The first time I visited New York, it was just after 9-11 and most of the city was still bewildered. I’ve just returned from my second trip, and when I’m asked about it, I imagine I should have a more interesting response than I have: which is that the best part of my trip was playing with my niece. Something I could have done anywhere-and there are many things that can only be done (or have any meaning) in New York. It’s the home Sex and the City, its now the home of an ’American tragedy’ and its also seemingly the home of the ultimate ’authentic’ (city) experience, whatever that may be. I have to admit, most of my New York fantasies revolve around the latter idea, in which New York acts as the ideological home of an ‘underground’ scene. But of course, this more than any other of New York’s various definitions often becomes a nostalgic, unattainable ideal, in no small part due to people’s insistence that New York is not what it once was, that it no longer harbours the genuinely radical or the truly unusual.
The idea of a counter-culture/ underground/ independent scene is so consistently dependent upon its marginalization that it seems to always hold a tenuously dynamic position of uncertainty. One which makes nostalgia an easy ‘out’, particularly in our current climate, where the gap between commodification and cultural practice seems to be growing ever smaller. It also seems to me that it becomes easy to argue that something is not truly ‘underground’ or has ’sold-out’ because it is so difficult to assert an idea/ a movement, whatever, that can be both embraced and considered to be truly working against the mainstream grain. However, ‘working against the grain’ is such a tainted ideal, forever struggling against the fact of its reliance upon the mainstream, that the merest hint of popularity seems to threaten those that place so much stock in being ‘different’.
The readings this week in relation to Jonas Mekas reveals how difficult it really is to maintain a credible ‘counter’ position to the mainstream. On page 15 of the first reading Paul Arthur writes: “Mekas was supposedly befouled by commerce; his ambition to preserve not only his own career but the creative posibilities of a marginal culture through publicizing and constructing institutions had somehow purloined the “freedom” of those who rejected absolutely the snares of organized leadership” (2005). While Arthur is clearly admiring of Mekas’ work, his phrasing of “creative possibilites” I imagine appropriately strikes many as an exciting prospect. However, history tells us that having those possiblities actually realised for those who have a vested interest, may be an idea they are afraid to imagine.
I’d like to know- why is this such a scary prospect- to become the mainstream? If we imagine that there will always be people wishing to voice their ideas against a generalised, normative experience, and that this may actually effect a measure of change (thus suggesting continual change etc), isn’t this an idealised vision of progress? I’m not suggesting that this is the way things should be, but I am curious about how the idea of the underground functions, and generally, I find myself confused.
I’ve been told that concepts such as ‘mainstream’ and ‘underground’ are precarious constructions, which I agree do not hold up particularly well under further scrutiny- does anyone ever put their hand up for ‘mainstream’? Does my archive of Cosmopolitan and addiction to teen dance films qualify me for the dreaded mainstream label, or can it be negated if I suggest my addiction is shameful and my relationship with Cosmo highly critical? In truth, labelling mainstream to an individual seems peculiar, even if that individual owns all the apparent trappings of mainstreamity, as of course ‘the mainstream’ (as many have argued more intelligently than I) is always conceptualised as a faceless, mindless mass, happily and easily led- and which you as an individual is never apart of. However, I also find it difficult to ignore how strongly ideas of ‘mainstream’ and ‘underground’ resonate, so that they appear to be undoubtedly in existence, often delimited along almost absolutist lines.
I’d write something interesting about this link, but I want to meet friends- so you’ll have to make your own conclusions: here is a link to Nylon magazine, look at pages 26-31.
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/nylon/0606/index.php
Unfortunately this link no longer goes to the issue of Nylon to which I was referring- in short it was a few pages of mini interviews (paired with their photo- I assume so we could gaze at their outfits) of some misshapes attendees.
0 responses so far ↓
There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.