Is this Planet Earth?
“The value of things ought not to be simply dependent on its location along the time and space continuum, but in its illustrating the vibrancy, individuality and experimental potentials of what indicates a more Individualised mind.
I presume many may be inclined to laugh at the sight of Simon Le Bon’s ‘pants big enough to fit a chicken coop and a half’.
But, the interesting thing is, nobody laughed during the 80s.
In this lies an indication of the continuing tyrannous hold of the ‘modernist fallacy’…
…over the minds of the successfully indoctrinated masses who believe, by pure religious faith, that we are living in ‘modern times’, which, to the all too common mind, simply indicates that much that is past is bad because it is the past. The wide use of the phrase ‘Old fashioned’ and ‘dated’ in reference to dress styles, ideology, attitudes, amongst others, and its synonymisation with ‘undesirable’, is itself indicative of the pervasiveness of this kind of thought(lessness).
I, however, unlike the so-called ‘individuals’ of today, have more of a mind of my own,
…and am thus able to appreciate the fashions of the past as indicative of varying degrees of the continuing existence and expressions of individuality as opposed to the present where many confuse making a public exposition of ones boxer shorts/’butt cracks’/etc as signs of individuality. It would be more true to say, in this instance, that this is a degeneration of the idea of individuality via its synonymisation with the nether regions as opposed to personality, and the consequent synonymisation of personality with the nether regions.
In the animal kingdom,
…which is fast becoming a superior counterpart to humanity, self-assertion and individuation for whatever purposes is not effected simply via the exposition of their nether regions. Look at the plumes of a peacock and the vibrant colours of various reptiles and you will see that their nether regions play a purely functional role as opposed to indicating one’s value. But the current, version 0.1 (as opposed to 1.0) ‘human’, inversely, when they confuse the nether regions for their ‘plumes’, compromise their assumed perspectival superiority over their winged, furred and four-legged counterparts.
So, in a clamshell, if you’re inclined to titter at Simon, just remember, that might simply be indicative of your having successfully ‘moonwalked’ past that dog licking its posterior down the street.
I once told a friend who was dressed in a ‘retro’ style, after he had told me that there were quite a few who had remarked that he was ‘out of sync’ and not fashionable, to respond when encountering this species of humans with a, ‘style never goes out of fashion’. The breed of humans who take the transmissions of the ubiquitous billboard as holy writ and thus abdicate their critical capacity to The Corporation will, predicatably, have nothing intelligent to say in return. I was right.
As for myself, I’m
enjoying the above video for more than its music, whilst in full appreciation of
the fact that style and the value of things is not dependent simply on its
location along the time and space continuum, but in its indicating the critical vibrancy and experimental nature of what thus indicates a more individualised mind.
Now that, gentlewomen and men, is true Style.
Comments
I am sorry... Duran Duran have nothing to do with the mind. It is a pretty shiny object.
I love that man, he relieves the headache you cause because I can only think about how pretty and shiny he is.
They would be beautiful no matter where/when they are...
very deep songs, but they were rooted in a sepecific time, and so big that people
associate them with it. This is not to defy this song just an observation of why
they seem to be trivialized.
I see you missed the point completely - as usual;)
Duran emerged from a general social milieu exhibiting a more individualistic mindset - just as the 'music' of today emerges from a less individualistic mindset - i.e. fans are less likely to innovate and be inventive as opposed to imbibing and imitating. Additionally, Jimi, Hendrix, Jim Morrisson, amongst others, emerged from a more generally critical and self-aware social mindset where the people generally tended to be quite independent of Corporation influence.
Oh, btw, the 'cause' of your headaches lies in the propensity to appreciate reality at an extremely superficial and face-value level - i often found that quite a few americans and chinese tend towards such an appreciation (depreciation) of reality...which is also one of the reasons why i view both as kissing cousins.
Thus, whenever just about anything is appreciated even at a snorkel-level, the cells start bursting. One only has to look at american films, the ability of the administration to go to war at the most superficial of reasons, and the inability of the general american public to put up an insightful opposition to it or realise their complicity in bringing about 911, amongst a host of other reasons, to see what i mean. You seem to be a product of such a milieu. Not really your fault. You ought to transcend your geographical/cultural location, then, i'm sure, the headaches would cease.
No sarcasm or offence intended Nicole. Just a thought in consideration of your persistent headaches and your tendency to locate it in the wrong 'cause'.
Hi P&V,
Yes, they were rooted, and reinforced to some degree, a 'specific time'. Having experienced the 80s as a part of the pop-crowd, i could quite tell that the present does not have as much individualism as those times. I remember people trying to outdo each other in experimental styles, being quite anti-establishment, and the existence of equally prominent sub-cultures. This was more pronounced in the 70s and 60s.
It seems that the Critical Mind retreated from the social (in the 60s/70s - where there were more philosophical escapades, anti-establishmentism, etc) to the individual (in the 80s - where it was confined to fashion/styles, with a touch of anti-establishmentism) and then gradually vanished altogether from the 90s to the present.
I suppose when the individual is deprived of the social milieu as a relevant arena for critique for one reason or other, the Critical Mind takes refuge within the individual and continues plying its traits, albeit in relatively superficial ways, i.e. fashion, etc. This is when the socio-economic system will have greater impact on the individual as all critical resistance in its face had lapsed. That is when The Corporation will gradually define, direct and profit from the human's ability to be dissatisfied....and disaffection itself will be confined to the playground of shopping malls and 'reality' shows....and be prone to headaches upon reading this article;)
Thanks for your comments.
Too fall for a symbolic and attitudinal call for a critical mind is not a bad thing is it. If that was the 'gimmick', that would be a good thing in terms of its impact, gimmick or otherwise is irrelevant. Anyway, i wouldn't say Duran was a really 'good thing' considering they, amongst others, were a combination of both superficiality with a touch of profundity. It was however, symbolically, a source promoting more critical mindedness amongst the masses as opposed to the pop music of the present - communicating that was the intent of the article btw.
And, btw, i was speaking of my experience of and in the 80s. This is an analysis of it in retrospect. It was a stepping stone to transcend it actually. It is interesting how you come across as believing I'm the same person now. Perhaps all the headaches have caused you to discount all contradictory information at this site perhaps;)
Go ahead and hide behind that if you wish. It is no different than a Sprite commercial. (I am glad you were able to adapt a better use of it for yourself though.) You may have seen/still see it as a call toward critical thinking and that makes me grin. They are/were the most guilty of what you acuse me of yet they say they were giving you what you want(ed.)
Whether you bought into it then or now, it still makes me grin. Let me know when you have transcended it because you still appear to be stuck. I have no idea of what kind of person you are or were and I really hope you don't either yet. I am listening with an active interest.
We're all still becoming. I've been down your road, it's pretty cyclical for me. After years of introspection, detactchment, and reconnection, I decided that it was time for a course correction (good thing it is a marathon not a sprint.) For now, I am gathering, experiencing. The only real foolishness I will admit to is that even though you give me headaches, I look anyway, often with renewed interest! :P
Ed: "Hmmm what do I think about that?"
Nik: "No no not yet..."
Men are in such a rush. ;)
It was a call towards critical thinking for the juvenile, and more so than much of present music. That is quite easily verifiable by a study of lyrical content, the degree of anti-establishment attitude present in the fashions and styles of the 80s vs present, the prominence and existence of very distinguishable types of music/styles/fashions, and again, the degree of anti-establishment attitudes in these, compared to the present (where, perhaps, gangsta rap, is one of the last remaining vestiges of anti-establishmentism).
You can, of course, disagree, but it would be good if you could justify your disagreement via verifiable evidence such as some of those i cited above. 'Grinning', unfortunately, does not serve much as a rational, systematic, and logical argument.
An ill-rationalised statement, dear Nicole, is little more than a 'statement of preference or bias'. That, as evidenced by the content of what you have to say, presents it as little more than that. And that is the rational basis upon which i allow myself to 'grin';) at your response.
It's good that you still drop by, but the observations you generally leave behind say little more than that you are having a 'headache'. That does little to advance the discussion, and gives one an impression that you might find below-surface observations to be pointless. That may not be the impression you want to convey though, but, here in the blogging world, we have little to go by other than the written word. Thus, my 'accusation' is well-rationalised by what you say and fail to say in previous comments. I also noticed that you dedicated a whole post at your site to state that 'this guy(ed) gives me a headache'. You cannot wonder at why i said what i did thereafter can you Nicole?
Hiya Ed,
I hope you are rested and well.
In this lies an indication of the continuing tyrannous hold of the ‘modernist fallacy’…
I dont think I could add anymore that this. It explains what it means.
Thankyou so much.
/davbe.
most of the art into their propgandha. Its the Postmodern blues that I decry.
Irony should be tested for something of real sentiment; just being odd or kitschy,
is not irony. Its all of this art for art's sake that Postmodernism created that
led the way for all the Warholian nonesense that passes for art.
Yes, I am, quite. Thanks mate. Finally managed to get proper sleep the past couple of days. Thank you for reading the above article Dave. As usual, the quote you picked out was most apt in illustrating the main stance of the article. You must be one of the rare few who actually come here and bother to try to understand what i try my best to communicate as simply as i can at present.
You're most welcome Dave.
Hi P&V,
" Leave poor modernism alone, it failed all on its own when the Facists appropriated most of the art into their propaganda."
Haha! I love the irony.
Mmmm...i love your tirade against postmodernist 'art'.
'Irony should be tested for something of real sentiment..."
Now that's interesting. By 'real sentiment', do you mean 'meaningful sentiment' as opposed to using irony for irony's sake?
"...just being odd or kitschy, is not irony.."
Upon considering that thought, I considered the possibility that the word, 'kitschy', or its acquiring common linguistic/perspectival currency would itself be a postmodernist word that views nostalgic sentimentality as laughable - especially where the status quo and 'change for change's sake' is taken as the only natural constant.
"Its all of this art for art's sake that Postmodernism created that
led the way for all the Warholian nonsense that passes for art. "
Whilst i agree with you on 'Warholian nonsense', it does provide people practice in looking at things in other ways does it not? To counter this question, I would say, this may not be good if 'the opportunity to look at things in other ways' is worshipped for its own sake as opposed to it being used in meaningful arenas as well, i.e. politics, global affairs, etc. This is when we might view artistic innovation being subsumed with The Corporate scheme of things.
Finally, i have to say that i am sometimes inclined to think that the idea of 'postmodernism' is itself a product of the modernist fallacy.
When one believes that we are actually living in 'modern' times, or that we are past 'modern' times, that is when the idea of 'postmodernism' actually can exist. In other words, 'postmodern' is part of the problem, not the solution, as the bulk of the discourse has yet to address the possibility that humanity has yet to even arrive at the modern age, or that we have only arrived at one variant, out of a multitude, of possible 'modernisms'. To talk about 'postmodern', in other words, is to validate the reality of the 'modern' we have just passed, where, in reality, we might not have even arrived at it in the first place!
Did i make myself clear in the above P&V? You raised very insightful and thought-provoking points. The above was incited by them. I would be most interested to hear your thoughts on the matter - perhaps you could publish an article on the topic, or a more elaborated response, at your site and provide a link to it here in the comments section?
Good one P&V.
finished.
Hehe, Ed. I should be more clear, the headaches you cause are pleasant in a sick sort of way. My post about you in my blog isn't at all a complaint, it is a more of a "hey, look at this guy." I think about many of the points you raise and they remind me of old, painful arguments about literary and cultural studies.
I find your discussions wildly fascinating but on my journey... I am still of a mind to say "hmmm, look at that..." You're my stairstepper. If I were to actually participate in your discussion, I would have probably been on board with pissandvinegar.
I am screwed though because of the appeal of the whole dichotomy of it. That whole movement just seems insidious to me. They say that they're making that whole whole advancement towards intellectualism, but we really aren't getting anywhere, we're just making it worse. (or so it seems.) The hoodwinking seemed very intentional to my adolescent mind. (Oh the dangers of Laurie Anderson (sp)
It reminds me a bit of your tag line, which is perfect, but what is it doing once it's induced?
You put the stuff out there, and it's sort of like "tru dat..." or "hmmmm." Sometimes it becomes "ow, man..." In the end, I have to get off the stairstepper to get back to my regularly scheduled day of evil. I'm a little sore for it, but still happy.
I'm not analyzing anything really, just in receive mode. Don't make me work, ed.... :( (My stairstepper is yelling at me...)