"There are no differences, but differences of degree, between degrees of difference and no difference."

This week's class reflection upon all of our blogs became a very enlightening discussion as to just how broad of a topic "pop culture" is. Mutli-racial issues, fantasy, pornography, football, hip hop, art, food, and make-up all became intertwined. The fact that each of these topics could somehow be related back to one another is significant of the fact popular opinion, consumerism, subculture, and art all create one continuous circle from which trends and new ideas arise.

As much as we would like to think we are different from one another, when it comes down to the core composition of our prefereces, we are driven by the same reasons as another person for liking what we like.

After we all, for the most part, talked about Dick Hebidge's article on "Subculture", it became a sadly obvious fact that in our own struggles to claim our uniqueness we are further propagating the establishment and popularity of what we have tried to keep as our own.

As of this point in the semester, this class has left me somewhat disenchanted with most things that I felt were unique or relative to myself. Maybe I was just a narssicist to begin with, but I really do not feel very special anymore!

I mean, Symbolic Creativity? Creative Consumption? Lets just face it. If what we make and what we consume becomes representative of our worth as human beings then I think we are seriously heading in the wrong direction as a society. Now even in our last essay on the topic of "Femininity" it has gotten to the point that we produce and sell and buy gender?

I just am left feeling really bitter.

Not so much angry, but kind of lame.

I would blame my feelings on all of this towards my liberal/socialist/anti-capitalistic tendancies...

But then Id just be placing mysel in yet another stereotype that ironically has been marketed, packaged, sold, and bought!

"Shelia Take a Bow"

This week I found the concept of "Drag Kings" to be particularly interesting. The idea of women taking on the appearance of men and putting on an almost satirical performance was something I had never heard of before. I am mostly familiar with "Drag Kings" and male gender-bending.  However, when a woman assumes the identity of a male there are many questions raised as to the motives behind such a transformation.
Is she merely a feminist? Is she a lesbian? Does she really want to be a male?
It seems as though such scenes become spectacles and it is generally less accepted for women to act or dress in this fashion.
When the roles of males and females seem to get blurred and confused, mass consumers can be put off. We, as consumers, are generally more comfortable with what we are familiar to.

Gender-bending is nothing new though. In the 1960's Andy Warhol often mixed the sexes in various movies and looks. He, himself, dyed his hair, wore make-up, and drew on his eyebrows. His avant-garde films are especially known for their gender-bending.
Paul Morrissey was an extremely excentric filmmaker who collaborated with Warhol on almost all of his film endeavors.
"Flesh" is one such example.

While the acting and the overall plot of the film leave little to be desired the general synopsis is such:

 (A heroin junkie (Joe Dallesandro) works as a prostitute to support his habit and fund an abortion needed by the girlfriend of his lesbian wife..)

The basic gender roles and stereotypes are broken and toyed with.

Many of Warhol's "stars" had appearances that did not fit into societies norms. Some were males who dressed female, some were females who dressed more masculine, and there were those who also took on an androgynous appearance.

Whether such "plays" on gender are accepted or not is really not the issue. The fact is that they get attention and whether we agree with them or not, our acknowledgement of them gives them a place in popular culture.

"SAMO as an end to mindwash religion, nowhere politics and bogus philosophy."

In Tricia Rose's essay on the Post-Industrial culture and Hip-Hop she mentions the three central forms that have developed: graffiti, breakdancing, and rap music. With trends moving away from manufacturing and more towards technological fields, many cities were forced to restructure. This resulted in a terrible income decline for the 20 percent of people who already were at the lower end of the pay scale.

The Puerto Ricans and African-Americans of New York, and particularly the South Bronx, were hit the hardest.

Thus, from the rubble was born the hip hop culture, partly motivated politically and fueled by a desire for urban renewal.

Jean Michel Basquiat, fellow artist and friend of Andy Warhol, was a unique poineer in the hip hop culture. He was born in 1960 to a Puerto Rican woman and a Haitian immigrant. He grew up in Brooklyn, New York and had a rough childhood. His mother was bipolar and deemed unfit to care for him and so he stayed with his father who was known to be a violent alcoholic.  He ran away from home at the age of 15 and lived on the streets of New York city surviving by selling drugs, panhandling, and by creating homeade postcards and tee shirts.

He quickly gained recognition for his designs on post cards as well as for his graffiti that covered the streets of lower Manhattan.  He signed his graffiti with the psydeudonym "SAMO"... perhaps meaning "same old shit"

His work on the streets became so popular that the "Village Voice" did an article on him.

Basquiat's art was raw and urban. While he insisted that his work stood for no political purpose, it is apparent by some of the writing in his murals are representative of his dissatisfaction with the state of things.

Alot of his art also can be traced back to his heritage. One painting, titled "History of the Black People" is said to reclaim Egyptian's African descent. He makes a mockery out of how historians have conviently forgotten or ignored the fact that, technically, Egyptians are just as Black as any other African.

Jean Michel Basquiat's work was ironic, non-sensical, and urban. It was something that the street kids could relate to. He represented his culture, as well as his socio-economic struggles through his work and was a central figure in early hip hop development.



"Mind is shapely; Art is shapely"

Aesthetic or Obscene?

While this blog has thus far been mostly about Andy Warhol and his world, I felt the need after Tuesday's conversation about Aestheticism to dig a little deeper into this idea and discuss High Art versus Obscenity.

The first thing that came to my mind was another famous man in Warhol's time, Allen Gisberg, and in particular the "Howl" Obscenity Trial of 1957.

Allen Ginsberg was part of what was known as the "Beat Generation".  As a homosexual, Jewish, man who was against the War in Vietnam, the capitalistic nature of American greed, "Howl" was an anthem of sorts for all the disenfranchised of America.
The poem, which is rather long, flat out shocked people. Upon it's publishing, the Editor of the publishing company City Lights Press, was arrested and charged with printing obscene material.
I suppose this is where the arguement over aestheticism and obscenity comes into play.


      " I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by
              madness, starving hysterical naked,
       dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn
              looking for an angry fix,
       angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly
              connection to the starry dynamo in the machin-
              ery of night.. "

That was an extremely tiny exerpt from the first part of "Howl". The entire poem can be read here.

No one can dispute that the poem does not contain profanity, sexuality, or anti-american/government undertones. However, in this great free country of America, we have a little thing called "Freedom of Speech".
The idea that a piece of literature can even be put on trial, let alone persecuted for it's content, is ridiculous and outright illegal.
Looking even further past the legal issues of it all, when do we acknowledge the artistic value of a piece of work and when do we consider it utter crap?
Maybe I have a biased opinion, because I have anti-governmental/anti-capitalistic beliefs as well, but to me the artistic and political value of Allen Ginsberg's work is incredibly valuable.

As I had mentioned earlier, "Howl" became an anthem for all the under appreciated, disenfranchised, and ostrasized of America. It contained a strong message that challenged the way that America was functioning. Ginsberg discussed a lot of the corruption that was going on that most people kept silent about. Following along the lines of Aestheticism, "Howl" was not meant to be understood by the masses. It was written for that specific group, who would read it and understand and not judge it for its abbrasive wording. It has stood the test of time, and over 50 years later it is still being discussed as an intergral part of American literature. Obviously it did not fit in with Popular Taste, but I feel to those that have an open mind and who can see the bigger picture, "Howl" is a truly aesthetic work of art.