pop culture, as written by "minnie mouse bag" girl <3

I totally admit I’m obsessed with Disney, even though I’ve (supposedly) grown-up. It's my school bag, a significant portion of my DVD collection, and my username on this bog, my e-mail and slowly eating up wall space in my apartment. And it's not just limited to Disney. It's Marilyn Monroe, Audrey Hepburn, fashion magazines, Mae West, James Dean, Marlene Dietrich, Liza Minnelli and even this odd calendar devoted to ads from the '50s (I thought it was cute) are part of the pop-stew that is part of me. I admit I more then "engage" in pop culture. I might even be considered an "addict" by some (though not myself). My friends make fun of me for it.

"What fashion magazine is it this time, Bella?” "Bella knows everything about 'The Lion King'"; "Can you really quote 'Cabaret'?"

And that brings me to the first part of the question on #pgs. 69-70 If something is or becomes "popular", does that necessarily mean that it has diminished "meaning" or "value"? I would say no. So something's popular? So what? Quentin Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction" was made on credit cards and-before becoming enormously popular-almost drove made him bankrupt. But is Pulp Fiction's overall "value" or "meaning" diminished? No. Despite the overt violence, "Pulp Fiction" isn't just a cheesy, blockbuster with no substance or plot. It's just fun. Everything fun doesn't have to be empty calories.
Perhaps, that's why people liked it so much. And that's another reason why I'd argue that popularity doesn't diminish value or meaning, as we've pointed out before in class who assigns meaning? Or value?
Another example: "Brokeback Mountain" was #1 at the box-office and up (though, ultimately, unfairly snubbed) for picture of the year, certainly it was "popular" and it has become a part of pop culture (mainly because it is one a handful of mainstream queer films that was heavily advertised and the message made clear to straights) but I, and everyone else in the theater, cried when I saw it. The beauty and message-or "meaning"/"value"- of that film wasn't negated at all by being popular.
This is why it's so frustrating to hear so-called high culture "experts" (read snobs), stick their noses up at everything pop culture, because just because it isn't in some dusty book written a thousands of years ago by some guy I can't even understand anymore doesn't mean it isn't valuable in some way (not knocking books, I like to read).
Let's switch to music. Ever increasingly more and more musicians (via Myspace and the internet in general) are becoming rapidly popular faster. That's good in some ways good and bad for various reasons, but what has finally stopped-to a certain extent- is people calling previously unknown acts "selling out" because they've gained some notoriety, mainly because so many bands have garnered new fans in, what is seen as, an organic/grassroots way. The goal of all musicians (all artists) is to live off what they do and in order to do that you have to make money off of what you do. Nothing's completely altruistic. The question is how to go about this?
As shown in previous chapters, artists are never in complete control of meanings or the way their art is received. Supposedly, the misunderstanding of his art and image was the reason Kurt Cobain killed himself and, one, I would suffice to say continues to be misused. It's one of the pitfalls of putting art out there for the public to see and certainly a causality of being popular.
The best way for an artist to go about being popular is to become popular doing what you already do, versus trying to appeal to the masses (which, Ironically, almost never works anyway). That's the best way, I’d say, to distinguish between high and low culture. If it's well-put together in an unique or creative way then it's more "high" culture or enjoyable versus just cheaply slapping together something quickly and uninspiring.
But it's all so arbitrary, there are high-culture snoots that'd claim that anyone who watches Marilyn Monroe films or enjoys Madonna is "low culture" or "low class" in some way but those people miss the deeper meanings that can be found in (some) forms of pop culture.
Even in Pop culture there is a distinct difference between higher quality things versus pure trash (Some like it Hot! vs. Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo) and (most) people can tell the difference between the two, completely throwing out the argument that people are complete subjects to mass culture.