This is a perfect example of kids who are probably too studious to belong to the meta-narrative of "I Love College."
This video is clearly a project for school and unless that project was to record a 4 minute music video during a 10 minute break, someone's GPA is taking a hit. Protip: reshoot until at least one person is lip syncing.
I'm not sure how to take this. On one hand it looks like a response to "I Love College," highlighting how far-fetched or unrealistic that lifestyle is for them. Unrealistic because for various ethno-economic reasons, they go to a school that wears uniforms. They probably have parents who require good grades. They may even live at home. They also scatter when girls appear, whereas Asher Roth makes out with them. "I Love College" excludes them because they know that at one dollar(s) a slice they will exhaust their allowance, and that imprudent spending begets debt.
In a sentence, their video says "look at how stupid 'I Love College' looks from prep school." "I wished we taped it because then I would have documentary evidence of being at said party." One of them even brandishes a condom at 2:00. Hah hah son, put the condom away, you'll need that for masturbating. Given that at least 100% more people in this video will graduate college than in Asher Roth's video, it reveals "I Love Collage" to be a juvenile, short-sighted creedo. And they are correct.
On the other hand, this analysis assumes their awkwardness and failure to deliver on even the most pizza-based lyrics is intentional, which is hard to accept. To think any of these kids danced their asses off last night and had this one girl completely naked you would have to be blind. One conspicuous student is wearing a helmet in their school's hallway and that is likely the craziest thing he's ever done; hopefully his parents won't find out.
They seem to be having fun, so maybe they like "I Love College." Bros stick around for their bros to come down the slide, ya know? Given that there's not a single head-bob in sync during the 4 minute video they need the "I Love College" ethic more than anyone. If they do indeed wish they could get the equally awkward girls at their school drunk, then this is not satire, it is an homage. It's a dress-up. It says "hey, look, we could be cool guys, just get drunk and smoke some weed first, please." It says, "I love college, not for it's rigorous engineering program but it's opportunities to play a dexterity based drinking game called beer pong," or "I love drinking debauchery because it has reliable rules like don't pass out with your shoes on and don't have sex if she's too gone. And ladies, I follow such rules."
Who knows, maybe when they go to college they'll uninstall Minecraft and wear sunglasses to house parties. Or perhaps their parents instilled work ethics instead of entitlement. I prefer to imagine they're celebrating not fitting the meta-narrative mold, because that means passing out at 3 will be in the library, and doing it again at 10 will help change the world. We can't be sure. The semiological meaning of various scenes leave me baffled.
Their idea of hazing a freshman (denoted by glasses, which is what nerds look like to kids wearing uniforms) is running up to him and repeatedly patting him down. What are they searching for, weed? Pogs?
There's a scene where they coolly open a locker, and proceed to stomp the living shit out of the notebooks that fall out. What is the object of your hate? Is it the nearness of the locker to the floor and the propensity of books to fall out of it? Or is it the books themselves? If that isn't a strong epistemological vote for "I Love College" then I don't know what is.
I also noticed the hilarious scene on the playground where Asher Roth says "you know what's going down," and visually before us is a slide. Is it satire?
Monday, October 31, 2011
Saturday, October 29, 2011
I Love Party by Asher Roth
Pretty sure this is what Plato envisioned when he started the academy:
Asher Roth has never been out of the G8. "I Love College" is a catchy tune we can all relate to, having been induced to debauch our college experience by songs like, "I Love College." Is it just a party anthem, or also a satire of that inescapable cultural narrative therein?
Asher Roth has never been out of the G8. "I Love College" is a catchy tune we can all relate to, having been induced to debauch our college experience by songs like, "I Love College." Is it just a party anthem, or also a satire of that inescapable cultural narrative therein?
Friday, October 28, 2011
Why D. Willz be actin' silly
If I were to try and attack contemporary popular hip hop it would be for the the gayness with which it celebrates materialism, the brash presentation of male sexuality, the audacious facade of self-esteem with the paradoxical lack of self-reflection, and the complete absence of effort linguistically or poetically.
So if I wrote a parody it might:
1)Show poor conditions from which no one is thinking about yachts, like a farm of (possibly) migrant workers.
2)Make it contain absurd references to sex, although making them any more absurd than they already are would be challenging. Comparisons to food and animals maybe?
3)Show no attempt to use real words or rhyme scheme. Like every line should end in "ey" or "ly."
4)And I'd probably make it about watermelon, because I'm a racist.
Behold:
I did not make this video. But undoubtedly it's everything that's wrong with hip hop rolled into a 3 minute video package. It's catchy, but is it also satire?
So if I wrote a parody it might:
1)Show poor conditions from which no one is thinking about yachts, like a farm of (possibly) migrant workers.
2)Make it contain absurd references to sex, although making them any more absurd than they already are would be challenging. Comparisons to food and animals maybe?
3)Show no attempt to use real words or rhyme scheme. Like every line should end in "ey" or "ly."
4)And I'd probably make it about watermelon, because I'm a racist.
Behold:
I did not make this video. But undoubtedly it's everything that's wrong with hip hop rolled into a 3 minute video package. It's catchy, but is it also satire?
Thursday, October 27, 2011
What is Satire?blog
Satire makes us think while making us laugh. It is both a form of criticism and a form of humor. It is a time-honored rhetorical device which disarms a person long enough to conceive of a thing in a new way. It's like reverse psychology, where the desired thought process is achieved via negation, e.g., “This blog is awesome.” Lets take a stroll through satire as it applies to Satire?blog, shall we?
Satire is distinguished by the attempt to appear serious. A clown makes no attempt to be serious, and therefore is not satire (nor trusted). The less sincere the attempt, the more satire skews into lampoon. This sexual harassment short exploits sensitivity training hilariously. But it only superficially requires us to examine our attitudes towards sensitivity training because the docile responses from employees belie its seriousness. If they reacted more realistically the short would probably function better as a critique of overwrought sensitivity training videos. And it probably would be less funny.
Contrast this with Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal. Swift's attempt to appear serious is more genuine. His proposition to alleviate the burden of poverty by eating children is as severely inappropriate as suggesting to rub huge cocks together at the water cooler, but instead of letting the shock diminish he continues to press, developing his argument and leaving few traces that he is anything but sincere. Understanding on face value that Swift cannot be right, readers are forced to read closely in order to counter that, no, babies should not be eaten to alleviate poverty, at which point Swift has achieved his desired effect. Every reader will have a better conception of the dire poverty the Irish face and how greatly that desperation contrasts their own lives. A Modest Proposal is not that funny.
My amateur analysis* so far is suggesting that the satire spectrum is anchored by lampoon like the sexual harassment short on one end, and criticism like A Modest Proposal on the other, with the former being funnier and less persuasive than the later. But the The Onion News Network shows this dichotomy to be false since it is consistently funnier than sexual harassment and lays it's subjects even more bare than did Swift the privileged classes.
In any case, we are not interested in identifying deliberate satire because unbridled self-awareness, running roughshod over the last vestiges of innocence and authenticity, rend almost every portrayal a satire these days. I mean, can you even say freedom without a smirk or scare quotes anymore? Thanks media.
On this blog satire takes on a different dimension of meaning. When we ask “is it satire?” we seek not to classify yes or no, but just to genuinely wonder aloud. What the fuck is this? Is it satire? It sure looks like satire. In message board terminology, this would be the situation where you're unsure whether someone is sincere or trolling. Not sure if serious.... It's the disbelief when you detect a fart shortly after someone has left the room. At Satire?blog we will thrive in those moments.
Ask yourself, “if this is not satire of [some thing], then what would a satire of [that thing] look like?” If the answer is [still that thing] then you have an clear case of ambiguity. For example:
What the fuck is this? Is it real? Did they really write a song about Taco Bell and Pizza Hut? Is it supposed to be a satire of hip hop? If someone did satirize the mindless, weed-addled stupidity sloth of contemporary hip hop acts and/or their fans, wouldn't this be the song he produced?
In a cynical, meta, post-modern world, speculating on intent is the last means with which we can enjoy artistic creation. It's a head cocked-sideways. It's the ineffable feeling of “...quoi?” Won't you celebrate the ineffable with me?
P.S. I had to write that entire post without using the word irony. Its reclamation by hipsters caused a recession in the meaning market worse than the 1995 crash/release of Jagged Little Pill.
*reverse psychology
Satire is distinguished by the attempt to appear serious. A clown makes no attempt to be serious, and therefore is not satire (nor trusted). The less sincere the attempt, the more satire skews into lampoon. This sexual harassment short exploits sensitivity training hilariously. But it only superficially requires us to examine our attitudes towards sensitivity training because the docile responses from employees belie its seriousness. If they reacted more realistically the short would probably function better as a critique of overwrought sensitivity training videos. And it probably would be less funny.
Contrast this with Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal. Swift's attempt to appear serious is more genuine. His proposition to alleviate the burden of poverty by eating children is as severely inappropriate as suggesting to rub huge cocks together at the water cooler, but instead of letting the shock diminish he continues to press, developing his argument and leaving few traces that he is anything but sincere. Understanding on face value that Swift cannot be right, readers are forced to read closely in order to counter that, no, babies should not be eaten to alleviate poverty, at which point Swift has achieved his desired effect. Every reader will have a better conception of the dire poverty the Irish face and how greatly that desperation contrasts their own lives. A Modest Proposal is not that funny.
My amateur analysis* so far is suggesting that the satire spectrum is anchored by lampoon like the sexual harassment short on one end, and criticism like A Modest Proposal on the other, with the former being funnier and less persuasive than the later. But the The Onion News Network shows this dichotomy to be false since it is consistently funnier than sexual harassment and lays it's subjects even more bare than did Swift the privileged classes.
In any case, we are not interested in identifying deliberate satire because unbridled self-awareness, running roughshod over the last vestiges of innocence and authenticity, rend almost every portrayal a satire these days. I mean, can you even say freedom without a smirk or scare quotes anymore? Thanks media.
On this blog satire takes on a different dimension of meaning. When we ask “is it satire?” we seek not to classify yes or no, but just to genuinely wonder aloud. What the fuck is this? Is it satire? It sure looks like satire. In message board terminology, this would be the situation where you're unsure whether someone is sincere or trolling. Not sure if serious.... It's the disbelief when you detect a fart shortly after someone has left the room. At Satire?blog we will thrive in those moments.
Ask yourself, “if this is not satire of [some thing], then what would a satire of [that thing] look like?” If the answer is [still that thing] then you have an clear case of ambiguity. For example:
What the fuck is this? Is it real? Did they really write a song about Taco Bell and Pizza Hut? Is it supposed to be a satire of hip hop? If someone did satirize the mindless, weed-addled stupidity sloth of contemporary hip hop acts and/or their fans, wouldn't this be the song he produced?
In a cynical, meta, post-modern world, speculating on intent is the last means with which we can enjoy artistic creation. It's a head cocked-sideways. It's the ineffable feeling of “...quoi?” Won't you celebrate the ineffable with me?
P.S. I had to write that entire post without using the word irony. Its reclamation by hipsters caused a recession in the meaning market worse than the 1995 crash/release of Jagged Little Pill.
*reverse psychology
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)