post #37: Jane Remover: removing what, and for whom?

this new Jane Remover music video is... fine, i guess. it's whatever. it's too much money went into this to be any good. yet another moment of Underground utilizing Japanese (media) aesthetics - i think Sion Sono or something (if so, then like why? he has a weird case, no?) - such that i mourn pointlessly about the missed potential of the thesis paper that could have been were my conditions different and i allowed to write about such (because there's much to be said; alas).

      more relevant, though, is i believe this is indicator of what's to come. Jane has chosen (or been chosen) to follow in underscores' immediate footsteps. we can call it selling out but this misses the point and the gravity of it, i think. or, it is selling out in political not just economic sense.

      it is already established fact that Jane Remover is enmeshed in narrative warfare marketing tactics. again the conversation around this has been unfortunately foggy, but that should not deter taking it up. we need only set the record straight about why this matters, why this is not unique (and why that matters), and what the position of this is within the larger media landscape and then what the function of that is. that is, insofar as this is marketing campaign and narrative warfare, it is engaged in process of trying to force people to change their minds. this is not a problem in and of itself, but what are the things we are being led towards? well, it is politically impotent forms, is the short answer. for the longer, we can say labyrinthine ballads about interpersonal relations and (for underscores) songs about, consumerism? (Hollywood Forever; oh, but it's tongue in cheek you see..; not sure what the plan was with this last one, but it seems to have largely made it past the sensors undetected). which is to say, while there are of course politics in these songs (it is impossible not to have politics)- i am not aware of the presence of any productive and certainly radical politics. the project is strictly representational, and therein indulgent (in the case of Jane Remover) -- this even as she provides convincing musings on expressing her dissatisfaction with objectification (JRJRJR).*

      i believe part of the problem can be identified via the very conception of "Dariacore." whenever we are seeing new genres we must ask, why and so what? who is this for? who is asking for this? who is driving the use of this taxonomy? etc. thus we will understand the superfluousness (and narrative warfare) embedded in this and all other categories that circle Jane (e.g., Art Rage etc.). it's maybe technically correct to situate this in sentiments of anti-Blackness, but i think this is missing the point a bit too. as Black people did not, as a base, decide on the kind of Rap music that would get market success and thus wide transmission. when we speak in terms of genre -- even when minding netlabels and these sorts of things -- we must speak in terms of the demands of record labels. this is not a long term viable form.

      thus we must also raise questions about these sorts of things when we see artists getting so much love from new media music journalism organs. while YouTube+ may be nice and all, it does a nifty job at obscuring the ownership structure of some of these things. well, to an extent, that is. since by the time you're showing up on Our Generation Music and Lyrical Lemonade TV it's pretty safe to assume you're not really rustling any feathers. (again i turn to the one actual good piece of journalism that came from the Our Generation Music / Well Well Well interview -- that of Jane being pressed on the anti-Blackness of her fans; she brushed it off denying responsibility and unfortunately the interviewer was not prepared to take the conversation further <since this is not the point of the show> but we at least get the contradiction brought to light and can know going forward that however she's moving she's doing so with the knowledge that she's attracting racist fans and so how do we make sense of that).

      so too should it be no surprise when Jane Remover is opening for Charli XCX. while i think there's a dialectic to be had here -- and i certainly have never been in this position to be able to say what it would mean or feel like to turn that offer down -- i think it's still important to be able to point out that a spade is a spade. of course the person being primed to be marketing, counterinsurgent golden child would open for THE marketing, counterinsurgent golden child.

      and i think i could go on but i also think that this too would be missing the point. Jane Remover is not special in her relation to Power and empire. she is an artist making stuff under capitalism and has been picked up to further capital's goals. there have been many before her and there will be many more after her. what we need to do as listeners is, yes, be conscious of this this fact but then also readjust where we are looking for our art to be coming from (insofar as this is something we're looking for at all). it's had many years to run it's course and while it allows for nice things like connection and research ease of access, it is undeniable at this point (as it has been for some time) that the internet is not a place for building community -- it is not a place for *doing* the necessary political work of organizing. yeah, you can do pol ed (maybe, probably) on it, but you can't organize. and this is a necessary thing. so if the art transmitted on internet is not engaged in organizing and is not doing political education, what is it doing? what can it do? well, this is where the internet is so wonderful in that the answer is so fractured and contingent. the general gist of it, though, is that internet sanctioned art is liberal in tone and generally supports the reification of private property. because the problem remains the means of production -- the internet itself. how is this stuff reaching you? how are you accessing it? who owns the wireless cables? who owns network providers and social media sites? if things thrive under the auspices of capital(ism) what is the nature of the things? the default medium for art in our present year is neoliberal and thus this is what the message becomes as well. if we want to be serious about changing the conditions of this world -- and we believe at all that art will play a role in that** -- then we must take up the questions of distribution. the shows that people play at are owned by who? (it's in this way that i am interested in the political project surrounding Girls Rituals' strawberry and blueberry tours; what are all DIY shows, if i understand correctly). it is not enough to not be on a record label -- although it is something. it is necessary to get to the root in a truly radical way. art that matters must be engaged in praxis. it must be connected to a struggle. is my contention at least. to which, i challenge you to challenge me on this.


post script 2: i forgot to include it here, but i believe one endpoint of the unfocused aesthetic projects Jane Remover has now been so interlaced with/in is as a revitalization of that eternal State Department project that is the mythoi of Americana***; which seems to be going nowhere good, i think- now as ever tbh

*again, i see people taking this stuff and running with it-- in all of the wrong or otherwise unproductive directions. see: description of EP "Crow" by @last - "The release of JRJRJR was undoubtly one of the most important moments of the year, (already in the first day funnily enough), and it most definitely rewired my brain into thinking "what if i made noisy emo rap"." ; a piece which duplicates much of the same solipsism that fills all the rest of internet native and welcomed music. so glad that White person can come along and invent New Jazz. just what we were all waiting for.

---

**and even if you don't think that i believe this is still important stuff to consider because i contend the answer remains that this marketing media is not to be taken lightly; not to be ingested without a mask; and otherwise not to be handled without gloves (know that it is part of a project of waste, pollution, and isolation and decay).

---

***  By 1955 the State Department, the USIA, and the Dance Panel wanted tours to bring what they called "Americana"; Graham provided what the government needed with her frontier narratives, its men and women, and folk motifs.110 Appalachian Spring used folk themes to solidify American nationalism that were considered vital for cultural exports.111 Program notes in India introduced the ballet as a "folk tale."112 The joyful and complex narrative includes a town square dance. The music left behind the reverberating echo of the Shaker hymn "Simple Gifts" on which the score was based: " 'Tis the gift to be simple, 'tis the gift to be free." After the company closed in Calcutta, a reviewer noted Graham's influence and commended Appalachian Spring as "a delightful piece of Americana."113

      USIA promotional policies accentuated the American origin of cultural exports, and Graham directly participated in this project. Dance Panel members often worried about the national origins of artists: regarding Mia Slavenska the panel wondered, "Should we send a Yugoslav back to Yugoslavia?" Even Antony Tudor was suspect as they pondered "whether the State Department would sponsor someone like Tudor who is English."114 In keeping with USIA guidelines, USIS-sponsored publicity traced Graham's ancestry back to Miles Standish, immortalized as a Mayflower passenger by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow in the poem "The Courtship of Miles Standish."115 At the end of the tour, Graham wrote one USIS representative that she had "gained enormous respect and admiration for all of you who work in the United States Information Services."116 Speaking eloquently about the American dance in public, for the press, and during radio interviews broadcast by Voice of America, Graham worked diligently with government representatives to promote the nation.117

      Extending the argument of common interests, the USIA promoted America's British colonial past as a way "to establish a basis of understanding and sympathy with subject peoples."118 Responding to the persistence of colonialism, President Eisenhower stated, "The whole of our history is anti-colonial."119 A newspaper reported on Graham's Standish lineage: "Three hundred and thirty-five years ago, a group of Puritans was dissatisfied with the British church and arrived in America on the Mayflower."120 Appalachian Spring's frontier tale told the history of a nation that had achieved freedom and prosperity after the defeat of the British Empire. One souvenir booklet introduced Appalachian Spring with a three-page spread: a line drawing of a statue of George Washington, hand on his sword as he looked out over the horizon, faced the program notes.121 The story of Graham's ballet provided a readable blueprint for newly forming governments as they struggled to assert self-reliance in some nations and attain independence in others. Appalachian Spring modeled the post-independence success of a vast former British colony, the United States itself.

      In addition to bringing "Americana" abroad, the State Department asked ANTA and its panels to provide "subject matter which is a part of the stream of civilization."122 Graham and her company performed works derived from myths that put the American modern state on a trajectory of civilization dating from the Greeks. In Cave of the Heart Graham delved into the "heart of Medea's being."123 She based Night Journey on the story of Oedipus seen through the eyes of Jocasta, his mother and then wife. The curtain rose on Graham as Jocasta; she wrapped a thick rope around her neck then pulled it from both ends to signify the bonds of her tragedy. The USIS bulletin Stars and Stripes reprinted reviews that Graham "immediately expressed interest in the ancient"; others quoted from Graham herself: "The classic is where our roots and our strength lie."124

      These ancient stories also promoted the United States as championing "universal" ideals. Graham believed that although she did not speak the languages in Asia, she would have "no difficulties in the Orient" with her works because "the dance is the language that needs no words."125 Using almost evangelical rhetoric, Eisenhower had claimed that the greatest weapon against communism was "the appeal of our own system" and "its ultimate appeal to the soul."126 Reviews of Night Journey demonstrated the audience's connection to the ancient story: "So revealing is the action, that we can suffer with the chorus of women in the foreknowledge of Jocasta's doom, while we are shouting in our hearts."127 Program notes declared, "Woman's soul is on stage."128 Classical mythology juxtaposed with themes of the American pioneer spirit created a message consistent with Eisenhower's "universal" humanism; they promoted Americanism as an enduring and civilizing force.

---

["DANCING DIPLOMACY: MARTHA GRAHAM AND THE STRANGE COMMODITY OF COLD-WAR CULTURAL EXCHANGE IN ASIA, 1955 AND 1974" - VICTORIA PHILLIPS GEDULD (61-63)]