[-empyre-] "hooded children of the revolution"

[Ryan Griffis <ryan.griffis@gmail.com>]

On Nov 7, 2005, at 7:00 PM, James wrote:

> Paris 2005 (Have Burroughs?s Wild Boys been born? Maybe not
>
> )
> Hooded children of the Revolution By James Button, Sydney Morning  
> Herald
> Correspondent in Paris, November 8, 2005:
> They wear hoods, baggy jeans and brand-name sneakers and their heroes  
> are
> American rappers such as 50 Cent. They describe their antagonists as
> "white", hate the police and when they are fighting they say they're
> "dancing with wolves".
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/hooded-children-of-the-revolution/ 
> 2005/11/07/1131212004747.html?oneclick=true

this quote is from further down in that article:

"Dr Roy did not rule out the possibility of some of the youths turning  
to radical Islam. Some militant Muslims were using the riots as a  
recruiting tool, while others were trying to mediate an end to the  
violence.
But so far the differences between the two were too great. "Radical  
Islam asks these guys to give up their lives dealing drugs and going to  
nightclubs," Dr Roy said. "Many of these guys don't want to do that.  
They want to have cars and girls and smoke hashish.""

i was watching some footage of demonstrator-police clashes during the  
OAS meeting in Venezuela, and it occurred to me how much it looked like  
any demo at any WTO/FTAA/IMF summit that i've ever been to. i know this  
has been repeatedly theorized, in terms of the script that is followed  
by both authorities and "protesters," but i think there is something  
here very related to discussions of commodity fetishism that goes  
beyond those analyses.
the article on the French "riots" are interesting in that they compare  
them to the 60s "race riots" (though they carefully use "youth" as a  
stand in for "race") in the US, but simultaneously places those  
participating in France in a clearly commodified position, which  
isn't/wasn't done for those rioting in the US in the 60s (or even in LA  
in 92).
i think what i'm interested in here is the blatant attachment of  
fashion (different from the much earlier Zoot Suit Riots of 40s LA) to  
such a large scale display of dissatisfaction. as if we can understand  
what people are trying to express when they set a car on fire by the  
clothes they wear rather than the action itself. all the analysis is  
about interpreting (whether through economic or symbolic languages) the  
actions of people who apparently the authorities don't think can speak  
for themselves (or rather, don't want them to).
what does this have to with our discussion of art?
i'm not totally sure ;) but the method of framing political action  
through the language of aesthetics has a certain resonance for me.
Robby's points about making a living as an artist are well taken, for  
sure... but i keep coming back to the "as an artist" part and  
Christina's questioning of commodification as a potential necessity.
How do we stop being the "hooded children of the revolution" in a  
scripted headline? i certainly don't mean this as an empty/symbolic  
gesture of alliance with the "rioters" in France - that would just be  
silly - but rather i mean it in the sense of our expressive actions  
being interpreted as necessarily commodified (fashion, professionalized  
aesthetics, etc). Is "art" in a sense acting as our hooded sweatshirt  
in this discussion?
i'm also not implying that i would find the discussion more productive  
if we rid it of art, but that art as a practice is so bound up with  
connections to capital that it seems necessary to really pull them out  
of the hat when talking about art, politics and comm. fetishism.
perhaps this is what marc was getting at when he talked about "really  
describing a work"?
reading this after writing it, i realize now that this line of thought  
is spurious, at best, but i'll throw it out there anyway...