CharLES ☭ H on Nostr: The main thesis of this article is sound: the far right loves image generators ...
The main thesis of this article is sound: the far right loves image generators because they hate art and artists. https://newsocialist.org.uk/transmissions/ai-the-new-aesthetics-of-fascism/
There are a few cringey errors and a wee bit of overreach, but I really think his main point is solid. Indeed, I would go further on a few examples he raises.
The author discusses dictator hair, saying it's ugly on purpose. He describes Trump's hair as a microagression of ugliness. While this is largely correct, I think he's missed some nuance, especially in terms of gender. Women of the far right have impeccable hair and carefully chosen wardrobes. It's only the men who dress badly, wearing ill-fitting suits and inexplicable haircuts. Therefore, bad hair is a gender expression, and I would argue, one rooted in homophobia. There is a lingering stereotype of hairdressers and stylists as gay. So Trump and Milei and even Boris Johnson all have hair that symbolises neglect.
In actual fact, Trump spends a lot of time on his hair and makeup, but the result symbolises contempt for the workers who prep him for the public. He uses their labour but disdains their craft. The symbol of his hair as anti-hairdresser supplants the reality.
When a symbol becomes more important than the thing it represents, it's called a "fetish". In that sense, Trump's hair is a fetish for utilitarian masculinity and compulsory heterosexuality.
There are a few cringey errors and a wee bit of overreach, but I really think his main point is solid. Indeed, I would go further on a few examples he raises.
The author discusses dictator hair, saying it's ugly on purpose. He describes Trump's hair as a microagression of ugliness. While this is largely correct, I think he's missed some nuance, especially in terms of gender. Women of the far right have impeccable hair and carefully chosen wardrobes. It's only the men who dress badly, wearing ill-fitting suits and inexplicable haircuts. Therefore, bad hair is a gender expression, and I would argue, one rooted in homophobia. There is a lingering stereotype of hairdressers and stylists as gay. So Trump and Milei and even Boris Johnson all have hair that symbolises neglect.
In actual fact, Trump spends a lot of time on his hair and makeup, but the result symbolises contempt for the workers who prep him for the public. He uses their labour but disdains their craft. The symbol of his hair as anti-hairdresser supplants the reality.
When a symbol becomes more important than the thing it represents, it's called a "fetish". In that sense, Trump's hair is a fetish for utilitarian masculinity and compulsory heterosexuality.