i became an artist because i read in a book that making art should not be restricted to those people with an artistic background, or went to artschool, or became artist by "chance", but that every single person could be a great artist.
this way i sold a few thousand records with my art. a modest success, but not that bad for purely experimental music.
also a lot of things happened, which i may write about in another text.
so, okay, the question is now: everyone can become an artist and do great art. but how, exactly? how does it work?
let me talk about this here. there are two things you should know:
"you cannot be what you are not" and "what you are is perfect"
this leads to two further statements: "you cannot be anything else than you are and this is perfect", also "you cannot be anything else than being perfectly yourself".
so what does this have to do with art you may ask.
let me explain it.
say, a person wants to become a musician. doing electronic music. electronic music is, as you know, build up of drums, percussion, synths, and other elements.
so he sits down and wants to write some tracks. but all he can come up with is drums and rhythm; he isn't good at doing the synths or adding vocals or whatever.
now, remember: "you cannot be what you are not". if you are not good at synths when doing music, this is probably
something you are not; you cannot do it then.
but he makes drums and rhythms. so this is what he is. and - now - "what you are is perfect". so this is already perfect! this means: rather than straining his abilities by trying without results again and again to master the use of synths too - just make tracks consisting only of drums and rhytms. (this doesn't mean you cannot do something else later, too, of course).
so this is what you are - you are good at drums. it comes natural for you. and if it is something that really is "in your blood", the tracks will sound good and interesting and exciting, even without synths.
another example. a person wants to write short stories. but he only comes up with the beginnings of stories, at which he is good - but can't continue and can't end them.
so, writing beginnings is something "he is". writing the rest is something he is not.
remember the "rules" i wrote again.
just collect the beginnings you wrote for the stories you abandoned - and if you have a larger amount of them, put them into a collection of "beginnings".
"beginnings without end". already a good book title, don't you think? and it will be something that is already different, and already sounds more exciting than most of the collection of short stories that are around.
again, this is what you are then, and it is perfect.
this could be put even further.
a girl wants to write poems but she cannot come up with anything at all.
just blank papers each time she sits down and tries to write something.
perfect, i say!
collect the blank papers. photograph them. "poems that were not". exciting idea, again. find a way to publish these blank papers; as a collage, as a set of photos, whatever.
you could also add on this and add to each blank a description of how the poem would've been if you had written it, or the reasons while you feel you could not. again, this is highly artistic, in my opinion.
now, you can also strain this a bit.
you want to create dance music. but you can't.
think of it again. you cannot be what you are not, and what you are is perfect.
even if you cannot easily create this type of music, there is probably some overlapping with that you are. there are some dance tracks you are particularly fond of. so, in some way, what you are encompasses this.
so try to write some dance music *in your way*. not in the way of others, but in your very own way. again this will be perfect.
so much for now. always remember. what you are is perfect.
Why I Left The Breakcore Scene In 2001
the breakcore and experimental hardcore scene in the beginning revolved around a lot of radical, extreme, interesting, exciting, subversive and anarchist ideas. they were closely related - or similiar to those of guy debord, raoul vaneigem, hakim bey, ken knapp. even if one could argue that some artists did not directly espouse these ideas, at least they were similiar and it worked both ways. there were a lot of connections between, situationism, neo-luddites, "extropism" and the scene back then. especially, but not limited, through the free party scene then.
i don't know if i discovered these topics and ideas "through" the hardcore movement, or just around the same time, but both things fit very well together for me. in record names, track titles, interviews, and especially the magazines that were put out by the people, this connection of both things should probably become very clear. "pirate utopias", "chaos, mayhem and anarchy", and temporary autonomous zones, anyone?
now around 2000, things changed completely in the different direction. a new breakcore scene emerged, quickly replacing the old one, and they were very quick to jettison all the radical ideas. instead they took a for me extremly reactionary stance, celebrating market mechanisms and corporate pop culture, abandoning any attempts at social change, or radicalism.
this was the situation back then; i had started doing my own activites regarding hardcore and breakcore in 1997. my involvement was always about putting the aforementioned, and similiar, ideas accross. but with these new breakcore people this was simply not possible anymore.
now the thing is, you might say, okay ignore the others, and still try to put ideas accross, the majority will ignore them and maybe someone will listen to them.
but it was not as simply as that. the breakcore people, while maybe not understanding, were at least somehow aware of the ideas of the situationists and the others, but trying to coopt them and turning them around.
i came to the conclusion that it was simply not possible to put these ideas across, without them overtaking them or jamming them.
an example of this was pop sampling in hardcore tracks that was around in the 90s too (i'm not talking about the dance-scene related ID&T stuff here, but the extreme hardcore music). back then it was quite subversive. taking some bullshit pop singer crap, pitching it up until it sounds like a squealing weazle and give it the full-on 909 drum treatment. it was simply a "piss-off!" of all that pop crap that was around at the time.
with the breakcore crowd, this turned into pop crossovers, that were simply safe, that everyone done (and still does), and is not subversive at all. or does anyone claim these pop-breakcore tracks will incite any form of radical social change? not even the artists think that.
so for me it was very clear that i had to leave the breakcore sound behind, since it was simply not possible to get these radical ideas through anymore, not for me or for anyone else. now, in hindsight, this conclusion came maybe a bit early, and other artists and groups still tried to bring these things accross. but for me it is still the right decision.
especially, since back then, the upcoming speedcore, dance-orientated and doomcore scenes were very and extremely open to these ideas, so it was much better for me to be there then it would've been in the breakcore scene.
today, i wouldn't say the same about the current speedcore or mainstream hardcore world, but doomcore is still going strong.
addendum
i don't want to add this addendum, but i feel like i have to. some people might complain that i'm about "politics" or "ideology" and music should be kept free of them. while i don't think music should be free of it, principally, and situationism and neo-luddites, etc. were already beyond politics - and ideology - then simply drop the "politics" and think of radical, creative, extreme, exciting and interesting ideas. the sound was full of them - but with the breakcore scene, not anymore.
also i should add that i see this change in breakcore around 2000 as a - basically - totally deliberate move - not something that just (or inevitably) happened - even if the artists and people involved were not fully aware or conscious about it - to ultra-reactionism, or rather, ultra-boredom.
i don't know if i discovered these topics and ideas "through" the hardcore movement, or just around the same time, but both things fit very well together for me. in record names, track titles, interviews, and especially the magazines that were put out by the people, this connection of both things should probably become very clear. "pirate utopias", "chaos, mayhem and anarchy", and temporary autonomous zones, anyone?
now around 2000, things changed completely in the different direction. a new breakcore scene emerged, quickly replacing the old one, and they were very quick to jettison all the radical ideas. instead they took a for me extremly reactionary stance, celebrating market mechanisms and corporate pop culture, abandoning any attempts at social change, or radicalism.
this was the situation back then; i had started doing my own activites regarding hardcore and breakcore in 1997. my involvement was always about putting the aforementioned, and similiar, ideas accross. but with these new breakcore people this was simply not possible anymore.
now the thing is, you might say, okay ignore the others, and still try to put ideas accross, the majority will ignore them and maybe someone will listen to them.
but it was not as simply as that. the breakcore people, while maybe not understanding, were at least somehow aware of the ideas of the situationists and the others, but trying to coopt them and turning them around.
i came to the conclusion that it was simply not possible to put these ideas across, without them overtaking them or jamming them.
an example of this was pop sampling in hardcore tracks that was around in the 90s too (i'm not talking about the dance-scene related ID&T stuff here, but the extreme hardcore music). back then it was quite subversive. taking some bullshit pop singer crap, pitching it up until it sounds like a squealing weazle and give it the full-on 909 drum treatment. it was simply a "piss-off!" of all that pop crap that was around at the time.
with the breakcore crowd, this turned into pop crossovers, that were simply safe, that everyone done (and still does), and is not subversive at all. or does anyone claim these pop-breakcore tracks will incite any form of radical social change? not even the artists think that.
so for me it was very clear that i had to leave the breakcore sound behind, since it was simply not possible to get these radical ideas through anymore, not for me or for anyone else. now, in hindsight, this conclusion came maybe a bit early, and other artists and groups still tried to bring these things accross. but for me it is still the right decision.
especially, since back then, the upcoming speedcore, dance-orientated and doomcore scenes were very and extremely open to these ideas, so it was much better for me to be there then it would've been in the breakcore scene.
today, i wouldn't say the same about the current speedcore or mainstream hardcore world, but doomcore is still going strong.
addendum
i don't want to add this addendum, but i feel like i have to. some people might complain that i'm about "politics" or "ideology" and music should be kept free of them. while i don't think music should be free of it, principally, and situationism and neo-luddites, etc. were already beyond politics - and ideology - then simply drop the "politics" and think of radical, creative, extreme, exciting and interesting ideas. the sound was full of them - but with the breakcore scene, not anymore.
also i should add that i see this change in breakcore around 2000 as a - basically - totally deliberate move - not something that just (or inevitably) happened - even if the artists and people involved were not fully aware or conscious about it - to ultra-reactionism, or rather, ultra-boredom.
Why I Do Not Use Facebook.
i got a soundcloud account. i got a homepage. and a few other addresses where one can reach me or find my sounds.
i got 2 email accounts, and i am active on various forums, where people could send me a pm.
so if someone wants to listen to my sounds, he has the chance to do so. if someone wants to communicate with me, he can do so.
why should i use facebook then?
now the thing is then. if i would be on facebook, maybe more people would listen to my music. or more people would communicate with me.
but the thing is. this is not *real*. if they would be *really* interested in my music, they would get to my homepage, or my soundcloud etc. if they only listen to my music because it is on facebook, they are not really interested in it.
so what's the point in getting more listeners, or communicating more, by using facebook?
the thing is, again, this is not *real*.
if someone really wants to stay in contact with me, he doesn't need facebook to do so, but could get into contact with me in another way.
this is entirely the problem with facebook. who wouldn't want to have more listeners, or more people who get to know ones art? who is not interested in having more "friends"? facebook seemingly does provide this, but in *reality* it doesn't. it's just illusionary. the facebook listeners are not *real* listeners, the facebook friends are not real friends. your facebook fans are not your real fans (one might say: unless one got into contact / is into contact with them without facebook, and it is so to say, only by chance that they are on facebook).
if they were, they wouldn't need facebook to be so.
this is the point.
i got 2 email accounts, and i am active on various forums, where people could send me a pm.
so if someone wants to listen to my sounds, he has the chance to do so. if someone wants to communicate with me, he can do so.
why should i use facebook then?
now the thing is then. if i would be on facebook, maybe more people would listen to my music. or more people would communicate with me.
but the thing is. this is not *real*. if they would be *really* interested in my music, they would get to my homepage, or my soundcloud etc. if they only listen to my music because it is on facebook, they are not really interested in it.
so what's the point in getting more listeners, or communicating more, by using facebook?
the thing is, again, this is not *real*.
if someone really wants to stay in contact with me, he doesn't need facebook to do so, but could get into contact with me in another way.
this is entirely the problem with facebook. who wouldn't want to have more listeners, or more people who get to know ones art? who is not interested in having more "friends"? facebook seemingly does provide this, but in *reality* it doesn't. it's just illusionary. the facebook listeners are not *real* listeners, the facebook friends are not real friends. your facebook fans are not your real fans (one might say: unless one got into contact / is into contact with them without facebook, and it is so to say, only by chance that they are on facebook).
if they were, they wouldn't need facebook to be so.
this is the point.
You've Attained Everything
You've attained everything you could ever wish for you if you no longer try to be a different person than you are.
I'm not a status, or an entry,
or a post on a message wall
neither pictures, or attachments
Facebook does not represent my deepest thoughts or wishes.
(I changed the text of Killing Joke's song "Democracy" a bit to make it fit to Facebook.)
or a post on a message wall
neither pictures, or attachments
Facebook does not represent my deepest thoughts or wishes.
(I changed the text of Killing Joke's song "Democracy" a bit to make it fit to Facebook.)
The Way You Are
you are what you are
and you can never be anything else than what you are
and what you are is beautiful, wonderful and valuable
and nothing you ever do,
think, or act
can ever change what you are
and no matter what you do,
did, and will do,
you will always be beautiful, wonderful and valuable
and you can never be anything else than what you are
and what you are is beautiful, wonderful and valuable
and nothing you ever do,
think, or act
can ever change what you are
and no matter what you do,
did, and will do,
you will always be beautiful, wonderful and valuable
Kampf Den Symbolen (In German Language)
da das zeitalter der moderne zu ende ist, ist es sinnlos, kulturelle, gesellschaftliche, "politische", und weit darüber hinausgehende themen und probleme auf der intellektuellen oder vernunftsebene vermitteln zu wollen. größere gruppen wird damit nicht mehr erreichen können, nur noch ein kleiner kreis hat an so etwas interesse.
subversive, radikale ideen, gedanken, konzepte, dinge, die diese gesellschaft in frage stellen, diese gesellschaft und ihre gesellschafsordnung zerstören wollen, müssen subliminal, symbolisch, künstlerisch, medial, unterbewusst, emotional, animalisch, "psychologisch", instinktiv, vermittelt und verbreitet werden.
subversion darf nicht mehr hauptsächlich an den verstand gerichtet sein, sondern an die gefühle, das innere der menschen, und solche bereiche.
nur so kann man überhaupt noch eine größere anzahl von menschen ansprechen.
in den letzten jahren gab es einige ereignisse, die dies bestätigen.
die existenz und enthüllungen von wikileaks haben soviel aufsehen erregt, weil sie vorallem eine symbolische niederlage für die westliche gesellschaft waren. die "altlinken", die mockierten, wo denn bei wikileaks die ganze theorie bliebe bzw. ob diese fragwürdig sei, hatten im prinzip recht. nur dass halt diese art von theorie eben inzwischen völlig unwichtig ist, und der bisherige erfolg von wikileaks dies bestätigt - wohlgemerkt meine ich hier nicht den "erfolg" einzelner menschen wie julian assange, sondern, dass wikileaks es geschafft hat in aller munde zu sein und ideen zu verbreiten, die gefährlich für die herschende gesellschaft sind (bzw. sein könnten).
"anonymous" ist eine weitere organisation die in den letzten jahren einige bekanntheit erreicht hat. auch sie verwenden einige richtige methoden, sie arbeiten medial und symbolisch. das anonymous mitglied mit gesicht hinter der maske versteckt ist praktisch das gegenteil, oder zumindest sehr anders, als der stereotype "politische aktivist" zu zeiten der moderne, der, mit seinem gesicht gut sichtbar vor einer großen masse spricht.
beide organisationen haben natürlich ihre fehler und stecken wie ich finde zu einem bedeutenden teil noch in der moderne fest, grade was ihre politische ziele - oder eben die doch vorhandene theorie - angeht.
um so wichtiger ist es, sich an neue methoden zu wenden, diese zu finden und anzuwenden.
subversive, radikale ideen, gedanken, konzepte, dinge, die diese gesellschaft in frage stellen, diese gesellschaft und ihre gesellschafsordnung zerstören wollen, müssen subliminal, symbolisch, künstlerisch, medial, unterbewusst, emotional, animalisch, "psychologisch", instinktiv, vermittelt und verbreitet werden.
subversion darf nicht mehr hauptsächlich an den verstand gerichtet sein, sondern an die gefühle, das innere der menschen, und solche bereiche.
nur so kann man überhaupt noch eine größere anzahl von menschen ansprechen.
in den letzten jahren gab es einige ereignisse, die dies bestätigen.
die existenz und enthüllungen von wikileaks haben soviel aufsehen erregt, weil sie vorallem eine symbolische niederlage für die westliche gesellschaft waren. die "altlinken", die mockierten, wo denn bei wikileaks die ganze theorie bliebe bzw. ob diese fragwürdig sei, hatten im prinzip recht. nur dass halt diese art von theorie eben inzwischen völlig unwichtig ist, und der bisherige erfolg von wikileaks dies bestätigt - wohlgemerkt meine ich hier nicht den "erfolg" einzelner menschen wie julian assange, sondern, dass wikileaks es geschafft hat in aller munde zu sein und ideen zu verbreiten, die gefährlich für die herschende gesellschaft sind (bzw. sein könnten).
"anonymous" ist eine weitere organisation die in den letzten jahren einige bekanntheit erreicht hat. auch sie verwenden einige richtige methoden, sie arbeiten medial und symbolisch. das anonymous mitglied mit gesicht hinter der maske versteckt ist praktisch das gegenteil, oder zumindest sehr anders, als der stereotype "politische aktivist" zu zeiten der moderne, der, mit seinem gesicht gut sichtbar vor einer großen masse spricht.
beide organisationen haben natürlich ihre fehler und stecken wie ich finde zu einem bedeutenden teil noch in der moderne fest, grade was ihre politische ziele - oder eben die doch vorhandene theorie - angeht.
um so wichtiger ist es, sich an neue methoden zu wenden, diese zu finden und anzuwenden.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)