National Geographic

This week I read an article in National Geographic about the science of the teenage brain. Ironically, I was informed this morning by our Temple Today newsletter that a Temple professor is featured in the article! I found this article very applicable to our discussions in class. We often pass off teenagers who are part of subcultures as angry, disenfranchised, and deviant. Well, probably they are, but this article points to a number of other reasons why teenagers act the way they do. From a neurological stand point the teenage brain is still developing, and as teenagers we need to take risks and try out different things in order for our brains to "work better" as adults. It's probably not a coincidence that our society supports rash decision making in our teenage years with fewer consequences under the age of 18. I don't want to talk too much about the article because I think it's a very interesting read and the photographs are, of course, phenomenal captures of teenage life among many different subcultures. Check it out with this link:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/10/teenage-brains/dobbs-text

Positive Rap

I wanted to share this video of my friend rapping because he always makes a point of spreading a positive message. Enjoy!

Hip Hop and the 16th century...?

The substitute said something interesting in class today when we were talking about rap and hip hop. She said, and I paraphrase, that looking past the vulgar, sexist, or disrespectful lyrics of many rappers, there's no denying that they are poets, and there is an art to what they are doing. She said she tries to look at a rap song the same way she might look at a Mannerist painting, as a valid form of artistic expression.

I'm glad she mentioned that because I agree with her perspective, but beyond that, I think it's interesting that she brought up visual art because I see a lot of parallels between the music world and the art world—even between today's rap music and the European masters of the 16th and 17th centuries.

We go to museums, read textbooks, we see these paintings or sculptures there that we consider masterpieces of the Renaissance and Baroque periods, and we accept that this is great art because we're told they are—and, well, it's true, they are. But taking a deeper look at the work, we also see the implications of the subject matter and the imagery itself, and the social meaning behind them. Basically, most of that “great art” was made by sexists for sexists, and often depicted a very sexist worldview. Women were simply sex objects back then just as they are now—certainly with a slightly different spin on it, but it's essentially the same view. It was a male dominated field with a heavily male consumer base, just like the hip hop industry is today. It's interesting that although separated chronologically by centuries, both these worlds actually treat their women in quite similar ways—I guess humans haven't really changed that much in the last 500 years, have they? We tend to forget about that dark side when we look at art (maybe because it's work done mostly by a bunch of dead white males), so it's important to keep that in mind; but at the same time, sexist or not, the best work from that period is still art, it's still beautiful, still influential and important. Meanwhile, people who complain about how offensive rap music is should consider why they would accept Tintoretto's Susanna and the Elders or Titian's Venus of Urbino as art without question, but not Kanye West's Jesus Walks.


P.S. While I'm on the subject, if anyone else is an art nerd you might like to take a look at this link. It's an 8 minute episode of the 1970's BBC series Ways of Seeing with John Berger, about the depiction of women in classical European art.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u72AIab-Gdc

Random Gaming Post

I know this is very off topic given that we are talking about Punk and Hip Hop is next, but I saw this documentary called The Raid which takes you inside "life as a gamer" in an attempt to explain the appeals of games, specifically world of warcraft in this film. I didn't take much away from it because I already know why I enjoy playing this game, but for some of you that don't necessarily affiliate strongly or at all with the gaming sub culture maybe it would be interesting and informative. I'm attaching a link to a site where you can watch the whole, its about an hour long, movie if you want to watch it.

http://jointheraid.com/site/

My Conclusions on Punk

We talked about in class today about what conclusions we came to about youth subcultures, in particular, punk. The conclusion I came to is that punk has different connotations to everyone, so no one can really be on the same page about what it really means or is about since everyone has different reference points about it. It seems to me though, that it has become a catchall marketing term for any type of rebellious attitude or behavior. I think people can still be punk after they become adults, even if they don't become musicians, because punk has expanded beyond music into an ideology of how one approaches life. Punks can channel their rebellious nature and frustration with the dominant culture into other avenues, working from within the system to change things, such as going into political activism. Really any person who refuses to conform to other people's expectations can be considered punk. The whole point of punk is not to prove how committed or authentic you are; the point is to be able to transcend any other person's expectations about how you should live your life or how you should be, so that you can be true to yourself at all times.

I am sure if young people were able to own the means of production and work from inside the system to improve the culture, they would; but the point is that they can't. Besides from feeling disenfranchised and having a lot of free time to indulge in alternative lifestyles, young people are resistant towards the dominat culture because it is controlled by people who take advantage of the young to push their own agenda forward. Since young people don't own the means of production, a lot of youth feel like they are helpless victims of a society that wants to be largely deferential only to those who have money, and therefore, power. Since young people are still affected by the decisions disconnected older people make on the macro level, the only way they can improve their lot in life is by doing things from outside the system.

Punk and a lot of other youth subcultures are radically resistant to the mainstream mainly because they are frustrated that the mainstream is illogically pushing archaic ideals on people that they feel need to change and progress since the world is also inevitably changing. Young people are going to be the ones who are stuck with cleaning up the messes of older people, so instead of just waiting until they are adults to change things, they want to prevent any further perceived regression in the first place.

If we all have to live in this world with one another and we all recognize that there is always room for improvement in civilization, it should be each person's responsibility to resist dominant forces that are trying to keep people apathetic. I think most punks, who are progressive, would agree that we should all try to push towards finding humanity's true, full potential and try to actually make things better for both ourselves and future generations.

Hey Guys!

I was thinking about what Gabe brought up in class today about the idea that subcultures often still use ideals of mainstream such as gender roles and racism and what-not.

I thought that was a very interesting thought because the purpose of subcultures is generally resistance to aspects of mainstream. While thinking about this idea, I came up with two questions:

1) Do you think that subcultures would be more of a threat if they resisted more of the main aspects of mainstream culture such as gender-roles, racism, and exclusivity?

2) Do you think that it is even possible to have a type of subculture that can challenge fundamental ideas such as those? Or are those ideals too fundamental to challenge?

Construction Vs. Destruction

There's a lot of negativity surrounding our conversations of Punk. While not unjustified, I think it's worth taking a second look at the constructive side of Punk as well. This argument is of course somewhat subjective, but I don't want to allow myself to only consider one side of any culture, because surely they are all multidimensional. The ways in which punk culture is destructive seem obvious after our readings and discussions. Punks can destroy physical space (think of the aftermath of a punk show, or graffiti), they harm themselves and others through fighting, they might purposely mutilate themselves for a number of reasons, and, on an abstract level, they destroy the ideals of the mainstream. The breaking down of these ideals is arguably also the most constructive aspect of punk culture. Do trees and other plants not need to be cut back in order to grow bigger? For new ways of thinking to emerge, the old must first be done away with. Punks brought an alternative perspective of our society to the forefront of our minds, even if it was shoved, rather aggressively, down the collective throat of mainstream America. From punk culture came the production of independent literature (zines), handmade or recycled clothes, and of course self produced musical recordings and shows. So before we cast off punks as a bunch of angry kids who stand for nothing and destroy anything, maybe we can also say that while yes, they are both angry and predominantly children or adolescents, they stand for quite a bit. They stand for being heard, for being recognized as individuals, for questioning the norm, for creativity, for personal empowerment, for protest, and ultimately, through self production, creation itself.

grown-ups and youth subcultures

In the last class someone posed a question about whether you can be an adult and still be punk. While most adults can retain a connection to the subculture, I think that it’s difficult to be fully committed, especially in terms of maintaing a radical physical appearance. There is a pressure to conform, at least somewhat, in order to secure employment. In your heart you can be a die-hard member of whatever subculture that you associate with, but you still need to have food in your fridge. In order to ensure that, the grown man with the bright blue hair might try to find a way to make money that doesn’t require him to compromise himself. However, I’m not convinced that a guy with blue hair working in corporate America had that hair color at the time of his job interview. Often in these types of settings, people can afford to look quirky only after they have established themselves, or if they already have resources available to them in the event that their “look” isn’t embraced. So, when I see an adult who embodies the stereotypical style of some youth subculture I think that he/she falls into one of two categories: either he has a professional outlet that allows him to reject the mainstream, or he is able to operate in mainstream culture because he has money, power, or prestige to fall back on.

There are people that fall somewhere in the middle, who opt for jeans and sneakers over suits and button-up shirts in professional settings. Location might play a part in that. I’m from New York, where it’s pretty liberal and there is more freedom in terms of how you can present yourself. Even in a place like New York, I still think that people take less risks with their appearance if they want to advance in their career and haven’t made a name for themselves yet. Steve Jobs can wear sneakers to work, but that is because he’s Steve Jobs. He could wear SpongeBob underwear and fuzzy slippers if he wanted to and people would still buy iPads. He commands respect regardless of his attire because he has a great deal of money and influence. I’m not an advocate for stuffy suits, but the reality is that not every adult can completely indulge in a youth subculture just because he/she wants to.

Resistance to Dominant Culture

I've been thinking about the ideals of dominant culture a lot since our discussions last week in class. I found it very interesting, because I fall into all of the categories valued in popular culture (excepting maleness of course). But other than that I am white, straight, American, able-bodied, Christian, and wealthy. What really started me thinking, however, is the fact that people (youths especially) that fall in these categories often exhibit resistance to these established institutions. I have, at one time or another, felt myself resisting most of these qualities. The only ones that I do not resist are straight and able-bodied, because I haven't felt as though being outside of those characteristics would gain me respect in any way.

It's an interesting conundrum because, on one hand, it is seen as ideal to fall into the main stream traits as presented by popular culture. On the other hand, there is a greater degree of respect and individuality associated with succeeding outside of these main stream traits. Primarily, it is youth who want to distinguish themselves from the main culture and who want to be seen as individuals that choose to resist pop culture. I know for me I don't want to be defined as white or Christian or wealthy. And though I don't want to renounce those traits, I want to be sure that I am seen as more than part of a pop culture I did not necessarily make the choice to adhere to.

I think involvement in youth cultures stems from a desire to renounce one or more of these traits despite their almost intrinsic characteristics.

Expanding on Punk

Hey hey errybody,

I don't want to beat a dead horse with my rambling on the punk subculture, but I want to expand and elaborate on what we talked about on Tuesday.

Sidenote: I no longer wish to say 'beat a dead horse' because it's too violent. I will now say, "I don't want to put a 5th coat of paint on the wall, but..."

Anywho, I thought that our conversation yesterday went very well. You guys made it very easy to lead class discussion. We discussed punk in terms of authenticity and gender related issues in punk. In regards to authenticity, I think that we made it clear that a true punk would not spend as much time caring about poseurs and those less committed. Root-punk ideology could be described as something close to nihilistic. In that manner, they would not waste their time judging others.

Another interesting topic we brought up in class was the idea of the 'wall' being torn down between artist and fan. Some of us agreed that the wall should not be as thick. Imagine what it would be like if we didn't look up to celebrities as much as we do. Maybe people would not have as many idols, many of who do not deserve as much respect as they get. I am not saying that it is not good to have role-models. I am saying that putting so much value on these people is not healthy. Work on making yourself better. I am a victim of this too and it is something that I have been focusing on lately.

I look forward to continuing our conversations on punk tomorrow.

Everyone, go listen to RICHARD HELL AND THE VOIDOIDS. I can't get enough it baby!

Also, for an interesting film on the Manchester Punk/Club scene in the late 70s to early 90s, watch "24-hour Party People".

See y'all tomorrow,

Bryan

Punk's Not Dead, But It Probably Wishes It Was

On Thursday, our class discussion weaved in and out of trivializing the punk subculture. Everything from attitude to appearance was slightly mocked or poked fun at. I can't speak for anyone else, but I think that the reason today's punk culture attracts a certain amount of derision is because the descriptor "punk" seems to have lost any connotation of authenticity. No one is scared that punks will bring around anarchy or social change anymore, today punk kids are perceived more as a nuisance crowding malls across the country. This is because, in the forty or so years since punk was born, the subculture has become heavily commodified. Whoever's in charge of creating our mainstream culture figured out how to pre-package punk, and is now shilling it to any young person with twenty dollars for a CD or 40 dollars for a pre-distressed t-shirt. Not only is punk readily available; it has become trendy. In the commodification of punk, it has lost its DIY ethos, making it anything but authentic; and it's hard to take anyone seriously who gets their punk gear at the mall at the store in between Cinnabon and J. Crew.

Poseurs, Continued

In regards to poseurs- This article talks about "punk houses" where punk residents are evicted if any outsiders find out about them...Pretty interesting

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/homegarden/13973271.html

After reading this article I started to think about how vehemently the "true" punks despise the "poseurs"...But my question is, does one HAVE to live in a grungy apartment, produce underground jams, and wear ripped fishnets in order to truly be punk? I enjoy listening to Sublime every once in a while, but does that make me a poseur? I feel like people can be punk without being decked out in safety pins and lime green mohawks- they can like the music and have the same ideology without purchasing a bottle of hair dye. I feel like punks put so much time and effort into hating poseurs...Shouldn't they be spending this precious time making more music or opposing authority? I don't know- it just seems extreme to me that even the slightest sign of mainstream infuriates the "true" punks.

Poseurs

So while researching and familiarizing myself with punk culture, I came across this interesting article. http://www.howtobepunk.com/punks/hot-topic-punk

Although obviously written with a satirical tone, this article does point out main aspects of the punk culture. According to the writer, you MUST shop at hot topic in order to consider yourself a true punk. There is basically no other option. However, based on the readings we did this week, we know that a true authentic punk would scorn these poseurs. Real punks obtain their clothes from vintage shops and thrift stores, not an overpriced and popular "mall" store.

I also found it contradictory how the author kept on insisting on avoiding conformity, when in essence, following a step-by-step manual on how to be a punk is in itself, an action of conforming. Being a punk isn't about following a standard set of rules, it's about rebellion and anarchist behavior. Wearing an anarchy logo doesn't prove anything, you have to exert your punk influence on others through actions. Punk is an ideology, a way of life; following the trend doesn't ensure validity. So even though comical, I believe this article proved resourceful and could spark a rebuttal. So the question is, if you follow all the criteria and fit the description to a tee, can you declare yourself a bona fide punk?

Reggae influence on Punk

Hey guys,

I was listening through the album "London Calling" by The Clash and came across a very interesting song. I have listened to it multiple times throughout my life, but I have just now noticed the undeniable reggae influence on The Clash. Please check out this youtube link which will lead you to the song.

The Clash-Guns of Brixton

Hope everyone is having a care-free and relaxing weekend. See y'all on Tuesday.

-Bryan

Punk Video

Unfortunately the projector was not working on Thursday, so we could not show the video we had planned to, but this is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzJfMdE6pII

It is from a documentary on punk cultures and music. Many aspects of our discussion on Thursday are shown in the clip I felt. The overall feeling of the shows and musicians clearly represents the origins of punk culture. The band was self-taught, energetic, loud, and often disruptive to dominant culture. The audience reflected all of this as well.

One interesting aspect connecting Tuesday's and Thursday's discussions, for me, was how subcultures are often formed because of rebellion to dominate, but, as we talked about on Thursday, subcultures can branch off, and sometimes this is because of a rebellion to parts of the subculture. To me, this indicates that rebellion and identification are the most important parts of forming subcultures, whether they are separating themselves from the dominant culture, or the subculture itself.

Dominant culture

Since I led class on Tuesday, I'll start off with some thoughts about the impact of the dominant culture on our everyday lives. How much does the culture affect you and those around you? We already started talking about how aspects of the dominant culture seem to breed resistance. That's one way subcultures form. Have you had any experience with resistance?

Alternate Ending

During class, it was mentioned that there was an alternate ending to the movie American History X in which Derek reverts back to his old ways. When I was watching the movie for the first time I actually was thinking that that would happen. This is partly because I knew how his brother died, and so I knew that a black gang type shot him. I could easily imagine the hatred and old stereotypes coming back for Derek. His father's murder was one of the major catalysts that caused Derek to join the skinhead movement (even though the seeds of racism were planted earlier) and the similar murder of his brother could have the same effect. Since I already knew the basic ending, my fear was just that Derek would be influenced by this one tragic act. Both endings seem very plausible to me.
I can imagine how powerful of a scene it would be, to see a silent Edward Norton shaving his head again, after all he had been through. It would not be totally unexpected, although it would have been heartbreaking.

Vulnerability

In our class discussion, we discussed the prevalent theme of vulnerability in women throughout the movie. Although it is obvious that the women were often subjected to male violence and aggressive behavior, I also believe that the men expressed vulnerability. Derek may have been strong and self-assured in his beliefs after his period in jail, but beforehand he was just a disillusioned youth coping with the death of his father. His racist thoughts were subtly embedded into his mind by his father, but after the tragedy, they truly began to formulate. He needed someone to blame, and Cameron saw this as his chance to capitalize on despair and turn it in glorified rampage and hatred. Cameron enticed Derek, promising a way to avenge his father and restore America to it's original grandeur. When faced with the situation of the black men on his property, he reacted in a way that can only be justified by pure disgust and enmity for another race. He was revered by the skinhead population, but after his stint in prison, realized the moral wrongs of his previous ideals and wanted nothing more then to dissociate himself from that culture.

Danny was perhaps the most vulnerable male character in the film. He was a typical teenager, faced with the constant task of establishing who he really was. He was classified as Derek's brother, forced to live in the shadow of a "hero" and martyr. He had a lot to live up to and subconsciously knew that he was incapable of ever affecting people the way that Derek had. Danny's unsureness and need to emulate Derek, only made it easier for him to succumb to Cameron's devious ideas.

Seth is also a character who underneath his aggressive demeanor, is just a human trying to find a place where he belongs. Seth is obviously self-conscious, due to the fact that he is an extremely obese man. He is constantly scrutinized about his weight and defends himself with crude remarks. He is a very avid member of the skinhead group, showing no remorse in his white supremist attitude and vicious behavior. It is plausible that his outward aggressive behavior emerged from repressed feelings of animosity towards himself. He doesn't want to accept the fact that his weight is an issue, so he takes it out on those who cannot defend themselves, as evident in the scene of the convenience store raid.

So is it possible that the extremely aggro-masculine characters in the movie, are actually the ones that are the most susceptible to vulnerability?

The Ending of AHX

We talked a little bit in class about the ending of American History X, including how unexpected, and therefore more upsetting, it was. However, even though it was so heartbreaking to see Danny killed after all he and his brother had just been through, I think the choice to end the movie with his death was actually rather brilliant. For me, the ending opened a window into a new perspective. Throughout the whole film, we see only the point of view of the White, working-class racist skinhead (Danny and Derek). But the school shooting was a fascinating ending to me because we got the quickest glimpse into the world of the angry Black student; we are, just for a moment, put into the shoes of another kind of angry youth besides the racist skinhead. The reason I liked the ending wasn't just that it illustrated for the audience the vicious cycle of violence perpetuated by hate and ignorance, but that after spending so much time learning about the skinhead movement and even sympathizing with some of the struggles of the Vinyard family, the ending made me switch gears and start to think about the Black boy's life in the same way. What brought him to this position? Who influenced him? What are his beliefs? How different is he, really, from Danny?

And one final thought about the ending--How ironic it is that Danny reconsiders his views and then immediately is killed by a boy in whose exact place Danny could have been some day soon if Derek hadn't set him straight.

Violence and American History X

While brainstorming discussion ideas for class today, Megan and I got into a conversation with a male friend of ours about the prison rape scene in American History X. We asked ourselves what, specifically, about that scene is so upsetting to witness. Was it the sheer physical overpowering, the violation of the body, sodomy itself, the guard turning a blind eye, the vulnerability, the ostracism?

We further discussed whether, individually, it was harder to behold (in the media only, we hope) the rape of a woman or of a man, and our answers were quite varied and layered. I argued that it is more difficult for me to watch a scene where a woman is being raped because, as a woman, I have a stronger understanding, indeed an embodied experience, of love, relationships and sexuality from this perspective. Our friend argued that is is more difficult for him to watch a scene where a man is being raped not because he is a man (or for the reasons I stated) but because, as men are raped less often, the prospect of male submission (especially physically) is terrifying.

What makes something more violent: the physical action or the connotations or implications to a greater social/political/etc. ideology? Does something appear more violent if we have some form of personal connection or lived experience to it, or if it is completely foreign (taboo, unimaginable, unlikely, atypical) from our perceived notions of violence? What role does violence play is specific subcultures, including skinheads?

The New Youth Cultures (Fall 11)

A new semester brings a new group of participants together to exchange ideas, share information and resources, brainstorm and discuss. You can start posting at any time. I look forward to reading what you have to say.