In a 2014 Dezeen article, Justin McGuirk reflects on William Gibson's observation that burgeoning subcultures are rapidly commodified, losing their subversive potential before they fully form. McGuirk uses the example of a sanitized, commercialized "punk" aesthetic appearing in London shops, devoid of the original movement's anti-establishment ethos. He argues that the internet, with its instant communication and trend-spotting, accelerates this process. Essentially, the very act of identifying and labeling a subculture makes it vulnerable to appropriation by mainstream culture, transforming rebellion into a marketable product.
Psychedelic graphics, inspired by the altered perceptions induced by psychedelic substances, aim to visually represent the subjective experience of these altered states. Characterized by vibrant, contrasting colors, intricate patterns like fractals and paisley, and often morphing or flowing forms, these visuals evoke feelings of otherworldliness, heightened sensory awareness, and interconnectedness. The style frequently draws upon Art Nouveau, Op Art, and surrealism, while also incorporating spiritual and mystical symbolism, reflecting the introspective and transformative nature of the psychedelic experience.
Hacker News users discuss Ben Pence's blog post about psychedelic graphics, focusing on the technical aspects of creating these visuals. Several commenters delve into the history and evolution of these techniques, mentioning early demoscene graphics and the influence of LSD aesthetics. Some discuss the mathematical underpinnings, referencing fractals, strange attractors, and the role of feedback loops in generating complex patterns. Others share personal experiences with psychedelic visuals, both drug-induced and otherwise, and how they relate to the graphics discussed. The connection between these visuals and underlying neurological processes is also explored, with some commenters proposing that the patterns reflect inherent structures in the brain. A few commenters express interest in modern tools and techniques for creating such effects, including shaders and GPU programming.
Summary of Comments ( 232 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42917680
HN users generally agree with Gibson's observation about the rapid commodification of subcultures. Several commenters attribute this to the internet and social media, allowing trends to spread and be exploited much faster than in the past. Some argue that genuine subcultures still exist, but are more fragmented and harder to find. One commenter suggests commodification might not always be negative, as it can provide access to niche interests while another points out the cyclical nature of trends, with mainstream adoption often leading to subcultures moving underground and reinventing themselves. A few lament the loss of authenticity this process creates.
The Hacker News post titled "Anything threatening to be a subculture is commodified before it can walk (2014)" has a modest number of comments, prompting discussion around the commodification of subcultures and the role of the internet and late-stage capitalism in this process.
One commenter points out the inherent irony in Gibson lamenting the commodification of subcultures within a Dezeen article, a publication they perceive as catering to a consumerist audience interested in design trends. They suggest that subcultures are inherently attractive to those seeking novelty and, consequently, ripe for commercial exploitation. This commenter further argues that true subcultures, those driven by genuine shared interest rather than a desire to be different, are not inherently opposed to commodification, and may even embrace it.
Another commenter builds upon this idea, asserting that the internet has accelerated the process of subcultural commodification. The increased speed of information dissemination allows trends to be identified, replicated, and marketed rapidly, effectively neutralizing any potential threat a subculture might pose to the mainstream. They mention “normcore” as an example of a manufactured trend presented as a subculture, highlighting the blurring lines between genuine movements and commercially driven imitations.
The cyclical nature of subcultures and mainstream culture is also discussed. A commenter suggests that subcultures are frequently absorbed and reinterpreted by the mainstream, with elements becoming diluted and integrated into popular culture. This process, they argue, is not necessarily negative, as it allows for the wider dissemination of ideas and aesthetics.
Another comment thread focuses on the definition of a subculture, with some arguing that genuine subcultures are defined by shared values and practices rather than superficial aesthetics. They contend that commodification primarily affects the outward appearance of a subculture, while the underlying principles remain intact. This perspective suggests that the commodification of a subculture's aesthetics does not necessarily equate to the death of the subculture itself.
Finally, a couple of commenters express a more cynical view, suggesting that the entire concept of subcultures is now largely performative, driven by a desire for social signaling and individual branding within a capitalist framework. They posit that in the current environment, any attempt to create a genuine subculture is immediately co-opted and transformed into a commodity.