The Cultural Cringe

[yorksrob]

The Late Robert Hughes, art critic and historian, used to speak against the cultural cringe that Australian culture once held towards the British Empire of yore.

Are we now suffering from a similar cultural cringe towards the United States of America ?

Don't get me wrong. I think American culture in itself is wonderful. Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons epitomised the four minute pop song more than anyone else in my opinion, and "The Big Bang Theory" and "The Simpsons" are superb.

What I don't understand is why, having enjoyed the original version of "The Office", am I supposed to be in rapture at the prospect of seeing a remade American version because the citizens of that Country are supposedly unable to comprehend of a world outside of their own borders (untrue obviously to everyone except their own television executives).

Ditto with "Being Human" where we're supposed to be excited about a regurgitated version that doesn't even have the stunning Russel Tovey in it.

If the Americans are incapable of watching anything without it being remade in their own image, so be it, but why are we expected to tug our forelocks when we made the original.

Don't get me started on that preposterous film that made out that the American Navy captured the Enigma Machine rather than the Royal Navy.

Do other posters detect a cultural cringe towards our cousins across the Atlantic ?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

... and "The Big Bang Theory" ... are superb.

Onto the ignore list you go

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I have to object to 'culture' being defined in terms of television!
I see the contribution of television to a nation's culture is as meaningful as the contribution of the tobacco industry. Both are vast commercial interests, with a tiny creative input by a tiny number of producers but an enormous market of dedicated consumers, where the only creative cultural engagement by those consumers is in the almost imperceptible selection of brands, while they continue to consume the product with a mind-knumbing, addictive relentlessness. Yes, I can see the differences between French, Russian and American cigarettes - its a similar distinction between those nation's TV output - it's a distinction that doesn't say very much about the passions, insights, pursuits and achievements of their nation's people / their civilisations.

But having made that point, I must say that I'm sympathetic to critics of 'American culture' - perhaps because so much of it is a pastiche of other works (e.g. Charles Ives, Leonard Bernstein) or else it works simply by being louder / brasher / brighter than reality but bringing no other insight (e.g. Thomas Cole, skyscraper achitecture) or just trying to be clever (e.g. Jackson Pollock, Joseph Heller, John Cage).

I also find it hard to resist comparisons between UK and American culture, in which American culture come out the worst (e.g. Hemmingway vs TS Eliot; David Mamet vs Mike Leigh; Charles Dickens vs Mark Twain). Perhaps these comparisons are unhelpful, but it does seem significant that the Americans are rarely the superior creative force.

But I must acknowledge that we simply wouldn't have the genres of art that we now know of as Contemporary Dance or Jazz if it wasn't for 'American culture'. And our world would be a lesser place without them.

PS I've never seen 'The Simpsons' and feel no urgency to watch it. I 'cringe' at the thought of doing so.

 

[yorksrob]

Well, it's true that TV is a commercial beast. But then again, much of the greatest culture in history has required a sponsor in one form or another.

 

[PaxVobiscum]

Well, it's true that TV is a commercial beast. But then again, much of the greatest culture in history has required a sponsor in one form or another.

I don't think one can equate commercialism with sponsorship. Market forces seem to drag us ever downward (as in reality TV), whereas some sponsorship (eg by the church in its various forms) has helped enable examples of the world's finest works of art and musical masterpieces.

Afterthought: I am of the opinion that Sesame Street is about the only good thing to have come out of American TV so far.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't think one can equate commercialism with sponsorship. Market forces seem to drag us ever downward (as in reality TV), whereas some sponsorship (eg by the church in its various forms) has helped enable examples of the world's finest works of art and musical masterpieces.

Afterthought: I am of the opinion that Sesame Street is about the only good thing to have come out of American TV so far.

Very true. But then again the painting of the Sisteen Chapel was undoubtedly sponsored by the Church, yet would we be happy endorsing the opinions of the Church establishment of the day ?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Don't get me started on that preposterous film that made out that the American Navy captured the Enigma Machine rather than the Royal Navy.

What more did you expect from such a shallow cultural nation that believes that all the super-heroes such as Superman, Batman, Captain America, etc, etc, all live in America (but none of them seemed to have the time to help the American forces in the Vietnam war).....

I notice that their production of the "Rambo" series of films to show how an all-American hero went out of his way to help the poor oppressed Afghanistani people have not seen much in the way of a series remake return of Rambo to help out the Taliban against the "current oppressors"..

 

[ainsworth74]

What more did you expect from such a shallow cultural nation that believes that all the super-heroes such as Superman, Batman, Captain America, etc, etc, all live in America (but none of them seemed to have the time to help the American forces in the Vietnam war)....

You're clearly not reading the right comics The stars of The Watchmen most certainly helped out during the Vietnam War indeed they won if for the US!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

You're clearly not reading the right comics The stars of The Watchmen most certainly helped out during the Vietnam War indeed they won if for the US!

Which goes back full circle back to the story of the American involvement in the Enigma machine story that was referred to by yorksrob.

Correct me if I am wrong, but have the story-lines of Superman, etc, been in existence for a far longer period of time than the example that you have quoted. Don't forget my next birthday will be my 70th, which means that my "comics" were those of the Eagle and the Lion publications.

 

[muddythefish]

What "cultural cringe" ? We have no problem with our culture and we cringe to no one.

It's America that has the problem because Hollywood insists on the Americanisation of a story even when America is not involved.

The Enigma is one example and Bomber - Len Deighton's story of Bomber Command in WWII was another. I refused to watch it.

Couple that with frequent Hollywood demonisation of the English (Braveheart) and it's obvious Americans are the ones with a cringe.

 

[ainsworth74]

Correct me if I am wrong, but have the story-lines of Superman, etc, been in existence for a far longer period of time than the example that you have quoted. Don't forget my next birthday will be my 70th, which means that my "comics" were those of the Eagle and the Lion publications.

Well it was more of a graphic novel than a comic (the version I have is a book). But it was published between September 1986 and October 1987 by DC Comics (their more famous franchises being Superman and Batman). You would also be correct that it's much more recent as the likes of Superman and Batman date from the late 30s.

 

[306024]

You're clearly not reading the right comics The stars of The Watchmen most certainly helped out during the Vietnam War indeed they won if for the US!

I thought that was Alan Alda and Loretta Swit. Hollywood certainly was involved in the Vietnam War, even if they moved it to the hills north of Los Angeles to make the filming of M*A*S*H easier

 

[Oswyntail]

...were those of the Eagle and the Lion publications.

Harris Tweed! Waldorf and Cecil! Robot Archie! Paddy Payne! Karl the Viking!

I thought that was Alan Alda and Loretta Swit. Hollywood certainly was involved in the Vietnam War, even if they moved it to the hills north of Los Angeles to make the filming of M*A*S*H easier

I believe that was the Korean War.

 

[ainsworth74]

I thought that was Alan Alda and Loretta Swit. Hollywood certainly was involved in the Vietnam War, even if they moved it to the hills north of Los Angeles to make the filming of M*A*S*H easier

That was set during the Korean War. Also interesting trivia M*A*S*H lasted longer than the Korean War during which it was set (11 years versus 3 years).

 

[306024]

Indeed it was the Korean War, dunno why I thought otherwise as I've watched all the episodes. It was filmed in LA though unless the tour guide made that up too.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I don't think one can equate commercialism with sponsorship. Market forces seem to drag us ever downward (as in reality TV), whereas some sponsorship (eg by the church in its various forms) has helped enable examples of the world's finest works of art and musical masterpieces.

Absolutety agreed!

We can see that any charting of art through history (fine art, music, sculpture, architecture, etc.) is inseparable from the history of its patronage, but it would be quite wrong to compare that link with the production of mass media with its financing. Finance, in and of itself, doesn't create 'art'.
Art comes from artists.

One of my points implied (though not stated) in my first reply was to locate significant creativity in the audience - i.e. it is the viewer or listener who has the burden of the work to be done in apprehending what differentiates 'art' from 'noise'.

In the case of passive reception of TV broadcasting, there is very little opportunity for creativity by the participating audience. But I will give TV fans some credit, I could add to my list of comparisons between culture in the US and elsewhere the TV series "Monty Python" vs "Rowan & Martins Laugh-In", or in more recent times, Max Keiser's "Keiser Report" (an American broadcasting for Russia Today, the BBC, Al-Jazeera & Resonance FM) vs Rush Limbaugh's "Rush Limbaurgh's Show" (an American broadcasting on many US networks principally those of Premier Radio Networks, from WAR-AM in the east to KNEW-AM in the west).

But let's drop the TV interest, please ! That is not, and cannot be, a defining characteristic of a culture. Our culture is composed of what we do, how we express ourselves, how we re-interpret our world and how we share those actions and interpretations with our community. That will either be in language, movement or other collective expression.
What we do as groups of people is our culture - whether we like it or not.

But yorksrob, I hope you realise how lucky you are in your proximity to one of the few truly creative and innovative locii of UK culture today - Sheffield's 'Forced Entertainment', whose Tim Etchells just happens to be one of my most respected cultural innovators in the UK today. And I cannot think of a comparable innovator in the US.

 

[Butts]

I have to object to 'culture' being defined in terms of television!
I see the contribution of television to a nation's culture is as meaningful as the contribution of the tobacco industry. Both are vast commercial interests, with a tiny creative input by a tiny number of producers but an enormous market of dedicated consumers, where the only creative cultural engagement by those consumers is in the almost imperceptible selection of brands, while they continue to consume the product with a mind-knumbing, addictive relentlessness. Yes, I can see the differences between French, Russian and American cigarettes - its a similar distinction between those nation's TV output - it's a distinction that doesn't say very much about the passions, insights, pursuits and achievements of their nation's people / their civilisations.

But having made that point, I must say that I'm sympathetic to critics of 'American culture' - perhaps because so much of it is a pastiche of other works (e.g. Charles Ives, Leonard Bernstein) or else it works simply by being louder / brasher / brighter than reality but bringing no other insight (e.g. Thomas Cole, skyscraper achitecture) or just trying to be clever (e.g. Jackson Pollock, Joseph Heller, John Cage).

I also find it hard to resist comparisons between UK and American culture, in which American culture come out the worst (e.g. Hemmingway vs TS Eliot; David Mamet vs Mike Leigh; Charles Dickens vs Mark Twain). Perhaps these comparisons are unhelpful, but it does seem significant that the Americans are rarely the superior creative force.

But I must acknowledge that we simply wouldn't have the genres of art that we now know of as Contemporary Dance or Jazz if it wasn't for 'American culture'. And our world would be a lesser place without them.

PS I've never seen 'The Simpsons' and feel no urgency to watch it. I 'cringe' at the thought of doing so.

Actually the Tobacco Industry used to make quite a large contribution to "The Arts" when it was permitted to do so. (in cash terms at least )

It also still makes a huge net contribution to the exchequer (allowing for cost to the NHS of smoking and Government saving on Pensions when smokers croak prematurely) - who knows these funds may go towards "Cultural Subsidies" in various formats.