Comments on: The Decline of Western Civilization &c. [screening] http://www.twotreatises.org/254 Wed, 09 Nov 2011 20:29:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Chris http://www.twotreatises.org/254/comment-page-1#comment-15 Chris Wed, 21 Mar 2007 06:14:03 +0000 http://www.twotreatises.org/words/?p=254#comment-15 I wish I still had the books and i'd look more into the punk humor (i don't remember which books talked about the humor, to be honest) but ya. I was meaning to look more in detail at the whole thing. And that wasnt exactly my thesis, i guess it wasn't clear. I was more getting at the irony of a movement so opposed to culture and so defined against "normal" actually re-presenting and reinforcing that culture, ultimately becoming a part of it. Essentially (from my perspective) you can't escape culture, and even though you can change and affect it, sub or countercultures still constitute the common culture. And on another note, it's very hard to classify any cultural system because it's all so related (even though some might try to deny it). cases in point: people who think punk is/isn't dead. rock is/isn't dead. rock is different and/or the same as rock 'n' roll. And that's where finding a "where it all went wrong" moment or even clear revolutionary aims becomes difficult... Every group and statement has it's own context and meaning, goals, and aims. And elitist attempts to pigeonhole groups categories and movements largely miss their true value and influence. And as for the loss of communication if the words cannot be understood. I'd hafta go with no on the grounds that the meaning is largely fixed in the setting, people, dress, opinions, thoughts, and actions largely free from the actual auditory channel. There's so much other protest-signifing symbols. I'd assume those presents still see the events as rebellious in nature. Beyond that (and perhaps more importantly) the drunken slurring might itself be an even more rebellious (punk, as it were) act in nature than saying the actual world. I wish I still had the books and i’d look more into the punk humor (i don’t remember which books talked about the humor, to be honest) but ya. I was meaning to look more in detail at the whole thing. And that wasnt exactly my thesis, i guess it wasn’t clear. I was more getting at the irony of a movement so opposed to culture and so defined against “normal” actually re-presenting and reinforcing that culture, ultimately becoming a part of it. Essentially (from my perspective) you can’t escape culture, and even though you can change and affect it, sub or countercultures still constitute the common culture. And on another note, it’s very hard to classify any cultural system because it’s all so related (even though some might try to deny it). cases in point: people who think punk is/isn’t dead. rock is/isn’t dead. rock is different and/or the same as rock ‘n’ roll. And that’s where finding a “where it all went wrong” moment or even clear revolutionary aims becomes difficult… Every group and statement has it’s own context and meaning, goals, and aims. And elitist attempts to pigeonhole groups categories and movements largely miss their true value and influence.

And as for the loss of communication if the words cannot be understood. I’d hafta go with no on the grounds that the meaning is largely fixed in the setting, people, dress, opinions, thoughts, and actions largely free from the actual auditory channel. There’s so much other protest-signifing symbols. I’d assume those presents still see the events as rebellious in nature. Beyond that (and perhaps more importantly) the drunken slurring might itself be an even more rebellious (punk, as it were) act in nature than saying the actual world.

]]>