Corruption In The Aesthetics Sphere

[Some_porcupine]

Really sucks to see that discord troons and Tumblr fujos can just decide to throw out articles like that. I think it's quite obvious that they just don't care for the aesthetic and want that much less stuff to moderate on a wiki full of mentally ill teenage girls.

no, they are anti that

This kind of negligence is how creative works become (for lack of a better word) lost media and just makes passionate artists bitter. I feel as if this video highlights an issue with modern wikis in that the collaborative effort required has to co-exist with the autism that fuels the motivation of the people that even make articles. But seeing how unstable the average Gen A/Late Gen Z fuckers are it basically makes it impossible for a wiki to actually do its job as the bias will just lean to one side (that side being autistic teenagers who watch whatever the algorithm shits onto their plate) or just fucking implode on itself from the sheer weight of dark matter autism.

full of self-ads

I really have no idea how anyone is supposed to enjoy anything on the internet nowadays when everything HAS to appeal to retarded fatherless girls who can't handle being called autistic. These "people" don't care for what others think is cool, they lack the basic ability to see things in the other man's shoe. They want everything to be about them and make no attempt to fit in whatsoever.

because AW tries to be CARI, its that simple

Unfortunately it just seems that Tiktok faggots don't care about the 70's and all it's many branching styles. They would rather listen to 90 fucktillion Frutiger Aero music compilations on Youtube while full caps complaining about being "harassed" on the Fortnite wiki.

they change aesthetics like socks, also, they make things up, while admins of AW at least try to dig up history of those movements

 

[Captain]

This isn't really true- as I point out in the video, there have always been multiple aesthetics operating at the same point in time. It's extremely reductive to claim that aesthetics used to be defined only by the decade in which they were conceived. The history of aesthetics goes far deeper than that, if you look at books on graphic design from the late 20th century they had about as many aesthetics defined and categorized as we do now. Humans instinctively notice patterns, it's one of our primary traits. The history of aesthetics is extremely rich- subcultures rise and fall, trends fluctuate, certain aesthetics are revived while others go completely forgotten. It's all really, really interesting stuff.

The main difference between then and now, as I point out, is that back then these books were compiled by experts and scholars, and today the resources which are meant to categorize and retain these aesthetics are run by incompetent people who have no idea what they're talking about and actively twist facts to suit their own biases. If someone is going to be the arbiter of what is and isn't an aesthetic, I should hope that person is qualified. And I personally believe that there should be more aesthetics. The more, the better. I like to see people getting creative and messing around with weird ideas. As I see it, though, either all aesthetics are valid or none are valid. Either you let everyone go crazy with changelingcore and goblincore and lightningwave and whatever other wacky ideas people can conceive of, or you just delete the entire mess and forget about it, because once you become selective and snobby about it, it no longer serves a purpose for anyone.

No. You are creating so many definitions they all become meaningless. It's impossible to define every aesthetic because they are not all valid. If they are all valid than they all mean nothing and have no reason for definition. Just because you add cowboy boots to neon shorts doesn't make a new aesthetic. The word aesthetic (in its many definitions) is to describe the work of an artist or art. So you would say "that has a Paul Rand aesthetic to it.", you wouldn't break it up into various segments of Paul Rand. You might reference periods of his work but not give them new aesthetics. The 90s aesthetic is comprised of various styles. Each style is not an aesthetic. What you are trying to do remove the whole category tree. Most of this over categorization is from the modern era of people trying to make their personality unique by over definition in the hopes of being different. It's the same with music categories. You can't just be happy with Vaporwave....you need to have 300 categories that all sound the same.

The more you try to put art in a box, the less meaning it starts to take on.

 

[nsequeira119]

And no I'm not watching an hour long video to find out.

Well, if you're unwilling to sit through an hour of detailed comprehensive explanation, then I suppose there's nothing that can be done to help you out there, buddy.

Supposing for a moment that Rollerwave is an "artificial aesthetic" (which implies the existence of genuine aesthetics by contrast) what would you define the aesthetic of films like Rollerball, Death Race 2000, and THX 1138 as? If you know what it is, and you have a better explanation of it than I can provide for Rollerwave, then go for it- but as far as I'm aware, these films all contain a similar aesthetic which has yet to be recognized or placed into a definitive canon. Furthermore, is there a 1970s counterpart to Vaporwave I'm not aware of which predates Rollerwave? Did anyone ever bother to create a 1970s variant?

Your assertion that the creation of vaporwave was somehow "purer" or that people didn't know what an aesthetic was in the mid-2000s is entirely baseless. I guarantee that Daniel Lopatin and James Ferraro and Death's Dynamic Shroud and all the other early pioneers absolutely knew that they were contributing to a growing movement with a unified appearance.

Your statement that the legitimacy of an aesthetic depends on how many people "aesthetitize" it reeks of smug populism. This is how the Internet, and by extension, all human knowledge, will collapse- with ignorance of the obscure. It is absolutely necessary to acknowledge the existence of microgenres, smaller niches and subcategories if media is to remain diverse and interesting. it is also vital for the purposes of historic preservation. For instance, would you argue that a lesser-known aesthetic like Seapunk is illegitimate just because there were far less people in it than in Vaporwave and it's mostly died out now? If so, you are actively erasing history. If not, if you would argue that its canon is legitimate because there were multiple participants- where do you draw the line, and who the Hell gives you the right to draw that line? Is Seapunk "less legitimate" by comparison?

 

[microbyte]

Well, if you're unwilling to sit through an hour of detailed comprehensive explanation, then I suppose there's nothing that can be done to help you out there, buddy.

Once again - an hour of "detailed comprehensive explanation", for something as inconsequential as "my aesthetic is invalid ", is way too much for anyone who values their time. I ain't watching an hour for what can be distilled into a few sentences.
Anyway, your argument reeks of irrationality. "who the Hell gives you the right to draw that line?", like it isn't that deep. You don't need everything clearly spelled out for you. Once again - you know the line when you see it. Genuine aesthetics crop up, well genuinely, without people actively searching for them, and are actually fairly popular and known about. How would I classify the aesthetics of films like Rollerball? I'd classify them as "the aesthetic of films like rollerball", not "Rollerwave". Not everything needs to be hypercategorized. And saying that stuff doesn't need to be hypercategorized isn't "erasing history", it's just saying that there's more to life than just categories.

 

[Captain]

The more aesthetics you have....the less meaning they all have. The more definition, the more ridged. The more ridged, the less you have room for art and expression.

Is defining aesthetics a way for people to define or justify their own personal internal legitimacy? A way to believe they are part of the art process when they are not? If they think they are applying meaning then they will have validated themselves, when in fact they are personally lacking in the ability to artfully express themselves? Is it the lazy way to build a definition of their own character so they can pose as artists intellectually? There's some things to unpack there.

 

[MindControlBoxer]

Is Seapunk "less legitimate" by comparison?

yes there was never singificant real world seapunk movement other than people dressing up(larping) like movie and videogame characters

by your logic everything that ever used a full cut helmet its roller wave which is retarded

Death race 2000s is a cyberpunk wacky races spoof, THX is cyberpunk and rollerball is cyberpunk.

This is like babys first introduction to golden age cyberpunk where it wasn't all about le hackerman and dressing up like ninjas.

 

[nsequeira119]

yes there was never singificant real world seapunk movement other than people dressing up(larping) like movie and videogame characters

by your logic everything that ever used a full cut helmet its roller wave which is retarded

Death race 2000s is a cyberpunk wacky races spoof, THX is cyberpunk and rollerball is cyberpunk.

This is like babys first introduction to golden age cyberpunk where it wasn't all about le hackerman and dressing up like ninjas.

Cyberpunk...? They're not cyberpunk. Death Race 2000, to the best of my knowledge, had nothing to do with Wacky Races. It is, like Rollerball, a critique of mass media and televised sports. This was a common theme throughout the 1970s (the Super Bowl was a relatively new concept at the time, and roller derby was taking off). How does this have anything to do with computers or robots? Even THX's futuristic subterranean city doesn't have much in the way of technological sophistication, relying for the most part on a sociological human-focused approach. I would never in a million years refer to what THX presents as a cyberpunk city.

Now, of course, I would absolutely define something like Do Androids Dream as proto-cyberpunk, because it displays some of the elements that would later go on to define cyberpunk as a genre. You could easily make the argument that cyberpunk existed pre-Neuromancer, that it had its roots as far back as the late 60s and existed as a steady undercurrent through the 70s, with entries like Westworld or Colossus: The Forbin Project, but to claim that was the "golden age" of cyberpunk is patently absurd. Cyberpunk hit its zenith, both in terms of public recognition, cultural influence, and ideological cohesion, in the 1980s. The 1980s were the decade of cyberpunk. The 1970s were the decade of new wave.

I can't imagine what it must be like to have a worldview so reductive that you say anything set in a dystopic future is cyberpunk, to completely ignore the prefix "cyber" and to diminish the importance of themes like hackers and ninjas to what cyberpunk fundamentally is. Does anyone know what cyberpunk is anymore, or is it destined to become a generic catch-all term for all sci-fi?

 

[MindControlBoxer]

Cyberpunk...? They're not cyberpunk. Death Race 2000, to the best of my knowledge, had nothing to do with Wacky Races. It is, like Rollerball, a critique of mass media and televised sports. This was a common theme throughout the 1970s (the Super Bowl was a relatively new concept at the time, and roller derby was taking off). How does this have anything to do with computers or robots? Even THX's futuristic subterranean city doesn't have much in the way of technological sophistication, relying for the most part on a sociological human-focused approach. I would never in a million years refer to what THX presents as a cyberpunk city.

Now, of course, I would absolutely define something like Do Androids Dream as proto-cyberpunk, because it displays some of the elements that would later go on to define cyberpunk as a genre. You could easily make the argument that cyberpunk existed pre-Neuromancer, that it had its roots as far back as the late 60s and existed as a steady undercurrent through the 70s, with entries like Westworld or Colossus: The Forbin Project, but to claim that was the "golden age" of cyberpunk is patently absurd. Cyberpunk hit its zenith, both in terms of public recognition, cultural influence, and ideological cohesion, in the 1980s. The 1980s were the decade of cyberpunk. The 1970s were the decade of new wave.

I can't imagine what it must be like to have a worldview so reductive that you say anything set in a dystopic future is cyberpunk, to completely ignore the prefix "cyber" and to diminish the importance of themes like hackers and ninjas to what cyberpunk fundamentally is. Does anyone know what cyberpunk is anymore, or is it destined to become a generic catch-all term for all sci-fi?

Refer top my cyberpunk posts here

Agorapals - what's your take on cyberpunk?

I'm sure this has been done before, if not on /lit/ then at least somewhere else here - but I am an Agoran00b and I can't find it with the search box. So, here goes. Today I reread a couple of William Gibson shorts - Johnny Mnemonic, Burning Chrome, and New Rose Hotel: and I was struck by how...

forum.agoraroad.com

Cyberpunk had 2 distinct very different eras starting from roughly 1973(1976) to 1990 then from 1991 to 2001 then 2002 to current era which its mostly dead reimaginations of the previous era

The first gen its mostly about A world where a dystopian future uses un imaginable technology(cyber) to fulfill nihilistic pursuits(punk), corporate ideals, or global homogenization, etc. It doesn't need to check all boxes like an autist.

Crash is one of the most important proto cyberpunk works ever and it barely has an technology that wasn't accessible on its era, by your definition star treks the ultimate computer would be cyberpunk too when its clearly not, its sci fi technology its only a part of cyberpunk not the whole the cyber part is just that in the era the near future was gearing up to be cyber(they were off by many years which its why there was a second gen of cyber punk, because by the time computers became accessible to the general public much had changed in the world and the way these things work from the first era).

All of that stuff started to become topics of discussion in the 70s which is why there is no cyber punk without punk rock which started in at the earliest 1973 (1976 is when it was actually took off tho) and was the embodiment of a generation who would grow up on this world and did not like the way the future was going and was opposed to the one big world family zeitgeist that was under one of the other relevant subculture of the era: Hippies.
During the 70s is where computers and other things were starting to show up at a bigger scale and the post war world was very into(due to the hippie culture influence) the idea of a perfect future with machines and robots doing space communism, there are many utopian movies from the same era that show the opposite side of the coin. Just that the hippie movement started in the early 60s was dying by the late 70s while the original punk movement started in the late 70s and went on until the late 80s.

Cyberpunk its under sci-fi not the other way around, it is also under punk rock(at least the first gen). The -cyber prefix comes from phreaking culture not the latter computer hacking one.

 

[nsequeira119]

Refer top my cyberpunk posts here

Agorapals - what's your take on cyberpunk?

I'm sure this has been done before, if not on /lit/ then at least somewhere else here - but I am an Agoran00b and I can't find it with the search box. So, here goes. Today I reread a couple of William Gibson shorts - Johnny Mnemonic, Burning Chrome, and New Rose Hotel: and I was struck by how...

forum.agoraroad.com

Cyberpunk had 2 distinct very different eras starting from roughly 1973(1976) to 1990 then from 1991 to 2001 then 2002 to current era which its mostly dead reimaginations of the previous era

The first gen its mostly about A world where a dystopian future uses un imaginable technology(cyber) to fulfill nihilistic pursuits(punk), corporate ideals, or global homogenization, etc. It doesn't need to check all boxes like an autist.

Crash is one of the most important proto cyberpunk works ever and it barely has an technology that wasn't accessible on its era, by your definition star treks the ultimate computer would be cyberpunk too when its clearly not, its sci fi technology its only a part of cyberpunk not the whole the cyber part is just that in the era the near future was gearing up to be cyber(they were off by many years which its why there was a second gen of cyber punk, because by the time computers became accessible to the general public much had changed in the world and the way these things work from the first era).

All of that stuff started to become topics of discussion in the 70s which is why there is no cyber punk without punk rock which started in at the earliest 1973 (1976 is when it was actually took off tho) and was the embodiment of a generation who would grow up on this world and did not like the way the future was going and was opposed to the one big world family zeitgeist that was under one of the other relevant subculture of the era: Hippies.
During the 70s is where computers and other things were starting to show up at a bigger scale and the post war world was very into(due to the hippie culture influence) the idea of a perfect future with machines and robots doing space communism, there are many utopian movies from the same era that show the opposite side of the coin. Just that the hippie movement started in the early 60s was dying by the late 70s while the original punk movement started in the late 70s and went on until the late 80s.

Cyberpunk its under sci-fi not the other way around, it is also under punk rock(at least the first gen). The -cyber prefix comes from phreaking culture not the latter computer hacking one.

You have no idea what you're talking about, your perception of history is clearly distorted. Hippies didn't last until the late 1970s, they ceased to be for the most part around 1969, due to multiple factors including the Manson murders and the Altamont concert. What you're referring to- 1970s Carter-era utopian futurism- is a distinct breed of idealism birthed by the appeal of carter's environmentalist policies following the nationwide disillusionment of the Nixon/Ford era and the simultaneous relaxation between America and the Soviet Union. Hippies were not involved in the process, most of them had since become yuppies (sellouts) living in affluent suburbs. That's what Rollerwave signifies- a period of relative peace in the 1970s, a period of time which is ideologically brighter compared to the 1980s. The reason The Ultimate Computer isn't cyberpunk is because Star Trek is an inherently utopian franchise set in a post-scarcity world. Not all stories with computers or robots are cyberpunk, however, to qualify as cyberpunk, I would argue that a story needs to have either computers or robots, or some other high-concept digital technology. If it isn't, it's merely dystopic.

Why do you insist that Crash, of all things, is some sort of landmark entry in the genre? It came out a full 5 years after Do Androids Dream. I wouldn't even really call Do Androids Dream "proto-cyberpunk," it contains so many essential cyberpunk elements that I would classify it as pure Cyberpunk. Philip K. Dick was a master, and cyberpunk is interesting in how fully-formed it emerged. If Crash is cyberpunk, that means A Clockwork Orange- the film, anyway- is also cyberpunk, which it definitely isn't. Is A Clockwork Orange Rollerwave, though? Yes, absolutely. It's a movie with tons of specifically 1970s retrofuturism, as opposed to cyberpunk, which is in its purest form completely timeless.

Also- punk rock didn't begin in 1973. That's a completely arbitrary date. Like all genres of music, punk rock underwent a long evolution to its most recognizable, commercialized form. Fun House by The Stooges came out in 1970. If you go back even further, "You Really Got Me" by The Kinks from 1964 is commonly cited as the first punk rock song. I would agree with that. Garage rock, if you look into it, shares a considerable overlap with punk rock. Arguably, considering that Do Androids Dream came out in 1968 and punk rock didn't become prevalent until the 70s, cyberpunk could ABSOLUTELY have existed without punk rock, it just would have probably been called something else. Cyberpunk and punk rock are actually two entirely unrelated phenomena with very little in common, the term "punk" existed before both and was applied to both retroactively. You are the only one here misrepresenting the ethos and meaning of cyberpunk.

Holy shit, with people having this bad an understanding of basic historical knowledge, it's no wonder that an aesthetic like Rollerwave would go unappreciated and overlooked.

 

[LostintheCycle]

ITT: this guy complains that nobody likes some trend he made up

 

[nsequeira119]

ITT: this guy complains that nobody likes some trend he made up
View attachment 94819

As opposed to trends people don't make up...?

 

[Captain]

You have no idea what you're talking about, your perception of history is clearly distorted. Hippies didn't last until the late 1970s, they ceased to be for the most part around 1969, due to multiple factors including the Manson murders and the Altamont concert. What you're referring to- 1970s Carter-era utopian futurism- is a distinct breed of idealism birthed by the appeal of carter's environmentalist policies following the nationwide disillusionment of the Nixon/Ford era and the simultaneous relaxation between America and the Soviet Union. Hippies were not involved in the process, most of them had since become yuppies (sellouts) living in affluent suburbs. That's what Rollerwave signifies- a period of relative peace in the 1970s, a period of time which is ideologically brighter compared to the 1980s. The reason The Ultimate Computer isn't cyberpunk is because Star Trek is an inherently utopian franchise set in a post-scarcity world. Not all stories with computers or robots are cyberpunk, however, to qualify as cyberpunk, I would argue that a story needs to have either computers or robots, or some other high-concept digital technology. If it isn't, it's merely dystopic.

Why do you insist that Crash, of all things, is some sort of landmark entry in the genre? It came out a full 5 years after Do Androids Dream. I wouldn't even really call Do Androids Dream "proto-cyberpunk," it contains so many essential cyberpunk elements that I would classify it as pure Cyberpunk. Philip K. Dick was a master, and cyberpunk is interesting in how fully-formed it emerged. If Crash is cyberpunk, that means A Clockwork Orange- the film, anyway- is also cyberpunk, which it definitely isn't. Is A Clockwork Orange Rollerwave, though? Yes, absolutely. It's a movie with tons of specifically 1970s retrofuturism, as opposed to cyberpunk, which is in its purest form completely timeless.

Also- punk rock didn't begin in 1973. That's a completely arbitrary date. Like all genres of music, punk rock underwent a long evolution to its most recognizable, commercialized form. Fun House by The Stooges came out in 1970. If you go back even further, "You Really Got Me" by The Kinks from 1964 is commonly cited as the first punk rock song. I would agree with that. Garage rock, if you look into it, shares a considerable overlap with punk rock. Arguably, considering that Do Androids Dream came out in 1968 and punk rock didn't become prevalent until the 70s, cyberpunk could ABSOLUTELY have existed without punk rock, it just would have probably been called something else. Cyberpunk and punk rock are actually two entirely unrelated phenomena with very little in common, the term "punk" existed before both and was applied to both retroactively. You are the only one here misrepresenting the ethos and meaning of cyberpunk.

Holy shit, with people having this bad an understanding of basic historical knowledge, it's no wonder that an aesthetic like Rollerwave would go unappreciated and overlooked.

You are incorrect about hippies. Steve Jobs first child was born in 1978 and her mother lived on a commune with hippies when she was born. They were around well into the early 80s and I remember them from that era.

The problem with trying to use history as a defense for abstract concepts....history of media and art is rarely 100% correct. Only mainstream stuff is generally covered and so much is lost to time. Generally things on the internet are so limited in perspective it's almost fiction at times. Unless you personally experienced a time period it's all just subjective. I lived in the 90s for example and half this forum has some crazy ideas about that period because they weren't there.

I would also ask if the value of the art to you or others requires labeling it? Does forcing a definition on it contributing to the experience or take away from it? Does any of this discussion really matter?

 

[Some_porcupine]

You have no idea what you're talking about, your perception of history is clearly distorted. Hippies didn't last until the late 1970s, they ceased to be for the most part around 1969, due to multiple factors including the Manson murders and the Altamont concert. What you're referring to- 1970s Carter-era utopian futurism- is a distinct breed of idealism birthed by the appeal of carter's environmentalist policies following the nationwide disillusionment of the Nixon/Ford era and the simultaneous relaxation between America and the Soviet Union. Hippies were not involved in the process, most of them had since become yuppies (sellouts) living in affluent suburbs. That's what Rollerwave signifies- a period of relative peace in the 1970s, a period of time which is ideologically brighter compared to the 1980s. The reason The Ultimate Computer isn't cyberpunk is because Star Trek is an inherently utopian franchise set in a post-scarcity world. Not all stories with computers or robots are cyberpunk, however, to qualify as cyberpunk, I would argue that a story needs to have either computers or robots, or some other high-concept digital technology. If it isn't, it's merely dystopic.

Why do you insist that Crash, of all things, is some sort of landmark entry in the genre? It came out a full 5 years after Do Androids Dream. I wouldn't even really call Do Androids Dream "proto-cyberpunk," it contains so many essential cyberpunk elements that I would classify it as pure Cyberpunk. Philip K. Dick was a master, and cyberpunk is interesting in how fully-formed it emerged. If Crash is cyberpunk, that means A Clockwork Orange- the film, anyway- is also cyberpunk, which it definitely isn't. Is A Clockwork Orange Rollerwave, though? Yes, absolutely. It's a movie with tons of specifically 1970s retrofuturism, as opposed to cyberpunk, which is in its purest form completely timeless.

Also- punk rock didn't begin in 1973. That's a completely arbitrary date. Like all genres of music, punk rock underwent a long evolution to its most recognizable, commercialized form. Fun House by The Stooges came out in 1970. If you go back even further, "You Really Got Me" by The Kinks from 1964 is commonly cited as the first punk rock song. I would agree with that. Garage rock, if you look into it, shares a considerable overlap with punk rock. Arguably, considering that Do Androids Dream came out in 1968 and punk rock didn't become prevalent until the 70s, cyberpunk could ABSOLUTELY have existed without punk rock, it just would have probably been called something else. Cyberpunk and punk rock are actually two entirely unrelated phenomena with very little in common, the term "punk" existed before both and was applied to both retroactively. You are the only one here misrepresenting the ethos and meaning of cyberpunk.

Holy shit, with people having this bad an understanding of basic historical knowledge, it's no wonder that an aesthetic like Rollerwave would go unappreciated and overlooked.

what you say?
in one sentence please

 

[MindControlBoxer]

You have no idea what you're talking about, your perception of history is clearly distorted. Hippies didn't last until the late 1970s, they ceased to be for the most part around 1969, due to multiple factors including the Manson murders and the Altamont concert. What you're referring to- 1970s Carter-era utopian futurism- is a distinct breed of idealism birthed by the appeal of carter's environmentalist policies following the nationwide disillusionment of the Nixon/Ford era and the simultaneous relaxation between America and the Soviet Union. Hippies were not involved in the process, most of them had since become yuppies (sellouts) living in affluent suburbs.

As peoples said before you are getting your timeline wrong, probably because the only information you have on it its though a glowing screen, you have never talked to hippies or punks from that era outside of a computer screen. Obviously.

are so limited in perspective it's almost fiction at times. Unless you personally experienced a time period it's all just subjective. I lived in the 90s for example and half this forum has some crazy ideas about that period because they weren't there.

^

That's what Rollerwave signifies- a period of relative peace in the 1970s, a period of time which is ideologically brighter compared to the 1980s. The reason The Ultimate Computer isn't cyberpunk is because Star Trek is an inherently utopian franchise set in a post-scarcity world. Not all stories with computers or robots are cyberpunk, however, to qualify as cyberpunk, I would argue that a story needs to have either computers or robots, or some other high-concept digital technology. If it isn't, it's merely dystopic.

No, the cyber prefix comes from Phreaking, which at the time was high concept technology, retarded take.

Why do you insist that Crash, of all things, is some sort of landmark entry in the genre? It came out a full 5 years after Do Androids Dream.

Androids do dream isn't cyberpunk and crash was one of the direct inspirations for blade runner and the Shadowrun table top retard. This isn't some underground secret knowledge dumbass.

I wouldn't even really call Do Androids Dream "proto-cyberpunk," it contains so many essential cyberpunk elements that I would classify it as pure Cyberpunk. Philip K. Dick was a master, and cyberpunk is interesting in how fully-formed it emerged. If Crash is cyberpunk, that means A Clockwork Orange- the film,

Why? Why would it be?

Is A Clockwork Orange Rollerwave, though? Yes, aanyway- is also cyberpunk, which it definitely isn't.bsolutely. It's a movie with tons of specifically 1970s retrofuturism, as opposed to cyberpunk, which is in its purest form completely timeless.

Most retarded take yet. Rollerwave isn't a real thing outside your own fantasies.

Also- punk rock didn't begin in 1973. That's a completely arbitrary date. Like all genres of music, punk rock underwent a long evolution to its most recognizable, commercialized form. Fun House by The Stooges came out in 1970. If you go back even further, "You Really Got Me" by The Kinks from 1964 is commonly cited as the first punk rock song.

Absolutely retarded and wrong by your logic helter skelter was the first punkrock song that kicked the movement, one of the dumbest takes i ever seen.

First ARGUABLY punk album its the newyork dolls one in 74. ARGUBALY.

would agree with that. Garage rock, if you look into it, shares a considerable overlap with punk rock. Arguably, considering that Do Androids Dream came out in 1968 and punk rock didn't become prevalent until the 70s, cyberpunk could ABSOLUTELY have existed without punk rock, it just would have probably been called something else. Cyberpunk and punk rock are actually two entirely unrelated phenomena with very little in common, the term "punk" existed before both and was applied to both retroactively. You are the only one here misrepresenting the ethos and meaning of cyberpunk.

"This thing that is this thing would've existed if it did not have this thing that make this thing be the thing"

I ran a cyberpunk zine and a webforum for years and directly talked and interviewed multiple people who were responsible for the creation of the artistic endeavors that fall under the cyberpunk movemvent,way before you had any idea cyberpunk as a movement ever existed, you read Wikipedia articles and see things through a glowing screen and are trying to argue something you have never participated in the very real movement that happened IRL.
How embarrassing.

Holy shit, with people having this bad an understanding of basic historical knowledge, it's no wonder that an aesthetic like Rollerwave would go unappreciated and overlooked.

Yea i wonder why nobody seems to appease you maybe its because you have the most basic shit wrong, and wants to force your autistic world view on people, because you of course know the one divine truth that is rollerwave.(which does not exist)

 

[Brapuccino]

The more aesthetics you have....the less meaning they all have. The more definition, the more ridged. The more ridged, the less you have room for art and expression.

Is defining aesthetics a way for people to define or justify their own personal internal legitimacy? A way to believe they are part of the art process when they are not? If they think they are applying meaning then they will have validated themselves, when in fact they are personally lacking in the ability to artfully express themselves? Is it the lazy way to build a definition of their own character so they can pose as artists intellectually? There's some things to unpack there.

This is essentially the thought process of the art "critic". They inflate their self importance by proclaiming that the critic, in their analysis and evaluation of a piece of art, is the true artist.
Lowly creatures, those.

 

[Some_porcupine]

you remember "awoo scene netpunk 2009 cringe"? (it dont have name, but it goes like "net has to be free/eat the rich/lets all be gay and do sharewarez!")

was big in like 80s hacker era and then in sub of 90s, and by 00s was muted but 2010s with new gen of punk and emo, it went big? (teenpunk + dreams of utopian scholastic/gvc + warez/slack/dark academy/scene/tumblrPol...)

i guess it was basis for "cyberneticPunk/ "e-acc" " revival we got nowadays(*)?

(*/ - also dont forget postmodernism which dont have visul reprez but it is about feeling betrayed, pulled rug, corpostate and corpoweb..."thats why i poop on company time")

-- that my Aesthetics ("utopistic nostalgias") of POSTMODERNISM and SLACKERY; LATE-STATE-CAPITALISM, HAUNTOLOGY (inability to imagine future, in contrast to e.g. frutiger aero, retro-/cassette futurism, failed corp-eco/DORFic (they realized it is just fake as all those markt statements were...), ...

 

[nsequeira119]

You are incorrect about hippies. Steve Jobs first child was born in 1978 and her mother lived on a commune with hippies when she was born. They were around well into the early 80s and I remember them from that era.

The problem with trying to use history as a defense for abstract concepts....history of media and art is rarely 100% correct. Only mainstream stuff is generally covered and so much is lost to time. Generally things on the internet are so limited in perspective it's almost fiction at times. Unless you personally experienced a time period it's all just subjective. I lived in the 90s for example and half this forum has some crazy ideas about that period because they weren't there.

I would also ask if the value of the art to you or others requires labeling it? Does forcing a definition on it contributing to the experience or take away from it? Does any of this discussion really matter?

That's why I said "for the most part." I use qualifiers when necessary. I would, however, place 1969 as the cutoff point of their prevalence.

This is why I hope to shine a light on Rollerwave... because so much IS lost to time, clearly. Where is a music genre which slows and loops samples from the mid-to-late 1970s in the same way Vaporwave does? Why isn't there music like that? Why isn't there a retrofuturistic aesthetic which captures the vibes of the average suburbanite yuppie in 1977, going out to the Kmart and eating Pizza Spins on the way? Why can't I have that, if Daniel Lopatin can have his Arizona Iced Tea experience?

 

[Captain]

That's why I said "for the most part." I use qualifiers when necessary. I would, however, place 1969 as the cutoff point of their prevalence.

This is why I hope to shine a light on Rollerwave... because so much IS lost to time, clearly. Where is a music genre which slows and loops samples from the mid-to-late 1970s in the same way Vaporwave does? Why isn't there music like that? Why isn't there a retrofuturistic aesthetic which captures the vibes of the average suburbanite yuppie in 1977, going out to the Kmart and eating Pizza Spins on the way? Why can't I have that, if Daniel Lopatin can have his Arizona Iced Tea experience?

What's stopping you? Sounds like you know what you want. It just needs a good band/artist name....like "Vaporwave 1977". That's it. Says everything it needs to. Puts you in the correct genera. I call that a win. Get to producing! Album one "Precognition".

 

[nsequeira119]

What's stopping you? Sounds like you know what you want. It just needs a good band/artist name....like "Vaporwave 1977". That's it. Says everything it needs to. Puts you in the correct genera. I call that a win. Get to producing! Album one "Precognition".

I've already made 2 full Rollerwave albums. I wouldn't call them Vaporwave because they're not Vaporwave, the same way Synthwave isn't Vaporwave. I would never call Rollerwave Vaporwave, that would be stupid.

Would you call a Synthwave album a Vaporwave album...? Would you call Heavy Metal Post-Punk?

 

[Captain]

I've already made 2 full Rollerwave albums. I wouldn't call them Vaporwave because they're not Vaporwave, the same way Synthwave isn't Vaporwave. I would never call Rollerwave Vaporwave, that would be stupid.

Would you call a Synthwave album a Vaporwave album...? Would you call Heavy Metal Post-Punk?

I'd call it music and move on with my life.