Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

What's that?

― jel -- (jel), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 15:38 (twenty-two years ago)

i believe there's a manifesto on its way

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 15:43 (twenty-two years ago)

haha but will it arrive prior to the 96 theses on rockism though? (or the ilx mixtape?)

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 15:44 (twenty-two years ago)

Greased thin hair, combed fringe. Sportswear. Ellesse. Shirts and shoes. Bad aftershave for men.

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

saturday night's alright for fighting

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 15:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Geeza's need exitement
if their lives don't provide it
they incite violence
Common sense
simply common sense

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 15:46 (twenty-two years ago)

so mark, what you are telling me is: "it's this thing".

― jel -- (jel), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 15:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Geeza's need exitement
if their lives don't provide it
they incite violence
Common sense
simple common sense

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 15:46 (twenty-two years ago)

oh, Ed, I don't think it's that, not in the context I've seen Pete using it in.

― jel -- (jel), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 15:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Ed = off the mark macro, otm - micro

― chris (chris), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 15:48 (twenty-two years ago)

"Recreational Slumming: The practice of participating in recreational activities of a class one perceives as lower than one's own: Karen! Donald! Let's go bowling tonight! And don't worry about shoes... apparently you can rent them.'"

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 15:49 (twenty-two years ago)

Vauxhall Nova, Citroen Saxo

MAX Power
Performance CAR

Sound off

happy hardcore

comercial dance

old skool

pills and thrills

ketamine

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 15:49 (twenty-two years ago)

what it means to me

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 15:50 (twenty-two years ago)

DIRTSTYLE

― suzy (suzy), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 15:51 (twenty-two years ago)

i think it's "as opposed to" twee rossetti english-patient aesthetics

― Alan (Alan), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 15:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Dirtstyles is different, suzy, and always plural

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 15:52 (twenty-two years ago)

(hee hee. *cracks whip* back to work)

― suzy (suzy), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 15:52 (twenty-two years ago)

I recently heard that the much-missed Edna Welthorpe, Mrs (who recently married Mr Artie Cognomen in a private ceremony) has some notes on geezaesthetics in preparation.

― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 15:53 (twenty-two years ago)

dang, I thought this thread was about geetaesthetics!

― hstencil, Wednesday, 5 March 2003 15:53 (twenty-two years ago)

Cor.

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

― the pinefox, Wednesday, 5 March 2003 15:57 (twenty-two years ago)

is drceesthetics a subset of geezaesthetics? Or summat.

― Dr. C (Dr. C), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 15:57 (twenty-two years ago)

I have long been championing geezer-chic, dressing like I am in the thirties, not my thirties.

― Simeon (Simeon), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 16:11 (twenty-two years ago)

"Recreational Slumming: The practice of participating in recreational activities of a class one perceives as lower than one's own: Karen! Donald! Let's go bowling tonight! And don't worry about shoes... apparently you can rent them.'"

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

― caitlin (caitlin), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 16:15 (twenty-two years ago)

Ding!

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 16:28 (twenty-two years ago)

geetaesthetics rule u r all gay

― rosemary (rosemary), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 16:48 (twenty-two years ago)

,|,,

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 16:52 (twenty-two years ago)

I had a bit oif a geezaesthetics epiphany last night, but like all good manifestos it needs to be associated with a time and place and those signing up to it (hence those of us formulating it need to go boozing). Key points before the fact: to appreciate a piece of art requires no prior knowledge, intellectual directness (certainly not anti-intellectual), the importance of humour and excitement in art, pro-genre, pro-pub.

― Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 17:03 (twenty-two years ago)

it sounds good, especially the appreciation of art requiring no prior knowledge.

― jel -- (jel), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 17:06 (twenty-two years ago)

what Jel? are you saying that you don't know much about art?

― chris (chris), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 17:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Does genre = movement

is genre artist defined or geeza defined

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 17:08 (twenty-two years ago)

not really chris, I can recogonise the works of a few artists, and that's about it.

― jel -- (jel), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 17:10 (twenty-two years ago)

*shakes head, wonders why he bothers*

― chris (chris), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 17:11 (twenty-two years ago)

jel do you like knowing what you like?

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 17:12 (twenty-two years ago)

No, genre is generally used as a derogatory term, wheras movement is usually just for classification (and for self-definition). Pro-genre with regard to storytelling, anti-imposed genre limits and what can be done within genre. Within literature anti-allegory.

― Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 17:12 (twenty-two years ago)

not really mark, I like to be surprised sometimes.

― jel -- (jel), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 17:14 (twenty-two years ago)

jel is resolutely refusing to find this joke-meme amusing

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 17:16 (twenty-two years ago)

oh shame. allegory can be smashing, just not when it's some winsome allegory, or an obvious under-determined load of arse. anti overinterpretated ponce allegory would be my choice.

― Alan (Alan), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 17:16 (twenty-two years ago)

that's what I'm getting at. does geez accept artist's defintion of genre or is what you're saying is genre is just a convenient discursive short hand?

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 17:16 (twenty-two years ago)

(I think I missed something, somewhere, or back pain is affecting my brane)

― jel -- (jel), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 17:19 (twenty-two years ago)

I have created a monster :(

― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 17:22 (twenty-two years ago)

We must start calling you Victor

― Mooro (Mooro), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 17:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Discursive shorthand (I'm mainly using it in terms of literature where it is a derided term.) But also pro some of the points of genre, story, plot structure which actually allows the author/film-maker to then deviate. Wilfulness and playfulness in genre is very geez.

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).

― Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 17:30 (twenty-two years ago)

I am not sure about all Pete's points.

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

― Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 17:31 (twenty-two years ago)

Haha - mine is already written!

It is 2000 words long :(

― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 17:32 (twenty-two years ago)

I have a strange impression that the geezer manifesto is not going to have much to do with whatever it was the Nipper was on about in the first place.

'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.

― the pinefox, Wednesday, 5 March 2003 17:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Maybe to celebrate the Don of Geezaesthetics joining the FT staff we should run a special edition.

― Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 17:35 (twenty-two years ago)

Wow - Geezaesthetics has got them running so much they have written a response before the manifesto is published.

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.

― Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 17:37 (twenty-two years ago)

I didn't realise this term had so much history.

― jel -- (jel), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 17:37 (twenty-two years ago)

As coined (by disagreed with) by Edna here:

24 Hour Party People

― Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 17:39 (twenty-two years ago)

http://ilx.wh3rd.net/searchresults.php?board=1&mode=threads&q=Geezaesthetics&titlepart=&name=&email=&username=&dateafter=&datebefore=&catid=all

― jel -- (jel), Wednesday, 5 March 2003 17:43 (twenty-two years ago)

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, 5 March 2003 17:47 (twenty-two years ago)

Skipping 65 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

I just find it pretty smug.

― Ronan (Ronan), Saturday, 29 March 2003 16:51 (twenty-two years ago)

come on guys, you can admit it, you just came up with a good pun and then had to fill it in

― jess (dubplatestyle), Saturday, 29 March 2003 16:53 (twenty-two years ago)

his name is ebenezer, and he is the main geezer.

― jel -- (jel), Saturday, 29 March 2003 17:40 (twenty-two years ago)

oh, it also strikes me as a masculinization of androgynous culture. i mean, yo where the girls at? pah!

― gareth (gareth), Sunday, 30 March 2003 12:34 (twenty-two years ago)

We've all run a country mile.

― estela, Sunday, 30 March 2003 12:37 (twenty-two years ago)

and I don't blame you.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Sunday, 30 March 2003 14:26 (twenty-two years ago)

haha, I think jess is on the money here.

― felicity (felicity), Sunday, 30 March 2003 19:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Q: Is Geezasthetics restricted to heterosexual males?
A: No, on the contrary: the movement will get nowhere without Geezafags.

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

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Sunday, 30 March 2003 21:58 (twenty-two years ago)

No - gareth is spot on I think. I think Ronan has misunderstood and Jess and Felicity are plain wrong.

― Dr. C (Dr. C), Monday, 31 March 2003 06:00 (twenty-two years ago)

Well yes, why can't ladies be geezas? Calling it 'blokeaesthetics' is much less euphonious AND more discriminatory. Innit.

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?

― Liz :x (Liz :x), Monday, 31 March 2003 06:24 (twenty-two years ago)

No, I sincerely believe that jess believes what he says he thought it was about. Anyway my observations are derivative so I don't have a whole lot invested in them.

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

― felicity (felicity), Monday, 31 March 2003 06:27 (twenty-two years ago)

The main problem with the term is that it was coined - perhaps in an affectionate way but nevertheless by an opponent to the core ideas which have been booted around elsewhere. I think the word itself isn't helpful - though those people the word was initailly applied to were all male and all shared a similar approach to the particular part of culture they were interested in.

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).

― Pete (Pete), Monday, 31 March 2003 06:59 (twenty-two years ago)

couch potatoed in this manner

― mark s (mark s), Monday, 31 March 2003 07:05 (twenty-two years ago)

(I think couch potato is offensive to potato's that most regal of vegetables).

― Pete (Pete), Monday, 31 March 2003 07:07 (twenty-two years ago)

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

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!

― Sam (chirombo), Monday, 31 March 2003 07:26 (twenty-two years ago)

Good point Sam, certainly the long hours in the pub with put into this would bear that up.

― Pete (Pete), Monday, 31 March 2003 07:35 (twenty-two years ago)

(To any other non-UK people that may be viewing this thread: does anyone understand what these people are going on about? Can you explain it to me? Why does it seem to entail posts that don't follow from each other at all? Isn't it pretty obv. that a geezer is just some guy easing his way out of youth by sitting around in pubs drinking too much, and that all this other stuff they're trying to work in there can apply to any socially appointed role? What's the mystery? Why all this fascination with the figure?)

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Monday, 31 March 2003 07:38 (twenty-two years ago)

God I must be tired. You are all JOKING. Damn your oblique humor!!!

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Monday, 31 March 2003 07:43 (twenty-two years ago)

Both Tim's points are OTM. Reclaiming aspects of 'laddism' from both the lads of this world and the laddophobes is why geezaesthetics is U & K
(Also - cultural tourism is GREAT, though I don't know how this wd fit with the manifesto)

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.

― Ronan (Ronan), Monday, 31 March 2003 07:44 (twenty-two years ago)

Well reclaiming in as much as before the new lad phenomena of the 1990's there were plenty of people who went to the pub, whereas the lad pushed this to be their stamping ground. There are aspects of laddism (Tom is much better on this than me) which were refreshing though much of it soon got subverted (Loaded was not anti-intellectual in its early days). Mostly the term was invernted by Jerry to be something that he was in opposition to from his much more romantic viewpoint.

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.

― Pete (Pete), Monday, 31 March 2003 07:53 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't think discussing a thing removes its realness, I mean not generally. But I think the idea of creating a meme for the way you behave and then sticking the word geezer into it is a bit mad, since most "geezers" I would imagine are not self confessed and have to put up with the negative connotations aswell. They can't just be edited out because they're unpleasant. To me, the attempt to do this is a bit too romantic towards the idea of the geezer

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.

― Ronan (Ronan), Monday, 31 March 2003 12:28 (twenty-two years ago)

It reclaims art from art fops and fopesses and reclaims geezer-ism from thugs.

― Dr. C (Dr. C), Monday, 31 March 2003 12:39 (twenty-two years ago)

ILX in middlebrow manifesto shocker

― Ronan (Ronan), Monday, 31 March 2003 12:42 (twenty-two years ago)

how about calling it "the scene that goes to the pub" instead?

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Monday, 31 March 2003 13:58 (twenty-two years ago)

ILX in a buncha guys bullshitting in pub trying to turn it into unified field theory shocker

― jess (dubplatestyle), Monday, 31 March 2003 14:00 (twenty-two years ago)

what if the pope actually smoked dope.

― Ronan (Ronan), Monday, 31 March 2003 14:01 (twenty-two years ago)

Bouzaesthetics just sounds better anyway.

― Nicole (Nicole), Monday, 31 March 2003 14:01 (twenty-two years ago)

*hic* DeSouzaesthetics?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 31 March 2003 14:03 (twenty-two years ago)

haha messthetics vs. dineshthetics FITE.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Monday, 31 March 2003 18:56 (twenty-two years ago)

(It's 'fopette', you dunderhead)

― suzy (suzy), Monday, 31 March 2003 19:03 (twenty-two years ago)

Nedaesthetics is one of the core modules in Neducation.

― jel -- (jel), Monday, 31 March 2003 19:03 (twenty-two years ago)

Essential to full understanding.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 31 March 2003 19:20 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm a dunderhead. Suzy sez.

― Dr. C (Dr. C), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 05:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Fopstress!

― Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 06:10 (twenty-two years ago)

Fopperina

― Ronan (Ronan), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 13:41 (twenty-two years ago)

fripperette.

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

― jess (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 13:44 (twenty-two years ago)

This thread is hyper-oblique. From what gnomic shards I've unearthed geezaesthetics appears to be constituted a kind of whip-smart "unfair" style of conversing where the zinger convinces far more than any i) ii) iii) style deliberations, the airtight convincingness of which actually renders it a fat target for being taken down a peg or two and thus a losing bet among geezaesthetes (among whom suzy is certainly one, if her unbelievably sharp ripostes are to be believed). The "aesthetics" part seems misleading though, since we're talking about a way of talking or disagreeing. "Geezaneutics"?

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 1 April 2003 14:39 (twenty-two years ago)

three years pass...

Still the best thread ever...

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.

― Dr. C (Dr. C), Thursday, 11 January 2007 16:24 (nineteen years ago)

one year passes...

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

― Dom Passantino, Monday, 21 January 2008 21:28 (eighteen years ago)

this thread is a fucking horror

― DG, Monday, 21 January 2008 21:31 (eighteen years ago)

In retrospect, yes, it is.

― Dr.C, Monday, 21 January 2008 21:42 (eighteen years ago)

"In retrospect".

― jim, Monday, 21 January 2008 21:43 (eighteen years ago)

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

― Dom Passantino, Monday, 21 January 2008 21:46 (eighteen years ago)

four years pass...

It's here.

Oh - we decided it was shit :(

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

― Dr.C, Monday, 2 April 2012 17:03 (thirteen years ago)

Lol

― I'm going to allow this! (LocalGarda), Monday, 2 April 2012 21:10 (thirteen years ago)

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

― the pinefox, Monday, 2 April 2012 22:25 (thirteen years ago)

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

― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Monday, 2 April 2012 23:14 (thirteen years ago)

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!

― Aimless, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 04:29 (thirteen years ago)

there ya go.

― A Little Princess btw (s1ocki), Tuesday, 3 April 2012 04:39 (thirteen years ago)

Geezers need some hindsight.

― Chewshabadoo, Tuesday, 3 April 2012 07:28 (thirteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.

Rule of three: Geezaesthetics

,|,,