Hardcore Techno And Anarchist Theory
all texts written by Sönke Moehl
This E-book can also be downloaded as a PDF at:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9qdbbyx9zekuvxn/Hardcore%20Techno%20And%20Anarchist%20Theory.pdf?dl=0
Table Of Contents
01. Preface
02. Why I Left The Breakcore Scene In 2001
03. Why I Left Breakcore - Addendum 2
04. We Need A Revolution
05. Merging Techno And Hardcore With Social, Cultural And "Political" Thoughts
06. Artists, Outcasts and Society
07. The Illusion Of The Internet
08. Hardcore Techno, What Was After That, And How Nihilism Got Old
09. Revolution Is In The Air
10. Revolution Of The Mind
11. Sonic Threads
12. The Key
13. Anarchy and Extacy
14. Revolution Or Interest
15. Music Is Dead - Long Live Music!
16. How To Create New Forms Of Music
17. The Closedness Of Possibilities
18. Revolution and Reaction
19. How Critical Debate Is Prevented
20. Techno - Needs More Synthetics
21. Art And Utopia
22. Our Current Crisis Of Culture
Saturday, September 2, 2017
Preface
In this book I try to draw a connection between the musical genre of Hardcore Techno and the political philosophy of Anarchism, as well as dealing with general topics of art theory, cultural resistance, subcultures and other societal and philosophical topics.
Why I Left The Breakcore Scene In 2001
the breakcore and experimental hardcore scene in the beginning revolved around a lot of radical, extreme, interesting, exciting, subversive and anarchist ideas. they were closely related - or similar to those of guy debord, raoul vaneigem, hakim bey, ken knapp. even if one could argue that some artists did not directly espouse these ideas, at least they were similar and it worked both ways. there were a lot of connections between situationism, neo-luddites, "extropism" and the scene back then. especially, but not limited, through the free party scene then.
i don't know if i discovered these topics and ideas "through" the hardcore movement, or just around the same time, but both things fit very well together for me. in record names, track titles, interviews, and especially the magazines that were put out by the people, this connection of both things should probably become very clear. "pirate utopias", "chaos, mayhem and anarchy", and temporary autonomous zones, anyone?
now around 2000, things changed completely in the different direction. a new breakcore scene emerged, quickly replacing the old one, and they were very quick to jettison all the radical ideas. instead they took a for me extremely reactionary stance, celebrating market mechanisms and corporate pop culture, abandoning any attempts at social change, or radicalism.
this was the situation back then; i had started doing my own activites regarding hardcore and breakcore in 1997. my involvement was always about putting the aforementioned, and similar, ideas across. but with these new breakcore people this was simply not possible anymore.
now the thing is, you might say, okay ignore the others, and still try to put ideas across, the majority will ignore them and maybe someone will listen to them.
but it was not as simply as that. the breakcore people, while maybe not understanding, were at least somehow aware of the ideas of the situationists and the others, but trying to coopt them and turning them around.
i came to the conclusion that it was simply not possible to put these ideas across, without them overtaking them or jamming them.
an example of this was pop sampling in hardcore tracks that was around in the 90s too (i'm not talking about the dance-scene related ID&T stuff here, but the extreme hardcore music). back then it was quite subversive. taking some bullshit pop singer crap, pitching it up until it sounds like a squealing weazle and give it the full-on 909 drum treatment. it was simply a "piss-off!" of all that pop crap that was around at the time.
with the breakcore crowd, this turned into pop crossovers, that were simply safe, that everyone done (and still does), and is not subversive at all. or does anyone claim these pop-breakcore tracks will incite any form of radical social change? not even the artists think that.
so for me it was very clear that i had to leave the breakcore sound behind, since it was simply not possible to get these radical ideas through anymore, not for me or for anyone else. now, in hindsight, this conclusion came maybe a bit early, and other artists and groups still tried to bring these things across. but for me it is still the right decision.
especially, since back then, the upcoming speedcore, dance-orientated and doomcore scenes were very and extremely open to these ideas, so it was much better for me to be there then it would've been in the breakcore scene.
today, i wouldn't say the same about the current speedcore or mainstream hardcore world, but doomcore is still going strong.
Addendum 1
i don't want to add this addendum, but i feel like i have to. some people might complain that i'm about "politics" or "ideology" and music should be kept free of them. while i don't think music should be free of it, principally, and situationism and neo-luddites, etc. were already beyond politics - and ideology - then simply drop the "politics" and think of radical, creative, extreme, exciting and interesting ideas. the sound was full of them - but with the breakcore scene, not anymore.
also i should add that i see this change in breakcore around 2000 as a - basically - totally deliberate move - not something that just (or inevitably) happened - even if the artists and people involved were not fully aware or conscious about it - to ultra-reactionism, or rather, ultra-boredom.
i don't know if i discovered these topics and ideas "through" the hardcore movement, or just around the same time, but both things fit very well together for me. in record names, track titles, interviews, and especially the magazines that were put out by the people, this connection of both things should probably become very clear. "pirate utopias", "chaos, mayhem and anarchy", and temporary autonomous zones, anyone?
now around 2000, things changed completely in the different direction. a new breakcore scene emerged, quickly replacing the old one, and they were very quick to jettison all the radical ideas. instead they took a for me extremely reactionary stance, celebrating market mechanisms and corporate pop culture, abandoning any attempts at social change, or radicalism.
this was the situation back then; i had started doing my own activites regarding hardcore and breakcore in 1997. my involvement was always about putting the aforementioned, and similar, ideas across. but with these new breakcore people this was simply not possible anymore.
now the thing is, you might say, okay ignore the others, and still try to put ideas across, the majority will ignore them and maybe someone will listen to them.
but it was not as simply as that. the breakcore people, while maybe not understanding, were at least somehow aware of the ideas of the situationists and the others, but trying to coopt them and turning them around.
i came to the conclusion that it was simply not possible to put these ideas across, without them overtaking them or jamming them.
an example of this was pop sampling in hardcore tracks that was around in the 90s too (i'm not talking about the dance-scene related ID&T stuff here, but the extreme hardcore music). back then it was quite subversive. taking some bullshit pop singer crap, pitching it up until it sounds like a squealing weazle and give it the full-on 909 drum treatment. it was simply a "piss-off!" of all that pop crap that was around at the time.
with the breakcore crowd, this turned into pop crossovers, that were simply safe, that everyone done (and still does), and is not subversive at all. or does anyone claim these pop-breakcore tracks will incite any form of radical social change? not even the artists think that.
so for me it was very clear that i had to leave the breakcore sound behind, since it was simply not possible to get these radical ideas through anymore, not for me or for anyone else. now, in hindsight, this conclusion came maybe a bit early, and other artists and groups still tried to bring these things across. but for me it is still the right decision.
especially, since back then, the upcoming speedcore, dance-orientated and doomcore scenes were very and extremely open to these ideas, so it was much better for me to be there then it would've been in the breakcore scene.
today, i wouldn't say the same about the current speedcore or mainstream hardcore world, but doomcore is still going strong.
Addendum 1
i don't want to add this addendum, but i feel like i have to. some people might complain that i'm about "politics" or "ideology" and music should be kept free of them. while i don't think music should be free of it, principally, and situationism and neo-luddites, etc. were already beyond politics - and ideology - then simply drop the "politics" and think of radical, creative, extreme, exciting and interesting ideas. the sound was full of them - but with the breakcore scene, not anymore.
also i should add that i see this change in breakcore around 2000 as a - basically - totally deliberate move - not something that just (or inevitably) happened - even if the artists and people involved were not fully aware or conscious about it - to ultra-reactionism, or rather, ultra-boredom.
Why I Left Breakcore - Addendum 2
a while ago, i wrote the text "why i left the breakcore scene".
this text created more discussion and feedback than i thought it would... as it was more intended as a personal text.
i feel that in many cases, the point i was trying to make, was cut short. the discussion seemed to revolve more around whether "breakcore" of the past or of the present was better, or more creative, etc.
this was not what i wanted to say. what i felt was, that in the beginning, the scene around breakcore music, was open to a certain ideology, to certain "political", cultural ideas. and i tried to use breakcore music to spread these ideas. a few while later, i felt that it had become virtually impossible to still push these ideas with breakcore music. as breakcore had been infused with a quite different ideology and politics, that were very conformist, pro-consumer society and pro-hierarchy. and i saw no way to counter this process, or rather, i decided it would be wiser to use my energies to spread these ideas in different musical settings, such as speedcore or hardcore, were these ideas could still be communicated and pushed forward. that's why i left breakcore and followed different musical ways.
this text created more discussion and feedback than i thought it would... as it was more intended as a personal text.
i feel that in many cases, the point i was trying to make, was cut short. the discussion seemed to revolve more around whether "breakcore" of the past or of the present was better, or more creative, etc.
this was not what i wanted to say. what i felt was, that in the beginning, the scene around breakcore music, was open to a certain ideology, to certain "political", cultural ideas. and i tried to use breakcore music to spread these ideas. a few while later, i felt that it had become virtually impossible to still push these ideas with breakcore music. as breakcore had been infused with a quite different ideology and politics, that were very conformist, pro-consumer society and pro-hierarchy. and i saw no way to counter this process, or rather, i decided it would be wiser to use my energies to spread these ideas in different musical settings, such as speedcore or hardcore, were these ideas could still be communicated and pushed forward. that's why i left breakcore and followed different musical ways.
We Need A Revolution
we need a fucking revolution.
in the past, almost everyone i knew was about revolutions, riots, uprisings, resistance... the bands and artists i listened to, too. when 2000 came nearer, and afterwards, this changed drastically. the demand for radical change, revolution, was now seen as something childish, immature, a thing of the past. mind you, not only by these artists and people, on which you could perhaps blame it on "growing up" after they went past the 30 year old mark, but *especially* amongst the new bands and new generation.
but apart from this very easy to see through strategy to associate radicalism with "childishness", which is a very often used as a conservative tactic - for the monarchs, "democracy" was a child's dream too, "women's rights" were a "childish concept" for the men of the 19th century - there was a not as easy to refute criticism and analysis of revolution, riots, and radicalism.
that consisted of two parts, that were joined together. had the revolutions of the past not made everything worse instead of better? was the regime of stalin not worse than that of the tsar? what about the revolutions in south america, that just installed a new dictatorship in place of the former?
so would it not be better, if things stayed as worse as they are - instead of going into the horror of a post-revolutionary society in which everything is worse?
the second critique addressed revolution and politics in general. are politics in general not *always* a trap?
and so, isn't revolution, too, a trap? with politics, you have a program, a concept, ideas, a structure, and are these things not bound to create an even bigger failure than the status quo? people are oppressed because of the ruling class. but if you establish a society in which everything is geared towards the ideal of "equality", doesn't this turn into a form of oppression too? just like stalin, who justified his deeds, not by proclaiming a thirst for power and extension of his rulership, but with the ideals of justice, equality and freedom of socialism.
i can only hint at this critique in this text. the question of the "tyranny of the ideals", the tyranny of symbols, could fill a whole book. or rather, a whole library. just let me add that a lot of thinkers, philosophers, and also poets, have pondered about this question.
this critique convinced me too, as it convinced almost everyone, consciously or subconsciously.
i too tried to purge the "revolutionary" vocabulary out of my statements, my thoughts, my demands.
my interest switched to authors, art and music that i deemed subversive and radical without overt claims for a revolution, such as psychobilly, early punkrock, rock'n'roll, krautrock...
there was two things i didn't notice at first.
the first of these i quickly learned, though.
which was that often, those people that now laughed at and criticized revolution, social upheaval and the rest of the political radicals that were still around, were the same people who were amongst the most radical proponents of radical change before. so the same people who hurried people to change everything, were now the ones who tried to tell people that they should stay calm, accept the status quo and accept the way society is.
this for themselves secured a position of intellectual leadership and social status, as the people were eager to listen to and follow these ideas.
there was something extremely fishy about this for me. these persons often had now found success - if even only in their "underground" extended social circle - and it seemed these recommendations to abstain from social radicalism and change also handily helped them to maintain their own "comfortable" position they had in society now.
there was something i didn't notice at all at first, and which took me a very long time to realize.
which was that it was the radical left - or if the word "left" is not the right description for all these people and groups, that espoused change in the direction of freedom, anarchy, anti-authoritarianism - that dropped the concept of revolution. the right didn't think twice if they should drop the idea of radical societal change and a large scale "upheaval" or coup. they didn't say that "reform" or "moderate demands" should replace the concept of a total recreation of society. in their minds, such a change was "necessary", and more important, realistically possible, while for the left a revolution in the near future had become an "unrealistic" concept.
for many people, a claim by a hippie, an anarchist, a leftist for a revolution was completely laughable.
but if a rightwing person called for a radical, profound change of society, they were suddenly eager to agree.
it's horrible that we ended up in such a situation and it's necessary to change it.
let us get back to revolution, let us get to the desire for revolution, for freedom, for anarchy, for liberty, for creativity and expression. let us not get bullied by the others into thinking that revolution is a thing of the past or a child's play (keep in mind a child's concept can be full of wisdom too).
in the past, almost everyone i knew was about revolutions, riots, uprisings, resistance... the bands and artists i listened to, too. when 2000 came nearer, and afterwards, this changed drastically. the demand for radical change, revolution, was now seen as something childish, immature, a thing of the past. mind you, not only by these artists and people, on which you could perhaps blame it on "growing up" after they went past the 30 year old mark, but *especially* amongst the new bands and new generation.
but apart from this very easy to see through strategy to associate radicalism with "childishness", which is a very often used as a conservative tactic - for the monarchs, "democracy" was a child's dream too, "women's rights" were a "childish concept" for the men of the 19th century - there was a not as easy to refute criticism and analysis of revolution, riots, and radicalism.
that consisted of two parts, that were joined together. had the revolutions of the past not made everything worse instead of better? was the regime of stalin not worse than that of the tsar? what about the revolutions in south america, that just installed a new dictatorship in place of the former?
so would it not be better, if things stayed as worse as they are - instead of going into the horror of a post-revolutionary society in which everything is worse?
the second critique addressed revolution and politics in general. are politics in general not *always* a trap?
and so, isn't revolution, too, a trap? with politics, you have a program, a concept, ideas, a structure, and are these things not bound to create an even bigger failure than the status quo? people are oppressed because of the ruling class. but if you establish a society in which everything is geared towards the ideal of "equality", doesn't this turn into a form of oppression too? just like stalin, who justified his deeds, not by proclaiming a thirst for power and extension of his rulership, but with the ideals of justice, equality and freedom of socialism.
i can only hint at this critique in this text. the question of the "tyranny of the ideals", the tyranny of symbols, could fill a whole book. or rather, a whole library. just let me add that a lot of thinkers, philosophers, and also poets, have pondered about this question.
this critique convinced me too, as it convinced almost everyone, consciously or subconsciously.
i too tried to purge the "revolutionary" vocabulary out of my statements, my thoughts, my demands.
my interest switched to authors, art and music that i deemed subversive and radical without overt claims for a revolution, such as psychobilly, early punkrock, rock'n'roll, krautrock...
there was two things i didn't notice at first.
the first of these i quickly learned, though.
which was that often, those people that now laughed at and criticized revolution, social upheaval and the rest of the political radicals that were still around, were the same people who were amongst the most radical proponents of radical change before. so the same people who hurried people to change everything, were now the ones who tried to tell people that they should stay calm, accept the status quo and accept the way society is.
this for themselves secured a position of intellectual leadership and social status, as the people were eager to listen to and follow these ideas.
there was something extremely fishy about this for me. these persons often had now found success - if even only in their "underground" extended social circle - and it seemed these recommendations to abstain from social radicalism and change also handily helped them to maintain their own "comfortable" position they had in society now.
there was something i didn't notice at all at first, and which took me a very long time to realize.
which was that it was the radical left - or if the word "left" is not the right description for all these people and groups, that espoused change in the direction of freedom, anarchy, anti-authoritarianism - that dropped the concept of revolution. the right didn't think twice if they should drop the idea of radical societal change and a large scale "upheaval" or coup. they didn't say that "reform" or "moderate demands" should replace the concept of a total recreation of society. in their minds, such a change was "necessary", and more important, realistically possible, while for the left a revolution in the near future had become an "unrealistic" concept.
for many people, a claim by a hippie, an anarchist, a leftist for a revolution was completely laughable.
but if a rightwing person called for a radical, profound change of society, they were suddenly eager to agree.
it's horrible that we ended up in such a situation and it's necessary to change it.
let us get back to revolution, let us get to the desire for revolution, for freedom, for anarchy, for liberty, for creativity and expression. let us not get bullied by the others into thinking that revolution is a thing of the past or a child's play (keep in mind a child's concept can be full of wisdom too).
Merging Techno And Hardcore With Social, Cultural And "Political" Thoughts
In an earlier text I addressed that techno at the beginning, and especially hardcore and breakcore, were deeply connected to social, cultural, "political" thoughts, ideas, concepts, movements. Radicalism, Subversion, Anti-Art, Creativity, Freedom. Total Anarchy.
This connection was severed - to a large part by a "second wave" of artists and 'scene-goers' who rejected these ideas from the bottom of their minds.
So this former radical form of art, that scared people and made the philistines deeply afraid, became just another form of consumerism, a product, perfumed, nicely cut-out, formatized, harmless.
The former radicals, who did not switch sides or became burned out, got bullied into silence by this onslaught of well-adapted societal persons into this community of now destructed radicalism.
But I think, it is time to speak out again. To get rid of this silence. To raise our voice again.
I say: Fuck You! to those who think music and art is just for "entertainment". For "pleasure". To "consume". Fuck you if you "just want to enjoy the sound", if you just "want to party", to numb your brain with shit music and drift into insignificance.
Fuck all of you.
Now for one more time let's address one of the numberous invalid points this "other side" likely would reply to these thoughts. "Who are you to tell people how to 'enjoy' their music". Okay so be it. If you really think music and art is just for "entertainment" then let's keep it that way. I am not trying to force anyone. But to those, us, like-minded people, who think music and art can be *much more* than this, I say: let us no longer keep silenced by these others, let us speak out, let us speak open, make some noise and let us be heard.
This connection was severed - to a large part by a "second wave" of artists and 'scene-goers' who rejected these ideas from the bottom of their minds.
So this former radical form of art, that scared people and made the philistines deeply afraid, became just another form of consumerism, a product, perfumed, nicely cut-out, formatized, harmless.
The former radicals, who did not switch sides or became burned out, got bullied into silence by this onslaught of well-adapted societal persons into this community of now destructed radicalism.
But I think, it is time to speak out again. To get rid of this silence. To raise our voice again.
I say: Fuck You! to those who think music and art is just for "entertainment". For "pleasure". To "consume". Fuck you if you "just want to enjoy the sound", if you just "want to party", to numb your brain with shit music and drift into insignificance.
Fuck all of you.
Now for one more time let's address one of the numberous invalid points this "other side" likely would reply to these thoughts. "Who are you to tell people how to 'enjoy' their music". Okay so be it. If you really think music and art is just for "entertainment" then let's keep it that way. I am not trying to force anyone. But to those, us, like-minded people, who think music and art can be *much more* than this, I say: let us no longer keep silenced by these others, let us speak out, let us speak open, make some noise and let us be heard.
Artists, Outcasts and Society
there is a thought expressed by many artists of the last centuries, the thought of being solitary, in their actions and thoughts, completely alone - understood by noone. some artists expressed these thoughts more direct, some indirect, some stronger, some more reluctant. but it can be found in many words and statements. similar, a lot of humans have felt, or expressed, similar emotions. but what is this "unbridgeable chasm" so many people - yet so few, compared to the masses - have experienced? how can an artist that is celebrated by - literally - millions of people still feel lonely?
it's easy to explain. art deals with ideas. thoughts, concepts. imagination, dreams, creativity. philosophy, reflection. and this is simply an impossibility for almost any living human being on planet earth. the general people are interested in direct, tangible, "down to earth" things, as they call it. cars. money. luxury. rising in social esteem. they can easily understood that a man uses up a lot of his energy to gain a tangible thing such as money. but they can never understood how someone could use up his "precious" time for something that is as abstract as art. it's not something they can directly touch. hold in their hands. so they don't understand it.
adults might be worried that a teenage girl spends time in her room alone drawing pictures. yet they would accept it if she went out to the world, got a job and bought things from this. hell, they even preferred it if she just went out (even without enough money) and looked at clothing and shoes, like other girls do. because this is something tangible. money, shoes, clothing you can touch. hold in your hands. art you cannot. well you can hold a picture; but this is just the paper you are holding; the artwork itself you cannot hold (as it could be on any medium). this is because art is, as i said, is related to thoughts, ideas, concepts.
now it is not as it would be impossible for the majority to hold ideas, or to be creative themselves. but there is one thing, that completely makes artists and a lot of other outcasts different from all other people. which is, that they - directly or indirectly, unconsciously or consciously - realize that ideas and thoughts can be important by themselves. that they can be worthy, wonderful, fantastic, great, marvelous - just as thoughts and ideas. this is the difference to the general man. a man might follow and pursue an idea too - if in the end he can again gain something tangible from it. a worker's strike is an idea too - a social and political idea. men might follow this idea and go on a strike, if they think they can get a rise in their pay by this. this money is something tangible again, that they can hold in their hands. but - at least in this day and age - a strike that is just for social justice, or peace, or another concept like this, would be rare[1]. because these again are mere ideas - not something tangible such as money - and people do not realize their worth. if people would be convinced a social or political action would never have a tangible or direct outcome, they would not pursue it - not for the idea alone. and this is the error and the mistake. for it is worth to do a vast numbers of things just for an idea. and this is the difference to the artist. plenty of artists not only - at first - did not gain and material, tangible thing from their art, they even sacrificed a lot of these things - money, belongings, sometimes even more than that - to be able to do their art. because they realize that the art itself - the idea of art, the ideas associated with their art - is worth a huge number of things. they don't *need* a material gain out of their art - because the art - it's ideas - on their own are already vastly pleasurably, great, wonderful, satisfying, important. this is something the "common" man can never understand. how can be an idea - on it's own - already be so important? so gratifying? so exciting? sure, they too, value ideas. the idea of a government, of capitalism maybe. but these are ideas that are - for them - tied into tangible and material things. they cannot see the value of an idea that is merely abstract.
an idea does not have to be tied in to something direct, tangible, to be worthy. it can be worthy pursuing, even if it is merely an idea, abstract, a theory - without ever having any "real" effect, even if forever it stays just an idea, an abstraction. the beauty, concept and pursuit of art irrefutably prove this.
mabye one in a million ever makes this realization in their lives. this explains the felt loneliness by the artists. as they already deal in ideas and realize their beauty. an artist could have plenty of fans, who think he, and his art, are more important than anything else in this world, and would do anything for him and his art - yet they are still billions of miles removed from him, do not understand one single thing. because they do not realize what exactly makes his art so important - the pursuit of ideas. it remains forever a mystery to them.
a similar emotion is felt by social outcasts, who too follow ideas. they might follow the ideas of a better society, of political, or cultural change - or even more abstract ideas and insights. this is what the others do not get about them. 'how come you follow an "idea"?', 'why don't you go out and have a good time' and other calls for them to focus on something more tangible. the others, again, do not realize how someone could follow, and dedicate a part of his life, to a mere idea - an idea that stays abstract, ideal.
but ideas can be more important than most things in this world.
footnotes:
[1]: in the past, worker's strikes for solidarity, or social progress itself - abstract ideas - actually did take place. i assume this is because in the past ideas were still valued more by people. how this ties in to this text would be too long to write down for this text.
it's easy to explain. art deals with ideas. thoughts, concepts. imagination, dreams, creativity. philosophy, reflection. and this is simply an impossibility for almost any living human being on planet earth. the general people are interested in direct, tangible, "down to earth" things, as they call it. cars. money. luxury. rising in social esteem. they can easily understood that a man uses up a lot of his energy to gain a tangible thing such as money. but they can never understood how someone could use up his "precious" time for something that is as abstract as art. it's not something they can directly touch. hold in their hands. so they don't understand it.
adults might be worried that a teenage girl spends time in her room alone drawing pictures. yet they would accept it if she went out to the world, got a job and bought things from this. hell, they even preferred it if she just went out (even without enough money) and looked at clothing and shoes, like other girls do. because this is something tangible. money, shoes, clothing you can touch. hold in your hands. art you cannot. well you can hold a picture; but this is just the paper you are holding; the artwork itself you cannot hold (as it could be on any medium). this is because art is, as i said, is related to thoughts, ideas, concepts.
now it is not as it would be impossible for the majority to hold ideas, or to be creative themselves. but there is one thing, that completely makes artists and a lot of other outcasts different from all other people. which is, that they - directly or indirectly, unconsciously or consciously - realize that ideas and thoughts can be important by themselves. that they can be worthy, wonderful, fantastic, great, marvelous - just as thoughts and ideas. this is the difference to the general man. a man might follow and pursue an idea too - if in the end he can again gain something tangible from it. a worker's strike is an idea too - a social and political idea. men might follow this idea and go on a strike, if they think they can get a rise in their pay by this. this money is something tangible again, that they can hold in their hands. but - at least in this day and age - a strike that is just for social justice, or peace, or another concept like this, would be rare[1]. because these again are mere ideas - not something tangible such as money - and people do not realize their worth. if people would be convinced a social or political action would never have a tangible or direct outcome, they would not pursue it - not for the idea alone. and this is the error and the mistake. for it is worth to do a vast numbers of things just for an idea. and this is the difference to the artist. plenty of artists not only - at first - did not gain and material, tangible thing from their art, they even sacrificed a lot of these things - money, belongings, sometimes even more than that - to be able to do their art. because they realize that the art itself - the idea of art, the ideas associated with their art - is worth a huge number of things. they don't *need* a material gain out of their art - because the art - it's ideas - on their own are already vastly pleasurably, great, wonderful, satisfying, important. this is something the "common" man can never understand. how can be an idea - on it's own - already be so important? so gratifying? so exciting? sure, they too, value ideas. the idea of a government, of capitalism maybe. but these are ideas that are - for them - tied into tangible and material things. they cannot see the value of an idea that is merely abstract.
an idea does not have to be tied in to something direct, tangible, to be worthy. it can be worthy pursuing, even if it is merely an idea, abstract, a theory - without ever having any "real" effect, even if forever it stays just an idea, an abstraction. the beauty, concept and pursuit of art irrefutably prove this.
mabye one in a million ever makes this realization in their lives. this explains the felt loneliness by the artists. as they already deal in ideas and realize their beauty. an artist could have plenty of fans, who think he, and his art, are more important than anything else in this world, and would do anything for him and his art - yet they are still billions of miles removed from him, do not understand one single thing. because they do not realize what exactly makes his art so important - the pursuit of ideas. it remains forever a mystery to them.
a similar emotion is felt by social outcasts, who too follow ideas. they might follow the ideas of a better society, of political, or cultural change - or even more abstract ideas and insights. this is what the others do not get about them. 'how come you follow an "idea"?', 'why don't you go out and have a good time' and other calls for them to focus on something more tangible. the others, again, do not realize how someone could follow, and dedicate a part of his life, to a mere idea - an idea that stays abstract, ideal.
but ideas can be more important than most things in this world.
footnotes:
[1]: in the past, worker's strikes for solidarity, or social progress itself - abstract ideas - actually did take place. i assume this is because in the past ideas were still valued more by people. how this ties in to this text would be too long to write down for this text.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)