ANNOUCEMENT: I will not publish anymore content here. All of my self-published writing will be published through my new collaborative Substack project, SAFETY PROPAGANDA. Thank you!
The American Left And Its Double
The individual does actually carry on a double existence: one designed to serve his own purposes and another as a link in a chain, in which he serves against us, or at any rate without any volition of his own – Sigmund Freud
America’s urban enclaves erupted in joy and celebration on Saturday, November 7, as Joe Biden was announced president elect. According to liberals and leftists alike, we had ousted a tyrant from power in Donald Trump’s defeat (the irony of a “tyrant” being brought down by a democratic election is not lost on me). And yet, what was most striking about the celebrations that I witnessed while walking around the petty bourgeois hell that is Williamsburg, Brooklyn, was that there was something off about the whole thing. It was like there was an unwelcome phantom, like Poe’s The Masque of Red Death, lurking in the background of the debauched festivities. Against the atmosphere of kids wearing denim jackets with “I Voted” stickers covering the front pockets, drinking copious amounts of alcohol and chanting “JOEEEE BIDDEEENNN!” in the streets, there was a muted undercurrent of strange melancholy permeating the air; a barely detectable aura or menace. Mark Fisher noted that the most fascinating horror stories often to evoke “the weird,” or the presence of something in a space in which it doesn’t belong. The celebrations of the defeat of Donald Trump then was something like a non-fiction of the weird. There was a presence of something sinister and dreadful warping the character of the festivities into a disquieting pageant.
How could this be? We defeated a dictator, or so they tell me. But it is their disbelief in their own moral clarity and belief in Biden’s political program, or lack thereof, that animates the obscene over-reactions to the election results. Because we, as a people, did not defeat a dictator. No, instead, they, the ruling class, defeated a man who had simply become an inconvenience to them. Therefore, this past Saturday, all the fireworks and tears of joy and Black Lives Matter signages were an unheimlich of triumphalism. In our zest for defeating Donald Trump, an obsession fueled breathlessly by the media in all of its forms, we elected something so much worse. We elected the rule of the shadow. The invisible power that dominates us. Silicon Valley, Wall Street, the military industrial complex, and the security state. Those dark forces that the Democratic Party and the American left are struggling to conceal their allegiances to. Flummoxed with racial paranoia and high on tech firm-focus grouped activist slogans, the country collectively rejoiced over Biden and Kamala Harris – brutal carceral statists both responsible for some of the most damaging public policy passed over the last three decades – rising to power. So, was it really joy animating those street demonstrations, or were there unspoken dynamics underpinning all of this? When our choices were narrowed to an oafish game show host and corrosive corporate power, we chose the latter. But that’s hardly worth celebrating. So the festivities last weekend had, quite literally, a dual character. A double. A doppelgänger. And that doppelgänger manifested as something like a spectral mass resignation that lurked beneath the performative jubilee. Or perhaps this twin character was something else, something even worse: the naked thirst for power. The shadow self, or the double, is found within all our contemporary political relations, and in mining the double we better understand the true natures of the forces and narratives that produce and maintain our systems of control.
I can imagine these “celebrations” being painted by Andrew Wyeth. Upon first glance, it all looks common and normal and even merry. The people joyously take to the street in exultation for progress and political hope. But when you look deeper, when you pierce beneath the image and excavate its content, we can start to identity the dark undercurrent beneath the one-dimensional image. Wyeth often painted many images over a gesso board or paper only to later erase them or paint over them with another image that he believed better expressed the work’s “inner spirit” of the erased or the “underpainted” image. This technique allowed Wyeth to disentomb the strange within the familiarly rural Americana settings of his paintings.
If we were to erase over the image of the celebrations that manifested in response to Biden’s victory, what would we find? What would the “inner spirit” of the rejoicing liberal masses look and feel like? Despair? Maybe a little. Cynicism? Certainly so, at least in the cases of party apparatchiks and their corporate paypigs whose careers and financial situations will improve with a corporatist Democrat in the Whitehouse. Abdication? Yes. That’s it. The same American leftists – from Antifa affiliates, to DSA members, to milquetoast suburban liberals – that spent the entire summer burning bodegas to the ground on behalf of Black Lives Matter are now out in the streets ringing cowbells and dancing like buffoons to applaud the election of the writer of the 1994 crime bill and a brutal prosecutor who put parents in prison for their children’s school truancy. Are these people even self-aware enough to experience the level of cognitive dissonance that would be warranted when living with these ideological contradictions? The Freudian double of the festivities around Joe Biden winning the presidency is the apotheosis of what Fisher called “capitalist realism.” What is hyperbolically being hailed as the defeat of a dictator is in actuality the reinstatement of a blood thirsty status quo and the totalizing rule of the security state. Under this new dominion, we can expect obscene censorship (look no further than Silicon Valley’s halting of the flow of images of Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden smoking crack and getting blow jobs for evidence of more of what’s to come), further spiraling inequality, the silencing of Marxist sentiment, the probable invasion of Venezuela and genocidal war waged on Iran, and a media that will run cover and propagandize on behalf of the new regime at all costs. Does anyone actually believe that American dictatorial rule was more likely to come from Donald Trump (who barely had any institutional support in the first place) than our country’s most insidious sectors of centralized power? With a neocon blue dog democrat back in the Whitehouse, protected by a war machine propaganda apparatus the likes of which the world has never before seen, one thing is for certain: “A totalitarian future is assured,” observed writer DC Miller.
If there is one positive outcome of this election cycle, it’s the demonstrable discrediting of the vast majority of what passes as the American left. So many of its institutional figures proved themselves to be little more than, as the What’s Left podcast host Aimee Terese has fiercely pointed out again and again on her show and her Twitter, branding consultants and useful propagandists for the Democratic Party and, by extension, the left side of capital.
After all, it was less than six months ago that Intercept journalist Ryan Grim, Current Affairs editor Nathan J. Robinson, journalist Katie Halper, and hordes of rose emoji Twitter accounts were using Tara Reade’s flimsy accusations of sexual assault to discredit the presumptive nominee Joe Biden as a rapist. Not only were these accusations already of no use to us (electorally anyways, given that the American left had already totally failed in doing what was necessary to make Bernie Sanders appealing to a broader voting public), these same actors then had to turn around and support a man that, according to them, was a rapist. The political economic function of these leftist figureheads has never been clearer: corralling people back into the Democratic Party when it matters the most (in the months leading up to the election). Beneath their raggedy vintage hipster clothes is a blue Armani suit with a flag pin on its lapel clawing its way to the surface. The activists of today are the party bureaucrats of the nearer than you could imagine future. Benjamin Dixon, one of the more gleeful distorters of realpolitik, followed up rows and rows of tweets expressing transcendent joy over Biden’s win with, “I do appreciate the Democrats making it so easy to demonstrate to the extremely liberal audience I built fighting Donald Trump why the Dem establishment sucks and needs to be replaced primary by primary.” Again, a peculiar uncanny emerges from sentiments like these. What sounds like resistance to the Democratic Party is functionally no more than allegiance to it. Dixon and his ilk aren’t fighting for justice, they are vying for better positions within the party machinery, pitching themselves as its next generation. “Orange man Drumph very bad” or “Joe Biden a war criminal but we gotta get the orange man outta office” are rhetorical devices of dual character. By feigning opposition to the democratic nominee’s politics while reinforcing the “lesser of two evils” binary, they are doing effective branding for the party targeted at those voters who might otherwise be inclined to sit the election out, AND by demonstrating their importance to the party (and its infrastructure) they are climbing higher up the ladder of social and political capital.
But the mask is off. We can see these leftists for who they are. When you can look beyond the radical posturing and the chants and the raised fists of leftist media figures you can see their true faces; as lascivious and ravenous for self-serving pleasure as the horny men ogling prostitutes in the drawings of Polish surrealist artist and writer Bruno Schulz, leftists are little more than market actors working within their own class interests to position themselves higher up in the elite. “The activist” is the doppelgänger of the bureaucrat. The idealist and the careerist: one and the same.
In the race between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, the true nature of the left has never been easier to understand. If you’re truly unaffiliated with the Democratic Party and solely interested in imbuing the working class with the kind of radical consciousness that could eventually bring forth a toppling of the ruling elite, wouldn’t you opt out of electoralist politics unless? Or, even if you genuinely believed that choosing the lesser of two evils in a presidential election was important, but you weren’t a democrat or involved in party machinery, wouldn’t you then try to go through Biden and Trump’s platforms issue by issue and make a substantive judgement based on a material reading of their politics? I hope you would, of course, but leftists are democrats in the United States. There could be a self-avowed socialist running on a GOP ticket and American leftists would still support the Democrat, citing the same culture war issues that they always cite. Biden’s policy record is among the most harmful in recent political history, he has surrounded himself with Bush-era neocons, and has refused to concede on any reform that might lift up working people. Trump, on the other hand, hasn’t started any wars. He did some substantial prison reform. Hell, he even vetoed a renewal of the Patriot Act, and got little to no praise for it. “What if Trump could be shown to be less destructive than the Democrats in nearly every single policy dimension?” asked writer Anis Shivani shortly before the election. From what we’ve seen, it wouldn’t matter. Leftists vote Democrat. If it’s not in their blood, it’s in their ambition.
Our politics suffers from psychosis. Specifically, it suffers from a split personality disorder. Every figure, narrative or story in American politics has a public character that tells us it’s one thing but is driven by a shadow self that reveals its true motivations. Joe Biden, “savior of the country,” is a brain dead reactionary and empty vessel for corporate power. Donald Trump, “fascist dictator,” is a fairly milquetoast liberal with vulgar rhetorical style. The Democratic Party, “party of the marginalized,” represents 51 out of the 55 wealthiest districts in the country. The fear and rage of liberals and leftists about their country descending into fascism and their concern for immigrants and “people of color” is little more than moral coverage for them ruthlessly acting within their class interests. And those cool kids in the hip urban hubs taking to the streets to celebrate the victory of Joe Biden and the “downfall of a tyrant?” Their shadow is alienation. Their double is defeatism. Their joy is undercut with a state of hyper cognitive dissonance: “Maybe this is the best we can do,” repeats as mantra in the backs of their deluded minds. Zizek made the insightful observation about Scorsese’s Taxi Driver that when Travis Bickle practices his vengeful murders in the mirror, a direct manifestation of Lacanian mirror stage, “he shows us that he perceives HIMSELF as part of the degenerate dirt of the city life he wants to eradicate, so that, as Brecht put it apropos of revolutionary violence in his The Measure Taken, he wants to be the last piece of dirt with whose removal the room will be clean.” This too applies to bourgeois liberals’ and leftists’ obsession with Donald Trump. They never truly believed that Trump was a fascist, but in Trump’s success they were forced to stare at their own decadence reflected back at them in a particularly grotesque form. Trump’s existence on the political stage was symbolic of the failures of their politics. In their Trump Derangement Syndrome and irrational desperation to remove Trump from office, they merely desired to put the mask back on the bloodthirsty status quo that is within their interests to protect, to different degrees. Those rich hipster trust fund kids weren’t drinking and snorting coke in celebration of progress. They were rejoicing over the return of a brutal liberal order without the impolite aesthetic that Trump so enthusiastically employed. Under the guise of celebrating justice, they were rejoicing for injustice that benefits them as the future elites of our country. The same people who tell us that they are concerned with the welfare of at risk communities, look straight into the eyes of Trump’s mostly working class supporters – the same people who saw their jobs shipped overseas due to policies written by the politicians that leftists propagandize for, only to then be prescribed opiates for the pains and aches they endure due to the miserable jobs they waste away at every day, enslaved to the same pharmaceutical companies who pay their leftoid political antagonists – and laugh. They drink, dance, and luxuriate in the misery of ordinary people. The doppelgänger of social justice is, now more than ever, thirst for power and domination.
In Thomas Moore's Novel 'Alone,' Happiness Is A Temporary Kink
In Thomas Moore’s fiction, interpersonal relations and human experiences are dulled by the digital networks and platforms that are inherently intertwined with them in liquid modernity. The influx of cyber communications into our personal lives has saturated them with the vaguest sense of unreality, but not an “unreality” in the sense of “dream-like” or “surreal.” Instead, what Moore’s characters seem to experience is a subconscious unease that I often feel in my own life: “Is this real? Is my life a narrative arch or a simulation of one? Do I even exist at all?” In Moore’s fiction, living is more like lingering, a state of sentience beyond a spiritual death.
Such is the by-product of cyber communications. Instagram and Twitter have largely replaced authentic communities; intellectual, artistic and otherwise. Moore provocatively illustrates these holes within our lives that dull our experiences and emotions. Joy, love, desire, pain, sadness, connection, disdain: when these emotions play out in cyberspace, we simulate feeling these emotions at all. This leaves us pondering whether our lives have any material weight. Moore’s characters experience this confusion as a dulled, gnawing despair and a resigned, pathetic acceptance. Maybe they don’t exist? Maybe that’s ok?
In Moore’s novel Alone, recently published by Philip Best’s (also noise musician of Consumer Electronics and Whitehouse fame) Amphetamine Sulphate imprint, an unnamed narrator endures a prolonged breakup with his semi-involved boyfriend of eight months Daniel. Early on in the novel, the narrator proclaims: “I’ve always been disgusted by my own love.” Moore’s previous novel Into My Arms was broadly concerned with its protagonist’s desire for connection. <i>Alone</i> then is the logical extension of that theme. Its protagonist has resigned himself to loneliness and solitude and is attempting to find peace within disconnected solace.
In a post on Dennis Cooper’s blog, Moore chronicles the art and texts that were on his mind throughout the Alone writing process. Concepts related to death and spectral lingering post-mortem are the connective tissues throughout these disparate works. A series of screen-printed axes by Darja Bajagic that depict missing and murdered women on the blades, their images continuing to proliferate digitally reminding their loved ones of their absences and their communities of the violence that lurks around the corner. The final three episodes of The Sopranos are iconically morbid – from the attempted suicide of Anthony Jr. to the deaths of three major characters – but the series provocatively robbed its audience of the sense of finality that deaths typically yield, opting to fade to black and allow us to ponder (literally forever) the fate of Tony Soprano (the single greatest character of the 21st Century). The death of Tony isn’t material, he lingers on spectrally. Tony Soprano and all his mediocrity is a stand in for us, and as long as we exist, so shall he.
Finally, Moore cites Marguerite Duras’ The Malady of Death, a novel in which a man hires a woman to live with him by the seaside so that he can “learn to love.” The attempt fails, with the woman telling him that he has “the malady of death.” This is the mode I choose to contextualize Alone within. This isn’t solely a text about loneliness, it’s a text about the acceptance of loneliness as an acceptance of death itself. In his decision to slowly let his relationship erode due to his innate “disgust with his own love,” Moore’s protagonist accepts his own symbolic death. He immerses himself in the digital world – in Grindr and other vaguely hollow methods of digital communications – and lets go. Is this not cyberspace’s ultimate function? By choosing to live within it, we tacitly accept to vanish from our actual lives. We choose death over life. We float through the web immaterially, averse to our own corporeality.
Duras’s influence is all over Moore’s writing, even if he distills that influence into a hyper-contemporary sphere of digital language and late modern pop cultural reference points. Like Duras’, Moore’s novels are textually short but emotionally rich, meant to be consumed within a single reading session. Duras’ text emphasizes an irreconcilable awkwardness between man and woman. Alone, however suggests that that awkwardness is not limited to heterosexual relationships. This tension simmers between all interpersonal dynamics.
Moore’s character is not devoid of desire or love, he is just uncomfortable with it, and opts out. He opts for loneliness. “Loneliness has been the one constant,” he writes. Loneliness in this novel is a signifier of stability. Moore rejects happiness, seeing it as a temporary kink or perversion that cannot and should not be held onto. “The idea of happiness as a goal rather than a transitional state is dangerous and much more damaging for a person to carry around than just knowing that everyone is fucked in some way,” writes Moore.
In her text on melancholia and depression Black Sun, French literary critic and semiotician Julia Kristeva devotes a chapter to Duras’s The Malady of Death. In Duras’s text, Kristeva finds an “aesthetics of awkwardness” that emphasizes the fundamental gap between the sexes that occasionally reveals “the abyss” of human despair. Moore’s is also an “aesthetics of awkwardness.” Throughout the novel, the protagonist finds himself either incapable of or too apathetic to coherently communicate with his partner and friends. His stymied communications are the origins of his resignation into loneliness. Seeming to comment explicitly on his “aesthetics of awkwardness,” Moore writes: “Language is a lie that we are guilty of and have told so many times that most of the time we either believe it or we are too tired to be able to fight off.”
Moore’s incorporation of the language of the Internet into his literature invites humor into the work while also clarifying his critique of contemporary digital life as a kind of death (of love, of connectivity, of “will to power”). The narrator poses the provocative rhetorical question: “Has Grindr killed psychic gay powers?” He notes the rise of Grindr hookups as the death of cruising and, thus, the death of intuitively primordial connection between men.
Throughout the duration of the novel, the prolonged breakup between the narrator and Daniel is prolonged by the introduction of a teenage prostitute named Joseph. Joseph was a childhood Youtube star (that Moore chronicles the depths of his adolescent child star crushes throughout the novel — from Edward Furlong to the 1990 mini-series adaptation of Stephen King’s It’s Jonathan Brandis — seems pertinent here) and started talking with pedophiles on the Internet as a means of alleviating boredom. Joseph, too young to remember anything resembling authentic intimacy, asks the narrator how men hooked up before Grindr. The concept of a non-simulated and not digitally facilitated desire is alien to him.
A few chapters are solely dedicated to Joseph’s johns and the messages they leave on his dating page evaluating his sexual performance and perhaps even more pertinently how “real” he seemed to act in his performed desire towards them. One such john is increasingly pathetic as he gasps for Joseph’s love and affection. This is all that’s left, Moore suggests, the alienation of the contemporary condition is artificially mitigated by the technology we use to conceal our despair and our loneliness.
Alone’s narrator often ideates suicide. His strongest urge towards suicide, he says, erupted from a spontaneous bout of group sex with two friends. This feeling, he says, was indescribably beautiful. What Moore suggests here is that these acts of spontaneous decisiveness are a portal to the ethereal. In group sex and in suicide, both non-passive, engaged and non-verbal decisions, you grasp the real unmitigated by the trappings of contemporary life. Moore pines for a human existence untarnished by media, technology and communications, for humans to be spirits brought together by desire and death, “Back in the woods, everything makes sense when it’s blurred,” he writes. “I wish that we were all ghosts that could merge onto another, blur and then separate beautifully and alone.”
Genre is Obsolete 3 (The Return)
So, Genre is Obsolete is back, sort of, untethered from the editorial demands of a publication vying for attention is the marketplace of ideas. I am, of course, also vying for attention in the marketplace of ideas, but while I’m self-publishing this you can expect it to encapsulate all that I’m trying to say with these “reviews.” This is, one-dimensionally, a column about recent releases of experimental music that defy typical genre classification or subvert genre form, but more broadly, I am attempting to explore “genrelessness” as a metaphor for the lack of structural cohesion that defines the social decay we are experiencing in late modernism. This is cultural criticism. I’m not interested in simply telling you whether a piece of music is good or not. But rather, I prefer to use these obscure works of art as a direct portal into the mystifications of the contemporary social, cultural, and political realm.
In this column’s namesake essay, philosopher Ray Brassier writes: “‘Noise’ has become the expedient moniker for a motley array of sonic practices – academic, artistic, counter-cultural – with little in common besides their perceived recalcitrance with respect to the conventions governing classical and popular musics.” He continues, “It refers to anomalous zones of interference between genres.”
This analysis of the epistemology of the term “noise” doesn’t just give us a critical tool to isolate and understand the component parts that define noise and experimental music, but can also be applied as a metaphysical matrix to interpret, comprehend, and critique the dizzying contradictions of life in late capitalist America, and the broader West. “Anomalous zones of interference” is such a potent, forceful use of language that could be extracted from a much broader and complex interpretation of culture. We are living in a time when much of what passes as “radical art” is little more than propaganda for the left liberal elite, as the mode of production has internalized cultural leftism into its hegemony while society remains immiserated and alienated beneath the crushing despair of market capitalism. The “hipster right” has become the home of the nihilist aesthete. Free from the ideological constraints of the left liberal bourgeois, populist right wingers can indulge in the transgression of culture. It shouldn’t be surprising that some of the best art criticism happening anywhere is on hipster right wing podcasts like The Perfume Nationalist, because these thinkers and artists are outside of the hegemony.
And though my politics still fall into a left Marxist categorization, I now feel liberated from any radlib sentimentalism that may have been holding me back. I want to write about art and music and books that challenge the orthodoxies of bourgeois morality and leftist hegemony. I want art that flat rejects the world we live in, and seeks to incept within it a sense of dissent and rage. This column shall analyze “anomalous zones of interference” in avant-garde music and in the society at large. If you truly hold contempt for the social and political order (and no, that doesn’t mean you are “anti-Trump” or support BLM, as both those stances are totally compatible with the fealty demanded of you by your oppressors), if you want to make art that deconstructs it and exposes its lies, then I am your brother-in-arms. This column is a microcosm of a broader camaraderie being formed. We are politically and ideologically diverse, with numerous theories and analyses of what is wrong in our world, bonded by our opposition to the false spectacle around us. Schopenhauer believed that noise was the death of intellectualism, “pure distraction.” But no, now the whole culture has become the distraction, a fiction outlined by the ruling elite and scripted by its interlocutors in the media and the NGO industrial complex. They are our enemies, and noise is a weapon through which we challenge them to show us their true faces.
John Wiese Escaped Language (Gilgongo)
Sissy Spacek Featureless Thermal Equilibrium (Helicopter)
Sissy Spacek Prismatic Parameter (Gilgongo)
Through LA-based noise auteur John Wiese’s vast discography, we further our comprehension of noise as essentially a genreless entity. Noise is a philosophical ideal, not a specific style or genre. Noise is a transcendence of form, or a formlessness, to use Rosalind Krauss’ preferred terminology . It is, quite possibly, even a religion. Wiese has long used different instrumentations, stylistic approaches, and structural formats to conjure noise forth into existence, worshipping at its altar. In a plethora of recent releases, Wiese demonstrates how noise can spew forth from any and all manner of sonic arrangements.
The music that Wiese makes under his own name is slippery. Like the codeine promethazine that drips down the cracks of your mouth during those opiated splurges, it oozes. An Angeleno weirdo and peculiar intellectual of sorts, Wiese’s approach mirrors that of Los Angeles-based artists like Paul McCarthy (who he’s published books by) and Mike Kelley; Wiese is essentially a collagist, assorting the sounds of the world into their most psychotically hallucinatory permutations. He locates the chaotic truth of this world in these microtonal skrees.
Escaped Language, a 2017 release recently re-published by Helicopter, is a live composition recorded at Présences Electronique Festival that condenses dimensions of pseudo-contradictory narrative implications. Its one 17-minute track opens awash in gorgeous, meditative ambience that erodes the walls of the ego, leaving space through which the chaos ahead can seep through. Lynchian lounge horn arrangements interweave with shards of noise and blue balled, throbbing bass. The arrangement’s closing two minutes are Wiese at his best, in which hissing noise blends into the overwhelming density of the atmosphere evoking the specters of Shirley Jackson’s Haunting of Hill House, enraged and violently obsessed with their own traumas.
With his long-running Sissy Spacek project, Wiese has explored the noise that can be extracted from something more resembling a trad rock format. Sissy Spacek is, functionally, a grindcore band. Its songs, historically, are blink and you miss them explosions of compressed metal and hardcore-influenced rock. While clearly deconstructionist in mindset – from Sissy Spacek’s first self-titled EP in 1999, Wiese seemed to be channeling the digital grindcore of Agoraphobic Nosebleed into manically collaged, stop-start freaked out blasts of noise – Sissy Spacek also sets forth conceptual conditions from which we can interpret the noise that is achieved, even if accidentally, in the more extremist sub-genres of guitar driven music. Certainly, on the topic of grindcore, the genre’s forebears often teetered on the edge of a rock format while the dizzying velocity and ferocious volume of the music constantly threatened it to tip over the edge, into the abyss of noise; or rather, the pit of genrelessness. Certainly, the first two Napalm Death records, Brutal Truth, and Agothocles all walked that tightrope between conventional rock form on one side and unnamable, libidinal chaos on the other.
Wiese has gifted us two Sissy Spacek releases over these last few pandemic-distorted, pandemoniac months. Prismatic Parameter, released back in March at the dawn of the “new world,” is indicative of the alien dimensions that Wiese has subsequently transported the Sissy Spacek project through, further and further away from anything normally associated with “grindcore” or even “noisecore,” since 2008’s masterful The French Record saw Wiese employing sound collage, electro-acoustic, harsh industrial beats, and the washes of coffin-like ambience that saturate the silence in-between black metal tracks.
Prismatic Parameter is a mammoth of a record, at an hour and 45 minutes it slowly pulls apart the synapses connecting the neurons in your brain, eventually resulting in a face melting anti-cathexis. The music finds a nexus between fucked electronics and the head-warped “fire music” free jazz of the likes of Brotzmann or Borbetomagus. Horn sections and an onslaught of jazz live drums weave through the mess of distorted electronics and sound shards, yielding a record difficult to digest but well worth the constipation. The dizzying percussion comes courtesy of the virtuosic improvisational percussionist Ted Byrnes, who through acts of heroic athleticism manages to keep this turmoil contained, to a degree. Also, Sissy Spacek’s oft-drummer Charlie Mumma, also the drummer of avant-garde black metal band L’Acéphale, is on here as well, allowing Wiese to explore this cosmic connection between the more extreme end of jazz and improvisational music and the more experimental ends of metal and extreme music (similarly to musicians like Weasel Walter and Mick Barr). This album is a helluva commitment, but in less music-drenched and horrendously depressing times I wager that it would become an object of cult fascination in the underground.
And while I know this section of the column is getting long (I don’t have an editor so fuck it, skip around if you want), I also have to mention Featureless Thermal Parameter, released early in August, that exists at the other end of Sissy Spacek’s sonic continuum: ferocious and berserk blasts of avant-sleaze noisecore. The album’s tracks are mostly under the two-minute mark, and employ no-fi black metal screams and guttural grindcore barks to hold conversation with the extreme metal that Sissy Spacek has long sought to destroy, stitch back together, and present as something new. On records like these, Sissy Spacek becomes the band for those who hear Extreme Noise Terror, or power violence bands like Spazz or Charles Bronson, and wish for something even less resembling traditional format. Pure annihilation of rockist sound, Sissy Spacek is as vital as ever.
Mosquitoes Minus Objects (Ever/Never)
Komare The Sense of Hearing (Penultimate Press)
In an essay she wrote on the pioneering “Cinema of Transgression” filmmaker Beth B, poet and former Teenage Jesus and the Jerks front-woman Lydia Lynch writes: “We used music and art as a battering ram and a form of psychic self-defense against our own naturally violent tendencies; an extreme reaction against everything the 1960s had promised, but failed to deliver.”
No wave, while often recognizable as an austere, atonal, and fiercely distorted kind of noise punk made with rock instrumentation, is more an ideological position than it is a recognizable genre. From its early origins in the downtown Manhattan of the 1970s, it already counted vastly different sounding bands amongst its ranks. The viciously deconstructed punk of Mars had little to do with the spastic lounge jazz of The Contortions, and the modern composition infused punk jams of Theoretical Girls sounded little like the nihilistic guitar sleaze of Teenage Jesus. But what united these bands, and all artists that would employ no wave sensibilities later (from the Chicago neo-no wave of The Scissor Girls and The Flying Luttenbachers to current bands like Guttersnipe), is a deep skepticism of there being any inherent radical potential within music or subculture. Only through the annihilation of tradition, or “genre,” can the transcendent and radical be attained.
This is the connection that UK-based trio Mosquitoes have to no wave. In no way are they hauntologically recreating music of the past, but rather the band employs the no wave philosophy to unearth new terrain in the quest towards anti-rock enlightenment. The trio’s recent 12” EP, Minus Objects, is utterly fragmented, with each musician seeming to create separate parts that barely weave into one another, while a persistent gnawing darkness engulfs the composite whole of the sound, like the extraterrestrial color of Lovecraft’s The Colour out of Space.
Two of the group’s members met at Fushitsusha show in the late ‘90s, and like Keiji Haino’s group, there is an aspect of the dark side of psychedelia here. The sound is so alien to what is normally associated with rock, it seems to exist within an abyss that threatens to pull you into it, deeper and deeper, until your ego dissipates into the ether. A fitting soundtrack to the horrifically untethered sensation that follows a DMT hit, connecting you with a world without us that humans are barely capable of interpreting. This is a music with a kind of cosmic pessimism. The opener, ‘Minus Object One,’ interweaves squiggles of synth noise, slow, throbbing base, and nonsensical shouts, an introduction to a dimension beyond. But the album works best when Mosquitoes immerse themselves in dank atmospherics, enveloping the listeners in an otherworldly dread that I’ve seldom ever heard achieved by rock music. Mosquitoes are, in a way, a no wave answer to The Caretaker or the painterly dark ambience of Aseptic Void.
Komare is something a companion band to Mosquitoes (“Komare” is the Czech word for mosquitoes), but in reality is the same project minus one part. Born on a day when guitarist Clive Phillips couldn’t make it to Mosquitoes rehearsal, Komare finds the other ⅔ of the band Dominic Goodman and Peter Blundell focusing solely on electronics to further fragment and minimize the group’s sound. The results are every bit as fascinating. Komare isn’t “better,” but instead demonstrates the multifaceted ways in which these musicians can approach the aesthetic that they’ve now been refining for years. This release finds the group processing human vocals through mechanic effects, begging us to hallucinate a future in which such binaries no longer hold any meaning. One could make the typical William Gibson reference here, but Komare works in pure abstraction, giving us only the sense of the future, rather than a narrative of it. Anxiety, of course, is the prevailing feeling of late modernism. Certainty has been liquidated into the amorphous flows of the market, reprocessed as looming, muted dread. This anxiety saturates Komare’s sound, which is hard to pin down. With so much empty social justice rhetoric being espoused in avant-garde music, one longs for the no wave sensibility that renders such ideas meaningless. Mosquitoes/Komare seize the awful zeitgeist by shattering the walls of form, finding a new art in the intermixed and indistinguishable rubble that remains.
Ceresco Union Ceresco Union (Maternal Voice)
Ceresco Union Spinning Gears (Tesla Tapes)
I was very happy to hear from Joseph Charms who put me onto his new project Ceresco Union, but also rather sad that he was done with his band Errant Monks. Errant Monks’ albums The Limit Experience and Psychopposition were absolute favorites of mine in 2019. Those albums chronicled Joseph’s battle with alcoholism and delirium tremens and dripped with an atmospheric psychosis. Walls of noise brushed up against punk-techno throbbing aggression and Joseph’s embittered but resolved spoken word musings. They crackled with the cacophonic emotional range of a man wracked with paranoia as his central nervous system pieces itself together again. But they also were imbued with the strength and sense of purpose of someone dedicating all his energy towards his quest for self-emancipation.
With alcoholism behind him, Errant Monks is dead, and Cereso Union lives. With two new releases, Ceresco Union on Maternal Voice and Spinning Gears on Tesla Tapes, Charms constructs an abstract sequential narrative to those earlier Errant Monks releases. Though the alcohol dependency is mostly successfully vacated from his neural reward pathways, he is in the awkward and alienated headspace of early recovery. This is strange music, not as extreme or loud as Errant Monks, but marked by a sense of unease and self-consciousness.
I’m reminded of the months I spent in social isolation following my final opioid withdrawal. I lost more friends in those months than I did in my darkest days in my dalliances with junk. Why? Well, it’s hard to explain. CNS depressant drugs, like smack or booze, dulls the edge off the common anxiety and unsureness we experience as human beings, and when you lose that buffer, you start to act….. Strange. I’d cry at inappropriate times, you see, I’d over-share my struggles with drugs to people who barely knew me. If you met me at any point between August of 2012 and February 2013, the first things you would have learned about me were my name, and that I was a recovering junkie. You become alien to yourself, walking the autism spectrum back to some sense of emotional normality. It’s a horrendous experience, really, which makes it all the harder to not backslide back towards the warm embrace of the chemicals. That’s what Ceresco Union evokes for me.
Disgusting Cathedral Adventurer’s Despised and Rejected
Alex Lee Moyer’s documentary TFW NO GF shocked leftoids and liberals alike earlier this year by positing the theory that the alt-right and incel phenomena that have played out across the internet sphere over the last few years might just be connected to a set of specific economic and material conditions. When American leftist magazine Jacobin tweeted this groundbreaking take on the film (which they postponed for five months after the film’s release, emphasizing the publication’s typically abject cowardice in the face of their woke and decidedly unsocialist readership), their followers were just aghast! “WOMEN ARE POOR TOO AND DON’T SPEND ALL DAY POSTING VIOLENCE ON SOCIAL MEDIA!” exclaimed one particularly exasperated reader, in a post not unusual given the overall response to the tweet. But this is where Moyer’s documentary was so successful. How could any Marxist not view this subculture through the prism of economic failure? How could the material conditions of a jobless, hopeless, uneducated and poor group of young men not warrant a materialist critique? Moyer forced the DSAers to reveal themselves. They aren’t socialists, they are liberals, viewing the world through the binary of good and evil.
One of the film’s most recognizable characters, internet poster Kantbot, became the closest thing to a breakout star that could realistically be produced by a film about dejected, angry, male youths. Kantbot fancies himself something of a crackpot philosopher, a self-help guide for the perpetually unemployed and unlaid. Throughout the film, he recalls directing his followers away from hate posting about women on 4Chan and towards the philosophy of his influences like Friedrich Schelling and Immanuel Kant. Kantbot can best be interpreted as a sublimation of the incel’s alienated condition, directing the incel towards idealist philosophy and transcendence. “It’s all going to be ok, it’ll all be ok,” he repeats to the camera towards the end of the film, replacing bottomless hopelessness with just the vaguest sense of light at the end of the darkness.
However much I might be reaching with this long-winded metaphor, self-described “dungeon-synth” project Disgusting Cathedral appears to do for rank, hideous, sickly electronic sounds what Kantbot does for incel ideology. The isolated parts of debut album Adventurer’s Despised and Rejected; casio keyboards, Eurotrack synths, Nintendo DS music apps, obsolete FX, and tape manipulations; shouldn’t amount to much more than the dank, squiggly, head fucked electronic noise that I usually write about in this column. And yet, those components congeal into something…. More. This music is deeply unsettling, no doubt, but it’s also exalted, cosmic, and beyond. It’s so depressing what passes as “psychedelic music” in 2020 (I mean what isn’t depressing in 2020, really?). It’s all just post-Loop, wah wah guitar-driven rock music, or Sunburned Hand of the Man-esque freak folk 15 years too late. Psychedelia shouldn’t be a genre, but an extra-dimensionality. Todd from Ashtray Navigations told me that he sees psychedelic music as “music in 3D,” and that’s what I’m looking for. Music with dimensions, and drama. Music that sucks you into a void before caressing you in its womb and spitting you back out into a new world, or the same world, but an altered version of it. That’s the kind of psychedelia that Disgusting Cathedral is putting forth. There are perhaps some formal precedents here in young James Ferraro’s noisy duo The Skaters (with Spencer Clark), or perhaps Helm’s early project Birds of Prey (with Steven Warwick), but there are perhaps even more chemtrails and psychic distortions here. I really dig this.
Metadevice Ubiquitarchia (Malignant Records)
A lockdown record courtesy of Metadevice, also known as Portugal-based noisenik André Coelho, stripping any recognizably human features from the Metadevice sound in favor of the warped, decayed electronics that are indicative of a genreless culture in a dying world. While Metadevice’s previous album Studies for a Vortex made use of spoken word vocals in its documentation of a culture slowly wilting away piece by piece, Coelho leaves this album empty of language. Language, this music suggests, fails to capture the all-encompassing suffocation of the contemporary political moment. Wittgenstein wrote that “The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.” But what happens when the only world left is the ephemeral one that I’m currently mainlining my thoughts into, as I type away? This, the digital, is the only real. Locked in our homes, isolated from our common man, we inject our subjectivities into the information highway. Metadevice illustrates our bodies sublimating into our screens, like Videodrome without any choice given. We mutate, or we vanish into null. Outrage, confusion, misery. Nothing is material. It’s all happening in there, in here, a cold, dead atmosphere where nothing happens and everything happens all at once.
JK Flesh Depersonalization (Hospital Productions)
When I was an adolescent metalhead, Godflesh were one of the first “good” bands that I really got into. I was a subscriber to Terrorizer Magazine because it begrudgingly covered nu-metal bands like KoRn and Slipknot in efforts to hold onto a broader readership. I bought Godflesh’s final album of its initial run, Hymns, because Jonathan Davis was an outspoken fan of the band, and the name “Godflesh” fascinated my perverse 12-year-old brain. That album was a revelation, it was heavy but sublime, it sizzled with imagination and pulsated with sensuous rhythm.
Throughout my early life, I relied on famous musicians who I realistically could know about to introduce me to the underground through their interviews. Kurt Cobain gave me The Butthole Surfers and Flipper. Thom Yorke directed me towards electronic music, like Aphex Twin and Autechre. Thurston Moore made the case for Japanese noise. But perhaps more than all of them, Justin Broadrick was my most important tastemaker. Everything from punk rock like Crass and Discharge, industrial music and early power electronics like Throbbing Gristle and Whitehouse, dub, techno, Broadrick demanded I broaden my tastes. Even just being a Broadrick fan could open the floodgates to the sounds beyond, given his vast discography and diverse stylistic range: the grindcore pioneering of early Napalm Death, the industrial hip-hop of Techno Animal, the lush, guitar droning shoegaze of Jesu, and the ferocious torrents of noise in Final. Being a Broadrick fan is a commitment to dexterity and open-mindedness.
With that fawning text out of the way, let me declare that it is Broadrick’s aggressive techno project JK Flesh that holds the mantle of being my favorite music that Broadrick has ever created. Why, you ask? Well, what is so special about these vicious dance beats is that they seem to embody every aesthetic realm that Broadrick has ever explored. The aggression of Godflesh, the grooves of Techno Animal, the expansiveness of Final; they’re all here, compressed into these rhythms. Broadrick’s techno is minimal, but inhabits so much. I’ve struggled to make a “genreless” case for techno, given that it is so recognizable as an easy-to-pinpoint genre. But nevertheless, what techno can do at its best is to vacuum disparate genres into its formula, absorbing new bodies into its organism, each component part adding to the multi-headed beast while maintaining its structure as a single entity.
JK Flesh’s newest release Depersonalization is brief, taut, and rife with sonic potentialities. Though not on the masterful level of Rise Above, it makes a potent case for JK Flesh as the apotheosis of Broadrick’s vast sonic terrain. It, as a project, is at the top of a pyramid that the artist slowly climbed towards his entire career. It’s like he learned to sculpt away at his sonic signifiers, revealing their true essence, and took those essences and carved them into something mesmerizingly sharp and clear. It’s dance music imbued with the essence of all the energy of extreme music and all the limitlessness of the avant-garde. It’s the genre of techno that suggests the philosophical territory of genrelessness.
A Final Conversation with a Great Troll: Darius James and the Literary Deconstruction of Racecraft
Darius, I have a confession. When I first read your novel, Negrophobia, I wasn’t sure if I should like it. Your book presents its black characters as ghoulish and hallucinatory embodiments of some of the most flagrantly racist stereotypes laundered through 20th Century American culture. There’s the tyrannical and almost illiterate maid who abuses the novel’s bubbly albeit racial paranoiac, Paris Hilton-esque protagonist Bubbles. An evil witch doctor pulls rabbits out of Bubbles’ vagina in a horrific “Voodoo” ritual gone wrong. Hell, Darius, you even personified lawn jockeys as animate beings! What was I to do with this novel?
I was mesmerized by the way you structured it. It reads like an uncommonly readable screenplay: three acts, dialog blocks, expository setting descriptions. The banality and formality of the screenplay structure functions as a set of boundaries through which the chaos of your prose is contained within. Inside this semantic matrix, a vortex of violence threatens to explode outward – beyond its parameters and off the pages – by conjuring a chimeric atmosphere of grotesqueries, body fluids, and racial animosities. But, in being seduced by your prose, was I condoning racist propaganda? Were you tricking me into outing myself as something I never thought I could be? Your art holds a mirror up to its readers through which they see their reflections distorted and distended, face to face with the inner-ugliness we all struggle to suppress.
And while Negrophobia does force readers to take stock of their own bigotries, it doesn’t denounce them as evil for holding such animosities. Instead, it deconstructs the ways in which these bigotries are socially, culturally, and politically conditioned. What Negrophobia really is, is one of the most hilarious, provocative, and upsetting works of literary art to ever question the notion of race as a signifier and point of human distinction. If anything, it condemns the cultural fetishism of race that continues to define our discourse! Your book boldly draws attention to the fact that “race” only exists to the extent that racism exists! We have CULTURAL differences, Negrophobia declares in its exaggerations of ugly stereotypes, but racial difference doesn’t make us “different.”
The provocations of Negrophobia begin with its structure: a screenplay. By shunning the form of the novel, you dismissed the novel as the historical embodiment of literary genius. “Fuck that bourgeois shit!” you said. By using the screenplay format, you signal towards the legacy of blaxploitation cinema, an art form known for its use of stereotypes. But it was this choice that laid the groundwork for what Negrophobia became. In your text, the racial stereotypes become so absurdly grotesque and terrifying that they begin to liquidate the meaning that the stereotypes held in the first place. Instead, the stereotypes serve the function of making the reader aware of how stupid such stereotypes are at root. Everyone, regardless of their race, is inherently idiosyncratic. A singular entity. It doesn’t even matter if one conforms to a certain stereotype, the human subjectivity is always more complicated than that. Deeper and richer. As much as the psyche conforms, it transgresses. We’re all so very different, and yet, we need the same things: security, a home, love. By busting the stereotypes through the vicious exaggeration and fragmentation of the stereotypes, the larger purpose of Negrophobia unfolds.
One of the most troubling notions of identity politics, on both the political left and the right, is that both sides of it tacitly accept the notion that there are inalienable distinctions amongst us based on the levels of melanin in our skin. Through this minute physical difference, we are led to believe that the gaps between us can not be bridged. And it’s not just outright racists who enforce this fallacious belief, but also liberals who, either well-meaningly or cynically, think racism can only be overcome by deep engagement with race as a difference. This is an absurdity, and it’s the absurdity that animates your vicious critique of racism and racial difference in our culture, Darius! It’s the absurdity that drives the manic dreamscape of pervasive racial paranoia that is Negrophobia.
Political scientist Barbara Fields uses the term “racecraft” to describe the phenomenon in which racism produces the illusion of race as a material force. True to its name, this is an act of cultural sorcery that manifests on every side of neoliberal discourse. Right wing republicans will talk about and dog whistle towards “baggy pants” and loud rap music and black on black crime. Left liberals, conversely, treat the “black community” as a hegemonic voting block that unanimously shares political interests, despite the myriad class distinctions and varying degrees of power and influence within communities of people of color. The left liberal needs to portray its subject as a victim, because victimization in late modernism is the last virtue. Negrophobia, Darius, embodies the banal occultist practices of racecraft, in which people of different races are pitted against one another, and people of the same race with nothing else in common besides the vague similarities in their skin see them treated as one solitary unit. Black people. White people. Always at odds, never to find solidarity, much less any form of brotherhood or camaraderie.
In Negrophobia, the protagonist Bubbles is incapable of seeing race until it is amplified through the racialized stereotypes that you gleefully put to page. The stereotypes function as a provocation that demands that the reader think harder about what it means to live in a racialized society, while they also serve to illustrate the inherent hypocrisies within those readers, regardless of their race. As Fields says, race isn’t biological, it is merely a social construct learned and indoctrinated through racism. It is racism that creates the very phenomenon from which race materializes as an ontological force. Race becomes a social projection that is then largely performed. Bubbles can’t decipher “blackness” through physically seeing skin color, blackness only takes form within her mind through the racialized images and stereotypes that the characters she comes into contact with conform to.
The Cream of Wheat Chef. Louis Farrakhan. The Sun Ra Arkestra. Negrophobia illustrates the racial construct as a population persistently force fed Devil’s Breath while “the man” whispers stereotypes and racially loaded concepts into our ears as we drift in and out of consciousness. By the time that we awake, we are absolutely convinced that race is not just real, but so pervasive that it cannot be overcome. This is the terrifying conclusion of Negrophobia, Darius. Bubbles finally comes to terms with her “negrophobia,” her irrational racial paranoia and fear of black people, but at the same time, she finds that she can’t shed herself of her biases. They are too indoctrinated into her, like a cult religion. You can’t overcome what isn’t actually real. You can’t vanquish political voodoo. It’s hauntological, it’s everywhere even if it’s not there. Your pessimism, Darius, was brutal. But it was also prophetic. How can we overcome racism when the very notion of race as difference is enforced by racism?
These categories; “Race,” “blackness,” and “whiteness”; are implemented by the social and political elites to absorb the under classes into a vortex of incoherence, petty resentment, and hate. By fear mongering race, the global elite manipulates the working class into aiming their hatred at each other, leaving it unaccountable and free to wield power and amass wealth. Perhaps you were aware of socialist political scientist Adolph Reed, Jr. 's work while writing Negrophobia? Reed implores us to understand that “race reductionist politics are the left side of neoliberalism and nothing more,” he says. “It is openly antagonistic to the idea of the solidaristic left.” Congressman James Clyburne single-handedly destroyed Bernie Sanders’ 2020 campaign by appealing to his mostly black voters’ sympathies for Joe Biden’s allegiance to our first black president, despite the fact that Biden’s political record is responsible for mass incarceration, which has decimated black communities across America. This is just one example of the myriad ways in which the racial construct is abused by our power elites to mystify the stakes of politics and society. In the end, the bourgeoise is the solo benefactor of the contradictions.
These travesties occur because we are convinced that race exists, and we are convinced that race exists because racism made us believe it was from the moment we slithered out of the womb. Some critics took issue with the hyper-exploitative nature of your metaphors, such as when Bubbles is covered in soot and passing as a black woman only to say “If you insist on poking your fingers where they’re clearly not wanted, you could at least rub a little faster!,” emphasizing Bubbles’ irrationally anxious concept of black men as sexual hooligans who are all violently obsessed with her. But how could it be any different? The enforcement of race as a construct requires a delirious stream of around-the-clock narrative building. The racial construct is a fiction constantly being added to and broadened, like a new bible. It is a narrative that is created through symbols, through platitudes, and through stereotypes! To puncture a narrative of this scope, one must be vicious. And Darius, your writing is vicious, absurd, and animated by a wicked intelligence dedicated to ripping down the whole storyboard.
African philosopher named Achille Mnembe has referred to the persistence of the fetishizing of “blackness” and “race” as “the delirium of modernity.” And “the delirium of modernity,” is at the essence of Negrophobia's exasperated logic. Negrophobia uses delirious and phantasmagoric manifestations of racial stereotyping as a method of exposing the utter absurdities that racial ideology is built upon. Whereas Kierkegaard believed that “absurdism” was a useful artistic and literary technique for exposing the illogical nature of faith, you used literary absurdism for a much more singular purpose: exposing the illogical nature of using the concept of race as a way to distinguish social life and enforce power.
“Camera pulls back and reveals a monstrous, mammy-sized cookie jar of a woman with doughy animal features and crazed incandescent eyes,” you wrote. “Her nappy bleach-blond Afro is a crown of spiky thorns matted with sweat and splashed with splats of Day-Glo colors.” How can anyone mistake something so psychotically over-dramatized for a perpetuation of racist sentiment? It is clearly satire! Though it seems that more and more black artists are given access to the elite institutions of the arts, it is rarer and rarer that black artists of your complicated ideological viewpoint are allowed to speak at all. There’s a reason that filmmakers like Jordan Peele and Barry Jenkins are getting rich in Hollywood, and that is because their films are flattering the social consciousness of white Hollywood liberals or appealing to their white guilt in ressentiment.
What’s curious now is the way the expectations placed on black artists have been reversed. Postmodern fiction writer Ishmael Reed recently wrote a piece on his collaborator, the filmmaker Bill Gunn who directed the arthouse horror masterpiece Ganja and Hess, and about how Gunn was shunned by Hollywood because he wanted to make non-ideological films about black aesthetes. Instead, Hollywood wanted him to make films that functioned largely as “anti-black propaganda.” When Gunn refused, he was cut out of the industry almost entirely. But now, Darius, it is damn near impossible for black artists to portray black people as anything less than upstanding, moral people, reinforcing the left liberal notion that marginalization is inherently something to celebrate and closing the window on anything resembling complexity and humanity. Art is a reflection of the human psyche, without the darker impulses of man, there is no art! You Darius, you reveled in the grotesquerie and ugliness of contemporary life.
Kara Walker, for instance, an admirer of yours, suffered a fierce backlash after she won the Macarthur Genius grant for her silhouetted depictions of life on the plantation. The mostly black artists who went after her, like Betye Saar, were furious that Walker dared to depict anything other than black uplift! They even went so far as to say that Walker was pandering to the “white art establishment!” But who in their right mind can say that Walker’s brutality was pandering more than artists like Kehinde Wiley, whose only aim is to “rectify” the art historical canon. Wiley wants his black subjects to be worshipped and ogled in the way that the white subjects of Rubens or Caravaggio are.
But the logic of Wiley is fundamentally neoliberal. His quest to have his subjects accepted into the sphere of elite institutions is culturally analogous to the quest of neoliberalism to secure the elite status of some people of color at the expense of the many being left behind. That Wiley was asked to paint the post-presidency portrait of Barack Obama is oh so perfect! Obama’s symbolic victory as the first black president is used to mystify the reality of his presidency, in which hundreds of thousands of Americans, including black Americans, lost their homes, while Obama did his backers in Wall Street a solid and bailed their crook asses out! Wiley’s stately portrait of a hollow symbolic victory is in fact a hollow symbol of what passes for political progress in neoliberalism. As Walter Benn Michaels says, that is the “trouble with diversity,” that we learned to “love diversity” and “ignore inequality.”
What’s so disturbing about the efforts to censor you – to silence you, really – and Walker is that it narrows the window of acceptable content to which black artists are allowed to work within. Imagine David Lynch being told by white artists that he can’t depict anything other than “white uplift!” What so often masquerades as the ethos of emancipation is actually an assault on art itself! It is more RACIST than anti-racist! Why should any artist, black, white or otherwise, limit their fascinations, perversions, and fetishes to those which are deemed morally righteous! They shouldn’t Darius, and you sure didn’t! You did the opposite! You appropriated every taboo – every naughty, ugly idea that both black and white liberal artists deemed off the table – and sculpted those taboos into form.
You made all the right enemies! Right wingers! White liberal publishers! Amiri Baraka! You enraged them all! You suffered from being ahead of your time! You created an art that shattered the walls between truth and lies and amongst the rubble we saw how indistinguishable the two allegedly antithetical concepts really are. “Negrophobia is a work of fiction,” you write in the novel’s introduction, “Every word is true. Fuck you.” When everything you’re told is a lie, then every lie becomes the truth. They lie to us, Darius! But you told us the truth! You told us that the truth is there, buried in the LIES (oh how Freudian)! Negrophobia is a work of post-structuralist fiction that “deconstructs” the titanic narrative that has been constructed to validate the persistence of racial ideology. It is, without a shred of a doubt, a masterpiece.
Had Negrophobia been published now, it would have resulted in outrage, no doubt. But it also would have benefitted from contemporary discourses about the hollowness of neoliberalism’s absorption of identity politics. You were just too early! Tragically, Negrophobia remains your one published work of fiction (if I ever start a publishing imprint, you will be the first writer that I harass to get new work out of, I promise). You expected this, it seems, you even told BOMB Magazine that “if you were concerned about the repercussions” you wouldn’t be doing your job “as a satirist.” And as Karl Marx once said, “Lacking its own ingenuity, the parasite fears the visionary. What it cannot plagiarize, it seeks to censor. What it cannot regulate, it seeks to ban.” You terrified the parasites, Darius, but your artistic genius is preserved, in Negrophobia.
NOTE: this essay is connected to my my essay series for the Quarterless Journal, ‘Conversations in Trolls’
An Ode to Artist Hanna Liden: Transcendence of Urban Decay Through The Piercing of Unreality
The New York art world, post-9/11, had serious “end of Rome,” late empire decadence vibes. Copious amounts of heroin, alcohol, ketamine and cocaine were fueling the late night exploits of some of the industry’s fastest rising stars. Dash Snow. Ryan McGinley. Dan Colen. It’s hard not to look back on this era of artists and the media that made them stars (early VICE, the much missed Index Magazine, and others) as the sales pitch of an apolitical and tragically bourgeois lifestyle brand. Dash Snow was literally the ne'er-do-well black sheep of the de Menil family fortune, and the mythos that he had constructed around his persona; that of the drug addict bohemian rich kid reject; was every bit as fascinating as his art (I will add here that I love Snow’s work, and his mythos, and find much of the common criticism of it to be annoying and puritanical).
It’s not that Snow’s art wasn’t interesting. It was, certainly. His work manifested the dejection of a generation about to realize that it was born into a failed state. There was nothing left to rage against because the neoliberal ethos had been so internalized into the system that no amount of protest could ever mount anything resembling a structural threat to it. Camille Paglia tells us that Oscar Wilde was a “late romantic elitist, in the Baudelarian manner.” Dash Snow then was a “late capitalist elitist, in the Baudelarian manner.” Snow was utterly apolitical and dedicated to nothing but the assault of mainstream sensibilities and a Wildean avoidance of work ethic (a perfectly acceptable artist ethos and one ever more laudable than the litany of faux social justice minded art we see today). Born rich, Dash rejected bourgeois civility and misery and relished the fall of the empire and the collapse of the social code. Fair enough. Dash’s art loudly screamed: “Fuck it.” Get cash rich. Get wasted. Shoot all the pleasure into your veins and die before you become another fat rich dinosaur attending “philanthropic” galas and fundraisers while getting your picture taken alongside Rosie O’Donnell and Bill Clinton. And Dash did; die that is. Tragically young and just at the moment that his body of work was really starting to coalesce into something expressively potent.
Snow died. McGinley went straight and capitalized on the frenetic narcosis of his early career and parlayed it into a highly lucrative if aesthetically inoffensive and somewhat banal career in commercial portraiture and the production of many images of frolicking bone thin, androgynous youths. And that’s the point: when an art culture sells a lifestyle, it is easily commodified as a lifestyle brand. The commodification of McGinley, VICE, and the broader early ‘00s New York art world has overshadowed the genuine creative talents and art historical importance of some of its best artists: Snow, his ex-wife Agathe Snow, and others among them.
It’s not like Dash was the first heroin and crack indulgent artist. Artists like Alex Bag and Tracey Emin have been open about their past weaknesses for narcotics, and yet, it’s not the first thing that comes to mind when you think about their roles in the art world. With Dash and his crew, it is. It’s the excess baggage of living up to your self-constructed mythology. “In much of what has been written about Snow, the prose collapses into a journalistic bile of voyeurism and disavowal driven by conflicting desires to appear “with it” and yet retain a judgmental distance,” wrote critic David Rimanelli (a close friend and an admirer of Snow’s, also one of the few ArtForum writers whose work I regularly look forward to reading and almost never makes me want to hurl, but that’s neither here nor there).
With this long-winded intro out of the way, allow me to get to an artist whose work I have loved and have wanted to write about for a long time. New York-based artist Hanna Liden was friends with Snow, McGinley, Colen and the others (in fact, Liden discovered Snow’s body in the summer of 2009, alongside Snow’s girlfriend Jade Berreau), and most likely indulged in and enjoyed the legendary decadence of that early millennium scene. But Liden, unlike Snow and McGinley especially, never made art that exploited the burnout bohemian lifestyle. Liden’s work — primarily rooted in photography and sculpture — is infinitely deeper, more personal, and more expressive than the work that was made by her artistic comrades. While Snow and McGinley produced documentarian photographs of their friends and collaborators engaged in degenerate, narcotized and coke stimulated unfulfilling acts of sexual emptiness (lots of heroin being shot with blow jobs being performed in the back of the frame, lines being snorted off of hard cocks, and so forth), Liden’s earliest notable art presented imagery that was simultaneously more thematically classical (nudes against nature) AND connected to an eerie and mystical force beyond the narrowly urban confines of downtown Manhattan.
Holland Cotter of the New York Times remarked that Hanna Liden’s earliest images were like “coven-like counterparts to the campers in Justine Kurland’s staged photographs of 1960s-style utopian communities.” I see these images as less a counterpart to Kurland’s work than a rejection of it. Liden’s work has long functioned as a bold rejection of art world trends, hegemonies, and orthodoxies.
The early-’00s art world sought after and rewarded the feminist striving in the work of artists like Kurland, or the bad boy libidnal catharsis found in the work of artists like Snow. That polarity seems to define the aesthetics of the era. Kurland’s work is directly connected to the neoliberal dilution of feminism that equated personal cultural success and upwards mobility with some kind of real material progress for the masses (despite all evidence pointing to this being a shallow and self-serving engagement with politics). Dash and McGinley, on the other hand, responded to the rot of post-Reaganite America with a holy sigh of intoxicating apathy, almost like they looked at what Fukuyama called “The End of History” and responded by getting stoned and rich (“as fuck”).
Liden’s work is infinitely more connected to artists like Blake, Goya, and Munch than those aforementioned that she worked alongside contemporaneously. It attempts to grapple with the chaos of reality by exercising control over nature through a present day occultist mysticism. Liden enjoyed urban life, but her art only referenced it so much as it offers something beyond it. Her art exits the simulacrum and peaks through the red curtains of the black lodge double exposed onto the image of bleak, sublime nature, coming into visual contact with the unnamable. Through the forest is mystery. As Rene Magritte once said: “Art evokes the mystery without which the world would not exist.” Liden’s early work, and much of her art thereafter, has functioned as an exorcism of the spiritual rot of late capitalism and a channeling of the occulted essence of pure artistic creation.
Liden’s early work was ruthlessly committed to a singular aesthetic that had little formal precedent in the postmodernist generation that defined the New York art world in the decades before her arrival to the city. The work gestures towards the aforementioned historical painters, the cosmic pessimism of Lovecraft, the occult crackpot theorizing of Colin Wilson, Bergman’s The Seventh Seal, and especially the surrealist “fantastiqué” horror cinema of the late French filmmaker Jean Rollin (Liden has also cited Eraserhead, A Nightmare on Elm Street, and Tetsuo: The Iron Man, as major influences). It’s striking how similar that first Liden series looks next to Rollin’s gorgeously macabre film stills (Rollin is a filmmaker best experienced through film stills, in my opinion). Her images, like his, lean into the horror aesthetic but are mystically illuminated by an ethereal presence of possessed eloquence. Liden’s 2004 photograph, aptly titled Love and Death, depicts two nude women against barren, dead nature: one looks through a magnifying glass while the scarf draped around her neck and down her back is grasped by the woman behind her, hidden beneath a skull mask, like the comforting embrace of death itself. The image is eerily similar in both thematic content and aesthetic to stills from Rollin’s 1975 film Lips of Blood; the vampiric feminine… Sex, death, life and decay expelled in ritualistic energy and synergistic movement.
Liden once said that her fanatical obsession with religious rites stems from her largely atheist upbringing in Scandinavia – A landscape bathed in nature in all its sublime beauty and cosmic brutality. Scandinavia's overwhelming ominosity has long been explored by the country’s artists from Munch to Darkthrone… Artists that harness the primal scream of deific nature. Liden’s fascination with the religious rite is purely fetishistic, or in other words, artistic. Freed from religious devotion or theological rigor, Liden visualizes the rite as one of violent and sexual catharsis. Her subjects aren’t “practicing religion” so much as they are shedding themselves of the modern and embracing the primordial. Her subjects dance and pose under the moonlight or dimly sunlit skies, shrouded in chthonic overgrowth. The images hint at the Freudian uncanny in their blending of art historical formality with the fashions not atypical to contemporary generations (when they aren’t naked, there are hoodies, deconstructed jumpers, tight jeans, and so on). And this is where the work gets so deliciously ambiguous. There is no clear narrative in these images, but there is a profound implication of one.
The contemporary horror fiction writer and theorist Gary J Shipley said that, “Reality is horror – it eats people like a carnivorous fog – a construct so diabolical that man has been unwittingly cajoled into adorning the effervescence of his dreams and his fantasies with costumes of malleable terror.” What Shipley means here is that the horror of our nightmares is merely what online political actors would now call “a cope.” Liden’s images are uncanny, spooky, and saturated with horror. But they aren’t “horror,” per se. The erotic rite depicted by Liden is an escape from the horror of contemporary life. This is where Liden does share some overlap with her late friend Snow. Both artists were/are fascinated in ritual, it’s just that Snow’s rituals are common and banal; rituals of decadence and drug induced frenzy. Liden’s rituals attain psychoactivity and transcendence through the expulsion of late capitalist anxiety and the piercing of the ethereal. Liden’s ritual is more difficult to attain. It can’t be achieved through the intravenous injection of brown and white powders or the imbibing of bitter liquors. It must be conjured. Liden’s art rejects Dionysian decadence in favor of the ancient methods of the witch and the mystic. Nevertheless, Liden and Snow’s art is united against the alienating forces of liquid modernity.
And though Liden’s early work’s aesthetics were undeniably original in the early 2000s, it’s clear that younger artists have internalized the visual language of her images to some degree. In 2020, the uncanny is everywhere. Contemporary art is soaked in the signifiers of horror, the occult, and dark magic. Filmmaker and horror fiction writer Clive Barker once said that, “Horror fiction shows us that the control we have is purely illusory, and that every moment we teeter on chaos and oblivion.”
Liden’s work, in some sense, feels connected to the social anxiety that emerged in the wake of 9/11 and was experienced most viscerally by New Yorkers living in proximity to Ground Zero; the implication of horror in her work functions as an attempt to harness and control the terror of reality. Her early work is a macabre ritual that attempts to both exit and cope with existential dread. The existential dread of contemporary life has never been more pronounced than it is in 2020: stunning inequality, mass joblessness, rapid shifts in media narrative, the “radlibs” subsuming left politics in reductionism, and a literal plague. It should be no surprise that contemporary artists are, like Liden was in the early 2000s, creating horror-adjacent art that addresses the incoherence and dreadful angst of life in late capitalism, even when the work drifts into camp aesthetics.
The sculptural works of Dan Herschlein and the Croatian art duo Tarwuk trade in an austerely horror soaked style that mimics the peculiar alienation that gnaws at us in the back of our minds. Not shocking terror, but muted, persistent disquietude. Artists and curators Paul Gondry and Shelby Jackson have created an entire space – the Brooklyn gallery 15 Orient – dedicated to work that similarly deals with this complex rendering of occasionally occult-leaning, always macabre aesthetics (I’ll also recommend the duo’s excellent Chronicles of Shongle video project). Liden’s work, though dreadfully under appreciated and written about, has reverberated throughout the art world as a thematic and visual influence for decades.
Liden’s work would shift following her earlier nature nudes; she stopped leaving the city so much and began opting to produce images within her studio. That said, her next series of images would ultimately continue with earlier themes of transcendence, spiritual escape, and commune with that which lies beyond. Liden’s sculptural still-life photographs depict rows of formerly lit, blown out gothic candles in unison, emitting ghastly forms of smoke that float up and out of the frame. Shot entirely against mostly black studio backdrops and alternating between harshly saturated colors (blood red, yellow), the images exude a compressed paganism. The photos are meant to reference 17th Century Dutch artist Willem Kalf’s iconic vanitas still-life paintings that, like Liden’s images, drift back and forth between reality and a dimension unseen (death maybe, something else possibly). Devoid of the naked bodies, foreboding natural landscapes, and macabre visual signifiers of her early images, Liden imbues the images with a harnessed phantasmic atmosphere. Liden has told an interviewer that she doesn’t believe in the supernatural “at all.” And yet, her work attempts to call forth the supernatural, nonetheless. Her art is a suspension of disbelief, that is the source of its power.
Looking at these still-life images – they are elegant and dense, Dan Colen has remarked that they work better as sculptural pieces than flat photographs – is like closing your eyes after snorting a substantial line of Ketamine; first, you sink back into the dark void of your mind, and then once suffused into the darkness your subjectivity/spirit exits the physical trappings of the body as it slowly drifts through the walls of perception and into the nether realms of the K-hole. These images are a threshold between Borgesian parallel universes; the surface of the photograph is the looking glass through which you can travel.
Liden’s early work connected to the beyond through pagan rituals, this series connected to it through the seancé. As always, Liden’s work relates to the urban lifestyle in its attempts to escape from it by using an unseen mystic power, magic black as night, to slip into a reality unknown. Without action or movement, Liden still achieves otherworldliness in these still-lives by suffusing them with vague unheimlich and a contemplative quality that the filmmaker and critic Paul Schrader would call “transcendent style.” Hanna Liden is the only downtown NYC artist of the early 2000s to achieve such an aesthetic.
In more recent years, Liden started to deal more directly with the signifiers and objects of the cityscape that she had by then inhabited for decades. Much of these works, sculptures mainly, are fascinatingly melancholic and subtly beautiful. Liden, unwilling to divorce herself entirely from her intuitive connection to occultist themes, reimagined the cityscape as one equally capable of tapping into the collective unconscious. At an exhibition at Maccarone Gallery from 2011 entitled Out of My Mind, Back in 5 Minutes, Liden presented discarded delivery bags assembled atop one another as the totems of the liquid modern urban landscape… They are assembled detritus of the solar anus of the overworked, over-stressed, and money-strapped citizens of the concrete jungle. What’s enduringly interesting about this work is Liden shifts the focus of her art from desolate nature to the chaotic city, but her inherently Scandinavian connection to the ethereal still bleeds into the work. Less successful, unfortunately, is Liden’s public “bagel vase sculptures'' that depict the city’s famed breakfast snacks stacked atop one another. The work feels kitsch – not camp, as her early horror-leaning works often were to thrilling effect – and dilutes her body of work. Liden’s art suffers when it roots itself entirely within the material. It’s not who she is. She is an atheist spiritualist; an artist who does not believe, but attempts to imagine a space in which belief in something beyond is possible.
“But the world as it stands is no narrow illusion, no phantasm, no evil dream of the night;” writes Henry James in Theory of Fiction. “We wake up to it, forever and ever; we can never forget nor deny it nor dispense with it.” Liden’s work is a harsh acknowledgement of the apocalyptic spiritual rot of life in late modernism. Though its themes are immaterial, her art is in persistent dialog with the material. While looking at Snow’s old polaroids, we stew in nostalgia for an era of decadence that rose in the face of late capitalist exhaustion and defeat. It’s gone. We can’t have it back. But Liden shows us a space of unreality that is eternal. Though she’s not sure it exists at all, she allows for the possibility that it’s there, and that through ritual and rite we can enter it, and bathe in its enlightenments, luxuriate in its insights impossible to give language to. She’s perhaps the only Schopenhauerian artist of her “scene.” Schopenhauer believed that art must be a refuge from the material world of “strife and will.” Liden lets us take refuge in something strange but beautiful, difficult to articulate but omnipresent.
A Statement On My Severed Relationship With The Quietus
Though perhaps the term “de-platformed’ is a touch too histrionic, I have nevertheless had my status as a contributor to one of my outlets, the UK-based music criticism publication The Quietus, revoked. Though I was positively gutted when I first received the email by my now former editor John Doran, I quickly couldn’t help but shake my head in astonishment at the baseless accusation leveled at me in justification of the severed relationship.
Now, it could be possible that Doran had had additional issues with me other than the specific charge leveled against me in the email. For example, I tend to over-write and get lost in long chains of thought while producing content. However much I try to self-edit and condense my work for clarity, I admittedly benefit from an editor’s second opinion, a second draft, and typically a third draft (I am nostalgic for the rigorous editing process and firmly believe that great editors make great writers). There was once a time in publishing that this would have been the essential relationship between writer and editor, but in the precarious media economy of late capitalism, that relationship has been lost as editors and publishers are forced to over-work and take on larger managerial responsibilities to keep their publications alive. This often leaves the job of editor to the writer in question, and self-editing is an area of content production that I struggle with.
Doran and I have also bucked heads over my tendency towards mediating my thought with the other writers, philosophers, and theorists that I read. This is a perfectly fair criticism given that the publication is geared towards music fans and not philosophy students and political scientists. It is also a tendency that I was more than happy to self-censor in interest of meeting the site’s readers where they are.
Ultimately, I did not have a contract. And Doran, as the editor of the publication, is more than free to alleviate me of my position for any reason that he likes, and the aforementioned reasons could be as strong a justification as any given the limited resources of independent publishers.
But this wasn’t the reason that Doran specified in his email that he sent to me. Allegedly, Doran’s choice to sever ties with me stems from an article that I shared on my twitter last week that was written by one DC Miller. DC Miller became a figure of controversy when he defended the now defunct British art gallery LD50’s right to host a series of talks by other controversial figures; some of these figures are most likely accurately categorized as right wing, like Brett Stephens, while others are a bit more ideologically idiosyncratic, like Nick Land (whose politics I don’t agree with although I still hold immense respect for his thought and in particular his analysis of Bataille in his now infamous philosophical text A Thirst for Annihilation).
To my knowledge, Miller had not argued in favor of or against a specific political theory, but just defended the gallery’s right to produce intellectual debate. His choice to do so was met with the vitriolic response of one performance artist Luke Turner (not to be confused with The Quietus’ own Luke Turner, who I can verify is indeed a very swell, kind person who was both incredibly helpful and encouraging of my work in music criticism). Turner had turned cancel culture into an art world subculture of its own, “doxxing” and ruining the careers of young artists like Deanna Havas, academics like Miller, and even important leftwing intellectuals like Nina Power, the author of One-Dimensional Woman and a comrade of none other than the late Mark Fisher, who all but pioneered the criticism of cancel culture on the left with his brilliant essay Exiting the Vampire Castle. Turner, an heir to a sizable family fortune (the flagrant inequality between Turner’s boogeymen and Turner in terms of access to wealth and resources should be noted here), didn’t just terrorize thinkers and artists not associated with the left, but was often particularly vitriolic towards leftists who might now be described as “class reductionists,” the anti-communist smear of the day. It should also be noted that both Miller and Power are currently in litigation with Turner to claim damages in restitution for the fallouts of his libelous smear campaigns.
Over the last few years, Miller has been self-publishing essays about the anti-debate and anti-speech sentiments within not just the left, but the broader cultural mainstream. Though Miller and I probably do have real political differences, I can’t help but find some fascination in his critiques. They poetically deconstruct the atmosphere of paranoia that has been constructed around political discourse in digital capitalism. One common misunderstanding of Marxism is that it demands ideological hegemony, when in fact it is less a rejection of liberal values like free speech and free debate than an embracing of those concepts; its rejection of liberal capitalism largely stems from liberalism’s inability to deliver those liberties to the masses. In my ideal world, we would all be taken care of materially, there would be no class and no hierarchy, and with that material security we would be able to engage in broader cultural debate and exchange ideas and disagree with one another in good faith.
Doran writes in the email: “I cannot employ someone who shows any kind of public support for DC Miller - a potentially dangerous alt-right philosopher/agitator and supporter of conspiracy theory etc. And I have little time for the 'Well, I don't agree with everything he says but he is refreshing...' school of thought which is just, 'Hitler did wonders for employment and public transport' but with a hipster's record collection.”
Think of all the layers of wrong embedded into this sentiment. Doran correctly points out that Miller might “potentially” be dangerous. This of course means that we don’t know enough about him to make this claim, but nevertheless that there is a vocal contingent of people who have leveled that accusation. Personally, Miller has struck me as something of a Schopenhauerian liberal. A liberal pessimist of sorts, one who isn’t engaged with politics all that deeply but does adamantly believe that the right to free debate is an important one. He certainly doesn’t seem invested in silencing his critics beyond those who have forced him out of his livelihood. It’s hard to see how a critic whose one political position is the protection of free speech is a Nazi, but that’s where we are today. Even more outrageous is his Hitler comparison. Somehow Miller, a writer of provocative texts that contradict the constructed taboos in our discourse, is comparable to the most prolific mass murderer in the recent history of our species. And not only that, but by tweeting admiration for Miller’s prose (I also love Lovecraft and Céline without condoning their abhorrent views on race and Judaism), however soft or noncommittal, I am also somehow Hitler, “but with a hipster’s record collection,” (the dismissive tone of that line is astonishingly petty, is it not?), despite being: A. Jewish (not that that should even matter), and B. a longtime vocal advocate of leftist, socialist, and emancipatory principles. But that also isn’t the point.
The second implication here is that by tweeting a sentence that I found to be both provocative and insightful, I become immediately and directly associated with Miller, or even worse, that my politics must also be a reflection of his politics. If I had tweeted a quote of Heidegger, would I be advocating for his turn towards Nazism? If I were to quote Mark E. Smith (a hero of mine and Doran’s), would I be implicitly endorsing the “problematic” remarks made by Smith throughout his entire career? Of course not, I would simply be expressing admiration for a thoughtful work of art or prose. One can’t help but point out that the only difference here seems to be in institutional support. Few philosophy programs on Earth would think it was wise to totally remove Heidegger’s thought from their courses, despite the grotesqueness of his politics during the second world war. Miller, though, has been de-platformed, which gives free rein to anyone to smear him from all angles.
The irony here should be lost on no one: Miller’s article is about this very tendency towards “guilt by association” narratives that has been woven into the fabric of cancel culture on the left. Somehow, my entire life’s dedication to left politics, working class reforms, two Bernie Sanders campaigns, and other left political engagements is negated by my interest in, at the very least, this one article written by a writer who has been deemed to be “problematic.”
Perhaps the most stunning line is the final one in the email, when Doran flatly tells me that “he will not discuss this issue with me further.” I find this to be the most troublesome sentiment. It’s not like Doran and I are strangers to each other, we’ve exchanged emails about music and writing for upwards of a year now. But now I am unworthy of even being able to explain my position? All the work that I had done for The Quietus, often produced without expectation of pay because I was happy to have an outlet that I admired give me the chance to share my passions in music with an audience, now means nothing? I caught myself thinking, “Fuck, if I had known this would be the fallout of posting that tweet I wouldn’t have don’t it, this isn’t worth it.” But I quickly reassessed this position as one of moral cowardice. I truly have nothing to apologize for.
I am hardly the internet’s most transgressive figure. I am just another disaffected leftist, depressed and dejected at what passes for progressive politics in 2020. I also can’t say that I didn’t see this coming. I had mentioned to my fiancé weeks ago that cultural liberalism was supplanting socialist politics, and that The Quietus’ recent turn towards more identitarian content would put me ideologically at odds with the publication. Clearly, I am deeply critical of identity politics and especially of its manifestations within today’s left. It was just a few months ago that Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn seemed like they were about to pull off the impossible: winning on a left political program that brought together vastly diverse people around shared class interests. But with those movements crushed, culture war has washed away all substantive left critique of political economy.
Culture war is what remains when politics have eroded, when hope for real change has died. As journalist Lee Fang, himself the subject of recent targeted smear campaigns with similar accusations, coincidentally tweeted shortly after I received Doran’s email: “There’s mass withdrawal from meaningful engagement around health care reform, inequality or scaling back the military. Too difficult. Much more satisfying to constantly police language, denounce romantic relationships, join woke mobs over trial disagreements.” It is not atypical to have this intra-left chaos following a crushing defeat, but the speed (post-Bernie and post-Corbyn) at which the left has reverted back to reactionary culture war and retreated from substantive material demands and political economic critique is shocking.
My firing from The Quietus is indicative of this culture of fear that has risen to the surface of the discourse. My twitter account can be rather flagrant and provocative (a little, sometimes, I’ve been edgy since Joe Biden won the nomination), and I often criticize some of the left’s most beloved figures. I don’t criticize these figures from the right, I criticize them specifically because their politics have functionally little to do with real socialism or they misunderstand the core of left politics in specific ways. These are radical liberals (“radlibs”), and a radical liberal is merely a reactionary. I am critiquing these figures FROM THE LEFT, for their inability to pose a challenge to the capitalist parties that they are institutionally embedded within, and for the abject disappointments that have defined their careers so far (for example, AOC’s rise as the “new socialist democrat” has proven farcical since she seemed to become a democrat loyalist from very early on in her governance, all while pushing the most toxic aspects of woke culture into her political brand, alienating actually working class people from the socialist project we want them to be a part of).
To be clear: my politics are emancipatory, The abolition of hierarchy and class is my project. I just don’t see how emancipatory politics can be enacted by a left that is this quick to silence, shame, and yes, fire its own radical thinkers. Did my broader politics impact Doran’s quick to judge reaction to my posting of Miller’s article? There’s no way to know. But the implication here is rather damning. Doran knows my politics; I know he knows them because of the times he complained about my references to my favorite leftist theorists in articles that I wrote for The Quietus; but somehow my appreciation of certain aspects of Miller’s thought and writing has erased any good will that I may have accumulated.
Now ask yourselves: if a self-avowed Marxist like me, a staunch advocate for a world without class-based or racial division, is too right wing for The Quietus, what do these types think of ordinary working people who often have infinitely more right leaning views than I have? If I am a reactionary, what are the guys that I used to work in kitchens with throughout my teens and twenties? The logic here is devastating: the identitarian leftists who claim to speak on behalf of the marginalized effectively have nothing but contempt for them (and that isn’t just white working class people, polls have shown consistently that working POCs also hold little agreement with some of the activist left’s slogans, a majority of black Americans support MORE funding of police, for instance, despite believing that yes, American police has a race problem, but the reactionary tendencies of the progressives make it impossible for them to understand nuance and contradiction, also a problem). I’ve been very forthright about my political goals. I am absolutely disgusted by poverty, by real marginalization. NO ONE, black, white, asian, latino, or otherwise, should struggle to survive in a society this rich. You would think this would be a noble goal, but my rejection of identity politics has put a target on my head, or so it would appear (again, this is conjecture).
It has to be one of capitalism’s most diabolical achievements yet. The cancel culture logic of radlibs and woke ideology is functionally indistinguishable from that which was practiced by Joe McCarthy during the Red Scare. But the old fashioned right wing “they are all communists!” smears aren’t all that convincing anymore, largely because the right wing’s logic is no longer interwoven into the monoculture. To effectively smear communists now, capital has realized that it needs to do so “from the left.” Thus, while right wing figures smear the entire left (all the way from liberal NGO organizations through the proudly neoconservative democratic nominee Joe Biden) as “socialist,” dulling the affect of whatever dim-witted points that they’re attempting to make (“Venezuela!”), the most effective silencing of Marxist thought comes from within the left itself.
Marxism is, regardless of what so many leftists think today, inherently an anti-identity political project (there is no bigger “class reductionist” than Karl Marx). It builds its critique upon the foundational concept that solidarity is a condition of shared material interests. We are all equal, we all deserve lives of dignity, period. A purist left movement would be able to bring together white working class people who voted for Trump AND Middle Eastern immigrants around basic working class demands: better wages, free healthcare, affordable housing, etc. This is the political project that I dream of, and it will never happen as long as identitarianism remains at the center of the discourse.
Today, Marxists aren’t smeared as “dangerous radicals” who threaten the American way of life by right wingers. We are smeared by allegedly progressive leftists (wielding a specifically commodified brand of faux moralism) for: not being “intersectional” enough (a smear constantly weaponized against Bernie Sanders himself), being “too white” or “too male” to understand the struggles of those different from us (this works less when the class reductionist in question is Adolph Reed or Cedrick Johnson), or that we are functionally racist and unconcerned with racial disparities. I am concerned with racial disparities, I just see very clearly that universal redistribution would help ALL of the people who need help, regardless of their race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.
There is no need to atomize working class people by identity. Working class people of all races need radical changes to the political economy desperately, rich people of all races benefit from the political economy as it is now. To be even more specific, a poor black man benefits from a tax increase on the rich to fund single payer healthcare, while that same structural change is manifestly detrimental to a black man who is rich. Thus, working class people of different races near unanimously share political interests, while people of the same race but of a different class are fundamentally at odds with and antagonistic towards one another structurally. This is not complicated, and yet I’ve heard self-described leftists actually attack the premises of this concept. You see, most of the rose emoji socialists on Twitter aren’t “socialists,” or they don’t understand socialism enough to make that proclamation. They still view history as a battle of moral will, while socialism demands we view history as a material struggle. Why would a left project be focused on helping those who are already in control of mass amounts of resources?
By using leftists to de-platform Marxists, capitalists have found an incredibly useful method of silencing radical critics whose political proscriptions could actually pose a structural threat to the logic of late capitalist political economy. The left has tragically become a kind of moral laundromat for the ruling elite. At this moment, the majority of Americans are just two paychecks away from bankruptcy, and yet “leftists” are more concerned with waging culture war, getting people fired, complaining that Netflix has contracts with alleged “transphobes” like Dave Chapelle, ruining male artists and young leftist political hopefuls for totally normative and non-criminal sex lives, and terrorizing people online. So ask yourself, is this really what you thought a “left movement” would look like?
I don’t mean to suggest that Doran had all of this in his mind when he shit canned me Sunday. But I do mean to point out that this hegemonic thought has become increasingly disturbing. If Doran had other issues with me as a contributor, that’s fine, but he rationalized his choice with my interest in some aspects of another writer’s work. It’s hard to wrap my head around how this is just. How do I know that I simply am not the victim of hearsay? Literally anyone online could see my tweet, google “DC Miller”, find the accusations around Miller, and then just level those accusations at me, despite all other indicators of my political orientation.
As stated above, the Quietus, like most independent publications, is precarious, and perhaps any controversy I might create could be just not worth the risk. Again, I don’t know if this is really about my tweeting of Miller’s article, a larger indictment of my online presence, or just about me being difficult to edit at times. I don’t know, but this experience has resulted in an explosion of thought concerning things that have been on my mind for years...
Am I “cancelled?” No, not really. I still have other outlets that seem interested in what I have to say, and it’s not like I earn enough writing to quit my day job anyways. But when I hear young leftists justify these punitive actions with statements such as “oh what do you care you’re middle class” or “you can just go write for right wing publications now,” I think a few things must be stated. First of all, yes. My loss of title at the Quietus will not plunge me into poverty. I was a precarious downwardly mobile middle class citizen yesterday, and I remain as one today. I keep a regular day job (well, at least before the pandemic) and these gigs aren’t lucrative in the first place.
But it’s not about money. When you cancel someone based on such questionable and ambiguous grounds, you are disconnecting that person from their passion. From the thing they love to do. This is my creative expression: sharing my interests and fascinations. Experimental music is one of my fascinations, and one of the few publications dedicated to experimental music has deemed me too problematic for the site, allegedly. However small this might seem in the grand scheme, I assure you getting cut off from an audience in any way, shape, or form, is painful.
Two: I am not a right winger. Why should I have to write for right wing publications when that has never been a theory of politics that I have subscribed to or endorsed? I think of Angela Nagle, one of the sharpest left political critics of our epoch, being ostracized from almost all of left media for publishing an article that offered a Marxist analysis of the fallacies surrounding “open borders” as “left” political ideology. Nagle should be one of the writers we are engaging with right now, given that the warnings she has heeded about the self defeating tendencies of the left couldn’t have come more true in both of the failures of our great leftist hopes of recent history: Sanders and Corbyn. I don’t want to be relegated to a strictly right wing audience solely for rejecting some of the more illiberal tendencies of the contemporary left, I want a leftist (and otherwise, diverse) audience that might engage with the substance of my ideas in good faith.
I assume my content published by The Quietus will be visible for the time being, though I don’t know. I’ve already been blocked from the site’s twitter page. As far as the column that I started to discuss the inherent “genrelessness” of much of contemporary noise music, my hope is that The Quietus will disband it all together. It is something I’d like to continue to pursue in the form of self-publishing.
Though I am hurt, I am not angry. On some level, I understand the pressure that independent publishers are under to avoid any associations or controversies that the status quo orthodoxies of contemporary left liberalism might find unsavory or questionable. I also learned a lot from Doran, who was incredibly helpful in getting me to get at the root of what I’m trying to say as a writer without the additional fluff and adjective peddling that can characterize much of the criticism in contemporary art publishing (the publishing world where I spent most of my early career working within). I apologize to the artists and musicians whose work I had written about recently, as I do not know if these articles will see the light of day.
I’m writing about this not so much in defense of myself (very few people in my life mistake my politics as anything less than dedicated to the emancipation of materially deprived working class people), but as a way of emphasizing: this is a problem. The woke ideology is one that is totally embraced by and consistent with market capitalism, and with less and less Marxists empowered to challenge neoliberal ideology critically, the logic of capital grows further entrenched.
Beyond that, what is the point of art, philosophy, and criticism if not to deconstruct the hegemonic ideology of the world we live in? What is the point if not to critique the world we inhabit? There is none. Without free thought, there is no art. Creativity can’t flourish in a world where only one ideology is deemed acceptable and ethical.
Artaud is Tweeting Again
Antonin Artaud is tweeting again. The entire Internet is up in arms, they are enraged. How could he be so stupid? How could he be so ignorant? Why does he THINK LIKE THIS?
Artaud, a literary critic and playwright, is impervious to the demands of the mob. Their outrage only seems to fortify his various stances. My god, he seems to actually ENJOY their outrage. This isn’t right. This is problematic. Artaud did a sexism! Artaud did a racism! Artaud doesn’t know how hurtful his rhetoric is. We need to do something about this Artaud, they say. Call his publisher. Call his manager, if he has one. This man keeps saying things that I disagree with! Monster. Troll. Nazbol. He’s all of that, and more.
Artaud keeps tweeting. Throughout the last year he’s commented on all manner of topics political, social and cultural.
On the pandemic’s victims: “The corpse of a plague victim shows no lesions when opened. The gallbladder, which must filter the heavy and inert wastes of the organism, is full, swollen to bursting with a black, viscous fluid so dense as to suggest a new form of matter altogether..”
Internet Responds: “This man is sick! How dare he be so cavalier about the victims, who were all honorable and purely kind and good and often were identities! Cancel Artaud! Call his Manager!”
On a recent exhibition by the artist Mathieu Malouf: “It seems as if the painter possessed certain secrets of linear harmony, certain means of making that harmony affect the brain directly, like a physical agent. In any case this impression of intelligence prevailing in external nature and in the manner of its representation is apparent in several other details of the canvas, witness for example the bridge as high as an eight-story house standing out against the sea, across which people are filing, one after another, like ideas in Plato's cave.”
Internet Responds: “Does Artaud know what he’s saying? Malouf is Nazbol who hates jews we know because moral hero and friend of Shia Labeouf Luke Turner said so arhghgghrrhhhh fuck you Artaud!! I hope Liz Warren gets your twitter cancelled!”
On cancel culture: “This reality is not human but inhuman. And man with his customs and his characters counts very little for it.”
Internet Responds: “Cancel culture isn’t real! Only rich white fucks like Artaud care about cancel culture because they won’t be held accountable for their VIOLENCE. That’s what your words are, Artaud: VI-O-LENCE! You disgusting, heinous ghoul, I wish you would leave the Internet forever. Seriously, just die.”
On mental illness: “I, myself, spent 9 years in an insane asylum and never had any suicidal tendencies, but I know that every conversation I had with a psychiatrist during the morning visit made me long to hang myself because I was aware that I could not slit his throat.”
Internet Responds: “That’s it, it’s time to get serious. Artaud is a criminal, and his words are a danger to everyone. My mom is a therapist, and she works hard everyday to make sure that humans are well and drugged so that they can be good functional consumers who love diversity and the New York Times! Artaud has crossed the line. Sign this petition to erase Artaud.”
Artaud appears to be taking some time off from the Internet. This morning, his manager released a statement: “Antonin Artaud is taking some time from the public eye to focus on his mental health and be with his wife, Azealia Banks, and their three children, the Jonas Brothers.”
Journalists reached out to Artaud’s manager with pertinent questions.
“Is Artaud sorry about his vile statements?”
“Is Artaud affiliated with the alt-right?”
“Is Artaud on drugs.”
Artaud’s use of Ketamine is notorious by this point. He was arrested with the drug at China Chalet in New York, where he was found in the women’s bathroom attempting to learn the Electric Slide with the writer Jia Tolentino. Tolentino, a known warrior for the justice of the social, was quick to distance herself from the controversial playwright Artaud.“I don’t condone drugs or Artaud, I am going through a deeply difficult time and I’m totally, like, victimized. Otherwise I would have known better to distance myself from any and all things that are problematic.”
Seemingly accepting Tolentino’s statement as sincere, some of Twitter’s most illustrious blue checks posted statements of “solidarity.”
“Feel better, Jia, I never believed you would do Ketamine and dance with someone as heinous and despicable as that Artaud, you’re a real one. I actually have it on good authority from four bourgeois women anonymous sources who claim that Artaud at one point or another was handsy, I will write a thinly sourced article about his transgressions soon” said Tolentino’s New Yorker colleague Ronan Farrow.
“Artaud is a great dancer, and I hope he gets well soon, and morality and goodness, etc..” tweeted actor Mark Ruffalo.
“Solidarity with you Jia, us elite aspirant media figures that pretend to care about regular working people must remain firm against the fascists and the white supremacists,” wrote the academic Keeanga-Yamahatta Taylor.
Artaud, comfortable but on edge in his Paris apartment, still buzzing from the DMT that he smoked the previous night with Michele Lamy, has no idea why he’s so compelled by the technological capacity to inject his thoughts and dreams directly into cyberspace. He knows, on some level, that it’s vulgar. But it’s delicious! He attempts to make his digital ghost as similar to the real thing as possible, giving his fans and haters a portal directly into his fractured and admittedly rather defective mind as it sizzles with creative energy and crackled with constructive angst. He believes his Twitter account is a gift to the world. He writes about a topic, hits send on his Iphone, and gives the sheeple something to talk about. Something to rage against. He unites them, god damn it! “They are lucky to have me,” he mumbles to himself, sipping an espresso and taking a hit off his vape pen.
He’s feeling lonely. His wife Azealia is in the United States, and truth be told they haven’t seen each other in months, and that was only when they were asked to be on a podcast to discuss the cabal of elite billionaire pedophiles. Azealia is so talented but she can’t love, Artaud thinks to himself. He wishes she would get back to making art, her gift, but like him she is equally seduced by her capacity for stirring global unrest by merely posting her thoughts on social media.
He picks his phone up, opens his Twitter account, and scrolls down. An interview with Lin-Manuel Miranda reveals that there will be a cinematic adaptation of his “hip-hop musical” Hamilton. The film will have a budget of $100 million. Artaud chuckles to himself, looks into his reflection in a mirror. He sees his weathered face, cheeks sullen and sunken in, and thinks, “Art is dead. Theater is dead. There is no cruelty in theater, just audience pandering and fake good vibes. I don’t belong here. I am from some other time.”
Artaud had been trying to wean off the opiates that he was prescribed in a mental institution when he was 19. He never understood why the doctor decided morphine would be an appropriate treatment for his madness — “though those fuckers at Purdue Pharma don’t care what their drugs are prescribed for do they?” he thought — but it sure was. He loved the stuff. He adored the way the pills dissolved on a spoon and how they got sucked back into the syringe, the ritual practice of medicinally easing psychological pain. Artaud is sure he’ll never quit using opiates, in constant admiration of the way they settled his mind into his body, the way the warmth of the chemical would cloak his physicality in peace and ease, allowing him to write and to think and to draw and, more and more lately, to tweet. “Fuck it” he mutters aloud, heading to his medicine cabinet in his bathroom and pulling out a bottle of 30 30mg Oxycodone tablets that he had been saving for emergencies. Artaud was always in a state of psychic emergency anyways, so it’s not like he’s breaking a promise to himself.
Scrolling further down his feed, Artaud notes a touching plea from none other than the subtly fascinating reality star (or so Artaud thinks) Kim Kardashian asking respect for her husband and her family while Kanye endures another manic spat of bi-polar disorder. Artaud sees a kindred in Kanye. Being a famous artist in post-digital capitalism is a tall order. “Leave Kanye alone,” types Artaud on Twitter, before deleting it, deciding that Kanye knows, wherever he is, that Artaud is rooting for him. Men like them, Artaud thinks, don’t need cyberspace to connect. They are connected in the cosmos. The beyond. They live there and here at the same time. Even though Kanye is far away from here, he is with me up there, right now.
Feeling the compulsion coming on, Artaud decides to go all in. He crushes another OxyCodone and mixes it into his espresso, sweetening the brew with a packet of Swiss Miss hot chocolate (high and low, always). He opens up his laptop, and submerges his cerebral cortex in the colors and disjointed text and matrixes of conflicting ideas and ideological oppositions, “Formally, Twitter is just so beautiful,” he thinks.Eventually, after having a laugh at the global protests that fail to achieve anything and catching a glimpse of Jair Bolsonnaro in a hospital bed looking very unwell, Artaud sees Jia Tolentino’s denial of their friendship. “What a dishonest little bitch,” he says to himself.
Though he promised his manager he’d stop speaking his mind on social media for a time, he never said anything about images. Going back into his iPhone, Artaud is elated when he finds the perfect rebuttal video in his iCloud. He saves it to the front of his picture log, re-opens twitter, and uploads the video. He sends the tweet without any text.
The Internet is ablaze the next day when the New York Post tweets an article with the headline: “Playwright and Cultural Theorist Antonin Artaud Tweets Video of Jia Tolentino Injecting Ketamine intramuscularly” with the sub-head “Tolentino says in video, “Damn Antonin you always have the best Ketamine.’”
This Is How You Are Made Vampire (The Leftist In An Abusive Relationship With The Left)
I can’t stand it anymore. How could anyone stand this? How could anyone support this? We are living through the new witch hunt. The red scare 2.0, and this time it’s coming from “the left.” Who needs Joseph McCarthy when you have the left blue check Twitterati serving the exact same political economic function that McCarthy served? DSA cancels a speaking engagement by Adolph Reed for his “class reductionism” (this is madness, the one organization allegedly solely dedicated to proletarian politics cancels one of our greatest thinkers for narrowing his critique to proletarian politics). Matt Taibbi writes a very smart piece about how the left has lost its mind as it moves from one media-manufactured outrage to the next, never stopping to ponder on its failures and regroup to strategize a coherent and singular political program. He’s not fucking wrong, is he? I don’t even want to get into the Lee Fang debacle.
I truly thought the pandemic would put a moratorium on “wokeness.” Why would anyone care about some offensive thing uttered by a woman who can’t philosophically or politically distinguish between reality (the physical one we awake into every morning) and the ludicrous, magical YA one that she created, a reality populated by giddy teenage wizards, when there is a literal demonic disease engulfing an entire population in death and paranoia? But it’s only gotten worse. Class consciousness, so close to being realized only a couple of months ago, has been washed away as cultural activists have once again sank their fangs into the pulse of the discourse.
It persists. The Vampire’s Castle is full of thirsty, fanged dullards, circling one another and dancing ecstatically, orgiastically feasting upon civil unrest and social anxiety. Illuminated by an ominous moonlight of manufactured outrages and media polarizations, the Castle seduces you with its promises of lurid camaraderie, but it will cast you out too. When you need a home the most is when your “comrades” will drain you dry. Thinking differently than the herd may be less dangerous now than it was in, say, Ancient Greece or Ancient Israel — when mere skepticism towards the belief in a higher power could result in your head being placed upon the chopping block — but it’s not like the chopping block doesn’t exist; it’s just taken on a more transcendental form. The Internet is an omnipotent force, and when it turns on you it can materialize at will throughout your physical world: you can lose your job, alienate your friends, lose whatever spending power you have. How can cancel culture not exist when it’s so clearly a force of repression and domination within our society (even though, “there is no society,” right Margaret?)?
And now of course, it’s not just in saying the wrong thing that you can squander whatever good will that you or “your brand” has developed, but your personal, constitutionally protected right to say nothing that can also leave you burning at the proverbial stake. “Silence is violence,” they’ve been saying. No, you fucking psychos, silence is mental health. Silence is a self-defense mechanism. Silence can keep a metaphysical barrier between you and the digital mob. I mean, come on. We aren’t living in fascism, we are living through the latest, most decadent stages of neoliberalism. Saying nothing is an affront to decadence, and don’t let anyone shame you into thinking otherwise. This virtue signaling is abominable, writing a self-flagellating Facebook post about your privilege doesn’t make you a good person. If anything, it makes you a phony person. If “silence is language,” as Sontag tells us, it’s not always a language of oppression. It’s a language of self-preservation. Don’t let these cool kid photography connoisseurs shame you into breaking your vow of silence. Your silence is yours. Your choice to stay out of the discourse is yours. And god bless you for it. You’ve got more strength and resolve than I do.
If I have to look at one more art world rich kid screaming about how oppressed they are despite having paid 100,000 dollars to get an MFA at Yale while living in Manhattan curating one show a year and calling it “work” (I see you, you motherfuckers, I see you. I see the looks you give me when you find out I work at a denigrating day job. I feel your scorn. But you have no idea how pathetic you look to me. We are in the same industry. You do the same work as me, and I know how much you aren’t getting paid to do that work, you trust fund creeps) I might very well lose my mind. Oh wait, it just happened. As I typed this, a rich kid art world denizen just posted about how oppressed they are on Instagram. Not a minute can go by without this madness being hammered into your eye sockets.
It’s almost like we are seeing an accelerated version of the leftist despair that followed the fall of the Berlin wall. It’s not that socialism is “dead,” it’s even worse than that. It’s been dead — for decades now — and the last three years that have been a long-winded attempt at resurrecting some version of it have failed spectacularly. Corbyn is done. Bernie is over. And the most tragic notion of their losses is that the working class people who rejected them actually really did like those guys. But they were also ancient. They come from a left that was rooted in organized labor and knew how to speak to regular people. Regular people aren’t such sticks in the mud. While they liked Bernie and Jeremy, they hate YOU. They think you, and I, us (“the left’) are insane. When Bernie and Corbyn became associated with the excesses of the left, their defeats were written into destiny. And those people’s assessment of us is hardly unfair, given our penchant for rapid shifts in discourse and modes of thinking. Sacrosanct beliefs mutate seemingly overnight: believing in Coronavirus is racist, Coronavirus is real but keep eating at Chinese restaurants or you’re racist (god bless AOC, she never fails in saying something incoherent and then wielding emotional manipulation as a shield, she might be a failure of a leader but she is a fucking pro at the spectacle), you must wear a mask and stay at home or else you’re a racist and a murderer, white Michigan protestors are racists and killers (no room for pushback, no room for nuance), Black Lives Matter protestors are heroes because “racism is more dangerous than the pandemic” (no room for pushback, no room for nuance).
Why strategize to achieve meaningful, long-term goals like Medicare for All or a universal jobs guarantee when you can generate retweets by divorcing yourself from what little capacity for critical thinking that you had left and amplifying whatever faux truism was being broadcasted that day (or hour, minute, whatever). To be direct, leftists, you are all over the place, and the working class people you claim to want to help (though that claim is clearly dubious at this point) think you are ridiculous. “We need to understand that ordinary people simply do not like us, and they’re not wrong to feel that way,” writes “cancelled” leftist Sam Kriss. “We’re basically obnoxious, and to overcome that we need to meet the people where they are.”
In Rainer Werner Fassbinder’s 1974 film Martha, the titular, virginal, 31-year-old protagonist — played by a decadently beautiful Margit Carstensen — falls in love with a wealthy civil engineer named Helmut Salomon —played by Karlheinz Bohm. Helmut shows his true face as a violent, abusive, misogynistic brute fairly early in the film. He preys on Martha’s lack of self-will and deficiencies in her ability to understand herself. In one particularly malevolent sequence, Helmut chastises Martha for her record collection, “This is SLIME!” he howls. Martha, timid and shaky, replies, “I know nothing about music, Helmut, I just listen to it sometimes.” Helmut replaces her rock records with his stuffy classical. He tells her, “this is what you will now listen to all the time.”
“This is what you will listen to all the time.”
“This is what you will think all the time.”
“This is what you will say all the time.”
Is Martha and Helmut’s relationship not the contemporary left? That’s right, fair leftist, you are in an abusive relationship with the political culture you subscribe to. Young people have grown up with so much neoliberal chemotherapy that they have no idea what left politics looks like. To remain committed to a political ideology, one needs to be built with rock solid foundation. But neoliberalism has rendered us amorphous and fluid. We only take on form when the Internet gives us a hot take to mold ourselves around. Martha didn’t know what love is. She didn’t know who she was. We don’t know what left politics is. We don’t even know who we are. You are being exploited my friend, my comrade, by the so-called “thought leaders” and leftoid Twitter blue checks. They manufacture your outrage, and they extract surplus value from it. They feed from it. Like Countess Elizabeth Bathory, they bathe in it. Never forget that it’s also your blood that feeds this machine, not just the person targeted for cancelation on that day. This is a machine that runs on GREED and NARCISSISM. No one behaves more like capitalists than the allegedly “anti-capitalists” on Twitter profiting from their hot takes and their targeted public shamings. Exploitation evolves with the market, and “cancel culture” is a potent strain of exploitation most suitable for the exhausting information overloads of liquid modernity. “Americans have not really become more social and cooperative, as the theorists of other-direction and conformity would like us to believe;” wrote Christopher Lasch. “They have merely become more adept at exploiting the conventions of interpersonal relations for their own benefit.”
This is how we get turned. This is how we are made vampire. That singular bloodlust that animates the Castle gives us clarity in a society that offers anything but. Go for the jugular. Take him out. “He’s a LITERAL fascist!” Drink him. Drink him dry and rejoice. Yum. Delicious. Onto the next one.
Federico Castellón: A Proto-Surrealist? No. An Anti-modernist Modernist.
Before 20th Century Spanish-American artist Federico Castellón moved with his family to Brooklyn, he lived in Barcelona during the height of the General Strike of 1919. A Barcelona hydroelectric plant had cut the wages of its workers, who responded with a massively successful worker walkout with over 100,000 participants. The strike’s cultural impact rapidly ricocheted, and electric and textile employees all followed suit by walking off duty. Eventually, the Catalan economy was crippled, and the workers earned the world’s first guaranteed eight hour work day. But when the government refused to release imprisoned protesters, the organizing persisted.
The capitalists and the Barcelona government responded with brutality and bloodshed. The rising dullard of a dictator Primo de Rivera banned all activist and anarchist organizations in the country, and organizers were murdered and imprisoned. The anarchists that remained on the streets resorted to violence, bombing targeted locations and assassinating prominent political figures.
Castellón vividly remembered the carnage. He recalled to an interviewer a day when was a boy: he and his brothers had lied to their mother about going to see a movie. They never went. Their lie turned out to be a blessing when the movie theater that their mother thought they were in attendance at was bombed, killing dozens. Their mother spent the afternoon agonizing over the deaths of her sons. When her sons showed up for dinner, she beat them, overwhelmed by the simultaneous emotions of relief, horror, and anger. When his family left for the United States he found himself alienated and alone. Barcelona, despite its bloodshed and political malaise, was home. America — safe and banal — was torturous. Castellón observed reality as a grid of interlocking paradoxes. Comfort is violence. Violence is love. And love? Oh boy. Love is sheer hell (wouldn’t you agree, Federico?).
“My life was miserable as I remember it as a child here in the States,” said Castellón. “I'd go out in the street and just hang around and watch the other kids play for ten minutes and back in the house and draw again. It seemed the only activity that I could pursue and save my sanity, somehow.”
Castellón’s art would appear to have its genesis here. His images — disturbing, pregnant with perverse mystery — connect human experience’s banalities to its most abject brutalities. “No mom, we weren’t at the movies, our flesh hasn’t been incinerated.” Often considered a proto-Surrealist, Castellón wasn’t just looking to evoke the unconscious mind and his own interiority. His fantastical imagery was still connected to lived human experience and unearthed a Lacanian real beneath the veneers of the symbolic order, the spectacle, and the clean veneer of mondernist reality.
His images are defined by a kind of depersonalization disorder. It’s reality seen from outside your body. Montana becomes Oz. An interpretation of a dream. That reality is modernism. The lie of modernism is progress. And Castellón was one of modernist art’s chief modernist critics and skeptics.
“Many artists have been drawn to things dark and fantastic,” says critic Annisa Liu. “But few have probed the human psyche with the insight and truthfulness found in these images.”
Though it might be surprising when one first comes across the macabre splendor of Castellón’s muted color palette, disembodied human forms, and vivid eroticism, it was Mexican muralist Diego Rivera that plucked Castellón from obscurity when the artist was still a teenager living in Brooklyn.
What did you see in young Federico, Diego? You, Diego, were a storyteller, at essence. A communist, you sought to vivify the brutal conditions endured by the working class and the violence that erupted from the struggle for emancipation. What drew you to Castellón’s uncanny visual realms? In Dostoyevsky’s Demons, Dostoyevsky personifies the malicious intentions of the novel’s politically radicalized characters as demons, or ghosts, or devils. Castellón’s work functions in a similar way. If Rivera tells the story, then Castellón gives life to the evils that propelled the story. Evil, mischievousness, impotent rage. In Castellón’s work, intentions are living beings. Monstrous beings. “I can’t afford this,” you think to yourself. “Steal it,” says the demon grinning lasciviously. These private moments of inner experience take life in Castellón’s art, and they are embodiments of the faux utopianism that characterized modernism and modernist art.
Castellón was interested in art as mysticism. He obsessed over the gods in Michaelangelo, and the demi-gods in El Greco and William Blake. Castellón exists on this continuum. As religion continues to erode as a value system, so does mystic art. Castellón is a mystic for a god-less culture. A druid for a society that has murdered its gods. “Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?” asks Nietzsche.
Castellón’s art castigates us for daring to live in a god-less world. The mysticism that courses through his work is decayed. It’s been dead for some time, and Castellón forces us to confront what we’ve done — through technology, through capitalism, through science — to our bedrock traditions and modes of belief.
Castellón is one of those rare 20th Century modernist artists that treated modernism as a disease. The modernist virus that had engulfed the land in false promises of hope and utopia. That rejection of the promises of modernism — a rejection that has been vindicated with the slow, persistent disintegration of social life that characterized globalization and the eventual destruction of the safety net in the contemporary West — introduced an artistic nihilism that operated in defiance of the utopian ideal of modernist thinking. Francis Bacon. Antonin Artaud. HP Lovecraft. Castellón’s visual skepticism of the 20th Century lent his work a bleakness that allows its impact to endure. One detects through the timeline of his work that he would even more disdainful of the prevailing ideology as society moved forward. His images got increasingly bleak, culminating with the ferociously perverted and psychotic Erotica lithographs of the early 1970s. Humanoid forms fucking and murdering each other, wrapped in bandages and warding off death. Castellon’s art is like the ideology sunglasses that Zizek reveres in John Carpenter’s They Live!. Put on the sunglasses, or look at the lithograph, and you’ll see the alien plot for world domination.
As Michel Houellebecq writes about Lovecraft in his literary analysis of the weird fiction pioneer: “Life is painful and disappointing. It is useless, therefore, to write new novels. We generally know where we stand in relation to reality and don’t care to know anymore.” What does this mean to you, Federico? The pain and uselessness of life must have been made abundantly clear to you when you were a child in Spain, trekking through the city with the smell of melted flesh of bombing victims illustrating your journeys to the cinema. What did the promises of modernism mean to you? Very little, I’d wager. But what do I know?
There is a hauntological dimension at play in Castellón’s art. It mourns for gods, for mysticism, and for belief. But the gods have been replaced by their animated corpses; by us. Made in god’s image, but material. Rotting. Ephemeral, and in a persistent state of decomposition. We might look like gods according to the scriptures, but we are not gods. Consider an untitled lithograph from 1939. In it, a woman is bound to a chair. bondage style. Her back is towards us, and she looks over her head. Behind her, is a distended human form — the head sticking out of the flesh of the chest, no neck — that has its legs draped over the seated woman, attempting to float upwards, or so it seems. A human attempting to wield the power of a god. A human attempting the power of a god, and abjectly failing. My Federico, you surely had a lethal sense of humor.
Castellón’s most stunning series of works is a block of lithographs that the artist made for a re-print of Edgar Allan Poe’s The Mask of Red Death. If you haven’t read the book, I’ll briefly summarize it as a novella in which , against a backdrop of plague and mass death, a prince goes to a gathering of the wealthy elite — a celebration and a toast amongst those living as the new gods — while a mysterious figure cloaked in a red mask (Eyes Wide Shut, anyone?) makes his way through the rooms, stalking the guests and imbuing the proceedings with an uncanny and unwelcome atmosphere. The prince dies when he finally confronts this figure. The allegory, as is often the case with Poe, is clear: men cannot outpace death. Progress, technology, power, all futile. Dead ends.
Castellón’s lithographs are tinted in discolored greens and blues, evoking an aura of sickliness. Castellón depicts numerous human figures engaged in decadent, lewd, or banal acts, erstwhile specters of death and demonic malfeasance enter the frames of the canvases and skulk around the figures’ peripheries. In one of my personal favorites, a morbidly obese man sitting in a chair realizes that several floating specters are behind him, and he meekly covers the flab of his fat chest, his “bitch tits,” as if having been caught skinny dipping by his neighbors. This is a man in the throes of modernism. He has engorged himself on the excess pleasures of industrialization, gorged on jouissance!
Oh, Federico, what a laugh you must have had at the expense of this hideous bourgeoise. What Castellón sees in Poe is the futility of modernism. Men attempting to live as gods, a deliciously cruel joke, indeed. No matter how far we progress, no matter how much we create, no matter how new our ideas are, we are not gods. We will die. And by burying the possibility of transcendence beneath the tomb of history, we have destroyed the will to live. That’s what Nietzsche said, right? We must reclaim the will to power. Well, we never did, suggests the art of Castellón.
Castellón has been held in esteem by art historians as an important precursor to surrealism. What about you Federico, did you see yourself as a surrealist? “I was called a Surrealist without ever thinking that I was.” Surrealism, right? Only by turning towards the unconscious mind can we yield the utopia we strive towards. No, suggests Castellón, impossible.
Castellón wasn’t a surrealist, he was an anti-modernist. As a child, he witnessed the bloody limits of idealism. The chaos of anarchy. An explosive violence that could coexist alongside “progressive” thinking. Later, he would report being bullied and mistreated by the likes of Alexander Calder and the other modernist artists that hung out at Castellón’s prints dealer’s house. The radicals, Castellón saw, were just as spiteful, petty and narrowly careerist as the non-bohemians of the early 20th Century. No matter how hard modernists tried to birth the new — to do the work of the gods — they failed in evading the mask of red death. The modernist killed the mystic. Man killed the god. But man can’t be a god. And modernism can’t be mysticism.
Hype Williams, 'Belly,' Music Videos, Gen X Cultural Production, And Commercial Art At The End Of History
The fall of the Soviet Union and Fukuyama’s declaration of liberal capitalism as The End of History had profound and multifaceted impact upon our culture industries. Generation X — that relatively brief grouping of humans that were born in the late seventies and came of age in the nineties — experienced unprecedented economic boom times. The most upwardly mobile generation in history, Gen X Americans wield more spending power than boomers and millennials combined. The obscene financial success resulted in a palpable apathy towards radical politics – what is there to protest when there’s this much cocaine, anyways? – and an embrace of capitalism and “the mainstream” atypical of generational youth movements: “No one really knew what we were,” writes NY Times cultural critic Alex Williams on his hard-to-define generation. “But apparently someone knew what we weren’t: dreamers, revolutionaries, world-changers.”
Radical subculture largely died in the 1990s, swallowed whole by private equity and immediately regurgitated as commerce; grunge was being hailed as the return of punk rock for six months before Marc Jacobs turned it into a mainstream fashion statement for a Perry Ellis show in 1992. This rapid and hyper marketization of subculture is commonplace now – after all, the most avant-garde art and music is now being seen and heard at the fucking RED BULL Music Academy – but marked a rapid shift in political and cultural economy back then. Even in the 1980s there was still a clear border separating the mainstream and the underground of cultural production. That border was decimated once the Cold War had officially ended.
As commerce ravenously devoured all culture in its sight throughout the‘90s, some artists embraced their new roles as celebrities: Damien Hirst, Jeff Koons and other artists basked in the decadent artifice of celebrity and luxury lifestyle. Koons, perhaps more interestingly so than Hirst, embraced this progression of culture that would allow him to conceptualize art making as new form of product manufacturing. There was no deeper meaning to his art; it was the creative object as a pure commodity. What has made Koons enduringly relevant is the self-awareness he displays about his place in the art world. He makes art for the market, he understands the market. He literally worked in finance in the eighties to bankroll his burgeoning art career. “Jeff Koons embraces the capitalistic component of the art market without hypocrisy,” says art historian Robert-Pincus Witten. “He recognizes that works of art in a capitalist market are reduced to the condition of commodities. He short circuits the process, beginning with the commodity.” This understanding and acceptance of what the art market is, this embracing of the extravagantly privatized realties of liquid modernism, lends Koons more credibility than the artist who resists the economy and attempts to hold art as sacred. Koons is the artist as manipulator of markets.
Meanwhile, other artists took refuge from the rampant corporatization of culture by inhabiting whatever was left of sub-cultural terrain. Nan Goldin, for instance, used photography to shine a spotlight on the “freaks” on society’s fringes. Her subjects were debauched angels, decadently pure of the corrupting forces of capital. Musicians took a similar tact. The rise of subterranean music scenes; noise, house, techno, and otherwise; created independent industries out of thriving subcultural movements. But even these artists weren’t immune to the voraciously cannibalistic hunger of neoliberal capitalism. Goldin’s photos are sold for millions to oligarchs and even the most outré of electronic music producers play festivals branded by Amazon, or worse.
.
No one better represents the dilemma of the “nineties Rimbaud” — a fiercely free-spirited poetic David against an all-encompassing industrial Goliath — better than Kurt Cobain.
Cobain, both brilliant and naive, came out of the independent subcultures of eighties punk rock. His sensibility was geared towards punk sleaze and the freedom of noise, but he also shouldered the burden of being a gifted writer of pop songs. His music was perfect for the commodification of punk, allowing MTV and its corporate sponsors to sell the revolution back to the more idiosyncratically-minded youth that had previously eluded them. His inability to reconcile being both a creator of art and a churner of product killed him. “Cobain knew he was just another piece of spectacle,” wrote Mark Fisher in Capitalist Realism. “That nothing runs better on MTV than a protest against MTV.”
Perhaps in the most healthy-minded and rational position one can take as an artist operating within late capitalism, other artists of the Z generation decided to work within the confines of pre-corporatized mediums. As a result, commercial art experienced an explosion of creativity throughout the decade. Fashion photography became a repository of stylistic innovation: Steven Meisel, Juergen Teller, Corinne Day and others shunned self-serious fine art photographers and exploited the fashion image as a zone of unbridled fantasy and libidinal excess: “While much of fine art has succumbed to the ‘passion for the real,’” wrote Fisher in his essay on Meisel, “High fashion remains the last redoubt of Appearance and Fantasy.”
Perhaps no artists were more emblematic of the nineties’ collision of commerce and unparalleled expressivity than music video directors. In his text Paradoxes of Pastiche: Spike Jonze, Hype Williams, and the Race of the Postmodern Auteur, cultural critic Roger Beebe notes that it was in the early nineties that MTV added the director’s credit to its music video labels, effectively allowing video directors to transition from being known as hired hands to being respected as a new and distinctly postmodern auteur of the coke and money-addled generation of disaffection.
MTV was at the height of its cultural caché, and because it was the popular music that was the actual draw for the network’s viewers, video directors were emboldened to create images that were often transgressive, intrepid, shocking and undeniably innovative. Some of these filmmakers — like David Fincher, who made his bones directing Madonna videos, or Spike Jonze, who made iconic videos for the likes of Beastie Boys and Sonic Youth — used their careers as launching pads towards Hollywood cinema. Others, due to either lack of ambition or absence of circumstance, made the music video their primary artistic form. British artist and filmmaker Chris Cunningham, for instance, is widely celebrated for directing videos that blended nightmarish, Francis Bacon-esque corporeal angst with Baudrillardian postmodern cyberpunk theory for Aphex Twin and others. Only the most conservative of art critics couldn’t find at least some merit within these obscene clips of manifested uncanny valley.
Only one filmmaker, however, was capable of stretching out the music video style that he pioneered over the course of an entire 90-minute feature film, manifesting a new cinematic form in the process. The Queens-born king of the hip-hop golden age’s maximalist visual style Hype Williams has one feature to his credit: the DMX and Nas-starring 1998 phantasmagoric, psychedelic gangster odyssey Belly. Belly is one of the purest expressions of Generation X art: all artifice, all seduction, all style. In his pioneering of this new form, Williams effectively created an artistic style that simly could not be replicated. Thus, Belly is less a work of cinema that an embodiment of pure zeitgeist.
Though it was almost universally panned upon its release, Belly has developed a passionate cult following, which shouldn’t surprise: it’s basically designed to invite a cult following. Its narrative is sparse, relying almost completely on seductive and enveloping visual style. Williams posited the journey of the drug dealer as a transcendental labyrinth into the heart of corruption itself. And though Williams may have had a vasty less impressive career in feature films than some of his contemporaries — he certainly hasn’t gone on to David Fincher-like success and definitely hasn’t made any masterpieces on the level that, say, Jonathan Glazer has with both Sexy Beast and Under the Skin — he managed to accomplish something with his chosen medium that no one else has been able to. With Belly, he brought the music video format to its absolute apex, and with that achievement, birthed a whole new genre of cinema.
When Hype Williams rose to prominence as a hip-hop video director – his first directorial credit was a cut for female rap duo BWP’s 1992 single “We Want Money” – rap music was experiencing a period of both unparalleled artistic innovation and cultural relevance. Similar to rock music in the 1970s, hip-hop in the 1990s was splintering into different sub-genres, flooding every sector of the music industry, and making billions of dollars. Rap stars — with their masterfully crafted public personas and transgressive sensibilities — quickly outpaced their rockstar counterparts in terms of recognizability, influence, and power.
Hype Williams’ uncanny genius was in his ability to craft videos that captured the essences of the artists he worked with, while still staying true to a singularly postmodern, afro-futurist and surrealist vision. Through Hype Williams’ hyperactive creativity, the “rap video continued to develop into something more eccentric, more colorful, more lavish, just plain more,” says film critic Nick Pinkerton. His videos were some of the most expensive of the nineties, sparing no expense in his vision of hip-hop as pop culture’s most radical and visionary force. His videos are full of light, of movement, of libidinal desire, of vibrant performativity. He understood who these artists were, what their places were in the culture, and how to express that through his own forceful vision.
Consider two different videos from Williams’ biggest year, 1997, when Williams’ in-demand status was at its peak. ‘97 was Missy Elliot’s introduction to the world when she released her stunning Timbaland-produced debut masterpiece Supa Dupa Fly. Though Elliot is unfortunately overlooked as a legacy hip-hop act, she had a titanic influence on popular music, fashion and art. Unashamedly large and most-often donning vibrant sportswear, Elliot’s music is shamefully ignored for “how experimental it was,” says music writer Leah Sinclair. “She embraced house music on the Basement Jaxx remix ‘For My People’, and brought a Bhangra influence to ‘Get Ur Freak On’. She’s never been scared to engage with different musical styles.” Williams had the first stab at bringing Elliot’s energetic hybrid of R&B, rap, world music, and house to life, directing the video for Elliot’s Ann Peebles-sampling debut single “The Rain.”
In the video, Elliot wears a now-iconic trash bag jumpsuit with futuristic sunglasses and a cyborgian helmet, dancing in front of the camera captured in wide-angle. Enjoying all of Williams’ trademark cinematographic flourishes — the Fisheye lens distorting the camera view around the central focus, slow motion action, deep cutting — it also emphasizes the way the single combines spastic British drum ‘n bass beats with an American verbal flow, “performing a kind of cyborg fusion between the warmth of the human voice, and the coldness of machines,” according to cultural critic Steven Shaviro. Williams draws attention to this hybridity by placing Missy in both industrial and outdoor settings. She appears as both android, composed and programmed to dominate, and ultimately human, self-possessed and free of network control. Pop cultural delirium personified.
For the Busta Rhymes single “Put Your Hands Where My Eyes Can See,” Williams constructed a clip that consistently ranks on MTV’s greatest music videos of all time list. Rhymes told Williams that he believed the album that the single came off of, When Disaster Strikes, was different from the rapper’s previous records as both a solo artist and as a member of underground rap collective Lords of the Underground in that it pushed Rhymes’ tribal and African music influences to the foreground of his music. Seeing an opportunity, Williams used the Eddie Murphy vehicle Coming to America as the video’s primary reference. With the concept of an African lost in New York flipped, Busta is depicted as a New Yorker lost on a psychedelic journey into the soul of Africa as creative mecca. Busta wakes up in a lavish, Afrofuturistic-tinted castle a newly minted African king before getting chased by an Elephant, lavishing in the attentions of decadently beautiful women, and dancing a macabrely disorienting dance routine painted in dayglo tribal makeup. The video is seductive, thrilling, and even a little disturbing. Williams emphasizes Busta’s inherent otherness, a true hip-hop oddity, while ensuring an explosively entertaining piece of film.
What we see in these videos, and throughout Williams’ filmography, is that Hype Williams basks in the projection of the one-dimensional image. To him, the surface is the reality. In his music videos, he wasn’t a portraitist attempting to puncture the facades of the artists’ images. No, for Williams the spectacle was the artist: Missy as a cyborgian Gen X feminist goddess, Busta as a surreal African prince, Biggie Smalls as New York’s kingpin pimp supreme. Williams respected the creative thought processes that these artists endured in developing their aesthetics, and used his own prowess and talent to give life to the performative images that they had cultivated for themselves. Hype Williams, and perhaps some of his music video contemporaries, reveled in what Baudrillard called the hyperreality of postmodernism; in his videos, you can’t distinguish between the superstar – the constructed image – and the human that lives underneath and has assumedly created the superstar as an expression of his own subjectivity. Williams makes the simulation into a reality, or, hyperreality.
And that is what, with some two decades of hindsight, makes Williams’ one feature film Belly such an exquisite postmodern relic and surprisingly innovative work of cinema. It is ostensibly a genre film, but I would dare anyone to actually relay the entirety of its plot. What is it actually about? Well, there’s something about two lifelong friends: an angsty psychopath named Tommy Bunds, played by DMX, and a reflective and morally aspirational player named — rather ludicrously — “Sincere,” who is trying to get out of the game, played by Nas.
True to Williams’ music videos, Nas and DMX aren’t portraying fictional characters so much as they are portraying the characters that they created for themselves and inhabited throughout their careers, but amplified. Bunds and Sincere are DMX and Nas post-exhalation of a methamphetamine hit: sharper, brighter, in focus. Bunds feels no remorse for who he is, he’s all “bark” and even more bite. He is aggression and self-assurance incarnate: pursue, pursue, pursue. Take what is yours. Sincere, ever reflective and contemplative, has lived the life of crime, but sees its ills, sees himself and his misdeeds as playing a part in a system that he perpetuates even though it was put in place by power centers beyond his control. Both descriptions aren’t far off from those that could be applied to the roles of Nas and DMX in pop culture writ large. With that, Williams successfully stretched the music video format that he pioneered over the duration of a feature film.
Shunning the conventions of plot, Belly, much like a music video, bathes in a hypnotic blending of tactile sound and decadent image. Like some dissociative narcotic, a Robotrip through the neon lit nether-realms of the New York crime world, Belly appears to drift in and out of consciousness. It often feels like the camera is coursing along through a dream, your gaze briefly appearing out of the ether to capture snapshots of a seductive and dangerous lifestyle. Consider its first scene. DMX and Nas waltz in slow motion into a club, cocking and loading their weapons, illuminated by the narcotized glow of blacklight. As the guns fire and the bodies drop, the scene embodies violence as sensuous freedom and exploits our desire to live outside the confines of our drab existences. What’s worse? Ten to twenty years of hard time? Or a lifetime of middle management? Hype Williams glamorizes the outlaw in particularly decadent, nineties fashion.
After that initial club sequence, the boys come home and Bunds turns on a movie. It happens to be none other than Harmony Korine’s Gummo: “It’s a sly inverse of the cultural-tourist racial dynamic that occurred with white boys like myself in the Nineties who were absorbing rap music videos—Williams’s primary medium,” lovingly pointed out Pinkerton.
No one has ever quite learned the connection between Korine and Williams, but it’s not hard to detect a kindred spirit of sorts shared between the two artists. Both are distinctively Gen X filmmakers. Both have made some truly extraordinary music videos. Both are devilish rebels, transgressors of norms who know how to trick capital into paying for their head-fucky exploitations. And finally, both are pioneers of a cinema that relies less on plot than it does imagistic oddities and singular atmospherics. And of course, Korine would return the favor when he released his own psychedelic exploration of the gangster outlaw lifestyle in 2012, Spring Breakers, and utilized much of the day-glo colors, slo-mo and wide-angle shots of Belly, proving that Williams’s brief foray into feature film had an outsized cultural impact.
Gummo was only out for a year when Belly went into production, emblematic of the hyper-referential nature of film and commercial art in the nineties and the ways in which cultural producers of the era cannibalized each other and everything else in sight, each putting their own perverse twist on everything else that was happening. As Ghostface Killah and Raekwon said, the nineties was the decade of “shark biters.”
It was Frederic Jameson who pointed out that postmodernism was defined by the inability to think historically. And I don’t know that Williams is incapable of thinking historically, but I do know that he created a visual universe in which history was irrelevant. In which the present was everything. Capitalism had already swallowed history whole, so Williams found a way to make and create art that wasn’t averse to commercialization, it was commercialization. It redefined advertising as something thrilling and provocative.
Jameson also said that the video “can lay claim to being postmodernism’s most distinctive new medium, a medium which, at its best, is a whole new form of itself.” However true that might be, it’s safe to say that by 1995, the music video form specifically had eclipsed the form of which it evolved off of to lay claim to that throne. Williams defined a form of art that was a commerce, an advertising of another form of art that also became a commerce. This cyclical nature of creativity and product defined art production in the nineties, and no one made it more gloriously libidinal than Hype Williams. Hip-hop’s look is inseparable from the videos that Williams created. He is hip-hop at its most outsized, most world dominating, least apologetic. And Belly, the cult artifact with outsized cultural importance, is his greatest experiment with the form that he birthed into existence. It is a time capsule. A zeitgeist. To watch Belly isn’t to watch a film, it’s to look at a time period that ended before it even started.
The Vampiric Elizabeth Warren And The Limitations Of Bourgeois Left Liberalism In The Art And Literary Worlds
Theatrical Modernism Died With British Playwright Sarah Kane
Wherever the transgressive might still exist in our culture, it’s certainly not in the theater. Brecht, Artaud, Genet, and Beckett. These artists are gone, and where their spirits reverberate and ghosts haunt is certainly not in the modern theater. Have you seen a Broadway show recently? The last one I watched was a steaming pile of woke, misery-ridden drivel starring Adam Driver and Keri Russell from that not-so-bad Russian spy/lite porno series The Americans. It was insufferable. As a casual observer, it often appears like whatever shred of originality, danger and bold vision that still existed within the theater industry died with British playwright Sarah Kane, when she hanged herself just two days after overdosing on pills in 1999. She was only 28-years-old.
Why does our theater feel so disconnected from modernism? Throughout history,, the theater was just as important an aspect of an avant-garde project as was literature, painting, or filmmaking. What changed? Though I’m merely speculating, I suspect that it’s because the theater has grown disconnected from that very history. It was Frederic Jameson who defined the postmodern condition as one mired in generational inability to think historically. Kane’s greatest subversion then was thinking historically, and creating a postmodern theater aware of its place in a lineage of transgressive theater and performance.
Theater history is steeped in polarities of extremity: joy and pain, love and war, sex and death, tears and laughter. The Jacobean Tragedy, the comedy of errors. To revel in the theater is to revel in an excessive mirror of the world in all its contradictions and harsh realities. I don’t want theater to just validate the narrow, bourgeoise-accepted moralism of today. I want to luxuriate in degradation. I want death, and betrayal, and ghosts, and blood, and excess, and sadism, and ecstasy. Theater has died a slow dead as its lost touch with these multitudes. Theater has diminished because “it has broken away from the truly anarchic spirit that is the basis of all poetry,” to quote Artaud.
Anarchy pulsated in Kane’s plays. The anarchic impulse could drive her work right to the brink of sanity. Her plays assaulted her viewers with the horror of existence, and the humor of horror. Artaud wrote about 17th Century playwright John Ford’s play ‘Tis a Pity She’s a Whore as a work of theater that “disturbs the senses’ repose” that frees the repressed desires of the audience’s unconscious mind. “From the moment the curtain rises,” writes Artaud, “We see to our utter stupefaction a creature flung into an insolent vindication of incest, exerting all the vigor of his youthful consciousness to proclaim and justify it.”
Sarah Kane resurrected the debauched spirit of Jacobean theater for Fukuyama’s end of history. When the Soviet Union met its violent end, and liberal capitalism was declared the victor of the historical ideological battle, Kane’s plays screamed “not so fast” in response to the arrogance of a generation that thought it had solved the problem of history. Kane’s work demonstrated to the post-digital late capitalist, mostly war-less and upwardly mobile Generation X that their world was as mired in sexual anxiety, rape, incest, murder, torture and death as was the world inhabited by the Jacobeans, from Ford to Marlowe to Shakespeare. The postmodern West wasn’t devoid of the savagery of previous epochs, but the savagery of the postmodern West was merely veiled beneath the luxuries of a technologically enhanced society. Kane ripped the mask of sanity from the face of an entire generation. Kane used the form of classic theatrical tragedy to expose the underbelly of society’s forward progression: sadism, degradation, and bloodshed. Violence is history’s one immovable pillar, immune to technological or cultural progress, her plays suggested.
In Thomas Pynchon’s The Crying of Lot 49, a theater director stages a production of a lost Jacobean tragedy that is essential to the novel’s narrative. When asked by the novel’s protagonist about an incomprehensible word spoken by one of his actors in the play, he dismisses the idea that any meaning can be extrapolated from a play’s text. “I’m the projector at the planetarium,” he says. “All the closed little universes visible in the circle of that stage are coming out of my mouth, eyes, sometimes other orifices as well.” Sarah Kane’s work utterly negated this notion: all her work’s physicality and intensity is alive and breathing within her text. And yet, she left room for much directorial decisions in her writings in her complicated and visceral stage directions. This lends productions of Kane’s work an enduringly unhinged and spontaneous quality. “Kane believed passionately that if it was possible to imagine something, then it was possible to represent it,” writes Scottish dramatist and Kane colleague David Grieg. Kane used brutal language within her plays to unlock the expressive potential of her directors by demanding they adhere to the cruelty of her texts. How to represent violence? How to represent rape? The greatest playwrights leave potentialities within texts that can unlock the collective unconscious. Kane’s work is like a demon passed from director to director, unleashing the maniacal vision within. To direct a Sarah Kane play is to become the Deleuzian body-without-organs, in a sense.
As Umberto Eco noted in On Ugliness, definitions of “ugliness”are culturally relative (Eco cites the example of an African tribal mask, which is perceived as an abject object in the West and an object of beauty and nobility within the tribes). Kane then basks in what can only be understood as an eternal ugliness. She puts what we don’t discuss, nigh, what we even like to think about, right on stage, plainly visible. Often associated with what is arguably the last great 20th Century transgressive theater movement - “In-Yer-Face” theater was a label applied to nineties playwrights ranging from Kane to Mark Ravenhill to Anthony Neilson - her work still stands apart from her contemporaries for its singular horror and lingering impact on the psyche. Reading Kane or watching her plays has a similar effect to reading Lovecraft or watching a Beckett production for the first time: it radically redefines your understanding of the power of text and the possibilities of theater.
Kane’s first play Blasted debuted in 1995. It follows a journalist named Ian, portrayed as virulently crass, misogynistic and homophobic, who brings a young girl named Cate to a hotel room against an unnamed but illustratively brutal war. Midway through the third act, a despairing soldier enters the hotel after Cate has left to fetch some food. The soldier recounts to Ian the atrocities he has committed: rape, murder and genocide. Every act of cruelty, the soldiers says, was perpetrated in the name of symbolic revenge for the soldier’s murdered girlfriend.
“Three men and four women. Called the others. They held the men while I fucked the women. Youngest was 12. Didn’t cry. Just lay there. Turned her over and - then she cried. Made her lick me clean. Closed my eyes and thought of - shot her in the mouth. Brothers shouted. Hung them for the ceiling by the testicles.”
In disturbingly monotone delivery, the soldier and Ian then converse about the various evils they’ve committed. When Ian says he’s not gay, that he’s never been with a man, the solider cracks him over the head with a gun and rapes him, all while uncontrollably sobbing. At the end of the assault, he gouges out Ian’s eyes, and then kills himself. Kane’s text imbues much ambiguity into the soldier’s character; in many ways he’s vastly less reprehensible than Ian. Most productions of the play depict the soldier anguished, far from at piece with what he’s done and what he does, to Ian
And this is the play’s stroke of genius. It’s only after Ian’s survival of the attack that he becomes anything resembling empathetic. When Cate arrives home, she brings with her a baby that she has rescued. In the final scene of the play, Ian, desperately hungry, eats the remains of that child. This act would have been laced with evil had this been the vulgar and brutish Ian of the beginning of the play, but Kane depicts this crime as perversely… redemptive.
Only when one has endured violence can they understand the violence that they have wrought, she suggests. Cate arrives back to the scene bleeding from her vagina; the text implies that she has traded her sex for a meal with a pack of soldiers. In the play’s final moments, Cate feeds the broken Ian; he is worthy of Cate’s tenderness. In the morally grey universe of Sarah Kane, he is saved.
When Blasted first premiered, her work was decimated by horrified British critics who wrote the young playwright off as a mere shock merchant. The Guardian theater critic Michael Billington, for instance, admitted that his initial reaction to her work was impulsive and wrong, conceding that Kane was indeed a poet. As is so often the case with transgressive artists, Kane’s work was defended by the renegades of her craft: Martin Crimp, Harold Pinter and Edward Bond were all early fans of Kane’s work. What those British theater critics overlooked in Kane’s work, what bourgeois liberal critics seem to always overlook in criticism of hyper-explicit work, is that they failed to internalize the inherent moralism and humanism at the core of it. Michel Houllebecq, for instance, is often derided by liberal feminist critics for his right wing politics, his misogyny, and his islamophobia (all true to one degree or another), but those same critics miss the elementally beautiful and profound question at the core of his literature: is love possible in late capitalism?
Kane too is a moralist. Despite all the plays’ rapes and defecations and cannibalisms, they locate the redemptive forces that ennoble humanity in the face of a brutal and unforgiving world. Her play Phaedra’s Love - a modern rendition of Seneca’s Phaedra and the only direct homage to the classical tragedies that Kane implicitly referenced in all of her plays - was described by Kane as “her comedy.” In it, Queen Phaedra, wife of King Theseus, falls in love with her lazy stepson Hippolytus. The plot is convoluted, as Greek tragedies are wont to be, but it involves an abundance of murder, suicide, and incest. Eventually, Hippolytus is jailed by Theseus after Phaedra has heartbrokenly killed herself herself after finding out that Strophe, Hippolytus’ step-sister and Theseus’ daughter, also slept with Hippolytus, implying in a note addressed to Strophe that Hippolytus raped her. At his hearing, Strophe tries to defend Hippolytus, claiming that he did not rape his step-mother. In response to Strophe’s defense of her brother, Theseus rapes and kills her, and Hipploytus is then torn to shreds and disemboweled by an angry mob. When Theseus realizes he’s murdered his own daughter, he laments: “God forgive me I didn’t know.” The haphazard nature of the text lends the otherwise brutal and ugly story an unnerving sentimentality. A tenderness, even. The play is like a romantic comedy: ill-fated lovers, driven by their desire and love, behaving incoherently and self-destructively. Kane’s work diagnoses the dual nature of the world: where there is violence there is often passion, where there is cruelty there is often love.
Kane’s work was radical, but in some important ways, it was also conservative. When critics dismissed her, they, by extension, dismissed the entirety of theatrical history. Though her narratives were often set in a seemingly contemporary world, they were set within the confines of the form of classical theater. Kane ingeniously exploited the traditional narrative devices of Jacobean drama; murder, revenge, betrayal, rape, cannibalism, bodily fluids; and smeared them on the faces of a politically correct, bourgeoise, liberal, nineties audience. Her work forced viewers to confront how wildly out of touch they had become with the violent nature of mankind and the brutality that had carried history and still occurred every day beneath the slick veneer of liberal capitalism.
Kane’s life itself was a Jacobean tragedy. She was undeniably the most interesting playwright to come to prominence in the nineties, but like so many geniuses before her, she was written off as an amateurish provocateur. She wasn’t. Houellebecq once wrote about poetry, claiming that the sonnet was the most powerful form of poetry and that no innovation in form could improve it. Houellebcq suggested that rigorously staying within the boundaries of a predefined form allowed one’s flaws to slowly emerge within the work, sculpting a style. This is the functioning of Kane’s work: it stayed within the confines of classical forms and slowly gave birth to a new style of storytelling.
What Kane was interested in was love, and as Roland Barthes tell us, “When one is in love is in Dachau.” Kane was in love with theater, in love with text, and performance, and violence, and cruelty. She was incredibly close to the work she created. She once told an interviewer that “to create something beautiful about despair is to me the most life-affirming thing a person can do.” Can you imagine creating something that affirmed the very nature of your existence, only to have it soundly rejected? It must have been like a young mother cradling her newborn child, basking in the glow of motherhood and so full of love, who realizes from her friends’ wincing expressions that they think her baby is ugly or gruesome. An existential gut punch. Sarah Kane wanted us to see what she saw: beauty, perfection, honesty. But her contemporaneous critics could only see the ugly.
On New Album 'All My Heroes Are Cornballs' JPEGMAFIA Re-Confirms Rap Music As Cultural Criticism
It can be mind boggling just how little Kanye West seems to know what he’s talking about when discussing politics. But despite the ludicrous nature of his public statements, there is still something refreshing about his willingness to speak his mind. In the era of publicity trained superstars terrified of being “canceled” on Twitter, Kanye’s willingness to open himself up to major criticism is, from one perspective, admirable. And perhaps because of his courage to say the wrong thing, he often is able to land on an accidental insight. For example, during the press junket for Yeezus, Kanye went on Zane Lowe’s BBC1 radio show and, in a fit of personal grievance, discussed his exploitation at the hands of the fashion industry and private equity: “I’ve got ideas on color palettes, I’ve got ideas on silhouettes, and I’ve got everyone telling me why I can’t do it, that I’m not a real designer,” he said with his palm against his forehead pulsating with anxiety and frustration. Though he framed the frustration from his personal, aggrieved perspective he still hit on something true: that corporate America is more than happy to use the names of black celebrities to sell products, but seldom will it let anyone other than a white male design school MFA recipient design those products. Even now, in his Trump phase, Kanye can occasionally allude to a political truth. He was able to point out that other celebrities, friends of his like John Legend and Jay-Z, are disgusted by Donald Trump but still totally in thrall to Barack Obama (and Obama, by any leftist measure, was a failure at best and an outright enemy at worst), and in effect presents an accidental critique of neoliberalism.
In his column for the Independent, Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek wrote, “Today’s left is in advance terrified of any radical acts.” I think this notion can also be applied to today’s superstar musicians. One certainly wishes that Kanye would learn more about politics, and the true harm of Trump’s presidency, before speaking on them. But his fearlessness to be viewed as radical, or extreme, or crazy, is commendable. We need our artists to push back on prevailing orthodoxies, to rip them open and expose their hypocrisies. Kanye does that. Scott Walker did it (RIP). And Baltimore-born rapper and producer JPEGMAFIA does it, but unlike that of Kanye West, JPEGMAFIA’s cultural critique is incisive, studied, and ruthlessly well-informed. On his last two albums, 2016’s Black Ben Carson and especially 2018’s acclaimed Veteran, JPEGMAFIA established himself as an astute analyst of American politics and culture: courageously pessimistic, sharply observational, and unapologetically direct, he rips apart prevailing orthodoxies on both the political right and neoliberal left, and also addresses how neoliberal orthodoxies have embedded themselves into mainstream rap music.
JPEGMAFIA, or “Peggy” as his fans prefer to call him, eviscerates the hypocrisy that he sees in everything: “selling art to these yuppies, gettin’ mixed offers, I’m in New York like I’m Peter Parker, Wrote a 16 then I tossed it, If I wanted bullshit then I’d just read Gawker,” rapped Peggy on the Veteran track “Williamsburg.” JPEG Mafia identifies that the neoliberal establishment that defines so much of what limply passes for “leftist discourse” in this country is often defined by centrist figures every bit as clueless as their rightwing counterparts are insane/off the deep end. He also knows that the centrist ideology that courses through mainstream media and “manufactures our consent” to put it in Chomsky-ian terms can bleed into the mainstream music press. Just look at Pitchfork’s hip-hop writer Alphonse Pierre’s backhandedly positive review of Peggy’s new track “Beta Male Strategies”: “His comedy is unsubtle, in-your-face, and extremely online—jokes for the deepest corners of Reddit, who are probably unaware that they’re the ones being made fun of.” Pierre wants to praise JPEG for his undeniable skills while also writing off the kind of web-filtered intellectual discourse that he trades in. Has Pierre actually been on Reddit lately? Because for every Reddit music thread stuffed full of depressing misogyny and idiocy, there are three threads chalk full of smart cultural analysis unfiltered by the corporate media machine. Peggy is a rapper and producer but he is also quickly becoming a public intellectual for young men that post on subReddits for hip-hop, experimental music, and critical theory alike.
On his new and arguably best album so far, All My Heroes Are Cornballs, JPEGMAFIA eviscerates disappointing heroes and false prophets: the aforementioned Kanye West, the figureheads of the American neoliberal establishment, and especially himself. JPEGMAFIA appears to understand the problematic nature of having “heroes” in late capital postmodernism. On his Apple Music explanation of single Beta Male Heroes, Peggy says: “ I'm letting you know off the bat, “I'm a false prophet.” Don't get your hopes up because everybody's human. I might put a MAGA hat on one day. It's unlikely, but you don't know,” he said slyly alluding to the false hopes pinned on Kanye. Peggy has identified what Baudrillard called the “wasteland of the real” in not just culture at large, but the music industry in particular. Heroes are only simulating being heroes, and when those heroes become villains they will only be simulating being villains. JPEG is constantly telling his fans he will be “disappointing them soon,” almost like he understands that in our postmodern culture everything exists in a feedback loop of corporate advertising driven hype and consumerist disappointment. Even underground music is co-opted quickly into the logic of late capital: the “Red Bull” Music Academy, Pitchfork is owned by Condé Nast (and JPEG, at his performance at this summer’s Pitchfork Music Festival, insisted on calling the show the Condé Nast Festival). Peggy seems to maintain a critical distance between himself and the culture he’s now a part of: he analyzes it as much as he creates it. And perhaps the most radical aspect of JPEG’s work is that he is essentially the first rapper to double as a cultural theorist. Writing for Dazed, writer Thomas Hobbs said that “few artists channel the internet like JPEGMAFIA.” It’s true: in his lyrics, Peggy mimics the schizoid nature of 1 billion separate ideologies colliding into one another on music blogs and subReddit boards.
On “Beta Male Strategies,” JPEG raps “ain’t no real money in rap” and “only in it for the cash, I’m a gold digger” within the same bar. The lyrical contradictions highlight the web as a space of confusion and overstimulation: far from bringing you closer to self-awareness and coherent ideology, the Internet drowns us in conflicting information leaving us both over-informed and under-developed. Peggy is pushing back on hip-hop’s insistence on masculine self-assurance, and making space for confusion and existential angst in the genre. This self-lacerating vulnerability isn’t a total rarity in rap, of course; some of its greatest stars, like Danny Brown and Earl Sweatshirt, have used the form to boldly expose their own inadequacies from depression to drug addiction. But Peggy seems to particularly see the Internet as a toxic zone that renders humans incapable of personal growth or inner clarity. He’s not using his music and lyrics as a means of self-exploration, he in fact sees self exploration as a theme that has no place in post-digital culture. It’s a fallacy: a neoliberal lie telling us that we have any control over our lives whatsoever.
Cultural theorist Mark Fisher linked rising depression rates to late stage capitalism. JPEG would seem to agree: he sees the Internet as an entity that totally organizes our lives and belief systems. We absolutely can’t live without it, leaving us enslaved to a handful of corporations that convert our cultural and consumerist habits into predictable codes. Our souls are just advertising strategies. On new track “BBW” (or “Black Brian Wilson”), JPEG raps: "Smile at these crackers who want me dead (Ack) Fire helmets won't protect your head (Brrt) Don’t get sent to Jesus filled with lead.” JPEG seems to see the Internet as a space that is both hyper-violent and inherently pacifist. Violent threats from alt-right trolls are almost always idle. Even the never ending horrors of mass shootings and police brutality cases rarely galvanize cohesive progress. Instead, they just create more fodder for web trolls to argue about in the simulacrum of cyber-space.
JPEGMAFIA uses hip-hop to look both inwards and outwards. He wants to push the musical style forward while also analyzing its role in contemporary culture. He seems to be rolling out a futurist hip-hop philosophy every bit as defined as that laid out by theorist Kodwo Eshun in his essay Considerations of Afrofuturism: “Inquiry into productions of future becomes fundamental, rather than trivial,” wrote Eshun. JPEG sees the deconstruction of contemporary hip-hop clichés as fundamental to the attainment of the genre’s future. For example, JPEGMAFIA’s self-presentation has grown increasingly queered since the release of VETERAN in 2018. In an Instagram post from June 23rd, JPEG wears a skirt and coyly poses with a text reading “feeling cute.”
At the same time, his music is still charged with a hard, masculine edge. This makes one think of rap stars like A$AP Rocky or Young Thug: allegedly straight men whose obsession with fashion and narcissistic displays of grooming is made only more suspect by their hyper demeaning, misogynist sexually charged lyrics. JPEG seems to actively be commenting on this phenomenon: he comes across as both hyper masculine yet sexually ambiguous. On the provocative stunner Beta Male Heroes track “Jesus Forgive Me I’m A Thot” and its video, this sexual fluidity comes across as both jarringly conceptual and intriguingly sincere. The song opens with an unholy squall of feedback and a simple kicker drum while the video shows PEGGY in an assortment of both typical hip-hop clothes and feminized florals and dresses. In the song’s lyrics he asks an unidentified character, possibly a fellow “THOT,” to teach him how to keep his “pussy closed.” JPEGMAFIA has deftly brought absurdity, humor, and performance art theatrics to rap music in order to deconstruct its pieties and orthodoxies. With so many rap stars, your Soundcloud clout chasers and your stripper trap rappers alike, leaning into hip-hop’s worst and most capitalist clichés, Peggy’s approach is an absolute necessity to push the art form forward. He is to post-digital hip-hop what Lou Reed was to late modernist rock n’ roll: an artist who both critiques and embraces the style he works within to push the style into its uncertain future.
But don’t think JPEG’s innovations to the form are purely conceptual. On the contrary, there are few more sonically radical artists working within hip-hop today. When JPEG said on Black Ben Carson’s opening track, “Drake Era,” that he wanted to take “hip-hop out the drake era” he did not mean that he was trying to bring hip-hop back to some “mythic” golden era. Peggy is trying to bring hip-hop to a new golden era. Peggy has alluded to rap music’s past: on “Real Nega” from Veteran, for example, he used a prominent sample of the great Ol’ Dirty Bastard doing his unhinged, crack croon, “AGHHGHHGHHGHGG!!!!” Peggy isn’t celebrating the past or nostalgizing it so much as he is commemorating one of the genre’s most idiosyncratic iconoclasts and weirdos. Weirdos, JPEG suggests, are necessary to push the art forward.
The “Drake era,” in my mind, refers to a specific quality of contemporary hip-hop. Who is Drake? What does he represent? Drake is hip-hop’s most shameless proprietor of “capitalist realism.” He hit upon an accessible sound on his first album and now cranks out hit after hit using that same formula: chilly, sad melody and a combination of singing and rapping with some depressing lyrical mix of Casanova misogyny and “sensitive guy” vulnerability. Hip-hop’s mainstream has become totally infused with neoliberalism: shameless displays of consumerist materialism and an in-built fear of radicalism. Hip-hop, with its foundations in urban poverty, has always been embedded with the “capitalist realist” mentality: dog eat dog, get money get power. In his book Capitalist Realism, Mark Fisher wrote of the depressing economic and social realities of mainstream rap: “The affinity between hip-hop and gangster movies arises from their common claim to have stripped the world of sentimental allusions and seen it for ‘what it really is’: a Hobbesian war of all against all, a system of perpetual exploitation and generalized criminality.” But seeing the world as such a zero sum game isn’t good for artistic exploration. You can’t create something new if you don’t think it’s possible to attain a better tomorrow.
JPEGMAFIA seems to acknowledge this ugly reality at the heart of hip-hop, but rejects notions that the medium is somehow incapable of radicalism despite this philosophical strain running through it. Discussing the All my Heroes Are Cornballs track “Prong!” for Apple Music, PEGGY said the song was an attempt to make a “punk song with no instruments,” he continued, “I feel like people in other genres, specifically rock—I go back to rock a lot because rock spends a lot of time trashing rap—a lot of people had this idea that rappers aren’t talented. In my opinion, we’re fucking better than them. We’re better writers, we think deeper, our concepts are harder…”
The song’s conceptual connection to punk is resonant. Rap is getting close to the stage in its existence that rock was approaching in the mid to late-70s: rap’s mainstream, like arena rock in the 1970s, has grown bloated, over-produced, and made to satisfy commercial interests more than satisfying the personal urge to create. In the late ‘70s, initially punk and later post-punk, industrial, noise and other avant rock subgenres became rock musicians’ antidotes to the stagnations of the mainstream. Rap is now going through a similar schism between its more mainstream and outré contingencies. I shouldn’t of course discount the scores of iconic rappers who have made careers beyond the confines of the mainstream: Kool Keith, MF Doom, Company Flow and others have all devoted lives to making uncompromising and commercial shunning rap music. But even when considering this, it’s hard to deny that hip-hop is currently going through a particularly radical renaissance towards increasing sonic transgression.
JPEGMAFIA is one of a number of bold, young hip-hop avant-gardists: the abstract rap metal of Death Grips, the afrofuturist poetic industrial rapscapes of Moor Mother, the schizoid hip-hop digital dance noise of Prison Religion and others are demonstrating hip-hop as a musical genre every bit as capable of unhinged experimentation as rock, punk, dance music or otherwise. JPEGMAFIA often gets labeled “noise rap” due to his reliance on aggressive synth squeals and hissing feedback walls, but the label fails to address the complexities of his sound.
JPEG is a visionary auteur of a producer, manufacturing beats for every single song that he puts his lyrics to. The sounds of All My Heroes Are Cornballs less rely on the aggressive noise breakdowns of Veteran, and much less so than on Black Ben Carson, with Peggy placing emphasis more on tonal shifts and odd harmolodic structures. “BBW” features a laid back melody with intermittent interruptions of abrupt digital sounds. “Thot Tactics” collages a network of male and female vocal samples while Peggy processes a memorable sung hook: “I want to rock your worldddd.” JPEG’s penchant for absurdist humour has never been more pronounced; on “BasicBitchTearGas” he takes the classic hook from ‘90s R&B pop unit TLC’s “No Scrubs” and turns it into an uncanny sonic amalgam of lust and confusion (not that lust and confusion are ever separate). And on top of the bold sonic formalism, JPEG’s skills on the mic are formidable. Few young stars are so lyrically funny and thematically dense, which might explain why despite the abstraction in his sound, he’s found allies with more commercially minded but still artistically resonant MCs like Denzel Curry. While All My Heroes Are Cornballs is less aggressive and noisy than JPEG’s previous albums, it is even more experimental. Don’t mistake dialed down aggression for commercial pandering, JPEG has no interest in the market. His interest is in the art of hip-hop, and pushing that art into its evolution.
JPEGMAFIA is a bold sonic experimentalist and an authentic critic of contemporary culture. Whereas Kanye West is admirable in his rawness, his understanding of the digital landscape, and his willingness to confront harsh criticism, he is utterly frustrating in his refusal to sincerely engage with politics and culture on an intellectual level and his obsession with wealth and status. JPEGMAFIA is in many ways the antithesis of Kanye. He is every bit as radical sonically and culturally, but he also has developed a very unique ideology that addresses the ugly reality of contemporary life accurately and has no ambition to make Top 40 radio. He is sincerely making an attempt to understand his role in both hip-hop and culture writ large. With so much of commercial hip-hop having abandoned experimentation in favor of making music that panders to a reality TV and social media numbed consumerist base, he is exploring hip-hop as a genre capable of reinvention and reconfiguration. “Where JPEG falls into this diagram is as a necessary artist-as-sociopolitical pundit by default,” succinctly wrote Markus K. Dowling for the Fader. And on All My Heroes Are Cornballs, JPEG’s masterpiece to date, the artist dissects hip-hop clichés: whereas hip-hop runs masculine JPEG is queered, whereas hip-hop relies on commercial beats made to play in overpriced nightclubs JPEG makes odd, shapeshifting sounds, and whereas hip-hop tends to prioritize the “capitalist realist” ideology of “make money, get money” JPEG eats neoliberalism for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. What artists like Suicide, The Fall and Throbbing Gristle (a noted JPEGMAFIA favorite) did for rock and experimental music in the 1970s, JPEG is now doing for hip-hop: he is critiquing it, reconfiguring its unsavory clichés and showing us its possible radical future.
David Robert Mitchell's "Under the Silver Lake" Is A Frustrating And Fascinating Mystery That, Like The Late Capitalist Culture It Mirrors, Has No Meaning
Gary Indiana's 'Gone Tomorrow:' An Examination And Celebration Of Corrupted Beauty
Miami is a city in which the chaos and destruction imparted onto nature by mankind is made abundantly, painfully clear. When my fiancé and I arrived in the city last week, we made our way directly towards the ocean of South Beach. Escaping the dense heat, we immediately jumped in the crystal blue waters, basking in the warmth and embrace of tender nature. It was then I made note of a man on the sands videotaping beachgoers, specifically female beach goers, or so it appeared. I initially thought he must be acquiring B-roll for some low production something, but when my fiancé told me she felt nervous about him, I knew she was being serious. Naturally, I glanced towards the man, and that was when I was met with his bug-eyed sociopathic gaze, no less chilling than the expression of Dennis Hopper’s Frank in Blue Velvet. I asked if he had a problem, and the man immediately started cursing me out, face contorted into violence confirming my fears about the nature of his intentions. My body tensed, fight or flight throttled into ignition, before he decided to walk on. This is Miami. A sunny climate for shady people. A city totally at the mercy of a ruling class (composed of a holy triumvirate of mafiosos, drug runners, and corporate vacationers) with no investment in its community; while they luxuriate in powdered cocaine in the mansions on the harbor, the proletariat smokes crack in the bombed out, dilapidated housing projects that border the hideous street art gentrified neighborhood of Wynnwood (Noam Chomsky claims that, despite its extraordinary economic and military might, many cities in the US have infrastructure that recall those of third world countries, this failure is made abundantly clear in the impoverished neighborhoods of Miami). The tropics of Miami should be an idyllic location for reorienting the spirit and attaining some kind of fleeting clarity, but instead they have become a playground for human beings’ decadent, violent, and self-destructive impulses, and that contrast instills in me a truly uncanny dread. It was in this location, and this head space, that I read what I think was the only book of Gary Indiana’s that I hadn’t already read: 1993’s savagely funny and tragic rumination on friendship, loss, cinema, and the AIDS crisis Gone Tomorrow.
As with most of Indiana’s novels, Gone Tomorrow blurs the writer’s surface level enviable artistic lived experience with well-worn literary clichés put to powerful use (in this case: a looming serial killer, graphic sex sequences that would make the Marquis de Sade wince, intrigue and mystery). The unnamed narrator, a writer with a scarred face and at least partially based on Indiana himself, travels to Cartagena, Columbia to act in an arthouse film directed by the simultaneously manipulative and deeply humane director Paul Grosvenor. Grosvenor was the longtime producer of the recently deceased celebrated German auteur Rudolph Bauer, and the Bogota-set film is presented as an opportunity for Grosvenor to break out as an artist in his own right and get out of Bauer’s shadow and for the narrator to make some easy money, get a vacation, and perhaps get some other easy money acting gigs out of the film’s success.
Rudolph, who overdosed on Mandrax and is described by the narrator as a “tyrannical, crazily vicious person (but not consistently so),” is almost definitely based on Indiana’s once friend and iconic German New Wave director Rainer Werner Fassbinder, with Paul most likely being an avatar for Dieter Schidor (an actor best known for starring in Fassbinder’s Genet adapation Querelle but who also directed Indiana in the 1985 film Cold in Columbia, which I can only believe is the actual film that this novel serves as fictionalized behind-the-scenes of).
By only thinly veiling the inspirations behind his fictional characters, Indiana is able to make profound observations on the noble intentions and beauty of art making corrupted by the humans making it. When Indiana wrote Fassbinder’s eulogy for Art Forum, he said: “What can you say about a fat, ugly sadomasochist who terrorized everyone around him, drove his lovers to suicide, drank two bottles of Rémy daily, popped innumerable pills while stuffing himself like a pig and died from an overdose at 37?” Indiana fully acknowledges that great art is often made by deeply flawed, arguably malignant humans. Indiana said that Fassbinder was a “faithful mirror of an uglier world that has grown uglier since his death.” The fact that Fassbinder is referenced in the book through the guise of the character Bauer reinforces the metaphor. in Gone Tomorrow, we find the lush natural landscape of Columbia, much like that of Miami, infected by human violence and sadism, and a noble, artistic film destroyed by the conniving and mysterious director Paul. Beauty, Indiana suggests, is always leveled by human society. That corrupted beauty is inescapable, or as Nietzsche said, “If you gaze long enough into the abyss, the abyss will will gaze back into you.”
The structure of the novel leans experimental, with the narrator relaying the film shooting to a man who served as Paul’s other best friend (forming a superficial bond between the two), named Robert Scheib, after learning that Paul has mysteriously killed himself. The narrator flies south to Columbia, bewildered by his lack of expectations (and nervous about his facial scarring recently acquired in a surgical accident), and immediately the landscape is made foreboding when he lays witness to a brutal act of violence after having landed at the airport in Bogota. “A policeman whose moist pink lips and shiny teeth looked terrifying from seven feet away smashed his club against a prostrate, emaciated beggar’s medulla oblongata,” writes Indiana. “He pounded the man’s skull methodically, each blow crisply, audible and followed by howls of brain obliterating pain.”
The witnessed attack sets the mood for the entire novel. Gone Tomorrow is often described as apocalyptic. But this isn’t an imagined, future apocalypse, this is the apocalypse that we are in and have been in since at least 1984 (probably sooner though) when the events of the novel transpire: neoliberal austerity politics, late stage capitalism and the free movement of capital not people, AIDS, neo-fascism, crisis in healthcare, crisis in spirituality, global warfare. One could argue that society, or at least the just and fair society promised by democracy is over and perhaps never started to begin with. Gone Tomorrow reinforces that notion. “Freedom: the last great illusion of the twentieth century,” wrote JG Ballard. Indiana is under no such illusion.
When the narrator gets to the set location, he immediately feels jilted when Paul tells him they have no more room at the villa that grizzled, sociopathic actor and writer (this “budget Genet” as Indiana calls him is also said to be fucking his mother, the near intolerable Carlota who is also on the film’s location) Alex Gavros has secured for the cast, and that he will have to stay at the decrepit and poorly staffed Hotel Bolivar in Cartagena. Throughout the described filmmaking process, the script is muddled and incomprehensible. Paul appears more concerned with manipulating his cast into having sexual relations with each other and other entanglements than he does actually creating a cohesive piece of film art. Indiana hardly describes the nitty gritty filmmaking process, instead focusing on the speed, cocaine, alcohol and sexual frustration that drives the actors behind the scenes than he does on the actors acting.
Towards the beginning of the Cartagena section, the reader meets the assorted characters in the book/actors in the fictional film: Irma Irma is a seductive actress who isn’t beautiful but nonetheless makes men go wild, Maria is a local Columbian helping scout locations and whose optimism is met with both skepticism and admiration from the narrator, Ray is Paul’s collaborator and long-suffering boyfriend providing the plot world weary cynicism and hard rationale, and then there’s the nymph-like Michael Simard whose unparalleled physical beauty nearly paralyzes the narrator with overwhelming desire. “He was overpoweringly phallic, male, inhuman.”
Michael’s beauty, like that found in the artistic process or in the book’s South American setting, is picked at, prodded over, and eventually destroyed by the narrator as well as the other characters. Michael is a cypher. A gorgeous blank slate imbued with everyone’s specific desires. The narrator often watches Irma and Maria walk in and out of his hotel room at night, and jacks off at his idea of Michael, because Michael’s character is totally superfluous and left vacant.
An interesting contrast here can be made between Michael and the inhabitants of Columbia as described by the narrator. For example, at one point during the narrative the narrator asks Ray about his displeasure about being in Columbia. Ray then blames his bad experience on the locals, breaking out into a racist slur. Indiana writes at one point, from the perspective of the narrator, that the only difference between the locals and the crew is that the locals have “more of a life.” There is an idea here that the more distance between globalist society and the human, the better off the human is. Michael Simard is a first time actor. He is uncorrupted by show business you could say, with show business as an analogue for society. Nevertheless, his lack of a persona and inability to connect to the rest of the crew (especially the narrator) makes the others suspicious of him. When a cannibalistic serial killer starts murdering people at the edges of the narrative, many of the characters start to actively wonder and make jokes about whether or not Michael is the killer in question. It is only at the end of the Columbia narrative when Simard essentially comes out of the closet to the narrator, Paul and Ray (he had been fucking women throughout the story) and the four engage in an utterly debauched four way orgy that Michael’s character becomes part of “the crew,” a sleazy, manipulative hunk willing to use his looks to get what he wants. What Indiana suggests here is that those trapped in society will always be mistrustful of those who are able to keep distance from it. Until you debase yourself, in the pursuit of material wealth and the frivolous hedonism that goes hand in hand with wealth, you can’t be trusted.
AIDS exists on the periphery of the story throughout the novel, until it doesn’t. Once the film shoot section of the novel is complete, and we are brought back to the bar stool conversation between the narrator and Paul’s other best friend Robert, the reason these two men have thought to discuss their relationships with Paul is made clear when the narrative is brought towards the prolonged and excruciatingly painful death of Ray due to AIDS-related illness. Ray, being taken care of by Paul and Valentina Vogel (an actress who co-starred in the Cartagena production before seeming to leech her way into being Paul’s platonic paramour), has become so ill that his body became a “fearsome enemy making him crazy with pain.” He is taken by an overwhelmed Paul and Valentina to the grifter Dr. Zyrd, who promises to treat AIDS patients with both a welcome lack of moralistic attitude (concerning gay lifestyles) and an “advanced Penicillin therapy.” Zyrd burns Paul for his cash, and eventually accepts payment in the form of sex with Irma Irma (which Ray and Paul enjoy watching). Inevitably, Ray dies a miserable death. Paul is too diagnosed with HIV, and in his grief meets up for a truly torrid bout of sex with Michael Simard in the Dachau concentration camp grounds, before attempting suicide in his bathtub. In Indiana’s narrative, even suicide becomes a symbol for the failures of civilization when the drugs instead don’t kill Paul, but leave his body eroded in the bathtub before being found by Valentina three days later. Indiana would never be so simplistic as to view AIDS as a cruel irony, but one could be detected anyways, not so much in the disease but in the way those with the disease are treated by healthcare providers (though the Ray death sequence transpires in Germany, a country already under a single payer health care system, he still has no route towards recovery and turns to a con man for hope).
In Gone Tomorrow, no beauty is left pure. The beauty of nature is polluted by the inhabitants, with their corruption and violence and maliciousness, that form its civilization. The art making process, in all its noble intent, is ultimately made by narcissists and sociopaths more intent on having control of those around them than attaining the sublime. And, most cruelly, even those who seek to live outside of western normative civilization, through seeking transcendence in the form of sexual liberation or otherwise, are now cruelly faced with a plague and a healthcare industry that collectively thinks they deserve to die. But Indiana is not without tender humanity either, and ultimately believes that beauty is worth seeking even when degraded and corrupted. In many ways, Gone Tomorrow is in the classical tradition of vanitas: death and beauty exist side by side. “I believe that truth has only one face: that of a violent contradiction,” once wrote Bataille. Gone Tomorrow is a masterful examination of that contradiction.
A Look Back On The Art That Influenced Me, Inspired Me, And Fucked Me Up In 2018 (an introduction to the blog of artist Adam Lehrer)
As a writer, I have become slightly perturbed by the state of corporatized digital media. It is becoming increasingly difficult to express any opinion that might diverge from the prevailing narratives of our time. So, this blog will serve as an outlet for my observations, my tastes, my experiences, my anxieties, my habits, and otherwise.
2018 was a year of conflict for geopolitical, sociological, and personal reasons. But if I had to boil the year down to a single notion, that notion would be outrage. Outraged when I watch CNN and see white, middle aged fascistic Trump talking heads lie to my face that what I’m seeing right in front of my face isn’t actually happening. Outraged at the death of nuance and the further corporatization of the flow of information and ideas. But more than anything, I’m outraged over the death of intellectualism. Outraged at the right wing’s cult worship of an objectively horrible president and morally bankrupt human being. I also have at times been outraged by the left’s outrage: cancel culture, de-platforming, Twitter freak outs. I feel a bit out of phase with the culture, to be honest. Superhero movies are suddenly worth the kind of critical praise normally associated for auteur-driven cinema. Mind-numbingly simplistic television series warrant more cultural discussion that transcendent works of literature. It can be a drag to be a cranky, youngish but aging, intellectual snob living in this era.
Nevertheless, 2018 was a magnificent year for art. Art can carry you through, and help you achieve a relation of yourself, your being, to the world around you. Susan Sontag once wrote that a photograph can be “a social rite, a defense against anxiety, and a tool of power.” I’d wager that this assertion can apply to any work of creative energy: a text, an object, a film, whatever. This year, I found myself engrossed by the new records that I listened to, the new films that I watched, and the new books that I read. In many ways, I found more power in culture in 2018 than in any other year that I’ve been alive. But of course, contemporary art is my cultural domain. The area in which I develop my most cohesive opinions. I share here the exhibitions, the art, that most challenged me and appealed to my personal understanding of what great art is (note, all exhibitions took place in New York, my home city).
Fall programming at New Museum (Sarah Lucas: Au Naturel, Marianna Simnett: Blood in my Milk, Marguerite Humeau: Birth Canal, Dan Herschlein: The Architect)
David Wojnarowicz: History Keeps Me Awake at Night, The Whitney
Beside Me, curated by Dan Herschlein, JTT Gallery
Tala Madani Corner Projects, 303 Gallery
Bruce Nauman: Disappearing Acts, MoMA and MoMA PS1
Art and Conspiracy: Everything is Connected, Met Breuer
Saul Fletcher: Four Loom Weaver, Anton Kern Gallery
Endless Enigma: Eight Centuries of Fantastic Art, David Zwirner
Frida Orupabo: Cables to Rage, Gavin Brown’s Enterprise, New York
Heji Shin: Men Photographing Men, Reena Spaulings
Huma Bhabha: With a Trace, Salon 94, and The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Met’s Iris and Gerald B. Cantor Roof Garden
Kandis Williams, Eurydice, Night Gallery