BlogLooking to Barthes for Context and Meaning
Last week, my thesis adviser recommended that I consider cultural studies as an analytic framework for helping me to articulate some of my thoughts on this project. More specifically, it was recommended that I refer back to Roland Barthes and his work in Mythologies. In re-reading “Myth Today,” Barthes begins by explaining that “since myth is a type of speech, everything can be a myth provided it is conveyed by a discourse” (109).
What I’ve learned so far in my research is that there is a huge disconnect between those who believe that public access television is like YouTube and those who believe the two are totally different. As I re-read Barthes, it becomes clear to me that at some point over the past 30 years a myth was created about public access television that still exists today.
With the growing popularity of YouTube this myth has resurfaced once again. What I hope to do with this project is explore the discourse surrounding the myth of public access television and how it has collided with the participatory web. As Barthes writes
We reach here the very principle of myth: it transforms history into nature . . . what causes mythical speech to be uttered is perfectly explicit, but it is immediately frozen into something natural; it is not read as a motive, but as a reason. (129)
Citation: Barthes, R. (1972). Mythologies. New York: Hill and Wang.
Posted in Community Media in Transition, Internet, PEGTV, Public Access TV, YouTube |
February 8th, 2008 at 7:43 am
I am interested to follow this particular thread. My own experiences have led me to believe there is a mythology that pervades small time television stations and that their highest aspiration is to emulate the broadcasters.
It seems that the Youtube / Access discussion delves into a different mythology. Have you come to articulate what that is?
February 8th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Thanks for your comment, Jason.
I’m beginning to focus on how early media coverage and films like “Wayne’s World” helped create a divide between those with direct experience (i.e., community media producers) and those with indirect experience (i.e., community media viewers) during the first 25 years of public access.
What I hope to learn from this project is how this divide is playing out today. More specifically, I hope to show how recent media coverage of YouTube has collided with a popular perception - held by community media viewers, not practitioners - of public access television.