Exceeding & Extending: The input/output of today’s artist

 

  © Benjamin Bratton – from his website & attributed to The Black Stack section

 

In relation to the digital network or Stack, Benjamin Bratton observes that the ‘plural User subject’, who is ‘conjoined by a proxy link or other means’ and ‘could be composed of different types of addressable subjects: two humans in different countries, or a human and a sensor, a sensor and a bot, a human and a robot and a sensor, a whatever and a whatever’^[1] ­­– therefore how does the artist operate within the type of inexhaustible network of connections and sensory inputs that Bratton describes here? As he asserts, it is conceivable that in an online exchange, any of the correspondents involved might not be human, even if posing as such. The wide-spread introduction of Captcha (software developed in order to identify non-human sensors, generally inputting spam) is testament to this relatively recent online trend. This is a situation indicative of what is, and will continue to become more common and less questioned all the time. Therefore, in this sense the human user also becomes a type of sophisticated sensory constituent, in a vast open interconnected multi-directional system. The artist and their relationship with the Internet, allows them the potential to become an active sensor par excellence. I consider that today’s artist – those vigorously engaged with the communicatory digital sphere – generally function in three fundamental ways. One, consuming vast amounts of information; secondly, (in)directly ‘creating’ from this material and knowledge; and lastly, distributing these creations and communicatory data, back into the ‘network’. By way of a connection here, Vilém Flusser writes in 1989: ‘Owing to the manner in which images are currently transported, they must serve the same function as’, ‘codes of conduct’. ‘They must transform their addressees into objects. This is the intention of portability.’ (…) ‘In our contemporary society, the new media are currently geared toward making images into models of behaviour and people into objects.’^[2] His descriptions in this text could be describing what we have come to know as the World Wide Web, two years before it was properly developed. Crucially in this context though, his idea of ‘people as objects’, relates to my suggestion of the human as, with and occupying the position of a type of complex inhuman computational sensor. The artist’s role here, within the contemporary Post-Internet environment, continues to become a most active, committed, adaptive and multi-faceted, participatory one.

Art is a visionary engagement that exceeds and extends beyond quantification.^[3]

The assumption that Capitalism needs to subsume everything in order to continually reproduce itself and in the process, create the general artist - one that is able to exceed capitalist subsumption through an abstraction of capital and by negating use value and creating their own self-valorisation^[4] - is worth considering in relation to Post-Internet and the artist. As Brad Troemel points out, ‘Modes of production employed by artists are often a reflection of the larger cultural Zeitgeist.’ (…)  ‘And for the generation of artists coming of age today, it is the high-volume, fast-paced endeavour of social media's attention economy that mimics the digital economy of stock trading, a market increasingly dominated by computer-automated algorithmic trades. For these artists, art is no longer merely traded like ‘stock’; it's created like one, too.’ ^[5] Presently, the artist uses the Internet as a primary source material for their work. Regardless of the form the work takes or materials used; often these are acquired through, and then from Internet sources. This constant form of mediation has now become subliminal and isn’t even a consideration for most - hence this is when the Internet becomes ‘Post’. Comparable to ‘stock’ in Troemel’s description, this continuous stream of data extractions & then insertions by the artist, is steadily becoming the standard means in which they research, develop, reflect, interpret their experiences, and in turn, facilitate their role as an artist within capitalism’s reproductive system – a system, where ‘value’, in all its forms, is the overriding principle.

The artwork is a socially mediated commodity that transcends the standard value form, as it adheres to a different set of ideas in this regard. It is a commodity absolute, because it is aware that it is one. Therefore it can and often does reflect upon this reality, unlike other commodified objects. A claim made by Benjamin Noys when discussing ‘the realism of the Abstract’ and where art’s critical engagement with the paradox of valorisation is established. He suggests that, because of its ‘functionlessness’ and lack of any real and actual necessity, art is therefore ‘rooted in the paradox of abstract labour’.^[6] But moreover, it has the capacity to embrace and communicate such ideas, where labour (deemed abstract or otherwise) never does.

The art object is the same as the image or ‘art image’ in this way: ‘All objects create another’^[7], since they prompt or pre-empt a certain cognitive or even biological process, that introduces or leads to another thought, image or object. This sequential process is potentially inexhaustible. ‘The meaning of an image can be changed according to what you see beside it or what comes after it’^[8]. This quote from John Berger is a simple description of a fundamental process within human cognition. And from an image or object, for the artist, many more are devised, literally and symbolically. The morphing and merging of ideas into new ones, then fed back into the system, defines the Post-Internet experience. Think of the artist working from online material today; the abundance and accessibility of which, is beyond comprehension and unparalleled. In reference to Flusser again and echoing Berger’s previous comments on images, their successions, ‘objects’ and their aftermath, he writes that, the representations in representational images, ‘form a circle, that is, one draws its meaning from the other, which in turn lends its meaning to the next.’^[9] What does this mean then for the artist saturated by images and objects; making work from all manner of ‘texts’ and cultural sources? The banal, trivial and even mistakes (in the ‘Freudian slipped’ sense) make for interesting and often profound statements on class, capital, society, culture (the high, low & in-between varieties) etc. And clearly, the opposite can also be true, where this comment is concerned.

If social capital comes from the practice of taste-making (compiling images instead of making them), artists who have been called ‘post-internet artists’ can be considered alchemists. They take stock of the rubbish heap of net history. They turn shit into gold by compressing and decompressing digital artefacts, rehashing them into something informative, intellectually abstract, and visually elegant.^[10]

Chan’s remarks on the artist here emphasise the hybrid nature of this method of ‘tactical web surfing’ and the ‘hyper-mediation of existing genres’ that help categorise the modes in which the artist uses the digital network. If, as Gene McHugh suggests, ‘new media’ becomes art by mutating ‘itself to become more like the art world art, the work mutates art world art to become more like the internet.’ This creates ‘work that has one foot in the history of art and another foot in the experience of network culture.’^[11]

To conclude for now, if one considers the unbounded potential (constructive and otherwise) of the digitalised, tele-networked, global society we now exist in and are (pre-)determined by – there seems no rational arguments for accepting the world in any pre-determined form. I judge the practice of individualised questioning and analysing, potentially all images, objects or matters of attention, has now become standard practice. This is the way in which most artists now function. The idea that what we experience, or ‘the/our world’, was made a certain way ‘and that we should not presume to ask why it was made this way and not some other way’ is an argument that has no reasonable legitimacy anymore in my view. Consequently, as we observe in today’s heightened acts of formulation and research by artists, through mediation with the Internet, they simply are not accepting ‘the world as they find it’.^[12] And are subsequently creating anew by challenging what they find.

 

This text was written for the IASPIS Open House, Spring 2016 (Friday, 18th of March, 2016), Stockholm. These are initial comments on specific artistic research methodologies and aims to examine certain contemporary debates around the Artist, (Post-) Internet and Capitalism. The ideas derive from interpretations on working methods perceived in particular artist’s practices.

 

P.

 

---

1 Bratton, Benjamin: The Black Stack (http://www.e-flux.com/journal/the-black-stack/, 2014)

2 Flusser, Vilém: Writings, ed. Andreas Ströhl (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002) 73-4.
3 Essoglou, Tracy Ann:  Lets Talk About The Debt Do For… Responses (http://artanddebt.org/lets-talk-about-the-debt-do-for-responses/, 2015)
⁴ Noys, Benjamin: The Art of Capital: Artistic Identity and the Paradox of Valorisation, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGywpIgHeq0 , http://www.academia.edu/689156/The_Art_of_Capital_Artistic_Identity_and_the_Paradox_of_Valorisation, 2011)⁵ Troemel, Brad: Art After Social Media, ‘You Are Here - Art After the Internet’ ed. Omar Kholeif (Manchester/London: Conrner House /Space, 2014) 42.
6 Noys
7 Harman, Graham: Art & Paradox (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kysr2CPu96Q, 2012)
8 Berger, John: Ways of Seeing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnfB-pUm3eI&list=PL7C3ECA9027898EB2, BBC, 1972)9 Flusser, Vilém: Into the Universe of Technical Images (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2002) 8-9.
10 Chan, Jennifer: Notes on Post-Internet, ‘You Are Here - Art After the Internet’ ed. Omar Kholeif (Manchester/London: Conrner House /Space, 2014) 110.
11 McHugh, Gene: Post Internet: notes on the Internet & Art (Brescia: Link Editions, 2011) 16.
¹² Brassier, Ray: Prometheanism, ‘Accelerate: the Accelerationist Reader’ ed. Robin Mackay & Armen Avanessian (Falmouth: Urbanomic Media, 2014) 485.

Something akin to Punk: And the Apathetic Generation: An Afterthought – pt. 2

 

I have sited Hegel’s master–slave dialectic as a critical source in this research, as I feel some of the theoretical implications which are contained within this text suitably act as a basis for an awareness concerning – setting out an approach for action which is aimed at bringing about substantial change in the arts and arts focused higher educational practices. The Hegelian notion of, being-for-self contained within the referenced essay and the realisation of this psychosomatic process by the Slave (or as described by Hegel, “the bondsman”); by considering this account I sense a basic, relevant understanding can be established for this case. He describes this revelation of a new empowerment for the Slave through self-determination, in this way:

In the lord, the being-for-self is an ‘other’ for the bondsman, or is only for him [i.e. is not his own]; in fear, the being-for-self is present in the bondsman himself; in fashioning the thing, he becomes aware that being-for-self belongs to him, that he himself exists essentially and actually in his own right. The shape does not become something other than himself through being made external to him; for it is precisely this shape that is his pure being-for-self, which in this externality is seen by him to be the truth. Through this rediscovery of himself by himself, the bondsman realises that it is precisely in his work wherein he seemed to have only an alienated existence that he acquires a mind of his own. [1]

If one is to consider today’s young artists as a group which very much require such a moment of realisation, in order to allow themselves an opportunity to operate and be educated in a way that suits them, then the idea of a collective being-for-self seems a fitting allegory to me. A specific thought process that encourages a deeper scrutiny of the system itself and how a shared body might challenge these structures, is at present completely absent. An established and endorsed underlining individualism or self-seeking state of mind, as has been encouraged in our society generally and its presence reinforced further within the contemporary structures of our cultural practices, have consequently enabled the idea that one should only consider ‘bettering’ their own position in the hierarchical structures, as an ever prevalent deliberation. Such structures have become the absolute formation and configuration of our recently globalised, capitalist system. In a purely ideological sense, this all encompassing approach is proving to be a detrimental one in my view, and the arts are no different in this regard. Indeed, as the large scale disintegration of our communities take place, much in the way Edgar Davies describes, what we find is that in a time when real resistance is required and the moment(s) for action present themselves, the divided nature of our social and cultural groupings are preventing this from occurring. This is why – particularly when recommending a restructuring for the arts and higher education, and how best this can begin to serve those predominately young folks who are so crucial to its evolution but whom are currently not benefitting from it as an economic agency of ‘opportunity’ or in many instances, even from the work they put in themselves – as a result of this, it is even more imperative that a solidarity is formed and some much needed ideas for action are recommended.

The subject I have intended to engage with, as I and Edgar Davies previously, have been at lengths to focus on, is concerned with the arts generally. However, I can see no substantial reason why these ideas would not be transferable to other sections of society, where young people and those currently being marginalised by similar economic and social problems, are also acutely being felt – much in the same way as those being inflicted on young people within the ‘creative industries’. Nevertheless, I do feel that in this moment we (Pipe & Mr E. Davies) must focus on what is close to one’s own real lived experiences and suitably expand from this point of departure, when and if such opportunities were to arise.

Allied to my initial idea, adapted from Hegel, that we must form a strong bond with one another and reject this much heralded social concept of ‘the individual’ and the divisions this creates, in order to realise the true potential of ‘the majority’ and what transformative power this collective sense of unification could achieve. In this moment, we should then create a bond of realisation, which recognises that there are no definite ‘rules’ or social restrictions preventing a wide scale rejection of the current state controlled operational models which exist in the arts. If any such section of the state could and should hold the established forces to account, then surely the arts and tertiary educational systems, with their traditions and histories, should be it? I evidently believe this to be so. Therefore, from this ideological stance and in direct reference to Davies’s essays – and as there is no reason which I can discern to prevent this from occurring – a simple message should be communicated by today’s new entrances to the arts and those who want to commence some real changes within the industry, that pronounces:

We will now be working our own way and in our own interests.

In order for us to be able to do this and realise it as a fully formed ideological approach, some initial actions must be taken. The subsequent list of steps that I now present, I deem would begin to build a new cohesion around a set of reformative ideas for the arts and how young people are positioned and regarded by the established structures which configure it as an industry.

 

1.) The first and most important step, because of its wider social implications and contemporary relevance, is the matter of ‘the intern’. Davies devises that “from this point onwards no one works for free”. This is a collective response that could and I deem it should form the basis for our opposition to the current operational model in the arts and arts education. There are absolutely much greater issues for us to attempt to address, however I think this is something that, because of its social and symbolic relevance can and would create a bond between those confronting this system and those whom would likely support and feel a sense of solidarity for the cause and be disgusted by the awful matter of ‘the intern’ generally. In doing this though, as Davies has also explained, it is imperative that it is understood in the industrial sense. This has to be a persuasive argument and that everyone affected by it understands the full implications of this action. As a result, the notion of ‘the Scab’ must be left available to us as part of this cause, in order that everyone truly realises how serious this matter is. In a time when fellow citizens are being forced to work for nothing by our government; while directors, CEO’s and other senior members of financial companies are seeing their salaries rise to obscene levels, it is totally irresponsible and even ignorant to work for a company for free - satisfying a much needed role within that organisation, when you should be getting paid (at the very least, the minimum level) for your work - and doing this just because, economically you can. For these reasons, and many others beside, which I don’t have the time to address here, the first step is to end the culture of unpaid labour within the arts.

 

Sometimes, doing nothing is the most violent thing to do. [2]

2.) Another key factor in this struggle, which I suspect will begin to draw the intended furthest reaching attention to these significant social issues, is a type of, I would describe as – an organised non-participation. A lot has been made recently of the self-defeating nature or irresponsibility of simply not taking part in the present democratic system and its customary rituals. Nonetheless, this much overdue act, if structured and organised in the right manner, I pronounce is precisely what must be done by us in the arts. The lack of proper representation by our elective constitution, particularly for young people today (as Davies has already explained) is imposing this system on us with no crucial action being taken to address our ever intensifying plight. As a consequence, it appears to me that continued participation in this habitual democratic charade is actually the most detrimental of all present options available to us – The Un-represented. This participatory act results in ‘propping up’ an all powerful, yet totally damaging and hugely inadequate ideological system; which is in actuality, continually increasing the type of economic and social disparity young people are now faced with. The arts and present higher educational models are too, essentially part of this worrying trend. And at the same time, much of the issues new entrances to the world of employment, the arts ‘industries’ and higher education have to deal with, were imposed on them by their governments and their generational forces - yet these are not concerns which they themselves had to contend with during their first steps into real ‘adulthood’ decades earlier, but are now simply accepted as a necessary socio-economic requirement. No, these are almost all new social factors that have either been introduced because of the bad decisions made by their administrations/governmental figures or are in support of a system which benefits them, primarily at the expense of the vast majority of its other, far less advantaged citizens. Thus, I judge that an organised and adequately prepared non-participation in the established, state supported arts institutional structures is vital at this time. These governing bodies and legislative hierarchical arrangements are those very same organisations which must be held accountable for the social injustices being felt in our society and this move within the arts will also play a small part in highlighting this. Another key aspect to such a planned action is that of exclusion. In order for this to be truly effective, those established cultural, social and political organisations, that we deem to be working against us as a group or whose actions and rhetoric is seen to be ignorant to our cause or suitably damaging, then the resulting measures are, that they must be excluded and held in contempt. Arts organisations whose reputations are damaged in the eyes of organised young people will, I believe, find it very difficult to succeed in their own economic and business affairs generally.

 

3.) The utilisation of new forms of digital apparatuses, computerised ‘tools’ and modes of production, and the phenomena which is our current communicative networks and platforms that enable such ideas to be articulated, will understandably, all be integral to building new forms of engagement with these ideas of reform. This new technological phenomena, that we have at our disposal makes what is being planned more realistically achievable than would ever have been the case ‘pre’ digital age and ‘pre’ the internet. This equipment and modes of communication must be exploited and the vast nature of its possibilities adapted, when possible. As has been touched upon by Will Self and Edgar Davies, today’s young generation are the first to have grown up totally immersed, and having generally taken for granted, the type of digital technology we now have such wide scaled access to. When considering the implementation of this digital ‘age’, one could almost suggest that the youth of today, given their nurturing took place during its emergence; it is them who should really hold the majority of control over its operational mechanisms and networks. Now that these unheralded forms of communication have become fundamental to all areas of our society and its development, why is it then that those who largely control the way it is run and whom benefits the most from it, are still from our previous generations; those principally born, at a push, roughly before 1970? I will let those, like Self, attempt to answer this question; I do have my inclinations though. However, as this is unquestionably the case, I deem that what must be done in the coming years, in aid of this task is to put an emphasis on adapting new ways of using this technology for the arts, in a way that is designed to serve us properly. We must not continue to participate in those structures and systems which are already there and are simply further evidence of the sham which is the arts establishment - sponsored by their state controlled educational institutions. These arrangements, as we know, operate in the name of: arts opportunities for young and emerging practitioners, but are just a way of dividing individuals while making good business sense for these schemes and in support of their harmful doctrines, which benefit only a minute number of people - but always those whom hold power.

 

4.) As I have suggested here, a new approach for young people within the arts must be devised, and one which sits outside the arts establishment, its groupings and their conventions. Therefore in order to do this, the matter of finances (more specifically a lack of, and all the implications that this brings) does become an evident issue. For that reason, what must be done, and as history has often taught us, a process of ‘negotiation’ ought to be formulated in someway. My plan here, is to use all the spaces available to us for exhibiting, shows, ‘happenings’, performances and all available methods of showing work and creations. This also connects with the notion of exclusion and could suitably create a defining position – this will reveal those who do and those do not support this action. As we all know space is expensive and the established institutes within the arts are closed to those who don’t subscribe to their state funded, money driven agenda and operate through their ‘proper’ channels. As a consequence, such agents subscribing to these principles must be rejected by us first and then excluded altogether from having any influence or dialogue with this new generation of artists. In turn, we will use all available spaces, of which there are far more available to us than we would likely consider given our circumstances. New ways of showing work both within living space, rented space, free space, online ‘space’ (an emphasis on the adaptability of this new virtual space must be exploited as much as possible), ‘borrowed’ space, unused space, portable space, adaptable space… – the list is far longer than one would expect and the list should and will I suspect, continue to grow. This will empower the cause as one which is doing things alone and unsupported. As previous generations have shown us, the type of identification, brought about by such actions, and the importance this brings, can be immeasurable to a counter cultural movement. Through this process of identification, I envision we will gain both creative and organisational authority over our work and begin to establish new productive systems of exchange for it.

 

5.) Contrary to how work is chosen by the establishment currently within the arts, operating around scenes and certain thematic trends which then shape and plot a very specific direction for the industry, such considerations will now not knowingly be made by those involved in this cause. The only absolute necessity of work being shown through these channels is that they depict a certain reality. That they are authentic to those who created them and do not simply exist in some vein attempt at ‘relevance’. It is important in fact not to say too much here as an articulation may lead to a design or a suggestion and persuasion of the types of works which might fit into this new vision for the arts. This would be at odds with what should be encouraged, which is that of an absolute openness to themes, approaches, techniques, aesthetic and stylistic characteristics etc. In this new realm of creative expression and arts focused resistance, diversity will be absolutely embraced in all areas of practice; with works being judged only around themes of genuine authentic legitimacy, notions of an inherent truth and social relevance. The notion of being ‘out of step’ is currently regarded within the arts and cultural practices generally, as something that is a grave position to be in as an artist. I think not just being part of a ‘scene’, is actually not only a positive feature of an artist’s work, but should be seen as an obligation to the vital development of their practice. I firmly believe that this needs to be addressed and would be if this new direction for young people in the arts is to be effective. ‘Fads and trends’ rarely play a part in true artistic expression and the creation of genuinely important works. In my view, there must be more meaningful origins or source materials to one’s practice than simply trying to equate your work with someone else’s.

[The four terms which I believe will tackle this problem and give us the best chance of making these five steps a success, are: Solidarity; Organisation; Implementation and Restructuring.]

 

These steps, I hope if structured in a coherent way and then put into some sort of action will assist in creating a network of solidarity around a common cause. Although there will undoubtedly be a diverse range of voices and opinions; approaches, techniques and ways of working, in all areas of both practice and within the structural ideological nature of the cause – this however, should be embraced and allowed to flourish. What will bind the group together is this idea of questioning the way things operate, being ‘difficult’ if you like – especially given our current predicament – this is our right, and in order to make some adequate changes, is also our responsibility. Therefore, as I have tried to propose here, a type of exclusion, although on the face of it seems an extreme act and some may even deem it self-defeating; I feel strongly that a wide reaching rejection of the current model must begin to take hold. If a large enough network can be constructed (and I think this idea of a system of arrangements is at the core of what this resistance needs to be and should be built on), then this group will grow and become its own section of, a relevant facilitating system for the arts.

“No one is in a hurry to say goodbye”, to use the Self comment from Pity the Young. So we as a group must say “goodbye” to them, or risk never being given the opportunity for an introduction. We have to realise that ‘help’ from this system is not forth coming; it will never arrive and as a result, exclusion in all its semblances is the most valuable course of action we have available to us. I feel we are led to believe we need their assistance. The reality is we require this far less than we imagine, and there is an even stronger argument to suggest that we as a group are in fact crucial to their system and an exclusion from it could be hugely harmful to their well ‘trotted out’ concept of, ‘a vibrant arts scene’. Therefore, my final retort to this ‘arts establishment’ is: “thank you but we will now do things without you”.

 

Ex nihilo

 

.P

---

[1] Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, in ‘From Phenomenology of Spirit [The Master-Slave Dialectic]’, in The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, General Editor Vincent B. Leitch and others , (USA: W.W. Norton and Company, 2001), p. 635.

[2] Slavoj Zizek, ‘Adagio’, in Violence: Six Sideways Reflections, (London: Profile Books ltd., 2009), p. 183.

Something akin to Punk: And the Apathetic Generation: An Afterthought – pt. 1

 

“No one is in a hurry to say goodbye”, Will Self commented when discussing the baby boomers and their immediate descendants, in his recent, Point of View on bbc radio 4. Entitled Pity the Young, the content of Self’s short monologue seemed fittingly apt to me when considering this long overdue Afterthought to Edgar Davies’s series of articles: Something akin to Punk: And the Apathetic Generation, and how best one might culminate his rather broad thesis. I certainly connected with both his (as I had done previously with Davies’s) sentiments; describing how today’s young people have become a sort of ‘fodder’ – culturally and economically – created by a system that, as Davies suggests in his series of texts, is largely working contrary to their interests, wishes and expectations. One of the examples Self gives is how today’s youth are continually being moralised towards; regarding how an unquestioning respect must be held for one’s elders; or specifically, all those more ‘experienced’ individuals who are in positions which one should naturally aspire to attain. These success stories are of course almost always measured by and compared against their paradigmatic system of exchange; an ideological structure devised and promoted by these older generational forces. Their preconceived notions of ‘acceptability’ – by which I mean those certified by the mainstream media, party political systems and the schemes which structure all aspects and forms of our ‘commerce’ – we are expected to believe, are the primary ‘forces for good’ within our society. However as Self alludes to, and which is a matter of particular relevance here, the ‘respect’ that our more ‘fledgling’ generations are expected to have for their far more economically vital ancestors, is not one which is meaningfully reciprocated in anyway. Such a suggestion in itself is also currently viewed at best presumptuous and if pushed to widespread acknowledgment, positively subversive and certainly to the detriment of those making it.

However, as his title too suggests, Self describes in this program how the current youth of our society, should be ‘pitied’. They are being “squatted on”, he suggests by the “giant warty toad” that is the baby boomer generation. In this metaphoric action: “squatting”, what is crucially happening is that they are very successfully controlling and shaping our society and, culturally speaking, devising their preferred nostalgic direction for all aspects of the arts and culture – which Davies is at lengths to describe in his text. Subsequently, I consider if this pity does occur (and incidentally, I can assure those reading this that it won’t), whatever form this sympathy might take, to simply accept and attempt to subserviently work within a system as a sort of misfortunate citizen, truly would be the worst of all possible outcomes for young people situated in these socially unprecedented times. Therefore, by assessing what Davies describes in his 4 previous chapters and from my own experiences, I will seek to present some possible courses of action and proposed political steps that we as a group might take within the arts (as has been the focus here), in order to not allow ourselves to become fully surrendered to this system and its set of ideals which we now acknowledge are not serving us particularly well, and in many instances are in fact working against us as our society’s young people. Consequently, if such ideas are not examined properly and meaningful social shifts devised, I suspect as a group all we can realistically expect is for the type of ‘pity’ Mr Self so eloquently describes.

So the Thatcherite legacy has now unquestionably left us with a truly free market economy (of which we can argue the merits of on another occasion I suspect), more inflated and carrying more influence than ever before. However its strength is fundamentally driven by only a select group of the very largest multi-national companies and organisations. These groups, whose financial scale has enabled them to both hold huge amounts of political power; and as a result, the freedom of their operations and financial/social obligations have become largely voluntary, functioning out with the ‘normal’ state centred tax contributory systems. As this system has grown and developed to where we are at present, it has continually marginalised smaller, perhaps even weaker businesses and business models, until their existences become impossible. I do accept the point that such financial culls have always been common during periods of economic instability, however never have we had such a fiscal model as this (which is gaining more and more economic and political powers all the time) that allows only the biggest global, multi-national sized companies to exist and truly prosper within the system. This vast wealth, we have seen is continually concentrated in and around the same core groups. What this has created within the arts and higher education generally, is a sort of reflection of these economic trends. Of which I mean: as the arts and the university systems have become more and more self supporting, essentially becoming businesses, similar to any other, with the same constraints and pressures related to profit making faced by all global ‘brands’; then in turn, only the most financially stable individuals, which generally also equates to those with the greatest access to the arts, and come from the type of backgrounds where this sort of education is available and can render this accessibility possible – these people are therefore far more able to endure the difficulties that come with this sort of ‘career choice’ and as a result have an overriding presence in this cultural arena. Additionally – and as Davies was at lengths to describe in his earlier examination of this issue – the type of works being produced by much of this new group of young(er) artists seems to understandably contain all the hallmarks of today’s society; orientated around and concentrated on big business and the current capitalistic model. Except in this moment, these elevated artworks are so blatantly lacking in much of the questioning tones, associated in the past with works traditional connected with the tertiary educational system. However, having said all this I do not think this situation is by any means an exclusive one. I frequently observe works by practitioners who do not fit this mould and therefore, in various ways sit apart from this rather self-seeking, confirmative scene. In fact this is a vital detail that I am glad can always be accepted without too much debate about its presence. Whatever Thatcher’s legacy is, or what the current position of the art establishment and higher educational structures are, we can be grateful that there will always be artists and thinkers who do question the systems they operate within (or negotiate) and manage to make works which are not simply a process of ‘being relevant’, but are some kind of singular vision – one which has the power of conviction and the purpose to interrogate and often unsettle the establishment, in all its various forms and semblances. These groups and individuals may well be operating within the margins of the current system, but as the most significant, time honoured/tested cultural episodes have proven, the most important of all events tend to come from the peripheries of society – by their very nature, this is where notions of the ‘real’, or at least authentically relevant accounts of this, are found – and subsequent inspiration is then taken from these prominent cultural episodes. I suspect if any essential changes are to occur, then yet again their origins will originate there, within the shadows of mainstream culture – and in this instance I propose this will occur away from, and contrary to, the multi-national financial elite and our current system so driven by markets, profits and financial power and all their ever increasing influences.

After this process of ‘scene setting’ and in order to briefly comment on Davies’s preceding texts, which I consider have led us up to my basic plan for action and its steps for allowing a new and constructive dialogue to take place, I will now initiate this discussion and following this, will present my considered thoughts on the matter.

Central to any proposed actions relating to this issue; at the outset I deem there should be a fundamental principle at its core. In this case, I have sited and will utilise the Hegelian master–slave dialectic[1] as the foundation to my initial proposal. From my understanding of these ideas I surmise, that in order to enact real substantial transformations within the hierarchical structures that control, position and which form much of mainstream culture and education – as a group, and the key point in this theory: being the overwhelming majority of young individuals and other marginalised groups within our society – the current resigned embracing of this detrimental system by us the majority, must firstly cease to occur. The blind hope that one will become a member of the ‘chosen few’ or that the system will in someway evolve itself into something which begins to work for the majority of it’s citizens (in this context, it’s young citizens), in my view this type of optimism, that which sustains these social structures, history has proven this compliance is plainly futile. All prior ideological shifts and changes, or real counter cultural movements – of which Punk would be one such development – when placed under any form of basic analysis, would never have ‘just happened’ without proper inaction. By allowing current assenting and conservative behaviour to go on festering, will continue to be detrimental to this cause; a cause which can only be tackled through proper substantial actions. Through creating, or simply infusing a certain mindset(s) and a particular non-confirmative outlook within art, culture and higher educational institutions, this could, and I suspect would, spread to other social channels also – as has often proven to be the case in the past when considering important counter cultural progress.

 

A subsequent ‘plan for action’ will be published next Saturday, the 16^th of November. This will contain a proposed list of the first basic steps needed in order to stimulate a course for change and will conclude the ‘Afterthought’ to Edgar Davies’s, Something akin to Punk: And the Apathetic Generation.

.P

---

[1] Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s (1770 – 1831) master-and-slave dialectic (also called lordship and bondage) is a theory taken from his book Phenomenology of Spirit (1807) in which Hegel questions the relationship and struggle (explicitly metaphoric in nature) between the ‘Master’ and the ‘Slave’. This study specifically examines aspects within this social process relating to consciousness, mediation and subordination.

Something akin to Punk: And the Apathetic Generation - IV

 

[Part Four]

 

IV. Music & Opportunity   

How the Independent popular music scene connects with this enquiry, of whether there has been a recent significant social shift in its formation and development, I find interesting too. These two creative areas of education and commerce, as has been their twentieth century traditions, are indelibly linked, largely through the art school/higher educational systems. A crucial aspect of this is the way in which bands and musicians gather, and form relationships whilst studying. This is either directly so, or through the university social scenes, which is central to most (generally young) people who end up becoming popular music performers. Therefore, these behavioural aspects are fairly obviously connected with the integral matter of opportunities – and again, the increasing lack of them, to whole sways of the country. In recent times, this has resulted in creating a music business that is absolutely saturated with ostensibly similar types of people – socially speaking. Although this issue cannot simply be purely related to class; the problem of social structuring is still a reality one shouldn’t ignore. And although definitely less evident in the arts from the 60’s up until the millennia – primarily due to ideological changes in education and far more effective social equality – yet again however, the gap between ‘the haves’ and ‘the have nots’ has become a significant problem. I consider this is in fact, noticeably more of an issue now, than at any other time in the last three decades. In fundamental terms therefore, the arts and Independent music (which is allied to arts education), has increasingly become the ‘play thing’ of the wealthy and their offspring. Whilst writing this, I am constantly being reminded on a tale I once heard Alex James (him of Blur fame and now celebrity ‘cheese-man’) tell about Florence Welch (her of The Machine Fame). The basic gist of which, consisted of him remembering her from her early teens, being playful and charming, he recalled – as he would often ‘hang-out’ at her parent’s house – in Holland Park, I believe. They were, in some capacity, a part of that 90’s, West London ‘Media-Set’. This may well appear to be a somewhat tenuous link here. However, rest assured, if you want to delve into this subject – of the ‘Influential’ and their privileged, well positioned children – then you will find that such an anecdote could be considered, emblematic of this matter. I feel that what this has created in the music scene (and equally in higher education), is a litany of very comparable bands and performers who are financially able to live in London – the centre of the media and creative industries. Largely, and to put it bluntly, this is due in no small part, to the fact that they have wealthy parents, who have an unwavering support for them. Subsequently, their backgrounds also help them fit in with the media world they wish to inhabit (as our previous story would suggest), and this tale, I believe is an all too common one at present. Therefore, within this environment a sort of (for the most part), factual stereotype has been created, of individuals who predominately come from a privately educated background and fit a certain ‘metropolitanised mould’. Going back to what I mentioned in the previous chapter in relation to the work of the young contemporary artist today, I also find a definite thematic treatment in the music and constructed identity, manufactured by the current popular musician. Firstly, I have observed that there is a sort of new obsession with, what can only be described as mysticism. There are a lot of animal names being adopted or utilised, and the continual reference to a ‘higher’ (totally unrelated to religion), unattainable force. Just like their counterparts from the visual realm, again this brigade of pale, Barbour wearing (second hand of course), creative types, really aren’t at all interested in being tangibles – and I suppose why should they be? I guess one is primarily intrigued by what one knows and has had access to. As a consequence – and in a similar way as the Progressive Rockers did (the approach is of course different) in the late 60’s and 70’s – one finds a new creative scene, primarily based on a subject matter; which mostly focuses on symbolism, phenomena and fantasy. The way in which many of these individuals seem to take themselves so, incredibly seriously, also helps strengthen their connection with the art world. A projected sense of inner turmoil, which they exude, can be startling at times, especially in those whose lives’ have been seemingly so opportune. Nevertheless, this emotive ‘stance’ is exclusively inverted and therefore any real sense of anger is undoubtedly kept under raps. As a result, the shout of “no future” and such like, is currently non-existence here. Before I go on, may I briefly add that I very much like a lot of contemporary music and listen to it regularly (I am not promoting anyone here mind you). However, as is always the case with every good artist, there are constantly many more not so fine, attempting to do the same thing, except not as well. My main argument here is not with the quality of the music being produced today; it is with the current condition of the music scene, which I feel is the result of an ever growing social inequality. This situation is generating an increasing homogeneity in the individuals one sees, and in my view this has been generally detrimental to the works being created.

 

V. ‘Networks’, Illusions & Nostalgia

The kind of cold, uncompromising individualism promoted by Thatcher – which has become absolutely part of the Thatcherite corpus – not only fully lends itself to the type of self-promotion that was at the centre of her politics; but crucially, it also embodies such key components dominant in an arts industry shaped by interactivity and digital expansion. As has proven to be the case within commerce and industry – for me the arts are too following the core philosophies of Thatcherism. These new technologies have been designed and adapted in a way that serves the expectations of powerful individuals and a system committed to and built on capital driven ideals; demonstrating how all these changes are inextricably linked. In this respect, it seems the internet functions in primarily two ways. The duality of this functioning apparatus/network crucially enables, or largely gives the illusion of communication/exchange and in doing so, creates the impression of seemingly, accessible opportunities; most of which, directly or otherwise equates to financial reward for those who have control and influence. If this multifaceted structure is the first operational mode, then the second characteristic of the internet creates the paradigm, which reflects the narcissistic tendencies so extolled in the creation of late 20^th century Capitalist ideals. That is, the internet almost exclusively redefines the individual and their relationship with a perceived society or locale. For all it’s ‘wonderment’ (and let me assure you, I agree that it has this in abundance), in practice it seems using the ‘net’ is a relatively solitary act. Yet, as an apparatus used in the implementation of pure Individualism and because of its infinite nature, incalculable characteristics and specifically, all that it appears to promise – I can think of no greater embodiment of global Capitalist ideology. Although one may be given the impression that ‘anything can be achieved as long as one can get online ’, this illusion of a new found liberation through self imposed solitude, is just that. Nonetheless, what these ideas create within people and society as a whole, are of particular interest to me – especially when taking into consideration the arts.

I do concede, the anxieties I have raised, come from my own observations, experiences and interpretations of these matters. As has been attested throughout the last century (and probably in earlier centuries as well), there are always those subjects which are at odds with the general trends. Usually, if these artist’s (et al.) works, touch on real innovative and engaging themes, the work of such practitioners, is often revisited and reappraised, after the ‘dust’ from the prevailing ‘fads and trends’ have settled. Therefore, my central apprehension at this time is less with the quality of the art I see and hear; as there is much to be said for that at present. I would go as far as to say that there is actually more real innovative and intriguing work being produced now, than at any other time in the last few decades. Having said this though, my issues are with what, and why certain works are being given a platform, and what therefore happens to the rest of it. And why art, which in the past has attempted to engage with matters that deal with the plight of our (particularly young) citizens, is either not being made at all, or the task of excluding it from the mainstream creative consciousness, has so far in this period, been a wholly successful one.

Our correlated subjects – the contemporary art and music ‘scenes’ – and from these artistic disciplines, what is being presented as ‘typical’ examples from this period, for me share many of the same issues. One of my main anxieties in this regard, is an apparent and enveloping fixation with nostalgia. At a time when it would be more probable that these new technologies and the embracing of them, should correlate with the ‘majority’s’ attraction towards pioneering works and therefore one would think it more probable that the championing of new, perhaps young ‘creatives’ today, might be expected. To assume that adopting new creative approaches – by those performers whose actions would be more inclined to sweep away those who create works that have origins situated in, or are heavily linked with, earlier eras – would furthermore be another natural progression of this. These assumptions, as one would soon realise from looking at any magazine rack, music festival line-up and to a large extent the mainstream contemporary art world, have not necessarily come to fruition. Deliberating more on such suggestions, it is conceivable that these networks and modes of digital production are essentially an extremely useful way of distracting, and in turn controlling, those who at one time may have forced the prevailing powers into making some difficult choices. Choices one feels, will sooner or later need to be made. Consequently, at the present time, these areas of the creative industries are, to varying degrees, culpable of setting the same gloomy scene – through their dominate organisations and furthest reaching civic channels. This existing ‘setting’, is now filled with endless band reunions, gallery retrospectives and a kind of iconisation of older artists and musicians; some of whom were never all that great the first time round anyway, but in many instances, due to the effects of time, this now appears to have been forgotten. What all this has produced is a hierarchical structure, where if an arts practitioner missed out on the pre-internet ‘boom’, then the consummation of their work is likely to be far more marginalised, or in many instances, will be expected to be distributed either at the expense of the ‘maker’, or largely for free. This, in my opinion has further helped reinforce the view: that which is old and can generate feelings of nostalgia, is deemed as having more importance - and specifically, becomes a much safer option economically, regardless of it’s artistic worth. Subsequently, if we are to look at this situation and think of the new technological tools and systems which young people now have access to, one might rightly assume that what the internet has in actual fact produced, is conformity; perhaps less so in the creative sense, but certainly in a socio-ideological respect.

 

VI. The ‘Intern’, Discrimination, Acceptance & Activism    

The situation new entrants to the arts have currently been left to ponder, to be brutally honest, is bleak. Coupled with the biggest problem the arts as an industry faces today, creative ownership and control over publishing (which will certainly increase further over time) an issue that clearly impacts most on those trying to establish themselves as self-supporting individuals working within this field, we now also have another related injustice. This being, that not only are young art creators struggling to support themselves economically, something which to some extent can usually be expected, but what we now find as being endemic in the arts, is that businesses and organisations are now able to have young (almost always young, ‘graduates’ etc.) people working for them, doing ‘proper’ work and filling much needed roles within their workplaces, but these arts and media companies are being allowed, quite openly, not to pay them. This is what is regularly known as ‘The Intern’. The culture, which surrounds these ‘Interns’, is so blatantly a short sighted financial tactic – systematic and detrimental to the ever increasing problem of youth unemployment (and largely highly educated youths in this regard). Therefore it never fails to amaze me that far greater attention isn’t being paid to tackling this damaging culture. I don’t mean primarily in a governmental sense either. The government and big business are fundamentally the same economic entity now, which is largely, once again, due to greater empowerment given to the free market over the last 30 years. Therefore, as much as any political executive might posture about this, they will always leave enough leeway in order for it to happen, and as we already know, if it is at all possible for businesses to get away with free labour (and let’s face it, that’s what it is) then it will continue. For me the biggest tragedy, which has come out of this new, wide scale exploitation, is a fundamental lack of any meaningful solidarity young aspiring art workers and other potentially new creative administrators seemingly have for one another. It seems patently obvious, that political leaders will not put an end to this system that allows such mistreatment to occur, therefore more than enough time has pasted for those affected to realise that the only way to prevent this from happening further, is for young workers to act. The ‘action’, would simply be to communicate through rhetoric and backed up by implementation; a position that states: from this point onwards, ‘no one works for free’. I believe this would also be fairly easy to implement. It is a simple piece of industrial action, and is the right of all us free citizens. Integral to this however, is the notion of the ‘Scab’, which would certainly have to be applied. One would have to deem this absolutely necessary in order that those privileged enough to work for free, should be shamed or persuaded into not doing so. As has happened in other previous decades, young people have been able to show solidarity towards one another as a way of achieving certain social and political objectives. Therefore, instead of embracing their oppressors, which these days I am aware of constantly, young people must start realising, much in the way Punks, Hippies and others have done before them, that the system is working against their best interests. Ideologically, it appears now, that individuals have never been so alone. Modern Individualism has left young people especially, largely battling one another, in the vain hope that our vastly inadequate system just might start working for them one day. These troubles are evident in all manner of ways and in various ‘walks of life’. However, through their strong connections to higher education, the formation of their economic models and due to their seemingly privileged natures – the arts and music businesses, truly are quite a special case in this regard. The sheer scale of injustices being perpetrated within these industries and the widespread implementation/acceptance of them – has prompted such conclusions as these to be drawn.

Therefore, for the time being, my assessment of the Thatcherite legacy, and how it has manifested itself in our new, and unquestionably pioneering technological advancements, would be that – it is thus far serving the economic powers, of the established minority, infinitely better than those who make up the vast majority of ‘ordinary people’ in this country. Hence, I believe this is now a significant, contributing factor to the ever increasing economic gap between those who have access to opportunities of social advancement and those who, through no fault of their own, do not. But even more crucially than this, these ‘digital apparatuses’ are being implemented, and then reinforced by all of us as users, in a way that enhances the current operational/ideological model. Furthermore, I consider that these networks and computerised devices have supported the idea that society, in the traditional sense, has gone. Firstly, by creating a mass diversion of consciousness through a kind of digitised control and via forms of entertainment; and secondly, by manufacturing new pseudo-social networks, which are in reality, complete illusions to what actual social cohesion really is. What both these two crucial aspects of today’s new global ‘communities’ have produced, and have in common is, solitude – and as a result, an enhanced fear of the ‘unknown’. This has happened I feel, because of an overly developed, false consciousness. I believe therefore, that these factors are two of the most tragic results of late twentieth century, free market capitalism and the ‘digital age’ it created.

In order to draw this preliminary social study to a satisfactory conclusion, I will draw on a recent interview I saw. This exchange involved the writer; broadcaster and celebrity intellectual Will Self, discussing Punk and today’s societal predicaments – and of particular interest to myself here, this dialogue primarily concerned questions relating to young people nowadays. One may view this short interview for themselves, in order to get the full context of it; however there is a point which I would like to briefly mention here. The general view coming from Self is that (and he takes no pleasure in making this point, I may add), young aspiring individuals, presently, unless born into a position of rare opportunity, are fundamentally disadvantaged in this current global system of exchange. This, in the case of the arts, media and ‘design’ etc., has produced relatively little political reaction; resulting in the victims of these structures, simply ‘going with this devastating flow’. Self articulates to the young interviewer at one point, words to this effect: if there is a job going within this media driven industry “they won’t pay you to do it, they’ll pay me”. Such a decision will also not be based upon ability or quality in any way either, he suggests. We are in a position where this current generation, if we are to be honest, are being lost, literally as we speak. They have been undoubtedly dealt a severe economic and political blow, but I must admit they are also allowing these discriminations too simply ‘happen to them’ – without the hint of a fight, or in some instances even a whimper. And as a result, a blind and resigned acceptance that collective change, is not even deemed futile anymore. It is, at this time, not even being considered at all. For a whole variety of complex reasons, the Thatcherite line is being ‘towed’ by young people; without question. The view that ‘one must only ever think of oneself’ and a ruthless drive for financial success should be all that matters – is the consensus which prevails, and is upheld by them. The sad truth is though, that this ethos is not serving them well in the slightest. In fact, it is utterly reinforcing this desperate situation. Possibly, this naïve faith or ignorance, which young workers and graduates have in the current system, has contributed to some of this obvious lack of faith that those in power clearly have for the ‘next/current generation’?

 

This sited interview with Will Self, surprisingly profound, touches upon the core subject of the latter part of my paper – the problem of ‘The Overlooked Generation’.    

 

Conclusion – Formulating a Solution…

In order to finish this piece on a more positive note, I aim to express the thought that all may not be all lost. As I have alluded to in this chapter, I would firstly propose a course of action for those being subjected to this societal marginality. I believe those most affected, at present, by the issues I have been discussing are those between the ages of 20 and 35 (this is a very rough estimation, and of course all those in favour of meaningful action, or who demonstrate unity with this cause; are victims of these austere, democratically unrepresentative times, would be thoroughly welcomed as part of any political action). Therefore, the first course of action must be based around, and aimed at creating a shared solidarity with those from this same generation – whether directly affected by these problems or not. I consider this key to any proposed movement. Through the creation of networks and groups, which are exclusively run by, and are for, those trying to achieve justice for this generation and a resolution to this crisis; this would be a significant step in developing a much broader consciousness of these issues. This would initially be designed to create some apprehension in the establishment and simply a greater level of attention for this cause. From these new systems, the prevailing message must sound something like this: ‘we will take up this cause ourselves and change our situation accordingly’. Such thoughts are not unheard of. We have seen previous generations, create their own successes from this sort of position and through comparable progressive political attitudes. Then through this much needed process of ideological re-shaping, I firmly believe that creatively and artistically, those same younger adults will be able to fashion movements and make their own unique statements in their work – events that up until now have been lacking. Maybe looking at previous generations for inspiration is not a bad idea? But this must be done in the right context I feel. It is one thought looking for insight into the social, creative and artistic achievements of previous decades – however what we have seen recently is a far more sycophantic approach to this, which I think has been damaging and has produced the opposite change: compliance. No, quite simply those in this complicated social position (of which I am one), must now cease ‘embracing the oppressor’ and start developing a new unity of political and social activism; combined with new artistic and innovative ideas. If such a pioneering engagement does occur, then maybe Punk, as important as it was, will finally turn out to be ‘old news’ after all. And with this, one may well end up saying ‘what did Punk ever do for me?’ To think of previous generations, and their achievements in such a way, I judge would be a sign that we are finally finding the true worth in our own one.

 

There will be an Afterthought written by the editor Pipe, in consultation with the author of ‘Something akin to Punk’, Edgar Davis. The publishing date for this post will be announced soon. Please keep checking Pipe for details of this and other news, thanks.

P.

Something akin to Punk: And the Apathetic Generation - III

 

[Part Three]

 

III. Technology, Education & Control

Currently I judge the arts find themselves in an entirely unfamiliar situation. Mainly this is due to the new technologies currently being used by artists and other creative’s; relating to how works are made, reproduced and then ‘shared’. This unprecedented availability to information and an ever increasing access to works, of all types – has quickly become a facet of this constantly evolving artistic terrain, a fact which is definitely taken for granted by most. The arts are consequently in a permanent state of flux. These changes can be traced back it seems, to the materialisation of an ever expanding ‘digital age’, and with it the most dramatic technological invention, unquestionably of my life time – the Internet. For good or bad, this source of information, which now expands beyond the realms of human contemplation, has changed everything. I firmly believe that the arts and the production of art, seems to have lost a definite focus because of these specific technological and cultural advancements. These pioneering digital ‘tools’ have produced a generation of artists and creative individuals who are now able to focus on whatever specific source information they choose. They can position themselves within the arts more accurately than was ever previously possible, with regards who and what they choose to associate with, or draw inspiration from. What's more, this has had a profound effect on how they share and distribute their work. The once strict role of the artist as principally a ‘creator’ has disappeared. The visual artist and musician starting out, newly established or just working independently today, is expected to carry out all manner of duties for themselves that were once the job of a range of different professionals (I am focusing on art and ‘popular/independent’ music, as these two disciplines have an interdisciplinary relationship in this regard, and I deem have significantly correlated with one another during the period I am focusing on.). For instance the artist, as well as constructing their work now also acts as producer, arranger, manager, promoter, technician…and this can extend to virtually any job that the practitioner might require and can be feasibly carried out by them. In most instances, they are able to accomplish these tasks, firstly without considering them new or novel in anyway and secondly through access to facilities that allow these crucial jobs to be satisfactorily completed. In the last decade, the steady pace of these recent technological and behavioural developments mean that such changes – which in the past progressed at a far more modest pace – have now quickened to a new and startling rate. From the year 2000 up until today, in comparison to previous decades – if one compares technical progress, ‘like for like’ – this period seems less like a decade of change and more like several decades of technological growth. However, let me make it clear, that although now unavoidable and unquestionably pioneering, these changes in the role of the artist, due to these radical ‘industrial/technological’ expansions, are not without noteworthy issues and by my studied observations have created some intriguing predicaments. This is a further reason why I am attempting to articulate some of my judgements now.

Now I will discuss various problems with some of the work being produced by new(ish) practitioners, in both the contemporary art and music industries. What I have noticed, firstly in art, is that it seems there has been some considerable convergence between the media, commercial design and cooperate driven markets and the contemporary gallery networks. Evidently there have always been strong ties between all these well established, media driven industries. However, as I have observed, the general attitude of the contemporary art world has shifted further and further away from any sort of real overt political engagement in recent times. This is of course, largely due to huge sways of cuts in the arts budgets and the self funding root having to grow and strengthen to a level we have never before experienced. As a result, obvious compromises have had to occur. The secondary effect, which has occurred, is in the sorts of work being produced, then chosen to be exhibited and the themes these pieces invariably focus on. Furthermore, this is absolutely attached to the type of ‘Higher Education’ given to young artists today and the current contemporary arts theory/rhetoric being communicated and focused on. For example, I have noticed there has been much attention paid to the notion of ‘space’, within recent fine art practice. The concept of the “Liminal Space” is a popular area of intrigue here. There are undoubtedly many interesting theories and works being created around these ideas. Nonetheless, the general framing of these concepts has been one which shies away from any clear or defined social or ideological engagement. Ideological statements now appear largely crude, unsophisticated and out of place in the new sleek, media ‘tuned’, cultural arena. These transformations are connected to the business of arts education as well. Art colleges are in precisely the same position as all self supporting businesses today. Therefore, it is becoming harder for art schools and tertiary educational institutions generally, to maintain much of the political activism and rigorous practical ideological engagements, which were so inherit in their progression through out the twentieth century. The business and marketing model is slowly removing that sense of political foregrounding and proper student activism. One has even begun to find most of the tutors and lectures that came through this system and would have championed and held these political and social ideals as fundamental to this educational ‘enlightenment’, are either retiring now or are leaving. This has left the next generation to take their places. Typically now, one finds individuals who are absolutely career orientated; almost corporate driven and as such, entirely accepting of the art world they inhabit. The study programmes frequently conducted within today’s universities and secondary educational institutions, by these new tutors, embrace a kind of openness and apparent ambiguity. In my view however, the terminologies and characteristics of ‘subtlety’ have been applied to mask a complacent rejection and basic lack of a much needed dialogue that focuses on actual social, ideological and cultural concerns, within the work being produced. The notion of political art, as a term of characterisation, is now actually something to be scorned at it seems. A recent general artistic trend, which exists today, appears to have largely rejected subjects that have a clear political commitment at their core. Ideas based around any sort of empiricism, or actual tangible subject matter, is often derided. The view that subtlety, and work which contains allegorical qualities, could not possibly exist within works which directly equate to a subject matter that addresses shared social anxieties, I have begun to realise, has now become commonplace. If one thinks of western art history for a moment – particularly if we were to focus on the work of Géricault (1791 – 1824) or Goya (1746 – 1828), as they are perhaps considered to be the first (renown) modern painters, up to where we are today in art – then this present attitude towards artworks and their subject matter, as a consequence of this retrospection, seems even stranger to me. At present though, recent artworks which contain all the qualities of cooperate graphics and design – clean, well ordered, fairly minimal compositions – are in abundance. Some of which I do appreciate immensely. Nevertheless, the sheer quantity of this work and its apparent lack of any definitive consciousness has become a real problem for me. This is coupled with the sad truth that the practitioners producing this work and the galleries which display and now set the agenda for the work, have not maintained any meaningful balance in the art they produce and is subsequently exhibited. Because this is now an art industry fully controlled by business, it unsurprisingly means that there is a contempt held for artists who attempt to deal with subjects critical or sceptical of the ‘corridors of power’, as these same power structures fully set the schema for the mainstream contemporary art world. This is the simple and most effective course of action to take. The call appears to be: ‘shut them out, economically and culturally, by whatever means possible’. I guess it just makes good business sense. There are now simply too many problems or contradictions which would arise if the contemporary work on display had an explicit modern ideological agenda. Therefore, work must be ‘opaque’ in what it might imply, in order to be accepted into the leading cultural arenas. As a result, such derision at work which does not subscribe to these imperatives is simply self-reflecting. If one was to employ a famous adage as a way of surmising this current approach, adopted by the art establishment, I might say: If you never allow the ‘elephant’ into the room, then you don’t even have to try and ignore it. However this approach, whether automatic or consciously in operation, is at best, naïve. In an attempt to avoid contradictions or simply ‘awkward moments’, these business powers have managed to give the impression that they have closed down proper, socio-cultural debate and discussion, within the arts. Therefore I sense, although long overdue, there has to be a reaction against the controlling nature of these structures. Much in the same vein as Punk did before - perhaps the longer these seemingly ‘compulsory’ trends continue – the more culturally important the eventual reactions will prove to be?

 

The fourth and final part of this text will be published next Saturday, the 31st of August.

P.

Something akin to Punk: And the Apathetic Generation - II

 

[Part Two]

 

II. Individualism & Uniformity

Before I continue with this paper, let me initially describe a fairly well known anecdote, so as to make a link between my previous point on the continuing privatisation of all possible ‘commodifiable’ industries and how this has/is effecting higher education. I won’t get overly entrenched in this area. Nevertheless, I deem this story emblematic – as it involved Mrs Thatcher and profoundly anticipates the many problems we now face, specifically within higher education and the arts generally. The story goes: when on a press assignment during her time in office, Mrs Thatcher toured St Hilda's College, Oxford, and when there asked a girl what she studied: “Norse literature” the girl replied. “What a luxury!” was the then PM’s retort. Whether consciously or not, the opinion expressed by Margaret Thatcher on that day, in my view is a telling one. Her general regard for subjects which fall within the broad category of ‘the arts and humanities’, as exposed on that day, roughly equates to these academic and creative subject matters principally being deemed as superfluous. What this illustrates is an attitude that – although often unacknowledged by our political classes – states, if we cannot directly measure your endeavours and learning in financial terms, then it is just a ‘plaything’ and hence, it is unnecessary. Without getting too caught up in the sheer inaccuracies and ignorance of this view, on a purely economic basis that is, as that would be a ‘diversion’ I refuse to get drawn into. This is mainly because I personally do not measure all worth as these individuals do. However, what this has done is communicate, even by osmosis, the idea that one should only study these subjects, or enter this cultural realm, if that individual has the money to do so. It is as though, in the last couple of decades, there has been a slow and sustained effort to rid education of solely ‘thinkers’. Those academics that actually have a firm foundation in the ‘everyday’ are definitely under threat from the current financially focused university system. I am pleased to say, that clearly this has not happened completely, and hopefully never could do. But by attempting to turn all areas of higher education into massive corporate institutions – I suspect it goes without saying, that it affects the work being produced and the rhetoric being communicated in the contemporary arts today. The positives and negatives of this are subjective of course. But as this is the critical field I inhabit, I can say that the level of concern I observe being expressed by many similar practitioners as myself, equates to a significant anxiety. For me the major apprehension I see in the majority of work being created and then given a platform; is that there is a stark lack of any sort of creatively articulated resistance, turmoil or even a collective anger contained within it. This is difficult to accept in a time when the general formation of our society is so blatantly working against young people and specifically those whose backgrounds and economic situations prevent them from accessing the same quality educational and social opportunities as their more privileged counterparts. In addition, this highlights an absence of any real, meaningful sense of solidarity young people might feel for each other. And secondly, because today’s new technologies and apparatuses, which are used so widely, should really make some distinct social changes more probable. Therefore, as more time passes and transformations of this kind fail to appear; the social, ideological and educational structures that determine this system will continue to be moved further in the opposite direction – hence, I surmise this will remain largely working against students and their best interests. If no meaningful student lead resistance to these changes happens, this will continue to occur until everything within these institutions is commodified and the prevailing ideology becomes absolutely inclusive and as a result, a completely sustained force, which neither has to, or is even able to, adapt its functioning model. This leaves us increasingly with the proposal that there should be a compulsory ‘choice’ to make in every aspect of ones life. This totally misleading concept is fundamentally at the basis of modern cooperate capitalism – but is clearly never outwardly promoted as such. Our current ideological structure only presents these dubious ideas around ‘choice’, in order to conceal what this essentially means. What they actually equate to is the capability to pay, and therefore this ‘choice’ always comes at a hefty price - above all socially.

A largely unquestioning participation in this financially determined process, I deem has created large social groupings that are basically totally subservient to an ideological structure, which operates counter to what would benefit them and the majority of those within that group. However, what else has emerged recently within the predominate social factions in this country, is even more alarming. The tragedy of this situation is what has been created through the approval of those Thatcherite ideals linked to individualism. This has resulted in an overall apathy and non-engagement within the time honoured political modes used in ordered to activate any meaningful and much needed ideological change(s). The ease in which it seems those who hold power are able to control the ‘masses’ is at times, astounding. We are living through a period where we are bound by a political elite that is blatantly inadequate. The almost weekly scandals, ‘sleaze’, incompetence's and actual law breaking, is made evident to us the Public in a ‘newsworthy stream’ of unprecedented regularity. Big corporations and companies are able to candidly operate in largely whatever way best suits their economic agenda. And we are fully aware of all this. Events have proven that global financial institutions are left to control and regulate themselves mainly. Therefore, they primarily function in order to make as much profit for their respective organisation as is possible; until of course, it all goes wrong and the state gifts them more public funds so they can try it all over again. And the media too is on trial for breaking the law – remember. Not to mention, it’s often misleading and suspiciously selective reporting on local and international news stories. One has a few obvious ideas where this selectivity might come from. Much of this distrust is allied to the interconnectivity between those in places of power, i.e. the elite within our society and those who are granted a place at the top echelons of the media, and therefore control mainstream reporting. This definitely has nothing to do with any sort of ‘conspiracy theories’ either – in my experience, there is simply always some inherent bias within global media. Those of you who want to examine this subject in more depth, well there is ample evidence out there to support such claims. However, I often feel that one must only spend some time out in the ‘real’ world, trust your instincts and take in what you experience and it usually becomes plaintively obvious how these global media networks operate. The further we travel along the path away from free education and any meaningful notion of equal opportunities for all, towards ‘choice’, and more accurately, wealth – becoming less an advantage and more a necessity, as is increasingly evident all the time – the consequence is our civilisation seems far more homogenised. This reality affects all parts of our state. Therefore we see it within much of our mainstream media also. It is becoming, in a strange way like the pre-60’s generation, where everyone had to speak in a certain way in order to be on TV or radio. Although now not everyone sounds like the aristocracy; it as though much of the regionality of the voices we hear coming from the media presenters, has been replaced by a sort of ‘cosmopolitanised’ cultural set. Most of the individuals we see appear to have come from, or inhabit, largely the same metropolitan environments, and in so doing have started to become indistinguishable. Subsequently, I now witness much less little idiosyncrasies in these individuals and the images which follow them; and a far more uniformed overall impression from one ‘setting’ to the next, appears. It is as if, being ‘out of touch’ (in a societal sense), whether in terms of class, age, background or political consciousness/persuasions – and therefore not asking too many difficult questions – is far more advantageous than otherwise should be the case. I do not suggest that this has been consciously constructed, or there is any ‘big secret’. It simply figures, that this is how these organisations are run and our ideological system currently serves those groups who hold these powers. The more individualism (& its associated uniformity) is promoted, coupled with – the less that is done to change any of its social consequences – the more these control arrangements perpetuate themselves. What has happened in the previous decades prior to this however, was that youth subcultures and countercultural movements seemed to form and create what have been proven to be important cultural episodes. Such events often inspired some sort of realignment of the social orders through their very occurrences. At the very least, this generates a feeling in the popular psyche that ‘we’ as a collective group, ‘will always think for ourselves’, and in doing this, begin to make those who hold power aware that they must always consider ‘the people’. Sadly however, I have seen and experienced nothing which could resemble this sort of political engagement for almost two decades now. At a time (as I have been at lengths to describe in this section), where this type of social progress is now long overdue. What a little filth and fury did for the Punks, something similarly iconic and culturally meaningful, is crucial now – the collective imagination so requires it I suspect.

 

Part Three will be published next Saturday, the 24th of August.

P.

Something akin to Punk: And the Apathetic Generation - I

 

[Part One]

 

Preface

Now, I have been kindly invited to write this piece for Pipe. Those fine folk said “write about anything you want” and I don’t get those sorts of invitations very often, so I thought this was the opportunity I needed to write this. I do hope they understand.

I have been considering the subject matter & themes which inform this article for some months. In fact, the areas under discussion, which have structured this text - I have largely considered them, concerns. These concerns may be more accurately described as being years old, rather than months. It has been only recently that I have adequately interrogated many of these questions. In doing so, this has helped me develop my ideas for this paper. Subsequently, now I attempt to articulate these questions, and the issues which surround them, in a written form.

 

Introduction

This article intends to question why roughly over the last decade, new artists & musicians have not followed the commonly set trajectory of previous generations: those practitioners from the latter half of the 20^th century up until the millennia, where I have observed this break has now occurred. Of course, each era has had its own specific cultural and socio-political nuances. However, I firmly believe that from the 1950s onwards (when the ‘teenager’/youth [sub-] cultures, and all that this now suggests, originated); since then each generation has had certain inherent behavioural traits and reactions, which essentially unite them all. That is until around the commencement of the 21^st century; where such anticipated reactions and consequent exchanges, began to change. This cultural period – which we are still in the midst of – did not change because of some new creative ‘happening’, or arts inspired movement. If this were to have been the case then this could, in an historical sense, be read as suspected; principally due to the events of previous decades. No, instead what has characterised these times is less what has happened – culturally and in-turn creatively – and more precisely, what hasn’t happened.

Therefore what I aim to explain and investigate in this article, is why over recent times movements related to and defined by ‘young people’; have not had the impact on society in the same manner as they had in other subsequent post-war decades. In recent times – because of this lack of popular youth definition and repatriation from their ascendances – I will describe a generation as having (in a creative sense) culturally stalled. In this examination, I aim to understand and explain some of the social, cultural and political reasons why I deem this might have happened.

 

I. The Background

For someone who grew up, if not entirely under her premiership, then certainly as successive Prime Minsters has enabled, under ‘Thatcherism’. Therefore the death of Margaret Thatcher has unquestionably given the ideas surrounding this text a far clearer focus for me. A telling factor which this inescapable episode has prompted, is a particular realisation that even though we may be two decades on since she was fairly unceremoniously elbowed out of office by her own cabinet - in ironically a very Thatcherite manner - the all male Prime Ministers since have sadly done little, or nothing to alter the political ethos and general scheme she devised. In fact they have all wilfully followed it. The reality of unrelenting Thatcherism and my full realisation of it, in the days following her death, have had a fundamental effect on how I view our current political elite/system and how her Premiership socially affected the country I grew up in. As a result, this has profoundly shaped the piece I am writing now. Therefore, these considerations have allowed me to formulate a more definite clarity than would have been afforded me without the help of the recent crucial debate over her tenure as Prime Minster and its wider social influence.

Firstly, let me say that I am not someone who believes all the social inequalities and lack of communal cohesion that has thus far defined the 21^st century, are wholly the ‘work’ of Prime Minster Thatcher. I do acknowledge, some what forlornly, that in the last two decades there has been sufficient time to address the tragic errors commitment by her free-market inspired governance. However, not only has this not happened, but the programme set by Thatcher has been followed through with an unwavering enthusiasm, and if anything, with even more empowerment and freedom granted to the financial industries and private sector(s) than even she sanctioned. It is safe to suggest though, that it was Thatcher who began this seismic transformation of the UK and created the capital led economy that we have today (a fact she would have been proud of I’m sure). Nonetheless, this has undoubtedly significantly contributed to the current economic situation the country is in. My interest here though, is with the kind of society – culturally, artistically & socially – that these ideological changes have gradually, but progressively created. The now infamous quote, “there’s no such thing as society”, claimed by Thatcher, has been generally realised now I feel. This statement was, at the time pre-emptory of course. When it was made at the Conservative Party Conference in 1987, there were undoubtedly countless noteworthy examples all across the UK, which wholly contradicted these sentiments. In my own experiences as a child in the late 80’s, early 90’s – I felt part of a community and saw the collective nature of a wider social group ‘at large’, in the areas I grew up in. And I still firmly believe this ‘togetherness’ was for the collective good. However one feels about the merits of a strong ‘open’ society; the ever present gatherings which took place in the majority of neighbourhoods until fairly recently, now have a very different nature. This sense of a large community cohesion, has either mostly gone or is slowing disappearing altogether. Crucially on this matter, I consider a clear indication of a strong communal bond between the inhabitants of an area, to be the notable presence of children. This factor, although as my parents would testify to, can be tiresome and wholly infuriating at times, is nevertheless a prime example of actual community organisation. The freedom which children and other young people have in which to structure their own relationships with their peers, has changed out of all recognition from what was the custom when I grew up (of which now London seems the most acute example of this shift). In many respects it has now become positively frowned down upon for children to be out without their customary parental guides. I have noticed that within large sections of our communities, this has created children that almost seem, oddly enough, slightly ‘middle aged’ in their attitudes and characteristics. They appear to lack a lot of the general mischief one would expect, and is natural for young people to have. There is in my view, far too much blind acceptance of what they are told and expected to do by their everyday figures of authority. This then frequently turns into a somewhat scorned, subservient, ambivalence within them; as they approach ‘adulthood’. The evolution of parental roles is intriguing as well in this regard. It’s as though in the modern day, one is expected never to become ‘elderly’; in the traditional aesthetic sense. We are surrounded by the new pseudo-young, a totally unreal phenomenon. Coupled with being told they must work as long as they can (despite the endemic problem of youth unemployment); they are instructed to have a structured, impenetrable ‘career’; and more economically significant, consume in abundance. This has apparently produced something quite novel in the ‘sandwich’, and their older generational counterparts. Of course, in reality these changes are not occurring exactly like this. No, the implications of all these factors are socially far more serious than I have initially described here. Nonetheless, some of the new behavioural patterns we see happening today in men and women from these newly ‘liberated’ age groups are in there own material way, quite starling. The wearing of jeans, ‘funky’ t-shirts, getting tattoos and purchasing a whole variety of the ‘freshest mod cons’, customarily intended for their kids – are just a few of these associated acts. And this virtually goes on up until the point they drop down dead – the ‘grey pound’ is seemingly stronger than ever. Perhaps the only one that is? The sight of the much older parent with their young – slightly odd; tweed clad; well tailored; fabulously trained infant – is a picture which is becoming commonplace all over the country. Whether this is a positive trend or not; maybe it doesn’t matter? It may just be inevitable, only time will tell. Nonetheless, I too believe that there is a connection between these behavioural examples and with those individuals – particularly young people – who are situated, for a variety of social and economic reasons, outside these parental and social structures. Their lives and actions are frequently in the extreme. What was once common rebelliousness or a general ‘rights of passage’, has become severe in its mindlessness and absolute in its levels of destruction. In what has undoubtedly become a new age of extremes, spectacles (in a sort of revised Debordian sense), and an era of supposed advancement of society – this now works two fold: both as a positive means and also to the detriment of the overall order of communities. And subsequently, this is a crucial reason why I make such judgements about these new acute variations in social conduct and attitudes.

There are always many exceptions when dealing with societal development. The complex nature of these matters is unquestionably intricate. But I have mentioned these factors thus far, because I sense the connections are important to these times; and as a result are worth consideration. In a period where homogenised consumerism has conned individuals into believing they can ‘have it all’. And that regardless of what their inherent identity or social traditions may have been once; it is time to surrender all those in favour of modern capitalism’s uniformed Individualism. Therefore, for a whole variety of reasons, my views are exclusively connected to the unprecedented continual privatisation of most sections and services within our “society”. This I deem has created a structure which encourages families to live more and more isolated existences. It seems this system, which subliminally promotes the belief that, ‘it’s good to be bourgeois’ & ‘there is no longer such a thing as class’, has also created the behavioural patterns of the ‘establishment’ within the majority of its citizens. Habitually the aristocracy have, for the most part, always lived by these same kinds of financially voracious ideals - for fairly obvious reasons. This is due to their customary economic strengths. But now a whole new ‘majority’ of those living – what by any stretch of the imagination would be seen as normal, economically modest existences – have also adopted many of the same socio-economic tendencies. However these are just the tendencies, minus much of the ‘substance’ needed to enact them satisfactorily; hence much of the current unrest, I would deduce. For me, this is both poignant and utterly incompatible with how the largest social groups have ordered themselves in the past. How these social changes connect with my main topic: the effects these recent behavioural tendencies have had on the arts and culture in this country, is what I will endeavour to explain next.

 

Part Two will be published next Saturday, the 17th of August.

P.