Anti-aesthetics

[Placid Dingo]

Observe the following three people. Describe in as succinct terms as possible their personal or political ideology or alignment.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cavale/3389476338/lightbox/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pinksherbet/3216056888/lightbox/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cybersong/2802986783/lightbox/


You very likely said leftwing/nature loving for 1, anarchist/doityourselfer for two and Islamic/traditional for three. However, number one may work his hours as a fast food chain, saving money to purchase new jeans produced in China's sweatshops. Number two may vote Labour and read music magazines produced en masse by Rave and Tsunami, disregarding anything amature. Number three may secretly go out drinking with her boyfriend on Friday night.

In each of these cases, the actions of our example peope are inconsistent with the aesthetic they represent. The 'hippy' is inconsiserate of his impact on human rights or nature, the punk thinks the do it yourself culture is a construct of Ikea and the Muslim seems fit more into the culture seen in Cosmo than the Korans.

Redo the excercise with the following people.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mindaugasdanys/3648900953/lightbox/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/enricarchivell/3192041614/lightbox/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/spunter/591430184/lightbox/

It seems more challenging, but really it is very much the same task. The lack of aesthetic signifiers does not make it easier to develop an accurate judgement of their values or actions, but it does make it easier to avoid being misled by symbols designed to suggest a specific 'type' of person is being viewed.

An anti-aesthetic view suggests that there is a conflict between aesthetic and substance.It suggests that an aesthetic has become more valued; that wearing a cross is more valued that Christian compassion, wearing dreads more valued than planting trees and dressing like a decent human being more valued than acting like one.

Anti-aestheticism is not designed to imply that aesthetics are completely opposed. Neither does it suggest that beauty and novelty ought to be replaced with mediocrity and ugliness (especially when we recognize that these are simply less pleasing aesthetics). The term anti-aesthetic is used in the sense that in between the struggle between aesthetic and substance, aesthetic is regarded as the lower art.

Anti-aestheticism does not therefore oppose aesthetics. Rather it calls for their practical use in aiding action rather than replacing it. Just as America's 'Liberals' made the aesthetic segway into 'Progressives', other groups should manipulate their aesthetic to their own convenience. Perhaps the best kind of hippie looks like an advertising exectutive and speaks in clear articulate terms that encourage others to take social responsibilty. Perhaps some of the best punks of modern times look like nerds, and spend more time hacking copyright than smashing guitars. Perhaps ideal geeks are not investing in the expensive geek chic glasses and Spongebob shirts, but wearing second hand Nike shirts, with socially acceptable haircuts, pulling apart toasters to find spare parts for their pizza making robot.

Aesthetics represent a tool, like money. They may be used it to achieve our goals, but not pursued as goal in itself. One does not dream of having the money for a mansion, but rather or using money to buy one. We should not therefore dream of looking like a champion for social justice, but instead of being one, and carefully consider how we can use the currency of aesthetic to pay for the privlede.

When the culture is built around 'appearing', 'doing' becomes a political act in itself. 

[Triple Zero]

Just read it. I like it. It's not a very new thing for me to realize, but your final sentence added a good point!

[Reginald Ret]

What Trip said.
also, i added it to his memebomb database that i had totally forgotten about and just remembered.

[Placid Dingo]

ooh ta.

Yeah, I kinda didn't think of it as being too new to anyone. Orginally it was written as a manifesto, but cut it down to being an essay on aesthetic vs substance.

[Chairman Risus]

Esse quam videri

[Cramulus]

While I agree that people often choose style over substance, and that a lack of substance can be disguised by a good usage of style,

I do think that the things you've described as aesthetic choices do serve a purpose. We live in the empire of signs and signals, after all.


A friend of mine (A Discordian I refer to as Golden Rod) used to wear a trench coat everywhere in high school. After the columbine shootings he was asked to not wear it any more. He respectfully refrained from wearing it for a few weeks, but eventually put it back on.

"It's like this," he explained, "The trench coat attracts certain people and repels others. It's my way of filtering my social interactions for the people I want to interact with."


I don't see any problem with having dreadlocks or dressing like a punk or anything like that because these are rather human ways of recognizing who belongs to what tribe. The tribal logic is a large part of how we make sense of this gigantic sprawling population we're immersed in, and it's one of the tools we use to filter the dazzling array of information being fired at us every single second.

I draw your attention to the weird paradox of white surburban kids who dress like they're hard ass niggas from the ghetto, and poor ghetto kids who dress with gold and bling like they're well-off suburban kids. This is a matter of affinity-culture, dressing like what you desire to be. There is a mismatch between their style and their substance but that is in no way an act of deception.

You posit that we should value action over appearance -- and this is a good point! But I think that in the end substance will win out on its own. It's fairly easy for people to tell who's real and who's not.

[Triple Zero]

A friend of mine (A Discordian I refer to as Golden Rod) --

Wait wasn't he a character in some of your stories/parables?

[Cramulus]

the parable of the gong isn't a true story, but Golden Rod is a real guy, yeah. We've been cabalmates since 1998.

[Placid Dingo]

Yeah, I agree about the importance of aesthetics, and I certainly don't think they're a bad thing. But I do think we need to avoid the trap of mistaking the symbol for the real thing.

Aesthetics represent a tool, like money. They may be used it to achieve our goals, but not pursued as goal in itself. One does not dream of having the money for a mansion, but rather or using money to buy one. We should not therefore dream of looking like a champion for social justice, but instead of being one, and carefully consider how we can use the currency of aesthetic to pay for the privilege.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Yeah, I agree about the importance of aesthetics, and I certainly don't think they're a bad thing. But I do think we need to avoid the trap of mistaking the symbol for the real thing.

Makes me think of an article Telarus linked to in the "What is Chi?" thread:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/this-is-your-brain-on-metaphors/?hp

This neural confusion about the literal versus the metaphorical gives symbols enormous power, including the power to make peace. The political scientist and game theorist Robert Axelrod of the University of Michigan has emphasized this point in thinking about conflict resolution. For example, in a world of sheer rationality where the brain didn't confuse reality with symbols, bringing peace to Israel and Palestine would revolve around things like water rights, placement of borders, and the extent of militarization allowed to Palestinian police. Instead, argues Axelrod, "mutual symbolic concessions" of no material benefit will ultimately make all the difference. He quotes a Hamas leader who says that for the process of peace to go forward, Israel must apologize for the forced Palestinians exile in 1948. And he quotes a senior Israeli official saying that for progress to be made, Palestinians need to first acknowledge Israel's right to exist and to get their anti-Semitic garbage out of their textbooks.

[Placid Dingo]

That link looks awesome Net, off to peek.