There is often a discrepancy between the producer's intended meaning versus the final meaning derived by the viewer. The example given about the movie Titanic really surprised me. If someone read me the statement, "[This movie] served as a socially acceptable vehicle for the public expression of regret by a generation of aging Chinese revolutionaries who had devoted their lives to building a form of socialism that had long since disappeared" and asked me what movie I thought they were speaking of, I never would have guess it was Titanic. The way in which personal experiences severely impacts our interpretations is amazing. I know that I am always subconsciously relating things that I hear, view and read to my own life and experiences. Whenever I see a new movie I feel like it is speaking directly to me, but it is just my own experiences that interpret what I am seeing as valuable and influential to myself personally.
The term kitsch is something I was introduced to last year when I took Sexuality in the Cinema, in which we read a lot of theory on looking and the value and power of images. We also studied the idea of "camp" which is similar to kitsch. ("Camp is an aesthetic in which something has appeal because of its bad taste or ironic value") We watched the movies Pink Flamingos and The Rocky Horror Picture Show to discuss these concepts. It is really interesting the way that our society assigns seemingly arbitrary values to different forms of art.
The idea of looking as an economy comes back into focus with the discussion of museums' ability to turn pieces of art into commodities. Collecting causes this as well. I had never thought about the invisible aspects of the museum and the section on disrupting normal viewing experiences by making formerly invisible politics and policies obvious seems very effective.
