XXXTentacion - ?

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eginkPg4JI

the supremacy of artifice is a myth we buy into because the possibility of authenticity is too terrifying to even consider

well it's kind of a zero-sum thing, right? Either it's all artifice (hey, what is the "real" me anyway?) or it's all authentic. idg where terror comes into it, apart from the general terrifying fact of our existence in a cold, mechanistic universe, I guess.

xp

here's where I'm at, it sounds confrontational but I don't mean it that way: every single piece of art anybody makes tells me something about that person no matter how hard they may try to make it otherwise. art is inherently authentic, it's all self-expression, even John Cage couldn't shed self-expression though he spent his entire career in the attempt at & can be said to have died trying. that there is my take, I think all this "authenticity is a critical fallacy" stuff is old-hat new criticism baggage that should be cast off like an...old hat

it's all self expression but well what is the self, really

There is a signature, yes, as the artist leaves more or less identifiable traces all over the work, but the work is beyond the artist, mocking any and all attempts at appropriating the creative act. We may speak of degrees of inauthenticity, perhaps, but even that leaves much to be desired: who's to say the overlap of person and persona isn't an elaborate ruse on the work's part, for example?

every single piece of art anybody makes tells me something about that person no matter how hard they may try to make it otherwise

Yeah, but so does the persona they've created in which to make that art, is what I'm saying. There's always that layer in between. And the persona is part of the art, but to deny that there's a persona at all is BS.

To pick a specific example, Jim Osterberg is not Iggy Pop. But it tells you a lot about Jim Osterberg that he came up with "Iggy Pop." And you can sort of track, album by album, the process by which "Iggy Pop" took over, to the point that there's a whole category of what I call "The Adventures of Iggy" songs on his albums, particularly those from the 1990s and after.

It seems to me that "all art is self-expression" is only trivially true, in the sense that (more or less) all art is made by someone, and most someones have some interiority, so it's reasonable to assume that an artist's interiority somehow enters into the explanation for the art they made, if only fractionally. But plenty of art can be understood perfectly well without knowing a thing about the inner life of whoever made it, or without coming to understand the artist through the art.

Anyway I don't actually know where the conversation in this thread is headed but I've been reading A.C. Danto, The Transfiguration of the Commonplace, and I have been having thoughts, which means I have to post something.

This is old hat, no doubt about it, but I've yet to be convinced that the opposite paradigm is any more applicable and useful.

xp

I would like to subscribe to all of youse's newsletters

Consume my heart away; sick with desire
And fastened to a dying animal
It knows not what it is; and gather me
Into the artifice of eternity.

Thank God I know about Maud Gonne and Georgie Hyde Lees or I'd find little meaning in those lines.

MG iirc the dying animal

Hemiotics

But plenty of art can be understood perfectly well without knowing a thing about the inner life of whoever made it, or without coming to understand the artist through the art.

I know a lot of this is asked-and-answered for a lot of people, it was for me at one point too. but I've come think that when you know somebody's art, you understand something -- probably a big something -- about the person who made it. you don't know, like, where they live or what they had for breakfast necessarily, but the "me" you get from a person's art is probably more the "actual" person than the usually pretty tailored and practiced thing you get from talking to somebody. or living with somebody. this doesn't mean "if a guy sings about murder all the time he probably kills people" -- absurd, right -- but it's just as absurd to say that, say, Cannibal Corpse just happens to be singing about murder all the time. you have a good idea about what drives & inspires & fascinates & obsesses an artist from their themes, from the phrases & storylines & images they return to or avoid, etc etc. I don't think the art's separable from the person, nor is the persona, all that's a feint. that plenty of artists buy into the feint is interesting but in the end the personae you wear aren't external to you, they're just a version of you imo