embedded.net

After my anxiety attack in Priya’s office today I calmed down, sat down at my computer, and really searched for information on my topic. And I found some really interesting stuff, but one site really stood out to me, http://www.unembedded.net/main.php. This project that these four independent photojournalists are doing in a sense, is what my project is about. They have written a book and started an exhibit where they are trying to show the American public what is really going on in Iraq. The photos that I looked at were all really interesting, but the ones that were really moving (even though they were pretty bloody) was Ghaith Abdul-Ahad.

This exhibit is traveling around the country right now and the crazy thing is, it could come here. They have made it so accessible to the public. All they have to do is accept it.

Mulvey in the standard Hollywood shoot-em-up

Mulvey's characterization of the use of (and literal, erotic viewing of) female figures in cinema as an oppositional force to the male-driven narrative that must be overcome brings to mind two similar recent flicks: "Hitman," starring Timothy Olyphant, and "Casino Royale," the most recent James Bond movie starring Daniel Craig. 

In "Hitman," Olyphant portrays what else but a genetically engineered hitman who is very good at what he does. There is a very funny scene involving the female interest of the movie, played by Olga Kurylenko, in which she has become very drunk and attempts to seduce '47,' the hitman. It's very much the 'sex scene' of the movie, and can easily be described through Mulvey as a scene that "unwinds magically, indifferent to the presence of the audience, producing for them a sense of separation and playing on their voyeuristic fantasy" and a glimpse at the pair's hotel room existing as a "private world" (324). Kurylenko's character has been sexualized throughout the movie until this point, and it would seem only inevitable. While Mulvey's theory of the female as causing a "castration anxiety" is a bit extreme, this movie turns the hero on it's head in a funny and poignant way: Instead of what one would be presume the 'cut to our hero and woman, having a post-coital cigarette,' '47' knocks her out with a gadget or tranquilizer of some kind--he's very awkward throughout the whole scene, the implication that he is somehow sexless or refuses to have sex with by merit of the science fiction of his being a clone and genetically engineered for one purpose: to kill. He continues to drive the narrative, but this shortcoming remains unresolved: is he castrated by her? Does Mulvey's theory fall short for this movie? Or is it simply taken as a humorous resolution to the obligatory 'sex scene' of the movie, the voyeuristic filmmaking opprotunism that seems so common in almost any R-rated movie?

http://www.impawards.com/2007/posters/hitman_ver3.jpg

Similarly, in Casino Royale, lothario James Bond's love interest, Vesper, also seems to present a threat of castration in the sense of disallowing the male figure to not continue driving the narrative: in this origin story of James Bond, he actually falls in love with her after a rather horrific part of their adventure and what amounts to a torture scene involving literal castration. Interestingly, Vesper becomes to Bond a reason for leaving his globe-trotting, womanizing and killing-laden career with British MI6 and there is a scene where he actually tenders his resignation to the higher-ups while planning on how to live his life out with Vesper. This could also be viewed as a castration of sorts, the manly figure of James Bond brought to retirement not by the Russians but by love? No longer shooting his gun and his mouth off at every opprotunity, but rather living a peaceful and monogamous life? It's a nice thought, but short-lived: It turns out that Vesper is *SPOILER ALERT* working with the bad guys, and even though James kills them all, he cannot save her in the end. The end of the movie offers Bond in a return to being a bad-ass, with revenge on his mind, once again fully in control of the narrative with a finger on the trigger.

The general question I'd like to raise, then, how do these females work in Mulvey's model? Are they set aside by "active voyeuristic or fetishistic mechanisms," (331), in effect rendering them ineffectual through objectification? They both remain central to the plot, whether their castration threats come to fruition or fall through, and in the case of "Casino Royale," the female interest, very well fetishized, remains a driving force for Bond straight into the next movie: he's out for revenge on the people that took away his love and cemented his position as a good-looking British killing machine. 

meet dick

His website has a popular following and women actually line up to date him.

oh and by the way ALL women have tourettes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJRwIf1FF0

http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com/

Who's fault is it?

Todays' discussion about Tucker Max and "fratire" really made my mind whirl.  I think on one hand it is really hilarious and if it is means as satire that's great, but I have a suspicion that Max is likely serious, at least in part.  When Jalena made the comment about a guy from her high school having a similar reputation I was rather shocked....for a moment.  In the time to took to blink my eyes a few times I realized that this hits close to home, that I also know young men like this.

It's pretty easy to say that these men are simply trying to regain their masculinity but it's not so easy to place any of the blame on women.  But I am going to blame the women, myself included, for letting this trend continue.  It does not have to be as blatant as the women who write to Max and ask for a date the self proclaimed asshole.  It is as simple as laughing it off when a guy says these things in front of you instead of giving him a piece of your mind.  These are not isolated incidents, Max did not just appear from nowhere, there ahs to be a root cause for him and other men like him.

I think Priya made an excellent point when she referred to Maria Shriver speaking out on Larry King about a National Women's Conference that is going to be taking place as a form of feminism beginning to rise again.  The fact that feminism is rising is going to mean a conservative backlash.  For every action, there is going to be an equal (maybe?) and opposite reaction.  There is no difference here as feminism is beginning to rise again, to get more organized, there is bound to be a conservative backlash.

My evidence on this lovely backlash is easily identifiable in Max but furthermore it is evident in the fact that some of the most adamant supporters for Proposition 8 (amandment to ban gay marriage in California) and against abortion are young people.  Young people of the "progressive" generation?  Yes, these young people are not as progressive as some of us might hope.

I have a small theory about this and I'm going to try it out on you guys and hope that you will give me your feedback.  Lauren Sandler wrote a book entitled "Righteous" in which she details the Christian Youth Movement and their political viewpoints.  This is an obviously large movement and it has continued to gain populariity in the past 10 or so years with the advent of music festivals such as Spirit West Coast that combine music and and politics in much the same way that something amazing like the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival does every single year.  The difference?  This is a youth movement, they are breeding this doctrine into a group of young people who will be growing up, voting, and eventually becoming the generation that has power.  Is there anything comparable for youth on the left?  I don't think there is, I think as Matt said recently in class about feminism, we lack organization.  I'm not saying that certain political figures do not have great organization, I'm simply making the point that there is not a liberal youth movement that even begins to compare to the Religious Right's youth movement.  How do we compete?  I haven't figured out an avenue in which it would be plausible to compete, but this concept is something I think about on a regular basis.  

I want to see women rising up and saying things that need to be said.  This is not a post-feminist society and "tolerance" is not enough.  It's absolute bullshit to say that Max is only making money because he is funny.  He knows that he is making money at this point in time because gender issues are at the forefront of a revolutionary fight that involves gender and sexuality.  Men do not need to reclaim anything except for equality for everyone.  Yes men need to be held responsible for these action but it takes surroundings telling them that they are wrong for them to begin to change.  

More than 2 ways of thinking?

I was really stunned in class yesterday when we were talking about the concept of gender and Priya read something about there being 8, yes 8, different possible genders.  I think it would be something worthwhile to look up but as of right now my research has led me only to the main concepts and as I do not know enough to fully explain I will try to keep my blog entry focused mainly on the reading.

Both Tasker and Lury contend that there is a difference in feminine oriented writings or TV shows as opposed to masculine.  Feminine stuff is very emotional and thus left open with no real absolute resolution.  On the other hand masculine oriented media is very resolute and has a genuine ending within a one hour TV show.  So there are some binary opposites here for sure, that is the point of what we read, but is there more than just these opposites?  

If there are more than 2 genders I feel like there must therefore be more than 2 explanations of TV shows and writing.  Do we have a section of work called transgendered media?  If we do it's not in the public eye to the point that both masculine and feminine are.  I realize this is an obvious point and there might be no need for me to make it, but it is something I have never thought about before.  For every gender and/or sexual orientation there must be an entire body of work and thought and probably opposing thought that we do not really get to notice unless we actively seek it out.  And is it our responsibility to try to account for all of these different people?  I think the Gaines article makes a good point when it says on pg. 201 that it is not our responsibility to try to account for all of these but rather we should simply try to learn about these "other" people for who they are.  

The best example of this that I can think of is something I know I have talked about in class at least a few times: that is, teaching a subject in which you are not actively a "member".  For instance, Priya teaching African-American Studies or a straight teacher trying to teach an LGBT related class.  These teachers are often not trying to account for these different groups of people but they do have a genuine interest in them and are making a concerted effort to teach diversity in spite of the fact that they are not a member of these minority groups.  

The "Routan Boom"???

I don't know if anyone has seen these commercials, but Volkswagen has recently put out these commercials for their new car the Routan, and the first time I saw one I was baffled by what was said.
The promo is done by Brooke shields, and although I know it's meant to be as a joke, I thought it was kind of ridiculous. Please check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDZSxFLcMVg

I know it's kind of long, but there are pieces from it that are cut out and turned into commercials so it's all pretty crucial.

So a little bit about what's going on here: Brooke Shields opens up and starts talking about the rise of childbirth which is a result of the VW Routan. She says somewhere in there how people are so in love with the Routan that they are having babies just to fill it up. And thanks to fertility drugs and reverse vasectomy's, they can have as many babies as they want in the name of german engineering! And then she goes on to say in the commercial not to have babies for the sake of german engineering, but for love instead.

I know it's all a joke, but when we were talking about gender studies/feminism today this sparked in my head. It just seems so shallow and materialistic that I didn't even know what to think about it. Are these things you can really joke about? I mean, the fight to end sexism is not over and yet VW comes out with a promo that takes serious issues (such as fertility drugs, reverse vasectomys, the rise in childbirth) and makes it, essentially into a joke. Take for example her opening claim: "US birth rates are at a 35 year high, and the reason why may shock you. Is it out of love? No. Is it for companionship? Wrong. Every day in our country, more and more people are having babies simply for german engineering. Is this the next baby boom? Yes. Join me as I tell the most important story of our time." Why does it become okay to mock childbirth for advertising purposes? I just didn't see the humor in it at all. I was more offended and confused than anything.

So, I guess the moral that Brooke Shields has to give to you in this mocumentary is : "You know, you really should only have children to bring life into the world, not to bring German Engineering into your driveway."

Gendered Genres

I was rather intrigued by Yvonne Tasker's discussion of 'gendered genres.' It has always seemed to me that there were women's genres, romance novels, chick lit, etc, but no real 'men's genres' aside from porn, and maybe the show 'cops' which was a genre unto itself until fairly recently.

I sort of figured that men didn't need genres because in a patriarchal society everything except that which is specifically for women, is for men.

Then, I discovered Tucker Max and 'fratire.' Fratire is a genre developed in the 21st century characterized by political incorrectness and overt masculinity. It tends to focus on alcohol and sexuality, and has been characterized by Melissa Lafsky of the New York Times as "misogyny for sale."

The genre is considered by some to be a backlash against the popularization of the beta-male and the "feminization of masculinity."

"http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/fashion/sundaystyles/16CADS.html?scp=4&sq=tucker max&st=cse"

This is an interview with Tucker Max, one of the founding writers of fratire. His blog can be found at "http://tuckermax.com/">

Are we in an era where men need a genre to assert their masculinity, much like women may need autobiography to assert their agency and represent their experiences?

Bollywood to bring credit crisis to big screen

I saw this news article this morning...


By Rina Chandran 30 minutes ago

MUMBAI (Reuters) - The global credit crisis has found echoes in an unlikely quarter, India's Bollywood, known more for its love of lavish musicals and racy thrillers.
ADVERTISEMENT

The crisis, that has inspired "credit crunch" chocolate bars and "meltdown" parties in the West, is reflected in a new Hindi film "EMI," or Equated Monthly Installments, by debutant writer-director Saurabh Kabra. It is set for release later this month.

EMI is an acronym that millions of middle-class Indians are familiar with, as it allowed them to buy everything from washing machines to fancy cars, homes and vacations at a time when banks were eager to lend and credit was cheap.

But as interest rates rose -- with the central bank raising key interest rates by 125 basis points in 2008 alone -- borrowers baulked and banks began to tighten the leash on lending.

"EMI," which stars actors Sanjay Dutt, Urmila Matondkar and Arjun Rampal, is a tale of the lives of disparate characters who live off credit cards and personal loans, and a recovery agent who makes them realize the folly of their ways.

"The movie is really about ordinary, middle-class people who get caught in an endless cycle of loans and credit cards," said Gayatri Singh, creative head for distributor Sahara One Motion Pictures.

The characters include a DJ who defaults on more than a dozen credit cards to impress his girlfriends, a man who takes a loan to send his son abroad to study and a socialite who charges her indulgences to her credit cards.

Sattar Bhai, the recovery agent who chases down defaulters, is "soft-hearted," Singh says, in contrast to agents who have come under fire in India for being aggressive and using force.

Credit card use is still low, but expanding at a fast pace in the country and Indians, traditionally credit-averse, are embracing their use more easily.

The film also comes on the heels of a mass suicide by a family of four in Mumbai, India's financial hub, who reportedly killed themselves over mounting debts on dozens of credit cards.

"We wanted to keep it light and release it in time for the festival season when everyone is buying things, to remind people they should be careful about extending themselves," Singh said.

(Editing by Bappa Majumdar)

well...

So much information, ideas and criticism in one night! I sat there taking it all in not really knowing how to process it all. I don’t even know exactly what to write about there was so much I wanted to talk about. I liked most was that she gave hope, she gave concrete ideas on how to change what is going on and inspire the audience. There aren’t very many outlets out there that bring this subject to light but as a speaker, a writer, a journalist she invokes a lot of attention. What she is doing is what I feel Allessandro was doing in his article Reading the Past and she is living in the moment of crisis to truly understand and criticize what is happening so that we ourselves can dictate the outcome and not leave it in the hands of an other. So many things fascinated me last night and first was the government sing the shock doctrine to create a “blank slate” in Iraq and trying to turn Iraq which was an incredibly closed market into one of the most open markets in the world. Then the idea of what Disaster Capitalism is and how it works. From using a disaster to push unpopular views to pushing privatization. I think we can have amazing conversation today!

Who's ideas get used anyway?

I want to explore my topic further in class today but for right now I'm just going to post it on here and hope it gets seen in time for a class discussion.

Naomi Klein referred numerous times to the "ideas lying around" at the time of a disaster.  I know at least one U of R student made the point that this was not solely a republican endeavor but I would like to think a little deeper about what ideas we have lying around on a consistent basis and how they get implemented.  At any given moment there are likely thousands of think tanks working all around the country, many coming up with different and new ideas.  Which one of these ideas is going to "make" it and get implemented into policy?  It seems at times that the answer is anyone's guess.  But is it?  Isn't just the decision of those in power?  I know that we choose who is in power and thus we are also responsible for some of what they do but past that I am curious as to how the ideas get implemented.  Are they always self serving as in the case of Cheney and Halliburton?  Or is it really just a matter of overall ideals as in the case of true free market radicals?  

I thought Naomi Klein was fantastic last night and I was so stoked that she came to our campus. She brought up a lot of thinking points and I sincerely hope that her purpose of giving us a way to think about these issues and understanding them before they happen is put to great use.    

Naomi Klein

Last week you asked us to write a short response blog on Klein, so here I am!
It was fantastic hearing her speak, she was a lot funnier than I expected her to be. I must admit that I felt there were some parts where she lost me and I found myself drifting off from her speech, but she would grab my attention again eventually. She didn't speak exactly on The Shock Doctrine as she wrote it, but rather how it is being applied to our current situation. Although I found this very interesting, I kind of felt myself wishing that she would talk a bit more about why she decided to write about this exactly, the process of her researching this and getting it published and the kind of media it received. It was still interesting, though, to hear her talk about our current financial crisis and how the Shock and Awe theory is being applied to it. She started by defining the shock doctrine as "a political strategy that has been used to overcome the popularity of public programs" (I'm not sure how to cite this...Klein's speech, 14 Oct 2008) and then proceeded to explain how it could be very beneficial to current candidates because the crisis could be used as an excuse to break all the promises the candidates are making right now. This is something I hadn't really thought about yet, so it really got me thinking about all the promises both candidates are making and how, currently, they are rather empty promises because the economy does not seem to be heading in a positive direction anytime soon. Would they be as easily converted from their ideas for change as Clinton was when he became president? It's hard to tell in such a time of desperation. I can't help but wonder if we will fall into the counter-revolution Klein said we were heading into, which would mean that we're turning our country back over to the government and the power-businesses of our nation. If we do follow this counter-revolution, would it be a result of the shock doctrine of the financial crisis? Are we being forced to resort to falling into the hands of the shock doctrine because we have no where else to turn? Can Hank Paulson convince America like he convinced people to vote for the bailout? Will Obama be defeated by McCain because the people won't trust his promises due to the economic crisis? Or are we so desperate for change it doesn't matter who's in the office as long as it's someone other than who's there now? These are all questions that Klein's speech brought up for me. Just some food for thought, what do you guys think?

Idiotic Frustration

From the very start of the election I have found increasingly frustrating to follow. It has been a parade from the start, a circus of silly banter and stupid comments from all parties. Remember when the democratic debates were aired and Hillary and Borack continuously exchange blow after blow at each other in a never ending she said he said battle that in the end made both look like five year old kids. I just get discouraged when I watch a presidential debate and instead of the candidates conducting themselves as grown men all that occurs is subtle slandering of the other. And every time I try to immerse myself in the election I am baffled by the actions of our potential future president and vice president. In actuality I am talking just of McCain and Palin. However, I feel from this point on we are choosing the lesser evil. Like Matt had said in class Obama’s policies are unrealistic and irresponsible but we cannot stand what McCain stands for and embodies. Then I feel that choosing Sarah Palin as a vice president was a slap to the face. She is being exploited to the max. She is being used by McCain it seems to not only because she is a woman but because she was inexperienced and because she appeals to particular group of “middle class women” with her soccer mom lifestyle. Bullshit, I can’t believe after how many statements about how inexperienced Obama, McCain turns around and picks an extremely inexperienced WOMAN! I feel like this election is incredibly irresponsible and exploiting huge gender and race issues present in America. Even in the 2004 election no one wanted Bush to stay in office but we couldn’t vote for Kerry because he was an idiot. I do understand that I am being immature, close-minded, and idiotic for not wanting to be a part of this election but honestly, where have all the honest, responsible, great people to run our country?? Why cant we have an election where we are debating on who is better because we LIKE both candidates instead of choosing the lesser evil?!

Questions for Ms. Klein

I think I remember Priya saying we needed to post on the blog a question we would like to ask Naomi Klein.  I would really like to ask her where she came up with the idea to connect electro shock therapy and the economics behind the shock doctrine and disaster capitalism.  It makes plenty of sense but they are two concepts that I would never have put together myself.  

Hipsters Hipsters everywhere

I heard the term hipster for the first time this summer when we were at a concert in Santa Cruz, apparently home of the “hipsters” and “scenesters,” We were leaving the concert, which was in a small bar and the band was a group of girls singing punk rock.
As we left one of my best friends sighed with relief and said “God, that place was filled with scenesters, I am so happy to get out of there.”
“What’s the difference between a scenester and a hipster?” I asked.
“Well, a scenester follows the trends and what is cool. A hipster, well, kinda does that but follows their own trend too, and sticks to what they like.”
“Which are you?” I asked.
“I guess I would call myself a hipster,“ replied my friend Morgan. I proceeded to ask the rest of the girls in the car what they were, and each replied that they were a hipster, or at least kind of.
And that was the end of our conversation, I never even though about hipster again until I came to Redlands. When I cam here I got called a hipster for the first time. I don’t remember what I wearing, but someone told me they liked how I dressed, that I dressed like a hipster.
It was a complete curve ball for me. I had never thought of classifying myself in some sort of group before. I mean, of course I own skinny jeans and shop at American Apparel. And I’m proud to say I love thrift store and Urban Outfitters.
But does this really make me a hipster? I wear what I like, because I think that dressing is a way to express myself. But then, being classified as a hipster? Well, that’s okay I guess. Or it was at least until I read Adbusters article.
In my town, there are no hipsters. And if there were, we would be them. My friends smoke American Spirits and listen to music that is unheard of by many. A few drop off their support when they make it big or become popular, but usually we stand by. MGMT has been blaring through our rooms for years now, and Santagold and Le Tigre, oh how we love them. But we remain by them, even though you can find their albums features in Teen Vogue.
And those parties, oh how we love them. Dancing in the corner with your best friends like there is no tomorrow. And, hoping that no one will remember your awesome dance moves, which are somehow always are.
Looking over my rant, I guess I am a hipster. I love skinny jeans because the hem never drags in the mud and can easily fit into boots. A scarf looks good with anything, and everyone knows it can hide whatever happened the night before, along with those huge sunglasses. And if you happen to sleep in the bush the night before, who cares. You were going for the grunge look anyway.
I guess I have friends in that group at school who tries to act like they don’t give a shit. And here’s the thing, most don’t. And those who say, “I’m not a hipster,” “I’m an individual,” and “I liked Santagold last year, but now they are so overplayed.” Those are the hipsters that care, and the article is talking about. But I haven’t met one yet, because I haven’t been searching for one. But according to my friend who says, “I’m not a hipster, I just dress like one. You should meet the hipsters in New York, they are really annoying.”
Maybe, in those little towns, the true hipster is still alive. It’s just us being us. So fuck it I guess. I think this whole hipster thing may be blown a bit out of proportion. It’s just kids trying to be different, and then a few following the crowd. Just like with any subculture.
I should stop know, otherwise this will become a full-fledged rant. I think I will go get my nose pierced now, or at least some sort of facial piercing. It seems to be the hipster thing to do these days.

"Hipster: The Dead End of Western Civilization"

Published on Adbusters Culturejammer Headquarters (http://www.adbusters.org)
Hipster: The Dead End of Western Civilization

By Abdul

Created 07/29/2008 - 15:11

• Cover Story
• 79
• counterculture
• hipster

East and West [1]

79

Douglas Haddow [2]

We’ve reached a point in our civilization where counterculture has mutated into a self-obsessed aesthetic vacuum. So while hipsterdom is the end product of all prior countercultures, it’s been stripped of its subversion and originality. (Cover story of Adbusters Issue #79, on newsstands now.)

I‘m sipping a scummy pint of cloudy beer in the back of a trendy dive bar turned nightclub in the heart of the city’s heroin district. In front of me stand a gang of hippiesh grunge-punk types, who crowd around each other and collectively scoff at the smoking laws by sneaking puffs of “fuck-you,” reveling in their perceived rebellion as the haggard, staggering staff look on without the slightest concern.

The “DJ” is keystroking a selection of MP3s off his MacBook, making a mix that sounds like he took a hatchet to a collection of yesteryear billboard hits, from DMX to Dolly Parton, but mashed up with a jittery techno backbeat.

“So… this is a hipster party?” I ask the girl sitting next to me. She’s wearing big dangling earrings, an American Apparel V-neck tee, non-prescription eyeglasses and an inappropriately warm wool coat.

“Yeah, just look around you, 99 percent of the people here are total hipsters!”

“Are you a hipster?”

“Fuck no,” she says, laughing back the last of her glass before she hops off to the dance floor.

Ever since the Allies bombed the Axis into submission, Western civilization has had a succession of counter-culture movements that have energetically challenged the status quo. Each successive decade of the post-war era has seen it smash social standards, riot and fight to revolutionize every aspect of music, art, government and civil society.

But after punk was plasticized and hip hop lost its impetus for social change, all of the formerly dominant streams of “counter-culture” have merged together. Now, one mutating, trans-Atlantic melting pot of styles, tastes and behavior has come to define the generally indefinable idea of the “Hipster.”

An artificial appropriation of different styles from different eras, the hipster represents the end of Western civilization – a culture lost in the superficiality of its past and unable to create any new meaning. Not only is it unsustainable, it is suicidal. While previous youth movements have challenged the dysfunction and decadence of their elders, today we have the “hipster” – a youth subculture that mirrors the doomed shallowness of mainstream society.

***

Take a stroll down the street in any major North American or European city and you’ll be sure to see a speckle of fashion-conscious twentysomethings hanging about and sporting a number of predictable stylistic trademarks: skinny jeans, cotton spandex leggings, fixed-gear bikes, vintage flannel, fake eyeglasses and a keffiyeh – initially sported by Jewish students and Western protesters to express solidarity with Palestinians, the keffiyeh has become a completely meaningless hipster cliché fashion accessory.

The American Apparel V-neck shirt, Pabst Blue Ribbon beer and Parliament cigarettes are symbols and icons of working or revolutionary classes that have been appropriated by hipsterdom and drained of meaning. Ten years ago, a man wearing a plain V-neck tee and drinking a Pabst would never be accused of being a trend-follower. But in 2008, such things have become shameless clichés of a class of individuals that seek to escape their own wealth and privilege by immersing themselves in the aesthetic of the working class.

This obsession with “street-cred” reaches its apex of absurdity as hipsters have recently and wholeheartedly adopted the fixed-gear bike as the only acceptable form of transportation – only to have brakes installed on a piece of machinery that is defined by its lack thereof.

Lovers of apathy and irony, hipsters are connected through a global network of blogs and shops that push forth a global vision of fashion-informed aesthetics. Loosely associated with some form of creative output, they attend art parties, take lo-fi pictures with analog cameras, ride their bikes to night clubs and sweat it up at nouveau disco-coke parties. The hipster tends to religiously blog about their daily exploits, usually while leafing through generation-defining magazines like Vice, Another Magazine and Wallpaper. This cursory and stylized lifestyle has made the hipster almost universally loathed.

“These hipster zombies… are the idols of the style pages, the darlings of viral marketers and the marks of predatory real-estate agents,” wrote Christian Lorentzen in a Time Out New York article entitled ‘Why the Hipster Must Die.’ “And they must be buried for cool to be reborn.”

With nothing to defend, uphold or even embrace, the idea of “hipsterdom” is left wide open for attack. And yet, it is this ironic lack of authenticity that has allowed hipsterdom to grow into a global phenomenon that is set to consume the very core of Western counterculture. Most critics make a point of attacking the hipster’s lack of individuality, but it is this stubborn obfuscation that distinguishes them from their predecessors, while allowing hipsterdom to easily blend in and mutate other social movements, sub-cultures and lifestyles.

***

Standing outside an art-party next to a neat row of locked-up fixed-gear bikes, I come across a couple girls who exemplify hipster homogeneity. I ask one of the girls if her being at an art party and wearing fake eyeglasses, leggings and a flannel shirt makes her a hipster.

“I’m not comfortable with that term,” she replies.

Her friend adds, with just a flicker of menace in her eyes, “Yeah, I don’t know, you shouldn’t use that word, it’s just…”

“Offensive?”

“No… it’s just, well… if you don’t know why then you just shouldn’t even use it.”

“Ok, so what are you girls doing tonight after this party?”

“Ummm… We’re going to the after-party.”

***

Gavin McInnes, one of the founders of Vice, who recently left the magazine, is considered to be one of hipsterdom’s primary architects. But, in contrast to the majority of concerned media-types, McInnes, whose “Dos and Don’ts” commentary defined the rules of hipster fashion for over a decade, is more critical of those doing the criticizing.

“I’ve always found that word [“hipster”] is used with such disdain, like it’s always used by chubby bloggers who aren’t getting laid anymore and are bored, and they’re just so mad at these young kids for going out and getting wasted and having fun and being fashionable,” he says. “I’m dubious of these hypotheses because they always smell of an agenda.”

Punks wear their tattered threads and studded leather jackets with honor, priding themselves on their innovative and cheap methods of self-expression and rebellion. B-boys and b-girls announce themselves to anyone within earshot with baggy gear and boomboxes. But it is rare, if not impossible, to find an individual who will proclaim themself a proud hipster. It’s an odd dance of self-identity – adamantly denying your existence while wearing clearly defined symbols that proclaims it.

***

“He’s 17 and he lives for the scene!” a girl whispers in my ear as I sneak a photo of a young kid dancing up against a wall in a dimly lit corner of the after-party. He’s got a flipped-out, do-it-yourself haircut, skin-tight jeans, leather jacket, a vintage punk tee and some popping high tops.

“Shoot me,” he demands, walking up, cigarette in mouth, striking a pose and exhaling. He hits a few different angles with a firmly unimpressed expression and then gets a bit giddy when I show him the results.

“Rad, thanks,” he says, re-focusing on the music and submerging himself back into the sweaty funk of the crowd where he resumes a jittery head bobble with a little bit of a twitch.

The dance floor at a hipster party looks like it should be surrounded by quotation marks. While punk, disco and hip hop all had immersive, intimate and energetic dance styles that liberated the dancer from his/her mental states – be it the head-spinning b-boy or violent thrashings of a live punk show – the hipster has more of a joke dance. A faux shrug shuffle that mocks the very idea of dancing or, at its best, illustrates a non-committal fear of expression typified in a weird twitch/ironic twist. The dancers are too self-aware to let themselves feel any form of liberation; they shuffle along, shrugging themselves into oblivion.

***

Perhaps the true motivation behind this deliberate nonchalance is an attempt to attract the attention of the ever-present party photographers, who swim through the crowd like neon sharks, flashing little blasts of phosphorescent ecstasy whenever they spot someone worth momentarily immortalizing.

Noticing a few flickers of light splash out from the club bathroom, I peep in only to find one such photographer taking part in an impromptu soft-core porno shoot. Two girls and a guy are taking off their clothes and striking poses for a set of grimy glamour shots. It’s all grins and smirks until another girl pokes her head inside and screeches, “You’re not some club kid in New York in the nineties. This shit is so hipster!” – which sparks a bit of a catfight, causing me to beat a hasty retreat.

In many ways, the lifestyle promoted by hipsterdom is highly ritualized. Many of the party-goers who are subject to the photoblogger’s snapshots no doubt crawl out of bed the next afternoon and immediately re-experience the previous night’s debauchery. Red-eyed and bleary, they sit hunched over their laptops, wading through a sea of similarity to find their own (momentarily) thrilling instant of perfected hipster-ness.

What they may or may not know is that “cool-hunters” will also be skulking the same sites, taking note of how they dress and what they consume. These marketers and party-promoters get paid to co-opt youth culture and then re-sell it back at a profit. In the end, hipsters are sold what they think they invent and are spoon-fed their pre-packaged cultural livelihood.

Hipsterdom is the first “counterculture” to be born under the advertising industry’s microscope, leaving it open to constant manipulation but also forcing its participants to continually shift their interests and affiliations. Less a subculture, the hipster is a consumer group – using their capital to purchase empty authenticity and rebellion. But the moment a trend, band, sound, style or feeling gains too much exposure, it is suddenly looked upon with disdain. Hipsters cannot afford to maintain any cultural loyalties or affiliations for fear they will lose relevance.

An amalgamation of its own history, the youth of the West are left with consuming cool rather that creating it. The cultural zeitgeists of the past have always been sparked by furious indignation and are reactionary movements. But the hipster’s self-involved and isolated maintenance does nothing to feed cultural evolution. Western civilization’s well has run dry. The only way to avoid hitting the colossus of societal failure that looms over the horizon is for the kids to abandon this vain existence and start over.

***

“If you don’t give a damn, we don’t give a fuck!” chants an emcee before his incitements are abruptly cut short when the power plug is pulled and the lights snapped on.

Dawn breaks and the last of the after-after-parties begin to spill into the streets. The hipsters are falling out, rubbing their eyes and scanning the surrounding landscape for the way back from which they came. Some hop on their fixed-gear bikes, some call for cabs, while a few of us hop a fence and cut through the industrial wasteland of a nearby condo development.

The half-built condos tower above us like foreboding monoliths of our yuppie futures. I take a look at one of the girls wearing a bright pink keffiyah and carrying a Polaroid camera and think, “If only we carried rocks instead of cameras, we’d look like revolutionaries.” But instead we ignore the weapons that lie at our feet – oblivious to our own impending demise.

We are a lost generation, desperately clinging to anything that feels real, but too afraid to become it ourselves. We are a defeated generation, resigned to the hypocrisy of those before us, who once sang songs of rebellion and now sell them back to us. We are the last generation, a culmination of all previous things, destroyed by the vapidity that surrounds us. The hipster represents the end of Western civilization – a culture so detached and disconnected that it has stopped giving birth to anything new.

-----

This is the article I mentioned in class about Hipsters. I think it's a really interesting article for a couple reasons, one being that I never actually heard about Hipsters before reading this article. I realize now that I've come in contact with many Hipsters, but I never heard about this "Hipster Counterculture" until I picked up this magazine. I realized though that it was probably because so many Hipsters would not proudly announce themselves as Hipsters. Or, to take it a step further, it is probably because so many Hipsters don't even realize or recognize that they are being Hipsters because "in the end, hipsters are sold what they think they invent and are spoon-fed their pre-packaged cultural livelihood."

I think the paragraph following this particular quote becomes important as well:

"Hipsterdom is the first “counterculture” to be born under the advertising industry’s microscope, leaving it open to constant manipulation but also forcing its participants to continually shift their interests and affiliations. Less a subculture, the hipster is a consumer group – using their capital to purchase empty authenticity and rebellion. But the moment a trend, band, sound, style or feeling gains too much exposure, it is suddenly looked upon with disdain. Hipsters cannot afford to maintain any cultural loyalties or affiliations for fear they will lose relevance."

This touches back on a couple ideas that we read with Hebdige's "From Culture to Hegemony." Hebdige says "[...]the challenge to hegemony which subcultures represent is not issued directly to them. Rather it is expressed obliquely, in style" (151). He then continues on saying "style in subculture is, then, pregnant with significance. Its transformations go 'against nature', interrupting the process of 'normalization'. As such, they are gestures, movements towards a speech which offends the 'silent majority', which challenges the principle of unity and cohesion, which contradicts the myth of consensus" (152). I guess this brings me to the question: are hipsters like the punks who were challenging hegemony with their style? I mean, in the end, the punk subculture was absorbed by the advertising industry and seemed to have lost a lot of its original meaning, but the hipster "counterculture" so it is called was born out of the advertising industry. And according to Hebdige's definition of hegemony (the "[...]situation in which a provisional alliance of certain social groups can exert 'total social authority' over other subordinate groups, not simply by coercion or by the direct imposition of ruling ideas, but by 'winning and shaping consent so that the power of the dominant classes appears both legitimate and natural[...]'"(Hebdige 150)) I wonder if hipsterdom is the subordinate group in this situation, being ruled over by the advertising industry.

And it leads to my final question which is found in the very last sentence of the article: does the hipster represent the end of western civilization as a culture that has become so detached and disconnected that it has stopped giving birth to anything new? I can't help hoping that it's not true, but hipsterdom seems to be a perfect example of a consumer culture and so I wonder where we go from here.

P.S. Please visit the Adbusters site for more amazing articles and fun things to look at. I particularly enjoyed the picture of the corporate US flag. I really like what Adbusters does and maybe you will to =D

Is humanity lost?

Over the past 24 hours or so I've read all of the Naomi Klein excerpts as well as a few other parts of "The Shock Doctrine" simply because I could not get enough of this concept.  I felt almost as if Ms. Klein and I were having a one on one conversation and she was simply highlighting so many of the awful things going on in the world and how they are intrinsically tied to capitalism.  

Klein's analogy of shock therapy being related to the blank slate in the wake of natural and/or human born disasters fascinates me.  I instantly understood her point but still soaked up every page simply so I could be further convinced and educated on this matter.  What really threw me for a turn was the history of shock therapy and the idea that it was somehow going to give doctors a clean slate to work with in terms of actual patients.  Susana Kaysen's book "Girl, Interrupted" fits into this context perfectly as she details her time spent in a mental hospital in the 1950's.  There are tales of shock therapy in this book and for the first time (I've read this book 27 times) I finally understand a bit more about the history behind what results Kaysen's doctors may have been thinking they were eventually going to get.  Kaysen got lucky and she got out relatively unharmed but her friends in that hospital were not all as lucky and many of them may have been part of shock experiments in some way or another.  What I struggle with is the fact that Kaysen was unwillingly put into a psychiatric ward as were so many other people at this time and that many likely never consented to any of these experiments being done on them.   

I was at a loss of words as my body quite literally began to hurt while reading the chapter on shock therapy out of Klein's book.  Matt just asked where our morals have gone and I second that question.  Cameron was absolutely crazy to believe he was going to help these people but further than that we are now using these ideas to extract information out of "enemy combatants" as we call them in order to legally torture them.  We are taking away humanity from an individual and justifying it with whatever excuse sounds good for the day.  This is not okay and it is tearing at me to consider myself a pacifist at heart while living in a world that has somehow allowed powerful men (mostly men, anyway) to take away the ability to be human.

Breaking down Klein's analogy a little further, the world is in a state of shock.  America is in a state of shock even if it is 7 years after 9/11.  There are endless stories to be told of weapons manufacturers making millions and private security firms getting insane contracts but my concern is the people who are being erased.  An entire population of people are being erased be it in New Orleans where the public school system has almost entirely been turned over to private charter schools or in any other disaster ridden town where property prices are on a space rise and the former residents will never be able to afford to live there.

In, "Dear Mr. President," the musical artist, P!nk, asks George W. Bush "How do you sleep while the rest of us cry?"  I ask the same question of everyone who has made money off of 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, the countless earthquakes and tsunamis that have wiped out tens of thousands of people and their homes.  How do you live with yourself?  And furthermore, how do we live with ourselves for letting this happen?  How do we even begin to fix this?  I ask these questions not to be negative but to hopefully think about what we as a human community mean to each other.  

Shock Doctrine

Alright well I just finished the first part of the reading by Naomi Klein and I have to say that I'm a bit disappointed in the U.S. and to a lesser degree, the whole world.  Yes, I know, that's taking on a lot of people, but oh well.  While it is clear to me that the idea of war profiteering and making a buck off of disaster is not a new idea, I'm appalled that it is being done to such a wide degree and with such success.  It seems that everywhere I turn there is new news of another company making record profits in a time of great economic distress, but also during a time where it seems like profits and the bottom line should be the last of our worries.  When foundations of American culture like the public school system come under attack and those who are proponents for public education are dubbed as having an "irrational attachment to a socialist system," I think we're in trouble.

I believe that Klein's use of the torture analogy was quite apt.  It really showed how great shocks to a country and it's inhabitants can give rise to change that would otherwise would not have taken place, for better or worse.  I do get the feeling that the average American citizen has been a punching bag these past few years, that we are being softened up for more major changes that could prove debilitating to our way of life.  We were scared into approving things like the Patriot Act, told to be afraid, that the only way we could help was to go out and spend.  And now looking back it all seems like colored bubbles used to distract away from this great change that took place, without the consent of those that are governed by the laws.  I feel disenchanted with government and the way I have always envisioned it working.  That, for me, is a lot to say growing up in a family that lives in the D.C. area and is still thoroughly involved in politics.  When war can be seen as a 'for profit model' and as a great way to diversify, I think it's safe to say we've crossed a threshold that is followed by a precipitous drop.

Where are our morals?  When even aid being given to other countries, which should be given-but out of the goodness of our hearts and out of necessity, is seen as another way to make profit, it makes me cringe.  The Bush-Cheney camp calls people that operate on this level "pioneers," well it seems to me that the Chilean translation would be more appropriate-"piranhas."  When the man who finds a way to make money by providing supplies to the sick and needy after a disaster of historical proportions like Hurricane Katrina or the Iraq War [oh wow, both overseen by Bush] is called a "pioneer," it makes you question what they will call the new land that a man such as that would find.

I rambled but I'm not happy with where we are as a country right now.

Obama '08, and register to vote if you haven't already.

Can a piece of art be mass produced, reproduced, inadvertently exploited?

So this is my very first blog ever so excuse the scatter-brained writing and here it goes. I wanted to write about Benjamins and Durham’s articles because I feel like much of what they argue has great potential to create great debate. Anyways I bet there is so much of the article’s that I didn’t grasp or write about but here it goes.

            I think that Benjamin makes an incredibly great point that art cannot be reproduced without deconstructing its intended aura but I can’t say I totally agree. I feel that art is a great mode of communicating what an artist is feeling but I feel that art is great because of the feeling and meaning a person receives. I think the best part about art, as a method of revolution, depends solely on the way it makes the audience feel. Because there is such prominent class divide the reaction will never be the same. Each class creates and practices its own set of ideologies that they carry, as Durham states, unconsciously which directly affect the way people of each class react to things.

                        Just imagine a great artist who wants to create a revolution because he is unsatisfied with society. So he creates this grand piece of work that is disconnected and/or portrays something he didn’t intend. Or imagine an artist that creates something totally meaningless but inspires a mass group of people to ban together. Because of different life experiences, socio-economic status, geography a reaction to a piece of art, no matter the time, place, or original intention the aura is not destroyed but changed. Changed because the aura was open for interpretation in its original state so in another time, place, context the reaction of the audience is all that originally mattered anyway, so its purpose and aura is unchanged.

            The point I’m trying to make is that art is open to interpretation for a reason, it doesn’t matter in what state, context, meaning the art was created in, its how the audience reacts to it. In most cases the authenticity of a piece of art is not degraded by its reproduction but simply allows for a greater audience. And while exploitation is bound to happen in any space, reproducing art can be used as a way of expansion of audience but is easily exploited for any one groups purpose. 

I’m going to restrain form diving too deep into the topic I have in my head because it could turn into a long paper but I want to say that after reading Durham’s article it is hard to say whether reproducing a piece of art is just art to get a reaction and to express an artist’s emotion to a greater audience or if it is a way to manipulate the masses. And I’m stuck…