Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 59

Thread: Do aesthetics map to politics?

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    29,990

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    18,758

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Corpsey View Post
    It's no big secret that this thread is a spin on my old quest to understand why hippy art is so eyebleedingly awful.
    The absolute acme of this is the art you see on and in buildings used as community spaces by people who are a bit alternative*, or businesses such as cafés that operate as adjuncts to these sorts of spaces. It's the same aesthetic in Brighton, Camden Town, the studentier/cheaper parts of east Oxford, much of Bristol, bits of Birmingham. The elements are always the same: flying saucers/aliens/robots, goblins/pixies/fairies/wizards/witches, big spotty mushrooms, cannabis leaves or giant spliffs. The odd pyramid or Stonehenge trilithon in the background. Not usually much that's politically explicit, unless it's a CND logo. There's one near where I live that shows an anthropomorphic brain running joyously off in the horizon, having broken out of a brain-prison.

    *It's never specified what they're an alternative to - it's a word that functions as an adjective in its own right: alternative qua alternative.
    Quote Originally Posted by woops
    i hate sigs

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Mr. Tea For This Useful Post:


  4. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    10,531

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shiels View Post
    Is it partly because much of it involves no-budget, low tech failed attempts to represent the impossible shifting geometry of psychedelic vision, and it's spurned out into a sometimes quite non-judgmental environment (not enough constructive feedback, the discipline that would be enforced by hierarchy or cash incentive)
    I like this -

    So in this analysis, there are plenty of hippies in attendance who can see the painting is hideous, but are simply too nice to say so?

    I was operating under the assumption that their aesthetic taste is fundamentally blasted.
    Αι ψυχαί οσμώνται καθ΄ Άιδην.

  5. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Belfast
    Posts
    517

    Default

    Fascist art is aggressively saying ‘this is the best way’, psychedelic art aims to represent infinite possibility and perspective (and almost always fails because you obv have to eventually pick one)

    I was thinking about this in the context of the acid communism thread on here. And thought that if you take the principles of that approach to their logical conclusion (the idea of the individual being the problem) then should the artistic / aesthetic approach aim to destroy the figure of the artist completely? Would it move into new collective forms of authorship and ownership? Is that kind of what the early surrealist movement tried to do?

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to shiels For This Useful Post:


  7. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    10,531

    Default

    An example of a collective art form might be the ancient Egyptian style, which remained more or less unchanged for centuries. There was no room there for the individual genius of an artist. But it was also very very disciplined. There was A WAY to do things from which no Tiye, Nkosi or Ammon could deviate.
    Αι ψυχαί οσμώνται καθ΄ Άιδην.

  8. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    On the bus
    Posts
    2,141

    Default

    Threads got me wondering how many here were sporting baggy pants and longer hair back in the 90s. I can see luka all baggy with a center parting.

    Tension is a good shout. Today's style is all about it. Skinny fits n all that.
    Took a rest stop that wasn't on the schedule

  9. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    29,990

    Default

    Everyone wore baggy trousers in the early 90s. Even if your brain was able to conceive of tight trousers you'd have to get them handmade for you by a tailor cos shops didn't sell them. Things got more fitted a little later on in the garage era. Round your way everyone wore goatskin pantaloons handed down by their grandad and a scuffed Barbour jacket. Different world.

  10. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    10,531

    Default

    That's a good point.

    I've read somewhere that the average length of hair grows and shortens according to the economic health of a culture. Under this theory the recession led to a cutback in hair and (I'm spitballing) a tightening of trousers.
    Αι ψυχαί οσμώνται καθ΄ Άιδην.

  11. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    7,145

    Default

    I had long hair and tight trousers in the 2000s, now I have short hair and loose trousers.

  12. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    10,531

    Default

    The main fashion I have observed in the last half decade is for not wearing socks. Baring your ankles. Sort of a reverse Victorian table leg aesthetic.

    Are these things just arbitrary? Or are they trying to tell us something, the yoot dem?
    Αι ψυχαί οσμώνται καθ΄ Άιδην.

  13. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    29,990

    Default

    Nothing more upsetting than seeing pale hairy English ankles

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to luka For This Useful Post:


  15. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    29,990

    Default

    Some people link short hair to militarisation. Muscles and buzz cuts. Reagan era. Trump era.

  16. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    7,145

    Default

    I don't wear socks when I'm on my own inside, but I always wear them when I go out. That loafers with no socks look is so bad.

  17. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    29,990

    Default

    Fine if you're an Italian gigilo

  18. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    29,990

    Default

    Not if you're some egg and chips man from Basingstoke

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •