By: Maya Douglas
“The Prisoners Have Been Released From Cultural Bondage” is a graph that demonstrates the functions of deinstitutionalization within the arts. In particular, there was one row that resonated with me in particular. It was the one referencing how “People binge on movies and TV shows, but…” “Ratings for the Oscars and other award shows have collapsed” (Gioia). Although the Oscars have been already declining for the past decade, there is a difference between the act of watching the movie and watching actors/filmmakers win awards for the film. In Gioia’s article “The Most Dangerous Thing in Culture Right Now is Beauty,” Gioia covers the causes and effects within the cultural hierarchy that impact the institutionalization of the performing arts. Gioia notes how, “They want a direct, unmediated relationship with the creative work” (Gioia). Gioia is referring to the viewers, the people who watch television. And that is the main reason why the ratings for the Oscars have collapsed as it does not allow the viewers to have a direct relationship with the work compared to Netflix, Hulu, and/or HBO Max. The Oscars are more of a fashion show putting all the hard work on display, but nothing more than that. It’s common for individuals to watch television for the component of watching television rather than the behind-the-scenes of the actual television. It is not necessarily a good or bad trend. For the Oscars, it would be a considerably bad trend. But for platforms that display the shows and movies that people like, it would be a very good trend. Especially in the capitalistic society that we live in, the use of the platforms brings in more revenue because of the subscriptions required to use them. I think that because of this trend, the ratings for the Oscars will continue to decline over the next decade, and the amount of people who binge-watch TV shows and movies will only increase. This increase is mainly because of accessibility and if one doesn’t have cable television, how could they watch the Oscars? But with these platforms that offer financial plans and accessibility regardless of location, who would say no to that? The other day I used Lyft to travel and after my trip, I got a notification that because of this ride, I have access to one free month of Hulu. The way Hulu advertised their product is appealing as it helps viewers save and watch their favorite shows/movies simultaneously. And with these offers, they attract a greater quantity of individuals who utilize it. Once you get started it is hard to stop and that is coming from an avid binge-watcher. These platforms also make it more accessible as the prices of the subscriptions can range to meet an individual’s needs. As well as family plans which attract an even larger audience. In the long run, “the prisoners will not be released from the cultural bondage,” that is faced within media platforms, as it started a few decades ago and has only continued. In the “These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America” by Ashley Lutz, it contains an infographic created by Jason at Frugal Dad that represents how confined the media has become. On the infographic, there is a representation that notes how “The Big Six control 70% of your cable” and “3,762 businesses contribute 30%” (Lutz). With this being said, if multiple media platforms are owned by a total of six companies, what’s to say that this pattern of consolidation won’t continue. The real question to ask would be, will the Oscars still exist in a few decades because of these patterns? Or will this event just become one of many?
I love how you were able to argue both sides about how it’s negatively affecting the Oscars, but there are positives to it as well. The statistics that you were able to bring in helped me visualize how crazy it is that only a few companies have control over what is shown to the world. I’m curious to see how this develops and was happy to read your take on this issue!