Comunicar 39-ingles - Revista Comunicar

More documents

Recommendations

Info

190Comunicar, 39, XX, 20123.2.3. The formula for successThese programmes establish a dialectic/tensionbetween talent and popularity as the foundations ofprofessional success (in this case of a singer/dancer). Itis in the contest rules where these tensions are shownmost clearly, specifically in the power shared by thejudges/teachers (guarantors of talent) and the viewers(indications of popularity).In «OT» there is a self-conscious and reflexive discourseon this dialectic, given that the programme’srule design facilitates conflict between these twopoles. The decision about the contestant’s future isshared by four groups of characters who use differentcriteria: the judges, the teachers, the contestants andthe viewers. Consequently, disagreements are constantlyarising between them. Therefore, although thecharacteristics that identify a good singer seem clear(be in tune, interpret correctly, vocalise, have a uniquestyle, be versatile, have charisma), the balance thatshould be established between these is less obvious,especially in relation to the need to be competent atthe vocal level and have the «x factor» necessary forgenerating fans (which is not necessarily linked to thefirst). It is through the game rules that «OT» tips thebalance in favour of this second element: althoughmechanisms are established so that the judges and teacherscan safeguard talent, the rules give more powerto the audience, for example, through the figure of thepublic’s «favourite», who cannot be nominated by thejudges, or the system for choosing the finalists and thewinner, in which the judges have no power at all. Agood example of this is Virginia, who won «OT 2008»after overcoming numerous nominations and the explicitopposition of the teachers and some of the judges.However, in «Fama» there is an attempt to presenttalent and popularity as causal: popularity is adirect consequence of talent and work. In this programmethe teachers are also judges and have a lot ofpower (they can nominate and evict contestants),while the viewers vote to evict contestants, whichmakes it easier for the worst dancers to be eliminated.Only in the last week is all the power given to theaudience to choose their favourite dancer. However,this does not prevent disruptions and conflicts from arisingwithin the programme; an example is Paula andJandro, who reached the final thanks to the audiencevote although their dance technique was not as goodas the rest of the finalists.4. DiscussionIn «OT» and «Fama» professional success isdirectly related to public recognition, and anonymity isrepresented as a problem that needs to be solved.Therefore, fame is prescribed as a life aspiration andthe programmes legitimise the idea that «being famousappears to offer enormous material, economic, socialand psychic rewards» and that stars are at the «centre»of things, so that «if you are not famous then you existat the periphery of the power networks that circulatein and through the popular media» (Holmes &Redmond, 2006: 2).The two programmes tell the story of the metamorphosisof ordinary young people into stars, andapparently they both enter completely into the debateon the democratisation of fame implied by reality TV(Holmes, 2004a, 2004b, 2006; Bennett & Holmes,2010; Turner, 2004: 71-86). Although the traditionaldefinition of a «star» is based on a combination oftalent, hard work and luck, programmes like «BigBrother» disassociate fame from work and talent(Biressi & Nunn, 2005: 144-155). However, «Fama»and «OT» are based on this conventional definitionand this is, perhaps, one of the reasons behind thegreat acceptance of this format (Cáceres, 2002).The fact that the reality TV shows analysed adoptthe traditional definition of fame leads us to identifytwo more values. First, the representation of a meritocraticsociety, in which there is an equal access toopportunities but an unequal result in function oftalent and effort. That is, anyone, thanks to luck, talentand hard work, can be a star, but at the same time theneed to have talent limits the possibilities of success(Marshall, 1997: 79-94). Second (and linked to themeritocracy), stars are paradigms of the individualismon which capitalist societies are based: they are individualswith power and freedom who have arrived towhere their talent and work has taken them independentlyof their origins.However, in «OT» and «Fama» this emphasis onmeritocracy and individualism is made compatiblewith the subordination of the participants: they havelittle power within the plot (remember that they arestill not «heroes») and a strong inequality is establishedbetween them and the other characters of the programme(teachers, judges and viewers). In conclusion,these programmes do not value the individual entrepreneuras much as the «good worker» who is capableof adapting without complaining to the demands of achanging work environment, which calls for constantupdating and reinvention (Ouellette & Hay, 2008: 99-133). Therefore, although the programmes promotethe idea that each participant needs the «x factor»which marks them out from the rest, their objective isto model the contestants. Therefore, these program-© ISSN: 1134-3478 • e-ISSN: 1988-3293• Pages 185-192
191mes enter the debate on authenticity and artifice thathangs over the concept of stardom (Marshall, 1997:150-184; Gamson, 1994: 40-54).In fact, both «OT» and «Fama» are complex andcontradictory texts. On one hand, they convey andlegitimise a naïve definition of fame: stars as uniqueindividuals, chosen by the public for their talent andeffort. And on the other hand, they reveal the mechanismsinvolved in the manufacture of fame (followingthe current trend in the media identified by Gamson,1994: 40-54). Thus, these programmes allow a distancedreading of fame and its generation process and,at the same time, they can create stars.In relation to work, as well as being an opportunityfor social mobility (which is also related to fame), workis represented as a means to self-fulfilment, and theprogrammes suggest that to be successful you mustdevote all your energy and sacrifice your personal life.In fact, the two programmes analysed propose a«return to authority», where discipline is the best wayof achieving professional goals 11 . Although the emphasison effort and discipline can be viewed positively,we can also identify a danger: the approach to workprescribed is that of the romantic ideal of the artist,which «provides an ideal rationale for encouraginglabour without compensation» (Hendershot, 2009:249-250), so that «the passion of work is presented assubstitute for material compensation, security, pensionplans, and so on» (Ouellette & Hay, 2008: 130) 12 .Finally, in both programmes analysed, successdoes not only depend on talent and effort, it is also aquestion of appearances (physical appearance and theway of dressing and speaking). Therefore, we canrelate «OT» and «Fama» to the concept of «phantasmagoriclabour» (Sternberg, 1998), that is, the importanceof appearances in the current work environmentand the need to apply «branding» strategies to individuals(Ouellette & Hay, 2008: 99-13; Hearn, 2006).The two programmes analysed go into this aspect indepth: the participants are stars because they look likestars. This emphasis on the construction of a marketableimage is directly related to the adaptability of the«good worker» mentioned above: it is in the area ofappearances where this continual renewal can takeplace more easily.In summary, «OT» and «Fama» reveal some of thetensions involved in the current work market. First,work is represented as a form of personal fulfilmentand a way of moving up the socioeconomic ladder,and fame is a measure of success and a life aspiration.Second, these programmes convey a meritocraticvision of society in which each individual’s destiny isdetermined by their talent and effort; however, theyalso advocate the importance of constructing an imagethat could compensate for the lack of these. Finally,they define obedience and adaptability as desirablequalities in the workplace, while at the same time promotingthe pursuit of uniqueness and individuality.Notes1 Reality TV shows that combine the features of documentaries, TVseries and contests. The subgenre was born at the end of the 90swith «Expedition: Robinson» (Sweden, SVT, 1997) and «BigBrother» (Netherlands, Veronica, 1999).2 The analysis protocol can be consulted in Oliva (2010: 183-191).3 The model viewer is the viewer planned and created by the text:«A text is a product whose interpretation should form a part of itsown generative mechanism: to generate a text means applying astrategy that includes the forecasts of the movements of the other»(Eco, 1981: 79). Obviously, an empirical viewer could interpret atext in different ways to the one proposed, but this type of interpretationis not considered in the present study.4 «OT 2008»: weekly show 8 (03.06.2008), 11 (24.06.2008) andfinal show (22.07.2008). «OT 2009»: «El casting» (19.04.2009 and26.04.2009), weekly show 0 (29.04.2009), 1 (06.05.2009) and thedaily summaries of the third week (14.05.2009-20.05.2009). Therest of the weekly shows of the two editions have also been viewed.5 Audition episodes: Madrid (26.12.2007), Valencia (01.01.2008)and Final audition (06.01.2008). Daily programmes: week 1-2(07.01.2008-16.01.2008); week 9-10 (05.03.2008-11.03.2008)and the last week (21.04.2008-25.04.2008). Weekly shows: show2 (30.03.2008), semifinal (27.04.2008) and final (28.04.2008).The rest of the shows of the first season have also been viewed.6 Although only young people can participate in these programmes,the audition episodes include adult applicants.7 The new couples that join the programme cannot keep up withthe imposed rhythm and are eliminated, with few exceptions, aweek after entering the programme.8 See Cáceres (2002), an article that analyses «OT» as the story ofa «quest».9 It is important to remember that the present analysis is confined tothe limits of the text, and does not analyse the effects the programmeshave in the real world (that is, fame as the effect of media representation).10 Part of the importance and significance of this set is constructedby the long path the contestants in the auditions need to follow,which portrays the story of the journey from anonymity (invisibility)to popularity (visibility).11 The legitimation of authority and discipline is also a fundamentalaspect of other contemporary reality TV shows like «Supernanny»,«Hermano Mayor», «Ajuste de Cuentas» and «Cambio Radical».See Oliva (2010).12 This can be related to the labour exploitation allegations made byVíctor Sampedro (2002) in relation to these programmes.ReferencesARANDA, D. & DE FELIPE, F. (2006). Guión audiovisual. Barcelona:UOC.ASLAMA, M. & PANTTI, M. (2006). Talking Alone. Reality TV,Emotions and Authenticity. European Journal of Cultural Studies,9(2), 167-184.BENNETT, J. & HOLMES, S. (2010). The «Place» of Television inCelebrity Studies. Celebrity Studies, 1, 1, 65-80.Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012© ISSN: 1134-3478 • e-ISSN: 1988-3293• Pages 185-192
Page 2 and 3:
© COMUNICAR, 39; XXLATIN AMERICAN
Page 4 and 5:
4Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012C O N T E N
Page 6 and 7:
6Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012Submission
Page 8 and 9:
8Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012EditorialTh
Page 10 and 11:
10Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012Introducti
Page 12 and 13:
12Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012All these
Page 14 and 15:
14Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012civic part
Page 16 and 17:
16Comunicar, 39, XX, 20121. Introdu
Page 18 and 19:
18Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012ponsible u
Page 20 and 21:
20Comunicar, 39, XX, 20122.3.3. Cas
Page 22 and 23:
22Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012best pract
Page 24 and 25:
24Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012© ISSN: 1
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
28Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012tors for a
Page 30 and 31:
30Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012This compe
Page 32 and 33:
32Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012Croce, 200
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
38Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012the approp
Page 40 and 41:
40Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012Table 3: I
Page 42 and 43:
42Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012racy could
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
48Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012data, the
Page 50 and 51:
50Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012habits of
Page 52 and 53:
52Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012Acknowledg
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
56Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012and the ne
Page 58 and 59:
58Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012interest i
Page 60 and 61:
60Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012land, medi
Page 62 and 63:
62Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012more than
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
68Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012Internet.
Page 70 and 71:
70Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012basic feat
Page 72 and 73:
72Comunicar, 35, XVIII, 2010(www.cy
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
76Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012country an
Page 78 and 79:
78Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012was precis
Page 80 and 81:
80Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012end, not a
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
84Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012media thro
Page 86 and 87:
86Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012tegies for
Page 88 and 89:
88Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012researcher
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
92Comunicar, 39, XX, 20121. The imp
Page 94 and 95:
94Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012literacy i
Page 96 and 97:
96Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012Finally, t
Page 98 and 99:
98Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012them. The
Page 100 and 101:
100Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012© ISSN:
Page 102 and 103:
102Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012«What ma
Page 104 and 105:
104Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012categoriz
Page 106 and 107:
106Comunicar, 39, XX, 20121) Being
Page 108 and 109:
108Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012aprendiza
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
112Comunicar, 39, XX, 20121. Introd
Page 114 and 115:
114Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012Antena3,
Page 116 and 117:
116Comunicar, 39, XX, 201224 to 29
Page 118 and 119:
118Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012Opera. Lo
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
122Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012hypertext
Page 124 and 125:
124Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012Figure 1.
Page 126 and 127:
126Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012needs, gr
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
132Comunicar, 39, XX, 20121999; Sac
Page 134 and 135:
134Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012• Analy
Page 136 and 137:
136Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012young; pa
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141: 140Comunicar, 39, XX, 20121. Introd
Page 142 and 143: 142Comunicar, 39, XX, 20121, and co
Page 144 and 145: 144Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012Figure 5.
Page 146 and 147: 146Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012can be de
Page 148 and 149: 148Comunicar, 39, XX, 20129.6. Focu
Page 150 and 151: 150Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012© ISSN:
Page 154 and 155: 154Comunicar, 39, XX, 20122010), sp
Page 156 and 157: 156Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012media use
Page 158 and 159: 158Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012QAYYUM, M
Page 162 and 163: 162Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012variety o
Page 164 and 165: 164Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012Figure 1.
Page 166 and 167: 166Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012contribut
Page 172 and 173: 172Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012meanings:
Page 174 and 175: 174Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012This comp
Page 176 and 177: 176Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012Reference
Page 180 and 181: 180Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012eating ha
Page 182 and 183: 182Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012shows tha
Page 188 and 189: 188Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012famous).
Page 192 and 193: 192Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012BIRESSI,
Page 196 and 197: 196Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012Table 1.
Page 198 and 199: 198Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012Graph 3.
Page 200 and 201: 200Comunicar, 39, XX, 2012In one of
show all

Comunicar 39-ingles - Revista Comunicar

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?