On Edgetivism

My Sister Before Her Suicide

While in the last post I gave a thumbs down to the degenerate Christian clique calling themselves The 'Satanic' Temple, in this post I give a thumbs up to the Edgetivist movement in art. Chaoscunt, the philosopher behind the movement, starts from the premise that art is not real life. The resulting behavior of a perceiver of a work of art is his own responsibility, not that of the artist. Art is just a virtual arena where we face our own demons, a realm of psychological exploration and experimentation. Chaoscunt warns of the danger of virtuestigmaism, the destructive trend "to categorize works of art by their most superficial aspects, notably 'political' associations." This leads to censorship and domestication of art, and the ascendance of saftyism, a wave of politically correct and safe works of art that by their nature are mediocre but highly praised by social justice warriors.

In reaction to this decadent trend in art, Chaoscunt advances Edgetivism, which is art with an activist dimension. The Edgetivist purposely explores the most taboo subjects in his society in order to remind everyone that art is not real life, thus re-establishing art as a realm of perfect freedom. The Edgetivist puts himself at risk and will be marginalized by the mainstream groups of castrated artists, but his mission is noble and heroic. "The Edgetivist will explore the most socially unacceptable aspects of life in his art. Not only does the work have to be breaking some sort of law that goes against freedom of artistic expression but also be reprehensible to the point of leaving 95% of society in shock. If you can put the contents of the work on a t-shirt and walk without getting into trouble with most people on the street, then it has failed to be edgetivist." 

Christians Oppose Abortions Because They Like to Fuck Orphans

        

I find myself in agreement with Chaoscunt's point that consumerism and political correctness can be very damaging to true art. There are many factors that contribute to the domestication of art once it's treated as a commodity meant to provide entertainment and 'an escape' from the drudgery of daily life. One thing I find particularly repulsive, connected with Chaoscunt's point about people's failure to distinguish art from the real world, is how people fail to distinguish the artist, as a real human being, from his art. If the artist isn't 'nice' they won't support his art. If the artist is personable and goes to talk shows and makes jokes and is humble, then they support his art. Examples abound. Black metal band Inquisition being dropped by Seasons of Mist once Dagon was found to be into child-porn. Yes, the guy has issues but he's a beautiful artist and the Inquisition sound will always stand out in the black metal landscape. That Roman Polansky is a rapist is not gonna stop me from enjoying Rosemary's Baby. That Varg Vikernes is a racist, murderer, and arsonist isn't gonna stop me from enjoying Burzum. There's a deeper issue here: the consumerist war against dangerous artists and dangerous art. Art has the special power of waking people up from their inauthentic slumber, like a chainsaw powered up next to your ear while you're in the middle of a sweet, wet dream. Terror and vertigo strike, suddenly you don't know who you are, where you are, and what's going on. But then when you see that very artist who rudely awoke you go to a talk show and smile and play nice so he can sell his merch, you see that they're slaves just like you, they're nothing special about them, and you let yourself dissolve in your dogmatic, comfy slumber again.  

Another related issue is the trend of people being offended by the content of a work of art and thinking their feeling is a suitable ground to judge the aesthetic value of that work. Speaking from my perspective as a fiction writer, I'm deeply repulsed by readers saying they don't relate with this or that character, that they have no one to 'cheer for.' What you relate to is irrelevant. Let's look at some classic characters. Raskolnikov, the protagonist of Dostoyevksy's masterpiece Crime and Punishment, is a disturbed student who feels he lives by a master morality that allows him to take an axe to an old woman and rob her. You don't relate with this 'monster'? Newsflash! It doesn't matter. Whether you feel offended is not part of the conversation about the value of a piece of art. Completely beside the point. Take Stavroghin, the main character of Demons: a nihilist who's part of a terrorist group and also a pedophile. Examples abound. Mersault, the anti-hero of Albert Camus' The Stranger, shoots an Arab for no apparent reason, except maybe because it was too hot outside. These novels are classic, paradigmatic works of art. Stop being offended and ask yourself why these novels are considered outstanding creations? 

Despite my agreement and support of Edgetivism I don't consider myself an Edgetivist for two interconnected reasons. First, it's a fact that some artists use art to further an ideological agenda. In that sense, the distinction between art and the real world becomes blurred as the artist wants his work to have a concrete effect (For more on this issue see my post Punching Nazis, Black Metal, and the Use of Ideological Symbols.) In this way, the artist moves away from authentic art as a medium of self-exploration and catharsis. Secondly, the same problem occurs in connection to Edgetivism itself. It too is militant art. And that's why I'm not an Edgetivist. My writing does have an edgy character but that's incidental. The essential thing is the inner struggle and tension it comes out of. Chaoscunt claims, "Always produce works that side against the predominant people in the art world. Make anti-Christian and feminist art in middle-age Europe, make anti-Islamic and anti-feminist art in 2016 Europe." I personally have nothing against feminism and I hate Islam as I hate all religions. But neither of these issues has penetrated my sphere of artistic interest and anything I'd write about them would appear phoned in and inauthentic. On the other hand, anti-capitalism is a notion close to my heart, the alienation, exploitation, and degradation of the individual that are intrinsic to this economic system fill me with monstrous rage. And this is something I tackle in my novella 'Ich Will'. My point is that there's a gap between what is edgy in an authentic work of art and what may be considered edgy and taboo in a certain society at a given time. No doubt there's a lot of overlap between the two but a true artist can't just mechanically follow what others find taboo and then force himself to make art against it. Instead, he should courageously face his fears and inner demons, and that confrontation is bound to have some edgy and disturbing aspects, but that's a natural side-effect and not the main goal of the artist.  

All in all, I salute Edgetivism as an authentic movement in a mass of artistic conformity. Saftyism requires relentless mockery and opposition as it leads to grotesque organizations like Antifa, and the rise of censorship and artistic repression, troglodytes judging beautiful works of art, a totalitarian nightmare.   

I