Quote from: HongKongGoolagong on May 21, 2012, 09:13:23 PM
I thought the drownedinsound discussion was excellent because it makes something which is very much becoming either commodified as art or turned into a safe hobbyist private club briefly appear provocative and dangerous again.
Real avant-garde art should cause arguments, problems, change the consciousness, it doesn't make money, upsets parents, co-workers, the law...bleeds into real life with potentially disastrous consequences.
I personally don't have problems of noise being fetishistic and kind of pornographic. That it's not avantgarde & social tool, but like it often was: Titles you buy from catalogue, to experience at home, for your own pleasure. It may test your limits, it may be innovative, but perhaps in style of double fist-fuck or shit eating. You saw title in catalogue, maybe a cover pic, and thought "I need this". Being hobbyist private club - I don't see anything wrong with it. The danger the "controversy" brings you... it makes me sometimes wonder what exactly was achieved?
Lets say you hear ______ live or from record and think
"oh my god what a offense! Fuck this guy, I'm upset!"Or you hear ______ live or from record and think
"oh my god what an amazing album! This guy is great, I'm inspired!"The first one may be ok, yet, in the end, what really does it achieve? Compared to being able to inspire and provoke in positive way, not just annoy/piss off?
In my past history, there has been few cases where discussions grew in some forums or mailinglists where I was not member. After first shows in USA, some people got upset. For video involving nothing more brutal than spitting/pissing over female face and slapping her face with pigs tongue bought from butcher. It may sound slightly grotesque, yet at least from my own perspective it didn't appear as something you could get angry? It was more of eye candy. I don't know what exactly could be seen as achievement of this transgression which wouldn't have been achieved from mere satisfactory responses? Because the controversy IS most of all funny and entertaining, not that it would result anything else.
Another case was the projection of "Trite" video at gig in Finland. All sorts of rodents, birds and such being covered with cumshots and close up footage of soon-to-be-dead furry cuties was probably slight exaggeration in someones eyes, but it was related to the songs and pretty clearly explained in subtitles. Still it resulted calls for boycotting entire label and questions why such show wasn't stopped, but was allowed to play. Hard to say if the "controversy" resulted anything what wouldn't have been achieved by simply enjoyment delivered to camo pants & black cap wearing meatheads? Most certainly I moved about same amount of DVDr's that there was people in audience. For the safe hobbyist collectors.
I don't think this was "avantgarde": The material exists as it is, in safe private collections and sometimes in public. Does it make it more, if some sensitive unprepared viewer is upset? If it
really doesn't bring up anything more than 100% conditioned responses?
Yesterday I beheaded squirrel. Buried it in yard. Today I dug it up and photographed. And left it there to be eaten by someone and hopefully photograph the remains before it's completely gone. I know it could possibly upset someone if they see it. Should I show it simply to be transgressive? I doubt it. It was made for aesthetic and philosophical reasons, not as provocation. There is not special story behind the act, more than ending life that should end. Most of all humane thing to do, but at the same time, the aesthetics of dead cute animal appeals pretty high on philosophical level. It's also questions of how much one should respect life and in what style that respect happens. I don't need audience reactions for this process, but they may get sometime opportunity to witness tasty eyecandy what was perhaps nothing more than by-product. I may enjoy discussion with someone who can, but I doubt these "now I'm sad" characters work for me in any other level than before mentioned squirrel being their symbol. I can't see themselves being in position of contributing anything very crucial to process what happens in privacy.
The problems with "law" may be exaggerated. They are often good story, but still trivial. Some of my quite recent releases have went through US homeland security, where everything is being messed around. The custom officers of Russia had labeled me as "well know distributor of fascist and anti-religious material" and shipped back supposedly illegal material warning receiver they will get in trouble if they continue this. In past I have had minor issues with the law enforcement due nature of films I was importing and they saw it necessary to confiscate and see if there would be court case worth pushing. In field of "transgressive art", I see these really are just footnotes of artist CV, where scandals buys you attention. In cheapest ways. In end, it is utterly meaningless compared to enthusiasm, inspiration and satisfaction. There ain't amount of beastiality court cases what would be greater importance than having album that musically and artistically mattered.
I don't think best quality of for example Con-Dom is the provocation, but sheer intensity, musically unique approach (Act of Faith 3" - try to call that stereotypical pe!) and intelligent substance. It may provoke, but it may also inspire in highly positive manner.
In short: fans & cock-fests, yes thanks.