Seeking your thoughts and ideas - DIY Culture, progressive politics, and independent artists - film, zines, etc.

How bout something dealing with the fact that music seems to be just music now-a-days. It's heart felt, it's fun, it's a good thing to have when you need a "break" but what happened to revolutions revolving around music? Now it's more or less an "artists" thing at shows or who looks good in what.
How about something dealing with the fact that music is a good place to start because people naturally migrate towards it for commoradary. Everyone seeks acceptance however the overall mood of the country is not accepting. It is bashing. It's easy to attack the one's who speak out and look different who willingly show their view on a given topic. but what about the ones who are quiet. the ones with power?? Music brings people together in ways nothing else really does and with that sort of belonging and attachment it could be an unstopable force.
Americans need to do more to change things. The generation we're in is highly resourceful but something is missing.. some big fucking motivation.

the expectation that revolutionary ideas, structures and struggle can and should be primarily located in entertainment culture is one of the most unfortunate developments of the last forty years.

I think I'm with you on this, Aaron, but could you indulge me by explaining what you mean by "entertainment culture"?

"If I can't dance, I don't want to be a part of your revolution."
-some dead jewish lady

Pretty standard misinterpretation of Goldman.

I'm pretty sure Emma Goldman was saying that punk rock is the only viable means of freeing ourselves from the shackles of an oppressive and exploitative society.

I'm not referring to the mainstream entertainment industry. I mean it very generally -- music, punk rock, or any music-oriented subculture. It will always have apolitical and political aspects, and in general I see it as a zero sum game. Music and the subcultures that form around it aren't reliable vehicles for revolution. It's too dependent on aesthetics, which like all fashion is fickle and fluctuates. Also, the only thing that really holds it all together is the impulse to have fun. While the impulse to have fun can be a wonderfully creative force, it's a weak foundation for revolution. It's shallow and unreliable.

Yeah I would agree with you. I think art (I consider music within this category) can be revolutionary, and can be a great tool of any movement, but cannot be the basis of the movement itself.

not to step on aaron's toes, since his response is great. I think it might help to expand on the various definitions and characteristics behind and that support his response.

Stemming out of the work of Adorno and Horkheimer which coined the term CULTURE INDUSTRY to address the emerging technologies and their proscription to further install Capitalist domination across the totality of an individual's daily life.

The Culture Industry consisted of the newly introduced radio, popular hobby/lifestyle/celebrity magazines, film, etc of the middle 20th century. By examining the messages and modus of entertainment media, Adorno and Horkheimer came to blow apart the artifice that concealed the Capitalist ideology.

Meaning that Capitalist modes of production colonized the realms of art, aesthetics, leisure. Vacations were invented by Corporations at the same time other Corporations were opening vacation spots, resorts, theme park tourist sites. So much so that, an individual's personal time, the time away from work, took on the same structure and rigor of work. Not only were other individuals employed to work at these new vacation sites, but the vacation became an extension of coordinated planning, budgeting, time management, etc.

Just as Corporations and Capitalist Captains of Industry started sponsoring the arts, hiring architechs to design aesthetically innovative/ progressive structures. All in an attempt to make the Capitalist modes of productions acquire an aesthetic appearence of its own. An artifice that politicized aesthetics within the crushed unity of the new means of economic domination.

Today we see an almost completed landscape of unified entertainment structures. Meaning that the culture monolopies have consumed all the means of production and co-opted all the aesthetic responses to those means of production. So while synergy designs the news coverage of a new entertainment product (radio, tv, internet blitz of ads, interviews, behind the scenes exposes - just dressed up advertisments consumer interest and demand is created, nurtured, and extended.

In other words, as the single event (say a movie) which has a one time purchase price (admission ticket), continues to make purchases possible by selling magazines, bringing audiences to tv/radio/internet site advertisers, etc. all of these are part and parcel of the entertainment industry, producing a myraid of products that ultilize the entire scope of media available. All these appearences consitute the real product being sold to the consumer.

Therefore, the entertainment culture is one in which all those various appearences are vital and important to the consumer, while at the same time appearing as seperate aesthetic products (some praising others criticizing) one aspect of designed entertainment.

Because the entainment culture's near triumph over everyday life, one has to be suspect of any uptick of lucidity or snide conjoling of revolution as just another potential lifestyle choice, arriving complete with its pre-requiste media cohesion. In other words, a punk rock band no matter how motivating, revolting or threatening, it is still just a rock band making music - a form that exists first and foremost subsumed in the culture/entertainment industry.

Hope that helps.

which one of us spent all day watching Dr. Who and adding album artwork to his itunes.

What a depressing thought: no matter what you do artistically or your motivation for doing so, you're still a part of it, still contributing to the problem.

Yeah, it would seem that way. Especially, if one sets out to try to make a real business, make-your-living sort of thing out of it. The modes and methods of captialist production (including all of its discourses of budgets, payrolls, taxation, etc) are stacked against the small time operator.

In addition to that, when a band, label, magazine, etc starts to move toward a more professional/careerist model, the more it moves into an arena where it is woefully outclassed. The only thing it will do well is generate alienation and failure.

The initial subculture/specialist interest that supported and sustained the amatuerish/non-profitable operations will feel betrayed as the media starts covering aspects of that subculture/hobby that are more general and mainstream. This is done in order to appeal to a wider audience, maybe a more popular audience or a first time reader/ potential enthusiast. But those mainstream/ wealthier/ more casual audience already have more established media that provide them with a branded name association (authority) while presenting their pre-designed coverage of other corporate products with greater access and sophistication.

In the end the original (small, poorer) audience feels betrayed and abandoned, while the more mainstream audience recoils at the slim coverage and overt amatuerishness of the emerging media.

Are there ways to create communities and media that exist somehow under the radar or free of these systems? I am not sure. But the best answer, I have found resides, in COURAGE and GENEROSITY.

So not expecting this series of comments, amazing. In turn, these comments get me thinking about the role of transaction in creating art. If part of the creation of art is someone viewing it, taking it in, immersing themselves in what you're doing, take Punk Planet and all of us as readers or contributors over the years, how do you accomplish this without some attention of some kind?

Blog - http://bentanzer.blogspot.com/ - This Blog Will Change Your Life

I'm not about to quibble with R.John's impressive summary of Adorno and Horkheimer. But I would pause to suggest that the seemingly hoplessness of this summary is not in keeping with the spirit of either thinker. With the rise of post-Fordism and the recent emergence of techno-capitalism, the culture industry's role (for lack of a better word) is increasingly important in reinforcing the hegemony of Corporations and the Capitalist Ideology. But, as both Adorno and Horkheimer would suggest (and borrowing a bit from Gramsci here), resignation is not the approriate response [and I'm not saying R.John is making that point, but I'm responding to the tone of resignation in Miranda's response]. Aaron is quite right to bemoan the naive notion that the entertainment industry is a site for revolution. But resistance and counter-hegemonic spaces can be created anywhere. While it is foolish to assume that punk (or any other art form) will cause a revolution, I think it is important to continue carving out those spaces, even though appropriation is imminent. So, as R. John says Courage and Generosity, combined with healthy doses of Patience and Humility

...largely with what's been written here but surely none of you assume that revolution, in and of itself, has no aesthetics.

No, you're not. People need art and music and culture. Revolution is worthless without these things. The idea that art and music is somehow outside the realm of human necessity is flawed.

Of course, the necessity of art, music, etc is not in question. Nor is there, at least from me, a desire to proscribe what should constitute revolutionary (and counter-revolutionary) art.

But I think BORN AGAINST named it best - THE REBEL SOUND OF SHIT AND FAILURE.