I.
I have given one reason to think about a meaning of punk: my own love of it and the difficulty of growing up and having to think through positions one cherished when younger. If I may congratulate myself for a moment, I think this is a necessary and commendable process. No thought should go unexamined. Anyone who finds my definition of punk at age 23 to be "dissembling" and "back-pedaling," is critiquing two things: 1) my biography, and 2) argument. On the other hand, this anonymous comment gives neither of those things. So it does not deserve to be taken seriously. But it does open up a complaint I have about punk.
The other reason to think about punk is that punk sucks. I have never seen such a crybaby, back-biting, unexamined mess, which manages to accommodate all sorts of lowlifes, burnouts, morons, assholes, talentless hacks, and ass-kissers. Talk about stunted growth! Rampant scenesterism and self-congratulation, the idea that we'll be fine if we just stay in one place--I WANT NO PART. If that was all I thought punk could be--and you see that I have more interest in it that to concede defeat on that count--it would not be worth contemplating.
You'll notice that my definition of punk had nothing to do with other human beings. Think about it. To me, hanging out is hanging out. I love it, but it isn't what makes punk. I'd like to see how many punks, in total isolation for years on end, would come out with any relevant or interesting principles.
This post has to admit that it will make no impact, however, and that the position it is trying to persuade is already too entrenched. I know how little interest our culture has in self-examination: hence the failure of psychoanalysis in America, but given the tendency of anonymous readers of this blog to completely and prejudicially misread what I write, I have no confidence that punk (in someone else's definition) is open to rethinking itself--either as I have, or some other way. And that's a shame.
I am all for likes being surrounded by likes. BUT FOR GOD'S SAKE MAKE IT INTERESTING. If it will somehow be "punk" to give a big "fuck you" to any definition of punk that means boring people leading boring lives and having boring conversations, resisting anything resembling "overanalzying" their boring decisions and predictable responses, then consider my previous post a call to all punks to have a dialectical relationship with punk-- to arrive at it again and know it for the first time.
II.*
(*edit)
Because of a history of being misunderstood, scarcely read, and widely disliked, I should add several things to head off such wrongheadedness here.
The anonymous commenter in the previous post, aside from a number of other embarrassing oversights, rudely took as over-literal the rhetorical contrition of these posts. I am wringing my hands in public about punk--and I hope anyone will concede that growing up, if done right, has to make some tough choices about what goes and what stays. I have made up my mind: punk stays. It would have been easy enough for me to trot out the opposite conclusion, and with some sophistry and argumentation, have declared my maturity and say that I had outgrown an important but now-detachable chapter of my life. I have not done so.
Moreover, I am not sure that I actually have anything to wring my hands about, except rhetorically--that is, nothing to "backpedal" about, except somewhat rarefied concerns which our anonymous commenter can count his blessings to never have had to contend with.
In short, all I have said is:
1) Punk is something that we try to adhere to, as something with meaning, and ironically, it is only as individuals and as a collective that is has that meaning. So, it is a construct, and I have tried to explain in what that construct consists.
2) And decided that it would have to do with two histories: a) that of rock music, in which it is a revolution, and b) that of anti-Christian, anti-bourgeois thinking of the last few centuries. Add to that the newer conception of DIY, and this I declared to be punk.
Somewhat more personally, I would ask (rhetorically) to anyone who knows me, if it seems at all probable that I should ever be acceptable to the "enemy" which I was beating my chest about in the last post. I have never been at home anywhere socially, except in the company of one or two like minds--and it is ludicrous to imagine that I would somehow be able to doff my awkward, contrary ways, shedding punk "values" to become a complete (or successful) norm. If anything, that seems further from the case now than ever--if punk is to be measured by owning the new Fucked Up record, well, then I enthusiastically qualify. Maybe by some other definitions, I would not qualify, but I'll be damned if I'll allow anyone to imply that I have become a likable, harmless person.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Ben
My experience with punk has been a downward spiral of disillusionment, culminating in the following unfortunate conclusions: I find punk as a cultural institution to be 1) politically vapid, 2) aesthetically stagnant, 3) socially exclusive, and 4) generally conservative.
To elaborate..
1) I find statements such as "George Bush is the devil" to be equally as faulty/repugnant/anti-progressive as "God hates fags." (As chiasm-John once pointed out, when a group of people refuses to believe in the slightest possibility of politician X doing anything good, X would be unwise politically to consider their interests). I can almost say that have not found one interesting political statement in all of my experience with punk communities. There is an inevitable regression towards misleading sloganeering, group-mind authoritarian morals, and ineffective activism.
2) Apart from the initial rule-breaking of late-70s punk groups there has been basically no noteworthy musical progression for three decades! That is a crazy amount of time to stick to one formula! Considering the motivation and talent of the bands that have performed during that time, I find punk's dedication to such a simplistic musical style harmful to modern culture. Punk music, IMO, is extreme aesthetic conservatism masquerading as rebellion. The true punk music of the 20th century (as evidenced by its utter inability to be commodified into 'bourgeois' culture)?: SCHOENBERG.
3) This is more a critique of certain punk communities that I have interacted with, and shouldn't be applied universally, but punk has always struck me as an "in-crowd for the outsiders"... an environment in which social rejects are given an alternate playing-field on which they can succeed by different tactics. Instead of playing football to get ahead you can play in a band. An inconsequential difference, I think-- the same group-mind hierarchies and fad structures remain. The loner is the only punk, and I have never met a punk who is also a loner. In other words punk culture fails by not providing a space for the individual.
4) In most cases I have found that punk culture nurtures a certain closed-mindedness crossed with self-righteousness leading to the formation of a singularly obstinate, misled, and unhelpful human being. This is not meant to be an indictment of punk as compared to any other better youthcultural movement (hippies, noiesfreaks, etc.) but simply an attempt to point out what I find to be deeply harmful tendencies AGAINST individuality, leading towards mass closed-minded approaches to political/philosophical thought, music, art, and social interaction.
Now, I know you mention these aspects of punk, but it seems to me you consider them only to be the current unfortunate state of punk. I think it is an essential fall-- something collapsing under its own boring weight. It is high time we forget about punk, leave it as an interesting cultural blip followed by decades of wasteful, depressed stagnation. Go back to sadly truncated cultural threads that demand rehabilitation, by which I mean those of the pre-war avant-garde.
Nate
A number of rhetorical problems here:
- I am hardly advocating a politics of "George Bush is the devil"
- I don't think anywhere in my posts do I say that punk is politically intelligent or adept--preferring to cite Foucault, Derrida, and Marx in that regard
- I disagree as far as there being "one formula" and "no noteworthy progression," but what can I say? I listen to this music quite closely and more broadly than you must. Yours is a common complaint, although one I don't think is borne out. I would say that punk is a "classicism" rather than a conservatism, though.
- I don't see how Schoenberg is the "true punk music of the 20th century"--although this itself is already a tired cliche. Lots of things have not been commodified into bourgeois culture--Japanese Noh theater, for instance--without being punk. Put on Schoenberg and then the Ramones (I'm not joking). I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
- As far as punk culture failing to provide a space for the individual, clearly I grapple with that in my post--I am not winning any popularity contests in "the scene"--but on the other hand I am wary of these formulations (punk is for loners, punk is rebellion, punk is anything musically cutting-edge). This complaint could easily be "spun" into a positive...a lot of kids are looking for friends who also don't fit in...by one's mid-20s, this may be dissatisfying, but I certainly have made a number of fabulous friends in punk. That is, I completely disagree with you on this count.
- As far as producing close-minded human beings, with no interest in philosophy or art, I can only offer myself as a counter-example.
I am shocked that your comment concludes by valorizing THE AVANT GARDE--but that is another can of worms. Suffice it to say, I find that scene to be a sad spectacle indeed, and not at all innocent of the charges you here lay against punk, and with a definite "Emperor's New Clothes" complex to boot.
Also, I know at least four people named NATE, so you should specify! "Nate" might as well be an anonymous post, in my world.
To recap, I would respond:
1) not politically vapid, but not up to the task. why listen to song-lyrics when you could read a book? But this is true of all music.
2) not aesthetically stagnant, but certainly classicist.
3) socially exclusive, I don't know...they took me!
4) generally conservative--this seems to be an anecdotal/cliched criticism...I have met so many interesting people in punk, who have been so productive for my personality and experiences, that I must disagree and cite a profound anecdotal counter-reservoir.
Post a Comment