diatribe

[Ratatat]

the dude directly above me

[Guest jmatsu]

okay jack-off, at least you admitted that they are a shit-band. thank you.

so i guess i'm up-tight because i called someone out. it's not the first time that it's been done on this site, is it? sorry, maybe i should have just lied and said that i like them too. i guess having an opinion is not allowed in your book.

[lil brown brother]

oh ok ... carry on

[englandmj7]

In times like these, only one word can sum up the collective frustration of the masses:

penis

.........that is all.

[Carl]

what if a band is shit musically, but not excepted by the masses? are they good then?

If the band happens to be named Beat Happening then OH GOD YES are they good.

[KLAUS]

How can you just waate so much time

[Ratatat]

so i guess i'm up-tight because i called someone out.

you're uptight because of this series of posts:

lose the wack cd than you will be okay.

fair enough

just trying to help.

ok, that should be the end of it

if you consider this a "guilt" pleasure, maybe you should have kept it in the closet or in superconfessional. a friend of mine's boyfriend admitted that he is fascinated by transexuals, but then again... he only admitted this to his girlfriend when he was drunk (not on the internet).

what the christ. like seriously what the fuck is going on here.

dreams come true... it was obviously satire. although i definitely don't take myself seriously i don't see the problem with doing so. also i don't think that dude is 12.

touche.

wow shit you're the fucking energizer bunny

okay apologies...

blink 182 rules. so punk rock.,,

minus 100punker points for my blasphemy.

and (finally) we're done.

[Guest jmatsu]

wow, i guess it'd be pretty convenient for you to pull up all my quotes. it would be alittle more convenient and considerate (not just for me, but for all of the readers) if we could read them in an appropriate context.

if i want to make a comment, i'll do so. and until i hear from the mods that i'm out of line i don"t see why myself or anyone else can't. obviously i kept the blink182 thing going with the intended individual because he also kept retorting.

why do you even give a fuck? are you defender of superfuture?? if so, the board was really missing you a couple years ago.

[cultpop 0217]

if you hadnt noticed this is supertrash.

[snugglepony]

my pussy hurts.

[Ratatat]

why do you even give a fuck? are you defender of superfuture??

now that you mention it.......

[Guest jmatsu]

great. really funny.

[Guest jmatsu]

if you hadnt noticed this is supertrash.

if i am wrong i applogize in advance. i really hope that this isn't to imply that my comments belong in supertrash while others which you deem worthy of not being supertrash material remain in non trash threads.

[minya]

Everyone needs to take a massive chill pill dosage. Seriously.

[poly800rock]

like i've mentioned, in no way am i totally competent in philosphy, but from what i gather robideaux is using his intellect to try and understand where some people on this board are coming from/produce conversation.

i'll admit that i had to read his posts a couple times, upon doing so i found them fascinating.

it's pathetic that the only comments he got thrown back at him or at the people who seemed to agree was shit like "go to library, read more...yada yada yada." then again it was the usual suspects getting infuriated/defensive and ass kissing one another(yeah! get that discount at supermarket!!). people attacked some tyops,his age... and whatever. "i simply like what i like" (in regards to what robideaux is arguing) is such a fucking cop out. there seemed to be only couple of individuals who really adressed his theories. not even 2.5 objective aruguments.

anyway i am glad that my simple comment about losing the blink 182 cd escaladed into this. this is way more interesting then reading all the dick riding comments about this guy's gap jeans,that guy's nikes, or the vintage thrift shop piece you found. not everyone here will admit it (because they want to keep superfuture a safe haven/friendly-utopia), but some shit is just plain ugly and in bad taste. if you post on waywt, you will be subject to critisism.

i guess i'm the bad guy because i associate that band and people who adhere to those kinds of media force fed garbage as instruments of mediocrity.

whats your idea of a good band, that way I can make fun of it.

To bring pop music into an intellectual conversation defeats the point of it. What is considered pop music today is meant to be disposable. Why anyone would formulate a thesis based on whats cool/uncool in music nowadays is ridiculous, as seriously who is meaningful in music these days? I can think of maybe 2 bands and 2 genres so new that they push the envelope as far as any artistic movement are concerned, and the rest of music, regardless of how serious they take themselves are just musicians. I guess you could talk shit about blink 182, xtina, all the rest of the garbage that comes out today, but whats the point? Are you a musician to critique their work? Have you ever tried to write a pop song? again the most important question here is....

whats your idea of a good/acceptable band,

[cultpop 0217]

if i am wrong i applogize in advance. i really hope that this isn't to imply that my comments belong in supertrash while others which you deem worthy of not being supertrash material remain in non trash threads.

no, its mostly all trash.

while i don't particularly like (lrg), is this thread really necessary?

who gives a fuck? this thread is totally juvenile. (lrg) shouldn't even be in a spectrum worth debating..

but shite pop bands that were the op admitted were just nostalgia are totally worthy of sociopolitical masterbation? right?

[Guest jmatsu]

no, its mostly all trash.

but shite pop bands that were the op admitted were just nostalgia are totally worthy of sociopolitical masterbation? right?

the op did not mention this nostaligia factor/nintendo metaphor until way after the fact.

you may consider all of this sociopolitical masturbation, but please inform me why this not worthy conversation? wtf do you have to say thats anymore interesting? "look at my women's gap jeans/my cool vintage tees..." or "nice scarf _______(fill in the blank with your favorite mod/superfuture friend)." i haven't read one thing from you in this thread that has actually really supported anything you said in referrence to his arguments. and if you ever do, and i think you make sense, i will definitely say so (although i speculate that you won't)

if people want to listen to "shite" (are you from scotland?) bands, that's fine, but why get all heated when criticized?

why don't you read robideaux's thread alittle more objectively?

re-evaluating values. isn't that what it's about? re-evaluating your values and growing up.

if it was a nostaligic guitly pleasure why post it and not expect any repercussions/call-outs?

[Guest jmatsu]

whats your idea of a good band, that way I can make fun of it.

To bring pop music into an intellectual conversation defeats the point of it. What is considered pop music today is meant to be disposable. Why anyone would formulate a thesis based on whats cool/uncool in music nowadays is ridiculous, as seriously who is meaningful in music these days? I can think of maybe 2 bands and 2 genres so new that they push the envelope as far as any artistic movement are concerned, and the rest of music, regardless of how serious they take themselves are just musicians. I guess you could talk shit about blink 182, xtina, all the rest of the garbage that comes out today, but whats the point? Are you a musician to critique their work? Have you ever tried to write a pop song? again the most important question here is....

whats your idea of a good/acceptable band,

i see what you are trying to do. okay i'll play. i've been listening to the kreeps and colder today. do your worst!

the whole point was already pretty much explained by robideaux. not necessarily talking shit about blink 182 (because you, others, and myself have already estalished that they are terrible), but trying to get people to see the correlation.

i am not going to say names, but for example an indibidual on waywt has some minimal sneakers, great skull jeans, an overall impeccable sense of style. and what do you know? he happens to listen to a great band, i.e. boris. there seems to me, to be a certain amount of equilibrium.

anyway in the beginning i didn't really hate on the blink-lover's garments/ensemble, but in retrospect (like i mentioned), his boring wardrobe and his medocre thriftship sensiblitlies/nike adornments actually are complimented by blink 182. maybe you're right that it wasn't worth it, but why should wdywt be all chocolate and roses?

maybe robieadux gave him the benefit of the doubt. so hypothetically, let's take the boris out of the 1st example and replace it with blink182. according to robiedux (and i would have to agree), this would make no sense, or it would be an example of a mindless fashion consumer.

the guy admitted guilt. so by this admittance, does it not imply that he, the owner of that cd, feels/implies that the said band may not go well with other superfuture readers when posted?

[Dick Danger]

I wish I could be that young again.

[cultpop 0217]

I wish I could be that young again.

but do you really mr. danger?

maybe "if i knew then..." applied but otherwise i wouldn't recommend it.

[Servo2000]

robideaux, I was finding your posts fascinating until they descended into personal attacks and what I would call 'diarrhea of the mouth'. So, for now I'll ignore the more recent posts and ask you to elucidate your theory by answering some questions and hoping that you will respond respectfully.

1)What is the status of the fashion designer on your view? Aren't the designers just helping to sell the ruse of individuality by allowing their clothing to be reproduced on any scale? How can they be praised for blazing trails when their industry survives on the commodification of their work? If I understand you correctly, in order for them to be doing anything worthwhile, they must be producing totally unique items that will never be copied in any way.

2)A more elementary question: Now, I understand that your framework requires looking at human action on a societal level and at that level it seems that individual identity is indeed irrelevant. However, at a lower level, individual identity seems to be a real phenomenon, despite the similarities that we witness across even very small social groups. How do you resolve this apparent contradiction?

3)I'm skeptical about your interpretation of the dialectic regarding the shift to apparently utilitarian fashions in response to the commodification of a fashion based on excess. Can you back this up or is it merely an unfounded interpretation? A more important question: Is your theory falsifiable?

Most of my other questions are either more incoherent than these, or I think I've answered them myself. I'm looking forward to your response and a more open discussion of your's and others' views about the nature and function of fashion.

I would also like to comment on bee hee's long post on page 3. Bee Hee, you seem smart enough to know that wanting your life to count isn't enough to make it so. Although I sympathize with your desire and your distaste for robideaux's condescending tone, I don't think you've offered a principled objection to his view and your meandering attack was as annoying as our troll's classless reproach of the majority of superfuture users (myself included, I suppose).

I'm still interested in seeing answers to these questions, as to be frank, the first two are questions I would like to have asked, but since I will freely admit not having the philosophical background, was unable to word. The third is fascinating but never even occured to me.

I think the response to this, will, in my mind, either validate or make this argument irrelevant. So far, robideaux has yet to be forced to respond to any intense criticism or truly "difficult" questions. So far, it's been interesting, but without addressing these points, it seems that it would only stand as an argument in a societal vacuum.

Carry on.

[Dick Danger]

but do you really mr. danger?

maybe "if i knew then..." applied but otherwise i wouldn't recommend it.

No, not really, I seem to know less and less every day.

thing is..........I know that

[tweeds]

I'm still interested in seeing answers to these questions...

I think the response to this, will, in my mind, either validate or make this argument irrelevant. So far, robideaux has yet to be forced to respond to any intense criticism or truly "difficult" questions. So far, it's been interesting, but without addressing these points, it seems that it would only stand as an argument in a societal vacuum.

likewise...

i'm interested in seeing this thread lift itself from the trash, mainly.

[robideaux]

surely if you are going to use big words...you have a responsibility to be precise with them..

and while i was reading your latest post update on gmail...the ever reliable adwords oracle came though with some advice for you...

.

okay haptronic. you seem like a reasonably smart guy, so i assume that you know that a term (such as art brut) only uniquely refers within a very specific context. in reality art brut has both a broad and narrow interpretation. so why would you assume that i intended the narrower? likely because you were proud of yourself for pointing out a perceived error. it's actually quite easy to do with your technique of stripping words from their context. were we ever speaking specifically about jean dubuffet? no. or perhaps you reject the inherent ambiguity of natural language and instead maintain that art brut is purely a synthetic proper name, only belonging to those works sanctioned by jean dubuffet himself. but if you are this rigid about language, you are a positivist dinosaur and need to read some chomsky. just like fashion, language too evolves dialectically.

from the same almighty authority you cited, wikipedia:

The term Outsider Art was coined by art critic Roger Cardinal in 1972 as an English synonym for Art Brut (which literally translates as "Raw Art" or "Rough Art"), a label created by French artist Jean Dubuffet to describe art created outside the boundaries of official culture; Dubuffet focused particularly on art by insane asylum inmates.

While Dubuffet's term is quite specific, the English term "Outsider Art" is often applied more broadly, to include certain self-taught or Naïve art makers who were never institutionalized.

[truestorytravis]

^

I

I

I

*ahem*

[snugglepony]

where's artificialsky?

someone needs to hustle up and win...

[renski]

its fucking music not politics

[haptronic]

in reality art brut has both a broad and narrow interpretation. so why would you assume that i intended the narrower?

i didn't assume that you intended the narrower meaning...but i did find the usage clumsy...

yes indeed art brut is used interchangably outsider art...but mainly by people who don't know any better...also surrealism is used widely by people ignorant of the manifesto to describe trippy art...shoud have guessed... when you were describing a gallery as outsider [surely oxymoronic]...that your use of art terms and understanding of movements was well...

but if you are this rigid about language, you are a positivist dinosaur and need to read some chomsky.

having spent some of time in traditional wananga with a living oral culture... chomsky wasn't needed to understand the evolution of langauge and indeed culture

[robideaux]

keep in mind that my ideas are not yet formally worked out. just some things i have a hunch about. if i'm wrong somewhere call me on it, please. maybe this will become my MA thesis topic, but who knows. here are some brief responses. sorry if these quick replies are dissapointing but i have more pressing scholastic matters to attend to.

1)What is the status of the fashion designer on your view? Aren't the designers just helping to sell the ruse of individuality by allowing their clothing to be reproduced on any scale? How can they be praised for blazing trails when their industry survives on the commodification of their work? If I understand you correctly, in order for them to be doing anything worthwhile, they must be producing totally unique items that will never be copied in any way.

i see the fashion designer as in the same way i see famous modern artists we learn about in textbooks. they are representatives of a population of like minded people and are not necessarily as unique and special as the media portrays them. They do not create in a vacuum, and their creativity is dependent on the entire system. this issue runs parallel to our culture's non-linear approach to history. we like to say so-and-so invented calculus or the theory of evolution, but in newton's shadow was leibniz, and in darwin's was wallace.

Are they the principal vehicles of exploitation? i would say no. they bring marginal ideas and issues into the focus of mass culture. The designers do not create clothes under the pretense that purchasing them will somehow give ourselves definition. i'm sure they treat their productions as art objects, just as andy warhol did. exploitation occurs when other companies imitate or sythesize their style and treat it as a means to economic ends. the ruse of individuality is a marketing technique disseminated by the media. it associates cultural icons and movie stars with specific brand names or styles of dress, thus convincing the consumer that they will be as unique and cool too if they wear certain clothes, smoke certain cigarettes, etc. etc.

2)A more elementary question: Now, I understand that your framework requires looking at human action on a societal level and at that level it seems that individual identity is indeed irrelevant. However, at a lower level, individual identity seems to be a real phenomenon, despite the similarities that we witness across even very small social groups. How do you resolve this apparent contradiction?

the apparent contradiction is an artifact of limited scope. at the level of mass culture, the individual is a statistic, and rounded off for all practical purposes. my point was our culture is a mass culture, the focal point of which is not the individual therefore our identity is overlooked and irrelevant. we may attempt to assert our individuality and make it known but these attempts are ultimately muted by the static of the mass. When a society grows and complexifies, a division of labour occurs and various individuals begin to specialize and pioneer new fields. With this specialization individuals become more distant and alienated from one another. In mass culture, this is taken to such an extreme that the individual is essentially lost, meaning that any one individual is irrelevant and expendable .

Now indentity is a real phenomenon, but this does not make it a metaphysical reality. Eastern traditions as well as some western branches of scientific-materialism contend that the experience of the self is actually false ontology. I'm inclined to say yet it is false insofar as people consider it to be the most fundamental feature of reality.

Instead of looking at the issue from two opposing angles, we should instead embrace both as a kind of double exposure without contradiction.

3)I'm skeptical about your interpretation of the dialectic regarding the shift to apparently utilitarian fashions in response to the commodification of a fashion based on excess. Can you back this up or is it merely an unfounded interpretation? A more important question: Is your theory falsifiable?

yes i am guilty of idealist historicism. truthfully my theory is just a personal interpretation/speculation which seems to make a lot of sense. the industry itself is so vast and complex, that truthfully there is no agreeable way of empirically validating theories like these--all we are left to judge them on is their internal coherence and explanatory power. it is indeed falsifiable, extremely so if one is using criteria as stringent as we see in the natural "reductive" sciences. but does science itself, as a material ontology have any convincing justification of itself that is not question begging or tautological? as a follower of kuhn i would say not. therefore, the question of falsifiability for me is innane. it either makes sense to you or it doesn't. if it doesn't then it is up to you to come up with your own coherent explanation.

other observations that support a dialectical analysis of the fashion industry: the recent revolution of small scale autonomous fashion houses and the increasing demand for limited production runs. these seem to be the results of a rapidly changing/advancing/inverting fasion scene, one which large scale corporate chains struggle to keep up with. a turning point has passed, and the industry of fasion seems to be decentralizing.