Fake plastic Barbie
I was going to walk away from the Radiohead/Aqua thing, because it didn’t seem particularly important, but I had a quick look at the Ridinghood site, where Sebastiaan has been giving it a bit more thought and it raises for me a few questions I can’t answer on my own.
Namely:
How can something that affects the musical environment of millions of people NOT have cultural significance? What is this thing you call culture?
Must art be representational?
History is the only significant variable in aesthetics?!
Please explain.
And to answer the question about what ‘fake plastic’ might be - I think it’s called hendiadys in literary criticism. These are Oxford boys, after all - perhaps they’re just being clever with words by introducing redundancies for added effect.
However, if it makes you more comfortable, put a comma between the two words in the phrase ‘fake, plastic trees’. That removes all of the linguistic problems that an overly literal reading of the title would introduce.
But actually, perhaps ironically, fake plastic is polyvinyl chloride - which is what they used to make Barbie dolls out of in the 1950s, and which collectors are now having problems with, because they’re starting to get sticky on the outside and leak a chemical substance resembling estrogen. Apparently, it’s causing havoc with the developmental progress of people who play with them (as if the toys themselves weren’t doing that enough by themselves).
These days, of course, they use real plastic instead. 
8 Comments, Comment or Ping
Sebastiaan Elsenburg
Radiohead irrelevant
It is not that art must be representational: it is representational. If it were not representational it would be – life. Art deals in archetypes. The painting we know as the Mona Lisa is a painting of an actual girl, sure, but it represents one more aspect of the eternal Goddess, cruel and indifferent Mother Earth, of whom Aqua’s ‘Barbie Girl’ is also an, admittedly less profound, representation. This archetype is an ancient Western tradition that our liberal age finds extremely repugnant. Feminists and other bleeding hearts are at great pains to eradicate this, what they call, reactionary stereotype, but they will never succeed, because it is the most powerful archetype of them all. I have already drawn comparisons to many artistic creations with regards to ‘Barbie Girl’. The Mona Lisa is another precursor to the doll itself and Aqua’s use of it in their subversive hit.
Only a work of art’s adherence to ancient tradition can lend it cultural significance: that is why an historical perspective in evaluating art is essential. Not until someone draws me a line from Thom Yorke’s shopping trolley monkey all the way back to, say, Hamlet (complete with intermediary steps, mind you,) will I be prepared to consider Radiohead’s cultural merit – and not before. If you are unable, as I am, to draw this line, I will deem Radiohead to be non-artistic and therefore culturally insignificant, wont as I am to take the propagation of ancient archetypes as the measure of cultural achievement.
For the sake of brevity, let me deal with polyvinyl chloride in a subsequent entry.
Feb 13th, 2008
Sebastiaan Elsenburg
Radiohead irrelevant
It is not that art must be representational: it is representational. If it were not representational it would be – life. Art deals in archetypes. The painting we know as the Mona Lisa is a painting of an actual girl, sure, but it represents one more aspect of the eternal Goddess, cruel and indifferent Mother Earth, of whom Aqua’s ‘Barbie Girl’ is also an, admittedly less profound, representation. This archetype is an ancient Western tradition that our liberal age finds extremely repugnant. Feminists and other bleeding hearts are at great pains to eradicate this, what they call, reactionary stereotype, but they will never succeed, because it is the most powerful archetype of them all. I have already drawn comparisons to many artistic creations with regards to ‘Barbie Girl’. The Mona Lisa is yet another precursor to the doll itself and Aqua’s use of it in their subversive hit.
Only a work of art’s adherence to ancient tradition can lend it cultural significance: that is why an historical perspective in evaluating art is essential. Not until someone draws me a line from Thom Yorke’s shopping trolley monkey all the way back to, say, Hamlet (complete with intermediary steps, mind you,) will I be prepared to consider Radiohead’s cultural merit – and not before. If you are unable, as I am, to draw this line, I will deem Radiohead to be non-artistic and therefore culturally insignificant, wont as I am to take the propagation of ancient archetypes as the measure of cultural achievement.
For the sake of brevity, let me deal with polyvinyl chloride in a subsequent entry.
Feb 13th, 2008
Tom Slatter
Hmm. Seems Sebastian’s argument for Barbie girl’s cultural significance is that the character the song is about is…a bit like some other famous characters.
Couldn’t I argue that’s it’s lack of orginality is what makes it worthless?
The idea that ‘Thom Yorke from Radiohead’ is somehow less of a character, a fiction created by the real person and the media, than barbie is incorrect. Being ‘honest’ and ‘authentic’ is the oldest pose in the book, and is every bit as fictional as Ziggy Stardust was.
Art does not have to represent something anyway, and Radiohead’s music often doesn’t represent anything concrete. However, their recent work is the latest in a long line of music, the history of which can be traced through both a rock lineage, a classical music lineage, and to an extent a jazz one, that put’s Sebastian’s ‘Pixar, Abba, Disney, ‘The Wizard of Oz,’ all the way to Lewis Carol’s ‘Alice in Wonderland’’ to shame.
They’re fusing styles of music in a way that hasn’t been done before. They’ve mixed minimalist classical music with rock, they’ve used ideas about rhythm that can only come from a western classical tradition (perhaps via jazz), they’ve contributed in a way which is historically significant. Aqua have nothing to say musically, which might be way the blog post you reference doesn’t say a single thing about music.
I’m not sure why history might matter, but ‘historically important’ music ends up being written about by musicologists. Radiohead will be, Aqua won’t.
More importantly, Radiohead have given us musicians something to think about. Aqua haven’t.
Feb 13th, 2008
Tom Slatter
Sorry for two comments, but as Sebastiaan (apologies for earlier spelling mistake in the name) commented at the same time as me I didn’t see his comment…
For it to be art you have to trace a line back through history?
This can be done very easily through the music of Radiohead, Sebastasiaan say’s he can’t do this.
He could try looking at the music, rather than just the words. It ain’t hard, and if you’re going to talk about music you probably should give it a go. Don’t just read the lyrics, use your ears.
Feb 13th, 2008
Gintz
Visit Ridinghood.com and I think it will all make a lot more sense as to what kind of perspective Sebastiaan is coming from.
Art has a strict definition I believe…in some dictionary somewhere…but at the end of the day I think it is the “Beholder” who makes the judgement.
Ridinghood = art
Radiohead = art
Aqua = art
Shastakovich = art
a splintered toothpick captured on film = art
This has been a pissing contest and I have drained mi bladder. (And i won no prize)
Feb 13th, 2008
Franco - Papa Taxi
One can find out the way a machine works by dismantling it and studying all its parts. A piece of art can be dissected, all its parts analyzed and remain a mystery.
Mar 6th, 2008
Reply to “Fake plastic Barbie”