3 ms·

> we have a counterculture — many of them, in fact — but they are systematically excluded from seeping into the mainstream I don't understand this and by exten

> we have a counterculture — many of them, in fact — but they are systematically excluded from seeping into the mainstream I don't understand this and by extension the entire article. Counterculture is by definition outside of mainstream. It would just be culture and not anti otherwise. This sounds like semantics but then that is what I think the entire article is, and imho it is wrong.

specialist 4y ago
Ya. My noob understanding of these things is that there is no culture without counterculture. Because we can only understand things, like culture, identity, and self, in contrast to other things. From Gioia's OC: > A sense of sameness pervades the creative world ... aka "Kids these days..." I've been hearing this exact same criticism for as long as I remember. One observation (McLuhan? Warhol?), using the example of da Vinci's Mona Lisa, which made some sense to me: Modern tech makes reproduction trivial. So any original content quickly becomes ubiquitous. Separating content from original creator. Thereby mooting any of original intention or meaning or esthetic or whatever. In other words, everything popular becomes banal. My example, from the 90s era new age fads, I always thought of the yin-yang symbol showing up every where. Especially as tattoos. Oh so original. Further, I think this also helps explain the disappointment about "selling out". It's a rare thing for a creator to become popular, not wear out their welcome, and retain their original fan base.
lelanthran 4y ago
>> they are systematically excluded from seeping into the mainstream > I don't understand this and by extension the entire article. Counterculture is by definition outside of mainstream. Yes, that's what they said. The danger they are going on about is how heavily it is buried so that it never seeps into mainstream. Your not understanding is confusing to me, especially since you quoted the bit "we have a counterculture", and then replied as if they said "we have no counterculture".

specialist 4y ago

Ya. My noob understanding of these things is that there is no culture without counterculture. Because we can only understand things, like culture, identity, and self, in contrast to other things. From Gioia's OC: > A sense of sameness pervades the creative world ... aka "Kids these days..." I've been hearing this exact same criticism for as long as I remember. One observation (McLuhan? Warhol?), using the example of da Vinci's Mona Lisa, which made some sense to me: Modern tech makes reproduction trivial. So any original content quickly becomes ubiquitous. Separating content from original creator. Thereby mooting any of original intention or meaning or esthetic or whatever. In other words, everything popular becomes banal. My example, from the 90s era new age fads, I always thought of the yin-yang symbol showing up every where. Especially as tattoos. Oh so original. Further, I think this also helps explain the disappointment about "selling out". It's a rare thing for a creator to become popular, not wear out their welcome, and retain their original fan base.

lelanthran 4y ago

>> they are systematically excluded from seeping into the mainstream > I don't understand this and by extension the entire article. Counterculture is by definition outside of mainstream. Yes, that's what they said. The danger they are going on about is how heavily it is buried so that it never seeps into mainstream. Your not understanding is confusing to me, especially since you quoted the bit "we have a counterculture", and then replied as if they said "we have no counterculture".