Kammen

Thus far I really like Kammen’s style. His arguments feel bold without seeming overworked. I think the writing is pretty accessible (absence of LCS terms, b/c he is a historian). He also seems to have a gift for effortlessly, seamlessly packing loads of information into a few paragraphs. I also like all the little anecdotes – they are fun to read, give life to his claims.

And although I liked his attempt to distinguish mass culture from popular culture, Kammen does not seem to acknowledge that the definitions he sets forth are his working, personal definitions and are not necessarily universally accepted throughout history/cultural studies. But I do like his historical explanations for his defining these terms as such. It always shocks me that authors devote so much space to debating the definitions of such terms; what is the point? (Not that I think Kammen does so – I am jus going off on my own tangent).

And overall I do agree with his ideas. I can buy his linking the emergence of popular/mass culture (now I am not sure which one it is) with the democratization of art and entertainment. One thing I do not agree with/understand: Kammen places avant-garde art in with other democratizing artistic forces (the anecdote about the theater in the second chapter). I am just not sure that agree with the particular categorization. Especially when taken in its ‘60s context, the avant-garde seems like a niche to me.