Reading Questions: Hip + DIY Consumerism (For 10/15)

1. A reoccurring theme in most of the readings we’ve analyzed thus far is that of authenticity. In his article, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” Walter Benjamin argues that “The unique value of ‘authentic’ work of art has its basis in ritual, the location of its original value” (p.4). In other words, a piece of art is intrinsically linked with a culture’s (or subculture’s) history. In Rob Walker’s article, “Handmade 2.0,” the founder of “the online shopping bazaar Etsy,” Robert Kalin, is quoted as saying, “When you get an item from Etsy, there’s this whole history behind it. There’s a person behind it” (p.6). If a product is handmade and/or original, does that increase the value of the work of art? If so, why does this matter to certain consumers? Is it mainly because of social status, or does it voice a political statement of some sort, such as the fact that the handmade nation carries out a more personal, environment-friendly business? (See p.1)

2. In his article, “Alternative to What?” Thomas Frank argues that countercultural entrepreneurship is part of the “rebel ideology that has fueled our culture ever since the 1960s” (p. 149). In “The Brand Underground,” Walker introduces us to several young grass-roots brand-maker entrepreneurs who carry out the rebel ideology: A-Ron and his “aNYthing” t-shirts, Daniel and Michael Casarella and “Barking Irons,” and Bobby Kim and Ben Shenassafar’s “The Hundreds.” Walker exemplified the rebel ideology when he quoted Bobby: “‘It’s just the idea of trying to be rebellious,’ he said. ‘Or trying to be a little bit anti, questioning government or your parents. Trying to do something different’” (p.7). How does this (rebel) entrepreneurial ideology compare to that of music subcultures? Is this ideology as much of a political statement as what the punks were trying to do with their torn t-shirts? (See Hibdige.) How does it compare to indie rock’s DIY ethic? (See Hibbett p.61) Further, how does the fact that A-Ron dropped out of high school and was still successful play into the rebel ideology?

3. In “The Brand Underground,” Walker examines minibrands and “quasi art objects”—sneakers as form of expression (p.8). He emphasizes the fact that corporations are working with the counterculture to make a new product. Walker states, “Instead of stealing ideas from the underground, the big sneaker makers positioned themselves as supporting it. The strategy seems to work” (p.8). For instance, graffiti writers Futura and Stash designed co-branded products with Nike. However, doesn’t a co-optation lower a hip product’s subcultural capital? Should fans be upset that Futura and Stash co-opted if the reason they did so was to keep their lifestyle-as-a-business dreams alive? Walker notes that “sneakerheads were willing to treat athletic shoes made by multinational corporations as cultural objects” (p.9). Why were they willing to see this collaboration as cultural objects? Was it because it’s a good business decision for both parties? In other words, on the one hand, Nike gets a new, hip product and makes a lot of money while showing it supports underground ideas. While on the other hand, Futura and Stash get wider recognition, a potentially larger audience, and a portion of the profits.