conspicuous consumption & taste cultures.
The advertiser’s stated interest, the article and the mention in the NYT’s blog The Moment, the other interviews Selby has done; these instances beg the question, why do we care so much? Why this fascination with others “stuff” and living spaces? Stuart Ewen argues in All Consuming Images: The Politics of Style in Contemporary Culture that “the acquisition of style represented a symbolic leap from the constraints of mere substinence.” (26) To further clarify, “conspicuous consumption…was the mark of status.” (27) Thus, all this “stuff” - and our fascination with it - has to do with our desire for status. Hey, s/he has it, I want it too!
Ewen continues to explain that, “[w]ith the emergence of a bourgeois market in style…interest in one-of-a-kind treasures become more widespread.” Chase Cohl says as much in the NYT article. “‘In terms of my decorating style…I love really unique and special stuff.’” This consumption is representative of the fact that those featured can have all of this stuff, because they can afford it. Then, millions of viewers can look at what is featured, and want their cribs, their pads, their places, to look the same. This obsession with other people’s stuff isn’t just on the relatively new Selby; MTV’s Cribs has been around since 2000, and is a moving-picture-with-synchronized sound version of The Selby. The list of those featured is more mass market (T. I., anyone?) and the presentation a little less cultured and upmarket, but it’s essentially the same idea. Even when featuring the mega-famous on The Selby, (description of Michael Stipe: “musician,” as if he’s not the lead singer for one of the most well-known bands of the past two decades) there is no focus on the fact that they’re famous. On the other hand, MTV Cribs exists solely because those who are featured are famous. The distinction, therein, lies with what’s our (the audience’s) primary obession: who these people are or what their stuff is. Though both are interesting and the two are interlinked, stuff comes first for The Selby but vice versa for MTV’s Cribs; from that, too, can one get the classification of highbrow for The Selby (versus barely middlebrow for Cribs, if not relegated to lowbrow).
According to Herbert Gans, in The Popular Culture-High Culture Disctinction: Still Relevant?, “in popular language, there are three taste cultures: highbrow, middlebrow, and lowbrow.” (7) New York Magazine brilliantly breaks down taste cultures in their weekly Approval Matrix; recent events, meet taste culture.
But is The Selby highbrow, middlebrow, or lowbrow? Though the instinctive answer would be highbrow, because The Selby is featuring conspicuous consumption of the upper classes in a tasteful manner, perhaps the better classification is John Seabrook’s “nobrow” as defined in the 1999 New Yorker article “Nobrow Culture.” According to Seabook, “commerical culture is a source of status and currency rather than the thing that the élite define themselves against;” the commercial culture pervasive throughout The Selby would arguably support The Selby’s classification of nobrow. Seabrook continues on to explain, in reference to a t-shirt, “[i]t’s anti-status as status, another important principle in Nobrow.” This neo-grunge look, borne out of commercial culture desire, fits the aesthetic of The Selby perfectly: for example, Michael Stipe looks nobrow in his casual clothing; Alexander Wang’s sneakers are juxtaposed against the leather couch; etc. Guesses to how much those sneakers cost? Hint: a lot.
