This blog post is about the essays "Irony, sincerity, normcore: Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, David Foster Wallace and the end of rebellion" by R. Jay Magill Jr., and "On Smarm" by Tom Scocca. Feel free to comment on either of the two blog posts.
Perhaps not all of you were familiar with the term normcore before reading Magill's essay on it. Here are two entries on Urban Dictionary:
"A subculture based on conscious, artificial adoption of things that are in widespread use, proven to be acceptable, or otherwise inoffensive. Ultra-conformists. First featured as a fictional population in the webcomic Templar, Arizona, but normcore are totally real."
"The act of deconstructing fashion by purposely dressing blank or dull. What once started as a post-ironic anti-fashion, "purposely uncool" trend by hipsters in an attempt to pull away from the subculture fashion that were becoming commercialized and popular, norm core is quickly becoming a legitimate fashion trend. Characterized by boxy, unflattering jean jackets, oversized sweatshirts, gift shop baseball hats. Anything that looks like it might be featured in a Calvin Klein from 1998, or anything you'd wear around the house on laundry day."
This should give you a good idea, right? l'll give you a concrete example of normcore, an ad campaign by GAP, which was released this summer for their fall collection. Directed by David Fincher.
FYI: The campaign failed to increase the sales of GAP, and they are clearing everything out with huge discounts. Maybe not everyone wants to dress normal, huh?
On Normcore:
Magill argues that normcore is the natural development of irony, and therefore of hipster culture. As he states it's a "logical dead end". What do you think does that mean for hipster culture?
Normcore is a rejection of the capitalist nature of fashion. A reaction and a critique. Evidence of this development are various DIY activities such as knitting, gardening, and beer brewing. Small and local business grow out of this reaction and find success in their niche.
Interestingly the author takes a philosophical approach in describing the phenomenon of normcore as a synthesis of irony and sincerity. Irony acts as the thesis of the hipster culture, while sincerity, a reaction to the post-irony phase, works as the antithesis. This means that the ironic performance is balanced out by being sincere, which is evident in the dialectical dynamics of this particular cultural production.
Do you think being normcore is just another ironic performance or nah? Maybe it's just a reactive move against the rebellious hipster of the last decade? Or as Magill stated it's just another modernist struggle between irony and sincerity and repeats itself cyclically—1989 and now 2014.
On Smarm:
I would argue that snark is just an expansion of the ironic performance. Being cynic and nasty as an attitude or a mode that frames the negative worldview of the hipster. And of course there is an antithesis to snark—smarm. Scocca describes smarm as performance of seriousness without being substantial. Smarm can be characterized by it's anti-negative sentiment and being nice all the time is the goal. Scocca uses Dave Eggers as an example and describes the features of smarm: virtue, maturity, inclusiveness. Is smarm not just an extension of sincerity?
"Smarm aspires to smother opposition or criticism". So, it's hypocritical to act smarmy, but isn't it the same with being sincere without meaning it really? You're bullshitting your way through life basically. What I found interesting is that smarm let's you have a superior voice over something or someone, while snark is the expression of the alienated (Denby). Do you think that this is a correct assessment?
Scocca argues that snark is the theory of cynicism and smarm the practice of it? He uses political examples, perhaps you have a similar example for the hipster culture? Are snarkers really just haters, shitting on the world?
Discuss.
I'm gonna go ahead and comment on this blog because no one has commented on it yet and it's more hipster to comment on this one. I think normcore is most telling to us in its failure. Normcore, in theory, is the hipster full circle. To avoid becoming identified with the hipster, the hipster^2 moves back into normal culture. It's frankly disgusting. I'm kind of surprised it didn't catch on. Maybe the reason is that GAP is too mainstream. I don't know. Once again, this blog is making my brain hurt haha. Normcore is definitely worth examining and represents more of a theoretical blip in history and less of a full-scale movement. Smarm, however, seems like it is more here to stay. I, as a cynic, cannot stand niceness for the sake of niceness. I feel like emotion and sincerity cannot exist without their counterparts. It is akin to how peace cannot exist without war. If someone can say that everything they have said is completely nice, then it is probably good for the world. While we can say that in an ideal world, everyone would be nice all the time, some sense of definition must exist with negativity. Now that we have a more clear definition of smarm, we can all definitely identify the smarmy kid in all of our past classes, maybe even this one. Personally, I can't stand the idea of smarm. I would much rather have everything consumed in sarcasm than overwhelming false sincerity. I don't think that snark is from the alienated. I think that snark comes more from the superior in a way of furthering the putdown of the smarmy. Smarm is an attempt from the lower social class to climb on the coattails of the superiors into their good graces. I think snarkists are haters but I would hope they are not a negative influence on the world. Examples of snark in the hipster world are my personal favorite, this tank, http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/111410937283?lpid=82 and maybe the idea of quidditch and other mockings of mainstreamness. They are not hard to find but their presence in society is not necessarily negative or positive. Overall, smarm is bad. Goodnight
ReplyDeleteNormcore is what happens when the "normal" becomes cooll. Normcore is the height of irony when it comes to hipster trends. If the hipster in one of its many definitions is defined as anything but normal, normcore and its relation to hipster culture reverses this polarity. Normcore isn't about hyperbolic displays of identity or counterculture, rather, normcore seems to be about simplicity and minimalism; it's about dressing basic. But what about the sentiments behind normcore? I'm curious as to what the whole feeling behind normcore is aside from its dress and style. I am reading normcore as a parody of normalcy. As a parody, normcore critiques normative culture on its own terms. I would argue that in my reading of normcore, normcore reflects normative society to the point of eliciting its anti-normative nature. By this I am thinking of the films of David Lynch and the way in say Blue Velvet you get this completely normative setting paired with surreal scenarios. For Lynch, normativity is what is scary, yet, normativity has become so naturalized that the horror of normativity is not apparent. Normcore, I think, in this reading which would add a politically charged element to normcore, reflects normative society to the point of pointing out just how not-normal normativity is. Now of course, this reading is attributing the normcore style with an antinormative ideology that may not necessarily be evident just from the style, but I'm reading into it in this way. In another reading, I would say that normcore may be representative of a hipster culture that has given up, that has abdicated to normativity, and would rather dress like everyone else while still espousing coolness and hipness, but without the extra effort of trying to appear hip and cool on the surface level. Normcore definitely seems to be enacting a juggling act between depths and surfaces, irony and sincerity, hipster culture and normative culture, yet what exactly it is trying to say is difficult for me to pin down. Perhaps normcore is a hybrid identity that contends with figuring the hipster on the one hand, while negotiating the internet's ability to normalize everything instantly on the other.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the smarm essay focuses on the antithesis between snark and smarm, I noticed key similarities between the two outlooks. Generally it seems snark is associated with the more informed person and smarm with the ignorant. Besides this trend however both tend to have ulterior motives and/or unwarranted emotional connections attached to their usage. Smarm is a defense mechanism. Rather than addressing the issue at hand as it appears to do, smarm many times attacks the integrity of ones opponent. Snark also has ulterior motives and unwarranted emotions attached to its use. When criticizing a political action for example, the amount of hostility and contempt presented through snark commentary cannot solely be a response to a single political action but also must be an attack on something greater. An opposition and revulsion to an entire political party for example. Additionally, I think that both snark and smarm use a superior attitude to make their point however neither has earned the right to do so as both outlooks are too emotionally rather than rationally grounded.
ReplyDelete