I think this kind of discussion results from a very specific dialectic that exists within the noise scene. On the one side, you see people who believe that noise (or PE, or industrial, or whatever) is distinctly outside of the realm of "music" (or entertainment, or whatever); they believe they are fundamentally separate, incompatible at a root level. On the other hand, there are people who either don't care about the distinction or find it to depend upon unreliable or unacceptably conceptual criteria. For the latter, the divide between art and entertainment might be problematic, maybe even romantic. Or, they might not give a shit at all, and have a very personal, subjective aesthetic relationship with the sounds and works they consume. I used to be in the very first camp, but my no longer being there doesn't mean that I'm in the second. I think both are troubling. The first is a highly conservative position and rests on largely idiotic and authoritarian assumptions. It breeds some really stultifying, programmatic expectations for art. While those who forged the rules that others follow may indeed be some of the greatest artists we all love, the following of these rules has produced much of the work most of us hate. The latter camp is equally problematic. In the case where distinctions seen as unreliable turn toward a collapsing of all distinctions, an inability to comprehend or articulate complexity resorts to a kind of reductionism that is as mindless as the first camp. The unconscious egoism of those who pursue their own tastes without reflection may be the most admirable of these tendencies, but it fosters a kind of mindless audience that no one should produce works for -- it is an audience unworthy of something to observe.
On a separate but related issue, there are two kinds of rule-breaking that we see (not exclusively). The first kind is very common, and has been for a couple decades now. It's been routinely commented upon: the mash-up/remix/synthetic culture so prominent in contemporary culture. This rule-breaking is actually an intensive form of rule following because it masters the most attractive (to viewers or to the producer) qualities of a form, follows its rules with absolute attention and faithfulness, but combines it with that of other genres, with the same degree of fastidious obedience to the rules. The most clever of these artists create a unique pastiche of highly stylized creations, yet absolutely faithful to the original commandments of the prior forms. Ever see the South Park episode where they are making fun of Family Guy -- the one where dolphins (they were dolphins, right?) select seemingly random "idea balls" to be cobbled together into a mess, the irony of which is meant to give it is humorous quality? A similar irony is at work in these melanges. If the irony is done right, it might appear clever. But all one needs is irony these days -- with or without any intellectual or aesthetic integrity -- to earn an audience. The other kind of rule-breaking is decidedly more nihilistic, and seeks to reject all rules, but it's an act of pure negation. If you have a Hegelian conception of the universe, this negation is fully dependent upon what is: it must be antithetical to the existing forms. But if you're not, if you think more trialectically (or chaotically), then there are paths nondependent upon what exists. This is where the magic happens, though rarely ever does it. These people end up being the rule-makers. In industrial, it was Throbbing Gristle, SPK, etc. In black metal, it was Darkthrone and Mayhem.
I don't know what to think about Zola Jesus. I have a hard time not making certain associations with things I really despise, and to look at her work in its own right. For instance, there's something very Los Angeles about her work. And I fucking hate Los Angeles. Her early work seemed really amateurish, and I didn't like the crossover that was happening with what I saw as post-crash electro-clash with the noise scene. This post-crash electro-clash is a lot more heroin and a lot less coke, in a world that is much more on its way down than on its way up. But it still seemed like electro-clash to me, and that genre's place is at a shitty club when you're drunk and hunting for ass and little else. 'Why anyone would want to take that and make it more artful and intelligent?' seemed lost on me. This has been done interestingly in the past, but the art itself wasn't intended to be something of value in its own right. Instead it was commentary, and the interplay between the work and the audience was what mattered; consider here the Situationists or even The Sex Pistols.
This initial impression I had of Zola Jesus made it difficult for me to look any further and I rejected the work almost immediately. But that's also a really ... idiotic way to look at art. And besides, she's using a lot of symbols I have a lot of affinity for, is working with some interesting themes. Recently, though, her work has clearly improved and she's obviously matured. After hearing and reading some interviews with her, I decided to give her work more attention. She's obviously more intelligent than most of the idiots who will reject her because she's not following the rules they mindlessly demand allegiance to. I'm not really ready to give much of a critical appraisal of her work, because I'm just now able to really hear it for what it is.
For those who do like this kind of dark, experimental but much more musical material, I really recommend checking out Cages. I really enjoy their work a lot. The album on Cold Spring is very good, but the live cassettes show a much more experimental side of the band.
