<OT> Poetic Terrorism
OK Paul, so I bit. I have to admit that had never heard of Poetic Terrorism before you mentioned it, nor had I ever heard of Hakim Bey.
A couple of the statements that you quote (and therefore, seem to think are important) are:
"PT is an act in a Theater of Cruelty which has no stage, no rows of seats, no tickets & no walls. In order to work at all, PT must categorically be divorced from all conventional structures for art consumption (galleries, publications, media).
"An exquisite seduction carried out not only in the cause of mutual satisfaction but also as a conscious act in a deliberately beautiful life -- may be the ultimate PT.
"Don't do PT for other artists, do it for people who will not realize (at least for a few moments) that what you have done is art. Avoid recognizable art-categories, avoid politics, don't stick around to argue, don't be sentimental; be ruthless, take risks, vandalize only what must be defaced, do something children will remember all their lives -- but don't be spontaneous unless the PT Muse has possessed you."
"Dress up. Leave a false name. Be legendary. The best PT is against the law, but don't get caught. Art as crime; crime as art."
Very intriguing quotes that you have selected and which I have taken a sample.
A few thoughts immediately struck me...
1) This is B.S. It sounds like a justification to do any damned thing one wants and then not only absolve oneself of any need to control one's actions, but to further make the situation ludicrous by calling it art: an attempt at rationalizing extreme personal hedonism.
2) This is an anarchist's mode of thinking.
3) Why is Paul, a professed Libertarian, versed in this writing. This is in opposition to Libertarian tenets, which lay claim to extreme independence, but only in a non-intrusive manner.
4) Are we Paul's canvas?
5) Why do these statements not seem cohesive and, at times, opposed?
As to the latter, I guess what bothers me is that words like "cruelty," "vandalize," and "ruthless" are not normally associated with phrases like "beautiful seduction" and "mutual satisfaction." However, I will grant that not all folks think as I do, and it may be able to marry those kinds of thoughts together as a cohesive package under some rather extreme personality types.
Anyway, you inspired me to go look for myself. The first thing I found was, the following:
streetsound.com
Now, that doesn't sound too bad... a little eccentric perhaps, but in the overall scheme of things, pretty harmless... on the surface, at least. And I later found it to be the opening paragraph from Bey's essay on Poetic Terrorism from TAZ.
Here is a link to the entire essay (its short):
elnet.com
Here is a link to some (all?) of Bey's work:
elnet.com
I absolutely did not read through all this man's works - even those available via that website. No, I saw enough in the time I spent...
The saying "genuine swine for imitation pearls" comes immediately to mind. His examples of PT versus his description of what PT is a case study in cognitive dissonance... even if one takes his examples as simple imagery. And though the quotes you picked to display were relegated to the more violent section of the essay, the lack of coherent thought in just that section was evident.
Chaos seems to be a concept central to his work. I found several attempts to describe or define by imagery what chaos is and what chaos isn't.
For example:
CHAOS NEVER DIED. Primordial uncarved block, sole worshipful monster, inert & spontaneous, more ultraviolet than any mythology (like the shadows before Babylon), the original undifferentiated oneness-of-being still radiates serene as the black pennants of Assassins, random & perpetually intoxicated. from "Chaos," in the TAZ
Avatars of chaos act as spies, saboteurs, criminals of amour fou, neither selfless nor selfish, accessible as children, mannered as barbarians, chafed with obsessions, unemployed, sensually deranged, wolfangels, mirrors for contemplation, eyes like flowers, pirates of all signs & meanings. from "Chaos," in the TAZ
He at first calls chaos "inert" and then picks agents of change as his symbols of embodiment. Spies? Saboteurs? These are not only agents of change, but they are directed, purposeful agents of change. At first glance, they seem to be creating chaos, but with purpose comes direction and order. Even barbarians, though less directed, can hardly be considered inert.
Later in the TAZ, in an essay called "Chaos Myths:"
But...Chaos is also an enormous chicken's egg. Inside it P'an-Ku is born & grows for 18,000 years--at last the egg opens up, splits into sky & earth, yang & yin. Now P'an-Ku grows into a column that holds up the universe--or else he becomes the universe (breath-->wind, eyes-->sun & moon, blood & humors-->rivers & seas, hair & lashes-->stars & planets, sperm-->pearls, marrow-->jade, his fleas-->human beings, etc.)
Best I can tell from the essay, this is not a description of myth, but
what he believes to be alignment to his concept of chaos. This sounds suspiciously like the creation story (much paraphrased) from the Bible. From chaos comes order... the nurturer of order, the protector of order. This also smacks of dualism. These are hardly new or creative thoughts... nor do they support his earlier depiction of chaos.
I also read his "Ontological Anarchy in a Nutshell" essay from Immediatism.
It may be premature to judge a man's works and thinking by the small amount of exposure that I have had, but it is enough to keep me from wanting more. That reaction comes not from the message... no, rather, it comes from the intellectual hypocrisy inherent in the work. The thoughts are not well defined or even fenced to adjacent plots of rational acreage, yet his use of obscure and wide ranging symbolism is intended to gain a certain advantage over the reader.
Though I (and I suspect, you) find Bey's logic lacking, I must admit that Bey is proficient at providing imagery that actually produces a mental picture. That must have been what captured you about his writing...
Nope, I don't believe it Paul... I think this was just one more of those stimuli you provide to provoke reaction for that experiment that you are conducting.
JMO... |
