by Neil Vodavzny

I don’t know for sure, but BWS may have intended his print of Icarus:

Icarus, Barry Windsor-Smith, 1981 (Goblimey Galleries)

… in a literal sense. Unlike Psyche – see previous post – and other pre-Raphaelite influenced prints, it employs late-Renaissance techniques. The figure half-disappears into a stream, giving the opportunity for optical effects – reflection, refraction (light bending under water). Lilies float suspended over reflections of tree-trunks giving an odd illusory, photographic quality. In classic or proto-Greek figure-art, there’s no illusion, and a simplicity redolent of art-deco ornament. The pre-Raphaelites strove for the presence of a figure in a landscape to be almost frieze-like. They wanted the power of symbolism, not the illusion of reality.

BWS is known to carry this into his work, being fond of sundials – in The Ram And The Peacock:

The Ram and the Peacock, Barry Windsor-Smith, 1974 (Windsor-Smith Studio)

… where it is used as a symbol of civilized refinement. If you contrast Icarus, there is actually a type of illusion in the fact that it’s more “real”. This is a perennial problem of which the pre-Raphaelites were acutely aware. They wanted the “psycho-culture” of medieval Europe, not the pin-hole captured realism of later Renaissance figures, Caravaggio being the outstanding exponent.

I don’t think Icarus is that great as a pre-Raphaelite image, but it may not have been the intention. There’s a fantastic dichotomy in the whole trend of science from the late Renaissance in that the more we know about reality the less real it gets! BWS, as a medievalist, may be aware of this (Alan Moore’s Watchmen essay, “Blood From The Shoulders Of Pallas” touches on the topic). Psyche

Psyche, Barry Windsor-Smith, 1980 (Windsor-Smith Studio)

… impresses myth with a visceral, tactile, aromatic essence. This is typical of European romance, while the image of Earth reclaiming Icarus seems only too real.

We know that the myth says Daedalus, the crafty inventor who designed his son Icarus’s wings, also built the labyrinth to hold the Minotaur. Technique itself is a type of illusion because in order to have technique you need something to practice the technique on – obviously, that has to be reality. So, what is reality? Something that contains signs – antagonisms of sun, moon, winter, summer, male, female… In order to recognize that reality, we need to appreciate the mythic, racial, sexual origins of culture.

As a for instance, ancient Greek culture is nothing if not erotic. Poseidon punished king Minos by having his wife Pasiphae fall for the white bull he sent, the result being the Minotaur. This type of licentious gaiety distinguishes European culture in its origins from Middle Eastern. I’m not taking it upon myself to describe the origins here, but the point is you have to describe something before you know what’s there. Technique is not description, it’s an illusion or a maze (or Alphaville). By describing something, you are enabled to know the origin point, so in our case it’s what I would call the antagonism of signs such as land/sea, sun/moon, licentious Greek myths (possibly the origins of dramatic comedy?), and the basis of European thought in non-Cartesian reality (tragedy).

The Right are at least attempting the feat, which places us more and more outside the mainstream. We are not led; egalitarian culture is easily led because it’s difficult or impossible to describe. The films of Tati are descriptive because you’re enabled to read in them cultural signs – les petits quartiers choreographed like French ballet. Let me give a personal for instance: I was speaking to an East German artisan about herMiwok/Pomo Californian Indian basket-weaving, and put it to her that we as Europeans are defending traditions in much the same way as an ethnic tribe. She shilly-shallied, saying she was of Polish extraction and various well-meaning non-specifics.

Well, exactly. Modern society is difficult to define in such terms. Because it’s so difficult, the Right are made to seem marginal. Because we’re more marginal, we can’t be led. Because the egalitarian mainstream is easily led, we are seeing an egalitarian techno-verse. This is the technical invention of the liberal elite, or geeks if you prefer. As I said in a previous post, I dispute somewhat that there’s a Jewish cabal who are running things their way – Zuckerberg is most likely as clueless as the next guy – but leaving that aside.

Let’s put it like this: egalitarians are willy-nilly led up the garden-path of the techno-media labyrinth. Within the egalitarian maze there is no description – it’s a techno-verse. This social-area is “technically” true (fact), since anything is true if it’s there, or if it’s an invention like the wings of Icarus. But this truth can still crush reality – if you care anything about the roots of human culture.

This applies to European as much as to Andean tradition (or to the bio-verse of equatorial forests). What you can therefore say is all outsider-groups – not solely European – are descriptions of reality. We could get together. Everything else is an invention, made absolutely manifest in high-tech silicon-valley wares.

The mainstream, by denying instinct and psyche, has by so doing enabled themselves to become as one with a maze which is literally incapable of description, being little more than a technicality (even David Cameron is hard to put into words, for that matter). Perhaps this serves to put “Savage Future” in some sort of context? It’s not necessarily that social-media & cyberspace are inherently negative, but that the mainstream, in order to take full advantage of such advances, puts itself at the mercy of market forces (LME). Anything with so much economic clout has to be good, even if it crushes human instinct and psyche in the process.

We could thereby identify ourselves with traditional people who are just as capable of description – as with the Miwok/Pomo CalifornianIndian basket-weaver – as are Europeans. What may be called for is some sort of ontological schism, as hinted in a comment here on Heidegger.

Heidegger countenanced “Protection (reticence, withdrawal) against contamination by ... the non-essential technological aspects of technics.” This stems from his extension of making (techne) to a wider meaning. Any action which is an art-ificial fabrication of nature (physis) brings-forth into being (poesy) a product of Man’s reason (epistome).

Cutting-through such abstraction isn’t for the timid. My own feeling is that it’s a roundabout way of saying reality (the cosmos) isn’t technical. Unless you explicitly recognize the fact, technique has a type of illusory quality. By linking Greek words, Heidegger makes us realize all products have the same roots. By cutting-off our roots, modern products encircle us with a false sense of security, which you might term illusory.

There’s a type of reality to the Mad Max scenario because supplies are limited and one is always up against the tension of living, as opposed to just driving from A to ZZZ. As well as a distancing from technology, the products of Man’s reason, there are alternatives. Traditional crafts, such as the Pomo ones cited, display a powerful imprint of nature and tactility. Craft has less to do with reason, more to do with feel. If you go into a music-studio you’re confronted by digital mixing desks, inputs and outputs. Without the knowledge of craft it’s just flashing lights.

My own forte has to be pop-culture (which I’m touching on in PART 2), so let’s take the case of Chaplin’s Modern Times which someone cited awhile back as “pertinent”. I guess so, but Oldsmobiles have a lot more craft, I mean in the surface design of a car. The elegant décor shields you from the 100 horsepower hidden within. Modern cars are much more functional and “online”, so maybe there’s less distancing? 

This is something I want to explore in some detail in PART 2. The distance we have from tech is sort of precarious - The illo of Slocum in google glasses has flipped, and is cyborg. An alternative to Daedalus-geeks could be a more tactile, craft-oriented future.