Category: Commentary

Swift Studies

A recent article on an academic conference devoted to Taylor Swift prompted some discussion online. The article by Emily Yahr was posted on Dec 26, 2023, here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/2023/12/26/taylor-swift-eras-conference-academic/

My response was as follows:

I felt similarly perhaps 15-20 years ago when a college offered a semester length course on the topic of Lady Gaga, and I was aghast, but then I kinda got out of it.
Taylor Swift is no different in this regard, though I think the Swifties are more of a force than the Monster ever were.
But that’s the thing: the fact that both of them have a fanbase large enough to be a) identified by name and b) make an impact beyond the pop music sphere warrants the study.

And it’s not like pop-culture focused conferences are a new thing. From the article:
“One academic told her that, after speaking at events focused on Bob Dylan, Nirvana and the Beatles, they were thrilled to discuss a prominent female artist.”
… so there is this, at least, with expanding the scope of artists that can be discussed.

I think that’s pretty swell.

(And in the interest of full disclosure, I’ve presented on pop-culture related topics academically at the PCA before, as well as several Games Studies and Film Studies conferences before.)

I think there’s value in the conference though. The budget is usually pretty minimal, relatively speaking, from my experience with a couple organizing committees. It let’s the researchers get some reps in too, which honestly can be invaluable.

And obviously there is *something* going on with the Swift and her fanbase, so a bit of scrutiny isn’t a bad thing, even if I’m not on board with Lacanian interpretations of Swift’s Folklore either.

(Or anything Lacanian,tbh.)

When it comes to the utility of examining, pop-culture, I’ll grab a quote by Bruce Sterling from a couple decades past:

“The most fertile ground for analyzing motives is pop culture – not because pop culture is deep, but because it’s so shallow. It’s where those wishes and longings are most nakedly evident” (Sterling , 2002, pxii-xiii).

It was informative when I was looking at the role of #ScienceFiction back in the early Double-Ohs. It’s still solid now.

This whole subject was on my to-do list for the podcast a couple episodes from now. Look for an episode titled “The Old Man and the River” in the new year. I’ll link back to this when it gets posted.

Documentary filming

Met a friend for dinner, and old mentor who has become a dear friend, and the discussion, after the usual formalities turned to recent works, in this case photography and film-making. I updated him on my experience after having visited the Sphere in Las Vegas, which I documented on the podcast in Episodes 20 and 21.

And he had some great advice. We spent a bit of time discussing beginner photography equipment (or which more in the new year), and then shifted to film.

I know it’s hard to tell by all the images I have on the blog, but I’m a pretty visual thinker, and often have an image or film clip in my mind of what I’m trying to tell.

The challenge (for me at least) is to coax that out of what I see in the real world. AI-assisted art tools can help, somewhat, if you’re comfortable with the “prompt engineering” that goes behind creating the images you want. There are some significant drawbacks, however, including the sourcing of the training data, and the power that is used to run these algorithms.

The other option is to make it yourself.

That old adage of “if you don’t see what you want in the world, then you need to make it” (or “be the change you want to see”).

But that can be a whole other set of challenges. Gear, learning to use the tools, time, energy, travel, tools for editing, and the time to do it, and a whole host more.

But it is do-able. Thousands do it every day on the online video platforms.

And in this case, the goal of what I want to see is a documentary film.

So let’s document that process, and see what we can create.

Crunch time

Missed a deadline for a class, and now I’m a bit under the gun, racing against a hard stop this week. Whoops! It’s do-able, but tricky, and I find I need to re-learn how to ride the metaphorical bike just to get going again.

Also whoops!

The lesson, obviously, is never stop.

Or at least try not to let a short gap (due to a vacation, illness, or injury) turn into a longer one. Especially when trying to learn a new complex skill or develop a new habit.

This is… recoverable (I *will* meet the deadline), but it’s harder and more stressful than it needed to be, and takes away from other fun activities around this time of year.

And also, needed activities. Like the transcripts for the last couple podcasts, or the third Dr. Who 2023 special episode discussion (stay tuned; it’s a long one!).

And also the other kinds of crunches. Not the Cap’n. Just the gym kind. Managed to get in a couple sets of core workouts today. I don’t talk about working out much here. suffice to say that I go to the gym regularly (if not frequently). Weekend Workout Warrior here.

Gotta get back at that too.

But first, Crunch Time.

Learning to build

I was asked today what my first Lego set was, and I sent them a link to the image shown above: Lego set 375, the original yellow Castle set. A classic, a collector’s item, if I still had it, or all it’s pieces, or even a fraction of it.

Now it wasn’t 100% my first, as we had other sets without the figures before that, boxes of colored blocks and shapes that we would have to figure out how to put together in ways we wanted, using our imagination as best we could.

We did okay; of course we did, we were kids.

But the Castle set was the first set I got, that felt like a whole thing, and I still remember it fondly.

The reason this came up today is that someone I care about built their first set ever today, at the age of 39.

And it was magical!

And I hope they remember it as long as I’ve remembered the Castle. 🙂

Content (it’s all content)

There’s a post that pops up on occasion on Mastodon or the other socials from time to time, where an artist or creator chafes at their work being labelled as ‘content’.

And while I can sympathize, I hate to break it to them, but the genie is out of the bottle.

It’s all content.

It has been since the late 1900s.

I was reading Jenkins et. al. (2018) recently while prepping Episode 16 of the Implausipod, and even there “content” was being referenced.

So for future reference, let’s cover off why ‘content’ is fine.

Imagine, you have a pizza shop. You make some fantastic pizza. Best in town. Maybe as a customer I’m feeling like a pizza, maybe deep dish, maybe thin crust, maybe even a calzone. I’m not being picky.

But sometimes I’m feeling like a steak, or a stir fry, or a pho, or a Reuben, or breadsticks, or whatever. (Clearly I need to stop writing this before dinner).

And maybe, just maybe, I want to make something myself. At home, or on a campfire in the mountains (or whatever).

Regardless of what I’m having, we can all agree that we’re talking about food.

So too with content: it doesn’t matter if it’s a video or a blog post or a podcast or a digital comic, or even traditional art. It’s a bit of a mouthful to spell it all out, listing each and every type. Especially if we’re really interested in talking about food (sorry, content) in general.

And if someone objects, and says “I don’t make food, I make pizza!“, well, you go, you do you. But it comes across as weird to deny that what you’re making counts as food too.

So, yeah, let’s not do that. We used to call it “media”, and while that still holds true, in the 21st century we refer to it as “content” too.

So enjoy! Mange! Dig in. Find something tasty.