Analytical Response Essay

Ignorance?

In Paul Goodman's "The Chance for Popular Culture", he claims that culture and art are mass-produced and media-induced attractions, never quite filling and leaving people with an empty feeling inside which creates a desire for even more unfulfilling art. He suggests, "People are excessively hungry for feeling, for stimulation of torpid routine, for entertainment in boredom, for cathartic release of dammed-up emotional tensions etc." (Goodman). He writes of an endless cycle of attaining a sliver of enjoyment out of an "art" and then craving more as it does not fill the emptiness inside.

According to Paul Goodman, "An art-hungry public is not unfeeling; in fact the Americans are too vulnerable because of their passivity (and ignorance), so that small novelties effect crazes and fads" (Goodman). Fads are the absolute best. It's amazing how quickly they circle; I remember the 80's being, well the 80's; high heels and skinny jeans, big hair and flashy make-up, plaid shirts and leggings. I would grow frustrated with french-rolling my pants just right and trying to control my wayward hair and achieve full hair height with teasing. It's made its return in 2010 and I laugh out loud seeing kids looking just as I looked in my formative years. I look at the prior decade fondly and am decidedly thrilled to hear an 80's song I was desperately tired of after playing it until my cassette warped.

Paul Goodman also states that there is too much "art", and despite that, Americans are still hungry for more. I agree that art in most aspects is mass-produced. Magazines that tell us what to read, watch, do and look like spill-over racks at every grocery store. Radio stations play the popular songs over and over until it's burned into the audiences' brains. Movies with the same theme over-populate our theatres. Millions of dollars are spent at the theatres. Trailers shown in thirty-second increments become the biggest inducement to the American public to see the newest and best. Many times I have walked out at the end of a movie thinking I must have seen a thousand movies just like it. I now take that into consideration before I go to the theatres, routinely waiting for the DVD release.

Television with its reality shows, talk shows, Hollywood gossip news giving fifteen minutes of fame for people like the Octo-mom confirms Paul Goodman's statement, "he cannot fail to see that the stupid and preposterous are rewarded" (Goodman). It amazes me that people with no talent and no self-worth become famous and are on the same level next to hard-working and dedicated artists. Media-induced "news" of celebrity scandals, hook-ups and break-ups have created an obsessive fascination by many of the American public.

In this, the twenty-first century, the United States is overcome with excess. Anything can be found with the power of internet. The available opportunities can be overwhelming. With so much available to everyone, sometimes appreciation can be lost for simple as well as extravagant things. Many become contented with life and move along in that path never seeking outside of the realm of their comfort. And there are those who are daredevils, adrenaline rush junkies always looking for the next inspiration.

As I researched the era in which the essay was first published I became continually more puzzled as to the cause of Paul Goodman's dissatisfaction. I recognize names, famous television and radio shows, music, dances and movies. It looks to me that the 1940's may have been the start of the "greats." Movies like Casablanca and Fantasia were made; dances emerged such as the jitterbug, a lively toe-tapping dance; patriotism rang through America and pregnant women proudly showed off their protruded stomachs with drawings of "Kilroy was here" (Goodwin). Rhythm and blues were introduced with names that ring through to this decade such as Ella Fitzgerald and Billie Holiday. In the 1940s, radio was what television is to us today. It was a lifeline of the American public, broadcasting news, music and entertainment. Television became more popular after the war ended and by 1951, 17 million television sets had been sold (Goodwin).

The article's tone conveys an embittered Paul Goodman who seems to feel his good work is going to waste as no one appreciates it, other than a small following of like-minded folks. He apparently does not understand that while he may have his pleasures, others may not be of the same taste. I believe that everyone has their own taste. I don't think he's fair to the culture in passing judgment on everyone with his generalizations. There are always going to be "Stepford" wives or drones of some kind, followers and not leaders. However I do not agree that our chance of having culture is based on whether or not we agree with Paul Goodman.

In "The Radical Individualism of Paul Goodman", Richard Wall (referring to Paul Goodman) writes, "he was the prototypical starving artist, discouraged and marginalized, only just making ends meet with his poetry, his fiction and his essays." (Wall) Artists will always suffer for their work. Hence the cliché of the "suffering artist." Some artists will be lost in the shuffle while others will rise to fame as I scratch my head wondering if that's really supposed to be considered "art." How many times have you been in a museum trying to figure out what a painting is? The appreciation of true art; museums, places of interest, historical places, can sometimes lose its allure when instead a family can spend a week at a waterpark, amusement park or other larger-than-life attraction.

For an intellectual well-respected and renowned man in his circles I am surprised by Paul Goodman's generalizations in regards to culture and the arts. Intelligence includes the ability to see and appreciate that people have different tastes. I also think that he could have reached countless more people without being so abrasive and wordy. It is a more effective method of getting the point across directly and in a way people can understand. I attempted to read more of Paul Goodman's work and was as lost as I would be if I was blindfolded and dropped off in the middle of nowhere.

I think Paul Goodman was very narrow-minded and short-sighted. The essay shows a complete lack of appreciation for what America and the rest of the world was recovering from, viewing horrific war images and absorbing terrifying news for years. The entire world was sucked dry for most of the early 1940's from World War II. According to Sue Goodwin in American Culture History 1940-1949, "To show the raw emotions, art became more abstract, was chaotic and shocking in an attempt to maintain humanity in the face of insanity" (Goodwin). Paul Goodman made good points in regards to mass production art, but I feel most of the essay is about his angst of being a starving artist; a written lashing of the culture that did not heartily accept his work.

Works Cited

Goodman, Paul. "The Chance for Popular Culture." Essay (1949): 79-87.

Goodwin, Sue. Lone Star College - Kingwood. 9 7 1999. 3 3 2010 <http://kclibrary.lonestar.edu/decade40.html>.

Wall, Richard. LewRockwell.com. 28 02 2003. 3 3 2010 <http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/wall10.html>.