Posts by Keir Leslie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Dude, if you don't want people to get all snarky at you, don't say `lolwhut is that all you've got' to them; it very strongly makes me wish to take apart you apart in detail.
I may not be alone in this.
-
Keir, lolwut? Seriously... That's what you've got?
Yes; if you don't follow that the establishment of a normative biological standard and the posited failure of women to live up to that biological natural standard while failing to mention the similar position men are in functions as part of a discourse about unnatural women etc, then well, to be honest.
-
dude,
[...] not sexism, but biology [...] better for women to conceive a bit younger than they've been trending towards?
no unnatural women in there no.
-
Um you do realise some pretty similar facts apply to men, right?
And yet it is mainly those nasty unnatural women wee hear about. Odd, eh?
-
Illegal downloading - that's barely ever enforced against, shall we legalise it?
Well! Now you mention it...
More seriously, I think the idea that the law doesn't involve judgement calls by the police, by the courts, etc is rather naive. There are lots and lots of laws that aren't totally enforced, and yet nobody nuts off about them.
The thing is that Larry Baldock & so forth must hate the idea that they are breaking the law, because it goes against all the rule-following bones in their bodies. It isn't just that they dislike the idea that smacking should be illegal; it is also that they hate the idea that they should be criminals, because criminals are the Other, and how could they be the Other?
-
First, because currently universities don't require their members to a join a student union (at least not any more).
Hang on, this is a bit suspicious. Obvs. universities tend not to, because they don't have to, but I strongly suspect that they have in the past, and would quite happily in the future.
After all, lots of the stuff that students' associations do is stuff that needs to be done: student representation on Council, organising Orientation events, the sort of stuff that would end up being done one way or the other. (Which is also why you wouldn't get a lot of the money that goes to the SA back; it'd just end up going to the university anyway.)
And arguing about the meaning of statements that would only be meaningful if the world were different is utter tosh, I have to say.
-
A. If the All Blacks picked on nationality we'd have had Howlett, Hayman, Jack etc last year. And wouldn't have come across Wulf, Owens, Ross, Thomson, Kaino etc. Because of those 4, Ross was the only one I thought 'yeah, he's better than Ali'.
Um, this is not a logically sound statement. That's like saying if the NZRU decided not to pick from Auckland the quality of the ABs would go up. Clearly, not picking eligible players currently working overseas hurts the ABs & so clearly there's more to NZ rugby than fostering AB success.
-
So I don't regard commercialisation as proof of inauthenticity in fashion or culture, but a case of diminishing returns. Entrepreneurs give scale and vitality to new ideas -- but successive applications of commerce will eventually shut them down.
I don't think authenticity is a particularly valuable way of thinking about it, and I don't think one should naively oppose commercial/altruistic in good/bad way; there are entirely inauthentic things that are simply stunning, like Lady Gaga.
The other thing is that it is quite possible for capital to be effectively anti-capitalist & it is quite possible to subvert and challenge meanings mediated by capital. But NME was out to make money out of punk, as were Virgin and EMI, and there's no way around that. (Well, there are lots of ways around that, and that's the interesting thing.)
-
It seems to me that certain looks originate within groups and than spread.
But the spread is mediated by capital almost always; yes, that isn't the whole story, but if you think emo reached New Zealand by word of mouth from Washington DC I think you are hugely optimistic.
Now, I am no expert on this; but, anyway, my personal (generalising, not very good, simplistic) model is that there is an originating scene, which tends to be quite innovative and radical. This scene is often altruistic etc., although you have to be careful about assuming that. This then grows and becomes commercialised, at which point it becomes a trend and a marketable commodity and goes mainstream, and then you have successfully turned rebellion into money. You can skip the altruistic bit if you want, and just go straight into the commodification, which is called pop.
Of course, you then get subversion and so against the commodification, and it isn't as dull as I have made it sound.
It is vanishingly unlikely that you personally will ever be at the original scene, unless you live in a couple of cities -- London or New York basically. Then, it is merely very unlikely. So in almost all cases, there's a profit motive driving the pick up of whatever.
Which isn't to say that NME cares if flares are in or out, but rather that NME cares that flares be in or out.
-
Who advertises for grunge?
Well, Subpop for one. But nobody has to be profiting off one part of a Look for it be profitable to sell the Look as a whole & Looks are very much sold to the public. Yes, the public has to buy, and I'm sure the precise interaction among consumers, capital, and peer groups is fascinating, but fashion (or, rather, Yoof Culture) is business, even the nice op shoppy bits.
(But yes on the general point, `it's all the brainwashing ad agencies' isn't a very good explanation.)