It's fun to argue about what is and is not punk if your worldview is expansive enough to make room for Britney Spears, et al. But for most people, that's not the case. In fact, I bet there are quite a few people who, when confronted with your assertion, would shift the terms of the argument from "Is Britney Spears punk or not?" to "Do you even understand what punk means?" Meaning, there are a lot of people who wouldn't accept the terms of your argument to the point where the question of Britney Spears could even be considered in the first place.
Now, maybe you might say that it doesn't really matter if there are people like that or even if there are a lot of people like that (or a majority), because there's not a person who is the designated authority on "what punk is." Which means interpretation is really a free-for-all. Which is fine, because that's my assumption anyways, but are we interpreting because the act of interpreting creates meaning or because there is something tangible called "punk" and we can, if not objective then certainly something beyond subjectively, determine Britney Spears' relationship to it?
I guess that's where I leave behind questions of what is "real" punk or "real" hip hop (I think that word "real" is significant). I don't feel a need to relate it back to some essence, perhaps because I distrust essences when it comes to these things. I think this is a very concrete reason that I mentioned Cronenberg in an essay about K-pop, because his films are about the subverting of our attempt to stake out essences (and the necessary divisions that come along with them).
I think it probably makes more sense to frame this in relation to hip hop than punk anyways, because rapping is literally something you do, whereas punk is... take your pick, an aesthetic, an ethos, a worldview, etc. When people argue about "real hip hop," they are implying that it's really a debate about essences and thus also authority. This means group identity, exclusion, etc. Above all, it means that someone has the power of authority to decide how this essence is defined, and I instinctively react against any kind of authority like that (side note: my parents actually were, ostensibly, "punks").
I actually almost included a sentence comparing what JJ Project are doing (commandeering signifiers without taking into consideration their original meanings) to the development of rock and roll and its relationship to, among other forms of music, the blues. But that's a relationship fraught with all kinds of tension and asymmetrical relationships of power. What JJ Project are doing is more, well, "innocent." It ties more into my utopian fantasy of people creatively plundering one another's culture on a totally even playing field.
no subject
Now, maybe you might say that it doesn't really matter if there are people like that or even if there are a lot of people like that (or a majority), because there's not a person who is the designated authority on "what punk is." Which means interpretation is really a free-for-all. Which is fine, because that's my assumption anyways, but are we interpreting because the act of interpreting creates meaning or because there is something tangible called "punk" and we can, if not objective then certainly something beyond subjectively, determine Britney Spears' relationship to it?
I guess that's where I leave behind questions of what is "real" punk or "real" hip hop (I think that word "real" is significant). I don't feel a need to relate it back to some essence, perhaps because I distrust essences when it comes to these things. I think this is a very concrete reason that I mentioned Cronenberg in an essay about K-pop, because his films are about the subverting of our attempt to stake out essences (and the necessary divisions that come along with them).
I think it probably makes more sense to frame this in relation to hip hop than punk anyways, because rapping is literally something you do, whereas punk is... take your pick, an aesthetic, an ethos, a worldview, etc. When people argue about "real hip hop," they are implying that it's really a debate about essences and thus also authority. This means group identity, exclusion, etc. Above all, it means that someone has the power of authority to decide how this essence is defined, and I instinctively react against any kind of authority like that (side note: my parents actually were, ostensibly, "punks").
I actually almost included a sentence comparing what JJ Project are doing (commandeering signifiers without taking into consideration their original meanings) to the development of rock and roll and its relationship to, among other forms of music, the blues. But that's a relationship fraught with all kinds of tension and asymmetrical relationships of power. What JJ Project are doing is more, well, "innocent." It ties more into my utopian fantasy of people creatively plundering one another's culture on a totally even playing field.