Metallic Grostequerie: Sequel Interstitial (Between-quel?)

This article has been on the backburner for a while. It had several drafts and has been abandoned as many times. But thanks again to Metalsucks it is back. Well, a version of it anyway. Please note that I am referring to a news article that came out on June 25, 2013.
 
In my morning RSS feed reader scan (RIP google reader) I came across this week's NSFW version of Sh*t that comes out today (their asterisk, not mine). The NSFW portion of the posting was a single album artwork used just below the heading, Documentaries of Dementia by Necrotic Disgorgement. The album artwork features three naked, white zombie women in various states of mutilation. What makes this cover somewhat different to similar works is that it is photographic. Death metal art is frequently hand painted or more often than not these days digitally created. The controversy surrounding this image arises not from the article itself but from the comments that follow it, in particular an argument in the comments around the implied meanings of tortrure and gender relations.

The thread started by Igottawocket proclaimed:

Can metal, like, collectively agree to cool it with the album covers depicting tortured, naked women? Not really sure if it was ever "cool," but it most certainly isn't now. It kind of begs a lot of questions about what's going on in the heads of the band members, and, frankly, is kind of just fucked all around.

This is a sentiment to which I am mostly in agreement. The key word here is "mostly". As I have previously discussed grotesquerie in metal has a long tradition and is a complex discourse of aesthetics, shock tactics, subversiveness and misogyny. As a result it is difficult for me to condemn this particular (or most other similar) artwork out of hand. After all there are a range of contextual issues that the viewer may not be aware of that influence how the art is to be read. Did the women give consent to be protrayed in this way? Were they paid? Is there an attempt at subversiveness here? Is it an attempt to engage with the horror porn genre?

However, what we can say is that the artwork is clearly part of a broader metal aesthetic tradition in which violence is foregrounded and women are marginalised.

The thread continues with Hair Metal Police, Meh and Snobber McSnob providing fairly typical oppositional, adversarial replies:

So, according to your logic, anybody who directs a splatter film is a psychopath.
I personally don't see a difference between this and the flat-out misogyny of the lyrical content of bands that use picture of dogs eating kibble on their covers. In most cases it's VERY heavy satire.

There is a level of defensiveness in metal which is on one hand admirable, since it shows that metal heads have a passion for defending the genre but on the other hand it is somewhat worrying. When blanket statements incorporating socially accepted memes such including "freedom of expression" and "democracy", I start to worry. What these once subversive discourses do in the present is confine debate to the placard level:

"Naked, beaten women on record covers is bad!"

"Yeah well, opposing freedom of expression creates battered women".

Rinse and repeat all over the internet.

Interestingly, I would contrarily agree with Hair Metal Police's sarcasm in that I believe people who are enjoy creating violent artwork are psychopathic. However, where out opinions diverge is at the point where moral value is automatically accorded to the concept of psychopath. A psychopath need not be evil, nor is s/he required to actually enact/execute her psychopathic tendencies. Indeed as most people with some sort of secret desire, fetish or fantasy are aware, the consummation of the desire frequently results in its deflation, disappointment or even complete dissipation. It is the erotica in the mind, the exploration of taboo without risk to either one self or another party (consenting or in a worst case scenario, non-consenting).

Creating grotesque art can function in the same way especially with the consent of involved agents. It becomes a way for those with “psychopathic” non-vanilla, non-normal and potentially harmful tendencies to achieve a degree of satisfaction or consummation through the physical execution of their unique, personal eccentric world view without inflicting unnecessary, unjust, unethical and unwarranted harm on other, actual human beings.

The user known as Meh claims that it is very heavy satire. While I see a potential for satire even as a lifelong metal head I see very few identifiable clues as to the satirical function of this and many similar artwork in contemporary death metal. I would ask Meh; what exactly is the satire critiquing? 

Similarly there are a number of writers who express opinions along the line of: "Well it's all just make believe, it's not serious". Like this entry by Sion Wyn Jones:

It's just an album cover. It's ingrained in the Death Metal or BDM culture. It's the norm, to depict something horrible and disgusting. Especially if that's what the lyrics are based on as well. And for the artist, their just artist. There's nothing wrong with them, their not actually promoting killing Women or any other person. It's just fiction, something that fits the music style. Dammit OP, don't take this stuff so seriously.

This is actually a fairly common opinion among metal heads. It also happens to be a line of reasoning that is dense with complexity. What I take issue with is "engrained in [...] culture. This is simply conservatism by another name. If the purpose of the cover is to be shocking/provoking/subversive yet is done so in a way consistent with engrained values, how does it actually achieve this purpose? I also wonder about the sentiment relating to the lyrics no "promoting killing women or any other person." The fact is that this is exactly what the lyrics do refer to. Again a key problem as I see it is with the application of default moral positions.

Meanwhile there is Robstermb's reply to Jones:

The largest issue with it, to me, is not that it's sexist or disturbed... but because it's just so done and boring now. It's no longer shocking and it just seems immature and forced now. It's been a long time since Tomb of the Mutilated.

This is consistent with my own thinking. Death metal in particular had a zeitgeist in the post-80s context of thrash and early death metal. There was a legitimate fight against censorship and many groups at the time sought to push the limits of erotic and violent expression. As with most contemporary expressions of a genre it is exceedingly common to see a historical disjunct a kind of hyper aware "today" cannibalising its "yesterday" with barely enough time to consider last week let alone twenty or thirty years ago.

Ultimately my problems with grotesquery and sex in metal can be distilled thus:

1. Shock for its own sake is an extremely limited intellectual framework from which to work these days. As I said in the original article on this topic, true shock/subversiveness should unseat us deeply. It should ask more questions than it answers. It should be unsettling. In the past, grotesquerie in metal achieved this. It rarely does so in the present.

2. Metal offers a space for the exploration of the grotesque, the profane, the ugly and the immoral. However, not all expression within its boundaries is self-reflexive. The failure to connect with the intellectual, ethical and moral frameworks of the past significantly influences the extent to which metal art can be considered legitimately "shocking". Is it just that now we live in an age of perfect, decontextualised appropriation? Personally I believe this to be both true and not. After all, when we underestimate the intelligence of others we underestimate our own. Thoughtful, reflexive people are born out of the strangest events, through effort and sometimes mere coincidence. There is no single, unbroken line that connects present visual aesthetics with the past and furthermore it is the social, cultural perspective of the viewer which plays an important role in determining the context of an artistic work.

3. Metal is still mostly a man's world. The objectification of women within the genre has yet to be fully dealt with. Coupled with the demographic context of metal makers in the west it is highly unlikely that this will change any time soon. However, it is already changing and a number of bands continue to push against, traverse and ignore boundaries. It is interesting to ponder just how acceptable, grotesque or titillating images of men being tortured and raped would be to men, especially given the still prevalent taboo of homosexuality in a lot of metal circles.

Mysterious Traffic

One of the things interesting to me about my blog that no one reads is what does on occasion draw traffic here.

Misogyny and death metal

How to make guitar harmonies like Death

Allan Holdsworth Death Metal

Sean Reinert, Gay

Chuck Schuldiner AIDS

What is more, just this morning (January 31, 2013) on checking my traffic stats I noticed a large volume of traffic to my site directed from Facebook. As readers will know, I retired from Facebook some time ago. Even when I was using that site the traffic to this blog from my Facebook page was negligible. So why the sudden increase? Who knows? However, the particular entry that has been drawing increased numbers is my Death Metal and Misogyny entry. I'm quite happy that people are viewing my blog but if only they would leave comments as to why, I could be happier.

It is humbling to know that it is not my writing on comics or just about anything else that brings people here. The constant draw card aside from google image searches is obviously death metal. I need to start thinking about what else I can create, can link to the genre. Perhaps this site will become a repository, a Lovecraftian multidimensional shrine to mortis ferrum. Frankly if that is the case, I have no qualms about moving in this direction. What is a writer with no readers?

I have noticed throughout the time I have kept this blog that my own voice is one of the few critical and reflexive voices within death metal, a critic and a fan. I have strived for a serious analytical tone yet tried to balance it with a fan’s perspective. I have employed theory to crystallize certain conceptual relationships yet I am not interested in typical theoretical analyses of the music that I love.

Academic encounters with death metal (and heavy metal music) tend to occur from within a sociological or literary, cultural studies analytical framework. The drawback of these methodologies is that they are frequently interested. What I do here is certainly not disinterested and I have never attempted objectivity. The interested-ness of academic approaches forces analysis into a paradigm of peer-reviewed publishing, conference papers and book chapters designed to demonstrate the usefulness of certain theoretical and analytical methodologies. My aim has never been to legitimize death metal in an academic sense. Rather, it has been to create a space where it can be analysed, discussed and appreciated on a level beyond “like/dislike”, where its conceptual nuances and history can be unpacked from the perspective of a listener and fan without fear or favour.

So where to now?

After my recent declaration regarding moving towards seeking permission to online use of copyright images from owners and creators I have found myself in increasing contact with the individuals responsible for creating these products. Even though they are all a world away this is a very rewarding experience as an artist and a fan. Before this digital age and the collapse of the creative arts market I would never have had such expectations. But now, I am starting to see the importance of person-to-person online networking. Building a web of connections has become transparent, with a little hard work and genuine commitment it is possible to create an ecosystem of creativity that exists parallel to and independent of mainstream, commercial practices. I can create independent, new knowledge about others, in collaboration with them.

So here is another declaration: the overriding theme of this blog will henceforth be death metal. I will still write about other topics as they interest me but the overall tone will move to a fuller engagement with the subject that brings people here. Stay tuned for big things ahead.

What wave? Time for a rethink?

It has started. With the capture and arrest of millionaire Kim DotCom, and the shutdown of Megaupload, shockwaves have been tearing through the contemporary (illegal) filesharing world. A large number of sites have started nuking links, revoking accounts and cancelling user subscriptions while simultaneously re-writing the terms of service agreements. It all smells a bit like Nazis in the basement shredding documents even as the end of the war crashes down around them.

The current post-P2P (Napster, WinMX, DC++, Kaaza, Emule, Winny etc), IP based filesharing trend always inhabited a legal grey zone while brashly flaunting its services. It was as simple as upload content and post links to friends, on blogs and on forums. Entry level use, that is for the casual day-to-day pirate, was in most cases free and bandwidth limited but not so much as to be overly inconvenient. Serious pirates for whom warez as well as popular cultural media (movies, music, text), could pay a small fee and receive unlimited access to these services including multiple, parallel downloads and no bandwidth or data usage caps. Essentially a subscription-based, in-browser P2P piracy experience.

This large scale, enforced as well as self imposed shutdown comes amid debate about SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect IP Act) and the arrest of Kim DotCom in his luxury mansion in New Zealand this last weekend. Both acts appear to have lost much of their original support after a flood of online protest and have shown to be disproportionately huge in their power to prosecute a situation which requires finesse rather than fire-bombing. SOPA/PIPA have (had?) the potential to change the very shape of the internet and how it works. Indeed, the reason I write is a reflection of the effects already set in motion. Hundreds of thousands, millions even have already come out in opposition of these acts but there is an important question that goes unsaid. Would it really be that bad if the way the internet works was changed? Would it be so terrible if there were greater potential for legal recourse against those who under the guise of “free information” have ingrained theft as a primary component of contemporary internet use?

Many people are worried that these types of acts could censor and silence broad swathes of opinion and significantly stymie the flow of all kinds of information, knowledge and news. They are right. But there remain questions worthy of further debate: if law is actually capable of changing how things work online and the internet becomes highly regulated, would this be such a bad thing anyway? In other words, the internet while still relatively new did not always exist. It has not been in place for most of human history. And while it has facilitated an explosion of knowledge and creativity, it has also allowed a similar scale of hate, violence, depravity and wasted time. Second, again, although relatively young yet somewhat mature, people on the net have shown time and again that restrictions lead to workarounds. Frequently, it is these workarounds that lead to new ways of doing work, lead to innovation and foster the development of engineering and programming communities. I believe that the response to this wave of shutdowns had contingencies in place well before all of this happened, after all, invisible, grey zone, legal limbo communities have to think quickly, constantly.

Are we seeing a reconfiguring of the filesharing landscape and the movement toward new technologies and methods or is this merely a minor glitch with a workaround patch to be deployed in a few days or so? What is my position? I have benefited from the free flow of information and media on the internet. I have had the opportunity to engage with artisitic works at an intimate level that would have been impossible if not for community based filesharing. That said, I have also lost to this byte-swarm. I have lost time and depth of contact, of sustained engagement. The data-blizzard has increased my knowledge of complexity at the expense of my experience of considered meditation on fewer objects of knowledge. Stimulation versus contemplation.

Whatever the outcome, I do not believe this is the end of filesharing. Broswer based filesharing brought piracy to the mainstream, it made things easy for the anyone, anywhere, curious user. But usenet, dedicated P2P clients, bitorrent and FTP exchange were there first and will likely live on regardless. Or maybe they won’t. Caution, interesting times ahead. Now if only there was law enacted against the vile sputum endlessly issued on social network platforms, the world would be a much better place!

Postscript...

It has been more than two weeks since the above was written. In that time the inventories of several major filesharing servers were wiped, effectively rendering a vast network of shared links almost completely redundant. However, in the hours and days following the Kim DotCom implosion, filesharing proceeds, “business-as-usual”. Media/copyright owning “won” at best a temporary victory against what seems to be an unstoppable tide of theft. Certainly, a number of casual filesharers have been scared off but for the regular, hardcore and enthusiastic pirate nothing much has changed, what has gone is steadily being replaced. No doubt it will all be washed away again, bigger waves, smaller waves, new harbours and concrete substituted for sand, I’ll leave the last words to Hendrix:

And so castles made of sand fall into the sea, eventually...