Rules Of The Game #31: Rockism And Antirockism Rise From The Dead

[koganbot]

Here's my latest, in which I reveal myself to be a rockist, unless that's not what I'm revealing. I also don't come to a conclusion about what rockism is. Stay tuned for the exciting sequel.

The Rules Of The Game #31: Rockism And Antirockism Rise From The Dead

EDIT: Here are links to all but three of my other Rules Of The Game columns (LVW's search results for "Rules of the Game"). Links for the other three (which for some reason didn't get "Rules Of The Game" in their titles), are here: #4, #5, and #8.

UPDATE: I've got all the links here now:

http://koganbot.livejournal.com/179531.html

Comments

[mcatzilut.livejournal.com]

I hadn't heard your 'authenticity' request before this article (that you want it only as an adjective, not as a noun). If I had heard it before, I would've contested it immediately. After all, the king of 'authenticity,' Walter Benjamin, didn't feel that it needed to operate upon a noun. He said that an object could have an aura or not have an aura. And that aura was totally a function of the object as a unique piece of art. Not as an object when contrasted to similar objects. Something can be inauthentic without relying on trope (genre or otherwise).

Probably, without hearing your answer first, I'm gonna guess you'd have no problem with someone using the word like that. Your problem is probably that when someone says Ashley Simpson isn't authentic, what they mean is she's not an authentic singer/songwriter or something like that. And you want them to make it explicit so that you can parse it. But it can also be used in the Benjamin sense.

[skyecaptain.livejournal.com]

I've never understood, and always seriously distrusted, Benjamin's concept here. He's talking about what happens in mechanical reproduction when there is no "original" work that can be...like, hung in a space. And my understanding is that this is potentially a positive development in art, because what "aura" does is encourage a sort of cult of beauty centered on the thing itself and not the content.

And that's the opposite of what I originally though reading the essay, which is that something is "lost" when this "aura" is destroyed (and I also think there's some stuff in there about mechanically reproduced stuff having something, but not an "aura." But I REALLY wouldn't go on my word here, I'm bringing it up in the hopes that someone can clarify).

I have a vague sense of what Benjamin is doing, based somewhat on his sorta "post-script" section in which he outlines "politicized aesthetics" (socialist/revoultionary art) and "aestheticized politics" (fascist/reactionary art). I've never even begun to understand this distinction (does it have to do with how explicit the politics are versus an assumption of politics being implicit in the aesthetic? How can we actually tell the difference? Am I missing the point?). I think the "aura" has something to do with a piece of art being seen as "timeless" in its beauty, so that any politics are basically underhandedly, uh, absorbed into the observer?

Anyway, I don't see what any of this has to do with anything -- If I've seen a film, I've had the experience of art (and it's always possible to fetishize something that's mechanically reproduced -- see the cult of Bolex modern experimental filmmakers, many of whom I like, doing just as much fetishizing of the "source," the film itself, as you might of an art object, making quasi-religious rituals out of the film experience). I just don't see how there being some original "thing" has anything to do with my reception of the thing -- how 'bout a fake that everyone thought was real? To a certain degree with this stuff, it has a lot to do with reception, not the nature of the medium or object itself.

[skyecaptain.livejournal.com]

*originally thought reading the essay.

If anyone who's familiar with "Mechanical Reproduction" wanted to tell me I'm way off-base here, I would be much obliged!

[skyecaptain.livejournal.com]

My other sense is that Benjamin's expectations of art on all sides of the political spectrum are way too high -- that is, there's a dichotomy between art leading to social change and art working at an almost subconscious level, basically infecting its admirers, at least semi-unawares, with its politics. Which doesn't tell me a whole lot about how people actually view art or how it actually works in their lives. (This is a general beef I tend to have with the majority of theory that addresses the "nature of the medium" type questions and again I'm not sure if it's appropriate here.)

[koganbot]

Well, it's been a zillion years since I read that Benjamin essay (if it is the one I read), and I'm not getting enough of a sense of his idea to know if I'd agree or disagree. But in specific situations where someone did use the word authenticity without saying what the phenomenon was supposed to be an authentic example of, I'd first try to figure out from context what he really is comparing it to, since often often enough there is an implied comparison.

My experience is that when people are talking about music, even when it's the musical piece rather than the piece's maker that's being discussed, the word "authenticity" arises in relation to whether someone - artist, audience member - is being "genuine," e.g., expressing himself without calculating what he will gain or lose. The problem is that the word "authenticity" is often a dysfunctionally vague way of waving one's hand at this issue - and this issue itself is plenty problematic anyway (how does the artist's calculation or lack of it guarantee what the music does or the music's value?). And byebyepride would know this better than I, but historically I'd say that the word is used in regard to whether someone is living an authentic life and - in relation to music - whether the music arises from or is used in such an authentic life. Living an authentic life usually means engaging with something - nature, war, housing projects, child abuse, drug addiction - more intense or primal than the supposed norm; and you don't get such an emphasis on "authenticity" without there being at least a hint that it is the norm to be compromised or contaminated or fraudulent in some manner.

[koganbot]

Also, if someone were to call Ashlee Simpson (whose name has no y in it) "inauthentic," that person probably wouldn't know what he meant by it other than that he thinks her music is all done by machine or she's a corporate puppet or she's too preppy or she had plastic surgery; by not specifying what comparison he's making, he's giving himself a way of not thinking through his own ideas and not exploring his own social attitudes and prejudices.

[edgeofwhatever.livejournal.com]

And maybe I have this problem because I hate Benjamin, or don't get Benjamin, or go blank behind the eyes at the thought of Benjamin, but: Why are we talking about Benjamin? Because he happened to use the word "authenticity," which is a word you are also using? What he was talking about when he talked about authenticity is not at all related to what you are talking about when you talk about authenticity.

The, like, single thing that I always remember from Benjamin is the thing about how a stage actor can connect with, and adjust to, the audience -- there is an interaction there that is not present for a film audience. Interaction is authentic, lack of interaction is inauthentic, right? But when someone says, "Ashlee Simpson is not authentic," they are accusing her of adjusting to an audience.

[mcatzilut.livejournal.com]

Something else:

"In fact, I’d say that as a critic I’m the real deal and Geoff isn’t in that I challenge my readers whereas Geoff throws them bouquets."

Sounds like an argument between being proscriptive and description, which is somewhat at the heart of the rockist/poptomist tension. Geoff wants to talk about Underwood, because people are listening to her already. You want to talk about Miranda, because you think people should be listening to her. But the truth is that neither of you are being totally honest. Because Geoff isn't throwing them 'bouquets' to make them comfortable. He's throwing them 'bouquets' because he thinks that it's more interesting to anthropologize and discuss what people are interested in. And you aren't discussing Miranda to challenge people, but because you find her artistically interesting. If you thought she'd challenge people, but you didn't find her interesting yourself, you'd discard her. Just like if Carrie sounded VERY popular but wasn't actually popular, Geoff wouldn't bother with her.

[koganbot]

Geoff wants to talk about Underwood, because people are listening to her already. You want to talk about Miranda, because you think people should be listening to her.

This is entirely fantasy on your part and has nothing to do with either Geoff or me. Of course I'm referring back to something I wrote two weeks earlier, so I can see why you wouldn't necessarily get what I was saying, but I have no idea where you got that from and I think you're pretty confused. In any event, Geoff barely said anything about either Miranda or Carrie other than to make the claim that Miranda challenges listeners' assumptions whereas Carrie reassures listeners, and the bouquets that Geoff was throwing at we the Miranda fans was to congratulate us for challenging ourselves, which of course doesn't challenge us at all, it just sucks us off (or would if we took it seriously). Whereas I challenge my readers not because I write about Miranda Lambert (my guess is that I challenge them far more by writing about Ashlee Simpson and Taylor Swift, actually, though you'd be right to say that my primary motive is that Ashlee and Taylor are interesting rather than that my writing about them challenges readers) but because I continually ask my readers questions about why people such as us - incl. my readers, presumably - justify music in the way that we do, e.g., by calling certain things "authentic." And right, in this column I didn't go into what it is I do that challenges my readers, but I think it's pretty obvious.

[mcatzilut.livejournal.com]

Ah. I see where I got confused. I thought you were saying that Geoff was throwing bouquets at his readers by championing Underwood and that you were doing the real deal. Ie: I read "In fact, I’d say that as a critic I’m the real deal and Geoff isn’t in that I challenge my readers..." as saying "therefore voting Miranda Lambert our number one" was somehow more challenging. As in, I know that you were a critic who supported Lambert and didn't support Underwood (at least didn't champion her in the same way) and I was looking at the way that became communicated to the audience. Vis-a-vis, I assumed that when you said "I challenge my readers" you meant by championing Miranda.

What I think I really had difficulty parsing was the audiences you're assuming for yourself and Geoff. Are you assuming that the readers you're challenging are the same readers that he is throwing bouquets at? (Ie: Music critics?) Because while he is lauding you for challenging yourself [with Miranda], he's also making an argument about the relationship between a music critic and his audience. He's saying that you *could've* pandered to your audience and voted Underwood #1, but you like to be challenged, and you're smarter than you're audience, and so you voted Miranda (which, obviously, automatically also challenges your audience).

Am I reading too much into this?

Film friend discusses Benjamin, not rockism

[skyecaptain.livejournal.com]

My friend's response:

"let me know if this helps:

you've kind of got it right both ways -- that's part of the beauty of this essay. Benjamin mourns the loss of the aura, but also argues that, with mechanically reproduced art, it's important to acknowledge that the aura is gone. The significance of the aura might be boiled down to the work of art bearing a mark of its having been made. Perhaps this comes in the form of brush strokes in a painting or layers of soot on a sculpture. When encountering an artwork that has an aura, Benjamin finds it difficult to ignore the unique perspective of the work's maker. In other words, objects are not neutral, and the aura reminds us of this.

Mechanically reproduced art, removed from the touch of its maker, has the ability to appear unbiased. The way that fascist filmmakers manipulated this factor scared Benjamin so he called for makers of mechanically reproduced art to include other elements that would remind viewers that the object in question is not free from bias. With "aestheticized politics," Benjamin basically refers to this practice. "Politicized aesthetics," on the other hand, describes the act of consciously mobilizing art for political ends -- and acknowledging that intention somehow through the formal elements of the work (think dada photomontage). "

Re: Film friend discusses Benjamin, not rockism

[skyecaptain.livejournal.com]

And my question is still....WHY? Why on earth should a film not be seen as a product of its makers? Wasn't Leni Reifenstahl held directly and personally accountable for her involvement in producing Nazi propaganda? Wasn't Otis Ferguson seeing right through this trash in the late 30's anyway and wondering what sort of dope, even a Nazi, could possibly fall for it? (Answer to both questions is yes.)

Re: Film friend discusses Benjamin, not rockism

[skyecaptain.livejournal.com]

Re: Response from FilmFriend...

"some people did understand the mechanics of film production. his problem was with things like classical editing practices that masked many of the processes of filmmaking. In thinking about Nazi propaganda films, there's a huge change from expressionist cinema, where it's undeniable that there's a lot of manipulation going on... I don't think it's necessarily the whole medium of film that scares benjamin, but, rather, the way it can be mobilized (to aestheticize politics) when put into the wrong hands."

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

that's not an asterisk, it's a peephole through into the REVEALED MACHINERY OF MY BRANE

[skyecaptain.livejournal.com]

I looked inside yer peephole and all I saw was everything at once. Derivative.

[mcatzilut.livejournal.com]

I looked inside your peephole and I saw the Etant Donne. Hot.

But what about what *I* wrote

[koganbot]

Does anyone have something to say about whether I am or am not a rockist? (The Benjamin stuff so far seems too vague and speculative for me to get much of a handle on.)

Re: But what about what *I* wrote

[edgeofwhatever.livejournal.com]

Re: Are you a rockist: Aren't we all?

(I'm not being sarcastic.)

Re: But what about what *I* wrote

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

"But rockist writing is certainly not always bad, and we all have our rockist sides. It's a silly word really." - that is from, as far as I can see, the first thing I ever wrote about rockism on ILX, in December 2000.

So, yes!

Re: But what about what *I* wrote

[mcatzilut.livejournal.com]

"A rockist is someone who reduces rock 'n' roll to a caricature, then uses that caricature as a weapon. Rockism means idolizing the authentic old legend (or underground hero) while mocking the latest pop star; lionizing punk while barely tolerating disco; loving the live show and hating the music video; extolling the growling performer while hating the lip-syncher."

So in the Sanneh sense, I don't see why'd you be a Rockist. But you're trying to ask, when you deride new punk as fashion and not music (compared to class punk) whether you're being Rockist. But obviously, Rockism is supposedly blind prejudice. So if I like new punk music, I'm going to say you're a Rockist. And if I agree with you that new punk lacks the same value, I'm going to say you're not a Rockist. (For the record, I think the new punk = fashion statement *is* a Rockist assumption. Since, wtf? Plenty of Hot Topic bands are GREAT. And some of them are even dangerous and punk and very much *something*.)

Re: But what about what *I* wrote

[koganbot]

Yeah, but Sanneh's use of the word hardly matches a lot of other people's uses of the word; and certainly you can call something fashion (the passage was written in 1985, by the way) without being blindly prejudiced (or being derogatory, either, for that matter).

CONTEMPT

[skyecaptain.livejournal.com]

I'd change the name of my blog to Le Mepris but I don't want to be associated with a buncha assholes. (At least not French ones.)

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

follow-up splurge on some of the above here: i am off the net for the next three days so yr on yr own!

[dickmalone.livejournal.com]

I think there was a very, VERY strong generational aspect to the rockism wars. A good moderate position to come down on might go something like this: applying "rockist" principles to acts from the rockist era (60s/70s) is totally fair, and that's why those terms of discourse came to be so prominent. Similarly, applying rockist principles to modern (post-rockist?) groups that consciously derive from that tradition--or at least the PARTS of those acts that are trying to be rockist--is fair as well. And at the end of the day, using rockism as one way to find value in an act is fine; the problem is when it's viewed as the ONLY standard of assessment and whole swaths of the musical landscape get dismissed out of hand. It's a problem when instead of being used as a metric to explain individual dislikes, it is expressed as a standard under which you MUST dislike certain things. That's problematic rockism.

What's NOT OK is for critics and fans who grew up in the post-rockist era to still be holding these terms as sacrosanct. Either you experienced rockist groups in non-rockist ways (you saw a Zep poster in Spencer Gifts and thought it looked cool, so you stole the LP from your parents' record shelf) or you are trying to wedge post-rockist groups into the rockist tradition. It represents a shocking lack of growth and a concession to the values of the generation that preceded us, which you'd think rockists would have a problem with! Similarly, as I say above, it's not OK for people who grew up rockist to try to impose those terms on new groups that have nothing to do with rockism, because it's a way of keeping the young folks down. Rockism was (is?) frustrating because it severely restricts the conditions for quality assessment in an era when music changes every few years (as it always has). Viewed by pre-rockist standards, rock was crap. The fact that rockist standards developed was a good thing; it gave a way for people to appreciate the art on its own terms.

I'm aware that the above was not a position many people (myself included?) would have actually taken in 2004. But I do think the squabble was at least partially legitimate, and that it was so divisive that many people got turned off by the whole thing and retreated into their own little corners, whereas at the time it really seemed like something was building to encompass more than just sub-genres.

[dickmalone.livejournal.com]

Addendum to the second paragraph: Anti-rockism was the argument that rockism was so pervasive that we had to break free in order to find ways to appreciate these new forms of music on their own terms, too, to make popisms and danceisms and so forth and so on.

Addendum to the third paragraph: Of course, there was also an "anti-seriousness" argument there, which got reduced to "popism" I think. And that's been lost as well.