Before I took this class, and probably only since last weeks class period, I would have been included in the crowd that Schloss categorizes in his introduction as finding b-boying “somewhere between parachute pants and Rubik’s cubes, a Reagan era fad.” Last weeks look at the bonus interviews in Style Wars helped change that perspective some, and Foundation was a nice addition. Here were some of the things I liked from the first part of the book, I’ll finish the rest before class tomorrow.

First, like “Roc the Mic Right” for a few weeks ago, I love the ethnographic approach. Using personal interviews from those who are involved and creating the culture is the best approach I have seen in the works we have read. It gives a since of authenticity that is slightly removed from a simple academic analysis of lyrics or otherwise.

Second, I love Schloss’s overarching theme that hip hop did not just “happen.” Rather he points to specific choices and innovations within the culture that shaped hip hop. One example I particularly like was the connection between deejay and b-boy. “The breaks” being highlighted and used to get the b-boys interested, and the two turn tables to highlight those breaks (p28).

Finally, though I didn’t quite get his argument until the end of the chapter, his focus on the personal relationships and the individual nature of the transfer of culture was interesting. I think we saw that with deejays a few weeks ago, and especially with graffiti last week. I think that also ties into what we have said about call and response, and beyond that fits in with Schloss’s point about the organic and purposeful creation of hip hop I mentioned previously.

Visual Art in Hip Hop

I was admittedly not overly excited about this weeks readings. If you remember my blog a few weeks back I tried to take the position that graffiti owed its place to in the hip hop nation to its influence in the early period, rather than any overwhelming connection. This is not to say I don’t think graffiti is interesting, or that it was not tied to the hip hop movement in general. Its tie just hasn’t been argued in a compelling way in the modern period. However, I feel I boxed myself in a bit.

I did enjoy a number of things from this weeks readings. First, when I was in D.C. for a summer internship in 2008, my office was two blocks from the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery. That gallery contained a collection at that point entitled “Recognize: Hip Hop and Contemporary Portraiture.” That collection contained works from Kehinde Wiley that were discussed in Dr. Schur’s piece. It is from this experience, and this argument that I can see a more compelling argument attaching visual art to the hip hop movement. However, arguments like the one made in “Shaping the New Language of Visual Culture” that see graffiti as hip hop’s Black Arts Movement (BAM), are less persuasive in my mind. Graffiti, at least in my own personal conception fits into hip hop because it is also composed of the same aesthetic elements like irony/parody, call and response, and sampling. Rather than an argument that simply says well when Kool DJ Herc and Flash were starting the deejay and party scene, Lee Quiones was writing on train cars, this perspective says that they are tied because they have similar qualities and background, and fit into a somewhat shared experience.

A few more thoughts just to throw out there.
- I really liked reading about the differing approaches to graffiti around the globe. I especially like the English approach to allowing graffiti to flourish, and the argument that graffiti writers are often the most assertive/healthy in most neighborhoods.
-Is graffiti, like we discussed last week in regards to language, a “limitless” art form?
- Really liked Bando’s quote from “Spraycan Art” p. 25, sums up my thoughts on Graffiti, “You don’t have to understand something for it to be beautiful.”

Here is a link to the National Portrait Gallery's exibition: Recognize.
http://www.npg.si.edu/exhibit/recognize/

Language in Hip Hop

This weeks readings were unlike anything I have ever read. While I have had the opportunity to engage in readings from a variey of disciplines in liberal arts/honors coursework, linguistic studies, analysis of poetry, not really my strong point or area of interest. But, it was good reading, because I'm moving even closer to a coherant understanding of why I like hip hop, which is nice. Heres some points I thought were interesting from the reading.

First, the idea of the limitlessness of HHNL and BL. While I don't see myself ever submitting a paper in graduate school, or even for this course using that language, the argument of the limit of discourse in restrictive rules of proper english, and by extention limiting expressivness, creativity, and personal ownership over language is pursuasive. But, in looking back at that last sentence, its evident I have trouble writing concise sentences, its eaiser for me, and John Locke, to write using lots of commas. So I guess my argument is that for hip hop music and other cultural productions, HHNL and BL is perfectly acceptable and understandable. Its easier to flow if you can say "forsheeze" and not have to say "yes, I concur." But some of the academics in the reading felt it neccesary to add in certain words from this vernacular, and place them in quotations. That was distracting.

Second, I love the approach to evidence in "Roc the Mic Right." In using personal and other unpublished conversational pieces, cuts from stage performances, as well as the usual use of lyrics, is a more useful approach to sourcework. I especially liked Kurupt's interviews that were related to tonal semantics.

Finally, a point I mentioned in the introduction, I know so much more than I ever thought I would about rhymes. Especially when it gets broken down to the styles of partucilar rappers. For instance, if someone asks me why I like BIG, I can always tell them that his blending of both internal and end rhymes extends his ablility to place emphasis (63, Book of Rymes).

Anyway, interesting read, hope to get my mind around some of the arguments a little better in class on Monday.