Talk:Cool (African aesthetic)/Archive 1

message: I came to the "Cool" page after editing a page on Joe Zawinul -- but I was disappointed. This deserves more than a "disambiguation" page. "Cool" is a complex aesthetic with its roots in Africa, one that has transformed American popular culture. I've got no time right now. Anyone else like to try their hand at a decent piece? Please! -- deeceevoice
:I like this definition, although I think you should say African-american culture.CSTAR 15:53, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your comments, and take your point about the questionable reference, although that reference is not necessarilly bad just that it can't be taken as a scholarly refernce. But I do still think refering to it as African-American is correct, and there is a lot of scholarship on African-American culture which could be relied on here. Although I am quite not sure I see how cool is a one dimensional concept in this way. But perhaps I should remove the last sentence -- my intention though was this - cool was a specific irreproducible phenonenom of African-American society against racism and economic oppression. Take that away and the essence of cool is gone. CSTAR 13:37, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: If "cool" existed in Africa (and exists still) as an aesthetic before European incursions as an intrinsic part of certain cultures, how can it be narrowly defined as something reactionary? The essence of "cool" has nothing to do with white folks! But I guess we're operating from different knowledge bases -- or we're just talking past one another. At any rate, I'll return to this in a week or two, when I have time. I've changed the text back to the Africa reference. It is, indeed, accurate. Thanks for your contributions. 
And, yes, I agree that the reference should remain, but the quote should have been disappeared. Without qualification, it treats "cool" as simply a label related to fads, which is, indeed, trivializing it. Peace. deeceevoice 01:57, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: ANYBODY WANNA WRITE ON "COOL"?

message: So far, you've been talking about who owns cool. That's not very informative and not very cool.
:Nope. No one has discussed "ownership." "Origin," "ownership." There's a difference. deeceevoice 18:15, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This isnt cool enough--x1987x 23:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: uncool

message: The verb "kul" means "to go home" in the West African language of the Dagaaba and is not related to "cool" and its usuage. (unattributed comment)
:Sorry, but you're mistaken, but it's somewhat understandable. Your comments/edits point to the fact that we're speaking of two separate things. Further, I never said "cool" had a cognate-word/homonym counterpart in any West African language, and I certainly didn't specify, among the many hundreds -- and, possibly, thousands -- of possible tongues/dialects, Dagaaba. (Further, even if there were a cognate counterpart, how would you know -- unless you're familiar with them all? It seems somewhat presumptuous.) I wrote that there is a parallel concept-word linkage. Another Wiki user indicated to me in another discussion that this article should be separated --and now I think he is correct. There is a cool aesthetic that is a distinct part of West African culture, and then there are certain limited concepts that parallel English-language usage of the word "cool." I'll make the division/separation when I have more time. deeceevoice 17:50, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'm going ahead and creating an article on Cool specifically as an aesthetic. I'll be transferring the relevant portions of this piece to that one -- and you can do what you will with what's left of this one. (I think this should be a disambiguation page, but I'm not quite certain how to do that. deeceevoice 17:58, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Go home"?

message: I've come here from the 'requests for comment' page, and I have no interest in the tiff going on above this line. I believe that this page has a future, although in its present form it needs a lot of work. In rough order:
- "Cool is a complex aesthetic of motion and interval, of tension and tranquility, of juxtaposition and coexistence". This should be written as "Cool has been described by (source) (source) as an aesthetic of motion and interval etc". If it is not however a direct quote, it should be shortened to "Cool is an aesthetic that has its roots in ...". The opening paragraph throws the rest of the article askew - which is solid enough, albeit short - because it puts one in mind of a university essay or tract;
- The article needs sourcing, a lot of sourcing. In its current form, it seems like a condensation of the back cover blurb of old white writer Lewis MacAdams' 'Birth of the Cool';
- "In the context of a mutually reinforcing ethnic, cultural or social group, or clique, being perceived as "uncool," "lame," or "wack" can be a source of embarrassment or shame and engender ostracism by the "cool" group." - perhaps more could be made of how 'cool' is therefore part of a much wider system of social self-ordering; of how 'cool' permeates the worlds of fashion, literature, art and so forth, not just popular culture; of how it is a potent weapon in the marketing war;
- The article needs a picture of someone or something who is cool, such as Takeshi Kitano - lauded, as far away as Australia, as "limitlessly cool",  ninjas - described by a published author as "cool", with the qualification that "by cool, I mean totally sweet"  or a Raleigh Chopper; 
- There should be more concrete examples of cool as an aesthetic, otherwise the article might as well boil down to some extra paragraphs at cool. As it stands now, I have a mental picture of pimps limping, and perhaps graffiti, which isn't yet mentioned in the article, despite being "perceived as countercultural" - and on a strategic level, graffiti is cool, visually distinctive, socially-aware, and a powerful political weapon;
- No mention of jazz! When I think of 'cool', I think of unemployed French people, in cafes, smoking gauloises, reading Jean Paul Sartre, trenchcoats etc. Perhaps the article could define traditional perceptions of 'cool' - in the Lewis MacAdams sense - and the more widespread, modern use of the word; after all, popular youth culture appears to revolve entirely around cool-ness.
- As a separate issue, I would alter the word 'wellness' to 'well-being'; the article on Wellness isn't cool at all. -Ashley Pomeroy 14:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Restored reference to jazz Deeceevoice removed from the original cool page. 172.176.199.4 17:00, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Line 

message: DC, you write that ""Arrogant self-awareness" seems precisetly what the writer intended -- and it is accurate." Though I don't see how merely being self-aware  can be arrogant. Conversely if someone is self-absorbed or self-centered it is usually described as being nearly synonymous with arrogance. As is stated a couple sentences later "Likewise, outsiders may often deride the "cool" group as merely self-centered or conceited." Maybe you could explain what exactly MacAdams meant?--Deglr6328 23:45, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ??

message: My reorganization of the article attempted to make it into an article on the cultural aethetic and phenomenon of 'cool.'  The subsequent reorganization by another user changed the intro to this:
*"Cool' is a complex aesthetic of motion and interval, of tension and tranquility, of juxtaposition and coexistence, that has its roots in various West African cultures."
What does this mean?  Why did West African cultures have more "motion and interval" etc. than other cultures.  Also, does this refer to the culture in West Africa prior to the 1700s, when West African culture started to travel to other parts of the world?  Why does that influence supercede the actual historical etymology of the word, "applied since 1728 to large sums of money in order to give emphasis to amount."  
I think this article should probably be a conservative sociological and anthropological article that doesn't make bold claims not rooted in established research. Best, Nectarflowed T 10:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits, though, presumably, well-intentioned, perverted the article into something it was not intended to be.  Your mentioning of English and shallow pop culture "cool" first and then relegating mention of cool's essential Africanness to a small paragraph near the bottom of the page were completely unacceptable.  I've returned the piece to its original integrity/intent.  deeceevoice 11:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Conservative sociology

message: I've finally managed to return to this piece.  I've restored my original definition, which I hopefully have explained more fully.  I felt it necessary, because this article was beginning to drift from the original subject matter I had intended to deal with when I separated "cool (aesthetic)" from cool. (This is understandable in light of the watered-down/truncated definition produced by subsequent edits.)  Perhaps people now understand cool a bit more as a fundamental value/concept in African/African-American culture, as opposed to some shallow, amorphous pop-culture kitsch, or inane catch phrase.  deeceevoice 13:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoration of original language and clarification

message: Deeceevoice, just a suggestion. You may be able to cockblock people like Lockeownzj if you move this article to Cool (African aesthetic) and allow them to create a Cool (aesthetic) article that focuses on broader cool aesthetics in the Western world (with references to how the African aesthetic has informed the others). Sounds a little overparticular, but otherwise you're likely to be fielding complaints that "the cool aesthetic predates and transcends African culture, dammitt" into the foreseeable future. Just an idea. I realize you've already split from the main cool article, but maybe this one added step would help. Babajobu 08:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, Baba.  I appreciate the suggestion.  When I started expanding this article a few days ago, I did so with the expectation of changing the name, with the "cool aesthetic" possibly being a subhead within it -- and was about to do so as part of the edits I made yesterday (or the day before, I can't recall).  But when I discovered the VfD, I thought it would be considered an act of bad faith to rename the article at that point, an attempt to willfully subvert the VfD process.  I'm not terribly concerned at this point about the VfD, so I'm content to wait until the VfD process is completed before I rename the piece.  In fact, because of pressing deadlines, I'll likely not do any more editing on the piece for a few days.  (Frankly, I think it is completely without merit and that it will fail.)  The problem with your suggestion, however, is that it still leaves room for the ignorant precisely to make such an argument, when cool is an African concept and the source of the cool aesthetic.  Leaving space for them to write an uninformed article based on ignorant presumptions simply because they know nothing of pre-cool pop culture and assume cool to be either Western or somehow universal in origin is not the answer, eitherr.  Peace.  deeceevoice 10:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "when cool is an African concept and the source of the cool aesthetic." good job on making baseless claims again deecevoice ;D
the thing you fail to realise is that hip-hop mainstream MTV culture isn't the only culture in the united states--'and there are thousands of different non-african, non-ORIGINATING-in-africa connotations to the concept. it is not the "uninformed." you are rationalising things--you could convey this as an insult. it is pejorative. but i am saying what i believe you are doing: attempting to justify your (in my view) ridiculous actions. i would agree--move it to that article. this way the main cool (aesthetic) article can be expanded, and there could be a section on the origins of black culture "cool," african "cool," which says, as most wikipedia articles do about large, detailed topics, "see main article at cool (african aesthetic)." Lockeownzj00 21:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Cool (African aesthetic)]]

message: This article was listed for deletion; the result was to keep.  See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Cool (aesthetic) for a record of the votes and discussion. Postdlf 05:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  VfD 

message: Am I the only one who thinks this sort of article should be a WikiBook, and not a Wikipedia entry? Wikipedia articles are supposed to report facts(of the near-universally acknowledged sort) and opinions in a simple, comprehensible, objective manner. Wikipedia wasn't meant for imparting vague philosophies, no matter how valid, nor was it intended to serve as a sounding board for unsubstantiated speculation and fringe hypotheses.
Does the academic community generally agree that Marlon Brando and James Dean emulated some African philosophy of tranquility, luminosity etc.? Have sociologists generally come to accept that pimps and jazz musicians derive their mojo from said philosophy? If not, this school of thought should be clearly described as just that - a school of thought. Some info on where said school of thought originated and who supports it at present might also be welcome.
Furthermore, a bit of detail would be nice. Africa isn't a monoculture, and some sense of where this aesthetic of cool originated would be appropriate. Not to mention etymology. To the furtherst of my knowledge, "cool" was never an African word.
:I agree, or there should be some citations.  The citations only refer to an aesthetic of cool; there are none that support the "mask of the cool" or the claim about epistemology and ontology. --Delirium 07:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't this be a WikiBook? 

message: There are empty sections.  If this page is to be moved or deleted, there still shouldn't be any sections without info.  Also, a reader who is attempting to gain information on this subject will not find this artical a valuable resourse, as it does not explain what cool as an african philosophy is.  On an entirely different note, I suggust that you create an archive for the statements above that consist primarally of deeceevoice and Lockeownzj00 challenging eachother and making negitive and unproductive personal remarks.  This is not an example of a useful use of a wikipedia talk page and although it makes quite intresting reading, I am quite sure that that was not its purpose.  What exactly the function of this disscussion is I cannot discern, however it should not be deleted and instead archived in the spirit of free speech.--Akako|☎ 01:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Empty

message: Wow. This article struggles to desribe what cool means. It's main usage in the modern world is not an obscure african philosophy. It's meaning as being what popular culture perceives as being the best of the best is not expressed in the opening of the article. (or is it? I can't tell, I cannot understand the opening paragraph - it seems to be just intellectual-elite word throwing). basically, yah this article needs a helluva lot of work and i'm not going to be the one to do it. SECProto 04:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ....