One of the first results listed after a search for "Shakespeare" on YouTube is a video titled A Small Rewrite. Once Shakespeare's dominance in the eighteenth century was no longer debated, his "main movement" shifted through the "cultural milieu." The effects that I will examine from the video analyzes will mainly deal with what is referred to as Shakespeare's cultural capital.
Shakespeare's cultural capital is, simply put, the result of the overall "accumulated history" that associates what we recognize as Shakespeare and what that means to us. Cultural capital is fostered by the exchange of knowledge that the social world taps into, and by extension, Shakespeare's cultural capital is suited to this purpose. The difference is that Shakespeare's cultural capital is measured by its size and transmission, which I interpret as the.
In this thesis I will examine the effect that publication and appropriation on the video-sharing site YouTube has on Shakespeare's cultural capital.
Stewart conveys to his audience by questioning the validity of the letter "B", and how it reflects Shakespeare's cultural capital. It is in this way that challenging the simple validity of the letter "B" takes on a deeper Shakespearean meaning. Although Sesame Street is a successful television show in its own right, it cannot be said that it is truly about the people.
What is actually happening to Shakespeare's cultural capital in this video “is not 'making sense' of this literary artifact,” nor is it destroying anything that is Shakespeare (Hedrick Reynolds, ed. 7). If we can rely on "high culture concepts" such as the value of an independent mind and education, then it is safe to assume that we can rely on Shakespeare's cultural capital.
Chapter 2
Shakespeare's cultural purchasing power can be used to generate more of the same or, alternatively, financial gains. Many scholars view Shakespeare's lending to kitsch, popular media, or styles and genres outside of academia as a violation of Shakespeare's proper place in literary culture. Shakespeare as high art and believing that it should only be treated as such, they see the mishandling of Shakespeare as a “fear [of] popular culture crowding out knowledge of the artistic traditions of the past” (Lanier, Modern Popular Culture 48).
The word misbehavior does not necessarily describe offensive intent, but, as Donald Hendrick and Bryan Reynolds have described it as "misappropriation," it is more a "creative alteration" of someone who "takes [Shakespeare's] value" and attributes it to another. use (7). On the one hand, there is the possibility of exploiting Shakespeare's cultural capital on the basis that it can somehow translate into financial benefit (economic capital) for the people selling the popcorn. The highlighted point draws attention to the fact that the part of Shakespeare used is unimportant.
What is gained from the use of Shakespeare does not arise from the text itself or from some value inherent in the Shakespeare being read. What we have instead is a use of Shakespeare from the point of view that it will benefit the advertisement as an "exemplar(s) of Shakespeare's cultural authority", which gives the extra "literary power and depth" to the simple video advertisement ( Lanier, Modern Popular Culture. 53). In fact, “the process of reinvention that gave us Shakespeare is complex, and certainly not.
What has captured people's attention has shaped what we know and inspired what has been created or changed, illustrating “Shakespeare's extraordinary cultural [capital] as a social construction, not a natural state” (Lanier, Modern Popular Culture 21). Such divisions in the classification of art and culture, such as kitsch, become “principles” or models, translated from our social life, or from the way we constructed “the image of the social world” (Bourdieu, Forms 471). Shakespeare's cultural capital, but rather to use it as mere entertainment for the people this company is advertising to.
Chapter 3
We continue to teach Shakespeare because of our high respect for literature and the art of theatre, but also because it is a marketable product. The appropriateness of the homage is evident when Atkinson quips, "Oh, look, here comes Othello, talking utter nonsense as usual." The difference between someone who appreciates Shakespeare's use of prose and verse and someone who shares Atkinson's opinion is apparently not always a lack of education or understanding of the "crap" Shakespeare wrote, but how people relate their personal experiences to Shakespeare . Perhaps direct interest cannot be taught, but once this knowledge is acquired, the digestion of art allows it to take on a deeper meaning and.
It is the notion that YouTube is effectively "releasing" some of the tensions that have. Shakespeare the man is only part of the "figure of myth" we associate with the name Shakespeare (Lanier, Modern Popular Culture 112). The association we have with Shakespeare is partly the author himself, but it is mostly a result of people's recognition of the name because of the cultural capital it has accumulated.
We have made Shakespeare into what we want him to represent, which does not necessarily admit that he possessed all the genius we value in life. How we associate the credit given to something with significant cultural power has a profound effect on our perception of art and how that understanding reflects the accessibility of art specifically. This concept is a way to understand how people relate to Shakespeare and form their perception of Shakespeare's idea.
Maybe we laugh because we like to see someone else put Shakespeare in his place, maybe we laugh because it's ridiculous to say that Shakespeare didn't really write his plays, but whatever the reason, I think the end is the same. By achieving a sense of closeness that is prevented by the gap in our life periods, we gain a sense of ownership over the material. The point is that if Shakespeare truly belongs to both the low and low cultural classes, then there must be a mixing of the two somewhere.
Chapter 4
I think it is wrong to assume that videos colored by a hint of postmodern pastiche influence negate Shakespeare's cultural capital for viewers if they are made with a specific audience in mind. Shakespeare's ability to reach people, integral to his perceived ubiquity, was the main motivation for Meskimen's impression video. The use of Shakespeare's language has long been a weapon of critics, both highbrow and lowbrow.
In fact, Shakespeare's language is probably the single most polarizing point that lies in contemporary interest. Since language manipulation is a major vehicle of rap music, we need to explore what this video does by exploiting Shakespeare's language. There is a group called the Reduced Shakespeare Company that performs Shakespeare's Othello as a rap on YouTube.
Caesar may soon serve other purposes, preserving and expanding the language of Shakespeare's reach into youth culture. Ideally, audiences will see Shakespeare's rap appropriations from different perspectives to see how rich the quality can be. It seems intuitive to Shakespeare that they will have access to something that is easier to digest than Shakespeare's original works.
Shakespearean rap may be the ultimate use of Shakespearean cultural capital because it is singularly dependent on what Shakespeare means in the minds of listeners for its support. Youth culture is at the forefront of the continuation of Shakespeare's cultural capital, as well as a large market for industry. But "like so much of youth culture, Shakespeare's presence in it remains paradoxical" (Hulbert, . Wetmore, York 222).
Chapter 5
What, what, what are you doing?!” Shakespeare's authority over his creation is challenged by stopping the action that is the essence of these plays. If Sassy Gay Friend can intervene and change the entire course of the play, then Shakespeare's word is suddenly inconclusive and stripped of the power and credit conferred by his cultural capital. In other words, the “Shakespeare” implemented in these videos needs Shakespeare as an author to some extent in order to exist.
The meaning we give to characters like Juliet stems from what "Shakespeare" means to us as a whole. The Sassy Gay Friend video is indicative of the extent of the shift from the beliefs of the eighteenth century to now regarding Shakespeare's authority as the author. The Sassy Gay Friend is a device set up to make the viewer question Shakespeare's character development by placing us close to the women themselves.
If SGF prevents these actions from happening, he will destroy everything Julia stands for, as well as Shakespeare's authority as an author. Thus, the “false intimacy of being in the know” from which SGF operates actually only makes Shakespeare “feel fake” (Miller 77). YouTube's treatment of Shakespeare has provided an effective model for the unlimited access to cultural capital available to people.
The idea that an "authentic Shakespeare" exists, whether in relation to the author himself or the works themselves, is ultimately the result of an ever-evolving cultural capital (Lanier, Modern Popular Culture 19). A primary source used to size audiences, get feedback and understand all the knowledge and effort that goes into creating a video that accesses Shakespeare's cultural capital, YouTube is a truly unique tool for tracking Shakespeare's development. My point is that these approaches do not exist as separate entities in terms of their approach to understanding and maintaining Shakespeare's cultural capital;.
Taylor traces Shakespeare's movement from the eighteenth century to the present, treating the two extremes as not separate cases, but two parts of the larger whole of Shakespeare's evolution. 34; Sassy Gay Friend Saves the Day!: How Ophelia, Desdemona, and Juliet Escaped their Plays « Transmediaal Shakespeare.» Transmedial.
