For me, the term "consumers of culture" is a result of an earlier semantic evolution, namely "cultural products." 

When culture becomes a good that can be produced, transferred (an important element of globalization discourse is cultural exchange and flow of products) and even sold (e.g., creative industries), human beings become its producers, movers, sellers and eventually consumers.

Currently we live in the era of information and many technologic aspects change at a very fast rate, so why not some cultural aspects too. However, recognize the most important aspects of life and culture is a must, because we received that legacy from the previous generations and we have the duty and responsibility of transmitting and developing the best we have to the next generations.

I concur with Renzo: dramatic may be perhaps the fact that it looks that some social aspects are badly understood and hardly change. I am thinking about stupid wars and permanent conflicts, for example.

Lilliana,

 I thought that I could suspend the archaeologist/anthropologist me to answer this question, but I find that I cannot. We define individual cultures by the differences in their artifact assemblages, life ways, mores, architecture, etc.

 When I think of culture the first thing that I think of is Material Culture: everything that we see around us, that we use or interact with on a day to day basis. The second thing that comes to mind is Pop Culture.

 I think that your Consumers of Culture is similar to what could be called Pop Culture, or maybe a better term would be the Culture of Change. I believe this is reflected in the shifting popularity (shifting change?) of music, clothing, politics, art, consumer goods, attitudes, and much more. These "fads" that people seem to drift in and out of. That and always having to possess the latest and greatest whatever. Never in history has there been such a rapid turnover of consumer goods, cultural attitudes, political reason, art forms, etc. The Industrial Revolution in the 19th century started us on a path of consumerism that has rapidly become the definition that most of us live by. This not being satisfied with a safe, static life, has led to a fast-paced switch from one product or one fad to another in search for something that will quench that thirst. Consumers of Culture: young people are a shining example as they pick up one cultural fad after another, draining each dry and discarding it when it gets boring or another cultural fad comes along that is more appealing.

The definition of culture has not changed but therefore the ways and means to convey the cultures that have changed. Personally I think the use of "consumer culture" might make sense to the extent that we are in an anarchic globalization invaded by means of audiovisual communication that we impose a choice. But each country and each people has its own culture. it is through the human brewing that will build relationships and therefore free choice. the culture finds its essence through a personal choice for love and not an imposed choice and tendentious through considerable technology.

Culture to me is a natioal character, a particular language to speak or to communicate,particular religion to follow and certain traditions to continue from generations to generations..

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Ramos-Collado,

If we want to know if culture has changed, then we need to know what it has been--other than "consumer culture."

I thought of this poem:

Can rules or tutors educate

The semigod whom we await?

He must be musical,

Tremulous, impressional,

Alive to gentle influence

Of landscape and of sky,

And tender to the spirit-touch

Of man's or maiden's eye:

But, to his native center fast,

Shall into Future fuse the Past,

And the world's flowing fates in his own mold recast.

R.W. Emerson, 1860.

---End quotation

Perhaps this is a matter of "high culture." The ambition expressed here is certainly of a very large character: "remolding fates!"

One definition I know of is that "culture" is what comes from escaping our own narrower interests and talent--refusing to be the captive and slaves of these things-- and reaching out for wider and perhaps lovelier perspectives, a wider world.

H.G. Callaway

The increasing globalization of business provides a compelling reason for understanding the cultural context of consumer behavior. Where social status, values, and activities are centered on the consumption of goods and service. Culture is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, custom and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.Culturally normed behavior  and  patterns  of  socialization  could often stem from a mix of religious beliefs, economic and political exigencies and so on. The importance of the multifaceted ways in which culture shapes behavior is enhanced since it is less obvious now than in the past. Convergence  cannot be taken for Discussion and Conclusion granted given the resilient and profound impacts of culture on consumer behavior.

Dear James, as always, thank you for collaborating.

We are already consuming archaeology... We now engage in archaeology of the recent past: garbage has become a very important subject of study as it bears witness to rapid change and obsolescence, among many other things. Last year I read a very good book about this subject: Buchli and Lucas, Archaeologies of the Contemporary Past, Routledge (2001). Another excellent book about this archaeology of the recent past is famous architect and urban planner Kevin Lynch's splendid, though posthumous, Wasting away: An Exploration of Waste: What It Is, How It Happens, Why We Fear It, How To Do It Well, Sierra Club Books (1990)... Tupperware is already archaeology, James, consumer culture already has its very own garbage. 

Best regards, Lilliana 

Dear H.G., read my note to dear James Green. Culture is less and less classified as hi or low... Kant is about to be forgotten! That is the reason for my question.

Warm regards, Lilliana

Always interesting, head-scratching questions.

To me, culture is something like "social milieu." I don't first think about, say pop culture. I think about living in different cultural environments, especially different countries. Something related more to what people mean when they say "culture shock."

But of course, the meaning is the same. Pop culture is that particular social milieu, which becomes a subculture of whatever country we're talking about. Also the medical term "culture," when you grow microorganisms, for instance, is closely related.

If we're "consumers of culture," it's probably largely due to globalization. People and their customs travel much further and much faster now. Sounds good to me. Of course, we don't certainly want ALL customs and traditions to travel too far from their home turf. Some are best kept isolated. Just so I don't come across sounding too much kumbaya.

On this occasion, I beg permission to add insights from my point of view as follows:

Culture is the embodiment of the whole order of life of a community of people in a certain area that prioritizes ethical and moral, namely in the form of attitudes and actions that are full of thoughtful and wise of the empowerment of conscience in the form of belief in the norms that translates to the ability of the mind and sense.

The definition in the last era is undergoing changes due to the shift in the pattern of realization due to the human tendency in contemporary times prefer the speed and convenience based on the reality and logical thinking as a result of the development of information and technology.

The changes affect all aspects of life because of cultural concerns to the whole order of life in a certain area.

Culture is everything "in what we live."

Each "consumes" whether he wants to or not :-)

Historically speaking, the concept was intriduced by the memebrs of the Frankfurt School. Whence we also came to speak about the "culture/cultural industry".

On the one hand, the expression is aimed at the trivialization of culture. Just as Markovic says, to the kitsch world.

On the other hand, however, ot also means the developments of a scoeity so that it comes to consume "inmaterial goods" - thanks to leisure.

Times are changing and therefore culture is also changing. Let me say they are being "upgraded". The world is now a global village and therefore, people have begun to integrate certain practices that weren't part of their culture into theirs in order to familiarise themselves with others. One of the main reasons for the worldwide spike in tourism is culture. Change in culture is therefore not a matter of words and definitions, because in the end, culture is still the way of life of a particular society.

Times are changing and therefore culture is also changing. Let me say they are being "upgraded". The world is now a global village and therefore, people have begun to integrate certain practices that weren't part of their culture into theirs in order to familiarise themselves with others. One of the main reasons for the worldwide spike in tourism is culture. Change in culture is therefore not a matter of words and definitions, because in the end, culture is still the way of life of a particular society.

Bravo, dear Desmond! One of the greatest things happening is the plethora of international cultural activities such as Biennales, collective shows, etc., where so-called third world countries have started to participate. Our idea of art now goes well beyond Europe and the United States, and we are learning a lot from each other. We are told to be "consumers of culture" maybe because we have become more intrepid and started looking into cultures that are very different from our own, and corporate art markets are advertising some cultures and not others, so trends of exclusion are already becoming strong. As you know, culture is one thing, the art market is another, and the culture of the art market is quite another. The good thing is that you can become familiar with what yesterday was unfamiliar. As Régis Debray once said, on the internet you can still transmit the local, even if distant, and transform it into the "glocal", which to say, into the "local" transmitted "globally".

Thank you for your wise comment!

Lilliana

Markovic,

Do not confuse "high culture" with culture. High culture, low culture, they are all a subsegment of the whole, just as an individual country or ethnicity is a subset of "human culture". The hobo culture is as rich and diverse as the haute, just in a different way. Table etiquette can be more socially complex and delicate in the Bedouin household than high affairs of state in the Kremlin.

Marcovic dear, you hate kitsch and I love it. I already talked about this under one of your own questions about kitsch. James Green is correct. It is incorrect to tell people what they should like or respect when talking about art. Kitsch has something I really value: it is brazen and it is democratic, whether I like it or not. Thank you, James! There is NO high or low culture, nor "spiritual art", etc.

Best regards, Lilliana

I do not agree with you, Markovic:  I do not divide culture in "low" and "high". 20th century ideas of art are quite different from Kantian ideals. The 21st century has gone beyond that and is far more accepting than past Eurocentric paradigms and theories of art. We are becoming more generous and democratic, and I am quite happy about that. More and more different cultures are now accessible to everyone. Respect of what is still beyond our aesthetic understanding has become so important! We should learn to get to know the different better, and learn to include the different in our idea of art. Art is expanding, and I think it should expand even more.

Besides, I do not "believe" in art. I see art, I prefer this over that, I study art, but belief has nothing to do with being an art teacher, a curator, an art critic and/or an art theorists. If seen only from the point of view of "spirituality" or "emotion", there would actually be nothing to learn about art because you would divest it of  its history, purpose, materiality, technique, intelligence, influence, etc. Spirituality and emotion reduce art to be a part of our autobiography, and not an independent object that will have so many things to tell us. When I shed tears before a worrk of art (It happens to me often) I am aware that such a personal emotion belongs to me, not to art. When I teach, I do not invite my students to have feelings for an art work, because that belongs to a personal sphere and I do not think I should impose my spirituality or emotions on my students. They should be free to feel, but also free to think and attentive to learning what art itself can teach us, which is much more than emotion or spirituality. Even kandinsly, in his splendid book Concerning the Spiritual in Art, devotes most of its pages to examining art themes and techniques. His "spirituality" had to do with abstraction, with separating art from the imitation of life, with making art an object of observation and reflection of its forms, with "pure" art.

There is also a beautiful book by art theorist James Elkins titled Pictures and Tears, precisely about art and emotion, and art and beauty. He remarks that different periods of art history have produced different ideas and objects of beauty, so contemporary people cry before images that would not have moved our ancestors to tears. There is no "universal emotion" because there are no universal images. We must learn to mediate between our emotions and our intellect. And intellect can teach us more about art than emotions. 

Best regards, Lilliana

Dear Fadel, the definition of culture has changed a lot, and many times, in the last few centuries. The change is so dramatic that Western culture is no longer the ruler of art. Many different cultures have come in to be studied and appreciated. Change has been wide and strong.

Best regards, Lilliana

Thank you for your comment, dear Kiran. It is very wise and encompassing.

Best regards, Lilliana

Dear Barbara, I always enjoy your visits to my questions because of their wisdom and timeliness. Just a question, in the context of cultural studies, what do you mean by spirituality? Beliefs? Rituals? Please tell me more.

Warm regards, Lilliana

Dear Teguh, art is usually far from moral or ethical. Art is a product of its own time. It often criticizes ways and usages of society, pokes fun at leaders, or puts the world upside down. Most art changes the way we see things in the world. Art is challenging, not quite pedagogical, if seen in its own time. We are used to seeing art from many hundred years ago. The images it shows us seem appeasing but were not appeasing to its contemporaries.  

Best regards, Lilliana

Dear Carlos Eduardo, I personally appreciate kitsch very much, and I am against dividing culture between high and low, as I have told dear Malkovic very often. Artists sell their work to make a living. Why is that a problem? We get paid to teach, invent, research. Should not artists do the same? Why is money an issue in art but not in teaching, in building, etc.? Ironically, kitsch is cheap, Picasso is expensive... I do not understand what is wrong in mixing culture and money. Should Picasso give away his art? Should we raise the price of kitsch? I'm perplexed.

Best regards, Lilliana

Dear Desmod, I see you are an avid reader of Marshall McLuhan! Me too.

Best regards, Lilliana

Dear Markovic, friends and colleagues may disagree, and there is no problem. Polemics are useful to clear the way for new ideas founded on mutuality, and I have answered your comments exactly as you have posed them. It is a pity you do not believe in debating important things. Bear in mind that debate is good for holding back the temptation to become authoritarian. That is why I always accept a debate. It makes me at the same time smarter and humbler.

I really like our debates, Markovic. I consider you my friend on RG.

Best regards, Lilliana

I agree with you, Markovic, but we are colleagues, not teacher and student. Debate, for Socrates, is something else: it can be cruel, even insulting, which we do not like or do. 

Warm regards, Lilliana

Markovic,

I too hope we take these comments in stride as healthy conversation, if not actual debate. It is important to get other viewpoints and can help bring the world a little closer together. I might not agree with everything that is said, but I respect the commentator's right to say it, if it is given in a civil manner of course.

JAG

Dear Barbara, as always, I appreciate enormously your contributions to my questions. I agree totally with you in that religion is part of our culture in the sense that it channels concerns about the world that cannot be dealt with in objective, rational terms. But religion in itself is material in its rituals, and concrete in its manifestations. The "spiritual" —which I prefer to call "the sacred"— is beyond our thorough understanding. In this sense, what we do have as "culture" is religion. Here, I am following two great authors that have written splendid and insightful books on the tensions between "religion" and "the sacred", between "myth" and "ritual": Mircea Eliade's A History of Religious Ideas; Images and Symbols; Myth and reality; Patterns in Comparative Religion; Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy; The Myth of Eternal Return; The Sacred and the Profane; and Aspects of Myth. By Rudolf Otto, the important The Idea of the Holy. And by Mary Douglas, the awesome Purity and Danger. These and other authors try to mediate between what people feel as "spirituality" and the  "translation" of that feeling into culture in the form of religion and ritual. Religion and ritual are the cultural manifestation of our feelings and ideas of the sacred, while what we call "myth" is its incarnation into narrative. Of course, hymns are the ritualization of the mythical stories that give structure to the sacred.

Maybe culture is the material manifestation of all human concerns, of our dreams and our intuitions of phenomena that we cannot completely grasp. Through culture the peculiarities of each human group become manifest in concrete material ways, whether it be the gesture of religious ritual or the verbalized concepts as to what the universe is and what we humans are.

As you see, dear Barbara, I am just adding to your comment. I think we share a similar idea of culture. It is always a pleasure to read your thoughts. You are very generous in sharing them here.

Warm regards, Lilliana