"
. With Shoes, lifestyle, and the absurd
I think is really absurd for a sneaker to represent a lifestyle, it is really absurd to me. Somehow, these shoe companies have managed to insert themselves into people’s identity through repetition, through sponsorship deals, where they really hammer it down that shoes are a status symbol. But at some point in time people are going to realize that that is the most absurd thing.
So says Ian MacKaye, in this long interview with a site called Black Lodges. He talks about the Nike/Minor Threat stuff, and also about running Dischord, and more broadly about the “lifestyle” idea (which he makes quite clear doesn’t interest him in the least).
I came upon it by way of The Hundreds’ blog, where Bobby Hundreds briefly recounts approaching MacKay for his blessing on a Fugazi-lyric-inspired T-shirt, which evidently MacKaye begged off on giving, and so I guess there will be no such shirt.
Related previous items: Q&A with Anne Elizabeth Moore about her book Unmarketable, in which MacKaye and the Nike/Minor Threat incident figures prominently; Minor Threat Hot Sauce; “Brand Underground” article in which The Hundreds figure prominently, as does the idea of “representing a lifestyle.”
.
.
Kim Fellner's book 
.
A
Reader Comments
Its funny because I was having a conversation about this last night. I think people need to clear up WHERE the lifestyle part is coming from. When it is coming from a Nike, I understand why one would be suspicious. Yet when it is coming from a Hundreds I think you have to consider it being a little more authentic.
Also, the term lifestyle might not be the best word to describe it but it is the only one that can really cover what it means.
To me it is more about an attitude and a way for an individual to differentiate themselves from the public. These are kids that don’t want to fuck with the traditional establishments and institutions. These are people who want to stand out and be unique. It is more about the energy of it all then labeling a “lifestyle” or whatever else you want to call it. . . .
I think people who are TOO old to get it won’t.
As far as brands getting involved in these scenes I am all for it if it is organic and properly fits into that particular “indie” scene. At the end of the day art is a means to drive commerce. I don’t care what anyone says, we are all in the business of surviving which requires money, even in art. So if you think brands + authentic movements are trash then you are just being naive. This ain’t 1969.
This seems reasonable up to the “TOO old” thing and what comes after it. I get what you’re saying up to their and think it’s a legitimate point of view. But are you saying MacKaye is too old and naive? (Or me?) And what’s the 1969 reference mean? Anyway, my basic view is that people can have different points of view on these questions, I am not pushing a specific program of answers. Well, I’m pushing a specific program of thinking, over dogma and name-calling. I definitely think it’s MacKaye’s right to say no to the hundreds, just as it was their right (and showed respect etc) for them to ask him. I think Bobby H handled it all pretty well. Certainly better than Nike SB did!
What I mean by being too old is that kids 13-25 craft these scenes with their own hands and own ideas and a lot of the times people won’t get it b/c it is not their generation. Not their energy crafting it.
On top of that, that is what these kids are trying to do. Create something that is their own and don’t want other people to necessarily understand. Yet, I feel like many people have to label things and categorize them when they do not understand what exactly they are. And by doing this it cheapens the creativity and authenticity of whatever that particular indie movement is (fashion, music, art, etc.). That is at least my opinion, hence the defensive tone.
Re: 1969 comment – this isn’t some free spirit movement for the sake of a free spirit movement. Business and art have gone hand in hand for centuries….to me it is all about tasteful execution of that relationship.
If brands are a part of our everyday culture and doing business is a means to survive then why can’t we integrate brands into certain scenes, movements, etc. if they fit properly and support that particular scene?
I just think people are quick to say screw commerce and judge stuff when they really are not taking the time to get in it.
Not pointing fingers but speaking in general about the whole indie culture/brand relationship debate. . . .
If brands are a part of our culture then why can’t we integrate them into certain scenes, movements, etc. if they fit properly? What is so wrong with that?
That’s all fine and reasonably said. Again I’m not totally sure if your remarks are directed more at me or at MacKaye. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with it, and I think you’d have a hard time finding another mainstream journalist who takes those ideas more seriously than I do. I mean, I’m not a cheerleader or a fanboy, and never will be. But I’m interested in how people think about these things, and take seriously the point of view of those involved, etc etc.
MacKaye (among others) has a less forgiving view of branding, and I respect that as well. But if you think he’s wrong or too old or whatever you’d have to take that up with him.
I can’t speak for the 1969 era of youth culture. I’m not old enough!