Of course, in my endless hours of researching martial industrial and neofolk, I end up finding myself being lectured by Slavoj Zizek hahaha

this is the most clear and best explanation of Laibach attitude, and not only. Zizek is relentless. And no, his english is not poor ;)

ANYONE noticed he didn't touch his nose or fix his shirt with his fingers not even once? Is this a rare footage of pre-coke Zizek?

The big question that everybody that is asking herself or himself apropos laibach of course is, are they taking themselves serious or is it meant in an ironic way? Well I think of course this is the wrong alternative, because, the automatic assumption of this question is that: if your attitude towards a certain social system, system of social values, etc, is ironic, that then you are subversive, you take it seriously, you are a conformist, etc I think that the whole point, the basic underlining premise of laibach strategy is that, and this holds not only for Slovenia but let’s say generally, for so called late capitalism, in general, even, that: system itself has at it’s inherent condition of functioning, that it’s own ideology must not be taken seriously, in other words, cynicism is today’s prevailing mode of ideology, means that it is the positive condition of the functioning of the system, that it’s own ideology, must, by it’s own subject, not be taken seriously. An ideal subject today is he one who has ironic distance towards the system, etc, etc, and the reverse of this is that, the only way, I would even say, to be really subversive, is not to develop critical potentials, ironic distance, but precisely to take the system more seriously than it takes itself seriously, and I think this is maybe one of the keys to laibach strategy. For example for the American public, let’s recall a typical town at the south of united states in the 20’s. We have the official white law, order, rule, etc. On the other hand we have the nightly, dark side of it: Ku Klux Klan, beatings of the blacks, etc. Now my point is here double: first, the transgression, there is nothing subversive in the transgression of the system, this nightly suspension of the rule of the law and order, lynchings, beating of the blacks, are transgressions of the system, but transgressions which are [an] inherent part of the system. if you would ask an ideal subject of the united states, of the small southern town, where is here real identity: you can break the official public law, you will still be considered as one of us, if you don’t solidarize with beatings of which ku klux klan, you are excluded. So in other words, not only does every system include it’s own inherent transgression, but identifying with this transgression, which must remain unspoken, concealed, is the real form of conformism, and this transgression must remain hidden, unspoken. Of course, this goes for the united states, here in so called real socialism we had other forms of this hidden transgressions, and my point is that, what laibach is doing, is precisely bringing to the light of the day this inherent transgression, which, precisely, in order for the system to reproduce itself, must remain hidden.

In the simpliest terms possible, I believe Laibach aims to demonstrate or underline in an entertaining way, through pecularly strong aesthetics associations (so strong we might use the combine word socio-aesthetics), that no matter what political or cultural system is at play, totalitarianism, socialism, capitalism, the mud-matter that is at play and center is POWER. And that the quench for power seems to supersede all ideologies, as in "I know what's good for you, let me rule".

So if I understand this correctly... Rather than to parody the ills of the system, Laibach is reflecting the hidden dark realities of the system in such a way, that society is otherwise not willing to recognize honestly.

Where are his ticks and so on and so on?

His accent in English was even less pronounced before lol

well said. laibach subverts without ironic distancing, hence their constant ambiguity in answering questions on fascism. and they make a bit of good music doing it too :)

Francky Vincent, one of the biggest fan of Laibach in the French Carribean said "Tu veux mon Zizek? Oui! Oui! Oui!"

so, when he was younger he doesn't keep touching his nose?

Laibach did start off as some kind of confused troll art, and they enjoyed the interest they got as clueless youngsters. Later, they grew intellectual but didn't want to lose the fame. Short story from someone who gets how short sighted musicians can be. :)

An extremely popular rock band in a commercial world, is power. It's all power. Billboards charts. Laibach use symbols that mix tolitarian, socialism, and commercial/capitalism meanings, like they're all one and same.

beautiful analysis of laibach....Zizek is very profound!!!

That makes sense. Exposing the Shadow by bringing it to the light.

Here after his debate with JBP

Very smart analysis

What is Slavoj Žižek all about?

I'm not sure I understand fully, but what Laibach are doing in Slovenia seems to be a similar strategy to the one adopted by Die Antwoord in South Africa. Despite the aesthetic differences, they both seem to bring out an exaggerated underbelly of the dominant ideology, but playing it with a completely straight face.

thank you very much

Gem

Zizek was so hot

But surely they have their own intent and interpretation about they do (other than the aim to entertain) and surely you have your interpretation too.

@GehennaGrafiti that made a lot of sense

The irony is that Laibach predicted the serbian war the same today they kind of warn us that North Korea is what it is today, while in the west we tend to consider totalitarian regimes as a reality of the past. So in the back of the stage, it is not a funny project at all, but I can't help but feel that Laibach also ponder about the absurdity behind such regimes, replicating the aesthetics to attempt to understand why people feel prone to desire power so much.

@nothke Thank you, mate!!!

@GehennaGrafiti have you even listend to laibach? this guy makes perfect sense and is explaining it perfectly. he even uses the american south as a descriptive example.

Also I am not criticizing a philosopher inasmuch as discussing about Laibach's art. Why should in matters of art, an opinion be valid against all others? Is it that theoretical? If we talk about constructions inside a visual frame, it is, but we are discussing meaning. That's why I wrote my own perception of how I interprete Laibach's work, to defy anyone to call that interpretation invalid. Judging art is not about how smart one is, but about how we perceive things, which shall vary for each.

@davevontexas I don't understand why your comment received so many negatives votes (and so nearly vanished from sight), I vote it up, peoples have lost humorous sense !

THIS IS IT. He gets it. My family were labeled "subversive". So i can clearly understand. Getting everyday folks to grasp it, when our institutions are created to suppress those who question, even as slight as a vote, brings into question their supremacy, is difficult. Suppressing questions is how they maintain control.

His lisp is very mild here. How is it possible that his pronunciation of English got worse after speaking it for a quarter century?

What he said...

Just because the bible uses words that a 5 year old can read - so that even the simplest among us may understand it - doesn't mean that the rest of the world need restrict itself to the diction of a 5 year old.

Err, I meant "more than a music act".

You need to know that in order to discuss a philopshers work you have to know the work at hand, you can be very smart, but in order to discuss for example zizek and the term ideology you must have read about it, then you can say "he is wrong" or right or what ever, but in order to criticise u need a big insight to the work of the pholosopher or you come across as (maybe a smart person) but not someone who has understood the bigger zizek-picture, and so someone that can't rly criticise it.

So, when Dead Kennedys sang "Let's Lynch The Landlord Man", was that remote enough in times to be separated from context and become irony? Did Dead Kennedys really want to lynch people or did Laibach really wanted a Nova Akropola? Or sympathise with the devil? What is Zizek's definition of irony?

I don't agree. A great philosopher should be able to make his point clear in a few sentances. Zizek here tries and succeeds partly, because he uses encompassive words like "system" without referring to the exact system he is speaking about. He seems to mean "cultural systems" inbreeds "political systems" inbreeds my personal opinion, but it's vague. What if we use the word sarcasm instead of irony? Is Laibach sarcastic or not because sarcasm is inherent to a given system????

"imagining themselves as a totalitarian regime" Well, they started out and lived for a decade in an actual totalitarian regime (the very name of the band was banned by that regime etc.). Thinking they're just posturing misses the point a bit.

Hahaha, auto subs recognise his English like he's speaking Dutch

He is neither of that. Also when we speak about standard English pronunciation it is usually about RP and GA.

Which to me means that for a slovenian like Zizek, Laibach will mean something different than someone in America, who were holding disbelief when east europa transformed into a mini WWII in the early 1990's (while balkan people might feel Laibach is far from being a joke). But I wonder if he only means that: that Laibach mean something different depending where the audience is from. I have my opinion on Laibach, I suppose influenced by capitalism ideology if I can't make a mind of my own.

I agree with mateo2. Why am i watching this.

So taking after Bourdieu the notion that there are appropriate ways to behave inappropriately or illegally and these are contextualized in practice. awesome possum.

can somebody tell me what did he say at 1:49?? "We have..." ?

please re-up or fix, I am getting an error every time I try to view this

Any native speaker of English or being near to native as a foreign language student (at least in the pronunciation: consonant and vowel qualities/quantities). If you are in doubt, then you probably do not belong to one of the mentioned categories since it isn't obvious to you.

za pusta bom slavko žužek me zanima kaj bi o tem reku...

It's more than a music art, there is an "artistic point" to them, but I think this guy doesn't explain Laibach that well.

You misunderstand, perhaps for the same reason people undervalue children's literature. Children's literature and simple literature may put things in terms a child could understand, but I would strongly suggest that every adult read the works by Michael Ende or Kipling. On the other hand, one can read about the topics covered by "Momo" in a economics textbook or child-psych textbook. One should not restrict one's self solely to high-diction or child-speak..

:)

young zizek is kinda nerveous haha

I didn't get it!! If every 'system' has a 'transgression' that must remain hidden and unspeakable, why does not an ironic stance towards a given system can be viewed as subversive if it does precisely what according to Zizek counts as 'real' subversive namely 'bringing to light' and turning explicit the 'hidden transgression' (in this case the very possibility of irony itself)?

I think this guy takes himself too seriously. Maybe he tries to be self- subversive.

If i understood it right, it's something akin to satire being indistinguishable from truly stupid things.

To me, Laibach functions as if they lived in a parallel universe where totalitarian regimes like nazis and stalinism still ruled over europe. The humoristic aspect of later works, like their covers of pop anthems, is obviously ironic, but it's not merely a social critique, but a fascination with the mechanisms that entice people to desire positions of powers, and the aesthetics that comes with this, and the archetypes that source this, that nurture this. Where does enjoyment of power comes from?

@psychuro spíš bych je nejspíš poznal kdyby byly mluvený anglicky a né takhle jak mluví on.

o yes, so we tray this new age capitalism ( regarding people in ex Yugoslavia) and now we cray for good old socialistic-realism, why? Because it always a question of money-standard for it is much better like in 1988 to Have like now 2000 Euro per moth, then now not even close 400 or 500 Euros.

What exactly haven't you understood about an objective assessment of his accent that was the subject of this whole discussion (if you failed to notice)? Again, if you notice, this discussion, you participated on, wasn't about the content of his speech or his profession, it was solely about his accent. Your sudden lack of interest in that particular discussion and a false pretense of confusion only hints that you don't know how else you would argue for his "immaculate" way he pronounces English.

He and you seem to mean "some sort of consensus that is played out but not legalized". Whatever, gross social generalizations in matters of art work better when we speak about many artists, but feel ackward when directed at a unique artist, as though there are the "flag" band of that consensus, or untold-consensus or whatever. They parody the whole concept of a "system" with their non-existent country with passport. That's pretty universal to me, so why attempt make that specific to a context?

Irony is when you convey a message that is opposite from your intention, wrether that happens by mistake or by hidden intention. "posturing" means they "make-believe" they are totalitarian when actually it's their way to counter-react that ideology (by underlining it, make an exaggerated version of it). This philosopher seems to think they are underlining something without being ironic, but that hardly makes sense to me. There are a band fully aware of what they do.

how can anyone listen to this man speak for over a minute? i wonder if anyone has ever tried multiple deessers on his vocal channel

What? No sniffing? No so on and on?

Zizeks favourite band is actually Rammstein

... but not just about the accent, since he's not a native speaker, but about some fundamental failure in imitating the standard pronunciation (RP or GA which is the one the foreigners normally imitate).. That's of course his problem, but I find it ridiculous when somebody's pretending here that his pronunciation is flawless

it seems you don't have a clue of what Laibach is about

@NecumNaTo loool yeah this guy isn't very good with english huhhuhuh

Which the reason smart people are turning right wing :O

bollucks

i cant understand him, his english is poor :-(

What kind of drugs does this guy take? Perhaps he forgot to take ones.