What is the relationship between coolness and naffness in pop history.
A version of it wd describe pop history as essentially a story of a thread of coolness constantly besieged by naffness. This seems deeply unsatisfactory to me.
A version of it wd describe pop history as essentially a story of a thread of coolness constantly besieged by naffness. This seems deeply unsatisfactory to me.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-29 10:37 am (UTC)Dunno, mate.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-29 10:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-29 10:45 am (UTC)my xmas-pudding bobblehat man = VERY cool in the sense of looks weird and argualby silly but carries it well (esp.on such a hot day)
does this become actually really cool if an arbiter imitates (cf "i'll have a babycham!")? NO! it is already cool -- the arbiter is merely acknowledging an extant fact
no subject
Date: 2006-06-29 10:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-29 10:54 am (UTC)And, I'd say, (self-)confidence of presentation. Which may come back to the 'indifferent to cool=cool' thing...
no subject
Date: 2006-06-29 10:55 am (UTC)i think the stonecutters ep has much to teach us also
no subject
Date: 2006-06-29 11:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-29 10:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-29 10:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-29 10:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-29 10:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-29 11:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-29 12:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-29 10:56 am (UTC)This is key, I think. 'where successful' possibly implies some recongition/identification by 'judgers' of coolness but without seeming to seek that?
cf the difference between 'cool' and 'trying too hard'?