Anniversaries: Catalysts for Existential Crises (for blogs)

Yesterday arvo I noticed my usually modest blog stats much higher than usual- it turns out my ultimate dream has come to fruition (I dream small apparently): the ever-lovely Steph mentioned me in her blog (Hello Steph!). I should just give up blogging now, there is no way I can top such an achievement. I was so excited I spent my Friday night determinedly shouting over loud music to tell anyone I vaguely knew about it, thereby revealing the depths of my geekery which I had thus far managed to conceal to all but my closest friends. The conversation would go something like this:

x: “So, what did you do today?”

me (very excited): “Well, this awesome girl who has a really popular blog, mentioned MY blog today!” (please note, 90% of these people have no idea I have a blog).

x: “oh… that’s… interesting”

me: “plus, I picked up two fantastic green jackets at an op shop for ten bucks!” (unbelievably, my male companions were even less enthused about this news. Honestly though- really good quality jackets in beautiful cuts- I am very chuffed)

I feel slightly bad I have never commented on Much Ado, although I’ve been a lurky admirer. I figured she had enough commenters she had to think of pithy witty replies to (you see, it was an alturistic gesture- clearly). Also, I really didn’t want to sound like a stalker by commenting on every post with “I love your blog! I love you Steph! You’re awesome.” I was pretty sure I’d be much cooler if I maintained silence. I have to say, I am forever confused by blog etiquette: too many comments? too few? Am I supposed to reply to the reply? etc. The whole thing is a minefield for misunderstandings. This does not in any way make it less of a responsibility for YOU to comment. I gave you words, now you give me words- see how this works?

It also turns out that today is the one year anniversary of this blog (how um, exciting). Considering that I started this thing for academic purposes, it is rather curious that I have spent so much time talking about myself. I, personally am not surprised- more than anything this blog has revealed how narcissistic and self absorbed I truly am. I’m learning to embrace it (come join me, it’s liberating).

Things this blog has done for me:

1) given me the easiest high mark for a subject at uni ever.

2) made me really annoying to Bel and Hayley, who have heard me say a million times: “that’s funny, I just wrote about something like that on my blog” instead of actually conversing

3) made me spend WAY too much time procrastinating writing blog posts during swot vac

4) drove me crazy that no one wanted to pop my blog’s commenting cherry: people would come up to me to tell me what they thought of something I’d written- sometimes they’d even email or text me an opinion, and I’d want to say: “Why to my face? What’s wrong with the comment section of my blog, which looks so unloved?? Don’t you people realise it would make my life more exciting? For christ’s sake.”

5) made me far too excited over my first alien commenter (i.e. people I don’t know in ‘real’ life, not extra terristials).

6) seduced me into reading far too many blogs- frankly, it’s tiring. I seriously need to purge some from my feedreader.

Although I’m pretty tempted to ask “What am I doing here? Why am I writing? Why are you visiting?” etc, in an increasingly frantic manner, I’m just going to pretend I’ve never thought these things and instead simply honour this (not) momentous day, by re-posting my first ever blog entry. Happy Jen’s Blog Day!

New York, New York- Part One

August 4th, 2006 · No Comments

 

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.