On Riff Raff or Swag Rap or Pure Aesthetics

“When the world was born, everybody was naked.” – Riff Raff

riffraff1

Look–I know my hip hop well enough to talk through some broad structures. I am not an expert. Inevitably, whenever someone stakes an opinion on rap or hip hop, a commenter will come along and say “oh, but X RAPPER totally does Y THING and you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.” Sure, maybe so, but I’m not so ignorant as to believe that the plurality of a musical genre (that is honestly too big to even be considered a genre) doesn’t cover, in excess, anything I have to say it. I’m about to say some things about “swag rap,” a certain subgenre, and I know that even it covers and bends back on itself so much that nothing I am going to write will stick to everything. That is fine. I’m trying to pick a small plot of ground.

I want to talk about Riff Raff.

Riff Raff came up out of MTV’s Gs to Gents season two, where he was eliminated on episode two. I watched the two episodes that Riff Raff was in a few minutes ago, and I’m struck with how the conversation around Riff Raff hasn’t changed in the intervening years. There are repeated statements about how “real” Riff Raff actually is, and for varied reasons–he doesn’t seem “hard” like the rest of the cast, he doesn’t seem to be there for “the right reasons” (that old reality competition show chestnut), and he is fixated on his own image and how he is perceived.

So weirdly, I want to really get started with some quotations from the show. They set the stage for this Riff Raff ology that I’m about to embark on pretty well, after all.

During his “intro” to the show, Riff Raff says:

I just wear some shit and do some shit that nobody ever did. If you ain’t original then you start looking alike and eating casserole dinners with a bow tie on watching reruns of M.A.S.H.

A style expert comes onset to show the contestants on the show what “style” is. He says “it all starts with how you look” and then makes fun of Riff Raff’s pants. Riff Raff’s response?

I try to find stuff that nobody else has.

Fonzworth Bently, the host of the show, tells Riff Raff that “you don’t have to have money to be a gentleman.” Riff Raff asks

What is a gentleman?

When he is almost eliminated from the show during the first episode, he turns to the voting contestants and says

You should see me in the same place as you.

All of these quotations, and their sequencing, take place in “reality tv reality” by which I mean that they are purely the products of editing. Every moment is organized in order to make the viewer the most pleased, the most intrigued, or the most pulled into the experience. So the “conversations” that I’m relating above aren’t really conversations; they are fictions. I don’t have any illusions about their indexing something that actually occurred.

At the same time, what can we learn about Riff Raff? Are his words, removed from context, trustable? On some level, by even asking the question, I’m repeating the challenges to his “realness” that the other contestants on Gs to Gents spoke–is Riff Raff for real?

Jeff Weiss, writing for LA Weekly, asked Riff Raff straight up and got this answer:

“It’s all about how I feel at that point in time. If I’m having fun, then I’m gonna have fun. If someone’s crying, are they fake-crying? If they’re laughing, then are they fake-laughing? It’s not my job to cater to somebody. If I’m happy, if I’m drunk, like, that’s me right there. You know? So if I’m not acting like that, well, shit, it’s like, this is what I’m acting like right now. This is how I am right now.”

Weiss treats this like it is a straight answer, but it really isn’t. Riff Raff dodges a little bit, making a jagged line and rebuking the core of the question. His answer isn’t “yes, I am real.” It is “What is real?”

What is a gentleman?

I was going to write several rhetorical questions in a row, but I decided against it. I’ll be direct: Riff Raff embodies pure aesthetic relations. There is a depth there, surely, but he isn’t reducible to that depth. In fact, Riff Raff does everything he can to defer away from any kind of depth.

riffraff2

His visual aesthetic avoids any semblance of depth; it isn’t about cultivating a lifestyle or a particular kind of impression. Instead, it is eternal escape. The bow tie wearing, casserole eating M.A.S.H. watcher is a sedentary being. Riff Raff can’t be held down. He is always slipping between deadly serious and absolute comedy (pure aesthetics are totally embodied in Shelly the Turtle who is a snake, fyi).

What can we say definitely about Riff Raff’s music? Short couplets, usually. Sometimes a falsetto, sung hook from Jody Highroller himself. Production by anyone and everyone who will collab with him, lending to both amazing and terrible quality of the tracks. What we don’t have is complex layers of samples, lyrics that call down a heritage of hip hop, or self-referential, Rap Genius-style bullshit.

“Neon Freedom,” which is currently both my favorite Riff Raff track and maybe my favorite music video of all time, distills all of this down into a very clear object. Watch it.

I could close read that video for a long time, but for expediency’s sake, let me say this: this video is what a world of Riff Raff’s looks like. For ease, I am going to speak in three parts about the video: first, the DJ; second, the women; third, Riff Raff.

The DJ might be the simplest part of the video. He is, assuredly, a DJ. We know that because he has headphones on, but also because he is clothed in “DJ regalia.” He has a huge, 1980s style gold chain on; he has a jersey on to stay cool. We never see him actually doing anything DJ related. Instead, we see the kinetic and stylistic markers of a DJ. He must, therefore, be a DJ.

Aesthetics speak here, but I want to caution a pure semiotic reading here. It isn’t about signs accumulating and then being parsed. I also think a Stuart Hall-style encoding and decoding fails–what is being encoded? Everything? Nothing at all? Any act of reading beyond the apparent (“That guy is a DJ.”) fails. The DJ isn’t an object of knowledge to be decoded, to derive intent from, to understand as a figure that is “speaking” to us through layers of interaction. He’s just a rad DJ standing there, representing nothing.

The women take on awkward stances, oversexed poses that smack of Tumblr modeling. They look at the camera. They walk forward, turn, change poses–in fashion photography, they would lack movement. We would see these poses isolated from one another. A hand on a hip/ smoky glance into a camera/ heels. However, the video for “Neon Freedom” strings them all together, and edits blend more than one outfit and facial expression into a single narrative. In short, the video collapses all aesthetic possibilities for these women into one moment; it is an aesthetic Big Crunch.

[A pause: the aesthetic possibilities for women in a Riff Raff video as limited to being objects of desire, as is the general standard in rap. However, that doesn’t account for a number of Riff Raff’s genre contemporaries like Kreayshawn, Lil Debbie, and V-Nasty, all of whom are outspoken, active (notably white) women rappers.]

The women of “Neon Freedom,” then, are also purely aesthetic. We understand, immediately, why they are there. We understand the movements they are making, even though they are fragmented and visually nonsensical. They are pure visuality, pure aesthetic, hiding nothing–pure surface area on the plane of the visual.

What is a gentleman? What is a figure in a rap video?

Riff Raff’s body is covered in logos. MTV and BET live on his body. His own name adorns the backs of his calves. You can often see him in videos with a sticker slapped on his stomach.

Riff Raff’s body is pure surface; it is pure aesthetics. He stands in front of us. He dances. His famous “wardrobe changes” happen in front of us, in split seconds. Riff Raff takes on the persona of a biker. He takes on the persona of a basketball player. He takes on the persona of someone who actually wears a shirt. Riff Raff adapts and changes; he doesn’t take on those roles–he is them all, concurrently. Each of them is the “real” Riff Raff. It isn’t a coincidence that he repeatedly claims that he could have played for the Lakers, or the Seahawks, or any other sports team. Riff Raff is pure potential.

What is an athlete? What is a gentleman?

If Riff Raff has a genre of rap, it is “swag rap,” a post-Kanye version of rap that feeds on haters and glorifies non sequiturs and capitalist accumulation. I would argue, if pinned down, that swag rap is the logical conclusion for rap to come to in the state of capitalist realism: there’s nothing but the rap game, you can’t escape it, so everything should be the rap game. The world is ending–rap game apocalypse.

There is a nagging feeling that Riff Raff is post-swag (if we take Evan Calder Williams seriously about what swag means). We often hear that we’re sort of damned in capitalism and that “the only way out is through.” I think that Riff Raff might already be through.

riffraff3

I’ll go at it from another direction. Grant Morrison, writing in Arkham Asylum, a Batman story, writes this about The Joker:

It’s quite possible we may actually be looking at some kind of super-sanity here. A brilliant new modification of human perception, more suited to urban life at the end of the twentieth century…He creates himself each day. He sees himself as the lord of misrule and the world as a theatre of the absurd.

While Riff Raff isn’t creating himself anew each day, he is enacting a kind of absolute survival politics. As he says in his Gs to Gents episode, “I can’t be broke.” An embracing of pure aesthetics, of pure writing and being written, of turning oneself into an art object, is a political move to imbue oneself with infinite value. Riff Raff now has, as he says, lunch money. Stacks. Also, Canadian lunch money.

I understand this is fragmented. I also understand that I have been cagey with what pure aesthetics actually means. The truth is, I’m not sure. It is both directional, directed toward, absent of meaning, and opaque about its core. It is something in flux, and also something that I will be working out in the future.

Sometimes all the pieces don’t fit.

Further reading (and watching):

Posted in Critical Riff Raff Studies, Theory | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

de Castell and Bryson on utopia

So our argument is for disenchantment, and for the abandonment of a utopian landscape of desire that has never been anything but entrapment.

Suzanne de Castell and Mary Bryson
“Retooling Play: Dystopia, Dysphoria, and Difference”

Posted in Quote Time | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on de Castell and Bryson on utopia

TCiW: The Year in Review 2012

I’m making this post for a few reasons.

First, this year was really rad. I got hooked into a few online communities that have made me a lot cooler, and a lot better, as a person–you all know who you are. I’m going to hit everything else in list format:

Second, this year I made a post every Monday through Friday for the entire year. It was a lot of work, but I think that the strength of the writing on the blog has become powers stronger. Additionally, I have been able to be in conversation with myself in a really specific and articulate way–I make far fewer 3,000 word posts and a lot more small explanations of ideas that have returned over and over again. So what I am saying is that there is a lot of work that goes on here, and I think a post of posts is the best way to demonstrate that.

Third, it is helpful for new readers. I want a page that I can point to, like SEK’s “Best of Acephalous” series, that shows off what I have been doing. Also, like SEK, I plan for this blog to continue on, mostly unchanged, into the future. At most, I would limit my post count, but my class schedule next semester sort of demands constant blogging–there will be more on that early in the year.

In any case, also ripping off SEK, I am going to split this up by month. I think it is pretty clear when the quality of the blog picks up–sometime in the Spring–and I generally believe that I have kept that up for the rest of the year.

JANUARY

FEBRUARY

MARCH

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUGUST

SEPTEMBER

OCTOBER

NOVEMBER

DECEMBER

So that is it. Thanks for reading. Thanks for showing up.

Posted in General Features | Tagged , | Comments Off on TCiW: The Year in Review 2012

Books I Read in 2012

This is the total list of everything that I read in full for the year of 2012. I feel like it is important for me to say that–I read outside of this list, sometimes extensively, but what makes the list are things that I read all the way through, front cover to back cover.

The links that pepper the list are links to books that I enjoyed a lot, or books that lit up in my mind as I was copying the list, or books that have altered me permanently as a person. Somewhere in there.

So, before the list, some numbers:

125 total books (the list below is short because I collapsed some multivolume things into single lines)

15 of those books were written by women, which is 12.9%, which is absolutely shameful. That said, I actually increased over last year, which was 3.8%. That is still a terrible ratio, and I am going to try to push it even further next year. That said, about halfway through the year I instituted a leisure reading policy based around getting rid of books in my home–I have (literally) thousands that I have accrued over the years, and I have decided I don’t want to move that many. I started reading a lot of things that I had picked up in thrift stores, book sales, or whatever so that I could get rid of them. That’s why the latter half of this list is so damn weird (and also why I haven’t finished a book in two weeks [I am reading the longest Hemingway bio]).

In any case, here is the list:

  1. John Dies At The End – Wong
  2. Unit Operations  – Bogost
  3. Milk and Cheese Omnibus – Dorkin
  4. Rant  – Palahniuk
  5. Extra Lives  – Bissell
  6. The Monsters of Templeton – Groff
  7. The Soul at Work – “Bifo” Berardi
  8. Doom Patrol vols. 1-6 – Morrison
  9. Spheres vol.1 Bubbles – Sloterdijk
  10. The Handmaid’s Tale – Atwood
  11. Sophie’s Choice – Styron
  12. Do Anything – Ellis
  13. Looking for Jake – Mieville
  14. Sexual Politics – Millett
  15. Essex County – Lemire
  16. Memoirs of an Ex-Prom Queen – Shulman
  17. 11/23/63 – King
  18. Quest for Lost Heroes – Gemmell
  19. How To Do Things With Video Games  – Bogost
  20. The Mirror in the Well  – Marcom
  21. Ethics of Computer Games – Sicart
  22. Gaming: Essays in Algorithmic Culture – Galloway
  23. The Female Man – Russ
  24. Ironic Ethics – Berardi
  25. Flex Mentallo – Morrison
  26. Rise of the Videogame Zinesters – Anthropy
  27. Robopocalypse – Wilson
  28. American Vampire vols 1-3 – Snyder
  29. Art Power – Groys
  30. Jennifer Government – Barry
  31. Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close – Foer
  32. The Princess and Curdie – MacDonald
  33. Sharp Teeth – Barlow
  34. Games of Empire – Dyer-Witheford and Peuter
  35. Alien Phenomenology – Bogost
  36. V For Vendetta – Moore and Lloyd
  37. Why We Love Sociopaths – Kotsko
  38. Absolute Planetary v.1 – Ellis and Cassiday
  39. After the Future – “Bifo” Berardi
  40. My Friend Dahmer – Backderf
  41. The Half Made World – Gilman
  42. The Truth: Red, White, and Black – Morales
  43. The Wind Through the Keyhole – King
  44. Vibrant Matter – Bennett
  45. Virgin – Blank
  46. The Marvelous Hairy Girls – Hanks
  47. Are You My Mother? – Bechdel
  48. Gameplay Mode – Crogan
  49. The Einstein Intersection  – Delaney
  50. “You’ll Die in Singapore!” – McCormac
  51. Not In Kansas Anymore – Wicker
  52. All-Star Batman and Robin – Miller
  53. Wonder Woman v.1 – Azzarello
  54. The Dark Knight Strikes Again – Miller
  55. Absolute Planetary v.2 – Ellis
  56. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: Century 1-3 – Moore
  57. Absolute Sandman v.1 – Gaiman
  58. Zelda – Milford
  59. Comic Book History of Comics – Van Lente
  60. The Supergirls – Madrid
  61. Absolute Sandman v.2 – Gaiman
  62. Introduction to Antiphilosophy – Groys
  63. A Thousand Plateaus – Deleuze and Guattari
  64. Absolute Sandman v.3 – Gaiman
  65. Blindness – Saramango
  66. Dark Reign: Fantastic Four – Hickman
  67. Fantastic Four v.1 – Hickman
  68. Absolute Sandman v.4 – Gaiman
  69. Post-Cinematic Affect – Shaviro
  70. Absolute New Frontier – Cook
  71. The Artificial Silk Girl – Keun
  72. Chaos, Territory, Art – Grosz
  73. Black Kiss – Chaykin
  74. Collected Writings – Laure
  75. Cloud Atlas – Mitchell
  76. Orc Stain v.1 – Stokoe
  77. Wild Children – Kot
  78. Seeing Through Race – Mitchell
  79. Prophet: Remission – Graham
  80. Annie Sullivan and the Trials of Helen Keller – Lambert
  81. Protocol – Galloway
  82. JLA: Earth-2 – Morrison
  83. Batman: Year 1oo – Pope
  84. This is Not a Pipe – Foucault
  85. Hey Wait… – Jason
  86. Doom Patrols – Shaviro
  87. The Serpent and the Rainbow – Davis
  88. Camera Lucida – Barthes
  89. American Elf v.4 – Kochalka
  90. Weird Realism: Lovecraft and Philosophy – Harman
  91. The Beach – Garland
  92. Ugly Man – Cooper
  93. Pistolwhip – Kindt
  94. The Underwater Welder – Lemire
  95. Poetics of Relation – Glissant
  96. Stranger From Abroad – Maier-Katton
  97. Digestate
  98. Coward – Brubaker
  99. Lawless – Brubaker
  100. The Dead and the Dying – Brubaker
  101. Black Hole – Burns
  102. Slime Dynamics – Woodard
  103. Complete Bone – Smith
  104. Comics vs. Art – Beaty
  105. The Book of Mr. Natural – R. Crumb
  106. Maus I – Spiegelman
  107. Batman: Death and the Maidens – Rucka
  108. Maus II – Spiegelman
  109. Vampyroteuthis Infernalis – Flusser
  110. Too Cool To Be Forgotten – Robinson
  111. West Coast Blues – Manchette/Tardi
  112. The Uprising – “Bifo” Berardi
  113. Killing is Harmless – Keogh
  114. The Making of Indebted Man – Lazzarato
  115. Osborn: Evil Incarcerated – DeConnick
  116. Violent Cases – Gaiman
Posted in General Features | Tagged , , | 5 Comments

On Losing a Game of Civilization V

Yesterday I marathon’d a day-long game of Civilization V while getting over some kind of full-body funk. Not a good P-Funkadelic-funk, but a disease trying to colonize my body and turn me into a meatpuppet for nefarious means-funk.

So I sat and played a powerfully long game of Civilization V. It came down to three empires in the end. The Ottoman empire, led by Suleiman, was threatening and overbearing but technologically and militarily inferior to me. I held a single city against them for something like 100 years solid. The Indian empire was slightly larger than my own, more technologically developed, but less economically and culturally developed.

I made the United Nations. Gandhi had a majority, voted for himself, and defeated me.

civloss

 

I’ve been upset by this since last night. Why did I lose? Why didn’t the game warn me that the state of the world population was such that there was no way that I could win if I triggered a U.N. vote?

From a gameplay perspective, I am upset by opacity. That is, there was information available to me that I could not see through the menu system, the advisers, and so on. But the game rendered those things opaque to me; if the information was there, it was imperceptible. I’m unhappy with that in the same way that I would be unhappy with a Magic: The Gathering player who doesn’t explicitly say that her creature has deathtouch. I’m unhappy in the same way that I would be unhappy with a Dungeon Master who didn’t demonstrate through his narrative that the enemy I was fighting was regenerating all of its hit points every turn.

You’ll notice that both of the examples that I use are organic in nature–they are situations where humans mediate the rules of games rather than strict mechanical processes. Civilization V‘s lack of communication with me as a player is, to me, unfair feeling. But there is something amazing in the fact that it is unfair in a way that a computer game rarely is.

I can imagine, were Civilization V a human being standing in front of me when the game ended, it would have shrugged its shoulders.

Posted in Video Games | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on On Losing a Game of Civilization V

On Players and Designers

Ben Abraham made a post about the claim game developers often make about “players” and what players want. What Ben comes to, in serious tl;dr fashion, is that “shit is complicated.” It is difficult to represent all possible humans in games, and that is hard, but the developer response of “well, capitalism directs us to make product for community and you gotta deal with it” is a woefully incomplete one.

Daniel Joseph responded to the post with his own. Daniel writes that there is a broad assemblage of actual players combined with market research players (aka hyperreal players aka the product of capitalist astrology) that directly, and indirectly, put pressure on developers to create certain products. Daniel ends with a call, much like Anna Anthropy, to saying that we need to make the art we want and for us to stop depending on developers.

So here is my own intervention into the debate: players are real. More importantly, the players that market research creates for developers are real. Actually, they are more-real-than-real. The players that demand attention from developers are, ultimately, fictional. They are as real as the family with 2.5 kids that buys home consumer goods. But the quality of being-fictional has literally no effect on their ability to act in the world. These hyperreal players control vast swaths of development, and necessitate certain things–features are implemented for the hardcore PC player, the console warrior, and the genre game expert.

Daniel is right to call out that these hyperreal players are exploded versions of real players. They are simply the “felt” playerbase, which consists mostly of hardcore game players or QA people or other demographics that actually interface with developers in some way, whether that is through proper channels or just pure harassment (Mass Effect 3 anyone?).

But there are real players out there, too. These players have purchasing power, and despite the makeup of the inclusive video game writing community, academic or otherwise, the large swaths of video game players and purchasers are either literally or figuratively the white moderate. These players aren’t buying media in order to have their lives shaken up or to be confronted with hard truths about inclusiveness; they want to be entertained within the framework of their own ideology.

So what I am saying is that, yes, we can’t just go “welp, capitalism” and be happy with that. But we do have to be attentive to the material reality of the game assemblage when we talk about these issues. The engine for capitalism is ideology, and more importantly, comfort. The resonance of comfort creates stable entities that will do anything they can to remain stable. Designers run up against this all the time–I think the prime issue with Yohalem’s interview that started all of this is that he wanted to operate within this resonance in order to begin a critique. There is no removing you from a comfort zone; there is just an inflection inside of it. In short, he, as the writer of the game, had to assure that players would achieve a certain level of comfort to guarantee that the game would sell number of copies.

And this, at the end of the day, is the only thing that really matters for a video game company. I don’t think it is any coincidence that the writes of games like Far Cry 3 and Spec Ops: The Line have to “smarten up” their games in post-release interviews. The machine that is AAA development requires a certain percentage of gameplay tropes in order to capture and hold a core audience. Only through a reading “after the fact” can the writers say “well, in case you missed it, we were doing something amazing there.” But that “smart” game narrative can never be the selling point. The selling point is mechanics and familiarity. A number appended after a familiar title is an assurance of love; you’re going to be gently caressed by a being that you have known before.

This is important. Courting a huge number of hooked players is necessary when your game needs to sell 4 million units to break even (it didn’t, and missed the target by a full million in that quarter).

I’ll just end now by echoing Ben–shit is way complicated, and full representation of possible humans is almost impossible when the economic forces of video games are taken into account. Thankfully, we have when Daniel is calling for–we have a thriving indie community that grasps radical difference and bends it into beautiful games.

Posted in Video Games | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on On Players and Designers

Rinoa and Death

You might know that I have a small piece over at Nightmare Mode about Final Fantasy VIII. It is about a scene later in the game. It is about space. It is about the role of the player in the RPG as an active chronologizing entity.

A sample:

My power as a player in a JRPG is to press buttons during cutscenes. Sometimes I press buttons to select from extensive menus during combat. If I don’t press X, the world is paused forever. Rinoa becomes trapped; a real death never comes. Matthew Weise, in his “R.I.P. J-RPG,” writes about the RPG genre in and of itself as “a group of shallow systems arranged in a way that reinforc[es] each other enough to sustain a narrative.” One of these shallow systems is, weirdly, my neurological system; serpentine muscles twitch in my arm, my wrist draws together so slightly, and I tap the X button.

A link.

Posted in Final Fantasy | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Rinoa and Death

Happy Holidays

I don’t have anything for you today. Go forth and holiday.

Posted in General Features | Comments Off on Happy Holidays

Sara Ahmed on bodies and space

So, yes, we can remember that some space are already occupied. They even take the shape of bodies that occupy them. Bodies also take the shape of the spaces they occupy and of the work they do. And yet sometimes we reach what is not expected. A space, however occupied, is taken up by somebody else. When bodies take up spaces they are not intended to inhabit, something other than the reproduction of the facts of the matter happens.

Sara Ahmed, Queer Phenomenology p. 62

Posted in Quote Time, Theory | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Sara Ahmed on bodies and space

Sara Ahmed on the making of worlds

Inhabiting a body that is not extended by the skin of the social means the world acquires a new shape and makes new impressions. Becoming a lesbian taught me about the very point of how life gets directed and how that “point” is often hidden from view. Becoming reorientated, which involves the disorientation of encountering the world differently, made me wonder about orientation and how much “feeling at home,” or knowing which way we are facing, is about the making of worlds.

Sara Ahmed, Queer Phenomenology p.20

Posted in Quote Time, Theory | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Sara Ahmed on the making of worlds