Is Anarchy Passé?

[nqth]

Mrs Westwood said that punk was a marketed commodity:-)

I think modern rebelion could be the "no mass consumption", no logo (well hidden:-P, as you, Bidwell, said)

 

[dare-]

How Yoga can make you think, It so rebelious...

ngth.. what I especially like about this is "It's romantic"...
I got this qoute from Estella Mare......

"I think of nothing but love. The continual amusement I derive from intellectual pursuits, for which I am always being reproached as if it were a crime, finds its very justification in this singular and unceasing taste for love. For me there is no idea that is not eclipsed by love.If it were up to me, everything opposed to love would be abolished. That is roughly what I mean when I claim to be an anarchist."
-Louis Aragon

It's all about desires,Love.. the connectedness of desires that is, as you also put it Faust in the "Avant garde" thread..."What's your pleasure?"... Yes let's connect that whith another pleasure machine...and another.. in the infinte.. to create a multiple assemblage of desires, the "multitude".. that is rebelious..

And indeed this time is an exciting one, because it's a "Deleuzean One" as Foucault states in his preface "Anti Oedipus: Capitalism & Schizofrenia"(Deleuze/Guattari)... there is a prospect in our time, in this Globalization, which is not eroding sovereignty but transforming it into a system of diffuse national and supranational institution, what Negri&Hardt Refers to as a new "empire"... but within this empire, the living alternative grows, the multitude, which is not the matter of everyone becomes the same; rather it provides the possibility that, while remaining different, we discover the commonality that enables us to communicate and act together..an open and expansive network in which all differnces can be expressed freely and equally...

What I find really bad about this article, or this discussion on rebelion and anarchy on a larger scale is to refer it as "punk", indeed we find references to the punk movement in fashion etc.., since the 80s, but what is happening is not 'punk" at all, and I think Watnabe, Hedi Slimane and who ever has been refered to is clever enough to not define there clothes "punk"... and to even limit Anarchy to the "punk-movement" is exactly that, a limitation..
And to say that they are just repeating them selfs is very "superficial"... because in the repetion the prospect of difference is available...
As for the notion, what I call modernistic idealism, the prospect of the new and this moving forward to some artistic ideal is Carried forward in the personalized subject(based on language)... come on throw out Wiki-Pidias definition of the avant-garde and lets create some other ones, multiple ones... what a limitation that is... It's in the connection of multiple subjects that creates the possibility of the "new"... creative connections.. in all aspects of the social field.. it's there we find the rebelious... or "anarchy"... and that is indeed "romantic"... filled with desires...

I have no utterly no idea what you just said.

 

[ilovepositano]

feelings and expressions of anarchy are so prevalent now, it takes more than sheer anarchy to launch a meaningful message in fashion, or even arts in general.

this year's disappointing whitney biennial is sadly a great example that expressions of anarchy without regard to craftsmanship and substance ARE indeed passe at the moment.

 

[Johnny]

I have no utterly no idea what you just said.

. I'm with you on that......

 

[orlem]

The journalist seems to have lost his point or was simply reporting on the shows as he saw them.
Regardless, the point of the punk aesthetic (going on 30 YEARS NOW!) becoming the established look is a valid one. If everyone appreciates this approach, then it is no longer rebellious or novel.

That's how I saw it too. I don't really like it when fashion people commercialize punk for profits, but I also don't like it when people think that means the whole movement is meaningless. A lot of the people who rag on punk are the opposition...

 

[mellowdrama]

I have no utterly no idea what you just said.

Funny, I understood it. I like thoughtful, academic posts like this. Bringing up Foucault, hermeneutics, etcetera. It's a way of writing, understanding that requires you to read many books, connect with schools of thought, and be very precise with language. The post is actually very clear and concise. It's the short answers that you can get lost in, I've found.

I can't sum up Multitude's post in a quick sentence without losing much of the flavor, but I believe what's being said is that the sheer immensity of input from people of different cultures, backgrounds, languages, ethnicities regarding fashion...that old "global village" perhaps... what seems transgressive and rebellious is not so clear anymore. We all don't have the same cultural maps alluding to the same presumptions about what our clothing means to us or others. And what might appear repetitive merely on the surface of things actually has nuanced difference when worn by different people. "The clothes don't make the man/woman". It's the desire, intent behind it. The passion that goes into it. That words like "punk" are really very loaded but don't mean the same thing to everyone. And these labels are limiting expression rather than freeing them up. But really, this quote from Martha Graham, for me:

"There is a vitality, a life force, an energy, a quickening, that is translated through you into action, and because there is only one of you in all time, this expression is unique. And if you block it, it will never exist through any other medium and will be lost."

Which is pretty damned "punk" I think.

 

[Melisande]

But really, this quote from Martha Graham, for me:

"There is a vitality, a life force, an energy, a quickening, that is translated through you into action, and because there is only one of you in all time, this expression is unique. And if you block it, it will never exist through any other medium and will be lost."

Which is pretty damned "punk" I think.

Oh God that's one of my favorite quotes in the world...Thanks, mellowdrama, karma for posting that. It goes on:

"It is not your business to determine how good it is, not how it compares with other expression. It is your business to keep it yours clearly and directly, to keep the channel open. You do not even have to believe in yourself or your work. You have to keep open and aware directly to the urges that motivate you. Keep the channel open. No artist is pleased. There is no satisfaction whatever at any time. There is on a queer, divine dissatisfaction, a blessed unrest that keeps us marching and makes us more alive than the others."

And the Aragon quote is so beautiful too Multitues, Estella.

I guess what they're basically saying is that we must fight the opposition within ourselves...and that anarchy is a free heart out of which love flows unhindered.

 

[Johnny]

Oh God that's one of my favorite quotes in the world...Thanks, mellowdrama, karma for posting that. It goes on:

"It is not your business to determine how good it is, not how it compares with other expression. It is your business to keep it yours clearly and directly, to keep the channel open. You do not even have to believe in yourself or your work. You have to keep open and aware directly to the urges that motivate you. Keep the channel open. No artist is pleased. There is no satisfaction whatever at any time. There is on a queer, divine dissatisfaction, a blessed unrest that keeps us marching and makes us more alive than the others."

And the Aragon quote is so beautiful too Multitues, Estella.

I guess what they're basically saying is that we must fight the opposition within ourselves...and that anarchy is a free heart out of which love flows unhindered.

Melisande, I like the quote too (although I'd never read it before), but does it relate to "anarchy" or "punk"? Isn't it a description, without the need for taxonomy or labelling, of the virtue of being true to yourself, of allowing your individuality to be expressed? I suppose that's what you means by talking about the fight against internal opposition....... But I don't see the need to, or really the sense in which we can, call this anarchy. One man's free expression is another's G8 rioter. That's the problem with trying to find a box for things........... You can't really blame people for the confusion: the Sex Pistols are as punk as they come, but they sang about being anarchists! Maybe labelling is passe........

 

[nqth]

If the question can be translated to "are the distreesed shoes are passe?", I'd say no:-)))

 

[Multitudes]

Mellowdrama and Melisande... you just hit a soft spot in me, Martha Graham.. her "Athletes of God". It's funny, that you would bring that qoute into play, ragarding the post I did, not because that it doesn't have any relevance, becuase indeed it has, the free fload of desires in a smooth space is exactly the prospect of the transgressive and the rebelious... but I don't know If you know that my education is in contemporary dance.. that's what I found funny that you would use exactly that qoute....thank you for that..
...and... ..Somebody "understands" me...

... it's that "dancing" again, it seems to haunt us...
.... I'm just gonna qoute myself here, from the "inspiration" thread, because I think it goes along quite nicely with what has been sayd here... ... how self indulging am I......

...They call me a seeker, I don't seek I find... I'm like a collecting bowl for desires, feelings and sensations, which arrives from every where and nowhere: From heaven, from earth, from a piece of paper, from a passing shape or a spiders web, a sound, a taste, a touch. Therefor I can not create a hirachy or distinction between these things. The only thing I can Do is to react when it occurs.. and react I will, or else I can't find rest.. Inspiration is the sleepless night.. When Inspiration appears I can't sleep, I have to create to silence it, but at the moment it's silenced a begining anxiety and suffering is appearing in me...
Inspiration has an inexhaustible capacity, because it is the approach to the continuous. The one who is inspired, or the one who think they are, has a feeling they can create, speak and write in eternity. Rilke noticed while he was writing "The Book of Time", he had the impression that he couldn't stop writing. And Van Gogh says the same, also he couldn't stop working. Its endless, it speaks, it speaks ceaseless, a language without stillness, because the stillness speaks with in. But is this an illusion? If this is the case, it does no forces upon us as blindness, which gives us an easy bought sight, but as a temptation, who tempts us to move out of secured and wellknowned spaces. They say its magical, that it acts in the moment, without times long wandering, without connecting link. This means that we have to give up on time and our ability to produce. The more pure the inspiration is the more helpless becomes the one who steps into that space where it tempts him, where he hears the callings closer origin.

I think it's in this "understanding" or how we connect with forces of inspiration, desires, sensations, feelings we find the means to be rebellious, radical and for "anarchistic" movements...... lets all be "nomadic subjects" surfing around in those territories, never get stuck in one place.. escaping the confinements of "reterritorialization"... hold on to those "lines of flights" and when you can't hold on anymore, try to find another one...

..and yes Johnny, we might say, that labeling is passè, but the prospect of confinement of this term is indeed not, because I think what we have to acknowledge today is a hole new "empire" we are confronted with, a new global form of sovereignty. A recognition that contemporary global orders can no longer be understood adequately in terms of imperialism as it was praticed by the modern powers, based primarily on the sovereignty of the nation-state extended over foreign territory. Instead, a "network power," a new form of sovereignty, is now emerging, and it includes as its primary elements, or nodes, the dominant nation-states along with supranational institutions, major capitalist corporations, and other powers. This notion of the empire thus cuts diagonally acroos the debates that poses unilateralism and multilateralism or pro-Americanism and anti-Americanism as the only global political alternatives. It's such an "Illusion" to argue that United States is the one that control global order, because not even the most powerful one, can "go it alone" and mentain global order without collaborating with the other major powers in the network of the "empire". Negri&Hardt poses an ironic injunction adapted from the Marquis de Sade to the U.S. unilateralist global projects, which I find quite amusing(no offense to any americans around here!!! "Amèricains, encore un effort si vous voulez etre imperials'("Americans, you need to try harder if you want to be imperial")....

So to make it short.... the confinement is still in place, but it has taken a hole new form, and to rebel or erupt the "empire" lies in the capacity of the "multitude", which should be distinguished at a conceptual level from other notions of social subjects, such as the people, the masses, the working class etc., because they have traditionally been a unitary conception. The population, of course, is characterized by all kinds of differences, but the people reduces that diversity to a unity and makes of the population a single identity: "the people" is one. The multittude, in contrast, is many. And you are so right Mellowdrama, the multitude is composed innumerable internal differences that can't never be reduced to a unity or a singular identity - different cultures, races, ethnicities, genders, and sexual orientations; differant forms of labor; different ways of living; different views of the world; and different desires. The multitude is a multiplicity of all these singular differences, it is many-colored like Joseph's magical coat. Thus the challenge posed by the concept of multitude is for a social multiplicity to manage to communicate and act in common while remaining eternally different....

...I think this poses interesting questions all across the social field... and to any radical, rebellious or anarchistic expressions and thoughts... in fashion and in any artistical form for that matter... there are no answers here, only questions, because I think, in light of the challenges and possibilities of our world, it is necessary to rethink the most basic political concepts, such as power, resistance, multitude, anarchy, avant-garde, democracy etc...before we embark on a practical aproach to all this, we might have to ask our self do we really understand all this means today...

and did I made it short.. no I didn't...(Ups..I did give one answer...flower:

 

[Johnny]

I admire nqth's, ultimately futile, attempt to relate this in some way back to fashion rather than individual ideology-spouting!

Multitudes, what you said about my comment bears no relation to what I was saying.... none at all! So I can't follow your point I'm afraid.

 

[faust]

I admire nqth's, ultimately futile, attempt to relate this in some way back to fashion rather than individual ideology-spouting!

Resistance is futile - you will be philsophicated.

 

[dare-]

So, you're saying everybody is unique. And though two people may wear the same clothes, it will look different and give a different 'message' because it depends on the person.

On the same vein, though a trend may surface in two generations, these two generations are unique and a trend will not quite have the same 'meaning,' because of that.

Doesn't seem too difficult to me. A simple concept cloaked in complex prose. I didn't have to read Foucault to explain that.

 

[Johnny]

So, you're saying everybody is unique. And though two people may wear the same clothes, it will look different and give a different 'message' because it depends on the person.

On the same vein, though a trend may surface in two generations, these two generations are unique and a trend will not quite have the same 'meaning,' because of that.

Doesn't seem too difficult to me. A simple concept cloaked in complex prose. I didn't have to read Foucault to explain that.

Indeed.... Nothing being discussed here is difficult. It's just being discussed in a difficult way; not a virtue per se.

 

[softgrey]

hmmm...

 

[nqth]

Thanks, Johnny:-)

 

[Multitudes]

Multitudes, what you said about my comment bears no relation to what I was saying.... none at all! So I can't follow your point I'm afraid.

Johnny... thats ok...

... and by the way, why are we discussing the way we write and speak, instead of the content of what we have to say here?...

 

[dare-]

Isn't that one and the same?

 

[softgrey]

no--of course the content and writing style are not one and the same...
..

and ...ooh... i don't know ...
how about discussing THE ARTICLE POSTED??!?!?>>>


...thanks...

 

[Multitudes]

no--of course the content and writing style are not one and the same...
..

and ...ooh... i don't know ...
how about discussing THE ARTICLE POSTED??!?!?>>>


...thanks...

Yes.. sorry soft.. .. it was my fault, by posting that last question...... I have just Pm'ed Dare his answer, instead of filling the thread up with debates on "language" ...