#wants to prove something through work and ideological aesthetics

[convoloutedinjoke]

I think you could get Kim to quit the RCM by giving him a junker and a space at a communal garage. just like 10-12 other gear heads who will interact with him in a normal friendly way, the opportunity to both excel at something, problem solve and be part of a well defined in-group. give him that and an open carry license and eventually he'd maybe just get less invested in being a cop

[logicalbookthief]

Class Disparity and Narrative Framing

Since a bunch of people liked my tags on this post, I thought I’d expand on this this topic.

I’m hoping we delve more into this once we get a proper backstory for Mr. Compress / Oji Harima, as it seems to be the basis for Harima’s actions in his era.

This was originally going to be just an analysis of how similar characters of different classes are treated by the narrative (specifically in regards to Ch 299) but want to first establish the role that class plays in the story overall.

Let’s start with the Peerless Thief (Oji Harima) and what we know of his ideology.

And his criticism isn’t unfounded. Heroes make a lot of money.  And that’s in addition to the benefits they receive, such as medical care, education, internships. All free of charge. Once you become a hero, you’re pretty much set financially. That’s the main reason Ochako enrolls in UA, because she wants to help her struggling, working-class family.

But why did Harima find this system so unfair? If everyone has an equal opportunity to become a hero, where’s the harm in it being so profitable?

Except. Not everyone can become a hero. That is a fact Izuku had to contend with his entire childhood. For one thing, they need to have a quirk. So this eliminates the quirkless portion of the population automatically.

You need to also have a quirk that is useful in rescue & combat situations (eliminating more mundane quirks / quirks that have drawbacks that outweigh its ability) and a quirk that is marketable to the public (eliminating any quirks that are off-putting or unpalatable to people, such as Toga drinking blood or mutation quirks that aren’t “cute” or “aesthetically pleasing” enough to tolerate).

Essentially, you need to win the genetic lottery to get a quirk that qualifies you for heroism, an opportunity that offers a large degree of wealth and influence. And that’s where we get into the issue of class.

Class is defined as a group of people who share a socioeconomic status; and in BNHA, this is determined not only by birth, but also can be tied to quirks. The socio part is non-explanatory, as Izuku begins the manga showing how not having a quirk caused him to be treated differently by his peers.

The economic aspect of this is more subtle, but it’s started to come into focus with characters like Twice, Hawks and Compress.

Probably the reason Harima called for reform is this: Children inherit their quirks from their parents. Just as they inherit their socioeconomic status. Someone with a quirk that enables them to become a hero will not only pass on this wealth to their child, but also will likely pass on a quirk that would allow the child to pursue a hero career. This is why you see legacy heroes like Tenya, Shouto, etc.

This ensures that wealth remains in the family, generation after generation. Likewise, it can ensure that another family remains in poverty without any chance for mobility. In a sense, it’s the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.

Obviously, you have examples of mobility — Hawks and Ochako are the first that come to mind — but they had/have this opportunity because of their quirks.

Yes, you can still be a hero without the permission of the Hero Commission. Without a license, though, you will a) not be paid and b) be labeled a vigilante, which is the same as a criminal.

As an side-note, because I’m a nerd for words and history— in English, the origin for villain comes from the Medieval Latin villanus, or villa, a dwelling where poor farmers in the village would live. Yeah, that’s right: Villain used to just refer to a person of lower class. If you look at the etymology, many words with these connotations began as words associated with the poor. And in the hands of the aristocracy, they were effectively used to criminalize the poor.

And with that, we’ve circled back to the analysis of characters I promised at the beginning: Thief Takami and Enji Todoroki. Many have pointed out their similarity since Ch 299 was released. Rightfully so!

Both abused their children.

Both isolated their children.

Both of their wives (idk if it’s confirmed Tomie was married to Takami but that’s essentially how they lived) viewed their children through the lens of their fathers due to the unhealthy relationships they had with their husbands.

Both of the mothers were driven to a point where they couldn’t take care of their children, due to either the father’s presence/absence in the family.

What strikes me most in this comparison is how you can’t separate these characters from the issue of class. It permeates every panel and informs our understanding of their situations.

Takami is a piece of shit who blames his child for existing, something this poor kid had no control over. He views Keigo as a burden to him and his freedom and resents him for it. 

The glimpses we get of the house show they live in squalor. A child is an extra mouth to feed, an extra person to provide for. You can’t examine the abuse without acknowledging the role of their nonexistent finances: Thief Takami was literally a criminal so he could get money.

Meanwhile, you have Endeavor, who is also a piece of shit, wrapped in a shinier package. He bought his wife with the intention of making children -- as many as needed -- so he could create the perfect combination quirk. Money was no object. 

Expenses for Rei’s decade-long hospital stay, the nanny/housekeeper to care for the neglected kids, the fact he can so casually decide to build a new house for his family... It is never addressed by anyone in the story, because it doesn’t need to be. Money is no object.

I’m curious as to what class Rei’s family was (and I’m not exactly hopeful we’ll get this info, based on she’s been treated so far) that they agreed to this arrangement. If they were poor, the idea that their daughter would be taken care of financially might’ve enticed them. Hell, the idea that her family would be taken care of financially might’ve enticed Rei. 

Through this analysis, I’ve also realized just how paranoid / concerned the Takamis act in comparison. Thief Takami isolates his whole family out of fear they will sell him out. Tomie is afraid she will be criminalized by mere association and chooses a life on the streets over the risk of going to the police.

Contrast this to how Shouto has revealed his father’s abuse to classmates he barely knew. How Fuyumi mentions in front of his friends who are interning under Endeavor that Natsuo blames their father for Touya’s death; later, Enji admits he is responsible. Remember when Endeavor flat-out told All Might, who was the most influential hero in the country at the time, that he created his son for the sole purpose of surpassing the Number One??

Yet the narrative gives this none of the weight it deserves. Because there are no stakes for Endeavor and everybody knows he will face no consequences for his crimes. The difference is that Takami & Tomie were well-aware that they would be punished if they were caught; while Endeavor & the Torodorkis are well-aware that he would not.

Suffice to say, it is telling that while the narrative has no qualms with condemning Thief Takami for his crimes and abuse of his family -- as it should -- it gives Endeavor the benefit of the doubt and chance after chance to prove he is “worthy” of redemption, even though his victims have never once denied his guilt and they certainly hold him accountable. And the only difference is that one man is from poverty while the other is from privilege.

Anyway, I could say more on this subject -- I would like to touch on how Ochako fits into the class discussion but this got longer than anticipated, so I may have to make a separate post for her -- but I’ll leave it at that for now.

[azrielsribbon]

!!! A COURT OF SILVER FLAME SPOILERS !!!

Alternatively, Asli finished the book in like six hours and has many, many thoughts.

ON THE TOPIC OF NESTA, SOME CASSIAN AND NESSIAN AS A WHOLE.

holy shit. this is a lot.

She has grown so much, and I mean that by the little things.

I love that sjm didn’t make it so she was addicted to the wine and sex

Okay I understand Nesta was frustrating sometimes because she really was stubborn but some of the shit Cassian said was really out of line. Especially when he screamed that no one like fucking liked her.

Cassian was down so bad this entire book and I knew that the moment he said he hadn’t bed a female in two years. He was STARVINGGG

Her determination in getting down those stairs, I probably wouldve tested myself down a window or something.

I liked how she bonded with the House. It was a refreshing, different take on loneliness and finding a friend.

The House and how it looked after her. It was the biggest thing in her journey.

One theme I see in Nesta a lot is self sabotage, especially when it means the safety of others. She’s ready to throw herself in front of them.

Her banter with Cassian was really nice to read.

WHEN SHE MENTIONED HAVING A THREESOME TWICE I DIED

Cassian and his backstory was rip. It was really sad thinking about how little kid Cass really regretted some of the things that even he couldn’t control.

sjm did not disappoint with inner thoughts. Those were really refreshing.

She wasn’t vividly jealous or furious at Mor and Cassian’s friendship and I really liked that take.

Cassian’s silent jealously when Helion tries to flirt with Nesta and she dodged it LMAOOO

When Cassian kisses her in front of their family to help her get out of the map

Her silent bond with Az! That kept me going honestly. He was a sly bastard sometimes.

Sometimes I really questioned somethings, like those fast smut scenes but that’s just my preference.

Her marching down to Amren’s after she finds out they voted against her having the weapons she Made

Not to mention how she told Feyre about the baby and the labor risk out of anger, that really hurt both of them and me.

When she stayed silent during her punishment hike with Cassian. Each thought tore me apart.

When he warned her about falling and she was glad he didn’t see the expression on her face. How she didn’t mind if she fell down and how it would better.

When she cried after all those days of silence and finally told him how she felt underneath all that.

He softened up fast too and blamed himself for not realizing all this time why she hated the fire.

Can we talk about that dancing scene with Eris? And how Cassian was secretly exploding on the side as he remembered her mother wanted her to marry a Prince just like Eris.

WHEN ERIS ASKED RHYS WHAT HE WANTED IN EXCHANGE FOR NESTA TO BE HIS BRIDE AFTER LIKE A COUPLE DANCED LMAOO

The Solstice scene had my heart. The gift Az got Nesta and how she hugged him after he told her about it. How Cassian smiled at the sight.

HOW CASS GOT HER A LITTLE MUSIC BOX RECORDED WITH THE MUSIC FROM THE BALLROOM AND HOW HE ASKED THE MUSICIANS TO PERFORM IT FOR HIM AFTER EVERYONE LEFT SO HE COULD GET IT FOR HERRRR

They really kept shit away from each other till it exploded in an argument and that’s a reoccurring theme with this book couple.

WHAT MADE ME SO FRUSTRATED WAS HOW HE WANTED TO STAY IN HER BED AFTER SEX AND SHE WANTED TO CUDDLE BUT THEY DIDNT SAY ANYTHING AND ASSUMED THE OTHER DIDNT WANT IT

The topic of mates was RUSHED. Like I mean really rushed. First they argue, he says shackled and then the next time they get to speak (after the forced Blood Rite and labor scene) they accept it? I dont know, it didn’t sit with me.

I wish Nesta would elaborate on why she didn’t believe in Mates even more and Cassian would actually listen for once. Again, rushed.

The ending was fast paced in my opinion. We could’ve really had more to go off of, I needed more domestic Nessian.

ON THE TOPIC OF NESTA, GWYN, EMERIE

I am obsessed with Gwyn, Emerie and their friendship with Nesta.

I love how Gwyn and Nesta started, both gritting their teeth and still appreciating that aspect of each other.

How Nesta raced to help her with a book even when their first encounter wasn’t the friendliest.

Gwyn being persistent in paying back her small debt. I love her.

When Gwyn applied to defense lessons after Nesta defended them from the scholar priestess.

Emerie, my homegirl. I love her to death. The way she easily befriends Nesta, how Nesta stands up for her when her cousin comes to bother her.

I don’t know if it was just me, but Emerie and Mor might possibly be something. Either good friends or interested lovers.

THE WAY EMERIE BONDED OVER SMUTTY NOVELS WITH THE OTHER GIRLS AND LET THEM BORROW HER STUFFFFFF

Gwyn helping Nesta with her research on Valkyries. Muah.

Gwyn and Az, I feel like something might happen here and if it does, I do not want any Elriel drama getting dragged in, MY GIRL GWYN HAS BEEN THROUGH ENOUGH OKAY

Gwyn thinking she doesn’t deserve the purity jewel the other priestesses wear and her backstory honestly just broke me. She endured so much.

Emerie and everything she lost. Her mother, her brother, her wings and any dreams she had of flying. How she distracts herself with work and gardening to keep that off her mind.

The way the girls all developed inside jokes, jokingly hanged up on Cassian at training and always had Nesta’s back.

The way they were dedicated to each other even during the Rite when they couldve let one another behind and won.

HER SISTERSSS I CRIED I WOULD DIE FOR THIS MF TRIOOOO

ON THE TOPIC OF THE INNER CIRCLE + THE ARCHERON PARENTS

Fey-ruh was pregoooo she and Rhys raw dogged it

I felt really really bad when no one fucking told her she would die because the baby had wings and she wasn’t fit to give birth like that. Like. What.

Can we talk about how they fucked when Feyre was in her Illyrian form and didn’t think the thing through?

Rhys, I can’t stand the guy. First he wants to make a bargain with his mate that they die together and then he wants to keep it from her that she can die when giving birth to their kid.

I think what pissed me off the most was when he was trying to help Cassian get Nesta out of a nightmare/power “episode” and had to experience what she did with the Cauldron and seeing Elain and Cassian hurt. He said he knew she was feeling something but seeing and feeling it yourself was different. Yeah, what else did you think smartass.

Rhys has a habit of keeping important shit secret, Amren is no better either. I think that’s what pissed me off the most. They sometimes kept the too important shit away.

As much as Nesta grew, so did Feyre. They both developed pretty good in my mind, I don’t hate her as much as I despise Rhys sometimes. All and all I love how she and Nesta ended up.

Amren....I get her point about Nesta using and abusing their friendship. At the same time, sometimes she was too harsh.

Elain, darling old cottage core aesthetic Elain. I found her to be a little insufferable sometimes. How she showed up unexpectedly at the Library to talk to Nesta and they got into an argument was funny to me since Nesta pulled out some stuff on her.

ELAIN THANKING NESTA AND SAYING FINALLY AFTER SHE TELLS HER TO “OH FUCK OFF” AT THE SOLSTICE PARTY WAS SO RANDOM

Elain and Lucien is some fucked up shit. I understand how she doesn’t want to acknowledge the fact that they’re mates and all that but you can atleast thank the guy when he gives you a gift on Solstice.

I feel bad for Lucien because as sweet as Elain might show to be, she’s really hurting him and could just reject him if she really doesn’t want him.

AZ AZ AZ I LOVE HIM AND HIS SLY MOMENTS

Az when he cockblocks is the best thing. Do it more often.

Az and Nesta’s bond is something I want to see more, as well as how she literally thought about a threesome with him and Cassian.

Morriiiiigan. Everyone mentions her beauty and how she’s like the sun walking and I admire that. She wasn’t as annoying as I thought she’d be on the topic of Nesta and Cassian being an item.

She also wasn’t in the book as much which made sense since she was in Vallahan. I did like how she accepted Nessian towards the end.

The long awaited Mrs Archeron. Some of my theories about her proved true! About how she groomed her daughters into marriage ideologies at the worst age. 12 and 11? What the fuck?

The way she called Elain a pretty thing with no ambition at 11, no wonder Nesta and Elain have no proper knowledge of survival like Feyre did. She was set on making sure Nesta married someone who would treat her well, Elain married someone rich since her beauty was beyond all three of them.

Literally Mrs Archeron was not okay LMAOOO why are you telling your daughters this when they haven’t even bled yet damn CHILL

I felt bad since she didn’t care for Feyre and only their father doted on Elain and Feyre. Nesta was kept all to her mother to feed off Mrs Archeron’s narcissism.

Not to mention she died a year later

I found it funny Elain mentioned how at 15, Nesta even had their dad fearing her. Like it’s your daughter, wdym you fear her

The backstory on how Nesta treated him and how she feels now looking back. It was saddening and I unfortunately know the regret of not doing somethings. It must eat her alive.

I enjoyed reading this book, even if I wasn’t content with the ending. I tabbed a LOT of things so you’ll probably catch me editing and adding more to this in the morning. Thank you for reading all the way down here! 🤍

[mnthpprt]

Chapter 24: Blame It On The Juice

We finally arrive at the tavern and take a seat at a small table near the bar. Arthur is the only one to remain standing up, and he leans closer so I can hear him over the chatter.

“First round’s on me, darling. What would you like?” he asks. I ponder for a moment before answering.

“I’ve always wanted to try absinthe.” He nods, and looks over at Theo.

“Whiskey for me, half water.”

A few minutes later he returns, balancing three glasses between his hands, and proceeds to set them down on the table, careful not to spill any of them. Outside, it has begun to pour like there’s no tomorrow.

“Pernod Fils for the lady,” he says, imitating a waiter, “and whiskey for the ratbag.” Theo punches his arm, scowling, and sips his drink, making me laugh. Judging by the amount of teasing and insults between these two, they could either be good friends or truly hate each other. I know it is the former, because they seem to spend a lot of time together. They even walk their dogs at the same time every morning, and they do so willingly.

I take a small sip of the pearly green liquid, and am surprised by the sweet taste of anise and fennel in the drink.

“Yo, this is good,” I point out, satisfied. I lift my glass when I notice Arthur doing the same, and Theo begrudgingly joins in.

“To the green fairy, may she bless our dear Anaïs for the first time!” toasts the writer, holding back a laugh. I follow in with my own comedic announcement.

“To the Salon des Refusés du Salon des Refusés!” I say, jokingly, referring to Theo’s exhibition. The groundbreaking art I saw there would have been criticized even by the rejects of this time. “And to your and Vincent’s success, of course!”

“That, I can get behind,” Theo chuckles. “To you idiots.” He punctuates his covertly affectionate statement by taking a gulp of whisky, and Arthur and I follow suit. “So, hondje, you know about art. What is it like in your time?”

I am taken aback by the question. I don’t really know where to begin.

“Well... For starters, it’s incredibly different. To understand it one needs to know the history behind it, you know? Like, what happened between now and then for it to get to that point,” I explain, pausing to take another sip of absinthe. Theo leans forward on his chair, his blue eyes piercing me with interest. “I guess the main movement that started everything would be Dadaism. Do you know about World War One?” Theo shakes his head.

“One? By Jove, there are more?!” Arthur exclaims. I nod, my brows knitted together. If he lived through the first one, the Great War, I am concerned about how he might react if I continue. He seems to want to know more, so I keep talking.

“Arthur, if I remember correctly you died a few years before the second one. What was it, 1920 something?”

“1930,” he corrects me.

“Well, the Second World War started in 1939. It lasted for about six years, and it was brutal. But that’s not the point of this conversation.” I turn to Theo. “So, as you can tell by the name, the First World War was, well... massive. Pretty much all of Europe was involved and severely affected, both by the unprecedented death toll and the poverty that came after. People suffered while the rich clung to what they had, and the art world became increasingly inaccessible. You’ve seen yourself how conservative the elite can be when it comes to their precious culture.” He agrees with a nod. “So a movement emerged in response to this traditionalism, which some artists deemed unacceptable in a world where all of the rules had seemingly been broken already, and devastatingly so. I don’t know where the name came from, but Dadaism represents all the nonsense, everything that is irrational and ugly and primal. What these people were making was basically anti-art. Instead of it being aesthetically pleasing, their work strived to create a reaction in the viewer, to make them think.” I pause to drink again, and glance at Arthur. He knows what I’m talking about, he lived through it.

“And what does it look like?” Theo asks. I laugh.

“Oof, good question. It can look like anything, from sculptures made of random objects piled together to drawings and prints... More than anything, Dadaism was a concept, an ideology. It established that art should be reactionary, and not necessarily for the pleasure of the viewer. This became the basis for what in my time we call ‘conceptual art’, which is basically anything that makes a statement without it being explicit in the piece.”

“Like a riddle?” Arthur asks. He has already finished his glass of whisky.

“Something like that,” I chuckle. “But not always. One of the most outrageous ones I can remember is this man, Piero Manzoni. In the 60s... the 1960s, that is, he produced a series of cans labeled as ‘Artist’s Shit’, supposedly filled with... well, his own shit. It was meant as a critique of the art world at the time.” Theo’s eyes widen, and I hear Arthur let out a boisterous laugh. “Apparently one of his friends said that they were actually filled with plaster, but no one really knows for sure, because they’re too valuable to be opened. I think one of them was auctioned for like 300.000 euros.”

“Euros?” Theo asks after sipping his whisky, trying to recover from the surprise.

“Oh, right, that’s a new thing,” I remember. “So after that Second World War I mentioned before, a bunch of countries in Europe created a coalition, to protect the peace, and all that. And then, around the time I was born, it became a proper union and they changed the money, so we all use euros now. Well, then. Then?” I take a big sip of absinthe and savor it for a moment, frustrated with my own tangled words. “Ugh, time travel is so confusing. Anyway, one of those cans is worth, like, 100 million francs in ‘right now’ money, I think.”

Theo chokes on his drink. Arthur is just staring at me with his mouth hanging open, completely incredulous at my nonchalant statement.

“That is absolutely preposterous,” he finally says. I shrug.

“I guess that proves Manzoni’s point, doesn’t it?” I down what’s left of the absinthe and set the glass in the middle of the table. Arthur scoffs.

“No, no, she’s right.” I am surprised to hear Theo agree with me. He looks rather impressed. “Collectors will buy anything with the right name attached to it. Artist’s shit,” he laughs. “That’s brilliant.”

Maybe it’s his adorable dimples, or maybe it’s the alcohol running through my veins, but I have the sudden urge to mock him.

“Wow, who knew you had a sense of humor, knabbeltje!” I put emphasis on the word, causing him to blush, which subsequently makes me giggle. Arthur puts his fist up, laughing, and I bump it. “Ayyy, you learnt it!”

Theo gets up abruptly, and for a moment I fear I have offended him, but I relax when I see him walk towards the bar. He soon comes back with only two glasses, and leaves again to get his own. I sip my new drink, also containing the green liquor from before, and let out a little moan.

“This drink slaps,” I declare, and Arthur tilts his head in confusion.

“Slaps? Gods, Anaïs, it’s like you’re speaking an entirely different language.” I laugh and proceed to tell him about the ‘snack’ thing, how Theo called me a ‘knabbeltje’ and I took it as a compliment, so now he can’t use it on me anymore. Arthur laughs too when I finish the story. “Oh my, is that why he was blushing? Here I was thinking you two might have- Ow!”

I elbow him before he can finish the sentence, in part because I don’t need to hear it, and in part because I see Theo approaching. When he sits down, Arthur’s face lights up with an idea. I wonder what he’s plotting.

“Let’s play a game,” he says. “Bet I can deduce something about each of you. If I’m right, you drink, and if I’m wrong, I drink. Anaïs,” he turns to me. “There is something between you and Leonardo. You two have been in an awfully good mood lately.” I blush and sip my drink. “Ha! I knew it! Our sweet darling and our dear friend have been basket making in secret,” he exclaims. Judging by his face, I assume that’s an euphemism for sex.

“We have not!” I smack his arm. Although that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t like to. “Okay, my turn. Theo!” I choose loudly, pointing my finger at the art dealer. “You act so tough because you’re protective of Vincent and want to be taken seriously so nobody messes with him.”

Theo drinks before clearing his throat, and then turns to his friend.

“The reason you’re being so annoying lately is because you’re jealous of Leonardo,” he states. Arthur simply leans back on his chair with a smirk.

“Drink,” he commands. Theo obliges. “You have already scoured this bar for my next potential conquest, and you disapprove of all the options.” Theo drinks again.

“Is that what you do when you’re not pestering Sebastian for more coffee?” I laugh. Then a thought occurs to me. “How do they not find out about...? You know,” I ask, tapping my canine with a fingernail. I can’t risk saying it out loud in a place so crowded.

“They simply look like love bites, dear,” Arthur winks. “And they are, in a sense.”

“Huh.” I tilt my head, trying to imagine what that would be like, but I fail and move on to the game. “You sleep around so much to try to forget your guilt.”

Finally, he drinks. I don’t know what he feels guilty about, but I could recognize that emotion on anyone. However, I don’t ask any further. I do not want to pry.

He changes the topic by pulling a deck of cards from his pocket. I guess he does not like losing at his own game.

[dreamsofthescreen]

The Abstract Point Of A Clockwork Orange - Review

Released for streaming on Netflix two years ago, is this a so called ‘masterwork’ of a film, or just cinematic satire?

Malcolm McDowell in 'A Clockwork Orange'

Based on the book by Anthony Burgess, Stanley Kubrick’s 1971 adaptation of ‘A Clockwork Orange’, proved greatly controversial, yet influential. The dreamy, edgy swinging 60s sets up the scene for ultra violent home invasions and tortuously explicit murders performed by ‘The Droogs’. Released for streaming on Netflix two years ago, is this a so called ‘masterwork’ of a film, or just cinematic satire? Surrounding the idea of free will, this can be tossed around endlessly and reviewed in philosophy as something problematic. But is this film’s talk of freedom and suppression all really necessary? It’s upfront commentary on humanity that can be deemed as abstract, yet is this label of abstract just an excuse to glamorise the utter violence? Or does ‘A Clockwork Orange’ stand strongly with a point in hand? We can say both. The retro aesthetics, in terms of costume & production design that Kubrick can be recognised for, do play into the significance and absurdity of this work.

Set in a dystopian England where the governed rules are anything but at liberty for citizens, morals aren’t only tested, but are completely rejected. In this world, the government find order in good behaviour, something that the main character, Alex, (Malcolm McDowell) completely detests. Alex has no moral limits and gains pleasure from violence with no concern for the consequences. Within the first half an hour of the film, we see him and his gang of ‘droogs’ beat up a homeless man and mercilessly invade an old mans home, robbing it as well as raping and murdering his wife. Though labelled as a lesson in testing how far freedom of choice can go, A Clockwork Orange’s meaning can seem scattered.

Seen to represent someone so outwardly alive in his lack of concern for society, Alex’s mad challenging of human morals tests the meaning of freedom. But given themes, are they just barren and only strive to portray substance? It can just be seen as senseless violence for many. The intensely rebellious attitude is a reflection of the oppression faced in this film’s universe, and ultimately is an exaggerated comment on society today. Yet, you could say this about a film like Dirty Harry or Pulp Fiction, given their brutality. This theme, focusing on order vs chaos in society, is no doubt relevant, but however meaningful is it? The meaning left in it could be that, through it’s distressing realism, it so rawly opens ones eyes to today’s illicit society. Commenting on the confusion surrounding the film’s meaning, Kubrick stated that, “It is a story of the dubious redemption of a teenage delinquent by condition-reflex therapy. It is, at the same time, a running lecture on free-will.” Furthermore, author Anthony Burgess writes in ‘A Clockwork Orange Resucked’, that the meaning is in the title, ‘A Clockwork Orange’ referring to one who “has the appearance of an organism lovely with colour and juice, but is in fact only a clockwork toy to be wound up by God or the Devil or the Almighty State”. In saying this, Burgess does confirm that from his perspective, this is a comment on human nature being sucked away by a totalitarian government. Yet, even given the comment from the author, our perspective as an audience is truly subjective.

In the author’s word, commenting that ‘A Clockwork Orange’ reflects someone who “has the appearance of an organism lovely with colour…but is only a clockwork toy to be wound up by the Almighty State”, refers to our potential for evil, and the importance of it in human nature. This is certainly a thought provoking theme, as most of the film is. The extreme capabilities of human beings can be an incredibly positive light or looming darkness, given which we choose to act on. Yet when this potential is squashed by a higher state, we can question whether one has free will, if it is still controlled. In a scene where Alex’s rebellion in lessened by Ludovico’s Technique, a process in which he is brutally forced to watch films of atrociously violent acts, with treatment in order to make him physically sick at even the thought of committing any crime. In hope to make him less of a threat to present society, he is less of himself. Again, we can think about the fact that is is of course necessary to change such wicked behaviour, but we can also think about how it could be, had we not chosen to create any governed rules.

After seeing state officials confirm that Alex has been cured of his homicidal behaviours, a prison chaplain states, “Choice! The boy has not a real choice, has he? Self-interest, the fear of physical pain drove him to that grotesque act of self-abasement. The insincerity was clear to be seen. He ceases to be a wrongdoer. He ceases also to be a creature capable of moral choice.” In total, Alex’s behaviour is ceased to be wrong, but he is also ‘ceased to be capable of choosing for himself, since he had been rewired to believe what the state had wanted him to believe - that acts of violence simply are wrong. To the normal mind, this isn’t a hard concept to grasp, as we are surrounded by basic morals that tie in with our empathy. Yet to someone with more sociopathic or psychopathic tendencies, this concern isn’t there. So, again, Kubrick leaves us questioning whether or not people in this state of mind should have the choice there in the first place, as they are unable to distinguish that morals are important in humanity.

Furthermore, in 1973, Kubrick decided to ban A Clockwork Orange in the United Kingdom, due to continuous upheaval. Renowned film critic Roger Ebert gave it two out of four stars, stating that it was an “ideological mess”. Comments on it’s explicit sexuality, dehumanisation and violence were made, with some thinking that the point of the film in itself was missed. As some claimed it’s content was to create a raw piece of art, others claimed it an offensive excuse to pointlessly portray horrific scenes. And horrific the scenes are, though with fashionable features, the torturously disturbing scenes of ‘The Droogs’ murders’ are certainly crude, and have no backstory whatsoever. These brutal scenes can be seen as damaging to on audiences, or even dangerous. What kind of insight are audiences given when shown such destructiveness?

If we talk about the stylistic features of Kubrick’s adaptation, they have certainly played into it’s iconic status, having audiences sometimes classify it as a performance art piece, rather than a film. The renowned costumes of ‘the droogs’ have been used repetitively as Halloween costumes, as well as the storyline being referenced in The Simpsons. The production design is, without a doubt, gorgeous, kooky and as abstract as the film’s meaning. The interiors stun with colour blocking wallpapers, framed pictures of 1960s models and record players spinning in one room. The sense of 1960s jazz certainly is there, with a slanted, modern design, that Kubrick is known for in other works like ‘The Shining’. Whilst Alex and his gang members commit crime, they dance along to Gene Kelly’s ‘Singin’ In The Rain’, and as Alex is tested through Ludovico’s Technique, a recognisable symphony by Beethoven is played. The 1960s wardrobe bursts with colour, an exaggerated view of the Britain in the swinging sixties. Audiences are attracted to these joyful features like music and fashion, the stylistic features making it such a cult classic. A cult classic needs to be fashionable, but is this fashion in the film pretentious? Especially when surrounded by such violence, as though to say that it’s chaos can be softened by pretty interiors or a recognisable score. Or does it make it all the more disturbing through adding joyful song or colourful designs, as they so oppose the distressing acts that Alex and his droogs perform. Had it not had Kubrick’s touch, would we view it the same way? Though Academy Award winner Milena Canonero’s costumes and John Barry’s production design remaining outstanding, does their glamorisation gloss over the underlying trauma of the plot? This type of questioning is something we can participate in throughout watching Kubrick’s production, as both it’s ideas and meaning are not black and white. 

Kubrick’s adaptation of ‘A Clockwork Orange’ is clever in that it has us wondering whether or not it has a point, yet regardless, audiences are still left thinking about the impact of immoral behaviour and how our society responds to it. However consequential it attempts to be, it really can also be seen as blank, leaving audiences to decide on which to focus on. The pop-art aesthetics of the film can overrun the meaning or either try to stir us away from the barren landscape that it can be seen as. However strongly critiqued and analysed it may be, it’s meaning is all the more subjective, both creating interest and successfully winding up audiences.

Stars Out Of Five: 3.5/5

[gunnerpalace]

I belonged to another heated (but no longer debatable imho) ship were I've known a lot to be IH. And ofc I feel bad they have to bear witness to people so salty about the ending and hated Ino. I hate Ino too with burning passion, and that kinda made me feel guilty. But the psychology major in me was baffled as to how they conclude immediately w/ no analysis she was hated not only because of ships but because either she was written terribly, or she was written to be terrible. Or probably both.

Why cant Ichigo and Rukia be married to someone we could *infer* (because duh it’s not canon they will argue) they are in love with? Someone they have shown to share bond with? “Oh well, its becoming commonplace that the hero doesnt end up w/ main heroine, it’s revolutionary!” Bullshit. Sadly that is logic fallacy you dumbasses. Where’s the progress? Kubo tried, barely even. And again, it’s not even about the ships, its the entire work that has become an anomaly–Bleach as became Bleauuughch.

Again, I feel bad they have to bear the weight of evert criticism, the insult, and the salt of basically a majority of bleach fandom. But I hope they can tell that majority (like 99.99999999998%) of the criticisms are valid and not just hate. If they couldnt bear to actual do analysis of why people hated it, then dont bother plead or guilt trip or go to ppl inboxes why should we just move on. Well, majority already did that’s why all was left were ppl who couldnt be bothered with actual quality.

Here’s the ugly truth about people: they can’t read.

Or they don’t want to.

We have this holdover idea from the Enlightenment that if you can gather enough evidence in fine and exacting enough detail, that you can not only discern some kind of truth, but convince other people of it through the preponderance of evidence. And we have structured our society around that idea, from politics to law to science to academia in general.

The trouble is that that idea is bullshit outside of academia.

That is not at all how regular people approach the world.

And the more we rely upon an idea that people are rational, the more we will be lost at and disappointed by the actuality that people are irrational and emotional.

Consider climate change. The scientific community has had roughly 97% consensus that climate change is being anthropomorphically driven (that is to say, somewhere between overwhelmingly and entirely caused by human activity) since at least the very early 2000s, if not back much earlier. Indeed, we know that the oil companies were aware of it at least as early as 1981! And here we are in 2020, with some 31% of the population either unsure of or disbelieving in it.

Whenever the matter is debated politically, scientists will trot out their facts and drop them on the table and point. The facts are self-evident, they feel. And then the conservative politicians will shrug and say, “I don’t believe you.”

And the scientists have no idea what to do about that. Because to their minds, facts are indisputable. You cannot argue with them.

But you can, as the conservatives illustrate. You just choose not to believe in them.

We are witnessing something very similar with COVID-19 at the moment, with large swathes of the (American) population simply not believing it to be a threat, in spite of all available evidence to the contrary.

We see the same thing with political leadership debating the question of whether to prioritize health or economics, and our media treating this as if it is a legitimate policy debate, when we already know the answer to that question from the Spanish Flu of 1918: towns and cities that were locked down and quarantined suffered fewer casualties and had much faster economic rebounds.

People generally do not read.

People generally do not process.

People generally do not analyze.

People generally do not learn.

And if they can’t do those things for very large-scale existential threats that can threaten anything from tens to hundreds of millions of people worldwide, to the entire ecosphere of the planet, why would one expect them do so for a piece of fiction?

If people cannot handle cold, hard statistical facts, or simple arithmetic, then they certainly cannot handle something as “subjective” as facial expressions or dialogue. I have written recently about how the attitude toward non-fandom things (e.g., politics) increasingly resembles that of fandom, of approaching everything as though it is merely an aesthetic exercise.

That is really what we are dealing with here: ignorance. And not merely ordinary ignorance, not even willful ignorance, but an ignorance so deliberate and cultivated that its goal is nothing less than the total erasure of the facts. (The problem here, in this particular example, are of course the people who say unequivocally, “Ichigo always loved Orihime,” in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Someone who says, “It is clear to me this wasn’t a thing, but I like IH aesthetically,” is a non-issue.)

(Demanding or trying to force this former perspective does, as you suggest in the third ask, indicate a certain insecurity and a tacit admission that the perspective being advanced is illegitimate or poorly substantiated. However, for the people so enthralled to openly admit that is a psychological admission of defeat so severe that most would literally rather die than own up to being wrong to such an extent, and to suffer the attendant internal loss of face. So they seek continual external validation of it to shore it up.)

There is, in essence, no point in communicating with this kind of fan whatsoever. They are functionally like how Kyle Resse describes the Terminator in The Terminator:

Listen, and understand! That Terminator is out there. It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear! And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead!

There is a lot of tepid discussion out there in political circles that the degree of polarization in society today is unprecedented and that a way to bridge that gap could be through shared interests and values. But in my opinion, fandom proves exactly the opposite is true: the reasons people like things that are nominally “shared interests,” and their view of those things and why they are good, are completely and utterly irreconcilable. There is, essentially, virtually zero overlap in a Venn diagram of the perspectives. Shared interests divide as much as they will ever unite.

In that regard, Bleach should be treated as both a warning and a grim assessment of our world as a whole. It is not really an aberration.

It is the future.

This community (among others) has simply been living in it a few years in advance of other people. Everyone else has gotten their first big taste of it with Trump. (The Republicans have been constructing an alternate reality since 1964, but comparatively few people were aware of how deep the rabbit hole went.)

In my estimation, it is not worth engaging with people over a shared interest with sincerity, let alone in good faith, unless you have done some degree of vetting of their perspective. Most likely observing them or their works for a time. Without that, you simply open yourself up to these people who show a total lack of discernment or rationality.

And that is a large part of why social media is such an absolute garbage fire, because as platforms they are built around precisely the opposite notion. (And largely in defiance of the idea that people might want to curate their experiences or might not want to have “healthy debate,” which is almost never healthy and seldom ever debate). Some would argue this leads to echo chambers and hug boxes, but it’s not like the alternative that these companies have produced (for profit, of course, rather than for of any ideological mission) is any better.

To boil it all down, what we are really forced to rely on (quite sadly) is a free market approach: no matter how much that side rages and waves their “canon” status around, they simply do not produce much content. They will starve long before our side does, regardless of any other factors. (Their “canon” status did not help them any in the past four years.) And the people who are agnostic (e.g., the “I’m Still Bleach” crowd that is for some reason vaguely invested in the series as a whole) will lose interest and move on to the next shiny thing.

The only thing that is necessary in the face of all this is really patience. In the meantime, the best thing is simply to ignore the existence of such parties utterly.

[my-darling-boy]

Why do you think transmed opinions work against trans people? All they think is that you need dysphoria to be trans?

You know? I’m actually glad you asked because this is something I feel VERY strongly about :)

(Self harm/suicide/ed tw)

So: Gender dysphoria. It’s when you feel there is a discrepancy between the gender identity you were assigned with at birth and the gender identity you feel you actually are. And while there is certainly a psychological aspect to dysphoria, a good deal of trans people would say they feel the most dysphoria concerning the way they are aesthetically and audibly perceived by themselves/others, such as feeling dysphoric about their clothing, voice, hair, body, etc. And yes, it’s true, a lot of trans people do end up suffering from dysphoria, which often leads to the pursuit of medically transitioning through the use of surgeries and/or hormone replacement therapy.

And me? I’m not different from that stereotypical case. When I was younger, I had A LOT of dysphoria. I had dysphoria around my body shape. My neck. Voice. Haircut. Clothing. Chest. Height. Face. You name it, and I wanted it changed. I HATED myself. In fact, I concentrated so much on how awful my dysphoria made me feel, I almost committed suicide at 14. I hated myself so much I developed anorexia at 16 which I still struggle with to this day. I hated myself I self harmed until I was 18, and even anorexia is a way for me to self harm today. My self hatred led me to stay closeted for a good portion of my life.

And the culprit behind all this self hatred? Dysphoria. This condition I’m told is what is supposed to validate you as a trans person. Somehow, my level of uncomfortableness is equal to how trans I am. Transmeds teach trans people their level of validity is gauged by how often they look into the mirror and think “I hate myself. And this is what makes me trans.” And when you put that ideology onto an impressionable minor, aka me at 14, you foster an environment for that self hatred to thrive well into adulthood.

When you tell a trans person they MUST have dysphoria to be trans, you are laying the foundation for them to forever associate self hatred as being an intrinsic, founding part to their trans identity. When you tell a trans person they MUST have dysphoria to be trans, you are asking them, “How much do you hate yourself to be considered worthy of being called trans?”

And on TOP OF THAT, a lot of the times dysphoria is being used as this ticket word that grants you access to the Trans Clubᵀᴹ, and that means SOME people think that puts them at a high and mighty position to talk down to other trans men who don’t have that ticket in an effort to make themselves feel more masculine or more deserving of a trans title. It’s just that repackaged toxic cis masculinity of “Ha ha! I’m more manly than you!”

ALSO, when you tell trans people they must have dysphoria, you are REQUIRING them to always be uncomfortable with themselves for as long as they live, that no act to alleviate their dysphoria should ever be 100% effective or else they will no longer be considered trans without dysphoria.

So with that in mind, when I get my top surgery, i.e THE LAST STEP TO ALLEVIATE MY DYSPHORIA WHICH IS MY ULTIMATE GOAL, and my dysphoria is GONE (because I will feel my body matches up with how I feel finally) will transmeds say I’m not trans anymore? Even though I go through the same processes like changing all my legal documents, using male pronouns/name, pursuing surgeries, getting HRT that would stereotypically label me as trans, am I no longer allowed to say I’m trans anymore? Because if transmeds say I’m still allowed to still call myself trans at that point, they’re supporting a double standard.

Trans people are made to feel that shame, discomfort, and hatred are the hallmark traits to being trans. We are made to feel from DAY ONE of our coming out that we are not worthy of our pronouns or name, of being who we are. We shouldn’t have to prove anything to anyone. It’s not a contest to see who can be the most valid, or whose pain is deemed the most worthy to call themselves trans. We are already told we should feel bad about our identity by cis people and transmeds reinforce that narrative, that feeling bad IS what makes you trans, and I won’t stand for that

I get that trans people can have dysphoria, but it should not be an exclusive requirement

[kitmcroninillustration]

‘An introduction to Sociological Art theories’ (2018)

ARTHUR DANTO - the idea of an art world

Danto (1924-2013) addressed the concept of an 'art world' in 1964 because he was looking for a way to understand the conceptual and abstract art of the 1950s and 1960s. What is the distinction between an everyday object and an art object of Marcel Duchamp? What is represented in pure abstract art? The changes that took place in art aesthetics made him realize more clearly than ever that "to see something as art requires something the eye cannot descry - an atmosphere of artistic theory, a knowledge of the history of art: an art world" (Danto 1964: 577).  An art world, for Danto, was literally that which makes it possible to define and view something as a work of art, focusing predominately on the visual arts. This ideology "deliberately aimed to shift the attention of art historians, critics and other professionals from the tradition idea that artworks have intrinsic value and typical features that make them art, to the view that works become art on the basis of their position in the (historical) context", i.e. position in the art world (Van Maanen 2009: 19). Danto's idea of an 'Art world' has since been replaced by the notion that "works can be identified as artworks because of their specific values and functions" (Van Maanen 2009: 9). This idea of value and function and the resulting 'art world' scheme can then, in theory, be applied to any art form.

 GEORGE DICKIE - the institutional approach

While Danto was concerned primarily with what an artwork represents, George Dickie (b. 1926) is concerned with the "space between art and not-art" (Van Maanen 2009: 21). He explored this between 1964-1989 as institutional theory: "an attempt to sketch an account of the specific institutional structure within which works have their being" (Dickie 1984: 27). Dickie did not believe that what art works were 'about' determined their definition as an 'artwork'. And he believed that art could be defined by more than its intrinsic properties. He became determined to distinguish between 'art' (i.e. "this is art") and a 'work of art', or 'art work', and classifying the meaning of 'art work' became the entire basis of institutional theory.

The importance of 'artifactual' art was paramount for Dickie, defining an artwork to be the product of human activity, and generating this heavily used definition: "A work of art in the classificatory sense is 1) an artifact 2) upon which some person or persons acting on behalf of a certain social institution (the art world) has conferred the status of candidate for appreciation" (Dickie 1971: 101). Dickie considered that the art work, presence of an art world, and the general 'receiving' public all part of his institutional approach. This framework, and the rules for those occupying it, clarified the "significance of conventions in making the art world system operate" (Van Maanen 2009: 28). He was also one of the first to place the public within his system. Dickie acknowledged that his institutional approach does give room to theorize about what artworks do. Furthermore, his theory does not make suggestions about how art functions in society, nor how the art world produce art. What Dickie did, however, provide a theoretical definition of art that removed considerations of essence, value and function, separating the institutional and functional approaches.

MONROE BEARDSLEY- the essentialist

While Van Maanen only refers to Beardsley (1915-1985) in relation to the other theorists, I did want to add him to this list, briefly, because I feel that his philosophies on aesthetics are important to the development sociological art theory. His 1956 Aesthetics: Problems in the Philosophy of Criticism is universally acknowledged by philosophers as one of the most important books in the 20th century addressing analytic aesthetics. Aesthetics focuses on literature, music and art, and Beardsley was quite interested in distinguishing between various forms an 'art work': an artifact, its production, a particular performance and a particular presentation (this perspective applies best to performing arts like dance, theater, and music). While he avoided defining art in Aesthetics, especially avoiding the term 'art work', in The Aesthetic Point of View, he said that art is “either an arrangement of conditions intended to be capable of affording an experience with marked aesthetic character or (incidentally) an arrangement belonging to a class or type of arrangements that is typically intended to have this capacity” (1982: 299). Unlike Dickie, Beardsley was concerned more with what the arts do, not what they are: "there is a function that is essential to human culture (...) and that work of art fulfill, or at least aspire or purport to fulfill" (1976: 209). Beardsley was also one of the first to write against intentionalism; he did not believe that art was defined (or its aesthetic function was defined) by what an artist intended, nor did he believe that the artists intention is relevant to its interpretation. 

HOWARD BECKER - the interactional approach

Sociologist Howard Becker (b. 1928) only addressed art in one book, Art Worlds (1982), and yet he has come to be viewed as a leading voice in the development of art sociology. It seems to me that Becker felt the institutional approaches of Dickie and Danto were 'first steps', from which he tried to expand and explain the 'art world' system using sociological analysis, rather than aesthetic theory, seeking a theorized system that answered questions 'who', 'what', 'how much' and 'how many'. He understood the art world to be a cooperation of participants, even if consensus amongst participants is impossible. Becker came from the 'Chicago School of Symbolic Interactionism', which was a school of social psychology that was concerned with how humans exist/struggle/react to the existing social structures in which they live. This thinking motivated Becker to look at the relationship between participants and the institutions of the art world.

By art world, Becker means "the network of people whose cooperative activity, organized via their joined knowledge of conventional means of doing things, produces the kind of art works that art world is noted for" (Becker 1982: X). This means, first, that there are multiple art worlds, depending on the 'kind of art work' produced therein. Becker established what he called collective activity, which drew together seven activities that Becker found necessary for making art: developing an idea, executing the idea, manufacturing the materials needed for execution, distributing, supporting activities, reception and response, and "creating and maintaining the rationale", of which there is no hierarchy (Van Maanen 2009: 35). Not only are artists not independent, but all participants are equally important for creating and sustaining the art world. Further, this means that artistic product is dependent on domains of distribution and reception: "artists make what distribution institutions can assimilate and what audiences appreciate" (Van Maanen 2009: 38). Becker proposes an economic model for the art world system:

(1) [E]ffective demand is generated by people who will spend money for art. (2) What they demand is what they have learned to enjoy and want, and that is a result of their education and experience. (3) Price varies with demand and quality. (4) The works the system handles are those it can distribute effectively enough to stay in operation. (5) Enough artistic will produce works the system can effectively distribute that it can continue to operate. (6) Artists whose work the distribution systems cannot or will not handle find other means of distribution; alternatively, their work achieves minimal or no distribution. (1982: 107)

While this seems very capitalist, very 'supply and demand', there is always the option for artists (true artists, according to Becker) to avoid this conventional system of distribution, either through self support, patronage, or a state subsidy (government support). The result, though, of being 'too' experimental/outside the norm, will be that the work will not be staged, published or exhibited (Van Maanen 2009: 40). And no matter what, Becker says, "artworks always bear the marks of the system which distributes them" (1982: 94). I, myself, wonder what this means for a field like contemporary music. While I do not believe in as cut and dry a system as Becker outlines, with only true artists breaking conventions but never being received, I wonder if its possible to quantify institutional effects on an artwork. There is a lot of new music, in Finland and in the US, which is created within the institution of academia, and it would be interesting to see if differences exist between 'academic' new music and independent new music (or if there is such thing as 'independent music'...).

While Becker provides a great deal more analytic tools than Dickie and Danto, without attempting inclusion of any sort of aesthetic theory, it proves impossible for him to explain further the who, what, why, etc., of art itself. He also cannot rectify his sense that artist have a higher place within the art world (importance, prestige, etc) within the system he has proposed. He also believes that true artists break conventions, which is not compatible in a system that excludes aesthetic value from the artistic world, and also one that views the art world as a fixed system within society (Van Maanen 2009: 42). 

 PAUL DIMAGGIO - new institutionalism

Paul DiMaggio (b. 1951) is categorized as a 'new institutionalist', because he, with Walter Powell, co wrote that "institutions begin as conventions, which, because they are based on coincidence of interest, are vulnerable to defection, renegotiation, and free riding" (DiMaggio and Powell 1991: 24).  Institutions have the power to form and sustain social relationships, but they also are subject to change with peoples' interests. DiMaggio is included here because he applied his new institutionalist theories to the art world, and in a quite analytic way. His well known study, "Why Do Some theatres Innovate More than Others. An Empirical Analysis" (Poetics 1985), co written with Kristen Stenberg, concluded that "artistic innovation depends on the behavior of formal organizations" and in order to "understand art, we must understand the dynamics of such organizations and the principals that govern their relationship to their economic and social environment" (1985: 121). DiMaggio and Stenberg thought that too often artists are viewed as the sole innovators, when really, the institutions/fields/organizations within which they work control, to a greater extent, the level of innovativeness.  This notion is especially relevant to my research, in particular the orchestra reports, which reveal trends of orchestral programming and show the amount of contemporary music orchestras play (which is often considered a benchmark for innovation).  

The second important point of the 1985 study was the move away from Max Weber's "Iron Cage" metaphor (humanity is imprisoned in an iron cage of bureaucracy and rational order) and to the view that bureaucracy and rational order are actually the result of 'organizational fields' (formerly identified as institutions). Unlike Becker, who was concerned with interactions between the people in a given 'field', DiMaggio and Stenberg examined the field as a whole and how the field acted upon its members. They did, however, use more traditional institutionalizing methods to define their fields, with a process of four steps based on DiMaggio, 1983: 1) "an increase in the extent of interaction among organizations", 2) "The emergence of inter organizational structures of domination and patterns of coalition", 3) "An increase in the information load with which organizations in a field must contend", and 4) "the development of mutual awareness among participants in a set of organizations that they are involved in a common enterprise" (Van Maanen 2009: 47). These steps will be useful in comparison to Bourdieu's steps below. Further, DiMaggio and Powell identified twelve factors that determine the processes within and structure of a field, two of which are particularly important for art study (1983: 76-77):

The greater the extent to which an organizational field is dependent upon a single (or several similar) source(s) of support for vital resources, the higher the level of isomorphism.

The greater the extent to which organizations in a field transact with agencies of the state, the greater the extent of isomorphism in the field as a whole.

This can be applied to a contemporary music study, not only to use the 4-step processes to determine the relationship between the contemporary music and classical music fields, but also how financial support sources, and whether they are through state agencies, shape the structure of the contemporary music field, and similarities between different contemporary music fields.

PIERRE BOURDIEU - field theory

Pierre Bourdieu (1930-2002) is the most well-known and influential art sociologist of the late twentieth century and his work focused predominantly on the dynamics of power within a society, particularly on cultural, social and symbolic forms of power. For the purposes of his study, Van Maanen focuses on Bourdieu's development of field theory, which was in many ways a direct rebuttal to Howard Becker's 'art world'. Rather than understanding works of art as the result of all the interacting activities of an 'art world', Bourdieu tried "to build a theoretical construct of concepts through which the working of a field can be analyzed" (Van Maanen 2009: 55). His result was -

An artistic field is a structure of relations between positions, which, with the help of several forms of capital, on the one hand, and based on joint illusio and their own doxa, on the other, struggle for specific symbolic capital (prestige). The positions are occupied by agents, who take these positions on the basis of their habitus. (Van Maanen 2009: 55)

To explain further, Bourdieu's position is one that is tied to the type of art produced, or artistic genre. These genres can be quite specific (21st century American musical theater or 1960s krautrock), or more general.  There is also a presumed hierarchy between agents in a given field, and even between the positions themselves within the field, as determined by the division of capital.  Like DiMaggio, Bourdieu establishes a set of 'laws', four defining how fields function and three which address how a field can be identified (Van Maanen 2009: 61-62):

 Newcomers have to buy a      right of admittance in the form of recognition of the value of the game and      in the form of knowledge of the working principles of it.

 One of the factors that      protect a game from a total revolution, is the very investment in time      and effort necessary to enter the game.

This lists bears resemblance to both the work of DiMaggio and Danto. The identification qualifications are surprisingly specific, and I wonder how they might be applied to contemporary music study. First, how can contemporary music be subdivided into subfields, for comparison sake. Can they be divided geographically, for instance a Finnish contemporary music field and an American music contemporary field? A Finnish contemporary music field would probably be possible, with this criteria, but I think an American contemporary music field would be much more difficult to identify and define.

Bourdieu also discusses cultural capital, derived strongly from Marx's theory of value, as a value that is the result of accumulated labor, no different than economic and social capital.  Symbolic in nature, both social and cultural capital can only function if they are not explicitly recognized as capital (the way economic capital is). For cultural capital, this means it exists "as a form of knowledge that equips the social gent with appreciation for or competence in deciphering cultural relations and artefacts", and it is symbolic because the act of acquiring it is mostly invisible (Van Maanen 2009: 59). According to Bourdieu, cultural capital can be turned into material objects, which can then be transferred as economic goods (i.e., a painting), but this is only part of 'the story'. Cultural capital exists in three forms, embodied/incorporated (cultural knowledge acquired by the agent), objectified (material goods), or institutionalized. In this third form, cultural capital is confirmed by some sort of institution (university, government, artistic organization, etc), meaning that a persons cultural capital is both confirmed officially, regardless of a persons embodiment of cultural capital at any given moment, and also the official certification carries with it an economic value, guaranteeing perhaps a higher paid position within the field. Bourdieu says that these states of cultural capital, in conjunction with social capital, create hierarchy and competition between artists within an artistic field. 

In The Rules of Art (1996), Bourdieu discusses at length the relationships between different fields and different types of capital. Lack of economic capital with more cultural capital results with in more autonomy (for example, small scale production and avant-garde art forms), while economic capital without (or with less) cultural capital creates the more heteronomous art (like musicals and Hollywood cinema). Van Maanen argues that aspects of Bourdieu's model do not necessarily hold for all art fields across all periods of time. For instance, the state has played an increasing role in providing economic support that is separate from Bourdieu/Marxist capitalist economic capital. And it is possible for autonomous art fields to attract economic capital (though no example is provided). What came to my mind is that most artistic production is quite economically demanding, therefore there must be some (likely more than some) economic capital present to produce art, especially avant-garde art. It would be interesting to try and apply Bourdieu's field theory and make an actual field map for aspects of my project, like American academic contemporary art, or Finnish contemporary music 1975-1990. While his writings do not define art aesthetically, and come off quite cynically, his analysis of cultural capital especially in relation to economic and political fields warrant further discussion (in another post...).

https://www.lucyabrams.net/news/2018/5/28/an-introduction-to-sociological-art-theory

[ladyofpurple]

answer all of the questions!!

holy SHIT ok bless you omg

(sorry it's a full day late i took this shit SERIOUSLY. don't ask me how many hours this took, i was in A Mood™️ last night. removed the ones already answered xoxo)

angel; have you ever been in love?

yeah. didn't end too well, but i loved him.

petal; favorite novel and author?

this is like asking me to pick a favorite child. i guess favorite author would be stephen king, if only based entirely on the sheer quantity of his books i own alone. favorite book would probably be special topics in calamity physics by marisha pessl, and i'm only saying that because it's been my go-to response for years. i have lots of favorite books. ask me again in five minutes and i'll give you another one.

honey perfume; favorite perfume/scent?

freshly made coffee. lilacs. jasmine. cut grass. the ground after it rains. chocolate chip cookies in the oven. cigarette smoke on skin. my mom's shampoo. my grandma. my dog when he's just had a bath. thanksgiving dinner. acrylic paint on canvas. sawdust. that one cologne i can't name but can smell on a guy from a mile away. mulled cranberry and apple juice. vanilla. coconut. fresh laundry. peppermint.

sweet pea; what’s your zodiac?

virgo sun, pisces moon, scorpio rising ✨

softie; talk about your sexuality.

i'm biromantic asexual, primarily attracted to men more than women (but have had too many crushes on girls to consider myself het), generally sex repulsed when it comes to the thought of having it myself. i prefer to call myself queer in passing conversation, it's easier than explaining asexuality and the differences between sexual and romantic attraction. if someone asks more specifically, i'll usually just call myself bi for simplicity's sake, even though the ace part is a much more important (to me) part of my identity. monogamous as fuck.

i'm still struggling with internalized homophobia and a lot of "am i even queer enough" thoughts, which is super fun. took me a long time to even consider the fact that i might like girls at all. i'll probably never come out to my parents. not that they'd, like, disown me or whatever, but they're juuuuust homophobic/transphobic enough that my few attempts to educate them when they say something A Little Yikes have shown me that i should probably just stay in the closet unless i absolutely have to come out. like i'm getting married to a woman or something.

sugarplum; what’s the color of your eyes and hair?

i usually say my eyes are green because it's easier, and they mostly are, but i have rings of greyish blue around the irises and sometimes they're more hazel in the middle. they always have a green tint to them though, even if the intensity of the green varies.

my natural hair is brown, a little on the darker and slightly ashy side of completely generic. currently a former blonde, although i'm hoping to bleach my fucking YEAR of growout soon, and then go some crazy color as a last hurrah before i have to go dark again. being broke fucking sucks.

wings; coffee or tea?

tea!! black tea. chai, to be specific, with an irresponsible amount of milk and sugar. chai lattes are a fucking drug okay? coffee makes me sick (not a judgement, a literal fact. last time i tried some i threw up).

fairytale; are you a cat or dog person?

cat!! but my family has a chihuahua named sonny and you can pry that little monster from my cold dead hands ok i will fight you.

snowflake; favorite time period?

okay, i wrote and rewrote my answer to this about 10 times. then i tried to divide it up into categories (aesthetics, history, fashion, vibes, geographical location, etc), but that didn't help. so basically: i don't have one, because i have too many.

i like the american 20s-60s for the aesthetic, music/movies, and the fashion. i also like the european 1600s-1800s for the interesting history and also vibe. i love the french and russian revolutions — the fashion! the art! the wars and political upheaval! I FUCKING LOVE HISTORY. then, of course, we can't forget the rennaisance. or the witch trials (pick your continent). and ancient greece? the roman empire? hello?? did i mention empires? how bout we mosy on over to south america — can i interest you in the mayans? incans? aztecs? what about china and japan? korea? vietnam? and don't even get me fucking STARTED on the black plague.

ancient egypt? sign me the FUCK UP. vikings? yes please. the celts? oh boy. the MYTHOLOGY. the ARCHITECTURE. the LANGUAGES and POLITICS and LITERATURE and REVOLUTIONS and GOD HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO CHOOSE BETWEEN ANY OF THESE

i uh. might have gotten a little excited. basically i like history a lot. and mythology. and linguistics. and cultural practices. and the politics and prejudices behind wars and stuff. and learning in general. moving on.

vanilla; do you believe in ghosts?

let's put it this way: i don't not believe in ghosts??

listen. we don't know jack shit. we don't know what happens after we die, there are constant scientific revelations that turn our understanding of the universe completely upside-down, and there is literally no way to know which religions or myths or urban legends could have some grain of truth to them. like, dude, i've literally thought i was haunted before. psychology is bananas and the universe is infinite.

demons could be real. ghosts could be real. what if we just haven't invented the necessary technology to prove it yet? what if we never do, and they just fuck around alongside us, moving furniture and making shadow puppets on the walls just for kicks until the earth explodes? what if that one tumblr post was right and ghosts are actually real people from alternate universes or timelines that we see accidentally bc some cosmic wires got crossed? who fucking knows.

i love horror movies and scary stories and ghost hunter shows just as much as the next gal. but listen. psychics? mediums? people who accept every single creepypasta retold third-hand from their neighbor's kid's classmate's second cousin who "totally knows a guy"? doubt.jpeg

i don't understand the sheer amount of assumptions made willy-nilly about the nature of ghosts and demons and things that go bump in the night. the assumption that "oh this machine that totally doesn't look like a coathanger taped to a walkman will work because ghosts have this temperature and can always communicate like this and are electromagnetic" or whatever just baffles me. to a certain degree, following a general consensus is one thing — some basic things everyone can agree on? that's cool. ghosts can walk through walls and are probably dead people or whatever. but oh my god, taking every single story as absolute, undeniable proof?? taking these stories and expanding on them to infer intentions and scientific facts to something that by it's very nature is unknowable and assuming, like, every spirit is created equal?? and yeah, ghost hunting shows are fun and campy and kinda creepy but like. you really, genuinely don't think any of them have ever faked anything at all??? even if ghosts are real, it's fucking reality tv, my dude. it's the entertainment industry. at least maintain the slightest ounce of critical thought before taking zak bagans' word as the goddamn gospel.

and sidenote, maybe it's just my limited exposure as a white woman in the western world, but of all the shows and podcasts and movies and documentaries and whatnot i've been able to find and consume, there's the constant use of christian ideology applied to every situation that just really burns my bacon. what, there's never been an atheist ghost? if you see a shadow person and you don't know the lord's prayer by heart, are you automatically fucked? why are there never stories about, i don't know, viking ghosts? does your religion in life preclude you from becoming a ghost in the first place? is that why people never mention buddhist ghosts? i don't get it, and that's why even though i'm self-admittedly the most superstitious person i've ever met, true believers make me roll my eyes so hard they almost fall out. makes me come across as more skeptical than i theoretically am. I HAVE VERY STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT THIS OK

but like, you couldn't pay me to fuck with a ouija board. i'm not stupid.

delicate; diamonds or pearls?

both have their appeal and their place, but diamonds, i guess. i like the sparkle. but fake ones!! or synthetic. diamonds are overpriced and artificial scarcity is a scam and i don't need a dumb rock that some poor person in a mine somewhere was exploited and possibly died for. no blood diamonds in this house, thank you very much.

if i ever get engaged, i don't want a diamond ring. i'd want something cool, a little unusual, like a ruby or a sapphire or some other sparkly gem that isn't literally shoved in your face every waking moment as the expected standard symbol of True Love. they're cheaper, they're cool-looking, as a ring they still hold the cultural symbolism of an engagement/wedding ring. and honestly, as long as it's well-made and durable, whatever hypothetical gem it is doesn't have to be real either. i'm a woman of simple needs and demonstrably low standards. no point in going into debt for a fucking piece of jewelry, regardless of ~tradition~.

lavender dream; favorite album?

oh lord. welcome to the black parade, i guess. or anything by panic! at the disco. there are dozens of possible options — my interests are mercurial and my memory is garbage. but i'll always be an emo little shit. black parade and vices and virtues were also the first two albums i ever listened to where i loved every single song on them, and i happened to listen to them for the first time at around the same point in my life (i got into mcr super late. like, 2012 late. rip).

silky; what’s your biggest dream?

it's cheesy but i guess i just want stability and, by extension, happiness. emotional stability, mental stability, financial stability, stable living situation, stable routines, stable relationships... you get the idea. i have ambitions and passions, of course, but my ultimate goal is happiness at this point in my life, and i'm pretty sure stabilizing all those things would go a pretty long way in achieving that goal.

a little apartment with walls i can paint because white walls make me angry. bookshelves and posters and fandom merch on every wall. a computer i can actually play games on again, and somewhere i can paint and draw and record my podcasts. someone who loves me, maybe. a cat, if i'm stable enough. space for people to come visit me, and a place for them to sleep if they need. a tiny balcony, if i really want to shoot for the stars. a job i don't hate. the spoons to hang out with my friends, and the money to not worry about buying little presents for the people i care about sometimes. i don't need much.

strawberry kiss; do you have a crush right now?

nope.

glitter; favorite fictional character?

another loaded question. like books, if you ask me again in five minutes i'll probably give you a different answer. but in this particular moment, caleb and jester from critical role (please don't make me choose between them). i won't go full shipping mode rn, but jester is so funny and silly and sweet, so much more complex than she seems, and she tries so hard to make everyone happy even when she's so sad inside. the healer who treats healing as an inconvenience in battle (she's so fucking valid and also mood), the glue that keeps the party together. and caleb learning to trust again, facing his trauma and coming out of his shell. he loves his friends so much he plays wizard as a support class and i love him so much.

i love the mighty nein in general, of course, and all the guests/honorary members they've had. pumat!! pls don't be evil reani!! keg!! shakäste and grand duchess anastasia!! cali!! kiri!!!! the brotps! empire siblings! chaos crew! nott the best detective agency! i still love molly and all his assholery to bits (fight me), and mourn his lost potential. i adore yasha, even when she's gone; fjord has grown so much; beau and nott and caduceus — i love all their flaws and disagreements and their character arcs and the excitement of watching them grow and learn. but if i had to choose, caleb, jester and molly have always been my top 3 since day 1 and, well, molly isn't really an option anymore.

but like i said, ask me again in a minute. i have a fucking list.

swan; share a quote or passage that means something to you.

a collection of things off the top of my head:

Elinor agreed to it all, for she did not think he deserved the compliment of rational opposition. — Sense and Sensibility, Jane Austen

a tired feminist Mood™️

"What I say is, a town isn't a town without a bookstore. It may call itself a town, but unless it's got a bookstore, it knows it's not foolin' a soul." — American Gods, Neil Gaiman

i got my love of books from my grandma — some of my favorites i got from her. sometimes, as a treat, she used to take my sister and i to bookstores and we'd stay there for ages, getting to pick one out, roaming the shelves, the mental torture of having to choose. the peace of being surrounded by thousands of potential worlds, so much information, so many stories just waiting to be told; being surrounded by strangers who share that same wonder. the anxious drive home so we could read them, being unable to wait that long so i inevitably start reading in the car and make myself sick. telling her in excited detail all my favorite parts. if we were lucky, maybe we got to split a bear claw, or she'd drive past starbucks and get us something there too (tall vanilla soy steamer with one pump of vanilla syrup, whipped cream on top that always melted too quickly and squirted out the hole in the lid, so hot it burned my tongue but so good i didn't care). i have never felt more at home than i do when i'm surrounded by books.

"There are a lot of different types of freedom. We talk about freedom the same way we talk about art, like it was a statement of quality rather than a description. “Art” doesn’t mean good or bad. Art just means art. It can be terrible and still be art. Freedom can be good or bad, too. There can be terrible freedom. You freed me, and I didn’t ask you to." — Alice Isn't Dead, season 1, chapter 2: Alice

as cringey as it is to admit it, this line made me cry a lot after my breakup.

"So you aren't American?" asked Shadow.

"Nobody's American," said Wednesday. "Not originally. That's my point." — American Gods, Neil Gaiman

[side-eyes white america real hard]

there's more, of course. there's always more. don't even get me started on song lyrics, we'll be here all day.

lace; what’s your favorite plant/flower?

lilacs and roses.

mermaid; do you prefer the forest or the ocean? why?

both, i guess. but in different ways, and in different circumstances.

the sea is wild. it is endless and deep and unknowable. it is beautiful and dangerous. i am terrified of the ocean, and yet my favorite place in the world is an empty beach on the oregon coast. i have picked sand from between my toes for days with hair crusted in salt, danced around bonfires and watched the stars while marshmallows burn, gotten pulled under the waves as a child and nearly swept out to sea. picked starfish and crabs from small pools in the rocks, and swum (accidentally) with wild sea lions. in a long skirt, too early in the year to be swimming, i once took off my shoes and waded fully clothed into the water to my waist and just... danced. splashed and kicked and laughed with a boy i barely knew until our throats were sore and our toes were numb, walking home hours later with our soaked clothes clinging to our legs, shoes squelching, dripping algae as we went. the ocean is freeing and overwhelming all at once. i love it and am petrified by it in equal measure.

the forest is beautiful in a different way. it is silent and dense and serene. you are surrounded by life and yet, somehow, completely alone. there is magic in the forest, and history, and even when all else dies, that will remain. the trees grow from the corpses of their ancestors, and some have lived dozens of our lifetimes — with luck, a few dozen more. it is quiet there, peaceful, even the tiniest wood in the middle of a city muffling the outside world through the trees. you can feel the ancient ways deep in your soul as you follow winding paths strewn with fallen leaves, the mystery and wonder and superstitions of your forefathers. you wonder what it would be like, to run your fingers over the moss, to take off your shoes and socks and just run, leaping and dancing over rocks and roots, hair wild and air filling your lungs in deep, pure gulps as you shed the responsibilities and struggles of modern life, for just a moment remembering what freedom tastes like. it is primal, this connection to nature, one we have nearly forgotten over time. and as the sky grows dark and the silence of night presses against you, shadows looming, every footfall deafening, perhaps you begin to understand why some believed in monsters.

honeymoon; do you keep a journal?

i used to. honestly, that's a good idea, i should start doing that again. lord knows i have enough empty journal-type books.

starlight; do you believe in love at first sight and soulmates? why/why not?

i want to. i want to believe there's someone out there for me, the love of my life, someone to whom i'll be the love of their life, and that when i meet them i'll just... know.

but when i met my ex, i didn't really look twice at him for a while — no love at first sight. and when we were together, when i loved him and he swore he loved me back, i thought he hung the stars in the sky and knew i would marry him someday. couldn't even consider the idea that that wouldn't happen. and then when he broke up with me, he ghosted me so suddenly and thoroughly that he even preemptively cut contact with every single one of our mutual friends he thought might side with me in the breakup, before anybody even knew we'd had a fight. so, not soulmates either.

i really want to believe that someday the perfect romance will just fall into place and i can have the happily ever after i've always dreamed of. but the reality is i might never even have another s.o. for the rest of my life. maybe i'll get hit by a car tomorrow, or my hypothetical soulmate moves to argentina to become an alpaca farmer on a mountain somewhere and we never even meet. maybe i'm so traumatized by the betrayal and lies that i'll never have the courage to even try again.

and even so, happily ever after doesn't have to include a fairytale romance, regardless of whether i want it or not. i still like to cling to that hope though, deep down.

princess; what do you value most in people?

i'm going to assume you mean "real people" as in people i have positive relationships with, and not random strangers on the street.

loyalty. kindness. support. humor. similar values. patience. being able to grow together and teach each other things, so we can make each other better. honesty. trust. compassion. confidence. emotional vulnerability. communication. intelligence, or at least a willingness to learn. strength.

[breakingarrows]

The Outer Worlds Doesn’t Want a Revolution

Partnering with publisher Private Division, Obsidian had the freedom to make whatever they wanted. Best known for licensed properties established by other developers (Bioware with Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords and Bethesda with Fallout: New Vegas), Obsidian had the chance to do something completely new. With The Outer Worlds they successfully created another Bethesda game. This is an iteration rather than a revolution. While that is not bad in and of itself, it is the lackluster execution that makes it a disappointment, specifically to their previous work on iterating upon existing games.

Obsidian had proved themselves superior to Bethesda back in 2010 with Fallout: New Vegas. This was a follow up to Fallout 3 utilizing the same graphics engine but transplanted back to the western territory of the original two Fallout games. It improved upon Fallout 3 greatly with its humanizing of formerly mindless enemy types and allowing the player to pick and choose what factions to support with a reflexive loss of reputation with their enemy. You couldn't please everyone. If you have played any of the Bethesda Fallout games, and even to an extent The Elder Scrolls, you have essentially played The Outer Worlds. Character creation, skill allotment upon leveling up, perks, weight encumbrance, a slow-motion replacement for V.A.T.S., factions with reputations and oppositions, and mowing down enemies that exist soley to be killed by the player, all of this can easily be seen as a 2019 update of Fallout 3, a now 11 year old game. It is clear Obsidian was not interested in revolutionizing the Bethesda format, and instead made slight alterations and updates.

All these years later and I am essentially playing the same fundamental game with a change in aesthetic from alternative history post-apocalypse to corporate owned space colonies. There is a possibility here for that aesthetic to breathe new life into the now rote gameplay style, but this is where the deeper disappointment stems: the writing.

Role-playing games frequently employ the separation of main quest and side quests as a tiered to-do list for the player to check off in order to accrue experience, gear, and see all that the game has to offer. After over thirty years of these kinds of games, the fundamentals have been established: Fetch quests. Killing special named enemies with higher stats than your average bullet magnet. A succession of conversations with a split choice at the end. The best games hide these simplistic tasks underneath flavor text: a way to get the player invested in the goings on by expanding on the fiction of the world or the introduction of unique and likeable characters (or love-to-hate ones). Here is one of The Outer Worlds greater failings.

Edgewater, in the region of Emerald Vale, is the first major town you come across and the source of a good amount of side quests to engage with. As far as introductions go, Edgewater leaves a terrible taste of what is to come. As mentioned before, the standard goals appear, and their flavor text fail to disguise the monotonous nature of these tasks. Retrieve a book. Find some medicine. Find three books in separate locations. Kill three named enemies. Kill a robot. Collect gravesite fees. Find a missing person. These descriptions are overly simplified but the game does not do a great job at disguising their simplicity.

Retrieving a book is done for a vicar, a religious counselor who views his flock with contempt and laments that the book is in a different language. Finding medicine serves as an example of the cruelty of Spacer’s Choice, the corporation behind Edgewater’s existence. Finding three books is for an up and coming engineer who deserted Edgewater due to its cruelty. Killing three named enemies is not even worth further explanation as there is none. These names exist to be crossed off and nothing else. Much like the Marauders and animals you come across on every planet: they exist to be killed. Killing a robot is their stab at comedy, with the quest giver being paranoid about a lone robot outside the town walls and stashes his prized weapon in a bathroom. I promise the actual text is no more comical than my dry description. Collecting gravesite fees is another example of the cruelty of Spacer’s Choice and Edgewater. Finding a missing person is the only worthwhile side quest and even then that is not saying much. Zoe, another deserter, has gone missing. You find out she wanted to join a marauder gang to become their queen, and surprisingly, was successful. You find this out after murdering everyone to make her appear so you can convince her to return to watch some new serials she loves.

As far as being a template for what is to come in the rest of the game, Emerald Vale is a terrible introduction and future regions only marginally improves upon it.

My main disappointment in Emerald Vale is within its main questline. Your ship needs power, and in order to obtain that power you need to decide whether to direct a Geothermal plant’s supply away from Edgewater, or away from the deserters. Some of the side quests before served as examples of the inhumanity of working under Spacer’s Choice in Edgewater. The town is experiencing a plague, where the sick are sentenced to death in a “sick house” full of corpses, while Reed, the town mayor, hoards all the medicine for the hardest workers. Sick time is nonexistent and has to be worked back. Employees must pay their burial fees upfront and  suicides are punished collectively. It is an irredeemable monument to the brutalism of capitalism, or at the very least corporate greed (though there is little difference between the two). This is further reinforced by the Geothermal plant, the source of power.

Upon entering the building you begin to discover through text logs that the plant was once under human supervision before Spacer’s Choice took out a life insurance policy on all of them, installed new robot helpers, and then programmed those helpers to kill all the employees. One worker survives, though in a strange oversight you cannot release him from his basement life even after clearing out the plant and reprogramming the robot’s directive. You get to the point of no return but before you can stamp out Edgewater your companion for the past few hours, Parvati speaks up. She tells you the deserter leader, Adelaide, only wants to see Edgewater destroyed, but that the workers are just living the only life they know how and do not deserve to be stripped of that life.

Curious about how this decision would play out I made a hard save and shut down the power going to Edgewater. Doing so dooms Edgewater and its remaining workers to slowly die out. Adelaide refuses to take those in who will not recant their loyalty to Spacer’s Choice, and presumably even then does not help others as the ending slides explains she died soon after having never shared her fertilizer formula to grow natural food with anyone. She is a bitter old woman who delights in the suffering of Edgwater and Spacer’s Choice’s workers. Her reason? Her son got the plague and knowing medicine was available but denied by Reed, left after her son died despite it being a preventable death. The game treats this legitimate source of rage towards the established order as petty.

The opposing choice, providing power to Edgewater, means the deserters must return to be grinded to dust or die in the wilderness. However, if you talk to the right people a third way will open up after this decision. You can convince Reed to step down and Adelaide to take control. Doing so results in the cannery, the town’s main reason for existence and source of sustenance, to flourish in the aftermath. There was no need for such drastic change, all Edgewater needed was the correct person in charge, a kinder boss than that asshole Reed. This is an observation shared by others, though unlike them I never compromised when real change was possible.

This ethos of “reform from the inside” is made more explicit within the region of Monarch, and the second major decision point of the game. Here a company called Monarch Stellar Industries, and its leader, Sanjar, used to have membership on the Board, the group in charge of the entire colony. Sanjar wants back in, with the idea that he can promote a kinder, more ethical ruling from the top. You see, he is part of upper class/management, but the ethical kind who do good without having to revolutionize the status quo. His opposition lies within the Iconoclasts, those who fully reject the Board and their rule and live in a form of collectivist society. Their flaw is that their leader Graham is more concerned with spreading his ideology than with taking care of his people. This fault is even more manufactured than Adelaide’s justified hatred towards Reed and Spacer’s Choice. Within New Vegas, the NCR, the closest to a “good” faction, have a major flaw in the form of their bureaucracy. This is much more believable than an irresponsible leader whose second in command is too lax to depose him until you step in. You can either lead the Iconoclasts to violently overthrow MSI, force the Iconoclasts to break up and integrate with MSI, or you can kill Graham and have his second in command Zora work with Sanjar to provide workers with an alternative to the Board. Another potential status quo change comes with a recommendation to reach a middle ground.

At the very least The Outer Worlds does not fuck up its final major decision, between the Board’s Lifetime Employment Program and Phineas’ revival of Hope colonists. The former has the lower class put on ice for potential future use, freeing up even more resources to be hoarded by those at the top, and the latter has you overthrowing the Board and bringing in new blood to work towards producing a sustainable colony of cooperation. There is no third way here, and the choice is obvious.

Throughout The Outer Worlds the absurdity of the corporation’s power over people is routinely on display, whether in text conversations or the aesthetic of loading screen images and various NPC barks while running around the towns. All of it is screaming that the way things are is actively killing people and dooming the colony, but when it comes time for revolution the game would prefer you compromise until the finale. There, compromise with the Board, the highest source of everything wrong, would be incapable to stomach by even a sycophant.

Fallout 3 endures in our memories for its revolution to RPGs, while New Vegas endures due to its improvements within that new standard. The Outer Worlds does neither. As Eurogamer states, this is comfort food. That sentiment is not a condemnation, though with the games never stopping, a lesser entry in the Bethesda style is an easy pass. The Capital Wasteland with its hyper violence beckoned the player to go ham with slow motion close ups of splashes of blood and cleanly amputated limbs due to your gunfire or pummelling. New Vegas reoriented that mindset by largely removing the mindless raiders, super mutants, and ghouls, with their residences filled with hooked limbs and hives of bloody organs, and replaced them with humanized factions. The Outer Worlds regresses back to the former with a smaller scale overall, though sans the overdone gore. Exiting town means everything that moves now becomes something to kill, loot, and accrue experience from. It makes movement between quest markers mindlessly mechanical, which bleeds over into everything else about the game and what it is trying to accomplish.

I last played The Outer Worlds on November 9th and it has only been viewed less favorably the more I think about it. The combat is complete filler, there is nothing motivating behind the generic and tired numbers-go-up leveling process, gear you earn via quests may as well just be money or gear parts, entering a room means walking along the walls pressing X to gather everything you can carry to be sold/broken down later, skill checks are just numerical goals, you can rarely press X to talk to someone without your gun being pulled out, and a majority of the writing is just the essence of tweets like this extended through 15+ hours. The game consistently observes, “Man, shits fucked huh?” In spite of this, when it comes time to redistribute power, it backs away. And all of this comes from Obsidian, a developer who once outdid Bethesda at their own game is now stumbling through a poor imitation. Walking around Monarch’s wilderness, the ambient music frequently made me mistake what I was playing for Fallout: New Vegas. And I really wish I was.

[skamremakesfromhell]

I will never understand how skam italia got so popular that it somehow developed its own breed of stans outside of regular skam/Rm skam stans? Like i literally see other rm stan accounts othe twitter and tumblr complain about how obnoxious skam it stans are

so idk if you were really asking for a breakdown but i’ve been thinking about this a lot recently so im gonna ramble about it for a bit whoops

so it was always inevitable that the remakes would cause divisions within the skam fandom and i think that’s important to kept in mind. there were divisions when there was only the 1 show! the chaos of 8 was a given lol. so not only would there be people that preferred one remake over another but there was also the immediate division between fans of og who didn’t even wanna touch a remake with a 10 foot pole and og fans that were watching the remakes

so the first rounds of remakes start (skamfr, skamit, druck, and skamus) and there was a lot of excitement and disappointment happening because we were all excited for new content but simultaneously disappointed that the content wasn’t new enough. that s1 was the same exact story across them all. skam france came first and it really set the bar real low. it felt to many like a cheap copycat. it had some fun stuff here and there and the cast was doing a decent job but overall with the constant promise of “change” from the production/cast that never followed through a lot of people quickly got tired of it. by the time s1 was almost over druck and skam italia began to air and a little bit later skam austin starts. right here i think it’s important that s2 of skam france was airing for a majority of the time these others were on since s2 is the season that’s the most “either you love it or you hate it”

a number of people gave up on skamfr either not feeling it/refusing to watch s2/whatever and moved on to the other remakes. i think it’s really important to note that at this time skamit was the only version that was changing “william” in any substantial way. druck only changes at the very end and it’s only the fact that he apologized to kiki on his own but edoardo had been introducing small deliberate changes to his character throughout the season. this gained interest from both noorhelm fan and anti noorhelm people because it was new! and different! compared to the other version not changing much for this storyline and skamfr airing a basic copy of s2 this was an exciting development! it was something that intrigued more og fans

of course you have to remember that everyone thought all the remakes were gonna be terrible. they were all a lost cause from the very beginning. people that were enjoying the remakes were already having to be defensive against og fans who hated the remakes just for enjoying them. skamfr was already kinda a dud, skamus had too much hype and pressure on it since it was the one julie was working on to really live up to that, and druck was falling to the wayside from poor production decisions (going on break for a week within the first month without telling anyone ?!?? really ?!?) skamit s1 did seem to be the best produced, with some interesting character changes, and a nice aesthetic. it quickly became the one most people recommended to others. new person asks “which remake should i watch?” and the first answer would almost always be skamit. italians were all pleasantly surprised by the show which made them want to spread it even more. like “look finally some good italian television!” the actors are good and not super overdramatic! the shots are nice and pretty! everyone on the cast is so pretty! rome is so pretty!

but what made this turn into the skamit fans being their own “separate” fandom? well if you go back through all the #discourse you can see all the number of time skamit fans have had to defend the fact that they liked skamit and that in itself will limit you down to the kind of people are always on the defense. who feel like they have to talk about all the great amazing things to feel validated in liking what they like because people are out there criticizing it. who either don’t care about issues people raise or don’t want to think about it. “why can’t everyone leave us alone” “if you don’t like don’t watch” “this is how italy is and you’re the problem for not understanding that”. the casting of sana caused a lot of people to call out skamit and condemn it as “problematic” and/or refuse to watch it before it even aired. now i believe those people are well within their right to do that. if something like this about a show upsets you you don’t owe it to anybody to watch it. but what this caused was people that wanted to watch skamit/enjoyed it felt the need to dismiss the issues raised by other people in the fandom. this is because 1) people were attacking them for liking skamit and 2) it’s become the culture of fandoms to demand you only enjoy things that meet an incredibly high moral ground and you have to constantly prove that the media you enjoy does that. which is such a disservice to being media literate honestly. and this kept happening. the racist, fatphobic comments, the excuse from the production about sana’s casting, the lack of any minority actors, the excluding of mahdi’s characters, the n-word being used and the mess that was the response from the cast and crew

it was one after another of things that made a number of people decided to not be a fan of skamit anymore and once they’d decided that any new thing that came out just proved to them that they were right! that skamit was racist and they were right for dropping it! but that doesn’t just end there because then it becomes anyone that supports skamit is racist and doesn’t deserve respect. and while all this is happening as every new thing happens and we all argue again about who is the most “morally superior” the fans of skamit are stepping on the toes of anyone that dares to criticize the show. they are defensive because they feel like their character is being attacked. because they feel like they have to be. and so ideologies are clashing all over the place over what is and isn’t racist, what’s good representation, what’s the importance of representation over “realism”, how realistic is skam really, you have muslims saying sana’s casting is disgraceful and muslims saying they don’t mind it, people of color saying it’s bad that there are no pocs and that sana is whitewashed and other people of color saying this isn’t a big deal because it’s realistic for italy, europeans claiming all the hate is coming from americans who live in a “us centric world” and don’t understand european views on race and europeans saying uh no i also think this is racist, italians saying this is just how italy is and italians calling all the racist stuff out. it’s just a ton of arguments that are difficult things to get people to see eye to eye on especially when it’s all over social media text and everyone feels like they have something to prove! prove the show they like is morally sound! prove they’re actually the most “woke”! prove and blame and defend and dog pile on everything! and no one is actually listening to each other because defending or shitting on a show is more important than remembering the humanity behind these arguments. remembering that there’s a person who you’re upsetting! who you are hurting because we’ve all invested too much of ourself in this!

it really bred this perfect space for back and forth arguments that went nowhere because people felt the need to tighten their hold on their own ideologies and to defend their position over any random comments they see. i’m guilty of doing this a number of times. i’ve seen a post in the skam tag and made my own post against it. i’ve seen comments on my post or people sub-blogging me and called them out to address it. this thing this show and all it’s versions are something we as fans all feel very strongly about. and this is really the only space we have to talk about it. to hash everything out. to post whatever thought we have. emotion run high! and with the anonymity of social media these arguments escalate so quickly!

i think it’s accurate to say that skamit fans are defensive. they feel like they have to be because they feel like the reasons they and the show they love are attacked are arbitrary reasons. they’ll dealt with so much criticism that any remark against skamit feels like another attack they need to defend themselves against. which has now created a culture where people are scared to say anything critical of skamit. that they’ll be deemed a hater and told “if you don’t like don’t watch”. but people don’t have to defend against every argument they see! they dont need to sit themselves on a high horse! anti skamit people are told to just leave and not bother with skamit but this goes both ways! skamit fans don’t have to address every criticism!

because of this back and forth that went no where we’ve created a culture where we can’t seem to even have discussions about the show anymore. about what we like/don’t like. what’s working and what’s not. that if you say “i don’t like this” you’ll get someone in your ask box basically saying “fuck you” because we attacked the people that wanted to enjoy the show it’s made them feel that everything is an attack. and this is a phenomenon you see across many fandoms! this morally superior hate-filled childish attacks. and at this point i don’t know if we can undo the damage that’s been done, both to how the fans of skamit view criticizers and how the people that aren’t fans view the fans. and that’s honestly really unfortunate

[gaming-rabbot]

Salmon Run and Presentation

A (not so) brief dissertation on narrative framing in video games, featuring Splatoon 2

With the holidays in full swing, I took advantage of a deal one day when I went into town, and finally got my hands on Splatoon 2. Having loved the prior game as much as I did, waiting this long to get the sequel felt almost wrong. But like many another fellow meandering corpus of conscious flesh, I am made neither of time nor money.

Finally diving in, I figured I might take this excuse to remember that I write game reviews, sometimes. You know, when the tide is high, the moon blue, and the writer slightly less depressed. I ended up scrapping my first couple drafts, however. You see, a funny thing was happening; I kept veering back into talking about Salmon Run, the new optional game mode the sequel introduces.

Also I might look at the Octo Expansion later, on its own. After I get around to it…

Look, the base game already has a lot of content to explore, and as previously stated, I am sadly corporeal, and not strung together with the metaphysical concept of time itself.

My overall thoughts, however, proved brief, so I’ll try to keep this short.

(Mild spoilers coming along.)

Gameplay wise, I think the story mode is much improved upon by handing you different weapons for certain levels which were specifically built with them in mind. Whereas the prior game left you stuck with a variant of the starter splattershot all the way through. This keeps things interesting, pushes me outside of my comfort zone, and it’s a good way to make sure players will come from a well-informed place when deciding what weapon they want for multiplayer; which, let’s face it, is the real meat of these games and where most players are going to log the most time.

I also love the way bosses are introduced with the heavy drums and rhythmic chants and the dramatic light show. It endows the moment with a fantastic sense of gravitas, and manages to hype me up every time. Then the boss will have an aspect of their design which feels a bit silly or some how rather off, keeping the overall tone heavily grounded in the toony aesthetics the series already established for itself.

Narratively, I felt rather okay about the story aspect of Story Mode. The collectible pages in the levels still have a certain amount of world building, though this time it seems more skewed toward explaining what pop culture looks like in this world, such as, an allusion to this world’s equivalent to Instagram.

Cynical as it is…

That’s definitely still interesting in its own right, though perhaps it’s less of a revelatory gut-punch as slowly piecing it together that the game takes place in the post-apocalypse of Earth itself, and the inklings copied ancient human culture.

We still got some backstory for this game’s idol duo, though. And that, I appreciate. It means Pearl and Marina still feel like a part of this world, rather than seeming obligatory for the sake of familiarity, given the first game had an idol duo as well.

Meanwhile, perhaps it is a bit obvious that Marie’s cousin, Callie, has gone rogue, and that she is the mysterious entity cracking into the radio transmissions between her and Agent 4. If I recall correctly, that was a working theory that came about with the first trailer or two. That, or she had died.

As soon as Marie says aloud she wonders where Callie has gone, I knew right away. And that’s just in the introduction.

That said, on some level, after stomaching through certain other games and such that actively lie or withhold information to force an arbitrary plot twist for plot twist sake, it feels almost nice to go back to a narrative that actually bothers to foreshadow these things. Plus, having gotten already invested in Callie as a character from the first game, I still felt motivated to see the story through to find out why she went rogue. And, loving the Squid Sisters already, there was a hope in me that she could be redeemed, or at least understood. In terms of building off the prior game’s story, Splatoon 2 is moderately decent.

Also, I mean, c’mon. The big narrative drive might be a tad predictable, but hey, this game is for kids. It’s fine.

That, I think, is something I love the most about Splatoon. Despite feeling like you’re playing in a Saturday morning cartoon, and being aimed primarily at children, it doesn’t shy away from fairly heavy subjects. Such as the aforementioned fact that the humans are all long dead and you’re basically playing paintball in the ruins of their consumerist culture.

Which brings me to what fascinates me so much about Splatoon 2: the way in which Salmon Run is framed.

You see, on the surface, Salmon Run appears to be your typical horde mode; a cooperative team (typically comprised of randoms) fights off gaggles of foes as they take turns approaching their base in waves. Pretty standard for online shooters these days, as was modernly popularized by Gears of War 2, and Halo ODST.

I say “modernly,” as the notion of fighting enemies as they approach in waves is not exactly a new concept for mechanical goals within video games. Rather, the term itself, as applied to multiplayer shooters, “horde mode,” became a point of game discussion when Gears of War 2 introduced the new game mode by that same name back in… 2008?

No, no that can’t be right. I played Gears 2 back in high school (I had worse taste back then, okay?). Which, from my perspective, was basically yesterday. That game being ten years old would mean I myself am old now, and that just can’t be. I’m hip. I’m young.

I am, to stay on theme here, fresh.

But okay, existential crises and game talk terms aside, the writing team behind Splatoon 2 probably decided to absolutely flex when it came to the narrative surrounding Salmon Run. It is one of the most gleaming examples of the nontraditional things you can do with writing in video games, to really elevate the experience.

Let me explain.

You see, narrative in video games typically falls into one of two categories: either the story sits comfortably inside of the game, utilizing it like a vehicle to arrive at the destination that is its audience’s waiting eyes and ears. Or the narrative, on some level, exists rather nebulously, primarily to provide something resembling context for why the pixels look the way they do, and why the goals are what they are.

Not to say this is a binary state of existence for game writing; narrative will of course always provide context for characters, should there be any. It’s primarily older, or retro games that give you a pamphlet or brief intro with little in the way of worrying over character motivation, and the deeper philosophical implications of the plot, etc (though not for lack of trying). These would be your classic Mario Bros. and what have you, where the actual game part of the video game is nearly all there is to explore in the overall experience.

Then you have games like Hotline Miami that purposely sets up shop right in the middle to make a meta commentary about the state of game narrative, using the ideological endpoint of violent 80’s era action and revenge-fantasy genre film as inspiration and the starting point to draw comparison between the two. It’s bizarre, and I could drone on about this topic.

But I digress.

Despite falling into that latter category, that is to say having mainly just an introduction to the narrative context so you can get on with playing the game, Salmon Run is a stellar example of how you can make every bit of that context count (even if it does require the added context of the rest of the game, sort of, which I’ll explain, trust me).

First, a (very) brief explanation of how the game itself works, for the maybe three of you who haven’t played it yet.

A team of up to four inklings (and/or octolings) have a small island out in open waters. Salmonid enemies storm the beaches from various angles in waves. Each wave also comes with (at least) one of eight unique boss variants, who all drop three golden eggs upon defeat. Players are tasked with gathering a number of said golden eggs each round, for three rounds, after which their failure or success in doing so shows slow or fast progress towards in-game rewards.

And it’s all an allegory for the poor treatment of labor/workers, utilizing the fishing industry as both an example and a thematically appropriate analogue. Yes, I’m serious.

First, Salmon Run is not available through the main doors like the other multiplayer modes. Rather, it is off to the side, down a dingy looking alley. And when you’re shown its location, either because you finally entered the Inkopolis plaza for the first time, or because the mode has entered rotation again, Marina very expressly describes it as a job.

A job you should only do if you are absolutely, desperately hard strapped for cash. You know, the sort of job you turn to if, for one reason or another, you can’t find a better one.

An aside: technically, playing Salmon Run does not automatically net you in-game currency, with which to buy things, as regular multiplayer modes do. Rather, your “pay” is a gauge you fill by playing, which comes with reward drops at certain thresholds; some randomized gacha style capsules, and one specific piece of gear which gets advertised, to incentivize playing.

The capsules themselves drop actual paychecks in the form of aforementioned currency, or meal tickets to get temporary buffs that help you progress in the multiplayer faster via one way or another. Which, hey, you know, that helps you earn more money also. Working to get “paid,” so you can get things you want, though, still works perfectly for the metaphor it creates.

When I first saw it open up for rotation, I found out you had to be at least a level four to participate. Pretty par for the course, considering it’s the same deal with the gear shops. But, again, it’s all in the presentation; Mr. Grizz does not simply say something akin to the usual “you must be this tall to ride.” He says he cannot hire inexperienced inklings such as yourself, because it’s a legal liability.

After returning with three extra levels, I was handed off to basic, on-the-job training. Which is only offered after Mr. Grizz (not ever physically present, mind you, but communicating with you via radio), the head of Grizzco, uses fairly typical hard sell rhetoric when it comes to dangerous, or otherwise undesirable work: calls you kid, talks about shaping the future and making the world a better place, refers to new hires as “fresh young talent,” says you’ll be “a part of something bigger than yourself.” You know, the usual balancing act of flattery, with just the right amount of belittlement.

Whoa, hang on, sorry; just had a bad case of deja vu from when the recruiter that worked with the ROTC back in high school tried to get me to enlist… several times… Guess he saw the hippie glasses and long hair and figured I'd be a gratifying challenge.

The fisher imagery really kicks in when you play. Which, I figure a dev team working out of Japan might have a pretty decent frame of reference for that. A boat whisks you out to sea with your team, and everyone’s given a matching uniform involving a bright orange jumper, and rubber boots and gloves. If you've ever seen the viral video of the fisherman up to his waist in water telling you not to give up, you have a rough idea. Oh, and don't forget your official Grizzco trademark hats.

It’s on the job itself where a lot of what I'm talking about comes up the most; that is to say, despite buttering you up initially, Mr. Grizz shows his true colors pretty quickly. While playing, he seems to only be concerned with egg collecting, even when his employees are actively hurting. This is established and compounded by his dialogue prior to the intermediate training level, in which informs you about the various boss fish.

Before you can do anything remotely risky, even boss salmonid training, Mr. Grizz tells you he has to go over this 338 page workplace health and safety manual with you. But, oops, the new hire boat sounds the horn as you flip to page 1, so he sends you off unprepared. “Let’s just say you’ve read it,” he tells you, insisting that learning by doing is best.

This flagrant disregard employee safety, in the name of met quotas; the fact we never see Mr. Grizz face to face, making him this vague presence that presides over you, evaluating your stressed performance with condescension; that we are not simply given the rewards as we pass thresholds to earn them, having to instead speak with another, unknown npc for our pay… It all drives toward the point so well.

The icing on the cake for me is when a match ends. You, the player, are not asked if you’d like to go back into matchmaking for another fun round of playtime. Rather, you are asked if you would like to “work another shift.”

The pieces all fit so well together. I shouldn’t be surprised that, once a theme is chosen, Splatoon can stick to it like my hand to rubber cement that one time. It has already proven it can do that much for sure. But it’s just so… funny? It’s bitterly, cynically hilarious.

Bless the individual(s) who sat in front of their keyboard, staring at the early script drafts, and asked aloud if they were really about to turn Mr. Grizz into a projection of all the worst aspects of the awful bosses they’ve had to deal with in life. The answer to that question being “yes” has led to some of my favorite writing in a video game.

All of these thoughts, as they started forming in my skull, really began to bubble when I noticed Salmon Run shifts become available during my first Splatfest.

Splatfest is, to try and put it in realistic terms, basically a huge, celebratory sporting event. Participation nets you a free commemorative t-shirt and access to a pumping concert featuring some of the hottest artists currently gracing the Inkopolis charts.

The idea, the notion, that a hip young inkling (or octoling) might miss out on one of the biggest parties of the year because they need money more than they need fun? It’s downright depressing.

It got me thinking. I looked at my fellow egg collectors. In-universe, we were a bunch of teen-to-young-adult aged denizens missing out on all the fun because we desperately needed the cash. We became stressed together, overworked together, yelled at by our boss together. But in those sweetest victories, where we’d far surpassed our quota? We celebrated together.

Spam-crouching, and mashing the taunt, something changed. I felt a greater sense of comradery with these squids and octos than I did in nearly any other coop game. And it’s all thanks to the rhetorical framing of the game mode.

It accomplishes so many things. It’s world building which wholistically immerses you in the setting. But mainly, its dedication to highly specific word choice does exactly what I mentioned earlier: it elevates the experience to one I could really sit down and think about, rather than use to while away the hours, then move on to something else. So many games make horde modes that feel inconsequential like that; it’s just for fun.

There’s nothing wrong with fun being the only mission statement for a game, or an optional mode of play. But this is exactly what I mean when I say this is the nontraditional writing games can do so much more with. And Splatoon 2 saw that opportunity, and took it. And what a fantastic example of bittersweet, cold reality, in this, a bright, colorful game meant mainly for children…

Happy Holidays, everyone!

[everydayanth]

Time is Money or... Identity?

This became something of a thought-experiment paper... I don’t expect many reads here, but I’m working on getting more comfortable sharing thoughts, particularly on the internet, rather than keeping them in my head and getting annoyed when no one wants to talk about them, lol, so here goes....

It started with this image popping up three times while scrolling through the dash:

And then I had some thoughts....Sorry it’s so long. I suppose this post in itself is an experiment.

Things like this, collections of ideas concentrated into a few spectacular people (Renaissance artists, Baroque composers, WWII scientists, etc.), make me wonder about philosophy vs. aesthetic, and if what really sets progress in motion is competition and a group of people who feed off each other’s asking of questions and discovery of answers.

Can we fresco and entire ceiling? Sure, but it will be painful and probably kill you. Can we art better by understanding anatomy? Sure, but you’ll have to snatch some bodies, or let someone else do it first. Can I make music do this instead of that other thing? Sure, but then you’ll be copying that one guy, try this even cooler new idea! Instead of repackaging the same idea into new models or melodies, they pushed the boundaries of known into connections that traversed the unknown, adding bubbles to the collective mind-map of human knowledge and intelligence. That’s what makes them special, right?

I’m currently reading The Invention of Nature by Andrea Wulf, and I’m doing it slowly on purpose, reading all the materials referenced (Kant, Hume, Goethe, etc.) as a personal exercise in understanding a period of time/culture rather than simply Alexander Von Humboldt the person (also, it’s a good book, but the author is very biased-in-favor, so I’m trying to read it in tandem of others who were more critical). Anyway, I’m going through the part where a group of young men require each other’s thoughts as stimulation and inspiration to new ideas, how they challenge and change what is and feed off these new connections, even as they are being recorded by scientists and artists who would become ultimately more preserved in historical documents and textbooks.

And that seems to be the key, one brain questions and answers, another questions that answer and answers itself, and so on, agreeing on very little outside of context, but pushing each other into new territory. It only takes one four-minute mile to prove it can be done at all. But if we’re caught up in the ethics of how to question and answer, then aesthetics quickly become more desirable. So the cultural understanding, particularly with Millennials, seems to grow weary of argument and become: if I can’t discuss policy (because the nuances are extreme or not understandable/accessible to me, or most often because my voice is denied and change is unattainable), I can at least look good while it slowly chokes me to death.

And while it’s easy to write it off as narcissism and entitlement, perhaps it’s only because what we deem “looking good” is one of very few things we can generally agree upon, everything else is hopeless, creating a cycle of nihilism where hopeful people are considered naive or dumb. Sure, there are different styles of aesthetic, and we label those subgroups with passionate adamance, but I think even the most minimalist among us can appreciate an aesthetic collection of clutter when done well. We share an ideology of quality that makes art and media that was once appreciated by few an aesthetic that is valued by most - Marvel comics vs. the MCU, SF/F shows like Lost or Game of Thrones becoming cultural phenomenons vs. the elusive Geekdom prior to the Star Wars movies. Aesthetic unites us where every other aspect of nationalism and group identity divide us by philosophy - our perceptions and understanding of geography, history, culture, language, or enemy (traits of nationalism, yeah, I’m citing my own article lol) are all based on complex webs of experience, education, world view, etc.

We focus on aesthetics in literature, visual arts, and technology, business branding, business models, and even the application of science to the public. Aesthetics becomes the focus of energy because it is where we find freedom of identity in a world ready to challenge any semblance of diverse thought. We agree on aesthetics, because they fit a model and communicate efficiently if we are something to consider good or bad.

But that false dichotomy is severely flawed because projections of reality and reality itself are two vastly different things. Dichotomous thinking is a way to simplify the world when it becomes too complex too fast, it is a tool used to make choices, like making a pros-cons list or an if-then projection in order to decide to do or not to do, to be or not to be. It is often supported as a tool of control, and becomes extremely dangerous when it begins to dictate our identities and understandings of the world. When there is no us-vs-them, what idea can we rally around?

To start, we have a lot of inclusion to do, because discussions of philosophy, art, and science all start with time, and you know who doesn’t have time? People who need to make money in it. So when we skew our education systems to favor those who have time (and therefore money), we allow economics to dictate progress in philosophy and art and science, we hand over control to those who profit most from dichotomous thinking. And when we do that... well... money will favor some things over others, like product over research, revenue over investment, aesthetic over thought, etc. until deviating outside of that cycle is nearly impossible if not unsurvivable.

We’re in a loop, where making money is the goal, because there is no other option, research needs support, and research’s only support comes from money, and money wants more money, so research is limited to whatever gives us money.

Has that always been the case?

Renaissance artists were successful if they demonstrated the church’s power, gaining the church support through aesthetics, not challenging its philosophy (well... not directly anyway). That church profited (and still does) greatly from the development of dichotomies and used art and emotion to encourage this thinking, often as a way to control the lower classes.

Baroque composers (or Romantic, Classical, and Modern ones for that matter) were successful if they sold shows and inspired attendees to purchase their music, again, often sponsored by those in financial power and following the requested agenda (and again, not always directly, often including illicit subtext). Stepping too far away from what was popular and appropriate meant they lost sponsorship and public interest. Thus, the freedom of the starving artist vs. the conformation of the sell-out dichotomy.

And WWII/post-WWII scientists were successful if their work was supported by government institutions, particularly military or intelligence branches, and advanced the prospect of victory over a consistent manifestation of physical enemy (Nazis, Russians, soldiers, and spies). 

The money comes when the proof is clear, not when it’s being searched for, and then only after decades of scientists and artists have died in poverty after discoveries of curiosity, not agenda. Progress, then, is controlled by public interest... or else private investment, and must, therefore, conform to the expectations of one or the other, often balancing the greater of two evils, it seems.

This is not a disrespect of those genius giants before us. I’m just noticing a pattern in the system of prosperous aesthetic periods and less progressive philosophical ones. We see the results of the philosophers only when they are applied aesthetically, and those aesthetic focal points divide the world into answers instead of questions, so it can seem that large progress has been made, when perhaps it was in-process for quite some time and was completed when a group of people crowded around the concept with the financial support of a capital agenda and the peers to push the boundaries of answering the questions that had been asked before them.

Most of the giants whose shoulders we stand on are invisible, it seems we only recognize the ones who present the answers aesthetically to our culture of origin. The “discoverers” of America are preserved in record because of their historic access in writing, but also because of their royal and religious backing. 

Many scientific theories were proposed prior to our Western heroes by individuals those heroes had access to reading, particularly those outside of our Western vernacular. Darwin had access to tons of theories, but I’m not just talking Lyell and Linnaeus here, but the likes of  Zhuang Zhou, al-Jāḥiẓ, and Ibn Khaldūn, whose names are ignored even in evolutionary biology/anthropology classes. 

We remember Apple’s ipod, not the saturated market of mp3 players before it; we discuss the unveiling of the iphone, not the industry and inventions that already existed. And while the fun of literature is often disassembling its parts, we don’t discuss the mythology or market predecessors to Harry Potter, because it was the new aesthetic of young adult. That’s a bold claim, and much more subjective than the tech/science ones, but I think it’s important that we recognize this across industries and throughout our culture, not simply within the aesthetic streamlining of technology. Our immediate “successful” heroes make money because they provide and aesthetic that applies to many philosophies.

We don’t diversify our education because we admire the end result of science, rarely considering the entirety of work that went into final discovery or product. We try to explain science in chains of linear progression rather than the mind-map of questions and ideas and artistic or political influence that it is.

Progress then, depends a great deal on affluence and we exist in a culture of “who you know” rather than a balance of who AND what you know. Sure, there are always exception, but is it any surprise that we younger generations are obsessed with image? 

Success, it seems, is directly correlated with it, and while we know genius takes more than money, success seems to exist outside of it - in fact, success rarely seems to involve genius itself at all anymore, but pure aesthetic. I’m thinking of the likes of Steve Jobs, who cultivated a following through his personal branding and rhetoric that helped change an entire industry, but often did so through aesthetics, not invention. 

We have grown to idolize the firsts as people who invented something, however, the reality is that those tech giants and big names rarely invented, rather re-modeled and presented something aesthetically compatible to society. We do not celebrate the inventor of the piano, but rather those composers who presented us with an aesthetic style for it. 

But that makes sense, because science’s value is in application. Who cares about dark matter? Well, no one (except sci-fi authors lol), yet, because it has no application to the public. But projects are still funded by institutions and government because our curiosity drives research and the potential outcome (weapons, control, power, money) justifies investment. How much money our government spends on NASA is directly correlated to the expectation of results, in the 60s, that was a way to defeat our perceived enemies, now, for some, it’s useless and should be privately funded.

I’m getting a little off topic, but my point is that what we deem “progress” is often only the part of the iceberg that we see, and rarely the whole of it. So what we see in the initial photo as a culture is a group of genius scientists (yes, again, respectfully, I am not denouncing the discoveries or large amount of work put in by any individuals here), rather than the prosperity of the Industrial Revolution, whose amount of excess-everything funded work that wasn’t considered necessary, until it was. When we fear a limit of resources, we understandably become more controlling over what we spend money on as a society, but even in limited resources, there are those with excess, who can then more easily control what is considered valuable or not. 

So, to be a successful genius, one must have access to funding, and to do this, one’s work must fulfill an agenda of another who has or is access to funds. This often entails being well connected, which includes a performance of image, false confidence, and the crucial understanding of the mind map of philosophy, art, and science in the intended discipline, which is often only accessible to those who fit the desired cultural template of the controlled upper class (read: wealthy, white, male, and upperclass-educated, for historical America anyway). 

Which means that in idolizing the presenters of knowledge, we value the aesthetic of it, the pretty package wrapped around a completed idea, more than we value the process of it. And this is dangerous because we repeat it everywhere, in politics and government (we might value the cheaters who take a shortcut as a symbol of intelligent application, or those who represent an aesthetic we agree with without looking into their application of policy), justice (social justice often values the aesthetic meaning of an outcome of a problem, rather than deconstructing the process by which that outcome was reached), education (we use standardized testing to represent a student’s ability to memorize outcomes - or the aesthetic of looking intelligent, rather than demonstrating an ability to apply knowledge and understanding), business (we herald in those who present us with a desired aesthetic brand - Apple, Starbucks, Google, etc., rather than investigating the potential corruption of human conditions that leads to that aesthetic; or else using a popularity rating of stars as peer-approval of a brand rather than developing our opinions out of experience).

Even in our personal lives, it is more important to be perceived as positive and confident than to investigate and deconstruct what might be making us unhappy. For me, it was health, I didn’t like how I looked or felt, but was obsessively told that I’m great, I shouldn’t feel that way. My negativity was rewarded, victimization was encouraged, and the conclusion seemed to always be leaving everything as-is.

Eventually I had to say fuck it and stop seeking the support and understanding of friends, utilizing spite to rebuild a healthy life, which isn’t the only option, that was my choice, but our obsession with aesthetics became a lose-lose for me. I didn’t want to look like a photo-brushed-whatever model, which seemed to be everyone’s assumption, I just felt unhappy because I was unhealthy and unproductive in my life. 

But that’s a bad aesthetic, or maybe not one at all and that denial of aesthetic might be the worst part. I didn’t fit into a box, not out of any higher intelligence, but because I could never pick one. This story is much more complex (and for the record, Jake was instrumental in helping me develop and maintain a health plan) and could probably be unpacked into an entire book of an extended metaphor, but put simply, I want to be a minimalist some days and a traditionalist other days and my brain is just a clash of ideas. Even my wardrobe reflects this, lit-nerd some days, world-traveler other days, outgoing-athlete, and even the occasional clash of weird accessories that is dancer-chic, lol. 

I was feeling stuck by a body that was in endless rehabilitation and recovery (long story, broken bones), and I didn’t like it, so I wanted to change it. But that proactive idea was met with passionate defenses of body-positivity (which does have a place in society as a whole) and a focus on aesthetic (”you look fine”) rather than philosophy (well I don’t fucking feel fine). And I can’t help but think it’s because aesthetics are things we can agree on, or because they are safe, and to change aesthetics or to request a focus on philosophy, makes people scared about the burden of change.

So I have a revision to my own idea of what curates success:

Successful genius exists in a place supported financially, often by an agenda that is commonly more afforded to those who already fit a familiar cultural aesthetic of money or power, armed with an understanding of connection and access to un-biased and diverse knowledge and education (again, often most commonly afforded to those already in the upperclass), surrounded by a group of similar individuals who provide competition as well as resources and connections that progress the understanding of concepts in non-linear objectivity, and present finalized ideas to the public in a consumable and digestible aesthetic package of understanding that does not require extensive negative change on behalf of the consumer.

If that is true, I think it answers the cycles of science in ages of philosophy and reason vs. aesthetics and image that creates the popular science vs. art false dichotomy. STEM is more easily objective, and objective is more easily packaged and sold, therefore we create an art vs. science dichotomy and science wins - but only if it’s presenter understands enough about art to package it aesthetically. Social sciences are doomed by their own use of inductive arguments, complex layers of pattern and observation that don’t have a single objective Truth, rather a layered perception of potential truth, which is not easily distributed - it’s not a pamphlet, it’s a book. 

Ain’t nobody got time for books.

It explains the Millennial obsession with image outside of an individual psychology of narcissism, by looking to cultural understandings of success and value. And while deviating from traditional models of progress - looking at thought as a mind map of connection rather than linear funnel of detail (while still applicable and useful), it illustrates the time lapse between discovery and progress. There is a gap between the actual discovery of knowledge and the generalized application of that knowledge, and that gap is filled by whomever presents the information most effectively or efficiently, sometimes accurately, to the public. That presenter is then considered successful, valuable, important. That importance leads to respect, time, and freedom.

So Millennials are emulating what they need to look like to be considered successful (fake it ‘till you make it and all), while science emulates linear thought in the same way. Linear thought can be more easily objective and packaged for public access, taught in schools and accepted by society. We create a dichotomy of linear and non-linear thought and say they have pros and cons or specific uses and applications, but I think in the same way our predecessors argued about Empiricism vs. Rationalism (read: art vs. science) until we understood them in tandem, we are at the point of having to understand linear and non-linear thinking not as opposites, but as extremes on a spectrum, most useful when balanced. 

It’s complex and complex things take time to understand. And time is money. And money is freedom. And freedom is happiness.

Perhaps this explains why dichotomies are so popular - they fit an aesthetic, and they remove the exhausting layers of philosophy that exist inside our own identities. Dichotomies limit the complexity of an idea into two extremes, and  when we define ourselves by an image rather than our modes of thought, much of our decisions can be made by whatever aligns with the image. We can feel free by the illusions of power or choice, while minimizing the effort it takes to get to that freedom, and maybe it makes us feel happy for a minute. 

However, while we spend much of our decision quota in a given day on deciding which aesthetics to consume or conform to, those choices are still influenced by those whose agendas are funding our understanding of the world through science and art. Is it any wonder we’ve created a dichotomy of disconnect in every way. What I mean is that it is easy to make irrational choices based on feelings of aesthetics (easier, not always easy), and when our culture divides aesthetics into categories, they are predictable, marketable, and controllable, so we must separate the world into understandable groups.

If this is true, then maybe it’s not the internet or social media or Millennial entitlement that is separating us. Maybe it’s the control of wealth being recycled into similar agendas to produce work that conforms to or provides evidence supporting already existing biases in science. Keep us too busy making money to have time to understand it and too loyal to brands to investigate the money, and too exhausted of choices to discover ourselves. So the freedom of choice that we find in aesthetic dichotomies - the ease of making decisions and lowered exhaustion of not analyzing those experiences, is actually a sacrifice of identity and agency to those funding our research and creating the requirements of aesthetic conformation . 

This is getting a bit conspiracy-theory-esque, but dichotomies are good for reducing choices and controlling groups, however, they do not inherently exist outside of a few basic dualities (like light and the absence of light, or dark), they extend out of a focus on aesthetic and a disapproval of thought, voice, and criticism. Or, to simplify, they are social constructs to organize information.

So if this all related in some way, if science and progress is inhibited by the agendas of the elite, and we are very aware of our elite, how do we trust it? How do we step out of the aesthetic-obsessed cycle and into forgiveness and understanding and patience and... time?

And perhaps more importantly, how do we develop a way to support science AND diversify it? How do we make the next photo like this include races and genders across a spectrum of ideologies? How do we create a collective group of genius that exists outside of a capital agenda, is it even possible? How can we encourage investment over revenue when so many Americans (and people around the world) feel they don’t have enough time to make money to survive, or choices to spend thinking about philosophy, policy, and what they believe in vs. agreeing with something that seems to vaguely align with their desired aesthetic identity? It’s not laziness, I don’t think, but over-work, we’ve reached our daily capacity and the sacrifice of demanding more is...less.

I struggle to pick an aesthetic and it has helped me break that easy black-and-white view of the world, but that is a fight I am exhausted by every day. It would be so simple to pick an aesthetic and run with it, to define myself by a collective idea and make choices based on what matches it, but that swings with my emotions, and maybe that’s closer to the problem? 

We have done some weird shit with emotion, from disregarding it as feminine or “weak,” to writing it out of strength and art and science. We have created a dichotomy between emotion and logic and then mapped it into our brains as hemispheres of thought. We made a taboo-aesthetic of sadness (I mean, look at Inside Out’s character development of Sadness, but they did a good job using balance as the answer) and disregarded most emotions beyond contentment or positive excitement as bad, which is, surprise, starting to look like a mistake. We’ve branded empathy as weakness; we are simultaneously admiring, and for many worshiping, empathetic individuals while funneling our money into heartless heroes who we deem successful. Maybe it’s our emotions that have faded, beaten out of us or encouraged into silence, leaving us lonely and dependent on our chosen aesthetic to find any pieces of identity that might lead to authentic happiness. Maybe emotion is what keeps us in just-enough chaos to challenge the agendas that control our choices by keeping us unpredictable? Or perhaps they are what unite us beyond aesthetic.

Maybe staring at that shelf of shampoos and conditioners, over half of which are produced by the exact same factory and owned by the same company but branded with different versions of you in mind and with how you will feel looking at them taken into account, is extremely overwhelming. And some days you feel lazy and tired and you just grab that same ol’ thing. But occasionally you feel rebellious or responsible, and you investigate and make a completely different choice because maybe you are made of a layer of realities held together by your collective experience of life that creates a unique worldview, that thing that we conform to an aesthetic or maybe an emotion, or philosophy, or a conviction of values, and maybe that thing cannot be predicted. Maybe our models predict an aesthetic, not a person, and maybe that’s a duh, but it’s not a logical concept I consider on a daily basis of rhetoric hailing technology and AI as all-knowing and capable of perfect reason.

Maybe it’s our chaos that is trying to be organized into compartmental identities of aesthetic ideologies: minimal, vintage, grunge, professional, bad-ass, athletic, urban, feminine, boho, whatever it is. And those who challenge it are in for a much more difficult life of choices, each of which must be broken down into action-and-consequence, current emotion vs. future potential, the history and creation of a product, etc. We don’t have time to ask our coffee if children were kidnapped to harvest it, we have an image and this specific coffee or product fits it; we are too busy trying to be successful so that we can eventually have the freedom to fully identify ourselves and be happy, and we see by cultural example that our desired success comes from aesthetic.

Capitalism creates a need for money, and that excess capital is often syphoned into the remnants of pre-constructed systems. I don’t have the expertise to divide that into its logical components yet, but maybe our adoration of monarchy as seen in our popular media, art, and entertainment, has us assuming the elite among us deserve their position, romanticizing the trials of poverty as obstacles to be overcome, and forcing racial stereotypes into equally damaging aesthetics - the white female, incapable damsel in distress, vs. the black female, independent queen who can survive everything on her own. This is not a real dichotomy, it’s a shitty stereotype, but you probably wouldn’t know it from the outside looking in, or perhaps from the inside itself, if you felt the need to align with a specific aesthetic, or even to invert that pressure into the opposite aesthetic. Businesses thrive by utilizing those dichotomies, and sometimes by creating a solution to them. So if they are useful to some, perhaps that’s enough reason to be suspicious of the agendas that tell us how to think or make our lives easier. 

I feel like I’m saying a lot of stupid things while feeling my own brain nodding along and going like oh, here’s a dichotomy and there’s another dichotomy and all dichotomies are false dichotomies, and I know all this in formal educated argument, but when it comes to daily application, I want to just be a cool millennial who has health insurance and can grab takeout without humming about the cost and what I might be able to pull together from the fridge. That doesn’t mean brands or aesthetics, despite the market’s attempts to the contrary, just the means to survive financially with a bit of excess time for myself to think and be bored and contemplate the world with other people so we’re all a bit less lonely and more emotionally adjusted.  

Diversity, money, research, science, art, aesthetic, it all seems to come back to identity and time. Time to make choices, time to reflect and think about identity and emotion, time to deconstruct and criticize reality, time to investigate corruption, time to gather knowledge and resources, time to exist along other humans rather than floating away, isolated and ungrounded from the world. Therefore, successful geniuses also have time to exist outside of a singular aesthetic and enhance our understanding of the world in order to develop positive changes that we often label “progress.”

How do we give people more time so that they don’t have to divide the world into aesthetics and dichotomies in order to keep up or attempt to be successful? Does giving someone time allow them to feel successful? If that perseverance of success was in order to gain the time, would we then use the time to curate individual identities that we feel comfortable and confident in? Is time what it takes to be happy? Is time what separates the classes in America?

How do we un-do “time is money,” particularly in a capitalist economy and remember that time is also thought and connection and values and friendships and more than obligations?

How do we remember that time is identity?

Is time a renewable resource? Or are we. 

[niamhdonlan]

Punk art and clothing moodboard for digital sketchbook

Punk art and clothing have coincided with each other since the 70's, with a cloth of the clothing having artwork on them, or badges of art and album cover switched all over the jackets or the trousers. This is why I felt like making these two mood boards together while reaching them both would give me the best outcomes.

First I will show my punk art moodboard;

For this mood board I wanted to keep it simple just sow the art was clear on the page and that was the main focus. My first bit of research was punk exhibitions and here I found ‘Punk art’ named the first punk art exhibition, curated by Marc H. Miller and Bettie Ringma in Washington DC 1978. When I first did the research I though Andy Warhol was the curator, however in further research I found that I got this wrong, explain the crossed out name. I decided to display the invite, which was name out of a paper bag which is very much like most punk art, very DIY. I also decided to show the ‘Punk Manifesto’ that as written on the wall at the exhibition. While looking into this I found an article written by Miss Rosen for Another Man magazine, “Everyone had their claim to the title of being a punk and we went with their works. Half the reason they went along with the show was because it wasn’t in New York. There was this sense that, ‘We are going to invade Washington!’”...Ruth Marten did live tattooing while Steven Kramer’s Destructive Mouse, a big heavy piece of metal that moved erratically around the floor hitting people in the shins’.I really enjoyed looking through this exhibition and how they displayed their work, as I can take notes for my own exhibition for my final outcome.

Secondly I decided to show some of Jamie Reids artwork, who is one off if not the most famous punk artist, who worked very closely went Vivienne Westwood and Malcom McLaren in the 70′s. Reid has always called himself an anarchist and his work always mirrors that even up until now, his art is very politically driven and meant to say something. In the 70′s he created his pieces such as his God save the Queen piece , and even tour posters and album art for punk bands such as the Sex Pistols. In recent years he still stands up for what he believes in such as working with Extinction Rebellion and anti trump prints. Jamie Reid is a huge inspiration throughout punk culture, and I have always really enjoyed his style and feel like I take inspiration from him in my work, with the way he uses font and colour so boldly.

- Jamie Reid x Extinction rebellion

God save the USA by Jamie Reid 

However even after making this mood board I did some further research I found another art piece I really loved. The art is by Niamh Hill who is a first year fine art student, her piece is called ‘Thresher’ and it is a celebration of punk aesthetics and being and alternative person who is authentically themselves. On her website thee further explains the piece “Punk is innately connected to misdirection. The stylisation, diy piercings, inhuman makeup and hair, fully cast in black, decorated in pins and badges preaching anarchy. The aesthetic is generally unapproachable but the ideology behind it is entirely about acceptance...Her look is sometimes associated with intimidation and withdrawn, distant moods but Evie...There is a temptation to paint punk as striking, aggressive and abstract using energetic brush strokes and fluid movements to mirror the spontaneity of the subject matter. However, for this piece I wanted to highlight the soft subtlety of punk acceptance and empathy whilst still showing signs of rough resilience.” This artwork really inspired me as I felt it reminded me that punk culture doesn't always have to be black, white, or red tones, that with my zine I can show colour and really prove how accepting punk culture is, and that the relationships you make with people in the scene are really precious.

Punk clothing 

Next I wanted to show some acid wash jeans and Doc Martens, which was a part of not only punk but also skinhead fashion, where both of these styles quite commonly get mixed up or compared to each other. Especially for Doc Martens I found some information on how they got big in these cultures on Journey.com ‘While Dr. Martens were initially popular with England's working class, they started to get picked up by Britain's skinheads. Dr. Martens suddenly became the favorite fashion of choice for followers of the underground punk music scene. Thanks to the British bands that were popular in the 60s, Dr. Martens were pushed to the forefront of the fashion industry. Pete Townshend of the band the Who was one of the first celebrities to wear Dr. Martens! Other musicians such as Sid Vicious of the Sex Pistols.’

I also wanted to talk about leather jackets and the badges that a lot of people in the scene put on them. I then started to research the history of patches throughout the community and let there was a lot to look into. I found an article by Ira Solomantina for Sleek magazine, ‘As writer Andrew Gallix puts it, “The evolution of punk fashion was the doomed quest for authenticity” – hence why their bold DIY-aesthetic opposed to all things conventional. Punks would festoon themselves with condoms and toilet chains, wear garbage bags as tunics, spray paint on their T-shirts, tear their jeans, pierce themselves with safety pins and stitch patches to their sleeves. Each patch had a symbolic meaning and emblematically declared belonging to the punk subculture. It seems only natural that the punk movement, with its fascination for decadence, embraced something as marginal as the patch.’ This taught me that Punks really embraced the badge and saw it as another way to show that they believed in and the community that they stood for.

Lastly I also wanted to include how they did their hair and makeup because its just as important as the clothing you wear. Mohawks and spiky hair were always  a big part, of the culture and I found this in a lot of the photography from the 70′s, and I definitely saw this in Derek Ridgers photography. 

On top of this all the makeup I saw also seemed similar with either very bright eyeshadow, or thick black eyeliner. One of the key people who did this was Jordan Mooney, a key figure in the punk movement who worked at Vivienne Westwoods SEX store. 

I enjoyed this research for the mood board a lot as I felt like it was really important information for me to know for my zine. As I wanted my zine pages to be punk inspired and be able to showcase my friends who make the art and wear the clothes, that have always been so integral to the movement. 

[thesinglesjukebox]

YUBIN - LADY

[7.22]

Wonder Girl turned City Woman...

Iain Mew: Sometimes you want to carefully pick out a chocolate from your selection, and sometimes you want to take your whole '80s city pop box and eat them a row at a time without even consulting the key. [6]

Jessica Doyle: I did go on a city pop-listening binge after hearing this, and concluded that for all the cosplay there was something just slightly off about Yubin's presentation. It may be as simple as me hearing lower-quality production and mistaking the less forceful sound for wistfulness. It may be that Yubin comes off as too confident to sell the listener-flattering idea of the strong façade being no more than a few millimeters thick. "Lady" might have worked better with a singer whose voice was a little breathier, a little wispier, a little [The Jukebox apologizes for this attempt to pass off Hyelim bias as an actual review.] [5]

Thomas Inskeep: K-Pop goes city pop with this debut solo single from Yubin, formerly of K-pop queens Wonder Girls. This isn't an exact replica -- it's more like a take on the City Pop revival, from SoundCloud artists like Night Tempo (whose 2016 remix of Mariya Takeuchi's City Pop landmark "Plastic Love" sounds like a definite influence on "Lady"). The video even features scenes of Yubin driving along darkened city streets! That said, there's also a bit of Stock Aitken Waterman here, especially in those ultra-'80s handclaps and the drums -- Sinitta calling! And then, then, there's the lyrics and Yubin's sassy deliver thereof: "Stop beating around the bush," she sings, "Be up front about it/I made time especially for you ... There are tons of boys/Who lined up for me." Lay down the law girl, and tell him what time it is! #Summer2018Anthem achieved. [10]

Julian Axelrod: There's "disco" -- the kind of half-hearted pastiche with empty Bee Gees harmonies and limp Chic guitar that's become an escape hatch for boring artists of all stripes in the past few years -- and then there's disco. "Lady" has a million tiny details that prove it's the real deal, from the swooping strings to the sidewinding pre-chorus melody to the programmed drums that wallop in all the right places. But the most important distinction is a palpable joy, and Yubin's powerhouse vocal struts, shimmies, and soars with the liberation of a woman who's truly free. When that guitar solo arrives to carry you up to disco heaven, you know you're dealing with the genuine article. [8]

Leonel Manzanares de la Rosa: Yubin going full city pop is a bit of a surprise; Yes, Wonder Girls were the absolute queens of retro in the K-Pop universe, but Yubin is commonly known as the group's rapper, and a solo single without a single line of rap, rather opting for the disco diva approach, is a bit out of left field. However, it's in the execution of this concept, both sonically and aesthetically, where "Lady" really hits. Yubin simultaneously projects energy and sophistication in every note, and if this is the musical path she will take in her future solo endeavours, we'll be definitely on board. [7]

Will Rivitz: Now that vaporwave has been passé for long enough to appreciate through the more neutral lens afforded by a true retrospective, we're finally in a place where we can appreciate the artists in the scene whose music is good enough to have stood the test of time and still be worthwhile five years after the scene's peak -- namely, Saint Pepsi (or the artist formerly known as Saint Pepsi) and absolutely no one else. Fortunately, Yubin's future funk approximation lifts Pepsi's vibrantly torpid '80s cheese with aplomb, absolutely nailing the lushness that makes his sound still tantalizing. Cheap neon is better when it's not ironic. [8]

Ryo Miyauchi: The glossy '80s revival fueling Wonder Girls's final full-length Reboot lured me into this then-new thing in my life called K-pop, but before I can tune into more from the retro queens, they unfortunately decided to call it quits. So it's very satisfying to have Yubin from the group continue where the group left off with this glamorous city-pop anthem. More than the sound, I'm won by her confident sass. "I ain't got time," she snaps at her foolish prospects in romance, and her off-to-the-next attitude is one I longed to find in other songs by her peers whose claims to "bring the boys out" didn't really resonate beyond pure pop gesture. [8]

Alfred Soto: I played this twice last night while gelling my hair and applying discreet pats of cologne to my neck, moving my shoulders to the beat. It's got a welcome slink, and it does smell of Saturday night, but its recombination of several smooth dance sounds is more rehearsed than felt. So what. It's Saturday night. [7]

Joshua Minsoo Kim: While labels like Matador allowed for Shibuya-kei to gain visibility for otherwise Japanese music-ignorant Westeners, city pop received widespread love from manners far more Internet-dependent: specialized blogs, YouTube algorithms, and freely available mixes (not to mention vaporwave/future funk, numerous reissues, and the rise of Japanese tastemakers and record store owners). While none of this seemed to happen with the help of streaming services, it was a natural extension of the musical trends that gained traction since the turn of the decade. The increasing popularity of new age and soft rock, as well as the general decline of scuzzy lo-fi pop, is well-aligned with city pop's relatively pristine veneer and indulgent ventures into AOR, quiet storm, jazz fusion, disco, and funk. These shifts in prevailing musical tastes are a natural response to what happened musically during the mid-late 2000s, but also feel like a quasi-extension of postmodern sincerity and the (non-conservative) political/social ideologies of the 2010s. While Korea had some music that was analogous to City Pop -- Kim Hyun-chul comes to mind -- "Lady" is specifically aiming for what was happening in Japan during the '80s (even more explainable considering the genre's popularity within various Korean circles). In typical K-pop fashion, this is such a meticulously crafted pastiche that it takes on a new form from that of its source material. There's an excess of riches here, yes, but it comes from a digitally glitzy sheen and not from moments where you can revel in individual instruments; everything here solidifies into a monolithic disco mass. The guitar solo at the end, for example, is horrifically short -- most city pop would allow for such instrumentation to take center stage and unabashedly continue for as long as it felt necessary. So while "Lady" is certainly catchy, the mixing and structure stifle what it wants to accomplish. Which is to say, this isn't memorable in the way city pop is; it's memorable in the way K-pop is. [6]

[Read, comment and vote on The Singles Jukebox]

[harveypownallbrownunit29]

PART OF ASSIGNMENT 5- Evaluation

Evaluation:

Demonstrating the requirements of the brief involved me taking on board each point an incorporating that into my own work. The requirements were to create a magazine based on an already existing one, it would replicate this and I would take inspiration from former copies of the magazine. For the brief I would have to document my idea generation process after making mind maps, annotated sketches and notes. I then went on to doing large amounts of research which involved me analysing pre-existing magazines to figure out the techniques, equipment and how I would plan and execute my shots. Then I would go on to make a proposal for the magazine stating everything that I set out to do. I then went on to photograph 2 test shots, one of which was a fashion shoot and the other a food photography shoot. I documented these with contact sheets and came to the conclusion I would go down the food photography route. Afterwards it was a case of shooting my final shots, editing them and creating my magazine altogether on a software called InDesign. Overall I would say that I have certainly adhered to the brief that I was set. I reached and completed all points of the brief and personally think I completed to a level of satisfaction.

The creative process was something that took time for me, it changed overtime and influenced my work a lot. I started off picking apart existing food photography images, I would look at camera angles, lighting and background as well as how the food itself is presented. In terms of camera angles I found that the trend was typically mid shots using a small aperture number to get a shallow depth of field and secondly top-down shots of the food. This is what I tended to stick to. In terms of lighting I chose to shoot in natural light for all my shots, I would do this around the same time of day which was around 5pm. Some images that I studied had natural lighting that had a large shadow to make the image fairly dark, it had an indirect light source. I wanted to replicate this is my paella shots where I decided to shoot in the back of my garage where the light source would come through from the open door which could cast interesting shadows on the food. I then went on to look at backgrounds, it was important to me that it complimented the food itself. I also wanted to make sure that what I used was different from shoot to shoot and interesting on its own, I used different materials like wood, slate, concrete on paint and also a rusty grilled net from the side of a log burner. When it came to composing my food, I would place individual items of food down to get the perfect shot, this involved me placing individual chips, choosing the right kind of newspaper, making shapes with sources and placing different pieces of decorations down. I would changes these throughout the shoot to see where they looked best.

In terms of equipment, I used a 50mm prime lens, a tripod and a DSLR Canon 750D Camera. I wanted to use the 50mm lens for the features that it supplies. This is the way that it works well with shallow depth of field to create that aesthetic I was after. The lens can also make image look very crisp, it allows me to get up close into the foods, making it feel like you are getting a feeling of its texture. I would sometimes use the tripod in order to steady the camera when working in certain lighting conditions. In some scenarios the lighting would mean that the shutter speed would capture motion blur, therefore using a tripod and a shutter remote would solve this for me. Techniques will be various, I want mainly top down camera angles however deep depth and mid shot angles are particularly common in food magazines. The process I will use to edit my photos will be photoshop, this is a good software  to be able to do an all-round edit on my images however I choose to only use basic editing only.

 With post production, I chose to edit my images on Photoshop. Firstly I would use an overall edit for each of my images, it would give the image warmth and correct the exposure if needed. After that I would use brush tools to paint over individual sections of my image to alter them and make them stand out in some cases. I would finally use the spot healing tool, zoom into 100% and start to go around and remove very small parts of the food that might look unappealing.  

The first image in my magazine is the front cover shot, this image was one of the last images I took. I would say that this is one of my strongest image due to the way it was well thought out and took a lot of time to complete. Firstly I had to think about composition for my image, for the front cover I learnt that it was best to leave a lot of negative space for text, I didn’t want to overcrowd the front cover so therefore I only included half the wok of the paella and used only a few pieces of garments. This worked really well for me in my front cover. I then had to look at the background for the image, to go with the Spanish theme of the dish I wanted to include something you would see over in that country, I quickly thought about my garage floor, it had been painted a sky blue but over the years has peeled off which create quite a nice look to it. The colour blue complimented the colour of the yellow/orange paella which worked well. In terms of lighting I wanted to go along with a popular trend with the natural lighting creating a long shadow, for this I chose to shoot in the back of my garage where the lighting was darker therefore creating a much longer shadow with a darker tone then outside with direct sunlight. There were a few difficulties that I came across, one of which was to leave enough negative space and also have a background colour that will complement the text and be readable. In terms of making decisions in order to get this shot, I had to choose multiple things, I had to choose what background I wanted, what lighting I wanted to create, what angles would be best, what technique and where to position my foods. I would say this image was very successful, it proved to be everything I wanted the photo to turn out like,  I would put this down to the way that my creativity is shown through this image, the way I carefully picked and chose each element of the image. This was a shot from one of my final shoots; over the time of shooting food I had learnt many things which made the next shoot even better.

The next image to evaluate would be on the first page in on the bottom left. It is part of the English fish and chips page. There were lots of things I had to do to got this shot, first of all I decided that I wanted the background to include grass, due to the connection between eating take away fish and chips on the grass. However natural grass isn’t very consistent in colour, shade and texture. Therefore I decided to use artificial grass to overcome this problem. Next in my background I wanted to include newspaper due to the ideology behind fish and chips being wrapped in newspaper. To get this I had to buy a newspaper, I went through all of the pages to choose a couple pages for the shot. I had to make sure that the newspaper consisted of a mixture of words and articles as well as some images. The ratio between these was important to me as to the audience they might be put off if there were too many words or equally too many images. Also for the background I wanted to include some light coloured wood to compliment the colour of the fish and chips. I chose to use a chopping board. I didn’t want too much of it in shot so therefore I placed the newspaper on top of the wooden board. Then I had to think about the food itself and what would work well. For this I firstly placed the chips down in the middle of the board, I placed them individually, I also wiped each chip before placing them down to ensure there were as little grease on them as possible so that they wouldn’t mark the newspaper and make it look unappetising. I then placed the fish on top of the chips and added a slice of lemon on top. I wanted to make sure that I had the perfect looking lemon slice. For this I cut up 2 lemons and laid them all out so I could inspect each and chose the right ones for the shoot. Next was creating the dish of mushy peas which I included for its connection to fish and chips but also to compliment the grass in the background. To create this dish I found a decent sized pot, as I didn’t have many peas and I wanted it to look like the pot was full, I filled half the pot up with kitchen roll to fill up room. Then when shooting the dish, as this took time the peas would start to dry out and this was visible on the images. To prevent this I used a tooth pick to mix up the top of the mushy peas to they looked their normal texture again. Then I wanted to add some tartar source into the shot, I made a ‘smudge’ of this at the side of the chips. I included another piece of lemon here for colour. Finally I was down t my last ingredient, I wanted to sprinkle un-grinded pieces of salt onto the dish, and each individual piece was hand placed by me to get the correct consistency. As the image on the opposite page o the fish and chips was taken in the same shoot, all of the information above applies to that image also. For both shots the difficulty that I faced was making sure that the food constantly looked fresh when taking photos of it. The peas always had to look moist and fresh, I also had to ensure that the chips didn’t go soggy. For this I had to replace some of the chips that were particularly soggy or any chips that I was focusing in on. Both shots for me were particularly successful, I believe that both of them look very professional and with the editing that I used it helps bring certain elements out and completes the aesthetic. I think that they were both successful due to how I battled each problem and came up with a solution, the planning was thorough which left little room for things to go wrong.

The next set of images down the magazine is the Mexican Tacos. This was the first food photography shoot that I completed. To get the images I had to think about many elements that build up the image, first of which was the background. I chose to use slate; I think the colour gray would positively contrast the colourful aspect of the Mexican Tacos. The texture of the slate works well too, it gave the image more detail and helps build up the high detail of the dish itself as your eyes work their way into the centre of the frame. Next I had to consider the food itself for the dish. I wanted to make sure that the tacos were somewhat identical, when making them I always kept the order of the filling of the tacos the same, for example the beef went in first and all of them had three pieces of cucumber in them. I had to be extremely careful when handling them as they were very delicate. I wanted to prop them up so you could see them properly, to do this I used come cardboard as a wedge, this worked well however the difficulty was you would be able to see the cardboard. To overcome this I used a fresh piece of lettuce to cover over the cardboard. This solved the problem however it looked too much as the green was quite overwhelming. To break up this greenery I added a whole chilli pepper on top of it, I think this worked well and overcame the difficulty. To add to the aesthetic I had added some garments to compliment the tacos, these were different coloured pepper cut in half. In my opinion this worked well in giving it more colour and showing off the culture of the dish. Finally I added some salsa on the side of the dish, I complimented it with a piece of herb which went very well as the green from the herb and the red from the salsa work well as they are complimentary colours to each other. I think that the Mexican taco images are successful shots due to the way that I composed the image and included all aspects of the dish. I felt that the dish represented not only the Mexican culture but also represented what I wanted to do as a whole for the magazine. That is what I wanted and felt that I achieved through these images.

On the page after the Mexican Tacos you will see one main image from the Curry dish shots; this is one of three of the Curry images in my magazine. All three were shot in the same shoot so therefore all involved the same steps to get to the final outcomes. Firstly, I had to think about the background, I wanted to include something a bit different so I decided to use some traditional Indian cloth. I didn’t want all of this to be in the shot so I broke it up by placing a white marble table underneath. This worked well for the top-down angles but I also had to take into consideration other angles like the mid shots. To get an equally as satisfying background I decided to place the table in front of a wooden fence, I chose the best fence that was all the same colour consistency so it doesn’t take attention away from the main dish, I also need the fence to be in sunlight for the shots. I found one that had a plant of ivy growing up it, this splash of greenery on the fence worked well and worked hand in hand with the herb leaves I placed on the rice. Next, I had to think and consider the dish itself, I needed to present it in a way that was aesthetically pleasing but also represented the culture and the way that many Indian families lay out their food to help themselves as they sit round a table and socialise. I also wanted to keep the images fairly symmetrical as this would represent the style and patterns that is traditional in India. I used the same dishes for the rice and the curry; to fill the bowls and give the illusion that they were full I packed half the dish with kitchen roll and placed the food on top. To give the food that fresh look I used hairspray to give it that glisten, this was something I found in my research on YouTube.  I had to think about the layout of the foods, I decided upon placing down the Naan bread first, in the top middle, I used this as a sort of plate for the two homemade Samosa’s, I then made mint yoghurt and trailed it along the bread for colour.  Then either side of the Naan bread slightly down a bit I placed the two dishes of rice and curry. I think that this composition worked well. Then I added some decoration like the herbs on the rice and the pink flower between the Samosa’s to give the dish a centre piece for colour, The only difficulty that I found was making the curry and the rice keep that glisten as this was important, I had to do some quick research to see how I could overcome this problem, finding that hairspray worked I decided to try it and I believe that I did the job. I strongly feel that al three of these images are successful, the more you pick them apart the more you see my logic behind each element to the frame, I am very proud of how these came out and I think they do the job in perceiving my ideology behind them.

The final double page spread in my magazine is the Chinese Buffet. This was a page that I was incredibly proud of and feel worked extremely well. Both these image were from the same shoot so therefore the elements of both frames match up. When planning this shoot there were multiple elements that I had to think about and cover. For example, the background, I knew that as it was a buffet it would include many different foods and dishes therefore I wanted to have a simple but affective background, therefore the audience’s eyes would not be distracted or feel that there is too much going off. Choosing the background was also a challenge, it was important that it replicated the culture; I chose to use a red blanket on the floor to cover everything up that wasn’t part of the frame. Red is a very traditional colour of the Chinese culture, which got me thinking about what else is traditional to China. I then thought about using wood as this is quite symbolic to the culture. I decided to place the majority of my food on a wooden chopping board, and keep the red blanket to cover the negative space. Secondly, I had to think about the layout of the foods and what would work best, I decided on spreading the food out fairly randomly to look as natural as they could. I did however want to include the soy source in the centre of the foods to give the audience a focal point of interest. I chose to use two magnolia flowers in the scene as these plants are traditionally Chinese. It also added colour and the white petals worked well against the red blanket. Finally, I decided to shoot at golden hour, this is when the sun is setting and gives off an orange/ yellow glow. Also because it is at its lowest visible point on the horizon it means that it creates deep long shadows. These were all conventions that I was aiming for; also that yellow glow complimented the colour of the food and the wood, it also added to that Asian vibe. In terms of difficulties I would say there was minimal, one I found a struggle was the timing, golden hour doesn’t always last an hour and I didn’t want the shots to show even the slightest of change in lighting, it was hard for me to do however the difficulty was getting all the timings right for the shoot. Overall however, I think that both these shots were successful, I strongly think that all the elements of the frame worked incredibly well and all complimented each other to give off that Chinese Buffet aesthetic.

Each dish and each page in the magazine has a different message classed under one; for all, the message is about how culture shows a correlation between that and its food. It’s all about influence and the way that one thing impacts another whether that is in food and culture, what I’ve portrayed here or whether it’s in something larger. The images in the magazine almost act like a microcosm for a much bigger message. This bigger message could be something individual to each audience member. I got the message across in various ways; the one way to get the message across was to show this correlation between food and culture. I did this in multiple ways.  Firstly, I made sure that the camera angles were kept the same throughout each shoot, this was so that I couldn’t manipulate the relationship using different angles from page to page. I kept it simple with birds-eye angles and middle side shots. From shoot to shoot sometimes I would change the composition as this was important to replicate culture, in some countries they ay food out to help yourself, and in others it would come on a plate individually. Not only that but there was another way composition affected the ideology behind the images, for example I wanted o have the curry shots quite symmetrical as this in some way mirrors the Indian culture. Lighting was another thing that was important when t came down to showing a culture. This was difficult for me as I wanted to use natural lighting so getting different lighting and different temperatures for different countries was a challenge. I overcame this by when I shot and where I shot. For example, the Chinese shoot I did at golden hour to achieve the aesthetic of a hot climate, whereas for the Spanish shoot I chose to shoot in the garage with the door open for natural lighting. I would say that as a whole my images do go together as they all have the same message in common just expressed in various ways, they don’t tell a story as such but they do however hold a strong ideology about years of cultural impact on the way we do things and present things.

Overall I am extremely satisfied with my final piece; I spent a long time at all the stages making sure that it all worked. I constantly made changes and alterations to ensure it fitted well. I made sure that in the planning every aspect was well thought out. In the shooting I made sure I covered all angles and played around with moving things around to see how they would sit. In the editing I made sure that the food looked as natural as they could but also made the food look a lot more satisfying by using the spot removal tool. Then finally when bringing the images into the magazine I had created I made sure that the pages had a good balance to them and that it wasn’t either over crowded or left too much negative space.  I would say that I found my strengths in shooting the food and composing the frame, I also found strength in using the software InDesign, I really enjoyed working in this and feel I excelled in it and produced a good standard o work out of it. I would say that I realised my weakness when I came to editing the food,  editing in general is something I have a good understanding of however when it came to editing food I soon figured out it wasn’t easy to get everything right, although I believe I did a good job at this I know that it wasn’t at a high professional level, I would put that down to lack of practice as this assignment was the first time editing food to make it look very appetising.  If I was to do the project again then I would like to think I would keep a lot of the project the same, however I might decide to photograph more of the food in terms of how it is traditionally made and cooked, another aspect of it would be to photography a traditional family eating the food in the country it originated from.  I would do this to give more information into the foods and it culture.  

To achieve the advert on the back of the magazine I had to do multiple steps to get the look I was after. Firstly, I had to buy all the products for the shoot. These included; strawberries, strawberry yoghurt and fishing wire. To complete the shoot itself I set up my camera on a tripod and manually focused it on the yoghurt pot that was in the middle of the table. I then arranged the strawberry around the pot, for some of these I had to use small rocks to prop them into the position I wanted. Next I had to tie the fishing wire around the top of the strawberries, I had someone dangle the strawberries from the wire down to look like they were falling. I then took a separate shot of the yoghurt pot without any strawberries. Next I eliminated the shots I didn’t want and I was left with two images. I layered these on photoshop to edit away any visible parts of the fishing wire, I used the pen tool to go around the ‘floating’ strawberries to make them into a layer. I placed these into the image of the yoghurt pot. I made copied of these strawberries to make it look like they’re were more. I did a generally edit of the advert in order to turn the exposer up and make the image look more aesthetically pleasing. Finally, I placed text onto the advert to finish it off, this made it look more professional and completed the advert.