The Great Escape of Culture

 

The Great Escape

Of Culture

            Emerging from a period when popular culture increasingly reflected collective anxieties about power and resistance, the 1963 film The Great Escape dramatizes a mass escape by Allied prisoners of war from Stalag Luft III, a German POW camp designed to be escape-proof. Rather than celebrating individual heroism, the film emphasizes collective resistance—highlighting ingenuity, cooperation, and shared sacrifice under oppression. In this way, The Great Escape operates as a metaphor for much of what we have explored this semester, particularly the ways systems of control are challenged through solidarity and communication. Coincidentally, the film’s themes align closely with this week’s readings, making its relevance feel both timely and instructive.

            The Great Escape can be understood as more than a war film; it offers a compelling way to connect key ideas from the Frankfurt School, particularly those surrounding power, resistance, and life under oppressive systems. The film focused on themes, not just plot visions into critical theory, power, and resistance.

          Read through the lens of the Frankfurt School, especially Theodor Adorno, The Great Escape reveals the tension between false freedom and real liberation. The prisoners’ humor and ingenuity offer moments of relief. Still, those moments exist inside a system designed to control them, echoing Adorno’s concern that freedom under oppression is often only symbolic. Even so, their refusal to mentally surrender shows that dignity and meaning can survive, even when escape does not.

                Max Horkheimer warned that instrumental reason- logic focused only on efficiency and control- turns humans into objects. The POW camp is the perfect example of bureaucratic rationality.

            Walter Benjamin argued that history should be read through the lens of the defeated, not the victors. There is a haunting moment in the film with the execution of 50 escapees, signaling that resistance is costly, progress is not guaranteed.

Emphasizing collective action over individual heroism, The Great Escape shows how solidarity, communication, and shared sacrifice can quietly push back against systems of control. Viewed through the lens of the Frankfurt School—especially Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, and Walter Benjamin—the film made me think differently about what freedom really looks like when it’s constrained. As a piece of popular culture, it has endured because it taps into something we still recognize: the desire to resist being reduced to a number or a role. Is freedom found in escape itself, or in the refusal to surrender one’s humanity? When does efficiency turn into dehumanization? And is resistance still meaningful when the cost is so high? Ultimately, The Great Escape suggests that even when physical freedom is denied, dignity and moral resistance can still endure.

Quiet Luxury: When Wealth Speaks Softly but Still Wants to Be Heard

Every time I scroll through TikTok or Instagram short videos, I notice a change in how luxury is communicated. Obvious designer brand logos, flashy prints, and loud brand names have been noticeably replaced by aesthetic neutral interiors and clean silhouettes, and what it's called "old money" aesthetic. 

 

      

    When this trend started, it sounded like that it's against materialism. However, after seeing more of what it is about you notice that quiet luxury or what it's called "Old Money" is also signaling wealth, but more subtle form of it. 

    Old Money works as a form of symbolic communication. Rather than showing wealth through recognizable logos and obvious designer brand names, it relies on signals that only specific audiences can notice. Knowing which "simple" coat costs thousands of dollars or which neutral handbags signals requires insider knowledge. In this way, old money communicates status at the same time maintains the appearance of effortlessness. 

   Social media made this process clear. Influencers usually show quiet luxury through "Outfit of the day" videos and "day in my life" short reels, or regular home tour posts. These posts present wealth as natural, tasteful and simple rather than excessive. From a communication perspective, this is an example of media framing: luxury is reframed from something loud into something refined and morally superior. The idea implies that real wealth does not need to prove itself, yet it still relies on a specific audience to recognize it.

  Quiet luxury treats boundaries. because the logos and the signs are less obvious, they can exclude those who lack the cultural knowledge to interpret them. This makes this "Old Money" trend both aspirational and alienating. We as viewers may feel forced to adopt the aesthetic, even if it's too expensive for us, reinforcing class distinctions while disguising them as "good taste" or "minimalism". 

    Overall, quiet luxury proves that consumption is not only about objects, it is about communication. Even when wealth looks silent, it is still speaking through carefully curated images and platforms designed for visibility.

What Does The Art You Like Say About You?

    Does the art you enjoy automatically classify you into a category? For example, if you enjoyed Mozart over Taylor Swift, does that make you pretentious? 

     John Fisk wrote, "The challenge of highbrow texts, then, is always offered primarily within the realm of the aesthetic and any social dimension never crosses class barriers and thus never challenges the economic base of society, nor its differential distribution of power." What does Fiske mean? Let dissect what Fiske is saying. Earlier in his essay, he says, "The popular text must align itself with the tastes and concerns of its readers, not its author, if the readers are to choose it from the wide repertoire of other texts available: it must offer inviting access to the pleasures and meanings it may provoke." That is to say that the lower class values something that is practical. Works of art that are purely aesthetic, for social purposes, do not appeal to the lower classes. For instance, quoting Shakespeare is of no value to the lower class unless it can appeal to them practically. So what does Fiske believe the lower class values? Fiske suggests the "proletarian tastes are for artworks that are functional...family histories or help one make sense or....subordination in society." The lower classes want functionality. 

    But why does the lower class want functionality? Why can they not enjoy the high-brow art? Fiske argues, "The ‘difficulty’ of highbrow texts functions less to ensure or measure the ‘quality’ of the text itself and more as a social turnstyle: it works to exclude those who have not the cultural competence." In other words, Fiske is saying that the purpose of highbrow text is to keep the lower class out. For one to enjoy Shakespeare, one is required to be within a system that is conducive to understanding Shakespeare. That system is not built on functionality, but is self-contained. A person does not need to know Shakespeare in order to survive; therefore, it is a luxury that exhibits itself in class divide. Again, Fiske argues that lower-class art "should be functional and thus should be of use in meeting the challenges of which their daily lives are comprised." In short, Fiske believes the lower class does not, or cannot, find enjoyment in certain types of art. 

    What if one were to guide the lower class in understanding highbrow text? Fiske argues against Leavis, who believed that a person could be refined by higher art. Fiske argues, "individuals who were most likely to develop these fine sensibilities were already members of the dominant class." Simply put, those who are refined by high art, through understanding the art, are already in a dominant class. 

    Fiske ends his essay by stating that, "It is the social use of the text rather than their essential qualities that determines their 'brow' level." In other words, how the art is used within social circles is more important in determining the "brow level" than the qualities of the art. One can quote Shakespeare in lower circles, but only if it meets the functional needs of the people. 

So, does the art you enjoy make you pretentious? 

Influencers, Ideology, and Consumer Culture

You’re scrolling on Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, or even TikTok and come across an ad. If you click on the ad or even spend too long looking at it, that single ad becomes your entire feed. Have you ever experienced this before?

          I recently fell victim to this by staring at a Jawzrsize ad for a little too long. In case you haven’t heard of it, Jawzrsize is a simple jaw exercise that involves a small rubber cube. You bite down on it for a few minutes a day, and it is supposed to bring out and sharpen your natural jawline. I can't tell you the real results of this product, especially because I haven't experienced it for myself. However, I have experienced the ad firsthand and would like to focus on the advertisement strategies we all consume daily through popular culture.  

All of these ads tend to follow the same pattern. They normally start with a fit man or woman who looks happy and confident. Then it cuts to a surprising before-and-after picture of their jawline. The narrator of the ad will usually say something along the lines of, “No surgery, no complicated routines. Just a few minutes a day will get you these results,” making it seem as if these changes are simple and easy to achieve. Anyone reading or watching this ad would assume it is simply responding to a desire to improve one’s appearance. However, after going through this week’s readings and videos, I now realize that this desire for self-improvement may not be as simple as it seems.

The Frankfurt School was made up of German philosophers, sociologists, and political theorists who came together to develop Critical Theory. This theory was created to help us understand how social and political structures produce inequality and oppression. One common belief among members of this school was that the culture industry ultimately harms society. Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer specifically argued that popular culture is not driven by the public’s needs and wants, but by what the “elites” want us to consume. They believed the culture industry affects consumers’ imaginations, leading to a distorted sense of reality. The concern is that we, as consumers, can no longer tell the difference between what we actually need and what we are being told we need. This suggests that popular culture often creates problems that may not have existed in the first place.

Looking back at the Jawzrsize example, while each influencer appears unique, the messaging is nearly identical across platforms. The advertisement quickly creates a problem by targeting self-worth and personal value, reinforcing the negative ideology that to be important, attractive, or popular, one must “fix” one's jawline.

Raymond Williams of the Birmingham School believed that popular culture was not as harmful as the Frankfurt School made it out to be. Williams argued that to resist dominant ideologies, we must first understand them. This requires stepping back and questioning what we consume. Recognizing Jawzrsize not as a neutral self-care product but as a carrier of ideology allows individuals to question whose interests are truly being served. While the culture industry remains powerful, awareness creates space for agency. The product may continue to circulate widely, but its meaning is no longer fixed or uncontested.

This leads me to ask: How do we become better consumers? I don’t mean how we can watch more videos or buy more products from influencers. Rather, how can we train ourselves to recognize when the popular culture industry produces mass communication that claims to satisfy consumers but instead works to control them?

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DL1ZdpRSbLT/?igsh=eW9md3Axbzl3bTds

Mona Lisa Has a Side Hustle

Mona Lisa Has a Side Hustle

Cultural liquidation is a concept I had never heard of until recently. Rooted in the work of scholars from the Frankfurt School, the idea is that when great works of art (music, film, sculpture, and painting) are mass reproduced, they lose their "aura". In doing so, these works are stripped of their ability to offer alternate realities or challenge the consumers' way of thinking. 

Historically, many significant works of are were created as refusals of the status quo. They functioned as tools for resistance against prevailing powers, dominant ideologies, and social systems. When these same works are mas replicated and commercialized, particularly through advertising as shown in the videos here, we have to ask: are we stripping them of their ability to inspire?   

When art is given a fixed, commercial meaning, as it is in these ads, I would argue that it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to look past the assigned repurpose. While the pieces may still be recognizable, their original intent is diluted. The aura that once invited interpretation and reflection is replaced with a clear marketing message.  

I have been fortunate to travel and experience art firsthand in many places. In France, I saw the Mona Lisa and the Venus de Milo. In Naples, Italy, the Farnese Atlas and Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel in Vatican City, alongside countless other statues, carvings, and paintings. I have also witnessed monumental works by local artists and musicians. Across all of these experiences, I cannot refute that each piece of art exudes an unreplicable aura—something that cannot be captured through reproduction. How many times have you listened to an album by a favorite artist, but when you see them perform live, it inspires you in ways you never imagined when listening on the radio or your favorite streaming app. That is part of the aura.

While these advertisements are clever and great forms of "marketing art, if you will, they ultimately dilute the incredible presence and meaning these works hold. At the same time, replication is not inherently bad. It allows those without the privilege of travel or access to museums to experience art they might never otherwise encounter. This creates tension: while reproduction increases accessibility, it also risks stripping art of its depth, power, and transformative impact. 

If art is originally meant to provoke resistance and alternate perspectives, how do these advertisements land once that meaning is reassigned?

Book Tropes

Popular 'Romantasy' Book Tropes: love triangle, enemies to lovers,

slow burn, forced proximity, and fake dating/marriage. Are these too repetitive and predictable?

 

   As an avid reader, I find myself on “BookTok” a lot. BookTok is a subculture on the popular social media app TikTok where individuals give their reviews of books they have read and ask for suggestions to others on what their next read should be. I like to scroll through BookTok for similar reasons, to find if the influencer's book review matches my own and to find new books to read. It should be noted that BookTok is mostly made up of young adult women who enjoy novels in the genres of Romance and Fantasy. 

  

 One topic that is prevalent in BookTok is the discussion of tropes. Tropes are the specific types of situations that happen in a book. Some examples of popular tropes in the romance and fantasy genres are: love triangle, enemies to lovers, slow burn, forced proximity, and fake dating/marriage. These tropes could be seen as standardisations because they are mass produced storylines with little to no originality. “Once a musical and/or lyrical pattern has proved successful it is exploited to commercial exhaustion, culminating in the crystallisation of standards” (Storey, Pg. 65). Like this quote states with musical and lyrical patterns, there too are exploited tropes in the fictional worlds of young adult reading. 

    The interesting thing about the BookTok world is that we as a culture are very aware of these tropes and the lack of originality in them. In fact, sometimes that’s what we want. It is like having a favorite meal. Why try something new when you know you can eat something you know you will like? It is the same idea, why read something new when I know what tropes I like? 

    Many of the authors we read from in class had the opinion that the masses are unaware of these repetitions and are being manipulated. But Adorno states, “People are not only, as the saying goes, falling for the swindle; if it guarantees them even the most fleeting gratification they desire a deception which is nonetheless transparent to them.” (pg. 106). That is what is happening here, I am fully aware of these ‘swindles’ and happily accept them. There are videos on BookTok where they talk about cliche scenes (which can also be seen as micro tropes) such as, ‘there was only one bed, but there were two of us’, The main character gets hurt and her enemy asks ‘who did this to you’ Etc. But all of BookTok agrees, we eat this up and desire it no matter what. Fiske states that the reason we may see these repetitions and be okay with them is because of how we relate these stories back to our own lived experiences. “In popular culture, social relevance is far more powerful than textual structure” (Fiske, pg. 216). 

  

 So is it really a bad thing to have repetition? It seems that it is not thwarting my imagination because I am not tied to what the author is writing. I can imagine my own scenes within the story that the author wrote. I mean that's what fan fictions are after all aren't they? Fan fics are these so called manipulated and brainless individuals within the masses that are creating their own stories based off of what they read. They are creating new stories and new time lines. Do you think that having repetitive tropes is causing a lack of creativity in the readers?