why blogging is not indie (to me):
recent outcries in the student body (and those people that surround you) have been making statements that "blogging" is indie (a common word substituted here may be "emo" as well). i disagree with these stereotypical comments. by lumping blog's into the indie stereotype (or any stereotype), one is doing a great disservice to the intentions of the creators of this means of communication, and severly limiting its capabilities.
moreover, have you read some of the other blogs people post by browsing the blogger website? if your answer to this question is "no", i suggest you do so. many of them suck. i am not making the claim that anything indie does not suck, what i am simply trying to say is that there are many different types of people that use this form of technology, many of them have no idea what indie even is. the comment about their blogs sucking is just a personal critique.
i am not the pillar of the independent community (whatever the fuck that is), so my statements may not have much validity as say, steve albini, but do recognize the fact that many people tend to lump me into the category of "indie" (again, whatever the fuck that is). what i'm trying to get at here is this: the things i choose to listen to, wear, talk about, and use, i choose because of the sheer enjoyment i get from them. this online journal (or what is called by those that protest, "indie journal") is simply my reflections on a world that exists around me and within me. these worlds i create. nothing else creates the world i live in, so that excludes steve albini or conor oberst or the red house painters or tim kinsella or modest mouse or athens, georgia or 4AD records or pitchforkmedia or tight designer jeans or chicago or one inch buttons or having a substantial vinyl collection. these people, places and things do not create my world. now, some of my thoughts and observations have influences, but not all of them happen to come from indie things, many of my influences extend to (and shake the hand of) different art forms, friends, childhood, etc. we all have countless influences for our ideas and creations. but protestors have made the faulty, illogical argument: "jonathan is 'indie'" (no i'm not),"therefore blogging is indie," which is by the way a hasty generalization. i guess that arguing here is pointless, because i will never be able to sufficiently explain to any human being or myself why i'm not indie until i stop listening to music i like or searching for music that i've never heard or stop wearing clothes that i like because they look good on me and are in stride with the current fashions. there's a lot more to me than the music i listen to and the clothes i wear. if you don't believe me, read my fucking blog.
*i apologize for the rant (this argument is more an argument for myself)--the blogging dissent opened the floodgates.
recent outcries in the student body (and those people that surround you) have been making statements that "blogging" is indie (a common word substituted here may be "emo" as well). i disagree with these stereotypical comments. by lumping blog's into the indie stereotype (or any stereotype), one is doing a great disservice to the intentions of the creators of this means of communication, and severly limiting its capabilities.
moreover, have you read some of the other blogs people post by browsing the blogger website? if your answer to this question is "no", i suggest you do so. many of them suck. i am not making the claim that anything indie does not suck, what i am simply trying to say is that there are many different types of people that use this form of technology, many of them have no idea what indie even is. the comment about their blogs sucking is just a personal critique.
i am not the pillar of the independent community (whatever the fuck that is), so my statements may not have much validity as say, steve albini, but do recognize the fact that many people tend to lump me into the category of "indie" (again, whatever the fuck that is). what i'm trying to get at here is this: the things i choose to listen to, wear, talk about, and use, i choose because of the sheer enjoyment i get from them. this online journal (or what is called by those that protest, "indie journal") is simply my reflections on a world that exists around me and within me. these worlds i create. nothing else creates the world i live in, so that excludes steve albini or conor oberst or the red house painters or tim kinsella or modest mouse or athens, georgia or 4AD records or pitchforkmedia or tight designer jeans or chicago or one inch buttons or having a substantial vinyl collection. these people, places and things do not create my world. now, some of my thoughts and observations have influences, but not all of them happen to come from indie things, many of my influences extend to (and shake the hand of) different art forms, friends, childhood, etc. we all have countless influences for our ideas and creations. but protestors have made the faulty, illogical argument: "jonathan is 'indie'" (no i'm not),"therefore blogging is indie," which is by the way a hasty generalization. i guess that arguing here is pointless, because i will never be able to sufficiently explain to any human being or myself why i'm not indie until i stop listening to music i like or searching for music that i've never heard or stop wearing clothes that i like because they look good on me and are in stride with the current fashions. there's a lot more to me than the music i listen to and the clothes i wear. if you don't believe me, read my fucking blog.
*i apologize for the rant (this argument is more an argument for myself)--the blogging dissent opened the floodgates.
posted by Jonathan @ 9:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home