Man, kids these days? Friggin' soft. Bunch of whiny, entitled pansies with no exceptions. And the reason for this? Video games.
"Yeah, fuckin' vidjagames! Kids should be out playing football and punching each other in the sun and shit!" No, shut the fuck up. Wrong, wrong, wrong. The reason this generation is soft is because they never had to truly experience the vicious, mind rending frustration that was true "Nintendo Hard."
P.S. people pointing out that this flies straight into the face of an earlier post of mine, that post was about each generation sucking to approximately the same degree. I'm just getting stupidly specific about one aspect of the iGen-crowd's particular brand of suckiness.
See, back in the day, you didn't pass videogames while baked on a weekday, oh no. They required concentration, rationing and some pretty inspirational speeches from friends to pass. I personally remember the joy and fanfare experienced when I watched a young friend finally conquer Megaman 7 on the Super Nintendo Entertainment System. That final boss was a colossus and he was toppled, toppled I say! Defeating Bowser in Super Mario 64 for the last time, after you've chased that fucker around for 120 stars worth of gameplay and you could finally rescue the Princess... that was some heavy shit. People spoke of that as if they'd seen a fucking yeti. Where's that sense of achievement now? Where's the intense sense of accomplishment that used to come with conquering a mighty Nintendo game?
The kids these days, they pass 4 games a day. I quit gaming last generation back (save every new Pokemon game) when I got to the end of the latest 007 title in one sitting. I got to the last level and had to put the controller down. I hadn't achieved anything... I'd just sauntered to the last level. Remember GoldenEye? If you passed the Control level where you had to protect Natalya in one go, you must have been some sort of autistic videogame savant, because that was not made for normal human beings.
I know it seems petty, but when you think about it, if someone had never experienced the intense sense of achievement at the completion of an incredibly difficult task as a child, why would they have any incentive to try hard at anything as an adult? Muse on this...
Monday, February 27, 2012
Monday, February 20, 2012
On Professionalism.
I did want to write a nice two part entry on why exactly the music industry is as ostensibly terrible as it is, but my preparation for that particular endeavour has been... sporadic. Rest assured, it's in the works, being worked.
Anyway, to avoid completely immolating myself with shame, here's another set of samples from the cognitive bowel that is my brain.
The Labor Party should just re-instate Kevin Rudd. Just boot Julia out of the offices, ignore she ever existed, and just let Rudd manipulate the media the way you wished Julia could. Yeah, it'd make them look like slimy, backstabbing corporate whores, but the honesty would be refreshing and it should a ridiculous amount of guts on their part. Additionally, there's no way Tony Abbott could compete with that, he'd barely get a look from broadcasters.
Weezer's first album is really good. I won't post a full review because it's been out since 1994, but the songs are catchy and they just sound so very slack... great lazy tunes.
I was playing a card game with a friend a few days ago, and the instructions were written such that "he" was the pronoun used to describe the player, rather than "he/she" or "they" or something else gender neutral. Now, I'm guilty of doing this as well occasionally, but I found it slightly unnerving to read for some reason. I felt irritated the writer had used "he" exclusively. Signs I've completely internalised feminism, perhaps?
I sometimes wonder if the incredibly liberal among us look weird to the incredibly conservative among us. Personally, I tend to view the particularly conservative with sympathy, thinking "oh, I'm sorry you get to miss out on some cool stuff" but it occurs to me that to them, someone like me must look completely unfocussed and undisciplined. I suppose it's just a case of different points of view.
...and that about covers the amount I felt I needed to write to overcome guilt. 'til next time, friends.
Anyway, to avoid completely immolating myself with shame, here's another set of samples from the cognitive bowel that is my brain.
The Labor Party should just re-instate Kevin Rudd. Just boot Julia out of the offices, ignore she ever existed, and just let Rudd manipulate the media the way you wished Julia could. Yeah, it'd make them look like slimy, backstabbing corporate whores, but the honesty would be refreshing and it should a ridiculous amount of guts on their part. Additionally, there's no way Tony Abbott could compete with that, he'd barely get a look from broadcasters.
Weezer's first album is really good. I won't post a full review because it's been out since 1994, but the songs are catchy and they just sound so very slack... great lazy tunes.
I was playing a card game with a friend a few days ago, and the instructions were written such that "he" was the pronoun used to describe the player, rather than "he/she" or "they" or something else gender neutral. Now, I'm guilty of doing this as well occasionally, but I found it slightly unnerving to read for some reason. I felt irritated the writer had used "he" exclusively. Signs I've completely internalised feminism, perhaps?
I sometimes wonder if the incredibly liberal among us look weird to the incredibly conservative among us. Personally, I tend to view the particularly conservative with sympathy, thinking "oh, I'm sorry you get to miss out on some cool stuff" but it occurs to me that to them, someone like me must look completely unfocussed and undisciplined. I suppose it's just a case of different points of view.
...and that about covers the amount I felt I needed to write to overcome guilt. 'til next time, friends.
Monday, February 13, 2012
On Terrible Art.
Let it never be said that I'm fair and even handed when talking about art I like or dislike. I can put together a fair and pretty objective description of an album, movie or book, and I've had enough experience (with movies and music at least) to know the basics of the language and describe them in a way that other fans would understand, but that isn't liking or disliking something. The enjoyment you derive from something is completely subjective and largely pretty capricious. You could make the argument that it's more about the precise and unique mix of specific elements than the specific elements themselves and that you could potentially enjoy anything, but then it would make a nonsense of analysis of art in the first place. Not every artist is unique and there are a whole bunch of forms that art conforms to, yet people's tastes can run the gamut from completely exclusive to one form all the way to liking basically everything you experience. Your taste in anything subjective is subject to so many internal and external factors that trying to pin down who would like what and why is an exercise in futility.
From an analytical perspective it's a huge bother, but from an "enjoying life and experiencing new thoughts and emotions" perspective, it really makes appreciation of art one of the best things you can do with your time. Whether passively absorbing something or actively thinking about or participating in the creation of something artistic, it's pretty much a part of everyone's life, you can't avoid it. Hell, as you read this right now, you're taking part in said process. However, what this also means is that discussions about the quality or perceived value of a piece of art are about as stupid a thing to do as trying to figure out just how many apples you'd need to make an orange. Sure, it's interesting and fun, but it doesn't necessarily go anywhere or mean anything.
From a purely objective standpoint, "Hit Me Baby One More Time" by Britney Spears is just as important and influential as anything done by The Smiths or Nirvana. That's my hypothesis and I'm sticking to it. Hell, I remember being filled with tremendous disappointment when an ex-girlfriend considered The Vengaboys to have been a more important group than Smashing Pumpkins in the 90s. At the time, I implored her to at least listen to Siamese Dream, or concede that they had more integrity and talent, but looking back, that was retarded. For one thing, she didn't like rock, she liked bubblegum pop and dance-y stuff, so even if she did listen to the record, odds are she would have told me it was too distorted, too depressing and she hated Billy Corgan's voice. As much as I'd like to think I'm on the all important cusp of whatever is new and fantastic, the fact is, as long as people are listening to, absorbing the message or aesthetics of and telling other people about a certain song, it's important.
That's kinda disheartening, isn't it? You'd like to think that stuff you find to suck is somehow objectively sucky and that you picked it, even though no-one ever defines what it means for something to suck in the first place. You can bitch about the execution or the message or the budget or whatever, but in the end, people still saw Transformers and were excited for the sequels. That shit made money, despite the fact that anyone with even the most paltry education in the art of cinema could tell you exactly what it did wrong.
Any time I write a review of something, or even express my opinion on it, there should be a big, unspoken caveat to all of it that reads something like "Every view expressed on this subject is, at its core, based on something purely subjective anyway, so all discussion is done for the enjoyment of discussion, not some sort of universal taste precedent." Yeah, you could spend hours extolling the virtues or failings of a particular piece, but in the end, that's still just technical stuff that has no bearing on how much an individual person may enjoy it. Sure, YOU might only like movies that are well shot from a technical perspective and written with the grace and delicate touch of a truly talented and educated writer, but something shit could just as easily turn out to be a classic... sometimes things are greater because of their flaws, rather than in spite of them; pretty much the entire 90's alt rock scene was built on relatively poor production, unusual equipment and a rejection of technical excellence, yet I'm listening to Failure right now.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, unless you're me, your taste in everything is shit and you'll never convince me otherwise.
From an analytical perspective it's a huge bother, but from an "enjoying life and experiencing new thoughts and emotions" perspective, it really makes appreciation of art one of the best things you can do with your time. Whether passively absorbing something or actively thinking about or participating in the creation of something artistic, it's pretty much a part of everyone's life, you can't avoid it. Hell, as you read this right now, you're taking part in said process. However, what this also means is that discussions about the quality or perceived value of a piece of art are about as stupid a thing to do as trying to figure out just how many apples you'd need to make an orange. Sure, it's interesting and fun, but it doesn't necessarily go anywhere or mean anything.
From a purely objective standpoint, "Hit Me Baby One More Time" by Britney Spears is just as important and influential as anything done by The Smiths or Nirvana. That's my hypothesis and I'm sticking to it. Hell, I remember being filled with tremendous disappointment when an ex-girlfriend considered The Vengaboys to have been a more important group than Smashing Pumpkins in the 90s. At the time, I implored her to at least listen to Siamese Dream, or concede that they had more integrity and talent, but looking back, that was retarded. For one thing, she didn't like rock, she liked bubblegum pop and dance-y stuff, so even if she did listen to the record, odds are she would have told me it was too distorted, too depressing and she hated Billy Corgan's voice. As much as I'd like to think I'm on the all important cusp of whatever is new and fantastic, the fact is, as long as people are listening to, absorbing the message or aesthetics of and telling other people about a certain song, it's important.
That's kinda disheartening, isn't it? You'd like to think that stuff you find to suck is somehow objectively sucky and that you picked it, even though no-one ever defines what it means for something to suck in the first place. You can bitch about the execution or the message or the budget or whatever, but in the end, people still saw Transformers and were excited for the sequels. That shit made money, despite the fact that anyone with even the most paltry education in the art of cinema could tell you exactly what it did wrong.
Any time I write a review of something, or even express my opinion on it, there should be a big, unspoken caveat to all of it that reads something like "Every view expressed on this subject is, at its core, based on something purely subjective anyway, so all discussion is done for the enjoyment of discussion, not some sort of universal taste precedent." Yeah, you could spend hours extolling the virtues or failings of a particular piece, but in the end, that's still just technical stuff that has no bearing on how much an individual person may enjoy it. Sure, YOU might only like movies that are well shot from a technical perspective and written with the grace and delicate touch of a truly talented and educated writer, but something shit could just as easily turn out to be a classic... sometimes things are greater because of their flaws, rather than in spite of them; pretty much the entire 90's alt rock scene was built on relatively poor production, unusual equipment and a rejection of technical excellence, yet I'm listening to Failure right now.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, unless you're me, your taste in everything is shit and you'll never convince me otherwise.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Devil's Advocate: I Don't Care If You're Offended Edition.
When folks talk about human rights, I personally find that they speak of rights in a very odd sense, as if rights are something you can put on a mantlepiece and admire for years to come, something you earn in one massive battle and then everyone will respect them. These conversations are irritating partly because of the binary that creates between haves and have-nots; we, the white folks, the haves, must fight for the rights of the have-nots, the minorities and immigrants and so on, but they're mostly irritating because, and again this is all in my experience, a lot of people don't even know what rights they're talking about, or what qualifies as a right at all.
To use a very broad example, consider the gay community and their ongoing (and occasionally heartbreaking) quest for equality. The oft-quoted mantra is some variation on "we just want the same rights as you." That's a fair comment and personally, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't have the right to get married, to seek employment or promotions based on their performance alone, to adopt, all that shit. What you're talking about there are rights that other groups have that are denied to a certain subset of humanity because of something that is neither immoral nor a choice. In this specific argument, the rights the gay community are seeking are valid and currently being denied to them.
Unfortunately, not every cause is as justified as the gay community's. A friend on Facebook sent me a request to join the group "Join my cause: Remove Group F**k Islam from facebook," which I won't link anyone to because I don't want anyone to join it. Admittedly if you really wanted to it's not as if it's hard to find or anything, but my point is, don't join it, the group makes no sense.
Already I can hear the chorus of indignant caring folk. "Why do you hate Islam!? They have a right not to be persecuted!!1!" Just stop it. Stop that right now, and think about what you're saying. The group isn't beating up people of the Islamic faith, nor is it inciting people to do the same. Yeah, it's racist, islamophobic and pretty tasteless, but that description could also be attached pretty accurately to most American television. This group is, at it's core, the association of people who share a common belief. Kinda similar to a church.
See, things like "right not to be offended" are nonsensical concepts, impossible to enforce and based on this idea that a Utopian society would feature no hatred, persecution or offense. Bull-fucking-shit, I say. You can't legislate how people feel and exchange ideas. You can legislate against actions or attempted actions, but anything beyond that is an attempt at thought policing.
As much as it may shock the caring individuals out there, freedom of association, freedom of belief and freedom of speech are very important rights for a society to have; without them, the people in charge would have control over who you associate with, what you can believe and what you say. You know, the kind of America that the Republicans want to create, which I'm certain all you caring, sensitive liberals out there want to avoid.
(Sidenote, I am still a liberal, just not a whiny, new-agey wuss of a liberal.)
One cannot deny that groups like this on Facebook are racist and offensive, but unfortunately, it's also well within their rights. You have to take the bad with the good; the reason that you can freely associate with other people who want that page removed and express your ideas free from persecution is also the same reason they can make the page and attract followers in the first place. Swings both ways.
If anything can be taken out of this, it's that while both groups have every right to exist, it's the attempt at caring and sensitivity that flies directly into the face of human rights, while the racist pieces of shit (yeah, I hate racists. Like, really hate racists) that started their hate group are just exercising the rights that the good and caring individuals are fighting for in the first place. Ethics are challenging and ironic.
**If anyone's wondering, I'm more a moral nihilist than relativist or absolutist. I understand that my moral code is a construction of my own thoughts, feelings and experiences and that, ultimately, they just boil down to something subjective. However, and maybe this is just the empiricist in me talking, I also believe that we can create a kind of shared social morality by the application of logic, reason and science, starting with the premise that all people are equal from the start and that pain and suffering are to be avoided or minimised. Whether or not either of those starting conditions accurately reflect the nature of reality is a philosophical question that I simply don't have the brain power to tackle.**
To use a very broad example, consider the gay community and their ongoing (and occasionally heartbreaking) quest for equality. The oft-quoted mantra is some variation on "we just want the same rights as you." That's a fair comment and personally, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't have the right to get married, to seek employment or promotions based on their performance alone, to adopt, all that shit. What you're talking about there are rights that other groups have that are denied to a certain subset of humanity because of something that is neither immoral nor a choice. In this specific argument, the rights the gay community are seeking are valid and currently being denied to them.
Unfortunately, not every cause is as justified as the gay community's. A friend on Facebook sent me a request to join the group "Join my cause: Remove Group F**k Islam from facebook," which I won't link anyone to because I don't want anyone to join it. Admittedly if you really wanted to it's not as if it's hard to find or anything, but my point is, don't join it, the group makes no sense.
Already I can hear the chorus of indignant caring folk. "Why do you hate Islam!? They have a right not to be persecuted!!1!" Just stop it. Stop that right now, and think about what you're saying. The group isn't beating up people of the Islamic faith, nor is it inciting people to do the same. Yeah, it's racist, islamophobic and pretty tasteless, but that description could also be attached pretty accurately to most American television. This group is, at it's core, the association of people who share a common belief. Kinda similar to a church.
See, things like "right not to be offended" are nonsensical concepts, impossible to enforce and based on this idea that a Utopian society would feature no hatred, persecution or offense. Bull-fucking-shit, I say. You can't legislate how people feel and exchange ideas. You can legislate against actions or attempted actions, but anything beyond that is an attempt at thought policing.
As much as it may shock the caring individuals out there, freedom of association, freedom of belief and freedom of speech are very important rights for a society to have; without them, the people in charge would have control over who you associate with, what you can believe and what you say. You know, the kind of America that the Republicans want to create, which I'm certain all you caring, sensitive liberals out there want to avoid.
(Sidenote, I am still a liberal, just not a whiny, new-agey wuss of a liberal.)
One cannot deny that groups like this on Facebook are racist and offensive, but unfortunately, it's also well within their rights. You have to take the bad with the good; the reason that you can freely associate with other people who want that page removed and express your ideas free from persecution is also the same reason they can make the page and attract followers in the first place. Swings both ways.
If anything can be taken out of this, it's that while both groups have every right to exist, it's the attempt at caring and sensitivity that flies directly into the face of human rights, while the racist pieces of shit (yeah, I hate racists. Like, really hate racists) that started their hate group are just exercising the rights that the good and caring individuals are fighting for in the first place. Ethics are challenging and ironic.
**If anyone's wondering, I'm more a moral nihilist than relativist or absolutist. I understand that my moral code is a construction of my own thoughts, feelings and experiences and that, ultimately, they just boil down to something subjective. However, and maybe this is just the empiricist in me talking, I also believe that we can create a kind of shared social morality by the application of logic, reason and science, starting with the premise that all people are equal from the start and that pain and suffering are to be avoided or minimised. Whether or not either of those starting conditions accurately reflect the nature of reality is a philosophical question that I simply don't have the brain power to tackle.**
Monday, January 30, 2012
This Generation Doesn't Suck, Everybody Does.
Can we all collectively agree that each successive generation isn't getting worse, it's just a result of the previous generation fucking them about? Hippies weren't bad, they just resented the overt conservatism and militarism of their greatest-generation predecessors. Baby boomers weren't amoral, greedy dickheads, they just embraced the speed and glamour afforded to them by an increasingly consumeristic culture that their parents railed against. Gen-X kids weren't heroin addicted slackers, they just resented how their parents worked themselves to death at the expense of their families in their conspicuous consumerism and didn't want anything to do with that. Which brings us to now, Gen-Y.
The Gen-Y crop? Well, children of Gen-Xers and Baby Boomers, somewhat prosperous, bombarded by more images of celebrity than any previous generation... am I the only one not surprised that the resounding image for this generation is pill-popping, self- and sex-obsessed vessels of vapidity? Their parents stressed by issues of politics, money and real-estate yet more liberal than any previous generation, a result of the "keeping up with the Joneses" shallow ambition in the case of Baby Boomers or the heady, "the world is going down the shitter and it's pretty much inevitable" heaviness in the case of Gen-Xers, it's only natural that the next crop would want to distance themselves from their parent's worries and fears.
This generation's zeitgeist will be David Guetta and Jersey Shore, mark my words. It's all about bubblegum, upbeat tunes that you can dance to and being sexy and fun instead of one of those cerebral downers. That's not necessarily the fault of this generation any more than Gen-X was the fault of the guys who grew their hair out and wore flannel, but it is their doing.
My prediction for how iGeneration (this is apparently the next batch... I shudder at whoever names these) will turn out pretty much runs this way; it'll rule like hippies and Gen-X did, but the ethos will be different. Hippies had hedonism, peace and love, hallucinogens and weed, Gen-X had acceptance of all cultures, impotent despondency at the state of the world, heroin and weed... iGen will, in my opinion have an increased resentment to conventional "settle down and buy a house" style goals and the capitalist system in general (yesssssss), a distate for politics and selective ignorance (like not knowing how torrents work and why it's not stealing to pirate an album), support for freedom of information and weed. I also predict said generation will have an almost paradoxical obsession with gadgets, but this'd more likely be due to futurist leanings, rather than consumerist ones. Or I could just be projecting.
For your reading pleasure, here is a couple ideas than never became full-bodies posts.
Fantastic Planet by Failure should have been a huge, huge hit, I don't understand why it wasn't. It's definitely not the first really good, critically acclaimed record to tank in sales and it certainly wasn't the last, but it was released in '96, there were way crappier post-grunge records released around that time that went on to do really well. It sounds as good today as it did then yet it was pretty much in step with where popular music was going at the time, there are at least three songs on the album that are hooky and melodic enough to be hits (Smoking Umbrellas, The Nurse Who Loved Me and Stuck On You are my picks, but Sergeant Politeness, Another Space Song and Dirty Blue Balloons could have done it too) and yet, who's heard of Failure? Pop culture is bullshit.
And while we're on the topic of bullshit pop culture, how fuckin' happy is Chuck Lorre right now? Dude may have set situation comedy back a few millenia with Two and a Half Men (the success of that show is inexplicable... I've watched it and I don't understand the appeal. I get it, it's just Charlie Sheen being Charlie Sheen and hardy-har-har, it's a wise cracking fat kid. Not funny) but Big Bang Theory is the form at its best. And the reason BBT is so good? No, it's not because there's finally a show about nerds, because The IT Crowd beat them to the punch and is, in its own unique way, a very good, geek-oriented show. No, the reason BBT has gained so much momentum since it first began is because it took the time to build characters, not just slap together some stereotypes and call it a day. I won't go into my frothing, pop-culture nerd rant, but it's nice to see them take character archetypes (the fun girl, the straight man, the sex pest, etc.) and give them a bit more depth than just "the wacky neighbour." Every character in BBT has stuff going on outside the main group, they just all happen to be friends. Anyway, looping all the way around to the point, Chuck Lorre dumbed down the collective TV-watching horde with Two and a Half Men, then made something legitimately entertaining in The Big Bang Theory, and is now richer than anyone should be. Good going you cynical yet ultimately talented douche.
The Gen-Y crop? Well, children of Gen-Xers and Baby Boomers, somewhat prosperous, bombarded by more images of celebrity than any previous generation... am I the only one not surprised that the resounding image for this generation is pill-popping, self- and sex-obsessed vessels of vapidity? Their parents stressed by issues of politics, money and real-estate yet more liberal than any previous generation, a result of the "keeping up with the Joneses" shallow ambition in the case of Baby Boomers or the heady, "the world is going down the shitter and it's pretty much inevitable" heaviness in the case of Gen-Xers, it's only natural that the next crop would want to distance themselves from their parent's worries and fears.
This generation's zeitgeist will be David Guetta and Jersey Shore, mark my words. It's all about bubblegum, upbeat tunes that you can dance to and being sexy and fun instead of one of those cerebral downers. That's not necessarily the fault of this generation any more than Gen-X was the fault of the guys who grew their hair out and wore flannel, but it is their doing.
My prediction for how iGeneration (this is apparently the next batch... I shudder at whoever names these) will turn out pretty much runs this way; it'll rule like hippies and Gen-X did, but the ethos will be different. Hippies had hedonism, peace and love, hallucinogens and weed, Gen-X had acceptance of all cultures, impotent despondency at the state of the world, heroin and weed... iGen will, in my opinion have an increased resentment to conventional "settle down and buy a house" style goals and the capitalist system in general (yesssssss), a distate for politics and selective ignorance (like not knowing how torrents work and why it's not stealing to pirate an album), support for freedom of information and weed. I also predict said generation will have an almost paradoxical obsession with gadgets, but this'd more likely be due to futurist leanings, rather than consumerist ones. Or I could just be projecting.
For your reading pleasure, here is a couple ideas than never became full-bodies posts.
Fantastic Planet by Failure should have been a huge, huge hit, I don't understand why it wasn't. It's definitely not the first really good, critically acclaimed record to tank in sales and it certainly wasn't the last, but it was released in '96, there were way crappier post-grunge records released around that time that went on to do really well. It sounds as good today as it did then yet it was pretty much in step with where popular music was going at the time, there are at least three songs on the album that are hooky and melodic enough to be hits (Smoking Umbrellas, The Nurse Who Loved Me and Stuck On You are my picks, but Sergeant Politeness, Another Space Song and Dirty Blue Balloons could have done it too) and yet, who's heard of Failure? Pop culture is bullshit.
And while we're on the topic of bullshit pop culture, how fuckin' happy is Chuck Lorre right now? Dude may have set situation comedy back a few millenia with Two and a Half Men (the success of that show is inexplicable... I've watched it and I don't understand the appeal. I get it, it's just Charlie Sheen being Charlie Sheen and hardy-har-har, it's a wise cracking fat kid. Not funny) but Big Bang Theory is the form at its best. And the reason BBT is so good? No, it's not because there's finally a show about nerds, because The IT Crowd beat them to the punch and is, in its own unique way, a very good, geek-oriented show. No, the reason BBT has gained so much momentum since it first began is because it took the time to build characters, not just slap together some stereotypes and call it a day. I won't go into my frothing, pop-culture nerd rant, but it's nice to see them take character archetypes (the fun girl, the straight man, the sex pest, etc.) and give them a bit more depth than just "the wacky neighbour." Every character in BBT has stuff going on outside the main group, they just all happen to be friends. Anyway, looping all the way around to the point, Chuck Lorre dumbed down the collective TV-watching horde with Two and a Half Men, then made something legitimately entertaining in The Big Bang Theory, and is now richer than anyone should be. Good going you cynical yet ultimately talented douche.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
A Magical Little Fable Nobody Cares About.
With the circus sideshow of American politics reaching critical mass, it's very easy to forget that other nations, including the nation we live in, also have politicians. It's also very easy to forget that politicians who are consistently in the public eye are a very unique kind of person; ambitious and driven enough to slog through the dehumanising gauntlet of party politics, savvy enough to secure top spot and yet, somehow... consistently unlikeable. In recent memory, I cannot name a politician who came of as a person I would like. There have been funny ones of all different flavours, and even a couple of effective ones, but none I can honestly say I liked as people.
Ignoring names for a moment, let us reflect on the narrative that has been Australian politics these last two terms. A divisive but ultimately respected and long-serving Liberal Prime Minister is replaced by yet another divisive figure; the intelligent and media-savvy Labor leader who had (and possibly still has) the unfortunate personality quirk of being a stubborn, arrogant, unpleasant, self absorbed and controlling douche. Said Labor leader steered Australia through the GFC, arguably thanks to the economic stability that the Liberal Party gave Australia during its reign. You could argue this specific detail until the words lose all meaning but whether the Labor leader was just a lucky passenger or an economic mastermind is largely irrelevant; Australia handled the GFC better than a lot of other nations while the Labor Party held power. Fact.
Then... well, balls were dropped. The industry bigwigs who pull the strings of the Labor Party (this isn't a conspiracy rant, Labor is largely run by union leaders and lawyers rather than politicians. Kinda cool in theory but fucking awful in practice) were unhappy with how their figurehead leader was acting more like a leader than a figurehead, so even though his mining tax scheme failed (mostly due to the spectacularly poor decision to seek support from the Liberal Party rather than The Greens), the Sword of Damacles inevitably fell, and his simultaneously historic (due to her gender) and disappointing (because of her voice, leadership style and public persona) successor stepped in.
Then, election time, and the Battle of Banality began. Both leaders, the irritating and ineffectual Labor leader and the hauntingly pious, moronic and sexist Liberal leader fought it out via "heartfelt" (read: shallow, pandering and a little bit racist) advertisements, while fringe parties from all ends of the political spectrum received an increased amount of attention due to the largely disaffected masses. Labor won by striking an accord with The Greens and two independent candidates, and what is, on paper at least, the most left-leaning government in Australian history.
The characters, narrative and set pieces are all perfect for some great comedic political storytelling, but whereas the American system almost invites, by virtue of its free and largely unregulated workings, edgy and intelligent insights, the much more fair and reasonable Australian system coats the whole proceeding with an air of beige central-ness. Which is a shame, because hot damn if our politicians don't need the Jon Stewart treatment.
Ignoring names for a moment, let us reflect on the narrative that has been Australian politics these last two terms. A divisive but ultimately respected and long-serving Liberal Prime Minister is replaced by yet another divisive figure; the intelligent and media-savvy Labor leader who had (and possibly still has) the unfortunate personality quirk of being a stubborn, arrogant, unpleasant, self absorbed and controlling douche. Said Labor leader steered Australia through the GFC, arguably thanks to the economic stability that the Liberal Party gave Australia during its reign. You could argue this specific detail until the words lose all meaning but whether the Labor leader was just a lucky passenger or an economic mastermind is largely irrelevant; Australia handled the GFC better than a lot of other nations while the Labor Party held power. Fact.
Then... well, balls were dropped. The industry bigwigs who pull the strings of the Labor Party (this isn't a conspiracy rant, Labor is largely run by union leaders and lawyers rather than politicians. Kinda cool in theory but fucking awful in practice) were unhappy with how their figurehead leader was acting more like a leader than a figurehead, so even though his mining tax scheme failed (mostly due to the spectacularly poor decision to seek support from the Liberal Party rather than The Greens), the Sword of Damacles inevitably fell, and his simultaneously historic (due to her gender) and disappointing (because of her voice, leadership style and public persona) successor stepped in.
Then, election time, and the Battle of Banality began. Both leaders, the irritating and ineffectual Labor leader and the hauntingly pious, moronic and sexist Liberal leader fought it out via "heartfelt" (read: shallow, pandering and a little bit racist) advertisements, while fringe parties from all ends of the political spectrum received an increased amount of attention due to the largely disaffected masses. Labor won by striking an accord with The Greens and two independent candidates, and what is, on paper at least, the most left-leaning government in Australian history.
The characters, narrative and set pieces are all perfect for some great comedic political storytelling, but whereas the American system almost invites, by virtue of its free and largely unregulated workings, edgy and intelligent insights, the much more fair and reasonable Australian system coats the whole proceeding with an air of beige central-ness. Which is a shame, because hot damn if our politicians don't need the Jon Stewart treatment.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Please... Drink The Kool Aid.
The collective self-esteem of the unwashed middle class horde must be at an all time low-ebb, because the degree of adulation heaped upon people of marginal talent (and that's me being generous) is, at this point in time, truly unsettling. People cried when The Beatles first landed in America. Now people cry when Kim Kardashian visits Australia. Somewhere along the road, we lost our way.
Is it all that surprising, though? People, young people in particular, have always been given to hero-worship. Musicians, actors and sports stars are placed on pedestals too high for themselves to even live up to because their contributions to their given fields enrich our lives. Fuck, I'm guilty of this too: In my darkest, secret moments, I've been known to consider Thom Yorke as something a little more than just a man (wow, isn't that a shock?) and frankly, you're always going to like people or things that provide you with joy or stimulation. Why wouldn't you? Of course, there's a fundamental separation between the adoration of someone talented and someone who is simply famous (or infamous).
The argument could be raised that people like Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton are talented, but their talent doesn't lie in the sports or arts or sciences. You could very easily make the argument that the modern career celebrity is, in fact, a marketing genius. Their product is their image and their job is to get said image everywhere possible, to get people to give a shit about their very existence by virtue of their existence. And judging by the borderline-spastic reception Ms. Kardashian received upon arriving in Australia, it's fair to say; there are a lot of people giving a shit.
It's open season for anyone who desires celebrity enough. The "information superhighway" as Al Gore so clumsily put it is now the Trash Superhighway. A non-stop, unfiltered source of anything you want, and if you want notoriety, it's never been easier. Consider how many leaked sex tapes launched careers in the lucrative market of reality television and indefinable celebrity. Break your name into the cultural consciousness and then ride the wave of people's recognition. Still, it begs the question; these people provide virtually nothing by way of a product, so why the wild adulation?
Consider this; it is harder now than ever before for a young person to achieve home ownership, financial stability and, one could even argue, true emotional maturity. How can we? The cost of real estate is climbing steadily higher and higher, the job market is becoming increasingly cutthroat and some sort of qualification is required to even be considered for any "career" job, so the days of turning 18, getting a job and striking out on your own are dead. The school years are dragged on into this marathon of qualification-acquisition, independence becomes too much of a chore to deal with right now and maturity gets cast aside as youth creeps into the late twenties.
The "career celebrity" is of a similar age to this prisoner of life's financial mire, but their lives couldn't be more different. The celebrity can own their own home, can buy anything they like, can get paid exorbitant sums just to put in face time at a party. The celebrity doesn't have to stack shelves and pull all-nighters, they can saunter through life on the back of simply being themselves, or a camera friendly version anyway. Ever wondered about the duck-face and the make-up obsession that seems to be creeping into the photo albums of young ladies, or the adulation of meatheaded, douchebag behavior demonstrated by young men? Watch Jersey Shore, there's your answer.
This cult-like adoration of those who can be as immature and irresponsible as they feel like for no reason other than their name is recognisable shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone with even a passing understanding of the challenges of trying to vault the purgatory of the twenties and leap from childhood to true, independent adulthood, but it also doesn't make it any less irritating. We live in a world where Steven Wilson is less well known than Paris Hilton. Think about that.
Is it all that surprising, though? People, young people in particular, have always been given to hero-worship. Musicians, actors and sports stars are placed on pedestals too high for themselves to even live up to because their contributions to their given fields enrich our lives. Fuck, I'm guilty of this too: In my darkest, secret moments, I've been known to consider Thom Yorke as something a little more than just a man (wow, isn't that a shock?) and frankly, you're always going to like people or things that provide you with joy or stimulation. Why wouldn't you? Of course, there's a fundamental separation between the adoration of someone talented and someone who is simply famous (or infamous).
The argument could be raised that people like Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton are talented, but their talent doesn't lie in the sports or arts or sciences. You could very easily make the argument that the modern career celebrity is, in fact, a marketing genius. Their product is their image and their job is to get said image everywhere possible, to get people to give a shit about their very existence by virtue of their existence. And judging by the borderline-spastic reception Ms. Kardashian received upon arriving in Australia, it's fair to say; there are a lot of people giving a shit.
It's open season for anyone who desires celebrity enough. The "information superhighway" as Al Gore so clumsily put it is now the Trash Superhighway. A non-stop, unfiltered source of anything you want, and if you want notoriety, it's never been easier. Consider how many leaked sex tapes launched careers in the lucrative market of reality television and indefinable celebrity. Break your name into the cultural consciousness and then ride the wave of people's recognition. Still, it begs the question; these people provide virtually nothing by way of a product, so why the wild adulation?
Consider this; it is harder now than ever before for a young person to achieve home ownership, financial stability and, one could even argue, true emotional maturity. How can we? The cost of real estate is climbing steadily higher and higher, the job market is becoming increasingly cutthroat and some sort of qualification is required to even be considered for any "career" job, so the days of turning 18, getting a job and striking out on your own are dead. The school years are dragged on into this marathon of qualification-acquisition, independence becomes too much of a chore to deal with right now and maturity gets cast aside as youth creeps into the late twenties.
The "career celebrity" is of a similar age to this prisoner of life's financial mire, but their lives couldn't be more different. The celebrity can own their own home, can buy anything they like, can get paid exorbitant sums just to put in face time at a party. The celebrity doesn't have to stack shelves and pull all-nighters, they can saunter through life on the back of simply being themselves, or a camera friendly version anyway. Ever wondered about the duck-face and the make-up obsession that seems to be creeping into the photo albums of young ladies, or the adulation of meatheaded, douchebag behavior demonstrated by young men? Watch Jersey Shore, there's your answer.
This cult-like adoration of those who can be as immature and irresponsible as they feel like for no reason other than their name is recognisable shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone with even a passing understanding of the challenges of trying to vault the purgatory of the twenties and leap from childhood to true, independent adulthood, but it also doesn't make it any less irritating. We live in a world where Steven Wilson is less well known than Paris Hilton. Think about that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)