There have always been things about the indie aesthetic that have been fascinating to me. I don't really mean to imply fascination in the sense that I'm able to remain critically distant from the movement, or that I'm on some sort of pseudo-anthropological mission to understand the intricacies of indie culture. Although I may not "look" indie, my tastes in music and art are, I feel, very much along the same lines that characterize independent art.
What I mean is that I've always been drawn to the way indie engages with and reacts to the cultural "norm" around it. There especially seems to be an ongoing tension between staying on the fringes of popular culture and being absorbed by it. I can't speak for indie kids elsewhere, but, for me, this tension is central to what makes the whole indie experience appealing.
I realize that I've used the variants of the word "indie" several times now, and maybe I should elaborate on what I think the term means before going on. For me, "indie" seems to be pretty much the same thing as what was referred to in the 90s as "alternative." But while "alternative" seems to have been attached to a certain sound, indie seems to expand beyond musical genre. In fact, it has extended beyond music itself. Indie is cultural (think hip-hop), and is really countercultural. Overall, indie seems to be defined by what it is not—mainstream, commercial culture.
The core of the indie aesthetic, I think, is to embrace that which is not easily accessible by others. Bands produce independent records, or sign to small companies not under the control of a major label, in order to exercise artistic freedom and let their creative muscles flex without being worried about what will sell the most albums. Artists that come to mind for me are Broken Social Scene, Danielson, and Sufjan Stevens. None of the three are representative, but they make my point. Sufjan, who has been pretty successful by indie standards, still has only a marginal percent of the general market share.
But that's just the music. The same applies to film, literature, fashion, art, &c. Regardless of what our tastes are, I think a lot of us share this desire to have our own "private" appreciations that others just don't get.
What really strikes me about the whole indie thing is that it is predicated on being esoteric. And that's the way the indie kids want it. There's a certain thrill that comes with the knowledge that I appreciate forms of art that other people can't "handle." Maybe it makes me feel more artistic myself to know that I have more "sophisticated" tastes. Maybe I just like to feel like a snob. At any rate, its esoteric nature generally turns out to be more frustrating than rewarding. I surround myself with obscure references and strange orchestration, and then complain that I can't find anyone to share my tastes. Many just aren't willing to do the work it takes to understand how good Sufjan really is.
The ridiculous thing about all of this is that I really don't want too many people to share my aesthetic after all. I like that others don't get it and I do. The more commercially acceptable "my" artists become, the less I feel drawn to them. I like the idea that the secret is mine, and, when I have to share it with others who don't understand it the way I do, I can't help but complain about how solitary I am in my artistic interests. But I want to keep the secret nonetheless.
As far as I can tell, the whole thing is a modern invention. It's certainly post-Enlightenment, at any rate. To my mind, it found it's first high point in the High Modernism of the early C20. In a knee-jerk reaction to C19 art (just try reading Victorian poetry!), writers like Ezra Pound, T. S. Eliot, James Joyce, &c., decided that they were going to create art that would kick our butts. Art was getting too "popular," so this gang set about making art that forced their readers to really work for it—like quoting long, untranslated passages of Dante in his original Italian, or adapting obscure Chinese poets. Like Danielson, the effort to really appreciate Pound or Joyce repelled all but the most dedicated readers. Joyce famously said that it took him 10 years to write Ulysses and it should take us 10 years to read it. And—like the indie kids—that's the way they wanted it.
The irony is that I've never liked Pound. He's too much work for me.
1 comment:
Danielson is such a good example. Do you think they create music that is purposely obscure? Or do they just view the world in such a way that the music writes itself?
As you said, the Moderns did it on purpose, as if to show how smart they were and to force readers to realize how ignorant they were unless they could rise to the challenge of deciphering the text.
I don't know if Danielson or others purposely try to frustrate listeners, but people certainly like music that "goes down easy." It's just like poetry -- if you have to work at it, very few people will choose to.
I am really terrible on the music front (I know few bands), but with film and literature, I always find those indie artists interesting who depict the world the way I already see it. It feels like a community, a sense of common identity. In that way, it's comforting. Even if other people aren't interested, at least I know there a few other people out there who are interested in the same things!
Post a Comment