On the Metro to Union Station this afternoon I did not find myself surrounded by two of the same people. No two people looked or dressed the same, and I made different judgments and stories up about who they were, where they were going and what they were doing. Living in Los Angeles, there is nothing surprising about this observation. However, what surprised me only later was how accustomed and almost numb I was in the moment to this incredible diversity. I continued to ask myself how we have yet to have an Urban Lab dedicated to some aspect of studying the people of Los Angeles (outside of our immediate community). When will we have a people-watching lab? Throughout the course so far we have asked many versions of the question “what characteristics or opportunities bring people to Los Angeles?” to ourselves, and I believe we will continue to do so over the entire course. We have asked what exactly about Los Angeles makes the city so successful in attracting the hugely diverse community we were among today on the Gold Line and in Union Station. To theses overarching questions I add: What came first, LA or it’s people? I mean this in the context of how the city’s authentic character has been created and what the origin of outsider’s perceptions of Los Angeles is.
Although I find characteristics of the city of Los Angeles and Angelinos themselves very much intertwined, as my people-watching idea for a lab would suggest, I also believe there is a huge division between the two as they are used as propaganda for LA outsiders. Boosters seem to use the physicality and nature in Los Angeles as propaganda for the city, while Detractors rely on the people of LA to highlight the negative aspects of the city. In looking at Adamic’s description of LA we see this division. “From Mount Hollywood, [nature!!] Los Angeles looks rather nice….[but] in spite of all the healthful sunshine and ocean breezes [nature!!] it is a bad place-full of old, dying people [people!!]...victims [people!!] of Los Angeles. In today’s lab prompt even Mr. Donnell and Dr. Stogdill wrote that “‘Detractors’ on the other hand, offer a view of LA that emphasizes the violence, deception, greed and disappointment underlying the ‘brightness’ of the Booster propaganda.” Nature is not capable of violence, deception, greed and disappointment. Humans are. In creating “booster” and “detractor” photos today, I found that Union Station (which we could say is a sample-size location of LA) needed more human assistance in creating “detractor” images than “booster” images. The detractor photos needed human body language to make them successful in creating a more negative vibe. To sort of reiterate what I have already said, I believe that, in a way, LA physically propagates itself with two basic qualities: the weather and it’s diversity in landscape. All of its boostering features seem to be in the physicality of LA and the detracting features in the people that make it up.
I then wonder if the beauty of Los Angeles’s physicality in a sense sets a standard for the type of people that “should” be living in it and the lifestyle they “should” be living? It seems as if since the weather of LA is so perfect, its inhabitants are criticized for not being all “super-humanly” happy, lively and genuine people. Does the beauty in the city of Los Angeles itself set an unrealistic standard for all who live here? If so, what or who exactly is setting such a high standard for Los Angeles?
Although I find characteristics of the city of Los Angeles and Angelinos themselves very much intertwined, as my people-watching idea for a lab would suggest, I also believe there is a huge division between the two as they are used as propaganda for LA outsiders. Boosters seem to use the physicality and nature in Los Angeles as propaganda for the city, while Detractors rely on the people of LA to highlight the negative aspects of the city. In looking at Adamic’s description of LA we see this division. “From Mount Hollywood, [nature!!] Los Angeles looks rather nice….[but] in spite of all the healthful sunshine and ocean breezes [nature!!] it is a bad place-full of old, dying people [people!!]...victims [people!!] of Los Angeles. In today’s lab prompt even Mr. Donnell and Dr. Stogdill wrote that “‘Detractors’ on the other hand, offer a view of LA that emphasizes the violence, deception, greed and disappointment underlying the ‘brightness’ of the Booster propaganda.” Nature is not capable of violence, deception, greed and disappointment. Humans are. In creating “booster” and “detractor” photos today, I found that Union Station (which we could say is a sample-size location of LA) needed more human assistance in creating “detractor” images than “booster” images. The detractor photos needed human body language to make them successful in creating a more negative vibe. To sort of reiterate what I have already said, I believe that, in a way, LA physically propagates itself with two basic qualities: the weather and it’s diversity in landscape. All of its boostering features seem to be in the physicality of LA and the detracting features in the people that make it up.
I then wonder if the beauty of Los Angeles’s physicality in a sense sets a standard for the type of people that “should” be living in it and the lifestyle they “should” be living? It seems as if since the weather of LA is so perfect, its inhabitants are criticized for not being all “super-humanly” happy, lively and genuine people. Does the beauty in the city of Los Angeles itself set an unrealistic standard for all who live here? If so, what or who exactly is setting such a high standard for Los Angeles?
I honestly very much agree with your conclusion at the end of this piece in that people who live here seem to have the expectation of being "perfect" or even "super-human" . In answering your question I feel like the standard was created by the same people who created Los Angeles, the Boosters. Whenever we think about a place or a person, usually the first thing that comes to mind is the stereotype that is associated with that person or thing or place. With LA, the expectation is for people to be very progressive and to love being social and doing things that are considered out there and fun. This is not reflected by the kind of people who live here, but by the advertisements we see every day and the kinds of movies we watch where all of these things are amplified. Go to anywhere on the east coast and people see us as un-preppy slobs who are not classy and do whatever they feel like. The truth is somewhere closer in the middle but just the fact that we have our own stereotype as Angelinos shows the Boosters hard at work. Whether this is a problem I have yet to really figure out, but it is certainly a very defining factor in our and many other large cities.
ReplyDeleteReading these texts through out this week I came to a very similar conclusion. Davis chapters progress from boosters to debunkers all the way to noir. This idea of a beautiful untouched paradise that has brought many Angelenos and tourists is what we often discuss. Something that was so undeniably true and alluring brought millions of people here, but why did so many stay? The debunkers concede in saying yes LA is a beautiful place, but it is built from lie and deceit. This "paradise" is a mirage and once you get here your mental and spiritual starvation won't be satisfied. The boosters that lured you here are only after your money, but somehow your still here and won't/can't leave. What is keeping these people here? Noir was supposed turn every positive selling point the boosters uttered, but those people came and are still here.
ReplyDeleteMaybe LA is some sort of drug. It is pure and harmless in itself, but once it is discovered people begin to abuse it. In turn both LA and Angelenos are villanized. LA is cursed for it's existence and unrelenting hold on its "victims". Angelenos are the users that just can't quite shake this city. They know this place will kill them, but their twisted love/addiction holds them prisoner. My response to Reba's question is that we are the ones setting this high standard for this city. Advocating for this city when we are fresh off its high and complaining when the high is over. How is one supposed to differentiate between those who are addicts and the sober ones? The addicts who still live here, but you can’t trust them because they constantly have two contradicting view of Los Angeles. Or the sober ones who got out and one may believe they just couldn’t “cut it” and their way of bashing that old Angeleno junky they used to be.
On the way back to Pasadena on the Metro, I noticed the different characters on the metro as well. Across from me, a latino couple sat with sleeves of tattoos and names inked on their faces. The man's arm was covered with an detailed tattoo of "Trust" above a Walgreens logo on his palm, and the word "FUCK" printed on his knuckles as he held a bright red Powerade bottle. This same couple sat next to two younger Asian women both wearing flip-flops and had a look of extreme exhaustion on their faces. To my right, two teenagers talked about their sexuality. The guy wore jean cute offs that stopped at his calfs, tie-die socks, and black high top converse.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed watching the different because their actions were candid because people were on the train to get from point A to point B. People aren't on the metro to interact with one another. Some people decide to spend the time on the train listening to music, reading a book, talking to a friend, sleeping, or like me staring off through the scratched, plastic at the changing scenery. The diversity of people stretched from car to car. Both the Booster's and the Debunker's have used this diversity as both a positive feature of Los Angeles as well as a negative aspect.
I see where you are coming from with your idea of LA's diversity, but I think that is just a factor of public transit. Public transit links different boroughs of the city together thats why you get to see this "diversity". You are forced to use this unintentionally forced sample size of people. In the grand scheme of things LA is a diverse city but when you breakup the city into neighborhoods and boroughs you would see that they are fairly homogenous. We were talking these past weeks of gentrification and how is it just another form of institutional racism in which neighborhoods will be taken over. Rather than living in a place of diverse culture neighborhoods will gentrify making another homogenous community.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what most people picture when they think of Los Angeles. However, the part that most quickly comes to mind is the diversity of people--economically, racially, whatever it may be. These people aren't "beautiful," per say, or at least not the type of beauty found in the movies or what the media portrays. However, it is the imperfections and differences between every passerby that makes me love the train rides to Highland Park or DTLA. Thus, to answer Becky's question, I think that the people come first. An accumulation of people eventually leads to a city, so in technical terms, the people must come first, but further than that, the character of a city can't be defined simply by its physicality. However, Los Angeles is glorified by its superficiality, by what it looks like and by its population of celebrities. The real parts of L.A. are overlooked in Booster culture, and can only truly be appreciated by Angelenos themselves. Understandably, if I were a Midwesterner, it wouldn't be worth it to travel to a city that doesn't have the sparkle or charm I was promised; which is where the disappointment factor comes in. However, if we are celebrating the diversity itself, and the beauty of being real/having flaws, then L.A. is a magnificent city. I think that coming from Pasadena, we crave any kind of diversity or experience outside the bubble of affluence, whiteness, and expectation.
ReplyDeletePersonally, every one of our outdoor excursions have seemed like a people-watching lab. I find myself naturally comparing people to each other and being curious of what purpose they have for being in the same place as me. I think expectations are constructed upon the type of people who surround you. It reverts back to the simple idea that those who are different (from the norm) attract the most attention. On this certain lab, I thought it was interesting that so many random people were perfect examples of stereotypes of the working class. I found myself wanting to take pictures of numerous people sitting at Union station because they encaptured the scenes in my head when I thought of detractors of LA. Of course they weren't purposefully filling the persona I thought I would find there, but I would like to know what expectations I had were true and false about them.
ReplyDeleteThe point about the boosters using land and scenery and the detractors using people is a strong statement about LA itself. Both the homeless and the rich are looked down upon by people outside of LA. The homeless are seen as seedy and disgusting, and the rich are seen as spoiled and aloof. The inverse is true of landscapes, where beaches are picturesque and fabulous and even the bad neighborhoods are glorified in a manner similar to that of a zoo, outside people like hearing about, looking in, and adopting culture.
ReplyDeleteThis is one of the reasons that noir is so fascinating, it seems to combine and blend these elements. It uses the shadowy silhouetted smoking person as part of the scenery, and the offices of the detective or bars or streetlights add personality to the scenes. Noir as a style doesn't seem to have an agenda or purpose, it isn't the smiling man selling real estate nor the doomsayer crying about the woes of LA. Noir is cynical, realistic, and has strong nihilistic roots.
It's hard not to have a certain expectation of LA when the city and its people are all over the media. People from other places only know LA's beautiful people and the beautiful parts of its landscape. That's one major perpetrator for the unrealistic expectation - people don't know anything else. There's also a certain amount of ignorance involved, since people seem to accept the fact that LA people are these two-dimensional people who happily live in paradise. But life just doesn't work that way.
ReplyDeleteI also think the boosters do a good job of offering the right amount of information to get people excited and hopeful about what their lives could be in the city. It's kind of like how you hear all these things about a person, only to meet them and be disappointed that they're nothing like you expected. LA is publicity, and also the fact that other people don't get the full picture of the city (which causes them to fill in the lines with inaccurate information), sets an unrealistic standard for the people in the city.
I agree with Oran about how public transportation connects people from different neighborhoods. I personally do not use the metro often because I do not have the need too. I find it interesting that LA has many public transportation, yet it is not used frequently. Unlike New York, where you have to use public transportation in order to get from place to place. However, riding on the metro today opened my eyes to different parts of LA that is normally hidden. I think its interesting that LA main transportation is cars, where in other cities its the metro. I wonder if people started to take the metro more, would that change the characteristic of LA? As I was sitting, I noticed that many people of the metro were mostly keeping to themselves. Everyone seemed very isolated from one another. Is it human nature to isolate yourself from the unknown?
ReplyDeleteLA needs its detractors in order for it to be a great city. As poignant and as powerful as the character invented by detractor literature is, (and I recognize that this was happening in a completely different period of time) its generalizations are almost shockingly broad and I have felt throughout this unit that they're so barely applicable (or maybe rarely is a better word) to Los Angeles as it is today. We have read about how LA was this fortress of whiteness, the hopeful new Aryan capital of the world, this eugenics-based superficial unhappy land of faux-Americanism and jaded prosperity. Where the American Dream goes to die, or where those who have only one recourse go to waste it, where the pathetics from everywhere flock to to find refuge. Maybe this was LA of the past. Maybe our lab from a couple of weeks ago reflects this in its tackily sad architecture. But today, LA is a real land of real American spirit, from its masses of immigrants fighting for better futures and diversity. The sad atmosphere that we are described really doesn't exist today in a great way. I think that it will be interesting as we learn how LA worked its way out of this odd point in history.
ReplyDeleteAfter you all left to head back to school, I stayed a round a bit longer to eat and I noticed that no body really had an enthusiastic look on their face. I saw the usual businessmen walking at a fast pace, the regular commuter dressed in fairly casual clothes, and finally the homeless men and women walking aimlessly throughout the station.
ReplyDeleteWhat surprised me most is that non of these people looked happy. They either looked busy, sad, or they showed no emotion whatsoever. I believe that people in LA are in fact held to an unrealistic standard of being happy all of the time. With that being said, I think that that high standard is what influences the somber seen on the people's faces at the train station today.
Because LA is fantasized in movies, songs, and all aspects of media, outsiders to LA assume that Angelenos never should be complaining about anything. For all they know, we have everything we could ever want. This reminds me about the dialogue we were having in class about how when people get to LA, they are immediately bored and yearning for something different or unexpected to happen.
Your last series of question's spurred a train of thought regarding relative happiness. A quick analogy: The joy of a starving boy when given a piece of bread far outmatches the joy of a rich, healthy, and fed man, when given the same piece of bread. I'll elaborate. Because the boy is not used to eating whenever he wants or needs to, the piece of bread is a treat; an uncommon pleasure. On the other hand, the fed man is used to eating whatever and whenever he wants, and sees the bread as trivial. He has become accustomed to his environment and privilege, and needs not be grateful of such a small token. Because he has not the same worries that the young boy has, he has moved on to find new, more specific things to worry about. Maybe its the color of his new car, or whether or not he should get the windows tinted. But the boy must survive. In LA we have grown accustomed to the great weather, so we need not worry about it. While it snows in Colorado, citizens must find ways to work around the weather impediment, leaving less room for trivial worries. This is why the two attitudes and expectations cannot be justly compared. In different environments, different personalities and people will be produced.
ReplyDeleteI think that the beauty of L.A. certainly does play into the attitudes, lifestyles, and effects of the people living here. Because L.A. is such a beautiful place, and because many of its cities have grown to be looked at in certain ways, the people living in the greater Los Angeles area certainly do model themselves, their looks, and what they do around their surroundings, and base them off of their environment. Many people are independent-minded and do not base who they are off of where they come from, or simply where they live, and can make their own decisions and such on their own. Many people go about their lives simply living in this beautiful city, taking in all that it has to offer, and not changing themselves or basing themselves or their lives off of what surrounds them. I admire these people as sometimes it is even hard for myself to do that, but at the same time I do think that people need to take a step back, look at the bigger picture in front of them, and realize that they do not have to live up to what surrounds them.
ReplyDeleteI experienced a similar moment on the metro just like Rebecca and Joey. As I sat there alone in the corner of the car, I had the ability to gaze over everyone sitting and standing around. Some were chatting with friends, some on their phones, and some looking right back at me. What I realized is how unique just this small sample of LA's citizens were. In the comments and in the blog it was mentioned that maybe our people aren't beautiful, but who is to truly judge the beauty of our people. No one knows all of them personally, no one knows what their thinking or what they've been through, so why is it fair to declare them ugly or imperfect. This "imperfectness" is what makes LA. This diverse culture that everyone has mentioned, is driven by the beauty that all of us have within us. So I disagree with those who say that our city is "below standard." Our city is beautiful filled with unique people, who may not always be smiling(that would just be crazy)but within them is something that no one should be able to judge.
ReplyDeleteIt is so incredibly true regarding the idea that in LA, the detractors are the people, not the place itself. I remember in our assignment we had to detract from the waiting concourse. I looked at my paper and then looked around that giant room with intricate floor and celling patterns with warm wood and I rolled my eyes. How am I suppose to make this look bad? Of course, the answer was people. Try and create an atmosphere of depressed people in the beauty of the hall.
ReplyDeleteAs to your question stating if the city sets an unrealistic goal on how we should be living I would argue that the city we live in has a character of its own– very unique. A character manufactured by the initial boosters in LA. The people who move here, whether for school, work, or family, are also moving here for that character. To say that the city doesn't set a goal or at least a lifestyle for how we should be living seems impossible. The only problem, that I believed you touched on, is if the lifestyle is obtainable. For the most part, the average paycheck-to-paycheck human being is stuck in a goal that is never going to be reached. This prophecy is the stem of detractors propaganda. As Adamic put it: "it is a bad place-full of old, dying people...victims of Los Angeles".