XXXTentacion - ?

Which is daft even in isolation from all this

I don't know much about this guy's music so I might be way off here but are people in danger of downplaying the extent to which the nasty, vicious, transgressive side might be, for a significant enough minority of his fanbase, actually part of the appeal? I mean it's not like we aren't living in a world where lots of repellent moral voids amass huge followings, the internet is a sewer of men who are old enough to know better explaining away or downplaying abuse or worse, not to mention creepy incel types or whatever.

I'm not talking about teenagers being teenagers here, or people who connected with his music for other reasons, but it doesn't feel like it can be neatly or easily separated from everything else that's happening right now.

Xpost: Hey I also wrote that comment!

Congrats, you are now a graduate of the dog whistle school of "he was no angel".

my point, I guess, in retrospect is: this guy shouldn't be lauded for anything. he seems to have been a horrible, violent, misogynist and he's not a legitimate artist either so don't come back with "separate the man from the art" arguments (not that anyone here is) because his art is fake too.

― akm, Monday, June 25, 2018 4:40 PM (fifty-two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is just a weird way to parse this problem to me ... if him abusing women isn't going to stop someone from disliking him why would "he doesnt even make his own songs" puff daddy criticism going to be the final straw

"his art is fake" welcome to art 101

I'm sure it must have occurred to somebody/anybody that as with many rap artists, "authenticity" is considered an asset-- and for many rap fans, that means a history of poverty and criminality.

Which is to say, an XXXTentacion fan could have zero desire to beat women, and could even condemn XXXTentacion's violence toward women, but still have that objectifying part of them where their appreciation for their favourite rapper's work is increased by their perceived hardness, their perceived criminality

I myself do not digest music (rap or otherwise) this way and smile politely whenever any artist gets to the part where they make claims within or without their practice, claims that project themselves closer toward their desired position (aesthetically and politically) within their genre of choice-- whether it's affectation of criminality, affectation of DIY, affectation of community, affectation of "safe space", affectation of poverty, or whatever.

i think most of his fans loved x because they felt that he spoke to them and for them, not because he was hard or authentic or a horrible misogynist. Unfortunately.

why not both? especially in this particular moment?

I’m sure it can be both, but at this particular moment I’m not sure polarizing things is the way to go. I’ve had quite a few conversations with young and heartbroken x fans this week and they all feel as if the media is misrepresenting what they feel is the essential part of what he meant to them by focusing on the controversy instead of the music. I always try to argue that you can’t wholly separate those entities when it comes to x, but these people mostly seem to come from somewhere genuine.

I mean, I believe his main group of fans — not people who just casually liked the songs but have an idea of who he was — are people in their teens/early 20s, both male and female, who see a conflicted, even violent, relationship and internal angst as romantic

cynically, I think the same people thought Jared Leto’s Joker character was really cool

that’s fair. i also feel like the misogyny of this moment and the way notoriety is a better way to get attention than discussion of one’s music - not to mention the extremely well worn trope of the tortured artist who has to work out their demons by abusing the women who support him - needs to be at least nodded at.

i don’t doubt that elsewhere on soundcloud there are artists who can speak to adolescent pain as concisely and provocatively. but they didn’t get the “mugshot as promo photo” leg up and it’s fucked up to even think of that as a “leg up.” american culture has always fetishized the outlaw and teenage culture fetishizes the rebel Who Is Just Saying but this is another level.

xp

Cynically, I think most true fans of music at some point fall in love w an artist who is not - strictly speaking - good for them.

Xp

I don’t disagree with you, Maura. I’m not comfortable w his notoriety either. I do think that a good part of this has to do with him being the guy who captures a general cultural hopelessness the best for a lot of young listeners atm. They love him because he defied genres and limits in so many ways, and they identify with a certain radical vulnerability that doesn’t code as «hiphop» to them but goes straight to sone sort of depressed essence.

yeah i think you’re right on that point.

I'm trying to discern whiney and deej's positions aside from everyone is wrong and corny?

i am arguing against what i think are actively harmful/useless ideological positions

I'm sure it must have occurred to somebody/anybody that as with many rap artists, "authenticity" is considered an asset-- and for many rap fans, that means a history of poverty and criminality.

Which is to say, an XXXTentacion fan could have zero desire to beat women, and could even condemn XXXTentacion's violence toward women, but still have that objectifying part of them where their appreciation for their favourite rapper's work is increased by their perceived hardness, their perceived criminality

I myself do not digest music (rap or otherwise) this way and smile politely whenever any artist gets to the part where they make claims within or without their practice, claims that project themselves closer toward their desired position (aesthetically and politically) within their genre of choice-- whether it's affectation of criminality, affectation of DIY, affectation of community, affectation of "safe space", affectation of poverty, or whatever.

― nevertheless, he stopped (flamboyant goon tie included), Monday, June 25, 2018 5:48 PM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

hip-hop's relationship to authenticity is imo so much more complex than the caricature captured here ... but this is a problem in general w continental philosophy which believes in an absolute ability to transcend identity vs. a philosophical pov in which there's an absolute racial boundary which cannot be 'transcended'

there are absurd ways in which authenticity is valued but there are also legitimate ones! and this is eternally negotiable ie, does this person represent ideas of a community or do they falsify experience in the pursuit of capital, what hyperbole is ok in terms of artistic license & what is exploitative, ppl benefiting for themselves from the stories of others, etc.

im not saying this abt xxx in particular who has a very particular relationship to the authentic, but acting as if 'authenticity' doesn't mean difft things in different contexts & doesnt serve a purpose is misleading imo

but this is a problem in general w continental philosophy which believes in an absolute ability to transcend identity

Please expand.

there are absurd ways in which authenticity is valued but there are also legitimate ones

Feel free to expand on this, too, because I don’t think “authenticity” is ever a legitimate value. It’s always bullshit. At best it’s harmless bullshit, like astrology, but at worst it’s literally lethal.

i mean you can say the same of pretty much any concept! 'science' 'rationality' etc

'the economy'

like no conceptual generality is 'real' its a shortcut for articulating more complex concepts

OK, so which complex concepts do you think are well articulated through discussions of authenticity?

Feel free to expand on this, too, because I don’t think “authenticity” is ever a legitimate value. It’s always bullshit. At best it’s harmless bullshit, like astrology, but at worst it’s literally lethal.

― grawlix (unperson), Monday, June 25, 2018 9:48 PM (eight minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i. there is a greyzone where concerns about 'authenticity' (seen as illegitimate) bleeds into 'cultural appropriation' (seen as legitimate)

ii. i kind of disagree w fgti that his work and relationship to others' can so neatly sidestep authenticity concerns, even though i feel similarly ambivalent to it. i think connection always evokes curiosity about who the person behind the work of art really is, and extramusical aspects of an artist will tend do try to affirm the authenticity of the artistic representation

iii. people usually talk about it in terms of like 'are rappers really drug dealers?' or 'daniel johston was actually depressed' or 'are these punk bands just rich art kids playing dressup?' but imo even something banal like the way 90s indie bands presented themselves dressed in plain clothes, speaking naturally, unpretentiously, even self-deprecatingly, is a signal that reaffirms the authenticity of those same qualities in the music

iv. isn't all music/art just 'harmless bullshit' anyways? *takes bong rip*

i. there is a greyzone where concerns about 'authenticity' (seen as illegitimate) bleeds into 'cultural appropriation' (seen as legitimate)

I also reject the idea of cultural appropriation, ftr.

OK, so which complex concepts do you think are well articulated through discussions of authenticity?

― grawlix (unperson), Tuesday, 26 June 2018 02:14 (twenty-eight minutes ago) Permalink

there are absurd ways in which authenticity is valued but there are also legitimate ones! and this is eternally negotiable ie, does this person represent ideas of a community or do they falsify experience in the pursuit of capital, what hyperbole is ok in terms of artistic license & what is exploitative, ppl benefiting for themselves from the stories of others, etc.

im not saying this abt xxx in particular who has a very particular relationship to the authentic, but acting as if 'authenticity' doesn't mean difft things in different contexts & doesnt serve a purpose is misleading imo

― Listen to my homeboy Fantano (D-40), Monday, June 25, 2018 7:50 PM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I think appropriation almost shortchanges this convo bc it can also be an intercommunity debate not just one between internal & external forces

maura otm

deej v interesting response. Wasn't trying to simplify "rap's relationship to authenticity" at all-- tho I realize I kind of did-- was just trying to point out that one can condemn XXX's crimes and yet still have his criminality contribute to an authenticity narrative-- or in Whiney's obit's case, a maverick-narrative

So much of this stuff I feel is directly linked to specifically-American concepts of exceptionalism. There was a trailer for some Jennifer Garner movie where a cartel kills her family so she trains herself toward vigilante justice. I watched the trailer like "this is all the same fucking shit", but anyway, whatever, I'll save it for my journal

In 2018 OJ would still have walked free it seems.

― ✖✖✖ (Moka), Monday, June 25, 2018 5:12 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

we're still talking about OJ Da Juiceman here right

Lock thread imo

Flop pass the bong

so far the only thing of value I've gotten out of this thread is a lol from Whiney's comparison of Andy Gibb to Kendrick Lamar.

that was a good lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivaBXBudr1I

lmao these kids have zero idea how big michael jackson was

XXXTentacion was on track to being bigger than Justin Bieber and Micheal Jackson... this is unfair 😔

— RiceGum (@RiceGum) June 18, 2018

"bigger than Darby Crash" just doesn't have the same ring to it

I don’t think “authenticity” is ever a legitimate value

lol is this "i don't see race" but for art? this is an entirely meaningless statement.

I'm inclined to agree that determining an artist's "authenticity", or measuring the value of their work by trying to gauge how authentic they are, is a fool's game.

it is an inherent quality to any work. not the sole defining one ofc but a quality.

there is a reason that when Miley Cyrus uses trap dancers only to discard them people take notice

it seems like if you are an art critic, trying to understand the personal motivation & cultural/social context of a work and the signifiers used within is important. history is important. context is important.

a fool's game yes but describing any subjective experience is a fool's game and everyone is a player.

trying to understand the personal motivation... is important

not really

& cultural/social context of a work and the signifiers used within is important

yes definitely

it is an inherent quality to any work. not the sole defining one ofc but a quality.

No it's not, because there's no such thing as "authenticity" in art. The very nature of art-making is the construction of a thing which is inauthentic, a representation. Unless you're talking about, say, an Abstract Expressionist painting which is literally just what it claims to be - an arrangement of colors on a surface. A Barnett Newman painting is "authentically" itself. But in music, "authenticity" is a way to reduce artists to clichés and stereotypes.

there is a reason that when Miley Cyrus uses trap dancers only to discard them people take notice

Yes, and that reason is "People are stupid and believe in bullshit myths about 'authenticity.'"

I'd go one further and argue that the very existence of the work itself - the medium that occupies the space that the artist and the audience interact on - by its very nature renders any judgment about the work's "authenticity" on the part of the audience as impossible. You never see the "authentic" or "real" artist, all you see is the work.

Οὖτις otm

You never see the "authentic" or "real" artist, all you see is the work.

Exactly. I mean, you could argue that XXXtentacion or Tekashi69 attempt(ed) to break down the barrier between their real selves and their artistic personae by getting giant tattoos on their faces, thus making it impossible for them ever to be anyone but who they are/were "onstage", but ultimately it's all still performance.

used to think that & preach that gospel, now rather think that none of anything is performance and that the supremacy of artifice is a myth we buy into because the possibility of authenticity is too terrifying to even consider, but that's just me

rolling deconstructing the face tat thread

the racially and economically loaded history of "authenticity" also makes it pretty unpalatable imo, the "othering" of locating some kind of "noble savage" authenticity within people that were not rich or European is where all this bullshit really stems from - black people have "soul", latinos are "passionate", poor people are "real" people etc. Why continue to perpetuate this nonsense.

xp