Strappy dresses for girls. Tight not fully opaque trousers. Thongs.

saturday night's alright for fighting

MAX Power
Performance CAR

Sound off

happy hardcore

comercial dance

old skool

pills and thrills

ketamine

Baran vs Welthorpe: it's a race against space.

Ack, now I'm wracking my brain trying to remember where this quote comes from. Is it 'Generation X'?

,|,,

is genre artist defined or geeza defined

Alan, anti-allegory where the allegory requires prior knowledge outside of the text to make the allegory work (and hence the art is diminished for one who does not bring this extra knowledge in).

Neither Jerry or Edna is allowed to come to the manifesto brainstorm (storm in a pint glass) obviously.

It is 2000 words long :(

'Pro-genre, pro-pub' is a good one.

New Messages: ooh: I am fascinated, Nipper.

Perhaps you should show it to me first and I can give it a grade.

No Tom, I would imagine a number of my points may be subject to much wrangling yet - this is just my current take. There are a few underlying philosophical points of the manifesto we need to clear up before we get to want we hate. Nevertheless I do not wish to write a Rocha-esque negative manifesto which defines everything that Geezaesthtics isn't without getting on to what it is.

24 Hour Party People

Geezaesthetics is anti "edgy" in as much as edgy is a shite term.

cool, just checking.

(Also - cultural tourism is GREAT, though I don't know how this wd fit with the manifesto)

So when & where for this urgent meeting. Since I've just been given a month extension on my essay I think very very soon.

I also thought: Geezaesthetics might = [for instance] The Way That Blokes With Kids Who Keep Talking About Culture Talk About Culture.

But such definitions all seem flawed: almost all the geezers in question here, at least, don't have kids. Still, I think it could be hypothesized that fatherhood wouldn't contravene geezerhood, might even sharpen or intensify it.

In many ways I think the word Geezer might be a red herring.

**I also thought: Geezaesthetics might = [for instance] The Way That Blokes With Kids Who Keep Talking About Culture Talk About Culture**

Uh?

**Still, I think it could be hypothesized that fatherhood wouldn't contravene geezerhood, might even sharpen or intensify it**

Why should it change it at all? I'm not sure whether it should or shouldn't, but why do YOU (PF, JtN, Ptee..) theink it might?

** think the problem with the father idea is it posits a distance from culture, rather than being engaged directly**

How do you arrive at this?

**

The other two were just me thinking out loud. I'm willing to be corrected by people who know better: you, for instance.

Still - I think I may have been vaguely imagining something like: people with kids have a slightly different perspective on things: maybe connected with Baran's 'seen it all before': something like wisdom, something like world-weariness; or just weariness.

I think I was imagining that the particular kind of irony that this encourages might fit into the geezaesthete mentality.

The irony of the geezaesthete: benevolent, not sarcastic.

Or again: people with kids are often a bit older: they've been around: they have a sense of culture as history - of traditions, connections, repetitions, revivals, memories. So does the geezaesthete, who is a bit of a connoisseur of the archive, but might not always put it that way.

This connects with the geezaesthete's refusal (postulated by me and Ewing last week) to be awed or charmed by art. He has a critical, interested relation to it, but is not into rapture - unlike the romantic.

Two relations to memory: the romantic is into nostalgia; the geezaesthete is into the archive.

Thinking out loud, or perhaps talking in the dark. If you have a better angle, let's have it.

In other words reaching a certain age might be a prerequisite for geezer-dom? What age? 30? The 'with kids' thing is a red herring here unless 'don't get out as much as i used to' brings a different perspective to one's view of culture. I think it must, particularly if you receive culture second-hand thru the media more than first-hand or as an active participant. If you're guided by Jools Holland, Mark Lawson and Collins and Maconie you bound to turn into a fuckwit. But then you were probably a fuckwit anyway. (not YOU PF)

**This connects with the geezaesthete's refusal (postulated by me and Ewing last week) to be awed or charmed by art. He has a critical, interested relation to it, but is not into rapture - unlike the romantic**

I like this. I'm finally getting to grips with this, I think. This describes a lot of people I know well, and some ILXers I think - a good working knowledge and pretty good taste in a range of 'arts' - lit/film/pop. Some very specialist 'niche' knowledge that would be difficult to predict - a certain genre of films, certain writers, music genres. And above all - little or no rapture. And they treat football and/or other sports with as much gravitas.(i.e.not much)

**Two relations to memory: the romantic is into nostalgia; the geezaesthete is into the archive.**

I'm not sure about this, although I see what you mean. I'd class myself as a definite geezaesthete, but I'm BIG on nostalgia, not much into archive.

Some questions -

Are there female geezaesthetes? Or is there a fem-equiv of geezaesthetics?

Tom, yes.

Yes, I agree.

Tom's there or thereabouts re The usefulness or ability to explaining the rapture. One additiont o Tom' line though geezaesthetics is not just about how we experience or criticism, it can also about how we create.

The question of if there are female geezaesthetes illustrates how the geezerness is a red herring. Curse you JtN for saddling with us this sexist term.

(I hate Friday afternoons I'm bored)

No, I know Pete. I think it possibly *does* posit distance, in that anything that suddenly takes up culture bandwidth (illness, employment, unemployment) could posit distance. I was thinking that *age* is the key thing here, but I'm not sure, since it's a gradual influence rather than a disrupter.

**the only thing I could think he was saying was experience the experience of your children**

Busted!

Though of course the Baby Sainsburys wouldn't let me buy it. Maybe tonight.

MISS, not MS!

i.e. about Caesarsthetics.

http://www.sitec.fr/users/mcos/archives/Jpgs/cronos.jpg

I like to imagine Pete saying that in the voice of Master Po from 'Kung Fu'.

Sorry, not very gnomic. And Nipper, I'll batter you.

The same goes for visual art, people go to the hyped exhibitons, the familiar. You see queues round the block for matisse/picasso, warhol, monet and none for the turner prize or the triennial.

It doesn't make the art bad.

People may well engage with what they are fed but it doesn't require an active participation in either the creation of the the art or the search for it. I'm not saying that the obscure is the ideal, far from it. What I am saying is that the line between the artist and the consumer is far to mediated to allow the engagement in the creative process of the consumer.

My versh of geezaesthetics would suggest an active engagement with art in the broader sense but it wouldn't specify what art that should be.

Jerry the Chipper

to paraphrase ronan, i think he is suggesting that the people who are supposdedly geezeraesthetes are NOT geezers at all, but that there is an element of class appropriation going on, rather like loaded, middle class taking on the clothes of an imagined working class?

whereas my feeling is that geezeraesthetes ARE geezers, at least in realtion to the subject matter, which is often the presevre of the 'beautiful people' (fashion/art/style/aesthetic etc), that there is a democratization going on. my argumetn is that at somewhere like, i dont know, nag nag nag or somewhere that the geezeraesthetes WOULD be seen as geezers. because i'm reading geezer to mean white straight male more or less

i think it is geezer that is giving this a class connotation which i think is a red herring. and perhaps blokeaesthetics would be a better term

either way, i cant say i'm down with the idea at all. and think there should be anti-geezaesthetics where drag queens talk about betting on greyhounds

Thank you, thank you, I'm here all week.

Also, I;m confused as to why this kind of thing should be considered smug. I mean, to me it seems like the premise is about enjoying something/anything from various different perspectives, analysing wiv the old cultural theoretiX0r, but also having a chuckle and a pint. Or am I misunderstanding completement?

What if a natural and authentic element of one's class role is to assume positions of class tourism?

That even the central geezaethetes are still arguing about what it is shows how shaky an idea it really is.

Class tourism = cultural tourism, and not a bad thing in itself (as long as one is aware as in cultural tourism that one is not be part of that class/culture and ones responses are couched in this manner).

I'm coming in late here but I wouldn't agree with that. Seems to me that g-a is all about dialogue anyway - the appreciation of something (and establishment of oneself as g-a) through dialogue. I thought this was what Baran meant by pro-pub? (And by extension pro-forum?)

One has to talk about g-a in a g-a way!

This is the part we were discussing, I don't see how it's "REclaiming". Also doesn't the entire notion of discussing the thing in great detail and what it means remove any realness from it whatsoever, or at least make the name majorly ill fitting. Since it's not really fully explained yes I may have misunderstood, fill in the blanks at will.

Why would discussing a thing remove a things realness? (Admitting that the thing has realness in the first place). SUrely discussing a thing gives people more approaches to get at the art in question - without ever denying the primacy of the gut art / spectator response. Moreover its fun to do with a pint in the pub.

Also I think the idea of pubs becoming stamping grounds for lads only isn't really on because it makes these "lads" all completely 2 dimensional. I'm still unsure where the aesthetics part comes in because it's not really been explained, but I suspect this is where Jess's post is quite otm also.

I just think reclaiming in this context is really being used as "improving". And it's the idea of reclaiming that's my core problem, it's usually used in the context of a derogatory term which has become acceptable. But also surely it's the right of those it was used to deride to reclaim something. I mean unless you all have been getting abuse for being down at the pub all day and have had to endure people slandering you with the term "geezer". But that idea seems a bit unlikely.

I mean maybe I'm over-reacting and this is just you all having a laugh in the pub, if that's the case say the word.

if this "geezasthetics" actually thing made fashion and art wastrels nervous, i'd be all for it

I'm quite proud of saying this : "It reclaims art from art fops and fopesses and reclaims geezer-ism from thugs". Even though it is probably bollocks.

Shame that LBZC had to drop the big elbow on geezaesthetics, but it had a good run. Pour one out.

this thread is a fucking horror

In retrospect, yes, it is.

"In retrospect".

http://www.madbeast.com/images/HINDSIGHT_TEXT.jpg

It's here.

Oh - we decided it was shit :(

Anyway - Nick Lowe. Graham Parker. Eddie and Hot Rods.

Lol

I fear I have become the destitute woman's Peter York. Look out for my forthcoming tome: STYLE WARS TWO: MARKETTES, GEEZAESTHETES AND EDGIOLOGUES.
― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Wednesday, March 5, 2003

i have no idea what my earlier post in this thread meant, at all

As a geezer, I would say geezaesthetics consist of pure self-indulgence, unencumbered by any sense of shame or self-restraint. Striped suspenders? Orange lipstick? Stretch fabrics in patterned polyester? Toupee? If you want it, you wear it. Who cares if your face powder congeals in your wrinkles, or your wristwatch is the size of a Ritz cracker? Not us geezers!

there ya go.

Geezers need some hindsight.