I feel like Gruen’s article translates accurately with regard to the art market. His commercial rebellion is parallel to arts inherent capitalistic nature in that the two are recycled and brought into vogue to suite more corporate means. Over exposure and appropriation undermines an idea, and the pursuit for alternative expression continues. I feel like the androgyny in todays “art for arts sake” is especially pertinent when he mentions cool hunters “pastiche dead styles and ideas to create something that refuses meaning and categorization.” I’m totally going to start saying “cuntish.”
Potter’s article is a bit more aggressive in recognizing those faking radical or rebellious tendencies. I agree that many of today’s countercultures “romanticize criminality” bringing rebellion or alternative into the mainstream. “This ‘dropping out’ of the tea market in order to make your own does not really strike a blow against consumerism; it just creates a market for mare expensive, “all natural”, organic tea for those who do not have the time to grow it themselves.” Rebellion, in a way, is fueling it’s own fire. What he said about nuns is wrong though….nuns that say “fuck” are totally radical dude!
cassandra
April 9th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Cassandra Sechler 04/09
Both Gruen’s and Potter’s articles seemed to revolve around the subject of society and commodity.
Gruen’s article “Turning Rebellion into Money” was about recognizing the lack of rebellion through the act of just appropriating a past rebellion. What the Sex Pistols stood for had a time and a place, and sadly the punk lifestyle/sociopolitical statements to most people are now just style. What he said about the very action of selecting the pistols on his ipod seeming depressing hit a chord. It is strange how removed we are today from the past and how much it is taken for granted and appropriated with the purchase of a spiked wristband. The punk music and style is no longer an accessory to a movement but to fashion it seems, feeding the capitalist system that punk fought against.
In Potter’s article “The Rebel Sell” was more in depth regarding different levels of the capitalist structure and commodity, and posed a lot of questions about our over-stimulated and divided economy. I thought that the commentary on organic food was interesting. There really are people who think that because they can afford to buy all organic or home grown that they are better people and are supporting a better cause. But in the end it is still capitalism. Everything these days seems to go back and feed the system despite buyers intentions. And unless we want to go balls to the wall and become Thoreau or the over stressed unibomber, aka the romanticized psychopath, we must succumb to being part of the system that we all hate but can not escape without losing everything.
There’s a lot to be frustrated by in modern society– we live in a world where nothing is sacred and no one can be shocked. Many people seem so detached from reality that their lives appear to have no meaning. Airheads walk the earth wearing sparkly Clash tees from Wet Seal and search the mall looking for “cute” studded belts and claim “ooh, this is punk, i want this one.”
After reading both articles I couldn’t help but look around me on the bus and think about how ridiculous everything is and wonder if our generation has its own rebellious thoughts or if we just look like we do. On the other hand there are people who are angry about how things are and want a change, so I don’t think that punk is dead or a total commodity for everyone. The attitude exists with some people, just not for everyone who labels themselves as such. Maybe if people stopped taking advantage of the postmodern notion and actually attempted to stand for something then lifestyles might have more meaning than a copied thought or movement.
Daphne
April 9th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
“The Rebel Sell” discussed the negative effects of the Industrial Revolution on the world. It explains that the Industrial Revolution is causing physical and mental suffering, along with the destabilization of society. The continued effect of technology will worsen the situation also, the author writes. As the author calls for a revolution, he cannot say whether it will be violent or non-violent. Unabomber is discussed, a man who found our modern society wicked, mailing bombs to prominent enginerrs, lobbyists, scientists, etc. throughout the country to prove his point. People on the left related to Unabomber’s view extensively, reading his published work after he was caught. Many 60’s icons identified with his work.
“Eating French Bread” explains that shock is now passe nowadays. Shock value sweeps the mainstream everyday. The whole Punk movement was originally based on a Parisian group of artists/intellectuals from the 1950s called the “Situationists.” Today an industry of highly paid “cool hunters” roam looking for new activities and styles to sell. Rebellion is now the “new conformity.” It’s popular for everyone to fight the system. The media is being useful in suppressing what was once passionate and crucial for society to evolve and become better.
I really enjoyed both articles, because they opened my eyes to the gray areas in many of our beliefs. What’s the differences between the Unabomber acting on his beliefs, and any other person who believes these same values? Rebellion and shock are now sold to make money for industries. I believe it is true, I see it everyday. Media sells shock value everyday. But I believe the shock value the Media sells is artificial, and isn’t necessarily shocking. Especially not in a progressive way to make the world better. The only shock value media throws at us is violence, sex, and drugs. And we all knew that existed, right? C’mon now, I’m really not that shocked Mr. Media.
Aya
April 10th, 2008 at 1:18 am
Five years ago, when I saw my friends getting i pod, I thought it was just wasting money on things they do not really need. Now, I still do not have i pod, but I feel I do have to get one or have to learn about it. It was because I felt I have been left from the world which based on flooding information on growing technology. Sometimes, I feel like it sucks because I always have to try catching up its development. New things become normal things unless those are extremely unacceptable to the society. What those two people, Bob Gruen and Andrew Potter, meant in their essays is that nothing can be special, unique, or rebel, because society would accept it later. This system cannot be changed, because the change will be accepted as part of the system. Things they argued in their essays were what I have noticed, and sometimes been confused and upset about. As they said, there is no solution about the system. And there are only two way to live in this world; follow the system or totally get out of system, which is actually unspecializing way.
Stephanie Sorth
April 10th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
These two articles say that there is a system. It says that the system exists to regulate the rules and realities around us. They argue that instead of wasting time by fighting the establishment through countercultural behaviour, we should make the effort to reform and improve the structures that exist.
They go on to further show how counterculture behaviour cannot only arrest development, but that its antisocial ideas and actions can harm us. Instead of pointing fingers at the corporations that only sell us what we demand, we should be building a better society through real political process. This distinguishes thoughts and actions between dissent and deviance. Counterculture seems to fail because by its nature it always has to run away from the mainstream. It is reactive. We need to just do our own thing, I think, and if that’s accepted or not, well, just roll with it.
Jennytam
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:50 pm
“Eat French Bread” reminds me of this book I read a while ago (”Little Heroes” is what i think it was called) it was supposed to be a futuristic depiction of society, but it was written in the late 80’s-early 90’s. this is relevant to the article because i think that that was about the time punk-rock was going into full swing - and becoming massively popular. the basic premise of the book was that one conglomerate company had taken over all music (not just pop rock or jingles-ALL music). what did the rebellious kids have to work with? designer drugs and canned music straight from the corporation factory. eventually, someone who remembers what real music was all about crashes an event and puts on an original number. much like the slap in the face that is needed to remind us what the system wants us to think and what we’re trying to change it to. i agree on the points of counter-culturalists usually being reactive to the trends rather than starting a new or different path on reforming the system. they remind me very much of the poor villagers in a movie or video game that don’t fight the monster, but run away or become tricked into becoming devoured. but if the heroes never show up to slay the beast, that would mean the villagers must learn to at least tame it.
Chris Vogel 4/8
I feel like Gruen’s article translates accurately with regard to the art market. His commercial rebellion is parallel to arts inherent capitalistic nature in that the two are recycled and brought into vogue to suite more corporate means. Over exposure and appropriation undermines an idea, and the pursuit for alternative expression continues. I feel like the androgyny in todays “art for arts sake” is especially pertinent when he mentions cool hunters “pastiche dead styles and ideas to create something that refuses meaning and categorization.” I’m totally going to start saying “cuntish.”
Potter’s article is a bit more aggressive in recognizing those faking radical or rebellious tendencies. I agree that many of today’s countercultures “romanticize criminality” bringing rebellion or alternative into the mainstream. “This ‘dropping out’ of the tea market in order to make your own does not really strike a blow against consumerism; it just creates a market for mare expensive, “all natural”, organic tea for those who do not have the time to grow it themselves.” Rebellion, in a way, is fueling it’s own fire. What he said about nuns is wrong though….nuns that say “fuck” are totally radical dude!
Cassandra Sechler 04/09
Both Gruen’s and Potter’s articles seemed to revolve around the subject of society and commodity.
Gruen’s article “Turning Rebellion into Money” was about recognizing the lack of rebellion through the act of just appropriating a past rebellion. What the Sex Pistols stood for had a time and a place, and sadly the punk lifestyle/sociopolitical statements to most people are now just style. What he said about the very action of selecting the pistols on his ipod seeming depressing hit a chord. It is strange how removed we are today from the past and how much it is taken for granted and appropriated with the purchase of a spiked wristband. The punk music and style is no longer an accessory to a movement but to fashion it seems, feeding the capitalist system that punk fought against.
In Potter’s article “The Rebel Sell” was more in depth regarding different levels of the capitalist structure and commodity, and posed a lot of questions about our over-stimulated and divided economy. I thought that the commentary on organic food was interesting. There really are people who think that because they can afford to buy all organic or home grown that they are better people and are supporting a better cause. But in the end it is still capitalism. Everything these days seems to go back and feed the system despite buyers intentions. And unless we want to go balls to the wall and become Thoreau or the over stressed unibomber, aka the romanticized psychopath, we must succumb to being part of the system that we all hate but can not escape without losing everything.
There’s a lot to be frustrated by in modern society– we live in a world where nothing is sacred and no one can be shocked. Many people seem so detached from reality that their lives appear to have no meaning. Airheads walk the earth wearing sparkly Clash tees from Wet Seal and search the mall looking for “cute” studded belts and claim “ooh, this is punk, i want this one.”
After reading both articles I couldn’t help but look around me on the bus and think about how ridiculous everything is and wonder if our generation has its own rebellious thoughts or if we just look like we do. On the other hand there are people who are angry about how things are and want a change, so I don’t think that punk is dead or a total commodity for everyone. The attitude exists with some people, just not for everyone who labels themselves as such. Maybe if people stopped taking advantage of the postmodern notion and actually attempted to stand for something then lifestyles might have more meaning than a copied thought or movement.
“The Rebel Sell” discussed the negative effects of the Industrial Revolution on the world. It explains that the Industrial Revolution is causing physical and mental suffering, along with the destabilization of society. The continued effect of technology will worsen the situation also, the author writes. As the author calls for a revolution, he cannot say whether it will be violent or non-violent. Unabomber is discussed, a man who found our modern society wicked, mailing bombs to prominent enginerrs, lobbyists, scientists, etc. throughout the country to prove his point. People on the left related to Unabomber’s view extensively, reading his published work after he was caught. Many 60’s icons identified with his work.
“Eating French Bread” explains that shock is now passe nowadays. Shock value sweeps the mainstream everyday. The whole Punk movement was originally based on a Parisian group of artists/intellectuals from the 1950s called the “Situationists.” Today an industry of highly paid “cool hunters” roam looking for new activities and styles to sell. Rebellion is now the “new conformity.” It’s popular for everyone to fight the system. The media is being useful in suppressing what was once passionate and crucial for society to evolve and become better.
I really enjoyed both articles, because they opened my eyes to the gray areas in many of our beliefs. What’s the differences between the Unabomber acting on his beliefs, and any other person who believes these same values? Rebellion and shock are now sold to make money for industries. I believe it is true, I see it everyday. Media sells shock value everyday. But I believe the shock value the Media sells is artificial, and isn’t necessarily shocking. Especially not in a progressive way to make the world better. The only shock value media throws at us is violence, sex, and drugs. And we all knew that existed, right? C’mon now, I’m really not that shocked Mr. Media.
Five years ago, when I saw my friends getting i pod, I thought it was just wasting money on things they do not really need. Now, I still do not have i pod, but I feel I do have to get one or have to learn about it. It was because I felt I have been left from the world which based on flooding information on growing technology. Sometimes, I feel like it sucks because I always have to try catching up its development. New things become normal things unless those are extremely unacceptable to the society. What those two people, Bob Gruen and Andrew Potter, meant in their essays is that nothing can be special, unique, or rebel, because society would accept it later. This system cannot be changed, because the change will be accepted as part of the system. Things they argued in their essays were what I have noticed, and sometimes been confused and upset about. As they said, there is no solution about the system. And there are only two way to live in this world; follow the system or totally get out of system, which is actually unspecializing way.
These two articles say that there is a system. It says that the system exists to regulate the rules and realities around us. They argue that instead of wasting time by fighting the establishment through countercultural behaviour, we should make the effort to reform and improve the structures that exist.
They go on to further show how counterculture behaviour cannot only arrest development, but that its antisocial ideas and actions can harm us. Instead of pointing fingers at the corporations that only sell us what we demand, we should be building a better society through real political process. This distinguishes thoughts and actions between dissent and deviance. Counterculture seems to fail because by its nature it always has to run away from the mainstream. It is reactive. We need to just do our own thing, I think, and if that’s accepted or not, well, just roll with it.
“Eat French Bread” reminds me of this book I read a while ago (”Little Heroes” is what i think it was called) it was supposed to be a futuristic depiction of society, but it was written in the late 80’s-early 90’s. this is relevant to the article because i think that that was about the time punk-rock was going into full swing - and becoming massively popular. the basic premise of the book was that one conglomerate company had taken over all music (not just pop rock or jingles-ALL music). what did the rebellious kids have to work with? designer drugs and canned music straight from the corporation factory. eventually, someone who remembers what real music was all about crashes an event and puts on an original number. much like the slap in the face that is needed to remind us what the system wants us to think and what we’re trying to change it to. i agree on the points of counter-culturalists usually being reactive to the trends rather than starting a new or different path on reforming the system. they remind me very much of the poor villagers in a movie or video game that don’t fight the monster, but run away or become tricked into becoming devoured. but if the heroes never show up to slay the beast, that would mean the villagers must learn to at least tame it.