( EDIT: Topic moved from music to art section as it has more to do with art & politics than noise.. -Moderator )
It just dawn on me today after talking to a friend about Luigi Russolo. This year it is 100 years ago since he wrote his manifest The Art Of Noises. I would like to dedicate this thread to Russolo, his manifest and related topics. Instead of writing a long essay about him here - which I feel is unnecessary in this forum - I end including his manifest of 1913.
http://www.artype.de/Sammlung/pdf/russolo_noise.pdf (http://www.artype.de/Sammlung/pdf/russolo_noise.pdf)
Congrats to you all!
ALL HAIL!
http://adhoc.fm/post/help-spread-good-word-william-bennett/
Unfortunately, this is related.
It would be interesting to know whether any of the boycotts towards venues ever worked out in context of experimental music?
I'm sure most venues are not operated by retards, so merely by getting statement from Cut Hands, they'd know how things are? If people would be offended by WB's supposed "fascist past", there's quite amusement is that is problem in context of art happening focused on Italian futurism... I'm quite sure you find more fascist & misogynist content from futurism?
Russolo himself was opposed to fascism. So were a lot, if not most, of the other futurists, despite the Marinetti's leanings. There is a book by Alan Antliff whose title escapes me that details the prominence of anarchism within futurism and vorticism, among other movements.
The irony of the fascist thing in this case, however, is not lost on me.
(at least he opposed fascism later)
It's also worthwhile to note the influence of anarchism on fascism - Cercle Proudhon, D'Annunzio and his largely anarchist army' s Republic of Fiume (the blackshirt uniform was modeled on the uniform of D'Annunzio's army) and the fact that Mussolini was originally an individualist anarchist, before becoming a syndicalist/socialist, then a nationalist-syndicalist/socialist in the early days of fascism, before turning to the right. I could go on, but I'll leave it at that.
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on March 24, 2013, 07:54:37 PM
I'm quite sure you find more fascist & misogynist content from futurism?
As far as I know most of them (even Marinetti) had wives and only Marinetti (with a few less known artists) had close relations with Mussolini, only to the end of 20.
I'm reading this right now:http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=13&ved=0CDUQFjACOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fge.tt%2Fapi%2F1%2Ffiles%2F7EvXrdS%2F0%2Fblob%3Fdownload&ei=qVBPUbXJJNLj4APszYGABQ&usg=AFQjCNE4IytDA18b4R9z5xMFMChPgO_sDg
Which suggests that Russolo was, in fact, an adherent to fascism, despite what all the scholarly works on him claim. I'll definitely be looking further into this. I'll also clean up that link and these posts when I get a chance to use a computer.
Whatever the case, 1913 is too early for fascism proper. The link I posted mainly deals with Russolo's involvement with the occult, and I recommend it highly.
Quote from: Jordan on March 24, 2013, 09:39:42 PM
all the scholarly works on him claim. I'll definitely be looking further into this. I'll also clean up that link and these posts when I get a chance to use a computer.
Scholarly works are stupid piece of shit sometimes.... but if even he was fascist, then so what? Is this so important for you, should be?
Quote from: ImpulsyStetoskopu on March 24, 2013, 09:54:17 PM
Quote from: Jordan on March 24, 2013, 09:39:42 PM
all the scholarly works on him claim. I'll definitely be looking further into this. I'll also clean up that link and these posts when I get a chance to use a computer.
Scholarly works are stupid piece of shit sometimes.... but if even he was fascist, then so what? Is this so important for you, should be?
?
I'll assume this is some sort of language barrier thing.
(The historical avant garde and it's cultural context is important to me, as it should be to most here. If you're implying that I'm some kind of timid anti fascist, I have a personally library and assorted cultural artifacts to show otherwise. In the final analysis, I am anti-statist, but if you're trying to put me on a level with antifa people, then you're barking up the wrong tree.)
Quote from: Jordan on March 24, 2013, 09:58:35 PM
Quote from: ImpulsyStetoskopu on March 24, 2013, 09:54:17 PM
Quote from: Jordan on March 24, 2013, 09:39:42 PM
all the scholarly works on him claim. I'll definitely be looking further into this. I'll also clean up that link and these posts when I get a chance to use a computer.
Scholarly works are stupid piece of shit sometimes.... but if even he was fascist, then so what? Is this so important for you, should be?
?
I'll assume this is some sort of language barrier thing.
If he was fascist it would change your imagination about his art?
Quote from: ImpulsyStetoskopu on March 24, 2013, 10:01:41 PM
Quote from: Jordan on March 24, 2013, 09:58:35 PM
Quote from: ImpulsyStetoskopu on March 24, 2013, 09:54:17 PM
Quote from: Jordan on March 24, 2013, 09:39:42 PM
all the scholarly works on him claim. I'll definitely be looking further into this. I'll also clean up that link and these posts when I get a chance to use a computer.
Scholarly works are stupid piece of shit sometimes.... but if even he was fascist, then so what? Is this so important for you, should be?
?
I'll assume this is some sort of language barrier thing.
If he was fascist it would change your imagination about his art?
Nope. See above.
http://www.portaledicomo.it/2013/mag-como-luigi-russolo-larte-dei-rumori/
Exhibition in my hometown, 5 mins walk from my place, featuring an original copy of the manifesto.
Futurism was not fascist itself, but set the language style and many forms that made fascism what it became.
Most big names of futurism dealt with fascists: Marinetti, Balla, Depero, Crali, Tato, Forlin, Thayaht, etc. not to mention the architects that formed the so-called rationalist architecture school that was strongly inspired by interventionist Sant'Elia. Terragni, Lingeri (my house was built by him in the 20's and you can see the style made by arches, very high ceilings, etc) , etc all were part of fascism, I cannot say if by faith (like Marinetti), convenience or survival (whatever you may think about the subject, fascism and communism were not a joke and you either fit or you did not).
Russolo was indeed not fascist and with Depero is my fave of the lot.
I am VERY interested/influenced by futurism, possibly my favourite vanguard ever. Marinetti's Mafarka is the quintessence of what I want/like to read.
I love the way they distanced themselves from other artists by actually putting their thoughts into action.
(http://www.exibart.com/profilo/imgpost/rev/297/rev6297%281%29-ori.jpg)
make sure you check this nice hommage of this graphic designer:
http://www.dinamorivoluzione.com/2010/10/poster-dinamo-futurista-e-guido-keller-disponibili/
I have a couple of them in my house
Quote from: tiny_tove on March 24, 2013, 10:15:21 PM
all were part of fascism, I cannot say if by faith (like Marinetti), convenience or survival (whatever you may think about the subject, fascism and communism were not a joke and you either fit or you did not).
Marinetti had close relation with Mussolini because he (Marinetti) had utopian idea about government consisted of artists. Mussolini considered it until he came a politician leader in Italy. Besides he used Futurists to promote his fascist party. After several years of constant promises, Marinetti lost even important job in a high school (I don't remember what university), and then lost interest in Mussolini and his fascism.
The Futurist Manifesto says things in compact form.
If someone opposes WB for saying few things in past (with irony or not), with same logic, they should probably have problem with futurism.
We're not dealing with people who are in need of the text-book-prototype authentic fascists or party member nazis, but we're dealing with people who see some sort of "radical idea" what is not same as theirs, and they feel some sort of pathological need to smear the names of those artists.
QuoteBeauty exists only in struggle. There is no masterpiece that has not an aggressive character. Poetry must be a violent assault on the forces of the unknown, to force them to bow before man.
QuoteWe want to glorify war — the only cure for the world — militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of the anarchists, the beautiful ideas which kill, and contempt for woman.
Rather than asking if someone would change their opinion about specific artists if they suddenly realize that all what they admired and all good ideas there, appear to have "fascist leanings"... So perhaps would be asking should they change their opinion about fascism what clearly attracts and affects them.
Quote from: ImpulsyStetoskopu on March 24, 2013, 10:34:51 PM
Quote from: tiny_tove on March 24, 2013, 10:15:21 PM
all were part of fascism, I cannot say if by faith (like Marinetti), convenience or survival (whatever you may think about the subject, fascism and communism were not a joke and you either fit or you did not).
Marinetti had close relation with Mussolini because he (Marinetti) had utopian idea about government consisted of artists. Mussolini considered it until he came a politician leader in Italy. Besides he used Futurists to promote his fascist party. After several years of constant promises, Marinetti lost even important job in a high school (I don't remember what university), and then lost interest in Mussolini and his fascism.
Marinetti sort of calmed himself down regarding fascism almost accusing fascism of betraying the futurist ideals, but went back full in force when the war begun and went fighting on the Russian front.
Then completely supported the RSI (the final stage of fascist regime, so called "Repubblica sociale italiana" ) and died after writing "Quarto d'ora di poesia della X Mas", dedicated to Junio Valerio Borghese's military group.
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on March 25, 2013, 07:51:07 AM
Rather than asking if someone would change their opinion about specific artists if they suddenly realize that all what they admired and all good ideas there, appear to have "fascist leanings"... So perhaps would be asking should they change their opinion about fascism what clearly attracts and affects them.
Missed this. I'll keep it brief, as this has all been fairly off topic, for the sound/music forum anyway.
I would change my position about fascism (or communism, or democracy, or...) if I were to be sure that I would be in a position to be on top, and thus, be allowed to do whatever the fuck I want. I'm well aware of what draws me to fascism aesthetically, emotionally, rationally, sexually, and so on, and why it does. I'm also well aware that, in that type of situation, the chances that I would be in a position to benefit from such a social arrangement would be slim. Furthermore, the chances of such a social arrangement happening in the first world generally, and specifically and above all, in Canada, are non-existent, just like the chances of an anarchist "revolution" or any other pipe dream. As I've said elsewhere, I think the only hope to see some sort of exciting change in our lifetimes, at least in the western hemisphere, is to break up the map and hope that something, anything, might sprout up in the cracks. And finally, there's nothing wrong with pipe dreams.
So, regardless of the fact that fascism isn't a turn-off for me, and in fact, that it's usually quite the opposite, my favourite "futurist" poet will always be Novatore, though his involvement in "left-wing Futurism" is but a very minor fraction of the totality of the man. Feral Faun/Wolfi Landstreicher/Apio Ludd has translated some of his works, and a couple of pieces are featured in the recent, extremely excellent anthology
'Enemies of Society: An Anthology of Individualist and Egoist Thought'. http://www.novatore.it/EngIndex.html
That website has some stuff too, but I haven't checked it out yet. I think a translator other than Feral Faun might possibly do the material more justice, but no word on the translations therein.
'Towards The Creative Nothing' is highly recommended.
EDIT: That website seems to be down or something, but the works are available elsewhere.
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/search?query=novatore
Quote from: Jordan on April 03, 2013, 05:09:50 AM
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on March 25, 2013, 07:51:07 AM
Rather than asking if someone would change their opinion about specific artists if they suddenly realize that all what they admired and all good ideas there, appear to have "fascist leanings"... So perhaps would be asking should they change their opinion about fascism what clearly attracts and affects them.
I would change my position about fascism (or communism, or democracy, or...) if I were to be sure that I would be in a position to be on top, and thus, be allowed to do whatever the fuck I want.
Well, doesn't this simply say you dislike these and rather favor politics that take individualism as centerpoint (liberalism, anarchism,..)?
I certainly did not mean that people should change their mind about fascism, because they could exploit the system for their personal needs and corrupt it to some twisted form.
What most of the real radical movements what you quite often define "fascist", have as common, is the aim of rebirth of man. It's rise of new life, new organization, new values. Most often very much collective, where role of individual is what is factually IS. Meaning - pretty much nothing, unless they prove to be exceptional characters.
Very often there are people who admire the great philosophers of big variety (Heidegger, Hegel, Nietzche,.. ), they remember to admire ancient cultures where mankind created its milestones of culture. Within certain edges of various underground cultures there are tons of people who cloud these same ideas under mystical / esoteric / symbolic.
There is other topic on forum about Zizek who says that people today are so strange that they absolutely can not believe there is any other way of society to operate than liberal capitalism. It is like utmost dogma what simply can't be otherwise. BUT at the same time they'll have no problem believing weirdest things. Say, Ufo's are coming. Jesus is here tomorrow. World end in 2012. Black is white. Man is woman. whatever.
At the same time, especially those who seek of rebirth of new man, and some sort of wholistic existence, it simply could not be found if wanting to be chained in your role in this dying world. For example, the guy who does "what the fuck he wants", without being able to define he wants any further than "fun" or "things I like".
But yeah, I think this topic ought to be moved to "art" section as there is very little about music/noise in it.
Yes we should move it there, because I think we have some good thoughts to think here, and I don't want to be mistaken. "...do whatever the fuck I want." was an extremely lazy phrasing, and I would like to clarify.
(I guess I should start a new topic in the art/literature forum with a title like "Individualist and Collectivist Philosophies" or something? I'll write some kind of response regardless in the next day or two.)
Quote from: FreakAnimalFinland on April 03, 2013, 08:34:20 AM
Very often there are people who admire the great philosophers of big variety (Heidegger, Hegel, Nietzche,.. ), they remember to admire ancient cultures where mankind created its milestones of culture. Within certain edges of various underground cultures there are tons of people who cloud these same ideas under mystical / esoteric / symbolic.
Maybe thought pattern was left unfinished, hah.. Meaning, we often rate all sorts of achievements of mankind in favor of things, what were based on pretty much everything else but concepts such as
individualism and
equality or "freedom".
Those are qualities what modern man wants, when he has no skill, no passion, total alienation of life and death. Having some possessed idea of importance of freedom of thought of being able to visit serial killer fag sites or something similar.
While at the same time we admire people and personalities what stood higher, exceptional in skill, intelligence and exceptional actions of their lives. We often admire lifeforce and power, and inspiration and we often curse how contemporary society is not able to deal with many of the problems we face today. Some groups call for "collective understanding", some sort of care, but failing to offer any concrete collective group possible to associate. Only present some unnatural ideas of
internationale which by it's basic tone removes the possibility of things mentioned above.
To realize, that the fascism may not be copy of has-been political movement of years long gone, in societies very different from what we have now, is vital. To realize the realities of fascism may not be all that baggage what the enemy piles on top the name. And EVEN if it would be, then simply compare the damage, compare the death toll, compare the spiritual death, compare the ecological atrocity, compare whatever.
Art of Futurists certainly has some (in my opinion) repulsive... or lets say, outdated, elements... but for it's fascists tendencies, it needs not apology. And certainly in genres of music or art where MANY of it's basic elements are "fascist" by nature, there is absolutely no need for apology in front of humanists. Sooner all these artists who now bow down in front of prankster and provocateurs notice that it's not a good choice, the better it will be. As soon as we connect the dots of what type of things are the ones we admire and the things we despise, and then take a good look who represents what (and according who), it can result something interesting.
When I said whatever about "...do[ing] whatever the fuck I want", I didn't mean being able to jack off to gay serial killer websites, not that there's anything wrong with that, but I meant more that I want to be free from being forced at gunpoint to do things that I don't want to do. I don't want to be reduced to living a life centred around forced and rigidly structured hard labour -- I've done enough of that, working in a steel yard in northern Canada, cutting steel outside in -40*C for fourteen hours a day, among other back breaking hard labour jobs I've held.
I've also nowhere mentioned equality. I accept natural hierarchies in terms of intelligence, strength, talent, etc. and also in terms of Human Biodiversity. I accept that most of the herd needs something - hard (alienated) labour, religion, ideology, a gun in their backs - to keep them "in line" or at least occupied. I understand that it will always be a small, aristocratic minority for whom freedom, in any true sense, would even be possible. But for that to happen, we would need to break down the barriers and institutions which often keep superior beings locked within a class, caste, prison, etc., and for the opposite reasons put the feeble and inferior in positions of power, like priesthood, politics, the officer class in military orders, cops, etc. Social mobility should be based on ones potential or ability, or talent entirely, and not in the sense of ones talent at playing the roles and jumping through hoops of the dominant social order. This is why I'm an individualist, and I don't mean that in any sort of American or classical liberal kind of sense. I am against the spectacular-commodity economy, though enthralled with it as anyone else here (we're a community of commodity collectors, right?), and I understand that it needs to be transcended. I just don't think that any alternatives to the gigamachine (to update Mumford's term) are possible at the moment, largely due to overpopulation and the depth of the market's colonization of everyday life. Everything is just too big, and the bigger things get, the smaller the chance that the foreseeable future will hold anything but more of the same.
If fascism can present itself as a force capable of, and proves itself effective in, reducing our numbers, our reliance on prostheses for our survival, our impact on wilderness, and the rule of the economy, then on those points, and for the (hypothetical) time being, I'm more than willing to go along with it. Those are things I care about outside of myself, although it is easy to argue that those things do effect my everyday life directly. But the second fascism, or anything for that matter, stands in my way to live my life as I please, I will go up against it, or beneath it, or around it, whatever makes more sense to me in that situation.
I've already discussed the historical link between fascism and anarchism, individualist or otherwise, but even more contemporaneously there has been some synthesis of these antithetical ideas, such as Bowden's praise of Stirner, Troy Southgate and the NA people, etc.
And more than that, I fetishize violent underground resistance groups/movements of all sorts, even Maoists! and I hate Maoists and their ilk above all. So it's not hard for me to find things I appreciate about disparate positions and dispositions, even those to which I am diametrically opposed, so I will go on collecting and worshipping the cultural artifacts of radical right wingers, like yourself, and those of the radical left-communists, and Rock Against Communism, and so on and so forth ad infinitum. And I'll continue to consider myself a political non-euclidean. And I'll continue to wear a Totenkopf on my cap and get called a fascist and worse by punks and pink bellied lefties, and also I'll continue to assert my sovereignty, and argue that others should as well, and get libelously labelled a lefty/liberal/humanist on the internet, recently often by artists whose music and visual art I strongly admire! ;) My positions aren't pulled out my ass, and people won't convince me to abandon them so easily, but I'm more than willing to continue to engage with people who hold positions that differ from, or are even strongly against mine, and discuss our points of contention, and our common ground. I'll do it gladly.
I have noticed that the title has slightly changed.
Fascism in art...
Well, I quite find ridicolous a big part of acclaimed "nazi art". Outside the interesting (over-exploited) symbolism in uniforms, ss, etc. I am quite keen on Speer's architecture but I find dreadful most Thorak/Breker's highly homoerotic neo-classic sculptures...
Not all is bad, but that gigantism (with small genitalia) really cry for annihilation.
As said NOT all is bad, and there have been many art forms that excelled (documentaries, cinema and several absolutely excellent illustrators.
In Italy there have been both hilarious and excellent stuff.
I will try to collect some terrible stuff that still makes me laugh after many years, but on the positive side, make sure to check rationalist architecture (The Eur in Rome, or big part of my hometown's building created by Sant'Elia, Terragni and Lingeri... I am quite happy to live in a Lingeri's experiment standing very close to two of Terragni's most important building).
On the visual side DON'T MISS Duilio Cambellotti's stuff... I have just purchased a quite rare catalogue of him.
(http://www.rai.it/dl/images/12652758246261257932578__web__ok_-cambellotti-duili.jpg)
(http://www.engramma.it/engramma_v4/rivista/saggio/41/img/img15.jpg)
(http://www.artefascista.it/CAMBELLOTTI%20DUILIO%20-%20FASCIO/immagini/%28WEB%29%28OK%29-3--Cambellotti-Du.jpg)
(http://www.prefettura.it/FILES/imgs/1139/Cambellotti%20-%20Bozzetto%20Militi,%201934.jpg)
Quote from: tiny_tove on April 03, 2013, 11:46:04 PM
I have noticed that the title has slightly changed.
Fascism in art...
Well, I quite find ridicolous a big part of acclaimed "nazi art". Outside the interesting (over-exploited) symbolism in uniforms, ss, etc. I am quite keen on Speer's architecture but I find dreadful most Thorak/Breker's highly homoerotic neo-classic sculptures...
Not all is bad, but that gigantism (with small genitalia) really cry for annihilation.
Speer really does stand above the rest. I'm currently reading
Inside The Third Reich, and besides his self-serving taking of responsibility, it's really quite a fascinating account, and singular in it's access.
People had such a problem with von Trier saying that Speer was special to him, but in terms of architecture, how many others have publicly agreed without any problems? What bullshit.
Quote from: tiny_tove on April 03, 2013, 11:46:04 PM
Fascism in art...
I didn't mean art produced BY official fascist regimes, but art in general what has so called "fascist characteristics" within.
Meaning, that it appears a lot of people appreciate many of the core values what are very much the same.
They appreciate these values and ideas until someone throws in ugly word of "fascism" or demands them to apologize or take responsibility of dead people. I mean, just taking a look of ones record shelves, lyrics, artwork etc. And also within many genres of music is very totalitarian attitude what constitutes as _____(insert genre name/true values/true "identity"). etc..
Also, I should mention that when I spoke of only going with fascism if I was in charge, you took it as "perverting things to my own ends" and "not knowing what I really want" (both paraphrases, obviously...probably shouldn't have used quotations) and that's a pretty hugely unfounded position. So it was when you implied that I don't have any skills, which, correct me if I'm wrong, I took to imply that I'm some kind of well to do cosmopolitan bourgeois who's never had to work, or something, which couldn't be further than the truth. I come from a small, isolated town 700 km from any major cities, where everyone is a miner and things from the city arrive 5 years late. Also, my family was poor and I didn't have things like cable, nice clothes, anything like that. I've also gone years without using the internet, but, I'm getting away from the point.
Anyhow, I really do know what I really want, and research and thinking about that is what I do with most of my time. I do a wall-newspaper devoted to ideas about the reduction of the population, economic degrowth, reducing our dependence on prostheses for survival, regional self-sufficiency, etc. If an opportunity to pursue those goals presented itself to me, I would take it. But I would take it because those things get in the way of my living a wild and free life, it eats up every corner of the map and leaves little to no room for real life to sprout. I too am concerned with the 'new man'.
So I have an issue with these unfair characterizations, unless I'm mistaken, in which case, I apologize.
Well, as you mentioned yourself, saying that one would like system if can do
whatever the fuck I want is "extremely lazy phrasing". It would be same as one would say, of course I would like anarchist communal living, if I could be dictators and everybody would worship me and every woman would be obligated to give me blowjobs. Hah. You know, it suddenly ceases to be
anarchism. Of course I want communist order, if I can still do business and exploit cheap labor for my own business interests?
If we exit the politics, what steps away from mere organization of economic order, it means that quite a lot of things will come with it. Therefore it should be quite crucial that question is not individuals personal wants and ways of getting selfish gains and free-rides that he will simply exploit the system. But that at least on theoretical level, everybody is more or less willing servant on organic body of state or spirit and it most likely will require sacrifices compared to contemporary easy livin'
What I implied by lack of skill, lack of passion, etc, was this:
QuoteWe often rate all sorts of achievements of mankind in favor of things, what were based on pretty much everything else but concepts such as individualism and equality or "freedom".
We look at the wonders of the world, which could not be build anymore. We look at the paintings, which were not the doodles, but life's work of genius or one who did something nobody else had in his mind. We look at the buildings of visionary architects, we look at the worlds fastest runner, the most toughest boxer of all times. We admire the life-force at its finest. Including the great men who brought the order in chaos - or chaos in order.
Of course not
everybody does admire these. But many do. But still insist that it means nothing.
Modern man wants equality and freedom. He is repulsed by idea that someone is better. He is repulsed by idea that many of the greatest monuments was generations worth of slavery. That there were entire human life length commitment to single cause - i.e. developing craftmanship and knowledge in one damn thing. Be it sculpture, oil painting, making harsh noise, farming, building,..
He is so repulsed by this idea of hierarchy - that someone is better than you, that he will decide to accept and build society on factually incorrect idea that we're all equal. And that I should be free to do whatever I want. You know, as if we really know what exactly we want - and furthermore - that we thought it well enough and are eventually satisfied with the made decision.
Many fascists are blamed for being fatalists. That some people can and some people can't be(come) good. And, to certain extent, it's accurate. However, it's mildly said if one could conclude very few people live up to their potential. What makes question kind of irrelevant. Does it matter you could be worlds fastest runner, if you never run and have no desire for it? Does it matter if you have the world changing novel in your head, if you have no desire to write it down and change the entire culture as we know it?
The "new man", is most of all question mark. What exactly it is, when our "ratrace" is over? It certainly shouldn't be the same as bourgeois brats who drop out to do nothing. There has been guys, from mr. Guevara to guys such as Heidegger or such, who toy around with ideas of social order different than now. The concrete approaches how to organize life, when it suddenly doesn't revolve around consumption and cheap entertainment.
I kind of admire the early russian communist revolution idea, where new avantgarde art was method of social life. Weekly new sculptures being installed on streets, and people gathering to see it and discuss on matter of importance - and possibly engage into fights, hah! That culture would be activating, not creating isolated zombies.
There was shortage of everything and the political order founded on wrong principles (in my opinion that is), but there was this question seeking to be replied, what is utterly non-existent in contemporary politics. Everybody is so concerned on how we can get economy growing, but there is absolutely no relevant political party who is asking questions like: why? And what then?
And therefore I must say, that fascism in art, would be very interesting question. Much more so than question of military, economy or history of fascist regimes. Going back to core questions of idea, myth, faith and philosophy. Not just the usual trivialities what interest the world based on trivialities.
This would lead back to FUTURISTS. There was vision and intent. Beyond realpolitik - back to level of pure spirit.
This propelled a bit out the intended context, but interesting read none the less.
The futurist as mentioned in this thread where non-political in the beginning. This is a known fact. I think if one is talking about political sentiment during the first years, one can see a sympathy more towards syndicalists and anarchism. The change in the futurist ideology - or one might say movement towards ideology started in the late 1910 era - early 1920s - when Marinetti increasingly became involved in politics. Around 1918 he formed the political party Partito Politico Futurista and later on became involved in Mussolini's Fasci Italiani di Combattimento. He also co-wrote the fascist manifest with Alceste De Ambris a year later. Anyway, whomever interested in the course of this history can read the proper books.
What I find interesting is there seem to have been a departure in mindset form the time the futurist started towards the turn of the 1920s. And if one are to examine this further one might locate interesting perspectives as to why the movement gained its fascist feathers. I see a point of departure from syndicalist thought towards fascism interconnected with the times economic, political and social sphere. This is of course evident to all. In the early works one can practically feel the dusty winds of the industrialization and progress on the forehead when witnessing works, but also a gaze to the social arena and the connection between the urban and its inhabitants. I would not categorize this as a social gaze per se, but maybe more as an eye and sensibility of being united in machinery and destiny - a common fate, a common life - a devotional approach as being both connected and a continuance of history and heritage. So why this lack of faith to use that word, why this turn towards ideology around 1920?
Italy was recuperating from a failed war and had massive debts. To some degree a similar economic situation that we have in Europe at the moment. And it is here I link with my initial preoccupation... Did the pressure of the times and occurrences in the then contemporary history flatten the futurists intention, desires and hopes for the future, and was it from this awakening some of them went from explosive artistic explorations into warfare and political activity? Comparing to the social fights in Southern Europe erupting 2011 and continuing now (though mostly leftist activism and political intervention) I smell a bit of possible disillusion and abandonment by the progress that the futurist embraced. Could one in this case argue that the industrialization's alienation of the public (in a wider sense) instigated a drift towards political thought within the futurist movement; hence since this field - as well as the act of participating in a battle - are arenas for affecting ones surroundings and way of public thought? All this is of course mere speculating, but I find drawing these lines at least interesting in a contemporary and historical setting due to the similarities in both times - socially, politically and economically.
On another related note... Marinetti penned a diary while he was at war. Think it would be an interesting read. I have tried without luck to find a pdf online of this, if anyone should have a copy or know where to find one please let me know.
I guess Celine demands to be brought up in this thread, though he was always a hack in the political sphere.
Trifles/Bagatelles For A Massacre, School For Cadavers, and The Fine Mess probably remain amongst the best examples of ' fascist literature' in all of history, though I've never got my hands on The Fine Mess. I should add that their value has much more to do with Celine's inimitable style than the ideas they contain. The same can be said of his dissertation for med school, which reads a lot like his later works.
I read Bettina A. Knopf's ' Celine: Man Of Hate' lately, and was quite amused by his insistence that he had never wrote any magazine and newspaper columns, pamphlets, never gave any speeches that expounded fascism or antisemitism, nor had he any relations with the Vichy regime. I guess when your life is on the line, you'll say anything.