taboo art

let’s talk about taboo art some more. could you sum up your views?

art is taboo to the degree that it rejects self-sacrifice.

how does it do this?

it mocks the ideals for which we are supposed to sacrifice ourselves.

how?

it shows kings and popes as villains and fools for instance. that’s one attack.

it demystifies the king and pope?

right. take “pope” as a metaphor for any kind of spiritual authority. take “king” the same way, as a president for instance. to show either as ridiculous or ugly to indirectly mock our duty toward such.

other idols?

idols is the right word. the sacredness of mother and child is another target. if you paint a mother as a breeding chimpanzee for instance. or if you make an erotic object out of the sacred innocent child.

which is still taboo.

right, the king and priest are fair game now. the mother and child are not quite there yet.

any others?

you have some art-work which is just so intentionally taboo that it seems to mock the very notion of the taboo.

an attack on taboo itself?

yes. if we think of work that is pure brutality or pure perversion. it’s subjective of course. you might interpret this sort of art as the individual confessing or glorifying his actual desires, but at some point that seems unlike. for instance, the canadian who made ear-rings out of fetuses.

ouch.

it’s hard to believe that he is really so enamored of dead babies. more likely he wanted attention. he enjoyed his sense of power in over-coming the counter-force of taboo.

so it’s vanity?

vanity or pride or some other synonym. it’s along those lines.

so attacking taboo is about power?

right, the individual cast himself as the individualist. “look at me” he seems to say. “i just don’t give a fuck what you think.” it’s a rejection of the mob, even where the mob is “right.”

it seems to also be an implicit assertion of the freedom of art.

that too. that’s the thing about non-verbal art. it works on several levels. it’s the perfect opportunity for creative interpretation.

so these “painters” (in your sense of the word) invite interpretation.

surely, and it goes both ways. these taboo artists have thoughts on the matter. so whether their medium is words, they are influenced by words. they are language users. a word-man can describe an non-verbal artwork and make it more significant for others.

just as you are interpreting controversial art right now.

right, a reader of this interview will look at that sort of art differently. he or she will seek out the particular self-sacrifice that is being mocked, rejected.

what about banksy? he sometimes seem to mock hypocrisy.

i agree. to show moralists as hypocrites is more rejection of the morality they impinge on us.

so the moralist is up their with the king and priest?

right, the priest in our day is the marxist or the vegetarian, or whoever essentially accuses, rather than creates.

their creations are accusations, you might say.

yes, they are the poets of accusation. their poetry is shaped by resentment.

the reader should know that, for you, “poetry” is all creative use of words.

right. because moralist rarely write in verse. they do have an other-worldly diction though.

why does one person become a moralist and another one of these tabo artist?

it’s all about their relation to the myth of the individual. most humans choose a mob orientated vision of values. they align themselves with the social good, however various the forms of such a vision are. the other type, the romantic individualist, is more than anything anti-mob, pro-single-self.

pro-single -self?

they want their name to be a thing apart, its own brand. they do not want to serve any cause outside themselves. they pride themselves on personal superiority rather than moral superiority.

aren’t the similar?

they are flowers from the same root, which is the “power drive,” but they are contrary in many ways.

so the moralist aligns himself with universals, ethics for everyone.

yes. now it might be a fundamentalist bible-beater or it might be a revolutionary anarchist. the point is moral indignation. that’s their thrill, to sit in judgment.

from the throne of their universal ethic?

exactly. their ethic is god. they are christ, that ethic in action as an individual.

but what is the god of the individualist?

individualism itself, and not in the general sense, but in a personal sense.

because a general sense would be a contradiction?

right. to be just one more individualist would be absurd.

how does he or she escape that?

the philosopher will create his own system, his personal interpretation of existence, including other interpretations. he may even admit that his ambition is absurd, impossible, but somehow he will make it work.

what about the artist?

well, the artist is going to use new forms, new materials. the artist will simply go around what has been done already.

go around?

just do something different, avoid what’s been done, or modify it significantly (which is about all a modern artist can manage).

so the way to tell the difference between the types is what?

moral indignation, resentment, accusation.

does the individualist accuse?

he accuses the mob. he has an anti-social ethic. you can trace it to the same root, but it’s social expression is opposite.

because the individualist will mock the “idols” of the moralist.

exactly. now it should be understood that in reality the two are mixed. the ethic of individualism is strong in the west, but then it’s often mixed in a questionable way with moralism.

why is that?

human nature. we like to form teams. we want a community. we want a church. so moralists glob together. only those who are essentially individualistic will resist this urge.

it’s easy to see the individualist as a superior type.

i agree. we like the underdog. but then the underdog mocks our idols and we all gang up and crucify the bastard.

i don’t see you ganging up.

well, i’m the individualist type. i fear the mob. that’s the being i want to crucify.

quite a task.

i have to settle with crucifying the mob in my self.

that in your nature which is mob-like?

yes, the higher self must bind the lower, nail it to a cross.

you have said that you want art to be beautiful.

i do. now taboo art is often ugly. so it’s only value is as taboo. that gives it an intellectual value, but it doesn’t keep it from failing as art that gives pleasure.

because the pleasure it gives is only intellectual, not visual.

right. once a taboo is dead for you, you aren’t so impressed by the radical art anymore, not unless it is beautiful as image, as form.

i see. so “transgressive beauty” is something that succeeds on both levels.

right.