In the latter half of the twentieth century, there were a lot of extremely interesting and good experimental artists and musicians in the US who were having more or less sustainable careers, although they were always much more popular abroad than at home.
It's come out in recent years that they were being covertly funded by the CIA. The US, an enormously conservative country, generally has no interest in anything aesthetically challenging, especially outside the large urban centres. While some arts scenes probably were actually self sustaining (like possibly the SF Bay Area scene which has much less access to the international stage), the New York school and related groups did unknowingly get CIA money.
Because the CIA wanted to create the impression that the US was interesting, forward thinking and supported the arts - all of which is mostly false.
Eventually the CIA decided to stop doing this. Many of these artists were gay and when the US government decided to ignore AIDS the impact on the arts is hard to overstate. In the decades that followed, many experimental, interesting challenging artists in New York city have died of chronic malnutrition.
State funding for art in Europe was also part of an imperial project, so the US isn't unique in the motivations for funding.
@celesteh wow, I did not know about this at all.
The idea of funding experimental art as a psy-op is quite a thing to get my head around .
whilst we didn't get direct govt funding in UK I do see similarities between how the early Blair govt embraced "Cool Britannia" and they turned a blind eye to rampant drugs use and partying amongst well educated middle class young people; which was ofc fun but served as a distraction technique against getting more deeply involved in left political activism (which required a bit more effort than just setting up a rave)
The UK's imperial project was somewhat earlier, so you had characters like Churchill writing scholarly articles about paintings.
But it's my understanding that the state did move to try to crush the rave movement or at least bring it back indoors. Mass gatherings of young people, mixing across classes and doing events put on my travellers and anarchists was a bit too much, so they banned outdoors music if the beats were too repetitive. In retrospect, the raves were harmless hedonism, but the people in power only saw that it was an out-of--control movement.
Rave culture /seemed/ lefty at the time. But it was extremely syncretic, which is also a major feature of fascism, so it really was unreadable and unpredictable to those in power, and seemingly out of reach of the mechanisms of state control. There were no permits to grant or deny, no licences.
As someone who is middle aged now, I have no idea what to make of ticktock, but that's got the structures of capitalism around it, so it doesn't seem like a dangerous threat to social order.
I was heavily involved in the rave scene (both licensed and unlicensed events) from 1990 until about 2009, and I think
@gid might even have turned up at a few parties me and my friends put on when they lived in UK; the govt did try to stop /some/ aspects of the outdoor rave scene but wasn't that successful at doing this until 2000s when digital surveillance became easier, but they did also tolerate more club events at least until drug use started impacting the NHS >>
also anarchists and travellers basically tolerated urban middle class youths using the rural areas as a playground to fund a parallel economy of drugs dealing, which was initially relatively unproblematic until folk started getting greedy and also the scene became very car-dependent; DUI (and driving sleep deprived) is genuinely dangerous and led to a fair few nasty crashes on top of people getting addicted...
perhaps a difference between USA and Europe is over here healthcare is nationalised, we also have fairly well resourced public sector services so any attempt to promote an edgy subculture that (inadvertantly) puts an extra burden onto these services is soon noticed and there is a backlash from the local politicians where this happens (hence why todays tolerated music events are "balkanised" into city areas with greater social deprivation)
In the states, at least, gangsta rap was also a massive moral panic. It's primary audience was always suburban 14 year old white boys who wanted to be edgy. Marketing to the white gaze made it visible to those children's parents who made it symbolic of racialised criminality. The uproar around this lead to the "explicit lyrics" warnings championed by Tipper Gore (Former VP Al Gore's wife) and was also part of the background to the 1994 crime bill. Bill Clinton criticised particular rappers. A racialised fear out of of control gen X super predator criminals lead to a massive increase in US prison populations.
Meanwhile, according to the book "How Music Got Free", the record labels' resistance to a film-type ratings system (which would have left gangsta rap inaccessible to the market for it), meant that congress got revenge by refusing to intervene in copyright disputes. Rated films have FBI warnings on their distribution medium, promising that unregulated copying will be a criminal matter. No such protections were extended to music, so records company rights organisations ended up using the civil courts to sue directly.
Gangsta rap didn't tend to have physical place (outside of surly, unpleasant youth at the mall food court). It was part of capitalist product & there was nothing organic to disrupt
Welcome to post.lurk.org, an instance for discussions around cultural freedom, experimental, new media art, net and computational culture, and things like that.