After my friend Kevin had written an article for my online publication, "Atonal Magazine," about his irritation towards the "indie" trend my girlfriend had raised a series of very interesting and important question about trends. A lot of her questions were in reference to the authenticity of "indie" and those who are described as such, and the question as to why people have a problem with trends overall. It is important to clarify what exactly it is about these social occurrences that make people so distraught. This is especially true when those criticizing feel they are "honest" and authentic, thus putting them in the position for criticism. Let us explore the phenomena of tends while focusing on authenticity and value in reference to them.
If you are unaware of what an "indie" person is, or what the trend amounts to, its particularities are irrelevant. Rather, if you are familiar with any trend, from emo kids to beatniks, the same reasoning and criticism will apply. I will try to use a number of different examples to illustrate the points so not to confuse anybody. For the sake of example we will use hippies as a way to illustrate my first point; this being the inherent problem with trends. Trends are a collection of actions, style, aesthetics, fashion, outlook, and taste that a group of people adopt. This is either out of the desire for originality, or simply because of marketing. Either way, a large group of people cling on to a similar lifestyle. Hippies, for example, share anti-authoritarian political views, do not prescribe to mainstream grooming norms, share an "alternative" practice of various forms of spirituality, and dress in colorful loose fitting clothing. These are the qualities associated with hippies, and individuals are recognized as such if a number of these qualities coincide.
This trend started off, like most, as an authentic way to rebel against social norms and expectations. The Baby Boomer generation found these qualities to be opposite and more desirable than what was offered to them at the time. Each of these qualities had their own significance within themselves and only evolved the others through personal taste. More and more people began to adopt the ideas and dress and at some point the whole image began to become associated with rebellion. This is a pivotal point in any trend. Once the trend is viewed as a form of originality or rebellion, it is adopted by those seeking to give off the same image. The higher the number of adherents becomes, the less authentic the values and attributes of the trend. At some point, all the trend remains is a fashion, often supported and touted by those who represent the antithesis of the initial adherents. An example of this is blue jeans. Blue jeans were adopted by hippies and hipsters of the 50's and 60's because of their working class symbolism, durability, and low price. Now there are blue jeans that are no longer durable and are absurdly priced, defeating their original purpose and value.
It is at this point that the trend becomes a marketing technique, devoid of any idealism or rebellion except for a shallow facade of such by the new adherents. The same thing can be seen within the punk community and the emergence of Hot Topic, which sells overpriced clothing with punk aesthetics. Punk kids are now known by their style of dress rather than business practices or morality. It becomes another role one plays, a character they act out their life as. This is distinct from one who enjoys what they do for their own reasons.
So you see, trends become destructive by their very nature. The more it grows, the less it means. This is because it is exposed to a wider variety of people whom often do not understand or are unaware of the principles it was founded on. On the other side, those who do understand and practice these principles but not the fashion are not recognized as members of that trend. Furthermore, individuals are not members of the trend unless they recognize it themselves. If they believe in the core principles and practices of, say, punk rock or hippies, and recognize that they are doing such they are still trendy. This is as inauthentic as the fashion, just on another level. Straight edge is a trend in morality and fashion, and on both levels it is following a dogmatic set of lifestyle parameters.
There is also a third dimension to trends. There is the individual who seems to fit into the trend, but does not. They are labeled as such from the outside, but do not recognize it internally. This is not denial, which still falls into the categories described above. Rather, they simply enjoy acting and dressing as they do. Even if they are aware that it is "trendy" they don't allow the parameters or mandates of that trend to dictate their behavior. Someone who enjoys tie dye, is a vegetarian, and practices Buddhism may share hippie like qualities. However, if they enjoy them for their own sake, and practice them for their own reasons, there is no inauthentic behavior. It is merely a coincidence, or mistake in judgment by others that they appear to be a hippie. It is not until a label is placed on the individual and they recognize it as some sort of law that inauthentic or personally dishonest behavior can arise.
Another example would be one who describes art or music as their life. If this is stated as law, then they bear the burden of proof. As soon as they proclaim this, to themselves or others, as their supreme value for living then they must bear proof. The phrase itself, which is ambiguous, is open to interpretation and judgment. What makes music one's life may not be the same for two different people. If one loves music, it preoccupies most of their thought, finance, and time but do not recognize it or state it as the supreme value for existence than they run no risk for grounded criticism on this basis. Their value may be on "positive experience" which they associate with music, or simply on "creation." Either way, they are not following a personal dogma, or an explicit lifestyle that they must live up to. They are existing free of standards other than what occurs to them in different situations. If one comments "so-and-so's life is music" than that is completely different. This is one individual's opinion and can only be denied or affirmed by the subject being judged.
So, when considering "indie" kids, the same parameters as laid out above still apply. The reasoning is still valid, but what we have not explored is why this angers people. For someone who considers themselves authentic and truly believes in the principles, morals, and values placed on something such as music or fashion, than another who belittles or misunderstands these can be interpreted as offensive. Indie kids claim to be original and "independent" when clearly their adherence to a trend contradicts this fact. Their appreciation of music that is carbon copied and unoriginal within its genre, while claiming it to be the opposite is upsetting. Contradictions are aggravating. This is especially true when someone claims that they don't exist and hold themselves up as the shining beacon of honesty and independence.
The burden of proof lies on the one who is making the judgment as well. If one criticizes another as behaving in an inauthentic manner, then they are claiming to know the reasoning behind their actions. If they are wrong, then the accuser must face the consequences of looking like an asshole. A lot of judgment is based on a brief encounter with another and an equally swift decision on their appearance. Although it may seem justifiable because of their similar appearance to a number of other, this is not a sound basis for an accurate evaluation. More often than not, people are upset with others' trendiness out of spite or insecurity with their own individuality.
Overall, there is a great deal more involved in the assessment of trends. It's safer to assume the larger the trend the less it has to offer, and a route to true authentic expression is a more favorable route. However, the evolution of ideas, art, music, and fashion do not occur in a vacuum and there will always be borrowing and copying. It's more about the result and its meaning to the individuals that matters, especially when a philosophy and lifestyle are adopted. How one lives their life is an important matter to the individual, and I do not believe anyone would want their existence marginalized. It's a matter of misconception, faulty reasoning, ignorance, or denial that leads to inauthentic living. The solution is in the mind of the beholder.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment