Discourse.

Edited 27/06/2011

I think I like Lightning Bolt. On top of liking both Hawnay Troof, and Reggie Watts I think this makes me a 'Hipster.' I also have faith and favor in bicycle travel over cars. I don't own a mac, however, and never will. Partly because I hate the way they (and Apple as a business) work, but mostly on principle of not becoming part of that 'culture.'

That word is in quotes, because I don't mean it as it is usually meant...

'Culture' is something not easily defined. Mostly, I'd say, due to the fact that it has no actual meaning.

Here we see that it is initially defined as "cultivation" or "tillage," two specific procedures which have two separate definitions. Next definition: "the act of developing the intellectual and moral faculties especially by education." This is a bit closer to what *generalitzation* most people think they are saying with the word. Third is more of an association with the first definition: "expert care and training..." The fourth one contains two sub-definitions:"a)enlightenment and excellence of taste acquired by intellectual and aesthetic training,"and "b)acquaintance with and taste in fine arts, humanities, and broad aspects of science as distinguished from vocational and technical skills." I find these most displaced; having no context without the fifth definition, which itself contains a number of sub-definitions:

"a : the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations."

"b : the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life} shared by people in a place or time."

"c : the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organization"

"d : the set of values, conventions, or social practices associated with a particular field, activity, or societal characteristic."

The sixth, and final definition is a sort-of science (another word with it's meanings taken very liberally) throw-back-colloquialized definition: "the act or process of cultivating living material (as bacteria or viruses) in prepared nutrient media; also : a product of such cultivation."

The fact that the word has so many meanings can mean that it is a subject/topic/resource that is so utterly important to our existence that we use it in many ways (like Inuits and snow, lawl), or that it's meaning is so utterly contrived (which appears to have just one meaning!?) that it no longer has an actual concrete meaning. It may also be that it has never had any concrete meaning at all... As it generally seems to imply the concepts of 'human' and 'creation' which are both seriously fucking vague.

Now, to exemplify it's importance as a subject/topic/resource we will look at the first definition, obviously. Especially tillage. My minimal, corn-fed, public-school, community college knowledge-head/brain/mind seems to think that agriculture is pretty integral to civilization, wholly. Without this rudimentary realization that dirt, seed, water, sun, makes plant (AHEM, the FUCKING BASIS OF LIFE ON THIS PLANET) our species would not be in the midst of rampant over-population right now. Additiviaditionally, here we see the word 'culture' in the compound-word agri-culture. I won't etymoligize it, bro, but you follow? Its use here insinuates our ability to analyze our environment, and use that to feed ourselves for a smaller expenditure of energy than hunting, and for a longer period of time. Encouraging the species to stay in one place for longer, and to do other things we hand't thought of doing until then. Like drawing and praying. (Here is where it gets thick, and I start probably disproving myself. We'll see...) This sort of hints at the current, generalized laymen idea of culture. We draw, and sing, and pray, and think, and make words, and write them down. This is our culture. It defines our civilization. If this is the case then what the fuck does a laptop born out of greed and child labor say about me as a person? What does torture porn like SAW say about us collectively? Is that not 'culture', or 'art' as it tends to be massively defined? Or are those words really reserved today for Banksy, Lady GaGa, the shape of a macbook, Chuck Palahniuk, Radiohead, The Beatles, Steven Spielberg, Andy Warhol... If something so cornerstone as growing plants is the genesis of culture, of which we would not have 'civilization,' then why is it so easy to professionalize things as representative of culture and exclude others as not?

If we can regard art as representative of culture, in that it is something people create, and we also regard movies and television as a form of art, then why is such a large portion of television programming dedicated to advertisement? Are ads art? I'd say yes, and get laughed at, but they absolutely are. Art is, more or less (an argument for another day) anything created by human hands/brain/and- or/mind, collectively or individually. Typically, it has sort of become 'culturally' necessary to prescribe/ascribe an intended meaning of something that is considered art. This is also often something abstract, emotional in concern or representation, and personally important to those involved. The latter part of that definition is what puts ads out of the current consciousness of what is art. They have no goal other than to get your attention. They are generally intended to get you to buy something (that is, exchange paper or imaginary numbers for something else), which isn't as important, because if your attention is got, then you might tell someone else, who might buy it instead. They might tell someone else, as well...runonendon, potentially increasing the chances of SOMEONE buying the shit. What ads really play to, in order for them to be effective, is something called, demographics: "the statistical data of a population, especially those showing average age, income, education, etc." The data can really mean anything from hair-color to shoe size. It is then used to show 'trends' so advertisers can say 'yellow-haired males who wear size 7 shoes are more likely to eat cheese." Then cheese ads are run featuring only Norwegian men with tiny feet. Jumping ahead, lets say that soon, after SO many ads, somehow more Norwegian men with tiny feet consider the power of cheese... In fact, cheese ads become so ubiquitous they may never consider why they thought of cheese in the first place. This is good for cheese, but bad for culture. If culture is intended to be a layout of who we are, what we do and why; an identity, then how do we know we don't like both Britney Spears AND Pepsi for the same reason the Norwegian, yellow-haired, small-feets like cheese? If, institutionally, we are defined by our demographic identity, ascribed to us for advertising purposes, 'culture' need not have a concrete definition. If we are permitted to pick from a select few social identities, then why bother explaining what they mean or where they came from?

I don't think 'culture' ever needed a word or a definition. If it is what we are, what we are should be whatever the hell we want. I remember being in eighth grade, and only wanting to be 'punk'. I couldn't afford the uniform. I had no idea where shows were happening, what bands were good, and definitely no transportation. I was also under the impression that punk was centered on an ideology of not giving a fuck about those kinds of things. So, what I ended up doing was attempting to assemble 'the uniform' as it appeared out clothes that I had, and language, name-dropping, etc that I had heard. I was in turn only berated by those whom I thought were punk. I was just trying to pick up on those things that are defined demographically as punk. Not really failing, but that is just now how that is done. Or, how it should be. Because, what is considered demographically as anything does garauntee it as actually represented of the 'culture' it is supposed to represent... We should be able to belong without having to try. We should, also be able to do this without keeping anyone else from doing so. Our identities can and should be shared, but with response to others. And, we should be able to define ourselves without response to labels ascribed to us institutionally. This not by appealing to images and icons of advertising agencies, but as a reflection of our peers. Even though most peers will be holding your face up next to a picture of Brad Pitt, Lady Gaga, or (Insert pop-faux-punk band here), and looking real hard just make sure you an individual? I am not a fucking worker-bee, all those people are, and none of them are real.

.