What the hell is Laibach all about?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 мар 2009
- Philosopher Slavoj Zizek about the esthetics behind the industrial band Laibach and the NSK art collective (from Predictions of Fire, 1996) www.kinetikonpictures.com/film...
Видеоклипы
![Megan Thee Stallion - Otaku Hot Girl [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/USxIYOaIpig/mqdefault.jpg)
Of course, in my endless hours of researching martial industrial and neofolk, I end up finding myself being lectured by Slavoj Zizek hahaha
This is too ironic for me.
it's all cyclic
this is the most clear and best explanation of Laibach attitude, and not only. Zizek is relentless. And no, his english is not poor ;)
ANYONE noticed he didn't touch his nose or fix his shirt with his fingers not even once? Is this a rare footage of pre-coke Zizek?
I am more inclined towards the rumor now tbh
I would say progressive neurological condition. Communism probably? :-D
The big question that everybody that is asking herself or himself apropos laibach of course is, are they taking themselves serious or is it meant in an ironic way? Well I think of course this is the wrong alternative, because, the automatic assumption of this question is that: if your attitude towards a certain social system, system of social values, etc, is ironic, that then you are subversive, you take it seriously, you are a conformist, etc
I think that the whole point, the basic underlining premise of laibach strategy is that, and this holds not only for Slovenia but let’s say generally, for so called late capitalism, in general, even, that: system itself has at it’s inherent condition of functioning, that it’s own ideology must not be taken seriously, in other words, cynicism is today’s prevailing mode of ideology, means that it is the positive condition of the functioning of the system, that it’s own ideology, must, by it’s own subject, not be taken seriously.
An ideal subject today is he one who has ironic distance towards the system, etc, etc, and the reverse of this is that, the only way, I would even say, to be really subversive, is not to develop critical potentials, ironic distance, but precisely to take the system more seriously than it takes itself seriously, and I think this is maybe one of the keys to laibach strategy.
For example for the American public, let’s recall a typical town at the south of united states in the 20’s. We have the official white law, order, rule, etc. On the other hand we have the nightly, dark side of it: Ku Klux Klan, beatings of the blacks, etc.
Now my point is here double: first, the transgression, there is nothing subversive in the transgression of the system, this nightly suspension of the rule of the law and order, lynchings, beating of the blacks, are transgressions of the system, but transgressions which are [an] inherent part of the system. if you would ask an ideal subject of the united states, of the small southern town, where is here real identity: you can break the official public law, you will still be considered as one of us, if you don’t solidarize with beatings of which ku klux klan, you are excluded.
So in other words, not only does every system include it’s own inherent transgression, but identifying with this transgression, which must remain unspoken, concealed, is the real form of conformism, and this transgression must remain hidden, unspoken. Of course, this goes for the united states, here in so called real socialism we had other forms of this hidden transgressions, and my point is that, what laibach is doing, is precisely bringing to the light of the day this inherent transgression, which, precisely, in order for the system to reproduce itself, must remain hidden.
Thank you.
You are welcome comrade. Happy new year.
The KKK was never as powerful as it was made out to be, and certainly wasn't everywhere. (It did get a big membership in the early twentieth century but that was for a very short time. The KKK has splintered into at least a dozen groups since then.)
In the simpliest terms possible, I believe Laibach aims to demonstrate or underline in an entertaining way, through pecularly strong aesthetics associations (so strong we might use the combine word socio-aesthetics), that no matter what political or cultural system is at play, totalitarianism, socialism, capitalism, the mud-matter that is at play and center is POWER. And that the quench for power seems to supersede all ideologies, as in "I know what's good for you, let me rule".
So if I understand this correctly...
Rather than to parody the ills of the system, Laibach is reflecting the hidden dark realities of the system in such a way, that society is otherwise not willing to recognize honestly.
Yep. Exactly that. There's an old quote attributed to Bismarck - "there are two things men ought not to see being made - sausages and laws." Laibach is showing people the process whether they like it or not, because the process affects them on a daily basis, whether they know it or not.
His accent in English was even less pronounced before lol
He's spitting less than usual.
Where are his ticks and so on and so on?
Exactly! I am leaning towards the opinion that he is coked off his mind these days.
Francky Vincent, one of the biggest fan of Laibach in the French Carribean said "Tu veux mon Zizek? Oui! Oui! Oui!"
Laibach did start off as some kind of confused troll art, and they enjoyed the interest they got as clueless youngsters. Later, they grew intellectual but didn't want to lose the fame. Short story from someone who gets how short sighted musicians can be. :)
Oh, I see. Yes, I agree.
so, when he was younger he doesn't keep touching his nose?
well said. laibach subverts without ironic distancing, hence their constant ambiguity in answering questions on fascism. and they make a bit of good music doing it too :)
An extremely popular rock band in a commercial world, is power. It's all power. Billboards charts. Laibach use symbols that mix tolitarian, socialism, and commercial/capitalism meanings, like they're all one and same.
Here after his debate with JBP
beautiful analysis of laibach....Zizek is very profound!!!
Very smart analysis
thank you very much
That makes sense. Exposing the Shadow by bringing it to the light.
@GehennaGrafiti that made a lot of sense
@nothke Thank you, mate!!!
can somebody tell me what did he say at 1:49?? "We have..." ?
I'm not sure I understand fully, but what Laibach are doing in Slovenia seems to be a similar strategy to the one adopted by Die Antwoord in South Africa. Despite the aesthetic differences, they both seem to bring out an exaggerated underbelly of the dominant ideology, but playing it with a completely straight face.
Great comparison.
not sure if Die Antwoord are doing this consciously and seeing the big historic picture. Laibach was founded by political science students, and they had a lot of historic legacy to reflect upon.
please re-up or fix, I am getting an error every time I try to view this
What is Slavoj Žižek all about?
he's the living proof that you can be taken seriously by a bunch of people, in spite of smoking lots of weed
@GehennaGrafiti have you even listend to laibach? this guy makes perfect sense and is explaining it perfectly. he even uses the american south as a descriptive example.
The irony is that Laibach predicted the serbian war the same today they kind of warn us that North Korea is what it is today, while in the west we tend to consider totalitarian regimes as a reality of the past. So in the back of the stage, it is not a funny project at all, but I can't help but feel that Laibach also ponder about the absurdity behind such regimes, replicating the aesthetics to attempt to understand why people feel prone to desire power so much.
Err, I meant "more than a music act".
Gem
@davevontexas I don't understand why your comment received so many negatives votes (and so nearly vanished from sight), I vote it up, peoples have lost humorous sense !
But surely they have their own intent and interpretation about they do (other than the aim to entertain) and surely you have your interpretation too.
Also I am not criticizing a philosopher inasmuch as discussing about Laibach's art. Why should in matters of art, an opinion be valid against all others? Is it that theoretical? If we talk about constructions inside a visual frame, it is, but we are discussing meaning. That's why I wrote my own perception of how I interprete Laibach's work, to defy anyone to call that interpretation invalid. Judging art is not about how smart one is, but about how we perceive things, which shall vary for each.
You need to know that in order to discuss a philopshers work you have to know the work at hand, you can be very smart, but in order to discuss for example zizek and the term ideology you must have read about it, then you can say "he is wrong" or right or what ever, but in order to criticise u need a big insight to the work of the pholosopher or you come across as (maybe a smart person) but not someone who has understood the bigger zizek-picture, and so someone that can't rly criticise it.
Just because the bible uses words that a 5 year old can read - so that even the simplest among us may understand it - doesn't mean that the rest of the world need restrict itself to the diction of a 5 year old.
What he said...
THIS IS IT.
He gets it.
My family were labeled "subversive". So i can clearly understand. Getting everyday folks to grasp it, when our institutions are created to suppress those who question, even as slight as a vote, brings into question their supremacy, is difficult. Suppressing questions is how they maintain control.
I agree with mateo2. Why am i watching this.
He is neither of that. Also when we speak about standard English pronunciation it is usually about RP and GA.
Which to me means that for a slovenian like Zizek, Laibach will mean something different than someone in America, who were holding disbelief when east europa transformed into a mini WWII in the early 1990's (while balkan people might feel Laibach is far from being a joke). But I wonder if he only means that: that Laibach mean something different depending where the audience is from. I have my opinion on Laibach, I suppose influenced by capitalism ideology if I can't make a mind of my own.
Hahaha, auto subs recognise his English like he's speaking Dutch
Slovenian subs, the subs are for the Slovenian audience
I don't agree. A great philosopher should be able to make his point clear in a few sentances. Zizek here tries and succeeds partly, because he uses encompassive words like "system" without referring to the exact system he is speaking about. He seems to mean "cultural systems" inbreeds "political systems" inbreeds my personal opinion, but it's vague. What if we use the word sarcasm instead of irony? Is Laibach sarcastic or not because sarcasm is inherent to a given system????
So, when Dead Kennedys sang "Let's Lynch The Landlord Man", was that remote enough in times to be separated from context and become irony? Did Dead Kennedys really want to lynch people or did Laibach really wanted a Nova Akropola? Or sympathise with the devil? What is Zizek's definition of irony?
it's usual to take a role of an evil character in a song, and to sing from their POV. but when someone actually declares I AM HANNIBAL LECTOR and acts like the character but without the part that makes the play obvious, that's a powerful way of exposing the dark sides of collective unconscious. the meanings switch, and you pretend to be playing a role while you're not.
Zizek was so hot
:)
za pusta bom slavko žužek
me zanima kaj bi o tem reku...
Any native speaker of English or being near to native as a foreign language student (at least in the pronunciation: consonant and vowel qualities/quantities).
If you are in doubt, then you probably do not belong to one of the mentioned categories since it isn't obvious to you.
"imagining themselves as a totalitarian regime" Well, they started out and lived for a decade in an actual totalitarian regime (the very name of the band was banned by that regime etc.). Thinking they're just posturing misses the point a bit.
upsidown13 they're actual free speech warriors. Not these americo-canadian wusses.
So taking after Bourdieu the notion that there are appropriate ways to behave inappropriately or illegally and these are contextualized in practice. awesome possum.
His lisp is very mild here. How is it possible that his pronunciation of English got worse after speaking it for a quarter century?
He purpotedly suffers from a neurological condition, also responsible for his ticks like sniffing and pulling on his shirt. It very well may have gotten worse as he aged.
I didn't get it!! If every 'system' has a 'transgression' that must remain hidden and unspeakable, why does not an ironic stance towards a given system can be viewed as subversive if it does precisely what according to Zizek counts as 'real' subversive namely 'bringing to light' and turning explicit the 'hidden transgression' (in this case the very possibility of irony itself)?
You misunderstand, perhaps for the same reason people undervalue children's literature. Children's literature and simple literature may put things in terms a child could understand, but I would strongly suggest that every adult read the works by Michael Ende or Kipling. On the other hand, one can read about the topics covered by "Momo" in a economics textbook or child-psych textbook. One should not restrict one's self solely to high-diction or child-speak..
It's more than a music art, there is an "artistic point" to them, but I think this guy doesn't explain Laibach that well.
What exactly haven't you understood about an objective assessment of his accent that was the subject of this whole discussion (if you failed to notice)?
Again, if you notice, this discussion, you participated on, wasn't about the content of his speech or his profession, it was solely about his accent. Your sudden lack of interest in that particular discussion and a false pretense of confusion only hints that you don't know how else you would argue for his "immaculate" way he pronounces English.
If i understood it right, it's something akin to satire being indistinguishable from truly stupid things.
stupid but attractive. the point is uncovering what stupid things attract people who consider themselves civilized and sane.
He and you seem to mean "some sort of consensus that is played out but not legalized". Whatever, gross social generalizations in matters of art work better when we speak about many artists, but feel ackward when directed at a unique artist, as though there are the "flag" band of that consensus, or untold-consensus or whatever. They parody the whole concept of a "system" with their non-existent country with passport. That's pretty universal to me, so why attempt make that specific to a context?
@psychuro spíš bych je nejspíš poznal kdyby byly mluvený anglicky a né takhle jak mluví on.
young zizek is kinda nerveous haha
To me, Laibach functions as if they lived in a parallel universe where totalitarian regimes like nazis and stalinism still ruled over europe. The humoristic aspect of later works, like their covers of pop anthems, is obviously ironic, but it's not merely a social critique, but a fascination with the mechanisms that entice people to desire positions of powers, and the aesthetics that comes with this, and the archetypes that source this, that nurture this. Where does enjoyment of power comes from?
o yes, so we tray this new age capitalism ( regarding people in ex Yugoslavia) and now we cray for good old socialistic-realism, why? Because it always a question of money-standard for it is much better like in 1988 to Have like now 2000 Euro per moth, then now not even close 400 or 500 Euros.
how can anyone listen to this man speak for over a minute? i wonder if anyone has ever tried multiple deessers on his vocal channel
Irony is when you convey a message that is opposite from your intention, wrether that happens by mistake or by hidden intention. "posturing" means they "make-believe" they are totalitarian when actually it's their way to counter-react that ideology (by underlining it, make an exaggerated version of it). This philosopher seems to think they are underlining something without being ironic, but that hardly makes sense to me. There are a band fully aware of what they do.
Zizeks favourite band is actually Rammstein
... but not just about the accent, since he's not a native speaker, but about some fundamental failure in imitating the standard pronunciation (RP or GA which is the one the foreigners normally imitate)..
That's of course his problem, but I find it ridiculous when somebody's pretending here that his pronunciation is flawless
I think this guy takes himself too seriously. Maybe he tries to be self- subversive.
+KptFile ...he tells some funny dirty jokes in many of his lectures....
Are they funny because of his lateral lisp, or because they are jokes?
it seems you don't have a clue of what Laibach is about
What? No sniffing? No so on and on?
@NecumNaTo loool yeah this guy isn't very good with english huhhuhuh
bollucks
What kind of drugs does this guy take? Perhaps he forgot to take ones.
Question is what drugs should you take in order to understand what he says. Clearly something has gone way over your head. Try DMT then rewatch.
i cant understand him, his english is poor :-(
I got better in english and now I can understand him!
@@NecumNaTo hahahahah you responded after 9 year, wow