Underground Mini-Seminar The end of underground?

Fred de Vries Underground culture, or underground, as defined by the online Wikipedia Encyclopedia, is "a term to describe various alternative cultures which either consider themselves different to the mainstream of society and culture, or are considered so by someone. The word underground is used because there is a history of resistance movements under harsh regimes where the term underground was employed to refer to the necessary secrecy of the resisters." Frank Zappa needed fewer words: "The mainstream comes to you, but you have to go to the underground." Ever since the 1950s, cultural underground (and it's culture and not straightforward politics that we focus on) has manifested itself as being the antidote to mainstream, to the society of the spectacle, to consumerism and to apathy. Underground was real and dangerous, cheap and vibrant, complex and elusive, secretive and exclusive. The term has had different connotations in different eras and social and historical contexts. If a band like the Sex Pistols was underground in 1976, they certainly aren't seen as such in 2006. Since the mid-nineties, however, underground has lost much of its impact and significance. In the post-modern, digitalised age nothing is shocking, nothing is black and white, good or bad. Irony has levelled everything and robbed it of meaning and depth. Recognition and fame are what virtually every artist yearns for - if only for those seminal 15 minutes. Underground in the 21st century has a problem (re)defining itself against a much more amorphous and less rigid "establishment". Alternative is the new mainstream. Subculture is lifestyle. Everything is for sale. With globalisation and the advent of the internet old structures have crumbled. High culture is rapidly losing ground, while low culture is the darling of subsidisers. Meanwhile, every sub-cultural niche now has its own little corner and attracts like-minded people, but no longer poses a threat to the establishment. Underground tactics, for example the idea of détournement as used by the Situationists in the 1960s, have been co-opted by the big corporations in advertising (Nike used the concept of the rioting football hooligan in its adverts for the European Championship; Lucky Strike used the incrowd secrecy of raves for its concerts). The main question that we seek to address in the seminar is whether there still is an underground. Or is it a dying phenomenon, associated with subcultures and repressive attitudes of days gone by? And if an underground is still viable, what does it entail? What are its characteristics? Where is it hiding? What are the aims? And what are its chances of survival? Or should we, given the lack of vertical hierarchy in contemporary art and culture, now talk of a post-underground? Is the future digital, an extension of hacking? Or is the real underground closer to political terrorism, and therefore unwanted, and much more dangerous than ever before? Does it need redefinition? The seminar took place on the 19th of April 2006. List of participants · Melinda Ferguson (“Smacked straight: drugs and the underground”) (26/06) · Andries Bezuidenhout (“Afrikaner underground and other oxymorons”) (26/06) · Fred de Vries (“The Underground character; doomed or heroic?”) (07/06) ·Stacy Hardy (“I fucked the underground: a small, insignificant white chick’s journey from bad-assed boyfriends, capital complicity and oral obscurantism to subaltern sex, popular promiscuity and playwomen”) (31/05) · Michael Titlestad (“From Verloc to the Unabomber: Modernist and Post-Modern versions of the underground”) (24/05) · Warren Siebrits (“From the Sharpeville Massacre to the Picadilly Rave; South African underground”) · Mark Edwards (“Electronic Activism: A Radical Net Art Practice”) · Dominique Wooldridge (“Flyers through the underground”) · Adam Levin (“How Aids affected the underground”) · Gael Reagon (Chimurenga) (“The underground is the overground”) · Lesego Rampolokeng (“Living the underground”) · Mark Kannemeyer (“An underground in punk aesthetics”) · Ian Fraser (“The banned piece”) · Trike (live underground music)

Michael Titlestad: From Verloc to the Unabomber: modernist and post-modern versions of the underground "The underground, for the Professor, is a carefully contrived way of avoiding the real world from which he is alienated through his narcissism." Stacy Hardy: I fucked the underground "A small, insignificant white chick’s journey from bad-assed boyfriends, capital complicity and oral obscurantism to subaltern sex, popular promiscuity and play" Fred de Vries: The Underground character; doomed or heroic? "Underground became synonymous with the French résistance during the Second World War. And the term finally made it to the cultural lexicon after Andy Warhol established his Factory in 1964, a space in Manhattan where writers, filmmakers and musicians would change the art scene forever." Andries Bezuidenhout: From Voëlvry to Fokofpolisiekar "Voëlvry represents an ironic phase in Afrikaans music. Instead of destroying the symbols of Afrikaner nationalism, irony was used to expropriate them for a different project." Melinda Ferguson: Chemical Illusion "They say addiction is progressive and they don’t mean it in the political sense. They say that dagga is a gateway drug and most addicts progress from it to harder stuff. I’m afraid to say in my case they were right – 100 percent."

LitNet: 24 May 2006

Send your comments to webvoet@litnet.co.za to continue the discussion on SêNet, our interactive opinion page.

Click here and subscribe to our fantastic free newsletter - for your weekly cultural fix! Click here to see the latest edition

to the top

© Kopiereg in die ontwerp en inhoud van hierdie webruimte behoort aan LitNet, uitgesluit die kopiereg in bydraes wat berus by die outeurs wat sodanige bydraes verskaf. LitNet streef na die plasing van oorspronklike materiaal en na die oop en onbeperkte uitruil van idees en menings. Die menings van bydraers tot hierdie werftuiste is dus hul eie en weerspieël nie noodwendig die mening van die redaksie en bestuur van LitNet nie. LitNet kan ongelukkig ook nie waarborg dat hierdie diens ononderbroke of foutloos sal wees nie en gebruikers wat steun op inligting wat hier verskaf word, doen dit op hul eie risiko. Media24, M-Web, Ligitprops 3042 BK en die bestuur en redaksie van LitNet aanvaar derhalwe geen aanspreeklikheid vir enige regstreekse of onregstreekse verlies of skade wat uit sodanige bydraes of die verskaffing van hierdie diens spruit nie. LitNet is ’n onafhanklike joernaal op die Internet, en word as gesamentlike onderneming deur Ligitprops 3042 BK en Media24 bedryf.