Art Strike - Yawn Archive

Sporadic Critique of Culture 1989 — 1993

---

Organ in Support of the Art Strike 1990-1993

THIS ARCHIVE is a historical document, but the reader is warned against looking upon it in conventionally rigorous historical terms, for the small history that it tells is at times a reconstructed and embellished one.

Much of the content of these documents consists of digital facsimile editions of the newsletter YAWN, the anonymous publication devoted to the Art Strike 1990-1993 and related issues. YAWN came out of several p.o. boxes in the period from 1989 to 1993, sporadic in response to the responses and additional submissions that it had received to the issue before. Subtitled “ A Sporadic Critique of Culture,” its scope was actually narrower than this would imply, if simply because its contributors came largely from the Mail Art, Neoist, and even more obscure networks which were internationally active at the time. The contents of this archive reflect this somewhat nairrow focus.

In retrospect, it is difficult to state with complete honesty the editorial position taken by their editor to these texts. Much of this work is difficult to take seriously; and in many cases it’s even difficult to tell if the author meant them to be taken seriously. It is in the spirit of play that many of the editorial decisions were made in producing YAWN but this does not mean that all of it can be taken lightly. By taking a light touch to these matters, the editor tried to keep the communication lines open and encourage further interaction.

---

No Forbidding

THESE FILES actually contain more documents than were released during the time of YAWN’s publication. We have taken the liberty of adding in other material from this period which, at the time, space and resources did not permit us to publish in broadsheet form. They have been inserted here and there and it is not been made evident which are the "real" YAWNs and which are the later additons. The issue numbers have been altered around these insertions to give a sense of continuity, and to transfigure the actual facts of history to serve our current needs, which we here undermine with this admission (this also suits our current needs).

Nonetheless, the reader will find much of amusement and interest, particularly if she is interested in tacit assumptions about culture which are rarely called into question, but to which we here frequently offer aggressive challenge. The charge might be levelled that some of the concepts brought forth in YAWN are ground into the mud, and this might be so. But this teaches us something, as well.

Most of the texts here presented appear relatively untouched by the editor’s hand. We freely admit that finely wrought well argued position statements appear side by side with muddled thinking and unrestrained polemical spewings. It may not be easy for some to wade through all of this. More than wanting to present a "case" for or against the Art Strike, we wished to lay bare the debate surrounding the topic. To that extent, all of the works included provide a perspective and betray the afiliations and passions of their authors, laying bare both their strengths, and their excesses.

---

The Files

Since these are back issues, they preserve the circumstances of their production. Please do not trust any of the mailing addresses given in them. Some of these addresses may still be in use, but it is difficult to predict and many have certainly been outdated. If you really want to contact someone mentioned in YAWN, you can send a request to the editor, who will make every effort to put you in touch with the party in question.

YAWN is currently available only on the internet.

The first item in the list comprises the entire YAWN series in a single file, except for number 38 (listed below in numeric sequence). Number 38 was the only issue of YAWN to be published in booklet form, as a supplement to Retrofuturism, and so remains a separate download. The remaining files comprise exactly the same content as The Collected YAWN, however in this case you can download the YAWN issues or supplements singly.

The Collected YAWN (all issues in one volume, except no. 38)		3.4 MB
Individual issues: Issue no.	Date of issue	Size
YAWN no. 1	September 15, 1989	32 kB
YAWN no. 2	September 22, 1989	152 kB
YAWN no. 3	September 29, 1989	148 kB
YAWN no. 4	October 21, 1989	64 kB
YAWN no. 5	November 3, 1989	136 kB
YAWN no. 6	November 24, 1989	52 kB
YAWN no. 7	December 15, 1989	32 kB
YAWN no. 8	December 31, 1989	76 kb
[Supplement] YAWN no. 8a	December 31, 1989	56 kB
YAWN no. 9	January 1, 1990	52 kB
YAWN no. 10	February 1, 1990	92 kB
YAWN no. 11	February 15, 1990	140 kB
[Supplement] YAWN no. 11a	February 15, 1990	80 kB
YAWN no. 12	March 1, 1990	76 kB
YAWN no. 13	March 15, 1990	108 kB
YAWN no. 14	May 1, 1990	84 kB
YAWN no. 15	May 15, 1990	72 kB
YAWN no. 16	May 21, 1990	44 kB
YAWN no. 17	June 1, 1990	72 kB
[Supplement] YAWN no. 17a	June 1, 1990	52 kB
YAWN no. 18	July 1, 1990	88 kB
YAWN no. 19	July 15, 1990	60 kB
YAWN no. 20	September 22, 1990	76 kB
YAWN no. 21	September 25, 1990	68 kB
YAWN no. 22	October 1, 1990	60 kB
[Supplement] YAWN no. 22a	October 1, 1990	72 kB
YAWN no. 23	October 10, 1990	72 kB
YAWN no. 24	October 24, 1990	56 kB
[Supplement] YAWN no. 24a	October 24, 1990	112 kB
YAWN no. 25	November 6, 1990	104 kB
YAWN no. 26	November 20, 1990	60 kB
YAWN no. 27	December 24, 1990	44 kB
YAWN no. 28	January 2, 1991	52 kB
YAWN no. 29	January 9, 1991	56 kB
YAWN no. 30	February 28, 1991	144 kB
YAWN no. 31	March 19, 1991	108 kB
YAWN no. 32	May 9, 1991	152 kB
YAWN no. 33	May 23, 1991	180 kB
YAWN no. 34	June 5, 1991	80 kB
[Supplement] YAWN no. 34a	June 5, 1991	88 kB
YAWN no. 35	December 1, 1991	76 kB
YAWN no. 36	December 15, 1991	128 kB
YAWN no. 37	January 5, 1992	40 kB
[Supplement] YAWN no. 37a	January 12, 1992	76 kB
YAWN no. 38 [Supplement to Retrofuturism]	March 1993	636k
YAWN no. 39	January 12, 1992	96 kB
YAWN no. 40	January 20, 1992	128 kB
YAWN no. 41	March 1, 1992	128 kB
YAWN no. 42	April 15, 1992	88 kB
YAWN no. 43	May 15, 1992	148 kB
YAWN no. 44	June 15, 1992	100 kB
YAWN no. 45	August 15, 1992	204 kB
[Supplement] YAWN no. 45a	September 15, 1992	272 kB
[Supplement] YAWN no. 45b	October 15, 1992	132 kB
[Terminus] YAWN no. 45c (0)	November 15, 1992	160 kB

Any part of YAWN may be reproduced in any form whatsoever, even without acknowledgment.

Where Have All the Book Boys Gone? (AntiClockWise 18)

[This piece was written in 1991 before the widespread availability of the internet. While not that much has changed for public libraries, the almost ubiquitous internet access, globalisation of information, freedom of information laws and many other technological advances render this article as a rather quaint historic document, in which spirit it is reproduced here! I hope to revisit the issue of libraries and information access in the future]

The right of access to information is a basic human right. Knowledge is indeed power and a powerful weapon in the information war. But this right is under severe threat due to the cash crisis in the public library service. Information technology is making huge advances, but at a grass roots level public libraries are having their opening times slashed and their book budgets dramatically cut.

The cutbacks are an assault on the right of the proletariat to get information and generally hang out in information centres. IT has allowed enormous amounts of data to be readily available on databases, but it is incredibly difficult for ordinary people to get their hands on them. It has always been hard for anyone to get hold of government information because of the diversity of sources i.e. each government  produces their own specialised data autonomously.

Databases can provide all this data via mind-boggling technical wizardry – but they can never offer a substitute for books. Of course, books are just more commodities, but they differ in that they can provide a useful function as a source of human knowledge.

A conspiracy theorist may suggest that slashed book budgets are because of the threat from books broadening the minds of the proles. Most public libraries were set up by Victorian philanthropists to ease their consciences and educate the riff raff … maybe their harmless gift has the potential to turn into an uncontrollable monster.

The anti-intellectual posturing of (often university educated) anarchists are counter revolutionary when the real need is for everyone to get educated to combat the ruling elite on their own level to reveal their real inadequacies.

You can pick up any book and make up your own mind about it, not like telecommunications where glitzy pre-packaged passive information is moulded by those who control it. It takes the huge apparatus of religion to interpret the Bible for their own ends – anyone not brainwashed who reads the Bible can see it as appalling texts and fascistic philosophy.

No book should ever be banned. People on the right or left who want books banned are crypto fascists. This may seem harsh, but there can be no wavering about censorship. Once you start banning books then totalitarianism, authoritarianism and oppression are initiated. If you start banning books for ‘political correctness’ or ‘morality’, then where does it end? Everyone has a different book they would want to ban. If a book is rubbish, just ignore it.

Books are subversive; they contain a kaleidoscope of ideas that no other media can provide I’ve spoken to a lot of people where I work (I’m a librarian) and they all say they would rather be reading books for pleasure than working (some people manage to combine the two!) but they feel obliged to spend time working and the TV is a much easier and more hypnotic pastime. People are often too tired to read after work.

Added to the cash crisis in public libraries, there is also the issue of books being stolen. Where on earth does robbing from libraries get us? Library book theft is exactly the same as the poor robbing from the poor – it deprives those who most need it. Yet no-one seems to seriously consider library theft as criminal but all it achieves is that someone who could really do with that book is left educationally stranded. Most people will have been to a library and found that the book they were looking for is missing.

Perhaps this is symptomatic of a selfish society. A June 1991 article on book theft in the Library Association Record found “The loss rate is almost certainly between 1 and 10% for most libraries. Some libraries without protection systems can reach 30% or 40%. One library … claims to have lost 110% one year – everything it bought that year was stolen; they bought further books and they were stolen”. About £100 million worth of books are stolen every year. This, coupled with budget cuts by incompetent councils, presents a horrific scenario for the library service. It is little wonder that some libraries are considering charging for some of their traditionally free services. I know I am starting to sound moralistic, but the situation is rapidly deteriorating to crisis point.

A remarkably perceptive letter to The Independent on Sunday on 7^th July 1991 from Patricia Coleman, Director of Birmingham Central Library, declared “Reading is no longer something to which all aspire; people boast of having no time to read books. I think society gets the librarians and libraries it deserves”. Quite right, so we have to demolish serious culture that revolves around High Art and mass media, society’s oppressive values, and the whole dehumanising work ethic. (Image by Clifford Harper)

Perhaps publishers could be encouraged to deposit, say 100 copies of every book title they produce with main libraries throughout the country (maybe staggered for small press publishers, though they may wish to donate more in return for other support). Publishers already deposit 6 copies to national libraries. But the problem is a barbarian, materialist society that is rapidly going nowhere. Libraries do reflect the society they are part of and their demise is a subtle act of war on the proletariat. 

Not The Art Strike by Feral Faun (in AntiClockWise #15)

In a letter to the Museum of Modern Alienation, Feral Faun gives his/her views on the coverage of the Art Strike and other art issues in earlier issues of AntiClockWise

“Thank you much for writing and sending all the ACWs. I’m quite impressed with them, a very worthy effort. I especially like the fact that you can do a zine that has some intelligent theoretical content, but that also seems to be fun for you to do. Being that sort of asshole I am though, I have to share four criticisms I have:

1) You give Stewart Home a bit too much credit. My impression from what I’ve read (2 issues of his SMILE; Art Strike literature; plagiarism literature; “The Assault on Culture”) is that he is arrogant and shallow. A friend of mine of mine who knows him agrees with that assessment. Most of what he deals with has been dealt with better by others already. If he’s trying to satirise, he fails because he is satirising things already so absurd that he seems no different. He is especially shallow (verging on being downright stupid) in his condemnation of the surrealists and his uncritical praise of mail art. The former, he either knows little about or intentionally distorts to allow for his formulae (I suspect the latter). The latter he blows out of all proportion. In fact his entire “The Assault of Culture” impressed me as an experiment in distorted proportions, portraying amoebas as hippopotami and elephants as paramecium.

2) Following Home, you try to portray the surrealists (in an otherwise excellent article on Dadaism) as devious politicians. In fact, what kept the surrealists from making any real mark beyond a few paintings and obscure books (and of course being the parent or grandparent, direct connections exist, of COBRA, a group of surrealists who broke with Breton, the Lettrists, the S.I. and all offshoots of any of these groups) was their inability to play the game of politicking. They were constantly trying to make connections with other ‘radical’ groups, only to find themselves being manipulated into things they didn’t want to do. A lot of critiques have been made of the surrealists, most of them with a lot more depth and intelligence than Home’s shallow condemnation.

The situationists made a good summary critique of the Dadaists and surrealists: “The Dadaists sought to suppress art without realising it; the surrealists tried to realise it without suppressing it”. In other words, neither fully understood how to get beyond art – and so both are now looked upon as art movements (Duchamp’s urinal is now displayed in an art museum!) just as some folk already recognise Home’s Art Strike as nothing but a piece of performance art. There is a lot to be learned from a critical study of early surrealist writings. To merely write them off is not wise, it is prejudiced. Their project was not to suppress Dadaism (whose utter negation had pretty much petered out by the time surrealism began) but to realise its positive side. Surrealism failed in this, and I feel that failure was inherent in the method and organisation of the surrealist movement – but Home does not deal with this in an intelligent and useful way, and nor does your article. Finally, it is Artaud, not the mercenary Dali, whose defection from surrealism most clearly manifest its inability to give the liberation it offered. A person who sells themselves to the highest bidder (the real reason behind Dali’s ‘conversion’ to Catholicism and fascism) can hardly be considered to be “doing their own thing” or to be an anarchist. A more appropriate term for such a person is “snivelling shit”. Artaud is the only one whose refusal to conform led him not only to break with surrealism, but ultimately to spend years locked away inside an asylum – not in a huge mansion bought with the money earned by painting pseudo-mystical religious crap and singing paeans of praise to a fascist dictator and the Church.

3) Mail art does not destroy the spectacular nature of art, it merely (very much in line with the post industrial age of cybernetic control) decentralises it. But the very fact that three is a definable mail art network shows that it has not escaped the category of art or its spectacular nature. This is a further evidenced by the fact that small galleries and exhibition spaces do mail art shows. Even if money is not exchanged, a form of exchange manifests in this activity, the exchange in the recognition of the mail artist. Since the nature of control in the cybernetics age is mostly decentralised, its ‘natural’ form of art would have to be mail art. All other forms of art become anachronistic, reflecting earlier forms of domination and alienation.

4) The critiques of technology that have been developed in the past 20 or so years have not all been from greens or eco-freaks. There is a tendency among certain post-situationist currents that has developed a critique of technology as a method of domination. This critique says that technology cannot be considered neutral because it has not developed in a natural setting, but has developed within a system of domination as an integral part of that system. In particular, industrial and post-industrial cybernetics technologies were developed quite systematically as systems for controlling people. Further, this critique shows that technology cannot simply be dealt with piecemeal but must be recognised as a system of relating to the world that is an integral part of the social system based on work and exchange. Such a critique is free of the self-sacrificial moralism of the greens and recognises the possibility of using this system against itself (e.g. creating computer viruses that wipe out vast banks of corporate data), but which recognises that the end of domination and alienation means the end of the technological system was we know it.”

Art Strike 1990 - 1993 by Stewart Home et al. (in AntiClockWise #6)

“We call on all cultural workers to put down their tools and cease to make, distribute, sell, exhibit, or discuss their work from 1 January 1990 to 1 January 1993. We call for all galleries, museums, agencies, ‘alternative spaces’, periodicals, theatres, art schools &c., to cease all operations for the same period.”

When the PRAXIS group declared their intention to organise an Art Strike for the 3 years period 1990 – 1993, they fully intended that this proposed (in)action should create at least as many problems as it resolves.

The importance of the Art Strike lies not in its feasibility but in the possibilities it opens for intensifying the class war. The Art Strike addresses a series of issues; most important among these is the fact that the socially imposed hierarchy of the arts can be actively and aggressively challenged. Simply making this challenge goes a considerable way towards dismantling the mental set ‘art; and undermining its hegemonic position within contemporary culture, since the success of art as a supposedly ‘superior form of knowledge’ is largely dependent upon its status remaining unquestioned.

Other issues with which the Art Strike is concerned include the series of ‘problems’ centred on the question of identity. By focusing attention on the identity of the artist, and the social and administration practices an individual must pass through before such an identity becomes generally recognised, the organisers of the Art Strike intend to demonstrate that within this society there is a drift away from the pleasure of play and simulation; a drift which leads, via codification, on into the prison of the ‘real’. So, for example the role-playing games of ‘children’ come to serve as preparation for the limited roles ‘children’ are forces to ‘live’ out upon reaching ‘maturity’. Similarly, before an individual can become an artist (or nurse, toilet cleaner, banker etc.), they must first simulate the role; even those who attempt to maintain a variety of possible identities, all too quickly find their playful simulation transformed (via the mechanics of law, medical practice, received belief etc.) into a fixed role within the prison of the ‘real’ (quite often literally in the case of those who are branded schizophrenic).

The organisers of the Art Strike have quite consciously exploited the fact that within this society what is simulated tends to become real. In the economic sphere, the strike is an everyday action; by simulating this classic tactic of proletarian struggle within the realm of culture we can bring the everyday reality of the class war to the attention of the ‘avant garde’ faction within the bourgeoisie (and thus force academics, intellectuals, artists etc. to demonstrate whose side they are really on). At present the class struggle is more readily apparent in the consumption of culture than its production; the Art Strike is in part an attempt to redress this imbalance.

While strikes themselves have traditionally been viewed as a means of combating economic exploitation, the Art Strike is principally concerned with the issue of political and cultural domination. By extending and redefining traditional conceptions of the strike, the organisers of the Art Strike intend to increase its value both as a weapon of struggle and a means of disseminating proletarian propaganda. Obviously, the educative value of the strike remains of primary importance; its violence helps to divide the classes and leads to a direct confrontation between antagonists. The deep feelings aroused by the strike bring out the noble qualities of the proletariat.

In 1985, when the PRAXIS group declared their intention to organise an Art Strike for the period 1990-1993, it resolved the question of what members of this group should do with their time for the 5 year period leading up to the strike. This period has been characterised by an on-going struggle against the received culture of the reigning society (and has been physically manifested in the adoption of multiple identities such as Karen Eliot and the organisation of events such as the Festival of Plagiarism). What the organisation of the Art Strike left unresolved was how members of PRAXIS and their supporters should use their time over the period of the strike. Thus the strike has been positioned in clear opposition to closure – for every ‘problem’ it has ‘resolved’, at least one new ‘problem’ has been ‘created’. Stewart Home

Art is conceptually defined by a self-perpetuating elite and marketed as an international commodity. Those cultural workers who struggle against the reigning society find their work either marginalised or else co-opted by the bourgeois art establishment.

To call one person an artist is to deny another the equal gift of vision; thus, the myth of ‘genius’ becomes an ideological justification for inequality, repression and famine. What an artist considers to be his or her identity is a schooled set of attitudes; preconceptions which imprison humanity in history. It is the roles derived from these identities, as much as the art products mined from reification, which we must reject.

Donations, letters of support, testimonials, enquiries etc. may be sent to either of the following addresses:-

Art Strike Aktion Committee                         Art Strike Action Committee

(California)                                                      B.M. Senior

PO Box 170715                                              London

CA 94117-170715                                          WC1N 3XX

USA                                                                UK

If you require a reply, please enclose an SAE or IRCs.

“Artists are murderers” – Tony Lowes

Hand Up for Nihilism

What's In A Name? (AntiClockWise #1)

Many active radicals have used false names, especially when the police are merely taking names and addresses, but also for court appearances – so that the person does not have the ‘crime’ or whatever attached to their real identity. A false address is preferably needed and someone to confirm the false identity when required (and to forget it afterwards!). This really ought to be planned well. The reason for all this is that our name is the key to our identity … and our identity is the key to the state keeping tabs on what we are up to.

This problem of names is not new, nor is the concept of multiples names i.e. we all assume the same false name so that activities can be carried out without numbers of blame being clear, in the same way as demonstrators such as the BZs in Amsterdam wear identical clothes and masks to cause massive confusion for the cops.

In the film Spartacus the Romans knew of the character by his name, but were thrown into disarray by everyone claiming “I’m Spartacus”. There are many examples of this or of one false name being used for many different purposes (as long as an arrest does not occur, after which the name should be dropped of course) e.g. several generations of anarchists in very different circumstances used a particular name (not mentioned here as it is still being utilised) for an astonishing variety of purposes (heaven help anyone who really had that name!).

The following is taken from Smile:

MULTIPLE NAMES

Multiple names are tags which the avant garde of the ‘70s and ‘80s have proposed for serial use. These have taken a number of forms, but are most commonly ‘invented personal names’ which, their proponents claim, anyone can take on as a context or identity. The idea is usually to create a collective body of artistic works using the invented identity.

The first of these collective identities, ‘Klaos Oldanburg’, was propagated by the British mail artist Stefan Kukowski and Adam Czarowski in the mid-seventies. A few years later the American mail artist David Zack proposed Monty Cantsin as the name of the ‘first open pop star’, a name anybody could use. Factional differences between those using the Monty Cantsin tag resulted in rival contexts of ‘No Cantsin’ and ‘Karen Eliot’, both of which emerged in the mid ‘80s. A number of individuals and groups have independently originated similar concepts e.g. a group centred around Sam Durrant in Boston proposed Bob Jones as a multiple identity in the mid ‘80s.

There have also been multiple names for magazines (e.g. Smile, originating in England in 1984) and pop groups (e.g. White Colours, first proposed in England during the early ‘80s).

Multiple names are connected to radical theories of play. The idea is to create an ‘open situation’ for which no-one in particular is responsible. Some proponents of the concept also claim that it is a way to “practically examine, and break down, western philosophic notions of identity, individuality, originality, value and truth”.

On 23^rd October 1988 The Observer carried a story about an elusive Scarlet Pimpernel student in the Burma riots who was known as Min Ko Naing (“The Conqueror of Kings”) and managed to elude the army for months. To confuse the intelligence services, 19 other students adopted the same name, so reported sightings came simultaneously in different parts of Burma.

52 Glamour Cards: A new form of an old power game by Stefan Szczelkun ( in AntiClockWise 1990)

Glamour is a TURN ON. . . 
Glamour is attractiveness incarnate. 
Glamour is the universal focus of desire. 
GLAMOUR IS HIGH TECH FASCISM.

collage by S.Szczelkun

* “HMMMM you are looking glamorous tonight.” The associations are all positive and yet when we look past the glitz at what it is that glamour promotes, we see an ideology of elitism personified.

* The class system that dominates and is throttling the world requires a method to persuade us all to accept the scarcity of POWER AND BEAUTY, and that this is the natural order of things.

* Democratic ideals of equality require that everyone should have a say. A dangerous idea that requires constant obfuscation. Glamour is distributed by chance amongst the population. Every family stands a chance… 

* These standards of glamour permeate the population with ever finer hierarchies of good looks. Because of its apparent natural basis we all accept a position of relative superiority/ inferiority within this graded system. This order is constantly reinforced in the media. 

* We accept the status given to us by our looks and at the same time we are taking on board the principle that a few people are SUPERIOR whilst most of us are (naturally) INFERIOR.

* Glamour conditions us to accept the basic premise in which all class oppression is rooted.

* However we know that there is no rational basis for the valuing of one persons appearance ABOVE any other. That inherently everyone is COMPLETELY attractive and desirable. The fact that this rationally self-evident concept is ‘inconceivable’ to most of us is a measure of how profoundly we have all been hurt by classism.

* Where did glamour come from ? 

* The myth of the hero is ancient and almost universal. From people whose abilities seemed so far beyond mere mortals, that they seemed like gods, to the victor in battle surrounded in his glory. As a metaphor of overcoming, the hero has a deep resonance.

* The fair maiden and the handsome prince have long been a staple of western fairy tales.

* Western ideals of fairness have been an extravagant buttress to racism of all kinds. Gentlemen prefer blondes. Blonde-haired blue eyed children get adopted more easily. Blonde Barby dolls outsell black and red-haired Barbys 10 to 1. Blondes get more attention and more harassment. ‘Bimbos’ must be blond. If the product is up-market, use a brunette in your adverts. The power of the myth is incredible considering its obvious banality.

* Myths of an ideal body. Crude old survival advantages of size are generalised and then misapplied to peoples’ appearance. e.g. Penis and breast size irrationally equated with virility and fecundity.

* These ideals of beauty conflict with the reality of our wonderful physical range and diversity. Differences can seem significant divisions when in reality, beneath the conditioning that makes us appear so ‘different’, human beings are 99% similar. There is an old fear of deviance and difference. Only complete normality is safe. As only few people can approximate to ‘complete normal’ the fear is active in everyone. Glamour is the idealisation of normality. 

* One of the roots of the word is in the glamour or look that could induce a trance - entranced. It represented the power of women. The reality of all female power is now hidden behind a smoke screen of glamour girl mythology.

* Myths of invulnerabilty and protection from death. Ancient myths generated from an awe and fear of death. Myths of heaven (perfection reached and experienced) and immortality.

* WWII was a world-wide war in which the carnage of civilians was a major aspect of the strategy. Over 45 million people died of which two thirds were civilians. The democratisation of war, that started with the armies of Napoleon, brought to a nadir. Nothing on this global scale of indiscriminate violence had happened before. This blanket legacy of terror may have paved the way for a global imposition of glamour. It is now understood how the experience of brutality leads to low self-esteem. Glamour breeds on the demoralised and displaced.

* Glamour is a gigantic confidence trick in which we are maneuvered into psychic self-mutilation. 

* Glamorising the role of men as warriors (Rocky is a top selling video in many parts of the world) prepares men for their continuing wholesale self-destruction in warfare. The machismo of armed struggle makes it difficult to think of all the effective non-violent possibilities before resorting to such desperate measures. 

Page spread from Class Myths & Culture 1990

* And yet although it appears to oppose death, Glamour is close to death because it is a mask. A shimmering picture of reality behind which is n o t h i n g. Living a glamorous life is a facade covering the most empty of existences.

* Because glamour mythically opposes death and decay its ideal model of perfection is youth. The features of youth dictate many of the facets of glamour’s criteria. Small snub noses, fair hair, smooth featureless skin, innocence. Picturing youth as a target of sexual lust inevitably encourages the sexual abuse of children.

* The glamorous are ‘playboys’ and girls. They don’t work, they just have exciting lives. As a little boy I understood the glamour girls would give me a good time (in contrast to the ordinary women in my life who as adults gave me a hard time).

* The recognition of parenting as actual productive labour is entirely contrary to capitalism, and the isolation of re productivity essential for its survival.

* The US is obsessed with childhood. Batman as a big adult hit film. It is self-conscious about its own youthful dominance as a nation. Glamour is the screen behind which Americans feel awful.

* Hollywood invented glamour. There is an oft-quoted myth that anyone can make it in California, the land of opportunity. This may have been the case for some heavily armed Whites in the pioneer days... but the reality now is of a massive class for whom there is no opportunity.

* Glamour is the myth creation of the American owning class. It is the screen they hide behind. It does not represent the actual US owning class people who are as ordinary as any oppressors but is a mythical social ideal of superiority that is accessible, by good fortune to any family. 

* American TV exports account for at least 75 per cent of all TV programming in distribution around the world. In some third world countries more than 80% of the broadcasting day is given over to US reruns and US multi-national advertising.

* Whilst the US inundates the rest of the world With its own dumped TV exports, it imports virtually nothing...

* We strive for the glamorous ideals but there is nothing to be achieved. Glamour is Illusion. The only satisfaction to be gained from ‘being glamorous’ is that we are then NOT UGLY, not worthless. It is a sort of protection from feeling the accumulated shit of oppression which says that we are ugly and worthless unless we are rich, famous and attractive.

* Glamour gives the impression that beauty is not of the moment but fixed and consistent. To be a good glamour model you have to have all round looks that don’t fade or vary according to conditions. All of us are attractive when we are alive and animated. In spite of glamour we recognise this.

* The rules of this perfection are so rigid that no one can ever fulfil them. We are always ‘not good enough.’

* Glamorous images include many human characteristics that are inherently attractive, e.g. being vivacious or even simply alert are not culturally constructed features of human attractiveness. This conflation of irrational myth and more global human to human attraction makes it confusing. Glamour really does seem desirable.

* These values are very deeply held. It feels so natural to be attracted to a glamorous person. Of course being glamorous can give a person confidence in themselves (for instance) and someone confident is truly attractive beyond cultural norms. Can we imagine changing our ideas of beauty so they are not exclusive? Even the word exclusive has an alluring connotation. To me it feels very deeply natural but thinking about it tells me it must be cultural and so a choice.

* No particular body type or human feature is intrinsically more attractive than any other. Such judgments are historically formed. Are artificial. Are culture specific. We tend to think of ‘our’ standards of beauty as absolute and universal but in parts of West Africa, for instance, a high forehead and rolls of fat on the back of the neck signify those most attractive and beautiful.

* The fact these beliefs and values are so deeply held suggest that they are forced on us very early in our lives. And that concepts of desirable appearances are linked to the powerful motor of our developing identity & sexual values. For a very young person who is just becoming aware of hir SELF the information that we are not able to feel good about our identity/self unless we have a particular appearance is a major trauma which it is difficult for most of us to imagine as adults. If it had been simply information we would now, given the arguments such as listed above, be able to change our minds. However to me the values feel ‘fixed’ and unchangeable. Thoughts and values only become rigid when they are forced on us in a way that hurts or frightens us. And this hurt does not then have the chance for emotional healing. We never get rational information to contradict the glamour myth. Glamour must be part of the damage caused to all of us by oppression. The earliness of this hurt gives us the impression that our judgement of beauty is something deeply innate rather than culturally constructed.

* Apart from the original hurt of this perverted picture of beauty in the world, such pressure on people to have a particular type of body actually does build-up and kill many people. Anorexics have lives dominated by physical appearance. Nearly all women are heavily pressured by issues of bodyweight and shape. 

* Everybody ‘knows’ that it is part of the oppression of women especially; slimming clubs, schemes and foods are highly popular. Again rational ‘health’ reasons for wanting to lose weight can screen the oppressive functions. Instead we need re-learning-to-love-ourselves-as-we-are-clubs.

* Once the oppression is set-up and internalised market forces create the demand to keep it in operation. A campaign for real people on the media was up against this. The picturing and participation of people with disabilities and physical differences in art and the media is a crucial part of our liberation from the yoke of glamour. It was being pushed through on a platform of equal opportunities. This is at present easier than trying to oppose glamour head on. 

* Glamour leaves out the reality of ourselves as living organisms. As appearances we can take on a different sort of static existence.

* Body functions are taboo in the media... including birth and death (apart from violent death used as a symbol, the whole complex and profound process of death, dying and bereavement is rarely pictured) Such exclusions bolster the otherwise tenuous norm of glamour. [ed. this is something that has changed in the 25 years since this was written]

* A friend said “If only we could make socialism glamorous”. This is typical of the confused thinking around glamour which stymies human development.

Oil painting by Stefan Szczelkun

* Camp glamour and Vogueing made glamour inclusive and available for manipulation, deconstruction, having a laugh at. Generally camp culture has done some of the most liberating spoofs on glamour. Camp refuses to accept any natural basis for glamour. It is all reduced to an applied choice of bad taste. It converts glamour to Bad Taste from which position it is possible to reject its power.

* Glamour ruins the relationships of people who aspire to its standards by putting impossible demands on their expectations of themselves and each other. Especially as they begin to age.

* People who have accepted that they are not glamorous tend to be banned from the arena of first class life. They are never in the limelight.

* Only a human sense of humour about all this saves us from disastrous disconnection from reality. Fortunately glamour is potentially pretty funny because it is so absurdly tragic.

* Glamorous people don’t show or discharge fear (Except in highly dramatised situations). In fact they have the minimum of any emotional expression that might spoil their appearance.

* Because to be REALLY glamorous is to be The Complete Victim. The archetypes of glamour in their real lives will often become super victims. Marilyn Monroe and James Dean.

*Key requirements you need to fulfil to be a really glamorous person (rather than just look like one) is to be able to have natural facial expression, tone of voice and posture. Its important that glamour looks like the most natural thing in the world rather than the most fake.

* If your appearance approximates to a glamorous ideal you have the offer of advantage. It is difficult to ignore this offer. But if taken up it severely limits life activity such as care of young children. Nappies, grizzling babies, rough and tumbles, pillow-fights are not glamorous activities. Children never have media space being themselves. The glamour puss is not a mother. 

* Glamour posits a life that is not tactile. Sex becomes a primarily visual activity. We come into physical contact only to provide ourselves with an exciting visual phantasy.

* The important everyday activities, relationships and struggle with our own situations past and present, are devalued by glamour as unheroic; not places for courage and dramatic music. In fact most of our struggles for liberation and most of the important relations in our lives happen in this sort of unglamorous space.

* Glamour is welded to consumerism and entertainment. Further discussion would require analysis of the alienated relations assumed by these concepts.

* People look more attractive on video. A dull gift looks better wrapped in cellophane. The body builders oil themselves and never touch each other. We describe one person as dull another as sparkling.

* Real life is pock-marked and frail, and deeply satisfying. The media image of life is sanitised and glossy, and disappointing.

* The important thing in glamour is in defining power as NOT FOR EVERYONE but at the same time classless and arising from the masses by genetic fortune. The hierarchies formed invade all human relations diverting our attention from our own real power.

* Oppression that is based on self-exploitation and internalised negative images of ourselves is extremely unstable. And in real terms it is easy to liberate ourselves from it if we act in unison. The chains are in our hearts and we can throw off these chains and be liberated from the two dimensional existence imposed by glamour.

Stefan Szczelkun 1990  (slightly amended from printed version 2014)

http://stefan-szczelkun.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/52-glamour-cards.html