Session 3: The Terrible Truth of Power and Aesthetics

2nd Global Conference

Wednesday 11th November – Thursday 12th November 2009
Salzburg, Austria

Living for Music, Dying for Life- The Self Destructive Lifestyle in Heavy Metal Culture
Daniel Frandsen
Institute of Philosophy, Education and Studies of Religions, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark

Since the early days of Heavy Metal, the musical tradition has evolved, in many directions. One thing that seems to remain the same across the different sub-genres, is the lifestyle among the fans and certain musicians. To the core fans of Heavy Metal, the music is the most important thing. The reason why they go to work, is to earn money, to be able to buy cd’s and go to concerts. At least, that is what they will say, if they are asked the questions. Like musicians, they say, that they ”live for the music”, even if they are not themselves musicians of any kind. Alcohol has always been a large part of the Heavy Metal lifestyle, both on and off the scene, and it still is to this day, especially among the young fans. The music is meant for being played loud, and the fans literally choose to risk their sense of hearing, each time they set foot at a venue, and even when they play a cd at home. The Heavy Metal lifestyle is, on the surface, self-destructive for the individuals in the Heavy Metal culture, without being destructive towards the culture itself. The culture survives from the self-destructive individuals, who claim to “remain true to the culture”. How and why, can a rational being choose its own destruction? Is it possible to live this lifestyle, and still live according to one’s authentic self (or nature)? Can the authentic nature of a human-being be self-destructive?

Philosophical issues on the self, self-destruction and authenticity are central to the above-mentioned debate, and will be addressed in this paper, with reference to theories by Albert Camus, Theodore Gracyk and Jean-Paul Sartre among others.

Download Draft Conference Paper (pdf)

Metal Community and aesthetics of Identity
Igor Gafarov
EHU, Vilnus, Lithuania

Simultaneous development of avant-garde art and so-called “aestheticization of reality” in the last third of 20th century question the existence of art as a phenomenon. Instead of interpreting art, modern aesthetics is more about understanding aesthetics itself. Known German philosopher Benno Hübner defines two main paradigms in the development of 20th century aesthetics – aesthetics of truth and aesthetics of enchantment. The paradigm of the “aesthetics of truth” is more established in the history of European thought and goes back to the influence Christian theology and metaphysics exerted on medieval aesthetics. The “aesthetics of enchantment” position denies the significance of “big narratives” in aesthetics, emphasizing the sensory pleasure as the only and necessary foundation of aesthetics.

But Hübner’s interpretation is a bit schematic, since these two versions of aesthetics do not follow each other. Moreover it seems that in the current situation the general theory of aesthetics is barely possible, much more productive is to approach one selected area with common set of ideas, something, which in phenomenological language could be called a lifeworld.

One of such areas that modern aesthetic theory mostly ignores are “subcultures”, especially of tradition beginning with the 60ies and 70ies protest movements. These participatory “subcultural” movements are also a problem not only for aesthetic interpretation, but for social sciences as well.

That is my idea that social significance of participatory movements, particularly of metal community, could be understood with proper aesthetic interpretation. In the majority of researches the aesthetics of such communities is understood as a late-modern revival of the aesthetics of Truth. I would rather speak of a new model of aesthetics: the aesthetics of identity. When speaking of identity, social science mostly refers to the identity connected with religious, ethical and social issues. Yet here I would agree with the analysis of Alasdire MacIntyre and recall his critique of popular emotivism. For most of the people, ethical and political issues are easily changeable, mutable and could not be based in any positive manner. On the other hand, aesthetic argumentation places us in the some sort of common space, where the words “I like this!” can be presented as an ultimate argument.

Download Draft Conference Paper (pdf)

More on Metal and the Aesthetic Experience of Tragic Art
Carmen Deanna

No abstract is presently available