there is a feeling that many members of the technovement in the 90s, or the digital chaos movement, or meta-anarchism, felt: that, for a short moment in time, we were at the top of the world. and then we feel deep, so deep, into the deepest abyss. what exactly was this feeling - and what caused it?
i think an easy way to get a clear picture, of the situation and the possibities that were there at the end of the 20th century, is to look at the music of electronic labels such as Fischkopf or Digital Hardcore Recordings. there was something special about this music; it was not the aggression or the use of digital beats,
not even the noise; this had been done; maybe not done to the extreme, but it had been done. no, what made it special that it was actually composed of various styles of music that were stacked on each other. before Taciturne on Fischkopf Records 012, you didn't have records that combined analog techno, shrill noize, christian chorals, gabber beats, postpunk samples, japanese-style harmonics, and plenty of other things, with each other.
before Atari Teenage Riot, music with aggresion, with shouting, that combined electronic and guitars, existed; plenty of it. but before Atari Teenage Riot, there were not songs that combined rap, acid, electronic hardcore, krautrock-style electronics, avantgarde, punkrock, riot girl shouting, in one piece.
a new kind of music was created. a type of metamusic. that was what intrigued us. it was not only a combination of existing styles, but something on top of it.
most clearly this tendency at the end of the 20th century is seen in what i call "meta-anarchism"; the politics of people like Bob Black, John Zerzan and Hakim Bey. while anarchism during most of its time was firmly rooted in enlightment and 19th century style ideology, these authors took it to a whole new level and combined it with anti-enlighment, advanced ideas, ideas taken from other cultures, from art, from poetry - from science, combined them and created something new.
and, a third part of this final tendency of the 20th century, was the cyberspace, virtual reality movement.
"cyberspace" is the idea to create a completely computerbased world, a world based purely on logic and rationality and reason. a world that is artificial and exists on their own.
how are these three things connected? in all 3 types, material from the world of rationality, philosophy or art, was taken, fused with each other, combined - and something new was created, which then influented the created arts, or philosophy.
this new "rationality", way of thinking, was what suddenly came into existence at the end of 1990s - and vanished almost as quickly again. it was taking rationality and philosopy to its extreme.
so what went we wrong? we had it, for hecks sake we had - and we lost it, and we lost so much.
but, it was not without our fault.
the movie "the matrix" is a good example of this phenomen. it was hyped extremely in 1999 - and lost most of its fans in the 2000s. yet, there was now a changed fangroup that adored the movie.
the matrix was about cyberspace, a computergenerated world. this was how it was understand back then. but nowadays, its main fan base lies in the esoteric, new age realm. and these people say; "no, this is not cyberspace". "the matrix is just a metaphor for the 'astral plane'".
so we had a concept of cyberspace, something based on pure logic and reason, replaced by anti-rational, esoteric new age stuff.
and this is a good example of the degeneration of western thinking in the decades that followed the end of the 20th century.
rationality and reason is lacking more and more, so it's no wonder anti-rational "new age" ideas and such, spread. of course not only in the "esoteric" realm, anti-rationalism everywhere is growing.
but again, this is without our doing. techno *was* hyperrational in the 90s - hardcore too - maybe the most rational, logic based music - feed your head, my friends - but it also had a virulent anti-rational content. especically the social scenes around it. while music such as the anarchist, utopists bands of the 60s led to a culture of demonstrations, books written, essays, manifests, there was not much such output or activity related to techno. the crazed raver of 1992 might be an anarchist in heart, and by action and nihilistic dancing - but he was not an anarchist in action, he didn't join - or created - an anarchist group in most cases.
this scepticism of ideology and rationality by the techno-crowd was its downfull - and no wonder the original techno, trance and hardcore was replaced by "dumb" music when the year 2000 came by.
similarly, the meta-anarchist group was highly, toxically anti-rational. and deliberately and openly so. rationality and intellect was seen as a problem of 19th century philosophy and the enlightment period in philosophy generally - that had to be overcome.
only the "cyberspace" movement was seemingly not tainted by this - but quickly and completey forgotten by the people. creating a computerworld is not so much a topic for scientists and intellectuals anymore, but more for computernerds.
so, at the end of the century, existing philosophical, artistic and rational ideas were stacked on each other - with great results, but then this was quickly forgotten again. but we can get back to it. and then, we're in the advantage again.
addendum:
in the aftermath of the 20th century, this tendency still leaves it waves in some way; there are artists that combinee different musical genres, and philosophers that combine different ideas. but generally, in music the tendency is to "copy" a single genre, like punkrock, or rocknroll, or even krautrock - in an exact way, not creating something new - and the same in current "rationality" and philosophy. in many cases, the combination is laughable - like combining one hardcore techno genre with another hardcore techno genres. generally, it is lacking.
Music And Ideal
i addressed the issue of art, music, ideals and ideology before, but there are still more aspects to look at.
which is that the removement of any kind of ideals and ideology and politics, as it happened in the last decades, is not only approved, but even celebrated, and all that in the name of "freedom" and "art". oh how wrong can you be. for example, if hardcore political punk fans disapprove of a punkband that are slipping from their former anarchist politics, this is seen as something backward. "artist should be free to do what they want", etc. it is seen in the way, that, like the reign of for example the catholic church or authoritarian aristocracy on art, the "reign" of ideology and ideals on art would be similiar oppressive. if art "has" to follow ideals, this is another rule, restriction that is necessary to overcome. if art follows ideologies like anarchism, utopism and such, this is seen as a hazard, a distraction to art and the process of creating art. "art has to be free of ideology!".
this is so dead wrong, because the cardinal error here, is that art *always* is based on ideals or idelogy, or politics, and similiar concepts. the underlying ideas and ideology are what give a given song, painting, poem, it's beauty, it's content, it's outline - all of it. the actual artwork is of lesser importance then the ideology and idea behind it. it's of almost no importance. if there is a great idea or ideology, the actual artwork will almost automically - will automatically be good. because, as i said, this is the very basis of the artwork. art is about understanding, apprehending, realizing ideals, political and other concepts, ideology and philosophy. if the idea is beautiful - its artwork is too. it can be compared to footsteps in the snow - these are just footsteps, not the man who caused them. the actual artwork is just a trace, the idea and ideology behind it is the actual art. if you remove the ideology and ideals from art, you remove the very core of art.
take punkrock. do you think the 3 chords and shrill voices was what caused the punk movement, the youth rebellion in the late 70s and 80s? it was the ideology of punk that drove people cracy, the anarchism, nihilism and uprising. and the songs were just a trace of this "ideology" of punkrock. which is why contemporary artists who create structually similiar punksongs by far don't cause an uprising like that again. they lack the politics, and ideology. the nihilism and anarchism that gave the punksongs their actual beauty - not the other way round.
again, the actual painting, book, movie, is just a trace - like a footstep in the snow. the true piece of art, is the ideology behind it.
even to diehard opponents of ideology-based art, it should be obvious that it is exactly the most political, the ideological, the most ideal-based art that is seen as the most beautiful, is the most praised. the hippie music of the 60s. the punkrock of the 70s. the nihilist rebellion of the 50s.
it is funny that people think they could apreciate the bands of the 60s movement, without being an anarchist or utopist themselves, and somehow leaving the "ideology" behind. oh what a fool you can be.
even the ideologeous music of ideologies you complete disagree with often holds beauty. think of an atheist appreciating christian choral music. even ultra-stalinist soviet music can be interesting, even if you complete oppose these "regimes".
this is because it is still better that art is based on a bad ideology, then being based on no ideology, or no politics at all.
as i said, the negatively amazing thing these days is that people appreciate - highly - bands and artists that were highly anarchist and political in their days - think of all the 60s bands - yet somehow think they could "leave" the politics behind in this, appreciate the art without it.
as i said, ideals and ideology can not be removed.
which brings us to the question, why do people actually try to remove it, and what is the result of this?
well, as i said, it is unremovable, which means that even artist how claim to be free of "politics" and ideology are actually very ideologous too.
90% of all music made these days, especially electronic music, is completely ultra-capitalist, authoritarian, hierarchic. just listen to common electronic house music, it's full of lyrics praising money, luxury, stuff like that.
oh, the artists of course claim they use these lyrics in a non-ideologeous way, maybe "ironic" way. well, it's still ideologeous. if the US army moves into another country but claims it is just peacekeepers or whatever, it's still the US army.
so, art cannot be removed from ideology and ideals, and it is what gives art meaning. of course this onslaught against "ideology" and "politics" is part of a bigger problem, which is the rapid onslaught of anti-intellectualism and anti-rationalism. at the core, people despise ideological and anarchist art because it is "intellectual", removed, smart. they cannot take this.
but don't give up the ideology - or the ideals!
which is that the removement of any kind of ideals and ideology and politics, as it happened in the last decades, is not only approved, but even celebrated, and all that in the name of "freedom" and "art". oh how wrong can you be. for example, if hardcore political punk fans disapprove of a punkband that are slipping from their former anarchist politics, this is seen as something backward. "artist should be free to do what they want", etc. it is seen in the way, that, like the reign of for example the catholic church or authoritarian aristocracy on art, the "reign" of ideology and ideals on art would be similiar oppressive. if art "has" to follow ideals, this is another rule, restriction that is necessary to overcome. if art follows ideologies like anarchism, utopism and such, this is seen as a hazard, a distraction to art and the process of creating art. "art has to be free of ideology!".
this is so dead wrong, because the cardinal error here, is that art *always* is based on ideals or idelogy, or politics, and similiar concepts. the underlying ideas and ideology are what give a given song, painting, poem, it's beauty, it's content, it's outline - all of it. the actual artwork is of lesser importance then the ideology and idea behind it. it's of almost no importance. if there is a great idea or ideology, the actual artwork will almost automically - will automatically be good. because, as i said, this is the very basis of the artwork. art is about understanding, apprehending, realizing ideals, political and other concepts, ideology and philosophy. if the idea is beautiful - its artwork is too. it can be compared to footsteps in the snow - these are just footsteps, not the man who caused them. the actual artwork is just a trace, the idea and ideology behind it is the actual art. if you remove the ideology and ideals from art, you remove the very core of art.
take punkrock. do you think the 3 chords and shrill voices was what caused the punk movement, the youth rebellion in the late 70s and 80s? it was the ideology of punk that drove people cracy, the anarchism, nihilism and uprising. and the songs were just a trace of this "ideology" of punkrock. which is why contemporary artists who create structually similiar punksongs by far don't cause an uprising like that again. they lack the politics, and ideology. the nihilism and anarchism that gave the punksongs their actual beauty - not the other way round.
again, the actual painting, book, movie, is just a trace - like a footstep in the snow. the true piece of art, is the ideology behind it.
even to diehard opponents of ideology-based art, it should be obvious that it is exactly the most political, the ideological, the most ideal-based art that is seen as the most beautiful, is the most praised. the hippie music of the 60s. the punkrock of the 70s. the nihilist rebellion of the 50s.
it is funny that people think they could apreciate the bands of the 60s movement, without being an anarchist or utopist themselves, and somehow leaving the "ideology" behind. oh what a fool you can be.
even the ideologeous music of ideologies you complete disagree with often holds beauty. think of an atheist appreciating christian choral music. even ultra-stalinist soviet music can be interesting, even if you complete oppose these "regimes".
this is because it is still better that art is based on a bad ideology, then being based on no ideology, or no politics at all.
as i said, the negatively amazing thing these days is that people appreciate - highly - bands and artists that were highly anarchist and political in their days - think of all the 60s bands - yet somehow think they could "leave" the politics behind in this, appreciate the art without it.
as i said, ideals and ideology can not be removed.
which brings us to the question, why do people actually try to remove it, and what is the result of this?
well, as i said, it is unremovable, which means that even artist how claim to be free of "politics" and ideology are actually very ideologous too.
90% of all music made these days, especially electronic music, is completely ultra-capitalist, authoritarian, hierarchic. just listen to common electronic house music, it's full of lyrics praising money, luxury, stuff like that.
oh, the artists of course claim they use these lyrics in a non-ideologeous way, maybe "ironic" way. well, it's still ideologeous. if the US army moves into another country but claims it is just peacekeepers or whatever, it's still the US army.
so, art cannot be removed from ideology and ideals, and it is what gives art meaning. of course this onslaught against "ideology" and "politics" is part of a bigger problem, which is the rapid onslaught of anti-intellectualism and anti-rationalism. at the core, people despise ideological and anarchist art because it is "intellectual", removed, smart. they cannot take this.
but don't give up the ideology - or the ideals!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)