Art, originality, modernity, propaganda

[JLIAT]

These topic is roughly split from "tough guy PE topic". Therefore it still may crossover a bit with that, but includes mostly fairly random discussions about nature of art, propaganda, modernity, originality - related to industrial/PE/noise. -Moderator comment

The use of "art" for spreading a message is propaganda, and the idea of left wing / right wing PE is no different IMO to the 'social realist' propaganda found in Nazi realism and Marxist realism, depiction of workers and fighters. Might not PE be in and of itself has no agenda, and the use of explicit sexual, extreme political images merely part of the promotional act of PE itself. I've no idea what Bennett's motivations were except the - at first glance strange - pre-eminent inspiration was Yoko Ono... (i.e. Art) IMO... and it follows that anyone using PE as an illustration for some political agenda, has got the stick, but the wrong end...

[JLIAT]

"Take notes from Smell & Quim" = humiliate, embarrass or degrade themselves? That seems to be the key element in the performances by them I've witnessed. Whether it's Gillham cutting himself and bleeding everywhere, Simon getting a maraca shoved up his arse, Stewart having his hair cut off, the use of repulsive props, people wearing quite frankly dangerous costumes, or being so piss drunk that you can barely stand up.

Just screaming at the top of your lungs over mic feedback could be humiliating, embarrassing or degrading, and there's nothing wrong with that.. Like I said earlier about the use of PE as an analgesic (or detox), I think a lot of people forget that PE (just like most other forms of music) is (or should be) personal first, and for others second.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'personal'. In that the musician is responsible personally for their music, sure, but the motivation might be that of being commissioned to do so,  or as a response to some event, the development of a genre etc.

[W.K.]

Maybe less talking about how things should be, but let the flow of things develop how things become. And if you don't like it, make something better. And if that doesn't work, there still is enough modern or old stuff around that you will like. If someone is making certain sounds without the aesthetics or themes of the past, is that the end of the world? No. If you don't like it, why spend time bothering with it? Yeesh, don't get your panties twisted. Some people like things different than you, so what?  

30 years ago with the development of industrial music, no one said THIS MUST BE SO AND SO, but they just created it. Limiting yourself is good, but not because 'it has been done in the past, so it should be done in the future'. Do your own thing for fucks sake, who cares. What happened to NO GODS, NO MASTERS?

Do I think PE should be confrontational, or vile and nasty? It certainly helps creating a tense atmosphere we all like, but sometimes it can also get a bit obtuse. Do I think PE should be about arranging flower beds and smoking weed? No, but is there anyone that makes PE about such matter? I don't think so.

Doesn't music needs fresh ideas in stead of repeating the past over and over again?

[APPLE]

the spirit counts for something, and counts a lot when differentiating nuances between the genres that fall under the blanket of 'noise'. and with PE that spirit should be ugly, violent, mean, intolerant, uncomfortable, depraved ...

What would you consider the likes of Shallow Waters, Barrikad, Mourmansk150?

i'd consider shallow waters the most straight up PE of those three of course. i have only heard comp tracks from the other two, but from what i remember theyre on that aforementioned 'PE spectrum'.

political affiliation doesn't really matter - as long as there is anger, frustration, disgust, tension... some exploration of... power... either as the oppressed or the oppressor...

Fair enough, thanks for the response. That's more or less my take on thematics of the genre too.

The idea of 'power dynamics' covers a huge amount of ground -  from neuro linguistic programming (Whitehouse) to romantic relationships (Prurient) to religion (AntiChildLeague) to social engineering (Kevlar) to global geopolitics (Genocide Organ), and so on.

One that really gave me pause for thought was Ke/Hil's 'Syndrome/Antidrome' which I interpreted as invoking the power dynamics around urban planning - how cities are designed with human behaviour in mind, how populations have been historically stratified around class and ethnic lines, the creation, control and displacement of communities according to how and where they must live, move and work.

Slogun's website seems to have disappeared but it had an extensive interview section. I recall him stating that serial killers were actually pathetic, powerless people seeking the illusion of power through violent acts. Power over another for a moment, but no power over their own lives before or after the fact. Desperate, sad and weak people rather than heroic and rebellious libertines (as mirrored by the earlier discussion of mass shooters as a topic).

Perhaps what complicates this definition of a focus on power is something like Iron Fist of the Sun where the imagery and titles seem highly personal, obscure, inscrutable and surreal. Perhaps the same themes are there, and I'm unable to decode them. Or perhaps they are out in the open - there were some pretty heavy dynamics within the marriage between Charles and Diana, and power differentials are necessary for a monarchy to exist in the first place. 

[l.b.]

The use of "art" for spreading a message is propaganda, and the idea of left wing / right wing PE is no different IMO to the 'social realist' propaganda found in Nazi realism and Marxist realism, depiction of workers and fighters. Might not PE be in and of itself has no agenda, and the use of explicit sexual, extreme political images merely part of the promotional act of PE itself. I've no idea what Bennett's motivations were except the - at first glance strange - pre-eminent inspiration was Yoko Ono... (i.e. Art) IMO... and it follows that anyone using PE as an illustration for some political agenda, has got the stick, but the wrong end...

how much mental gymnastics do you have to do to end up with a position as incoherent as this?? nazis = marxists, "PE in and of itself has no agenda," Whitehouse isn't obviously an ironic social commentary about british post war morality and thatcherite neo liberalism?? it's fucking SO obvious, it's not subtle at all.

[JLIAT]

The use of "art" for spreading a message is propaganda, and the idea of left wing / right wing PE is no different IMO to the 'social realist' propaganda found in Nazi realism and Marxist realism, depiction of workers and fighters. Might not PE be in and of itself has no agenda, and the use of explicit sexual, extreme political images merely part of the promotional act of PE itself. I've no idea what Bennett's motivations were except the - at first glance strange - pre-eminent inspiration was Yoko Ono... (i.e. Art) IMO... and it follows that anyone using PE as an illustration for some political agenda, has got the stick, but the wrong end...

how much mental gymnastics do you have to do to end up with a position as incoherent as this?? nazis = marxists,

Not that much, not that I said that, I said both used the same artform, a form of social realism. Type "ussr social realism" and then "nazi social realism" into your browser and look at the pictures and you will see. No mental gymnastics needed. We could discuss the differences between Mao, Stalin and Hitler, but its off topic.  What is, is the idea that PE in its inception had nothing to do with politics or sexual deviation... but was taking themes from Industrial and pushing the envelope, a common practice in modernist art. i.e. 'tough guy' and the rift with industrial... from the get go.

"PE in and of itself has no agenda," Whitehouse isn't obviously an ironic social commentary about british post war morality and thatcherite neo liberalism?? it's fucking SO obvious, it's not subtle at all.

And again I never said that, though some might think it was. I don't, the whole point was sensation and shock, pushing themes from industrial and punk. It was art in the modernist sense because it did this, it reacted to prior art practice, not social injustice or saving the whale.  Hence the rift mentioned in the other thread, and Bennett citing Ono. This is a process you will see in modernity in all the arts. So Noise and HN rejected the emo elements of PE. And HNW rejected the sonic variety of HN. Striving for 'purity'...  HNW like black paintings, bottle racks and empty galleries marking a terminus (of the modernist trope of less is more).

Welcome to post modernity....

[Japsi]

I'm with JLIAT on this one (oddly enough). His position is entirely coherent and seems to be backed up by the words of the progenitors of P.E., most of whom have publicly stated that their use of controversial imagery/themes was purely to provoke a reaction.

[Bloated Slutbag]

The use of "art" for spreading a message is propaganda

If art can exist in a vacuum, I'd agree.

[JLIAT]

[JLIAT]

The use of "art" for spreading a message is propaganda

If art can exist in a vacuum, I'd agree.

Actually I'm not sure of your point here. Its been pointed out that if art was just about spreading a message, then it could be translated, and taught.
(You wouldn't need to listen to the 1812 overture to get it, a text could do the same.) It would have clear criteria, which could be measured. To get back on topic Bennett specifically saw PE as 'tough guy' in its challenge to the audience. He also thought he was being 'original'. He didn't use a language he created something new.

As for vacuum - you mean metaphorically?  Some Conceptual artists certainly achieved what they thought was that.

[JLIAT]

Is a response to some event not personal? How many musicians create for the sole purpose of "the development of a genre"?

Anything a person does is 'personal' in a sense, and the motivation can be complex. And maybe differentiate between musician and artist / composer who seeks to make something original.

music (n.)
mid-13c., musike, from Old French musique (12c.) and directly from Latin musica
"the art of music," also including poetry (also source of Spanish musica, Italian
musica, Old High German mosica, German Musik, Dutch muziek, Danish musik),
from Greek mousike (techne) "(art) of the Muses," from fem. of mousikos
"pertaining to the Muses," from Mousa "Muse" (see muse ). Modern spelling from
1630s. In classical Greece, any art in which the Muses presided, but especially music
and lyric poetry. ...
muse (v.)
"to reflect, to be absorbed in thought," mid-14c., from Old French muser (12c.) "to
ponder, dream, wonder; loiter, waste time," literally "to stand with one's nose in the
air" (or, possibly, "to sniff about" like a dog who has lost the scent), from muse
"muzzle," from Gallo-Roman *musa "snout," of unknown origin..

Very much my modus operandi..

[Bloated Slutbag]

The use of "art" for spreading a message is propaganda

If art can exist in a vacuum, I'd agree.

Actually I'm not sure of your point here.

I had to sit here a bit and chew over what I had possibly meant. I think this was a boiled down version of lengthier word salad er tossed whilst at some leave from sobriety. Happens a lot, when you are me.

I'm going to say I was wondering if you were proposing art as potentially existing in a pure state not to be sullied by extrinsic concerns- eg message spreading, among others. And while that might be viable in theory I'd be skeptical of how it might actually pan out in the supposed real world as it were. Er, I'll probably need to chew over this a bit more.

[JLIAT]

I'm going to say I was wondering if you were proposing art as potentially existing in a pure state not to be sullied by extrinsic concerns- eg message spreading, among others. And while that might be viable in theory I'd be skeptical of how it might actually pan out in the supposed real world as it were. Er, I'll probably need to chew over this a bit more.

(lots of provisos in this reply which isn't really on topic – though the tough guy is a trope of this story)

I'm not proposing art as existing in a pure state (not sullied etc) it was proposed, and for some achieved, which resulted in the end of art. Which if one wanted to do art was a disaster.

You can stop there.

By Art – I mean modernism, a period roughly from mid 19thC to mid 20thC. I've gone over this stuff before and by some get pelted with eggs.  And my 'style'  is criticised... maybe I present the bad news in an unsympathetic way, or seem to be arrogantly making such huge claims. But i'm no more than claiming that WW2 is over and the allies won- from the evidence, and claim no personal  responsibility With these caveats i'll continue as briefly as possible.

Modernism – Truth is beauty, Beauty is Truth.  Less is more.

Architecture, houses are machines for living in.

Painting is paint applied to a flat surface.

Music is sound.

Poetry is just text.

All of this kind of thing has been around since the beginning of the 20thC.

And nothing more – decoration is bad. Hides the truth.

What about Art?

Art is art. And nothing more - 'puff' art disappears.

'If you call it art its art' The reverse of the above- everything is art.

Here is a text which appeared a year before I went to art school...

http://ubu.com/papers/kosuth_philosophy.html

You don't have to read it,  it says Art = Art, art is tautology and nothing to do with anything else.

There are books and books on this, all giving reasons – for the same event...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Danto#The_end_of_art

Lucy Lippard -      Six years: the dematerialization of the art object from 1966 to 1972;

Obviously it presents a big problem with those wanting to make art, or make music as art, poetry as art... etc. One way out is to deny it happened, another that it did and so we have Art but its no longer the same.

The former is tricky given the evidence*, the latter OK, but what follows is all the suff re Modern Art goes.

No Avant Garde, no progress towards the essence.

No 'experimentation'

No 'Make it New'

And here I can get back on topic, tough guy PE was a move from the (someone quoted) hippy industrial, a progressive move... and PE led to HN and HN to HNW**... 

*Cage's 4'33"   Duchamp's fountain  Conceptual Poetry etc.  - oh HNW!


** basically HNW is amplified static.

[FreakAnimalFinland]

The use of "art" for spreading a message is propaganda

If art can exist in a vacuum, I'd agree.

Perhaps could be splitted to another topic if it continues to go on.

Anything a person does is 'personal' in a sense, and the motivation can be complex. And maybe differentiate between musician and artist / composer who seeks to make something original.

One could ask how does not notion of make something original fall under propaganda? If we use propaganda as so vast umbrella term, that expressing message is equal to propaganda (which is could be), then why would expression and the intent itself be excluded from that umbrella?

Like, back in the day, there was all the classic ideologies that had build in perversion that enable the ideologies. Now, most often you got perversion, that enables or covers the ideology. What remains to be seen, and what is moderately hidden, has changed the roles. Same often works for propaganda. Even if there would not be in-your-face-message, it doesn't mean work would not have any.

If artist seeks most of all to make something original, it seems pretty close to modernist/avantgarde propaganda? If we would argue it is not, unless they clearly do not express this message, then conclusion would leave plenty of propaganda unnoticed.

Jliats compressed list of slogans about art & truth is prime example of propaganda itself. Advocation as HWN as or "end of art", or "truth is beauty" approach vastly propagandist in core.

If HWN is basically logical end result of entropy, where it is almost substitute of tranquil state of.. paradise? As many might know, I am rather advocate of struggle, conflict and vital life force and will. That often can be also seen expressed in my work. Propaganda, yes of course! Yet always different from propaganda of "pure (non)art".

[JLIAT]

The use of "art" for spreading a message is propaganda

If art can exist in a vacuum, I'd agree.

Perhaps could be splitted to another topic if it continues to go on.

Anything a person does is 'personal' in a sense, and the motivation can be complex. And maybe differentiate between musician and artist / composer who seeks to make something original.

One could ask how does not notion of make something original fall under propaganda? If we use propaganda as so vast umbrella term, that expressing message is equal to propaganda (which is could be), then why would expression and the intent itself be excluded from that umbrella?

Point taken, that propaganda implies biased or misleading. But my point was if any art is used to just communicate a message it is translatable. Art seems more than a road sign or representation of some thing. Art is it seems is thought different to illustration. I think I said the 1812 overture is not an just an illustration of a battle.

Like, back in the day, there was all the classic ideologies that had build in perversion that enable the ideologies. Now, most often you got perversion, that enables or covers the ideology. What remains to be seen, and what is moderately hidden, has changed the roles. Same often works for propaganda. Even if there would not be in-your-face-message, it doesn't mean work would not have any.

If artist seeks most of all to make something original, it seems pretty close to modernist/avantgarde propaganda? If we would argue it is not, unless they clearly do not express this message, then conclusion would leave plenty of propaganda unnoticed.

key to modernism is the idea of 'truth' so it would deny its being propaganda.  And in the idea of 'originality' is origin – hence the origin of PE was Whitehouse (et al) – and why Bennett says latter PE is not original but is "plagiarism", I think his use implies not the passing of actual whitehouse work as some others, but that this latter PE is not original.  I'm not defending this, I don't see originality as significant these days.

Jliats compressed list of slogans about art & truth is prime example of propaganda itself.

With respect they are not my slogans, and not propaganda. "'Make It New' refers to Ezra Pound's (1885–1972) modernist imperative and his 1934 collection of essays of the same name. This slogan compels the writer to create out of the material of art work that is distinctively innovative. "
"'Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.' – that is all / Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know".  - from the poet Keats. "Less is more" - Ad Reinhardt,  Ludwig Mies van der Rohe both used this term.

Advocation as HWN as or "end of art", or "truth is beauty" approach vastly propagandist in core.

If HWN is basically logical end result of entropy, where it is almost substitute of tranquil state of.. paradise? As many might know, I am rather advocate of struggle, conflict and vital life force and will. That often can be also seen expressed in my work. Propaganda, yes of course! Yet always different from propaganda of "pure (non)art".

The case for the end of art is not one of entropy but of a conclusion, and essence is achieved, the core or origin, perfect order, or end of the dialectic.  And this is the end of Modernist Art / Music is its essence and originality.

And I think to advocate " struggle, conflict and vital life force" seems to be very like the post-modern idea of Deleueze's use of Joyce's term chaosmos  To be clear i'm not advocating modernism or its slogans, i'm saying its seems its generally agreed its over, and what has replaced modernism's uniformity is a multitude of differing perspectives, some serious, others ironic.