care? Thousands of singers, writing their own material, struggle for years and don’t get a cent (I know we’ve all seen them, you might even be one). Meanwhile everyone else stands in a huge line, like cattle, for this tryout thing, yet another free pool of episode material. What a complete misallocation of time, effort and resources. That venue can be used for so many other useful things! A typical quick fix for an American that “deserves” success…no wonder why a large percentage of the world hates us. What is this obsession with fame and highly publicized success, I’d even call it a success epidemic if I wanted to be a those “hot shot” journalists.
I guess now that we’ve claimed our share of the continent and the world has been divided, is this our modern day Manifest Destiny? The 19th century was the human race destroying ourselves over land, the 20th was vastly influenced at sea with our gaudy fleets, so logically the 21st will have some negatively widespread transmission wave. I think we found it.

Popular culture and the media today construct a unique image of American culture; it manifests advertisements, controls spending habits, and promotes the American way of life. For many countries, American movies and television are the only sources that depict the values and customs for the entire United States; however, these forms of media are not a valid source to determine American customs and beliefs, therefore contributing to the misunderstanding and misperception of American habits and influence. Americans view themselves differently than the rest of the world, and their influence is diminishing the identity of other countries. Popular culture and mass media convolute the way American values, customs, and beliefs are perceived; to Americans, their influence and way of life is for the better, yet other countries say otherwise.

According to an article by Michael Medved, the action packed thrillers that exhibit guns and violence exert a powerful influence on countries overseas, and, although citizens of these countries have never been to the United States, they get a dose of the streets of Los Angles and New York. Unfortunately, this dose depicts these places as having never-ending episodes of gun crime, a corrupt police department, drug trade, and mindless murders that goes without consequence. Interestingly enough, the same article discusses that some Londoners will not venture to the United States for fear of street crime; however, recent statistics show there is a greater chance of getting mugged or assaulted on the streets of London than the streets of New York. Similarly, Medved also discusses the following:

“A recent traveler in rural Indonesia met a ten-year-old boy who, discovering the American origins of the visitor, asked to see her gun. When she insisted that she didn’t carry any firearms, the child refused to believe her: he knew that all Americans carried guns because he had seen them perpetually armed on TV and at the movies.”

This demonstrates some of the deleterious effects of American media. Although, these examples do not promote effects that are entirely serious or life threatening, there are some examples that do. For example, Medved also discusses that watching American movies in Pakistan provokes riots and other serious issues.

            Americans, on the other hand, view their movies, no matter how violent or unrealistic, as a general source of entertainment and not a crash course on American pop culture, morals, habits, and beliefs. Reality television, for example, is another contributor to the lack of sagacity toward American morals by countries overseas. Americans view reality television ultimately as a source of comedy that is edited to render entertaining stereotypes; whereas many other cultures view reality television as actuality television. Concepts depicted in many reality television shows do not set well with Iraqi, Pakistani, Afghani, and Turkish beliefs nor many other countries that manifest Muslim religious values. These types of shows characterize American men as shallow-minded party animals bent on sex and women as merely whorish flibbertigibbets for the men to have sex with. The way the characters act and dress is understood to be the way all Americans act and dress, thus contributing to the demise of Americanism within Muslim countries. Intuitively Americans do not perceive themselves in this a manor. However, according to Arnovitz’s research on reality television perceiving American ideals through reality television is futile. Frankenbite, the act of editing an interview to manufacture a story, is just one of Arnovitz’s terms utilized to describe some of the key concepts of reality television; it disproves truth within the show.

            With this concept in mind, the way other countries value American culture is in question. The world is showered with American movies, television shows, advertisements, and ideas, but their influence does not always prove to have positive outcomes. Joffes’s “The Perils of Soft Power” shows:

 “…great soft power does not bend hearts; it twists minds in resentment and rage.”

The fact that American culture is spreading quickly, yet in some cases being misinterpreted, contributes to the rest of the world’s antagonistic viewpoints. In contrary, Americans view themselves as a positive influence to the rest of the world. The Americanization of the World discusses that amusement parks, fast food, and supermarkets are not original concepts; they have been Americanized. This act constructs the American customs of today, and it is spreading. Not all countries view this as a positive influence, however, for it is causing the disappearance of their culture and customs.

            As America grows, more corporations expand outward to develop in foreign countries. Manufacturing and trade within those countries loses its uniqueness and becomes essentially like the rest of the world, Americanized. According to Robert Malone, the American company Wal-Mart operates in 44 countries, has over 2,200 stores outside the United States, and employees more than 100,000 in Mexico alone. However, this American company, often understood as a key characteristic of American culture, poses as a predominant threat to local communities within the country it operates; research by the University of Pennsylvania on Wal-Mart Watch proves this with the following:

“… Researchers found that Wal-Mart closes local business and effectively ruins community-based leadership.”

In contrary, many Americans believe that Wal-Mart has a positive economic and cultural influence nationally and internationally, but the fact of the matter is this company snuffs out local communities by offering a cornucopia of cut-rate merchandise and consistent pay. Thus, unique shops that sell items specific to that country’s culture close, and Wal-Mart is one of the only merchants left open dispensing Americanized goods and spreading Americanized culture.

            When companies like Best Buy, Wal-Mart, and other large supercenters place a store in another country they are asking for a serious commitment. According to Malone, when these companies enter another country, they require distribution centers, a substantial amount of logistics, and supply chain of goods. These companies undeniably control the spending habits of people in the area it occupies. Wal-Mart’s slogan save money, live better promotes the idea of purchasing items that a customer may not necessarily need because it is cheap and can improve that person’s way of life. Advertisements promoted by large American companies are pumped onto the air around the world and encourage people to buy on the spur of the moment whether or not they need that specific good.

            In conclusion, popular culture and mass media convolute the way American values, customs, and beliefs are perceived, and large American corporations are, for lack of a better word, invading other countries and depriving them of their unique identity. Reality television, action packed thrillers, and other forms of American media provide some of the only tidbits of information regarding the culture of the United States. What many Americans view as a sleazy source of entertainment, others tend to view as a source of education. America essentially dominates the media, yet other countries do not see America’s soft power as a positive influence. Joffes’s cultural complex depiction proves this to be true of many European countries. Many Americans view their influence as a positive stimulus for the future of the planet; however, at the same time, although some other countries enjoy Americanized goods, they do not support the widespread of America’s ideals, for they do not agree with their country’s religious and cultural values.

Annotated Bibliography

The World and American Influence

Michael Medved. “That’s Entertainment? Hollywood’s Contribution to Anti-Americanism Abroad”

Everything’s an Argument Chapter 28: 1055-1068. Print.

Michael Medved, a nationally syndicated radio talk show host, an author, and film critic discusses the profound impacts American movies have on the rest of the world. Medved shows that American movies cause countries overseas to misinterpret the American way of life. He utilizes many sources and examples to show how Hollywood has undeniably promoted anti-Americanism across the globe.

Josef Joffee. “The Perils of Soft Power”

Everything’s an Argument Chapter 28: 1038-1043. Print.

The substantial educational background that Joffee proves his discussion to be valid and on an intellectual level. His work as a publisher and reputation as a scholar, not to mention his background at Stanford University and teaching at Universities around the nation provides an interesting an knowledgeable viewpoint throughout his discussion. Joffee argues that America is growing rapidly and whether or not countries like Brittan, France, Germany, and Italy support American growth, they still watch and enjoy American movies and television. He also discusses that America manifest soft power due to its place as a leading nation and massive spreading of media. This article is constructed many valid points that can be used when discussing the topic of the paper to prove the power of American influence. 

Richard Bernstein. “The Days After: The Views from Abroad”

Everything’s an Argument Chapter 28: 986-1001. Print.

Richard Bernstein, the current Berlin Bureau Chief for the New York Times, promotes validity along with his background as a book critic, natural cultural reporter, and bureau chief for many other countries. His discussion is not entirely relevant to the topic at hand; however, it does cover some intriguing points.

Richard Pells. “Is American Culture American”

Everything’s an Argument Chapter 28: 1045-1054. Print.

Pells’s background as a historian specialized in twentieth-century culture and intellectual history and teacher at the University of Texas of Austin proves this article to be a valid source with a substantial ethos. Throughout the article, Pell’s discusses how domestic ideas, such as the amusement park and fast food, are Americanized then introduced again into world culture. When twisted and built upon, or Americanized, such domestic ideas have proven to be a great success, however Pell’s proves that many believe that such acts show America’s lack of uniqueness within its culture. This passage, although having many good key points, is not entirely relevant to the topic and should be noted as such.

Kevin Arnovitz. “A Guide to the Language of Reality TV”

Arnovitz Virtual Dictionary. Print.

Kevin Arnovitz’s background as an editor and contributor to Slate and hired writer for a reality television show provides a unique insight to the truth and ideals behind reality television. His unique way of depicting information by using a text-book definition style to portray different terms found in reality television can appeal to a wide array of audiences. Arnovitz provides realistic and descriptive examples to simplify reality television to its pure constructs in his virtual lexicon.

Robert Malone. “Wal-Mart Takes Over the World: Giant Changing in the face of retailing, one country at a time.”

MSNBC Forbes. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10838942/ns/business-forbescom/. Print.

This article presents an interesting standpoint on Wal-Mart’s interactions across the globe. Although, the page is up-to-date, the data and statistics may not be, for the article makes references to information retrieved in earlier years, such as 2004 and 2005. This article shows the success of Wal-Mart through sales data and positive future predictions. It also discusses some of the negative, unsuccessful reports of the company’s well-being, thus keeping a balanced view without bias. Alone, however, this article does not provide a substantial amount of information regarding its sources, yet since the article is posted by MSNBC it is understood to be valid.

http://walmartwatch.com/pages/wal_marts_negative_impact_on_local_communities/. “Wal-Mart’s Negative Impact on Local Communities”

            University of Pennsylvania, 2004: Copyright 2009. Print.

This webpage is nationwide public education campaign presented in spring of 2005; its efforts are to challenge Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer. Their goal is educating the public and real change within Wal-Mart communities. Their research and efforts have made remarkable progress to Wal-Mart’s issues and concerns. Knowing their progress, valid information would have to be presented to force action against Wal-Mart’s business practices. Due to the content of their mission statement, this site does promote bias depicting merely Wal-Mart’s faults and their deleterious effects. Nevertheless, they show a valid list of sources, some even being educational institutions.

Benjamin David Lachman 2010 

January kicked everything off with the debut of two shows of British origins, Being Human and Skins. Both shows were based on popular British tv shows of the same names and were adapted for an American audience. Being Human, a show about a ghost, vampire, and werewolf trying to find normalcy in their supernatural lives debuted on the SyFy channel and has been going strong. It was renewed for a 2nd season back in March. As for Skins, most of the attention it garnered came in the form of controversy over the underage actors and the sexual nature of the show. Several sponsors dropped out but the show still made a full first season run. As of writing this it is still undecided if there will be a 2nd season. 

In music, British singer/songwriter Adele has also made a splash in American pop culture. The 2009 Best New Artist Grammy winner released her 2nd album and is still going strong. As of April, she’s sold more albums in 2011 than any other artist. 

Tho two most hyped British stories in America belong to Doctor Who and Royal couple Prince William and Catherine “Kate” Middleton. After 47 years on air, the good Doctor finally came to America with the series 6 premiere not only show the same night as it aired in the UK but also having been filmed in Utah. Long time fans were delighted to finally see this British gem of a stone get some American face time and newbies were introduced to The Doctor, the TARDIS, and the aliens and monsters that have been keeping British children hiding behind the couch for decades now. It’s also been a good yeah for Billie Piper and John Barrowman who both spent their fair share of time with the Doctor. Piper’s show “Secret Diary Of A Call Girl” is airing it’s last season on Showtime and Barrowman’s Doctor Who spinoff, “Torchwood” is making its Starz debut with a new American setting. 

I’ll conclude with the Prince who grew up with all of the world watching, Prince William. On April 29th, Prince William married his longtime girlfriend, Kate Middleton, now Her Royal Highness, The Duchess of Cambridge, Catherine Middleton. In America, millions got up in the early hours to watch the couple exchange their vows. The ceremony had an estimated 3 billion viewers and drew comparisons to Cinderella and the wedding of Prince Wiliam’s parents, Prince Charles and Princess Diana. 

Image via Wikipedia

In the months leading up to the wedding there was no shortage of coverage. Everything was discussed from who was invited to the wedding cake. That Prince William was marrying a commoner was also a hot topic. Afterwards, everyone fawned over the beautiful wedding dress, bizarre hats and adorable junior bridesmaids. It was most certainly a historical moment that will be remembered by many. In the years from now, just like those who recount Prince Charles and Princess Diana’s wedding, those who watched will fondly look back and recount the fairy tale wedding that held all of America and the world enthralled.

So where do we go from here? We’ll just have wait and see. There’s plenty of time left in 2011: The Year Of The British. 

About the author: Athena is a dedicated traveler, feminist, and self-diagnosed internet junkie. You can follow her adventures here, here, and here

. 

In actuality, it is hardly possible to estimate that non-white artists are treated really equally to their white colleagues. However, in spite of the biased attitude of white Americans to African American culture, the pop art and pop culture which became dominant in the mid-20th century were consistently influenced by African American culture. In this respect, it should be said that the hip hop art and culture, which became mainstream in African American art and culture of the second half of the 20th century, played a particularly significant role as mediators between African American art and culture, on the one hand, and the Pop Art and culture, on the other.

The hip hop culture produces a significant impact on the development of the modern culture. In spite of the fact, that the hip hop culture emerged in the 1970s and was originally closely interrelated with a specific African American culture, today, the hip hop culture is one of the mainstream cultures which is equally popular among different racial groups including both African-Americans and white Americans. Moreover, the hip hop culture has already overcome national borders of the US and, nowadays, it is possible to speak about the hip hop culture as an international cultural phenomenon which has outgrown boundaries of African-American community in the Bronx and Harlem. In this respect, it is important to underline that hip hop dance historically constituted an essential part of the hip hop culture. Moreover, it is due to hip hop music and dance the hip hop culture has gained such a huge popularity in the US and worldwide. In such a situation, it is very important to research in details the development of the hip hop culture and hip hop dance, as an essential element of this culture, and the internationalization of this culture, i.e. the process of the spreading the hip hop culture nationwide and lately worldwide. At any rate, it proves beyond a doubt that the hip hop culture has outgrown from an African-American subculture into a powerful mainstream culture which is popular worldwide.

On analyzing the development of the hip hop culture and hip hop dance, it is important to underline that the development of this culture was, to a significant extent, determined by considerable socioeconomic changes that took place in the American society. The emergence of the civil rights movement in the 1950s – 1960s contributed to the liberation of African-American population not only in regard to legal norms and social standards but also in regard to the culture. To put it more precisely, the civil rights movement allowed African-American community making considerable advancement into its struggle for equal rights and opportunities. In this respect, the African-American culture was traditionally viewed as inferior compared to the mainstream white culture dominated in the life of the American society in the mid-20th century. As a result, the cultural situation in the 1970s was more favorable for the development of the African-American culture.

In actuality, the 1970s became the period when the hip hop culture has emerged and the development of this culture was basically the cultural response of African-Americans on the change in their social position and the change of their consciousness. What is meant here is the fact that African-Americans ceased feeling their inferiority due to the growth of their civil consciousness resulting from the successes of the civil rights movement. As a result, the African-American culture was not perceived as inferior anymore. Instead, African-Americans started to develop their culture which was viewed as an alternative to the mainstream white culture.

Under the impact of the cultural liberation of African-Americans and public perception of the African-American culture, the hip hop culture emerged. Its origin is traditionally associated with DJ Clive “Kool Herk” Campbell, who was a developer of break-beat deejaying, where the breaks of funk songs were isolated and repeated for the purpose of all-night dancing parties. In this respect, it is worth mentioning the fact that the breaks of funk songs are considered to be the parts the most suited to dance. During the 1980s the hip hop culture grew more and more diverse new movements and styles appeared. 

Born Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta, the now Lady Gaga steamrolled into “popular consciousness” with accessible pop beats, an outrageous public persona, and a well crafted personal history telling us of the misunderstood outcast.

Her music success goes together with her fashion and cannot be separated. Many of her fans crave her independence which allows her to be comfortable wearing things that would make many faint. Oprah Winfrey refered to her as a “cultural and spiritual leader”, Really?

In the 53rd Grammy awards she made her entrance in an egg like carrier with half naked studs carrying her. Asked what that signified she said the she wanted a rebirth. She claimed to have been in the egg like thing for three days. She further said that she believes the universe need to be “rebirthed” and she was leading the way.

It is said that her relationship with the fashion industry is “complicated“. Many women in the fashion industry succumb to what the fashion gurus want, in the process losing their persona. If they are fat they have to lose the weight. If their hair is a particular way, it has to be the way the designer wants it.

Gaga on the other hand has tamed the fashion industry by calling the shots. Her fashion style needs are audacious and sometimes embarrassing. But in the process she is said to have liberated designers like Armani to be true to their creative powers without inhibition.

When Gaga appeared on the red carpet with a hoop-skirted, crystal studded extravaganza, designed

by Armani, in 2010, everyone was awe stricken. The experience is however said to have left Armani feeling positively elated stating that “true creativity knows no bounds. Life has an extra dimension made up of dream, pleasure, and irony”.

Gaga’s daring lifestyle is also said to have “opened doors” for her collaborator Nicola Formichetti, stylist and fashion editor responsible for the meat frock that Gaga wore at the MTV video music awards in 2010. Formicheti now serves as the creative director of Thiery Mugler fashion designs with the responsibility of raising the French brand from its moribund state, something he says he does using the Gaga doctrine.

The question though is Gaga out to set a standard of dress or is she being herself? It would appear not for she has not popularized any major trends. Instead “she is the video vixen next door, a fashion shoot come to your street corner, performance art into your living room”.

Gaga appears to change her persona like a “tortured soul” searching for her identity in the midst of all that craziness. She is still in this writer’s opinion yet to identify herself. According to a sociologist professor at the University of South Carolina , Mathieu Deflem, Gaga style represents “liberation”. According to him, if Gaga does not remain static enough to be dissected, then “we will dissect ourselves dissecting her”.

Armani became enamored by her when he first saw her perform at the American Music award. According to him he was “struck by her extraordinary talent for writing music and her mastery of her own voice” and how she had “deliberately created a totally outlandish personality”.

From then on Gaga inspired the designer and awakened his creative juices. Armani says that “no other artist would give me the opportunity to design such original and way out creations”. According to him “lady Gaga’s costumes are a pure creativity exercise that allows me to design spectacular almost surreal pieces”.

Well for this writer, Gaga is simply gaga. She needs attention and she will get it anyhow. Perhaps when she find herself she will be at peace with herself. For now she will continue to intrigue many while forcing others to be real though hopefully not the gaga way.

Ysh Cabana © Copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved.

2.  Pegasus- the flying horses are very popular in mythology. The most well known being Pegasus.
  He is the son of Medusa and Poseiden in some stories. Pegasus features in stories of Bellepheron and
  Perseus.

3. Basilisk- also known as the cockatrice.  The basilisk is a serpent which can turn people to stone.
  the Basilisk is featured in such stories as” Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets” and “Oath
  bound Wizard” by Christopher Stasheff.

4.  Phoenix- is a bird of rejuvenation and renewal.  Phoenixes feature in artwork and stories.
 I always have liked the colors of the Phoenixes.

5.  Dragons – I have never heard of anyone who did not know what dragons are.  Many
  cultures have dragons in their belief systems. Whether Medieval mythololgy of slaying an
 evil dragon, to other dragons which help you and bring you strength, and mighty Asian Dragons.
 Dragons feature in art work, figurines, posters, and almost any fantasy book you read.