NAOS
Well-Known Member
not even half as badly, though. haha.
not even half as badly, though. haha.
Carbon13
Well-Known Member
But seriously, Houston is cool you guys.
Best food scene in the country.
Great museums.
More things to do than you could ever do.
But its hot and flat. That said, id describe Houston as not necessarily being the best city to live in, but it is the city that offers the best life when you factor in cost of living and job opportunities. Also, Paul Wall and Slim Thug live here.
Best food scene in the country.
Great museums.
More things to do than you could ever do.
But its hot and flat. That said, id describe Houston as not necessarily being the best city to live in, but it is the city that offers the best life when you factor in cost of living and job opportunities. Also, Paul Wall and Slim Thug live here.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
I'll start this post by revealing my sources. One of them ran the theatre department at Columbia in the late sixties. Another source is a recognized expert on modal jazz, who lived in New York in the 80s. The last source is a close friend and advisor from my former anthropology department, who is a native New Yorker.
Independently, all three of them speak of the importance of the conservative, property-owning revolt in Manhattan to the social unrest of the sixties. The landmark victory of that movement was the destruction of rent control, which allowed gentrification to spread like wildfire. Before this, an artist could share a room in Manhattan for ridiculously cheap. This opinion is widely shared, and it can even be found in the social science literature that is taught to undergraduates around teh world. --The New York City that most of us around here have grown up with, was largely already gentrified, and the gentrifiers were in the business of branding the city. We still get on a knee for that city in the same groveling way, even though it has transformed into a place where art is largely curated and shown, but not produced in anything like a similar fashion to the way it was when New York was cemented in our minds as the ur-city.
The Hip Hop movement of the late-70s and 80s was a transcontinental phenomenon, and New York was a main (not the sole) axis. A lot of the conditions for this movement were created by redevelopment projects (i.e. a later wave of gentrification and police control over poorer areas) which were destroying communities. Of course, that only meant people were just moving elsewhere within New York and having different social/cultural encounters. This is also the time when the IMF and World Bank were destroying an island a day in the Caribbean, and many of the refuges ended up moving to New York in that tumultuous time. In short, Queens and other poorer boroughs saw lots of external and internal migration. This wasn't a "New York" thing.... the only reason to say that is to point to a place on an arbitrarily defined political map.
Latino and Black communities in New York boroughs were absolutely well connected to Oakland and Los Angeles after WWII. In terms of arts and culture trends, while there continue to be differences and distinctions everywhere, those cities have been densely linked and informing one another in a tight loop. To absolutely exclude LA from the jazz, punk, skater culture, etc. is straight up and down laughable.
Independently, all three of them speak of the importance of the conservative, property-owning revolt in Manhattan to the social unrest of the sixties. The landmark victory of that movement was the destruction of rent control, which allowed gentrification to spread like wildfire. Before this, an artist could share a room in Manhattan for ridiculously cheap. This opinion is widely shared, and it can even be found in the social science literature that is taught to undergraduates around teh world. --The New York City that most of us around here have grown up with, was largely already gentrified, and the gentrifiers were in the business of branding the city. We still get on a knee for that city in the same groveling way, even though it has transformed into a place where art is largely curated and shown, but not produced in anything like a similar fashion to the way it was when New York was cemented in our minds as the ur-city.
The Hip Hop movement of the late-70s and 80s was a transcontinental phenomenon, and New York was a main (not the sole) axis. A lot of the conditions for this movement were created by redevelopment projects (i.e. a later wave of gentrification and police control over poorer areas) which were destroying communities. Of course, that only meant people were just moving elsewhere within New York and having different social/cultural encounters. This is also the time when the IMF and World Bank were destroying an island a day in the Caribbean, and many of the refuges ended up moving to New York in that tumultuous time. In short, Queens and other poorer boroughs saw lots of external and internal migration. This wasn't a "New York" thing.... the only reason to say that is to point to a place on an arbitrarily defined political map.
Latino and Black communities in New York boroughs were absolutely well connected to Oakland and Los Angeles after WWII. In terms of arts and culture trends, while there continue to be differences and distinctions everywhere, those cities have been densely linked and informing one another in a tight loop. To absolutely exclude LA from the jazz, punk, skater culture, etc. is straight up and down laughable.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
last note:
Dalamon, the diary queen, absolutely remembers that I have professional experience in the Caribbean and Los Angeles. And he totally remembers that I live in Los Angeles. Given all of this, he still feels sufficiently pumped up to argue about these things because he read a book. I love how we reach these places where we "agree to disagree"... as though we were two equally well-informed people, doing an equal amount of arm waving.
He prolly looks at way more fashion mags than me, doe. And "fashion" is the only index one needs to make claims about "arts and culture".... because fashion = arts&culture.
LMAO
Dalamon, the diary queen, absolutely remembers that I have professional experience in the Caribbean and Los Angeles. And he totally remembers that I live in Los Angeles. Given all of this, he still feels sufficiently pumped up to argue about these things because he read a book. I love how we reach these places where we "agree to disagree"... as though we were two equally well-informed people, doing an equal amount of arm waving.
He prolly looks at way more fashion mags than me, doe. And "fashion" is the only index one needs to make claims about "arts and culture".... because fashion = arts&culture.
LMAO
NAOS
Well-Known Member
I have an old-*** pair of Baker Benjes wholecuts that I wear with demin, braugh. The real question is how do you feel wearing them, eh?
NAOS
Well-Known Member
"The explosive ones.-- When one considers how much the energy of young men needs to explode, one is not surprised that they decide for this cause or that without being at all subtle or choosy. What attracts them is the sight of the zeal that surrounds a cause -- as it were, the sight of the burning fuse, and not the cause itself. Subtle seducers therefore know the art of arousing expectations of an explosion while making no effort to furnish reasons for their cause: reasons are not what wins over such powder kegs."
Nietzsche
Nietzsche
Carbon13
Well-Known Member
Educatin' dem cacs. Good to know. Thanks mang!
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
Welcome to what Dala does on damn near every subject. Sad, he used to be objective.