reposted from Kenny's journal - Tim Kinsella being awesome

[radicalcheer]

"Beirut. The Patriot Act. Palestine. Africa. Wal-Mart. Clear Channel. Peak oil. Global devastation. The backward talk of those in power that dominates and suffocates our cultural discourse. Overpopulation. The dawning of neo-feudalist Theocracy in America. It's a busy, interesting place we've got here. Lots of information aimed at us. The hidden

Comments

[colorme420]

My retort wasn't designed to be considered sincere after the first paragraph. No, the essay isn't primarily about government; I was riffing off of Ryan's reply. But it does involve the consumer, albeit implicitly:

"We must integrate our politics into our lifestyle, acknowledge that every bridge, hook, melody and sales strategy has political demensions."

Tim K seemingly understands the concept of voting with money. However, it doesn't appear that he grasps (at least not fully) the intrinsic integration of politics into lifestyle -- if so, why would he say "We must...", when it's inherent that we always are.

What is relevant? The answer, in short, is relative: Who or what are we attempting to be relevant to? Lets analyze:

Is it relevant to political discourse and cultural influences? Yes, it does -- as you mentioned -- appear to acknowledge the relationship of politics reflecting cultural ideals, and cultural ideals, in turn, reflecting political realities.

But is the purpose of the essay to simply entertain, to create a climate of cultural introspection, or both? It was my assumption that this essay's intention was the latter. But I abhor the effort for its lack of scalability.

I don't mean to imply that cultural introspection through satire is meaningless or irrelevant. On the contrary, I feel its vital to democracy. But Tim K's effort is specifically geared toward those within a specific subculture, or demographic cross-section -- my parents, for example, wouldn't identify with any of its content. This is why I called it elitist, or scene.

Tim juxtaposed serious issues with real political ramifications and a need for bands to break up. Why? Where is the connection? Wal-Mart and Palestine? Sure, that's politically relevant. But bands within a very narrow sub-genre needing to break up? That's a matter of taste.

Artist collectives may habitually steal from and imitate each other, but do so despite the actual political climate of their time. Artists will always reflect the content of their culture, and in that content, the politics of said culture. But this is a relationship that doesn't change as long as artists have the freedom to express as much. Only in their inability to express themselves would the politics of a culture surface. For example: Elizabethan playwrights were barred from writing about the church. Such cases would assuredly serve as valid acid tests.

But is Tim K's concern with bands imitating each other a valid acid test for cultural introspection? Hardly. At least not when artists have no real restrictions on what they create. Rather, his essay is a rant about his own personal tastes. If he doesn't appreciate imitated or unoriginal art, then he shouldn't delve too deep into any one genre, as imitation is ubiquitously rampant across all genres of all art forms.

It seemed to me that he used relevant issues (eg: Palestine, etc...) to piggyback in his own personal opinion about contemporary music. Like sand in the bulls eyes -- a filibuster for the indy-masses -- he disoriented his audience and rambled incessantly, as if entertaining them would distract them further from noticing the connection his content lacked.

Maybe I should have said "half-relevant".