This year I talked about my mental health problems, which might not be directly related to my music. But I think it's important issues like these come to the public and it does not remain taboo to talk about them.
And, on the other hand, they are indeed very much connected to my music. I'm influenced by the anti-psychiatry movements that gained momentum in the 60s decade of the last century; especially the idea that "mental health" is not a black and white thing; that there is no clear line between sane and insane; between society and an individual's problems; that mental illness is not 100% bad or 100% good, but something inbetween.
To be more exact, what happened is this; my problems with anxiety that started as a kid sent me into what is called "altered states" once in a while; some enter these states by drugs; I entered them by fear and trauma. And from these states, I took all the ideas for my music. My mental health problems sent me to that place, like others would have used drugs to get there, again. I'm sure some people think is a fucked up way, using this to get inspired for art. But to me it made sense. It was the best I could do; and at the same time, my music helped me to get a grip on my mental health problems.
The Future Of The World
In the future, there will be no more inequality, no oppression, no hierarchies, no war in human society. Most people would say this idea is insane; that it could not be this way; but it is the truth; and it is only rational.
For inequality - to take an example - is an idea; a human idea; and how could an idea last forever?
Take the idea that the catholic church should be the main political power in Europe; this was indeed a, let's call it "powerful", idea; it lasted for a millennium; but eventually that idea was crushed and it faded away. Not to mention even lesser ideas. There are not much supporters of "Attila-ism" these days, are there? That want to recreat the "glory" or power of the days of Attila The Hun and turn society into how it was like then. Or Cleopatra-ism, or any other example like this. Yet these people had powerful empires in their time, but this is all part of history now. And so, inequality will only be part of history one day.
Now you may say, ideas like this never totally go away, and in the future there might be some attempts to revive the Ottoman Empire or Austro-Hungarian reign and so on. Yes, it could be. But let's put it this way, in the next 10,000 years the future for Attilaism doesn't look too bright.
I could imagine somewhere in the world a small group of persons sitting for a meeting that are plotting for the "second coming" of Attila The Hun. Maybe, in the same way, in our future society a small group is longing for the return of social inequality. But that's about it then.
But, you might say, there is a misunderstanding. Inequality is not just an idea. It's a part of human order, of social order. Well, in the past gathering fruit and hunting game were the very center of human order. Or the majority of the population being busy with farming or cutting wood to build their homes. This changed. The human order changed. The habit of gathering fruits changed, so the habit of having inequality in society will change too. Nothing really lasts in the human realm. (Again, if you say, on the fringes of the world people still gather fruit to live, let's keep with my amendment of the initial claim; yeah maybe in the future, on the fringes people will still long for inequality.).
Now you might say, there are things that can't be avoided in human life, like diseases and illness, and inequality is like that. But inequality *can* be avoided. When looking at the world today it's obvious that wealth and power and is distributed in an (extremely) unequal way and it's easy to come to the conclusion that wealth and power could be redistributed. In meager efforts it has been done already, like the distributing of the sole power of the king to democratically elected officials (not the end solution we want, but maybe a step in the right direction).
No no no, you might now say, the point is inequality is not an idea, a thought. It is something real, it's part of nature. Well, trees or plants are part of nature. Can you point me to this "real" inequality like you could point to a tree? Is it growing somewhere out of the ground like a tree? Or does it physically exist in some else way? Can you cut this inequality with a knife, does it have inequality particles, inequality atoms?
Of course inequality is not something real. It's an abstract concept, an idea, a thought, something in your head, in your brain. And ideas will be forgotten one day or at least lose their power. Even if it takes a long time.
The point is that those who believe that inequality will last are more or less - insane. They confuse an idea, that is thought, with something real, that physically exists. They think inequality as an idea, but just not "an" idea, it's a *real* idea! An idea existing in nature, in the real world, and like this world, it will last! A real part of human nature that will stay with human nature as long as humans exist. And this is insane.
Inequality is just an idea, an idea that can't last forever, that won't be "believed" forever, and when this believe withers away, and thus when it withers away, there will be no more inequality in human society, and that is the rational way to see it, and the same goes for oppression and hierarchy and wars and so on - the future will see a world that is free of these.
For inequality - to take an example - is an idea; a human idea; and how could an idea last forever?
Take the idea that the catholic church should be the main political power in Europe; this was indeed a, let's call it "powerful", idea; it lasted for a millennium; but eventually that idea was crushed and it faded away. Not to mention even lesser ideas. There are not much supporters of "Attila-ism" these days, are there? That want to recreat the "glory" or power of the days of Attila The Hun and turn society into how it was like then. Or Cleopatra-ism, or any other example like this. Yet these people had powerful empires in their time, but this is all part of history now. And so, inequality will only be part of history one day.
Now you may say, ideas like this never totally go away, and in the future there might be some attempts to revive the Ottoman Empire or Austro-Hungarian reign and so on. Yes, it could be. But let's put it this way, in the next 10,000 years the future for Attilaism doesn't look too bright.
I could imagine somewhere in the world a small group of persons sitting for a meeting that are plotting for the "second coming" of Attila The Hun. Maybe, in the same way, in our future society a small group is longing for the return of social inequality. But that's about it then.
But, you might say, there is a misunderstanding. Inequality is not just an idea. It's a part of human order, of social order. Well, in the past gathering fruit and hunting game were the very center of human order. Or the majority of the population being busy with farming or cutting wood to build their homes. This changed. The human order changed. The habit of gathering fruits changed, so the habit of having inequality in society will change too. Nothing really lasts in the human realm. (Again, if you say, on the fringes of the world people still gather fruit to live, let's keep with my amendment of the initial claim; yeah maybe in the future, on the fringes people will still long for inequality.).
Now you might say, there are things that can't be avoided in human life, like diseases and illness, and inequality is like that. But inequality *can* be avoided. When looking at the world today it's obvious that wealth and power and is distributed in an (extremely) unequal way and it's easy to come to the conclusion that wealth and power could be redistributed. In meager efforts it has been done already, like the distributing of the sole power of the king to democratically elected officials (not the end solution we want, but maybe a step in the right direction).
No no no, you might now say, the point is inequality is not an idea, a thought. It is something real, it's part of nature. Well, trees or plants are part of nature. Can you point me to this "real" inequality like you could point to a tree? Is it growing somewhere out of the ground like a tree? Or does it physically exist in some else way? Can you cut this inequality with a knife, does it have inequality particles, inequality atoms?
Of course inequality is not something real. It's an abstract concept, an idea, a thought, something in your head, in your brain. And ideas will be forgotten one day or at least lose their power. Even if it takes a long time.
The point is that those who believe that inequality will last are more or less - insane. They confuse an idea, that is thought, with something real, that physically exists. They think inequality as an idea, but just not "an" idea, it's a *real* idea! An idea existing in nature, in the real world, and like this world, it will last! A real part of human nature that will stay with human nature as long as humans exist. And this is insane.
Inequality is just an idea, an idea that can't last forever, that won't be "believed" forever, and when this believe withers away, and thus when it withers away, there will be no more inequality in human society, and that is the rational way to see it, and the same goes for oppression and hierarchy and wars and so on - the future will see a world that is free of these.
Art And Social Change - Again
I've been asked why and how art could change the world, could change society.
The problem here is what I call the "Western Art Anomaly"; because in other cultures, both in different times and different locations, people were and are aware that art could change society - it could change a lot (for example kings that arrested artists; because they know their art could cost them their crown. Priests that persecuted artists; because they knew their art could cost them their power).
But in contemporary western society, it is is no longer understood what art is. They think, art, music, movies, that is something you "consume" in your pastime and you have fun with it and maybe dance to it or chill-out or whatever, and you pay money for it and it gives you a good time, and maybe, just maybe, some deep thoughts too!
The common western person behaves like cavemen who discovered a working spaceship; but they don't understand how to fly it, so they just use it to climb on it and jump down from it and think, hey this is a good time.
So what is art exactly? Art is "it". It's the thing. It's the holy grail, it could take you to the stars - metaphorically speaking. Art is where the sky and earth meet. It's the base of society, of politics, and civilization, but it goes beyond them. It is a cultural code that programs society. If you change this code, you can change society.
It's no wonder "culture" both is a word for art, as well as for organized human society. Culture as art leads the "culture", the society. Art sets the model of politics, of society, of everything, and society and politics follow this model.
Just think about it. The Rock'n'Roll singers had more impact on western society in the 20th century than any single politician. If a politician calls for a political rally, or movement, or action, or a pop star calls for it, who will have more followers in most of cases?
Art is the very source of society and philosophy and language and virtually everything. It is the one thing. The main thing.
Because of this, art *has* the power to change society. And it will change society. How do you use art this way? Easy. Just give art an edge that other art doesn't. Make it big, make it good. But most importantly, don't fall for money and fame, not even "underground fame". Make it true. And be true.
And change will follow.
The problem here is what I call the "Western Art Anomaly"; because in other cultures, both in different times and different locations, people were and are aware that art could change society - it could change a lot (for example kings that arrested artists; because they know their art could cost them their crown. Priests that persecuted artists; because they knew their art could cost them their power).
But in contemporary western society, it is is no longer understood what art is. They think, art, music, movies, that is something you "consume" in your pastime and you have fun with it and maybe dance to it or chill-out or whatever, and you pay money for it and it gives you a good time, and maybe, just maybe, some deep thoughts too!
The common western person behaves like cavemen who discovered a working spaceship; but they don't understand how to fly it, so they just use it to climb on it and jump down from it and think, hey this is a good time.
So what is art exactly? Art is "it". It's the thing. It's the holy grail, it could take you to the stars - metaphorically speaking. Art is where the sky and earth meet. It's the base of society, of politics, and civilization, but it goes beyond them. It is a cultural code that programs society. If you change this code, you can change society.
It's no wonder "culture" both is a word for art, as well as for organized human society. Culture as art leads the "culture", the society. Art sets the model of politics, of society, of everything, and society and politics follow this model.
Just think about it. The Rock'n'Roll singers had more impact on western society in the 20th century than any single politician. If a politician calls for a political rally, or movement, or action, or a pop star calls for it, who will have more followers in most of cases?
Art is the very source of society and philosophy and language and virtually everything. It is the one thing. The main thing.
Because of this, art *has* the power to change society. And it will change society. How do you use art this way? Easy. Just give art an edge that other art doesn't. Make it big, make it good. But most importantly, don't fall for money and fame, not even "underground fame". Make it true. And be true.
And change will follow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)