Book Review Essay: Spokesman of Cool

Q3 Arts and Humanities
Eva Spring
{"title":"Book Review Essay: Spokesman of Cool","authors":"Eva Spring","doi":"10.1080/17494060.2019.1686258","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"What was postwar cool? For Joel Dinerstein, professor of English at Tulane University, the time frame is 1943–1963, and the emblematic figures are from jazz (Lester Young, Billie Holiday, Miles Davis, Sonny Rollins), noir (Robert Mitchum, Humphrey Bogart), existentialism (Albert Camus, Simone de Beauvoir), and the standard 1950s cool pantheon (Marlon Brando, James Dean, Frank Sinatra, Jack Kerouac). Dinerstein defines cool as “synonymous with authenticity, independence, integrity, and nonconformity; to be cool meant you carried personal authority through a stylish mask of stoicism.” Cool achieved an “aestheticization of detachment ... a resonant tension between felt emotion and performed nonchalance.” Cool was masculine, projecting “toughness and self-mastery through a blank facial expression and a corresponding economy of motion,” yet “with one’s vulnerability just visible enough to show the emotional costs of the stance.” Straddling our dark and noble sides, cool was “a post-Christian concept, a devaluation of the virtuous (or good) man as an unrealistic ideal.” The book’s opening photograph, from Paris in 1949, depicts a young Miles Davis and Juliette Gréco, not any cool character on a street corner. The goal is to unmask the “cultural work” such icons perform, consciously or otherwise: “Cool is clarified through its icons ... In effect, popular culture represents society – or a generation – thinking out loud.” The title promises a bit more than it can deliver, as Dinerstein is more interested in “reading” movies, literature and celebrities as projections of popular desire than tracing cultural norms systematically. Still, he determines that cool “emanated out of African-American jazz culture to become an umbrella term for the alienated attitude of American rebels.” Lester Young was “the primogenitor of cool” who “disseminated the modern usage of the term.” West African cool, a “force of community” associated with “smoothness, balance, silence,” shifted in postwar America to a “new valuation of public composure and the disparaging of the outward emotional display long associated with stereotypes of blacks.” Dinerstein also draws in the English upper class and its “stiff upper lip” – and even the Greek Stoics – to sketch a “convergence of Angloand AfricanAmerican masculine ideals.” In the 1930s, proto-cool took form in “shadow selves of Anglo-American positivism: the ethnic gangster, the jazz musician, the devil-may-care song-and-dance man, the hard-boiled detective, and later on, the spy.” Its art form was film noir, “a working-","PeriodicalId":39826,"journal":{"name":"Jazz Perspectives","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17494060.2019.1686258","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jazz Perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17494060.2019.1686258","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

What was postwar cool? For Joel Dinerstein, professor of English at Tulane University, the time frame is 1943–1963, and the emblematic figures are from jazz (Lester Young, Billie Holiday, Miles Davis, Sonny Rollins), noir (Robert Mitchum, Humphrey Bogart), existentialism (Albert Camus, Simone de Beauvoir), and the standard 1950s cool pantheon (Marlon Brando, James Dean, Frank Sinatra, Jack Kerouac). Dinerstein defines cool as “synonymous with authenticity, independence, integrity, and nonconformity; to be cool meant you carried personal authority through a stylish mask of stoicism.” Cool achieved an “aestheticization of detachment ... a resonant tension between felt emotion and performed nonchalance.” Cool was masculine, projecting “toughness and self-mastery through a blank facial expression and a corresponding economy of motion,” yet “with one’s vulnerability just visible enough to show the emotional costs of the stance.” Straddling our dark and noble sides, cool was “a post-Christian concept, a devaluation of the virtuous (or good) man as an unrealistic ideal.” The book’s opening photograph, from Paris in 1949, depicts a young Miles Davis and Juliette Gréco, not any cool character on a street corner. The goal is to unmask the “cultural work” such icons perform, consciously or otherwise: “Cool is clarified through its icons ... In effect, popular culture represents society – or a generation – thinking out loud.” The title promises a bit more than it can deliver, as Dinerstein is more interested in “reading” movies, literature and celebrities as projections of popular desire than tracing cultural norms systematically. Still, he determines that cool “emanated out of African-American jazz culture to become an umbrella term for the alienated attitude of American rebels.” Lester Young was “the primogenitor of cool” who “disseminated the modern usage of the term.” West African cool, a “force of community” associated with “smoothness, balance, silence,” shifted in postwar America to a “new valuation of public composure and the disparaging of the outward emotional display long associated with stereotypes of blacks.” Dinerstein also draws in the English upper class and its “stiff upper lip” – and even the Greek Stoics – to sketch a “convergence of Angloand AfricanAmerican masculine ideals.” In the 1930s, proto-cool took form in “shadow selves of Anglo-American positivism: the ethnic gangster, the jazz musician, the devil-may-care song-and-dance man, the hard-boiled detective, and later on, the spy.” Its art form was film noir, “a working-
书评随笔:酷的代言人
战后的酷是什么?杜兰大学(Tulane University)的英语教授乔尔·迪纳斯坦(Joel Dinerstein)认为,时间框架是1943年至1963年,标志性人物来自爵士乐(莱斯特·杨、比利·霍乐迪、迈尔斯·戴维斯、桑尼·罗林斯)、黑色(罗伯特·米彻姆、亨弗莱·鲍嘉)、存在主义(阿尔伯特·加缪、西蒙·德·波伏娃),以及标准的50年代酷派万神(马龙·白兰度、詹姆斯·迪恩、弗兰克·辛纳屈、杰克·凯鲁亚克)。迪纳斯坦将酷定义为“真实、独立、正直和特立独行的同义词;扮酷意味着你把个人权威戴在一副时髦的斯多葛主义面具下。”Cool实现了一种“超然的审美化……在感受的情感和表现出来的冷漠之间产生共鸣的张力。”酷是男性化的,“通过空白的面部表情和相应的动作节约,投射出坚韧和自我控制”,但“一个人的脆弱恰好足以显示出这种姿态的情感代价”。横跨我们黑暗和高贵的一面,酷是“后基督教的概念,是对善良(或好人)的贬低,是一种不切实际的理想。”这本书的开篇照片摄于1949年的巴黎,描绘的是年轻的迈尔斯·戴维斯和朱丽叶·格莱姆斯科,而不是街角的酷角色。我们的目标是揭示这些图标有意或无意地发挥的“文化作用”:“酷是通过它的图标来澄清的……实际上,流行文化代表了社会——或者一代人——大声思考。”这本书的标题比它所能传达的要多一些,因为迪纳斯坦更感兴趣的是“阅读”电影、文学和名人,把它们作为大众欲望的投射,而不是系统地追踪文化规范。不过,他认为,“酷”“源于非裔美国人的爵士文化,成为美国反叛分子疏远态度的总称”。莱斯特·杨是“酷这个词的鼻祖”,他“传播了这个词的现代用法”。西非的酷,一种与“平稳、平衡、沉默”相关的“社区力量”,在战后的美国转变为“对公众镇定的新评价,以及对长期与黑人刻板印象有关的外在情感表现的贬低”。迪纳斯坦还把英国上层阶级及其“不苟言笑”——甚至希腊斯多葛派——描绘成“盎格鲁-非裔美国人男性理想的融合”。在20世纪30年代,原型酷在“英美实证主义的影子自我”中形成:种族黑帮、爵士音乐家、不顾一切的歌舞男、冷酷的侦探,以及后来的间谍。它的艺术形式是黑色电影(film noir)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Jazz Perspectives
Jazz Perspectives Arts and Humanities-Music
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信