Be Exploratory

In the section of my website or gopherhole, whichever you like, entitled apocrypha, I “jotted” this note a few days ago:

Fashion is the imposition of the aesthetics of a figured few onto the sheeplike masses. It overrides and sometimes completely obliterates the personal aesthetic of an individual.

The “obliteration” part is a bit more nuanced, methinks. I do believe that anything born of marketing, of which fashion is certainly, is purposely created to impose its aesthetic. That is its reason to exist. It proliferates. It takes the reins of opinion in those who are either easily swayed or generally undecided. Does it obliterate, however? I “jotted” another note into my apocrypha a few minutes afterwards:

Aesthetic preference can be simply the superficial manifestation of yearning to belong to a peer group. In this sense, it makes little sense to call said aesthetic preference “one’s own”.

In this sense, fashion (or any marketed asthaetic) can, indeed, obliterate an aesthetic that already exists in a person. My time in high school was a tortured time in my life. And one reason for that was everyone’s old pal peer pressure. In a way, peer pressure is a form of marketing. Or at least its efforts are parallel to marketing. In my tortured adolescence, fashion, musical taste, manners of speaking, “literature” preferences and even goat worshiping rituals were somehow enforced by peer pressure.

What was the origin of this peer pressure? Who or what originally created each “proper” aesthetic that my classmates and I were obligated to bow to? As far as fashion is concerned, I can confidently say that the origin, again, was marketing. Films portrayed actors donning “proper” attire and “proper” hairstyles. I recall there were women’s magazines. There were men’s magazines. A senior in my high school (when I was a whinnying freshman, still troubled in mind, still partially impressionable) named Albert implored me occasion upon occasion to get my hands on one of those men’s magazines so I could spruce up my wardrobe. Did I ever? I don’t recall that I did, though I may have flipped through one at one of the Allsups round Fort Stockton, grimacing politely in the process.

The point here is that peer pressure seeks to obliterate any opposing aesthetic view. It’s the conform or be cast out line from that song by Rush.

Musical aesthetic has always had its origin in marketing. During my life in the 80s, the radio was omnipresent and the radio had a specific, repeating playlist. Those were the songs that mattered at that moment in history. Listen to anything lying outside that bubble and risk being hurled into the pit. Of course, this didn’t stop me from listening to whatever I damn well pleased. And - in addition - trying to market what pleased me to anyone around me that would give me a bit of attention. I’m sure I was very irritating to a number of my peers in this regard.

I drift slightly from the main topic here: I recall listening to many of the albums that tooted my muffin during those days and thinking to myself how could anyone not like this? I grimace politely as I write this. How could anyone not share the same aesthetic as I do? Seriously? Listen to this! It is amazing. I hadn’t quite grasped the idea that Jim Scott attempted to show me multitudinously: Taste is a funny animal. I grew into the idea over decades and now it is one of the ruling aspects of my point of view. There is no universal aesthetic (as much as marketing would have you disbelieve).

So how does one claim one’s own aesthetic? A so-called puro aesthetic? An aesthetic formed uniquely from ones own innards? Impossible, you say! In fact, I think a chunk of the aesthetic I had in previous epochs (that, samozřejme, has influenced my current aesthetic) was born from my rejection of the bland (in my view) aesthetic of my surroundings, of Fort Stockton, Texas, of my parents and of the majority of my peers. I saw their mute conformity, turned about, and ran in the opposite direction. I certainly don’t regret it. I forced myself to introduce myself to ideas, concepts and forms that were abhorrent to (especially) my parents and to my peers.

I did run in the opposite direction aesthetically, but at the same time felt the pain of rejection. I was from a small town. There was no real escape. I simply couldn’t spend all of my time in my room listening to music and reading books, as much as I’d’ve liked to. And, admittedly, some of my aesthetic, especially musically, was formed with the help of people like Jim Scott (and later Tony & Bender-boy), who introduced me to music I’d’ve never otherwise heard, but more importantly encouraged me to be exploratory in my tastes. That was the key. Be exploratory.

I must be honest with myself. I can no longer work with people like Martin. His lifeblood is marketing and the way of marketing is to impose one’s own aesthetic views upon another’s and ideally upon the masses. So, to me, marketing is a form of proselytism, a practice I particularly abhor. So, go ahead and share your aesthetic ideologies with me. I’ll surely consider them openly. But if you begin underhanded ways of converting me, I shall walk away - metaphorically, spiritually and even physically.