SOCIALIST REALISM! FORMALISM! HETLANDISM! ARTISTS OF THE WORLD UNITE!

"Art is not purely sensual, nor does it lack intent or effect.  Art is in the trenches, fighting for this viewpoint or that, either overtly or covertly."  Ian F. Svenonius, "Censorship Now!!" 

Abstact:  Hetlandism is used to showcase that all quality art, regardless of aesthetic, showcases evidence of the studio habits of mind.  If it does, then the art has value, if not to the viewer, then for the artist who got to experience a Studio Habit of Mind during the process of making the art, bettering them as a human being.  From this Hetlandist point of view, Formalist art can be categorized as "Socialist Formalist", as it advocates for artist betterment, and Socialist Realist art is best when made from a Formalist point of view, as these different approaches put emphasis on different Studio Habits of Mind.

******  

 Back in the 1940s, a debate between Socialist Realists and Formalists emerged. The Marxist F.J. Klingender argued that abstract, formalist art was a symptom of Capitalist decay, attacking its advocates as "Escapist".  The formalists retorted in two ways; the Frankfurt school argued that formalism was immune to Capitalist decay due to its inability to produce a viewpoint (which, ironically, is a viewpoint).   and Secondly, In contrast, Theordore Adorno (of the Frankfurt school) argued that "accessible" socialist realism actually mimics the mass-production of capitalist culture. For Adorno, it is the difficult, fragmented nature of avant-garde modern art that truly resists capitalist assimilation.  

The Socialist Realists said the best art was that which advocated helping understand and master mankind's ultimate destiny, the making of a Communist world, one which is classless, stateless and moneyless.  In Marxism and Modern Art,  Klingender quotes Lenin at his essay's conclusion: 

‘it does not greatly matter what we ourselves think about art. Nor does it matter what art means to some hundreds or even thousands in a nation, like our own, of many millions. Art belongs to the people. Its roots should penetrate deeply into the very thick of the masses of the people. It should be comprehensible to these masses and loved by them. It should unite the emotions, the thoughts and the will of these masses and raise them to a higher level. It should awaken artists in these masses and foster their development’. ^[54]

While I agree with many individual statements from this passage, in 2026 a lot of art is not comprehensible to the masses and a lot of art is not loved by the masses. Advertisements, for example, are commonplace and predominately ignored by the populace at best.  Advertisements are not loved, rather, they impose themselves into culture.  They are, increasingly, more and more Surreal and therefore, incomprehensible  with reality(talking dogs for law firms, an Emu in sunglasses selling car insurance, a Gecko with an Australian accent selling car insurance,  Nude men flying through toilets to sell deodorant, models and actors who are impossibly attractive, etc.).  

Further,  If one considers online tiktok fads such as "6-7", the point of the meme is to create an illusion of meaning and exclusivity that is befuddling to those not in the know (predominately people not on TikTok).  Once you realize there isn't a meaning, you're in on the joke.  "6-7" is much like the "Andre the Giant has a Posse" sticker campaign by artist Shepard Fairey in the 1990s. "6-7" is an example of contemporary visual culture not being accessible, rather, it's popularity is based on its inaccessibility.

Today's aesthetics and crafts don't usually trend towards Social Realism or Formalism, as the art market is post-modern; everything is happening all at once.  There are fads and speculation, but the internet has made imagery from all walks of life very available. 

 Surrealism, art of the unconscious devoid of the rules of reality, does seem to be ever present in AI TikTok reels, Hollywood movies, video games, advertisements (as mentioned prior), art galleries, etc., to the point we no longer even register its oddity.  News headlines themselves are up for debate.  People change their faces and reverse time with botox and plastic surgery. Photoshop let us cut and paste reality and AI now makes a new one for us. What reality is is up for debate.  

It is scary that we are entering a time in which the vast majority of images are no longer made by human hand, rather, the images we are seeing are the result of algorithms. This is now being done by simply prompting a computer, telling it what it is you want to see ... and getting it, albeit a digital version.

The recent movie "The Backrooms" (2026) metaphorically shows how internet algorithms record the historical patterns of our internet searches to regurgitate back AI illustrated advertisements, except the experience is interpreted through the lens of a psychological horror movie.  The movie feels "Techno-Surrealist", as the unconscious is not being produced by human means (painting, sculpting, drawing, etc.) but through an algorithm that is surveilling us.  In the movie, the backroom is creating a reality from the protagonist's subconscious; internet algorithms work the same way, and they now create images of "techno-surrealism".  

In this contemporary context, the cultural critics Klingender and Adoro have much more in common; their opposition to one another's philosophies feel like splitting hairs since the creation of art made by hand by humans is being threatened from a market standpoint.  Both formalists and socialist realists are concerned with understanding the human condition through art, be that by discussing beauty or discussing politics.  

           Having now lived with AI for what seems like a good solid couple of years informs me that AI technology is only changing the world in the most cynical way it can, which is to cut labor costs.  Good luck getting paid (let alone royalties) for illustration work from small businesses while the AI is free.  One close look at AI useage statistics tells you people stop using AI roughly around when school gets out, suggesting the pervasiveness of using AI for education.  

         In this climate, the Studio Habits of Mind, developed by Lois Hetland and a group from Harvard, is paramount to making sure hand made art continues.  Hetland teaches us that art made by humans is important, if to nobody else, than to the artist, as the experience of making art develops the skills of engagement, persistence, reflection, observation, developed craft imagination, exploration, expression and community interaction.  These are skills that are applicable to all life situations and all career paths.  

    Both Formalist art and art in the tradition of Socialist Realism fall under the umbrella of Hetlandism;  a Formalist abstract expressionist painting provides evidence of exploration and expression.  Social Realist art demands Reflection and Engagement.  It is irrelevant if a viewer values one of these life skills over another.  What is more significant is the physical act of making art practices these life skills.  The act of making art is beneficial to the artist if to no one else.  

     Perhaps this is a fancy, long winded way of saying "art for art's sake". But Hetlandism goes deeper, as the art must provide evidence of at least one of the Studio Habits of Mind.  There is some art, not to be confused with reflective minimalist art, which provides little to no evidence of the Studio Habits of Mind, an assignment forgotten to be turned in and done in 5 seconds right before deadline for example, or a scribble done momentarily on a post-it note.  These chicken scratches show signs of life, but if the art studio is a gym, these pieces show little to no evidence of the hands, eyes, heart and brain working out.  

      AI does not have a subconscious.  Every individual human's hand is unique, therefore everyone holds their pencil slightly differently.  To a certain extent, the artist's style, determined by their identity, cannot be escaped.  For example, I can only make Jack Turnbull artwork in the style of Jack Turnbull.

Because AI does not have a unique identity, it is the summation of all images produced by all individuals everywhere, it does not have a specific subconscious.  Theoretically, perhaps it has a collective subconscious, but from my perspective that is yet to be seen ... and then we're talking SkyLab Terminator territory, which is a story for another time.  

In conclusion, Hetlandism forces us to see Socialist Realist art from a Formalist perspective, and Formalist art from a Socialist Realist perspective.  The form is political, but the political is also a form.  Both sides of the coin must be addressed and cannot be escaped, even if that simply means reflecting upon what art materials you use and their sources.  Art educators cannot afford to create a hierarchy of aesthetic, we need all creative hands on deck to fight against the AI Skylab robots.  We must learn to register how each individual art piece shows evidence of different life skills and report back to classes.  

We used to argue about form vs. content.  The new debate is if art will be made by humans with the assistance of machines ... or just machines, creating a "brain drain" of creative thought.  Theoretically, if human art stops being made and stops being uploaded to the internet, a "tape loop" of AI art will emerge and the art will be completely devoid of humanity.  This theoretical dystopian idea is a new level of Orwellian hell.  We must not allow the Surrealist era and the advancements of studying the subconscious turn to Techno Surrealism, where we evaluate only AI slop.  

AI Can Never Make a Da Vinci

Artificial Intelligence is making people rethink the Visual Arts now that robots can produce imagery by simply providing a computer application with a prompt.  It is, wonderfully, not working, as Art (with a Capital A) is, by definition, an expression of humanity.  Art cannot be made by AI.    

A quick retort would state that any tool used in the art making process is there to assist humanity. Therefore, AI is, technically speaking, no different than a paintbrush or a charcoal twig. 

However, when too much creative control is given to a tool, the humanity in a piece goes away.  The line which is crossed between the use of the tool versus the spirit of the artist is up for debate, but with this said, it is obvious that there is a difference between a Leonardo Da Vinci and basic AI illustration. Let us use Leonardo Da Vinci's "The Virgin and Child with Saint Anne & Saint John the Baptist" from 1499 as an example.  

This drawing is an indispensable work from the Italian Renaissance for a unique reason; the work is unfinished.  It, therefore, allows us to get a sneak peak into what Da Vinci's drawing process was.  If you observe the bottom left corner, you can see that the Virgin Mary's left foot is simplified into a crude shape. It resembles a Ninja Turtle foot (coincidence?).  According to this drawing,  Da Vinci would first simplify the figures into basic shapes and gradually add detail.  

It is evident that Da Vinci erased a lot.  On close viewing, you can see where the artist changed his mind, reflected, and changed course.  

When looking closely, you can see the eraser markers of a grid, meaning that this image would be later blown up and blown down using multiplication.  a 3 inch grid can be brought down to a 1 inch grid, or a 6 inch grid.  This shows craft and exploration, someone along the way (perhaps Da Vinci himself) applied simple mathematics to the Visual Arts.  

Da Vinci's creative process made evident that he had to utilize observation, reflection, craft, exploration, expression and imagination.  With these skills, he made his art and built community, eventually building into world history and our collective community.

Although one could argue that AI art, through a complex series of 0-1 codes which have become infinitely more complex since computing's birth, is an art in and of itself,  AI applications and their users are not the act of coding, rather, a gift to the recipients of coders.  This is a long winded way of saying AI is an art in and of itself.  Sure.  The problem with AI art is that the art made shows no evidence of humanity.  Unless you type the prompt in, there's no eraser marks.  There's no deconstructed build up.  There are few mistakes.  There's no evidence of reflection, observation, expression, exploration, imagination, craft and it has 0 value for the community.  Most AI art is immediately erased.  

Upon doing a quick AI generation for "Leonardo Da Vinci's 'The Virgin and Child with Saint Anne & Saint John the Baptist' from 1499", it is beyond evident that all the images are horrid copycats, but let's go deeper into that accusation.  Nothing is made with an actual hand.  The "mistakes" aren't really mistakes, they can't attribute to the randomness of the human experience; a drip of coffee that accidentally hits the page, the artist's specific gentle touch, a moment of broken focus and thus, the shape of a line not contoured correctly, then corrected. through observation.  Perhaps the AI generation could make some akin to a Da Vinci, but doing so would involve writing at least a blog entries worth of description as to how Da Vinci made his work, which would, economically, completely defeat the point of AI which is to cut labor and therefore labor costs.  You'd just have an office of people writing descriptions of Da Vinci as opposed to people drawing the Virgin and Child with Saint Anne & Saint John the Baptist.    Time and labor costs would probably equal out.  

The mistake in AI is its assumption that human individuality is replaceable with technology.  In our modern times, the term "snowflake" has been used in a derogatory way to describe someone who is fragile and sensitive.  Snowflakes are often used as a metaphor to showcase someone's individuality.  

The American mathematician G.D. Birkhoff in 1928 developed a theory of aesthetic measure called "order in complexity."  An example of this would be the snowflake: every snowflake is different, yet all are united by their basic hexagonal pattern.  Each snowflake is restricted to one pattern, repeated and reflected twelve times.  Such uniformity is characteristic of all inorganic, crystalline pattern.  

Metaphorically, we humans are the same.  We are all individuals, but there are structural elements that unite us all.  Our brains are in our skulls.  Our hearts pump blood.  Humans are restricted to a pattern, even at the edges of individuality, by structural elements which, ironically, are what make us human.

AI cannot replicate this because it is not human.  The individuality of the human cannot be reproduced with code as it is determined by the mystery of life itself, not by code.  AI can illustrate it, which is to say it can visually communicate a replica of it,  but Visual Art is and always will be an expression of our humanity. 

This is the reason people still pay money to see live music.  It's the reason people watch humans play basketball and not robots.  It's the reason people sing in choruses and jam in jazz trios, because the specific conditions of their specific locations and identities makes culture that is more diverse in content due to its emphasis on humanity.  

When art educators access student work, many use what is known as the "Studio Habits of Mind" developed by Lois Hetland.  It is a system of assessment in which the students and teachers have a conversation about how and when they used reflection, expression, exploration, observation, reflection, imagination, developed craft and interaction with arts communities during the studio arts process. These skills are applicable to all life situations and career paths, making the studio art class vital to all students, not just those who will chose to follow a career in the arts and design.  A Da Vinci is chalk full of examples from Hetland's Studio Habits.  The AI has evidence of none of it because no humans actually worked on the creation of the imagery.  By the definition I am using, it is not art.  

While many find this argument to be self evident, many students, administrators and political figures are suggesting the Visual Arts can be dismissed due to technological advancements.  The point of a studio art class is learned in the process of making Art, not its final product which is the souvenir of that experience.  As John Dewey teaches us, the best education is experiential.  

So in closing, focus on the model/figure in front of you.  Observe them as they are.  Explore the many ways you can hold a pencil.  Reflect and erase.  Express your specific way of drawing the world and break from reality a little bit.  Apply the developed craft of a grid to the piece and magnify it. Imagine what to do with the piece.  Share it with the community.  Art isn't just an image, it is a culture and an experience. This is why AI isn't art and never will be.  

Introduction to Alex Robert's "Tiny Art Show" Best Practice Demonstration at the Dot-2-Dot Gallery, Spring 2023

This speech was given to introduce Alex Robert's "Best Practice" demonstration about making a tiny art exhibit at her Dot-2-Dot gallery.  To learn more about the Dot-2-Dot gallery, please click here.

- Of the many life skills the visual arts teaches us (observation, expression, persistence, engagement, craft, community, exploration, expression, reflection), reflection is perhaps the hardest life skill to practice for young people.  This is for a few reasons; 1, young people are young.  They don't have a lot of life to reflect upon yet.  They must also create a piece of artwork to reflect upon, a step many students never reach for a variety of reasons.  

But a tiny art show appears to be a lesson with reflection baked in.  Curation means that there must be editing at some point, a boiling down.  The minimal, the poem, the haiku, when masterful, say so much with less.  

Students struggle with "fomo" and focus.  They say "I don't know what to draw" or "I can't decide what to draw".  They become frozen spending their time not being able to decide what to do.  

I have 45 class sessions as a 5th grade public school visual art teacher.  1 class is 48 minutes.  45 x 48 = 36 hours.  Therefore, I see my students for a total of a day and half of their lives.  

If you live to be 80 (rounding up from 77, the average life span of an American), you live (rounding down) for 29,200 days.  Divide that by 7 and round down to the nearest 100 and you get 4,000 weeks.  Therefore, 36 hours of 29,2000 days means that they will have my art class for 0.00005% of their lives if they live to be 80.  

With this math in mind, it seems silly to waste precious minutes being anxious about what to do.  There is a joy of missing out, of choosing, going deep, letting go of anxiety and saying no to the million things we could possibly do to focus on just 1 thing, the small, the minimal ... the tiny art show.  

Letter to a Friend Upon his proposal to make a Dystopian RPG

 Hello X,

I have a free moment to respond in depth to the idea you presented.  I think that we SHOULD, at our own leisurely pace, create an RPG game together.  Why not?  A lot of the critical success in my career came in part to seeing music, art, writing, etc. as just a fun thing to do. With this approach, one without expectations, I think we can, at the very least, have a creative, positive, rewarding activity to pass free time.  I know that right now your free time is probably non-existent.  Please, reply at your pace.  Any reply at all, considering the circumstances, I would be honored to receive.  

  Ironically, it was when I started thinking of my skills in the context of a career did they cease to be interesting or became problematic as I attempted to model them for target audiences.  For example, an early graphic novel I made was purposely "Lynchian", made in a haze of marijuana and instinctual, meditative, impulsive "decisions", regardless of narrative.  This was done to mimic the impenetrability of fine art, of which at the time I was attempting to court the patrons of.  This is a particularly Marxist analysis, of which is controversial in some circles, but there's some truth to this.  To quote the great I.F. Svenonious, 

"Popular art always reflects the ideology of the ruling class, and is used by them to corroborate their position of dominance in the culture.  (...) Fine art also serves as a moat between the bourgeois and the proletariat; its inherent and purposeful impenetrability serves its patrons like a gated community and simultaneously explains their superiority through implications of depth and difficulty." (Svenonious, "The Psychic Soviet", pg. 247).  

Due to the fact my comic was about gentrification and was making a mockery of it, it is beyond obvious why the ruling class didn't want to touch it or promote it.  On top of that, my own attempt to imply difficulty and depth was in bad faith.  I definitely agree with Mao that there is no such thing as "art for art's sake".  I sincerely believe that such a philosophy is a fantasy as the material world is inescapable; the materials an artist uses, for example, is a reflection of their class.  Therefore, all art, no matter how pointless the artist tries to make their art, is political.  

I am a strong believer in the power of art, more-so than the average bear.  It should come as no surprise that Hitler's favorite opera composer was Wagner as it inspired him to campaign towards Stalingrad, fully aware of the task's impossibility (he's reenacting a Wagner heroic Martyr).  Similarly, it should come as no surprise that Stalin's favorite movie is Alexander Nevsky, a historical Soviet action flick in which the Knights Templar are attacking a backwater Eastern European kingdom.  Their leader, Nevsky, instead of meeting these enemies, allows them into his kingdom in which there is a large lake covered in ice and snow.  Once in the kingdom, the knight's templar plunge to their watery deaths, trapped when they thought they were besieging.  This shockingly parallels the events that took place in Stalingrad, Hitler's last stand.  

In covert ways, art inspires us all, if we like it or not.  It determines the events in our lives and shapes our beliefs.  It does so even if we don't know it, like when elevator music is playing in a CVS or when a video game numbs us to carnage.  

Therefore, let us psychologically interpret your idea of an RPG of "prisons within prisons".  Upon first hearing of this idea, my first connection was to current events and the horrid state of Gaza.  The idea of an open air prison as an RPG, under the circumstances, could be seen as bad taste to a Palestinian.  

One cannot help but make a connection between the sorry state of Gaza and the John Carpenter action movie Escape from New York.  In an imagined future, New York City is an open air prison, monitored by a police state that surrounds Manhattan.  I sincerely believe that this movie inspired Zionists when planning Gaza.  A quick google search of Escape from New York Gaza brings you to this article ... 

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/10/escape_from_gaza.html

Keep in mind ... tech giants like Zuckerberg, Benjamin Net-in-dork-ho, Biden, Trump ... they're not that smart.  And they all DEFINITELY don't respect the arts (Biden making a lightning eye meme after the super bowl).  

So when I think about making an RPG, which is ultimately a story at the end of the day, what are we telling society when we produce a game in which there is never any salvation, it's just cage after cage after cage?  I find the premise just reinforcing hopelessness, of which the world does not need.  We are at a point where a lot of liberals just associate hopelessness with intelligence as an excuse to embrace hedonism, particularly hedonism in digital form.   

I also find the premise too much of a "trauma-industrial complex" as well.  I write about this here ----> https://jackturnbullstudios.blogspot.com/2024/01/punk-rock-is-trauma-industrial-complex.html -----> Essentially, each level is just a deeper nightmare, we have to constantly up the ante of hopelessness as the player of the game becomes numb to the hopelessness before.  I don't like the idea of "endless scroll" video games.  Once upon a time on the internet, web sites would end, and you would have to click a link to make a conscious effort to keep on surfing the web.  Now on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, there is "endless scroll", a manipulative design tactic to keep you glued to the glowing box (for more information on the subject, read Johann Hari's Stolen Focus.  It is a brilliant book). Endless cages feel too much like an endless scroll.   

The reason there is more dystopian science fiction than utopian is because it's easier to imagine blowing something up than it is to build something.  It's really easy to imagine a dystopia ... all we have to do is continue doing what we're doing right now.  I am far more interested in starting in a shit position and making a game that gradually gets BETTER.  

What about a grass-roots prison uprising? 

There is also a practical reason for this change of narrative.  A prison within a prison within a prison goes on infinitely.  But with a freed prison, the game has an end, and therefore the project becomes manageable.  Call me old school, but I like games in which you save the princess at the end and you get a "game over" screen with your final score.  It just feels a lot less dirty and we're not contributing to the epidemic of the attention crisis in which half the world is glued to a glowing screen for one reason or another.  Congrats, you played this game, you leveled up, here's your reward, and us as writers are not masterbatively imagining more and more sadistic situations that must escalate nightmarishly.  

**********

But let's forget the narrative for a second.  Let's focus on the details of this prison world.  As I learned from Alan Moore, his process of worldbuilding begins with the environment.  This is because environments have effects on individuals. For example, imagine that, all of a sudden, the floor is lava.  You would start screaming, your heart would start pounding as you jump on furniture attempting to get to the window.  The environment has drastically changed your character.  This is an extreme example.  Another example would be maybe living in a desert in which food is scarce.  You'd all of a sudden be hungry, which would then potentially make you "hangry".  Again, the environment and its lack of food is changing the individual's personality.  

So in the name of fun, let me ask you questions about this open air prison.  The more questions we answer, the richer the environment and the easier it will be to construct a narrative.  I've done this process before in my D&D games and in my graphic novels.  The process feels like ALCHEMY, the stories write themselves!  So let's try it ... 

1.  What is the year? 

2.  Is this prison on our Earth, or another planet?

3.  What do people eat in this prison?

4.  What is the scale of the prison?  

5.  What do people do for fun in this prison? 

6.  What do people wear in this prison?

7.  Is the prison a men's prison, a women's prison, or is it unisex?

8.  Are there families in this prison?  

9.  What is the prison's economy (if any)?  Is there a marketplace?  Is it an official or black market?

10.   Does this prison have any Fascist or Racist overtones?  Is there a specific type of person in this prison or is it for criminals in all shapes and sizes?

11.  What is the weather like?  Are there seasons?  Is it tropical?  Arctic?  

12.  Is this prison neglected or is it highly survillenced?  

13.  What is the crime rate?  Do prisoners see one another as comrades or is it every man for himself? 

14.  Is there wildlife in this prison, or is it a complete concrete jungle?  

Answering these questions will lead to more questions.  We could do this process forever until every street has a name and every building an address.  Narratives will just start happening organically, especially once we introduce characters to the environment.  

I am at the point where everything I create I want to be in service to imagining a better world and to solving our most pressing problems.  My goal in Deerskin Dan, for example, is to truly imagine how we deal with the climate crisis so that it becomes a bit of history in the rear view mirror.  Like, imagine in 30 years our kids being like "Dad, tell us about the climate crisis, it sounds really crazy."  and we'll be like "Well, every summer there were just more and more wildfires to the point the entire species went extinct.  Sadly, for a long time nobody did anything because our focus was destroyed by glowing boxes.  But then one day it got so hot the electricity grids blew out because everyone was pumping air conditioning.  It got so hot people's insides started boiling.  So ... a lot of domestic terrorism started in response, primarily because electricity went out and nobody could be pacified by glowing screens anymore.    On mass, people started slashing tires and blowing up private jets of celebrities.  With this mass pressure, policy changed.  We just stopped using electricity all together.  The horse population exploded as people stopped driving cars.  It was a scary time.  A lot of people died.  But what needed to be done happened. Sure, we no longer have avocados to eat due to supply chains breaking down, but you have a future.  Now, let's eat our dinner of acorns, hunted venison and cider."   

So in conclusion, I like the idea of an open air prison.  I just want to make a game with a happy ending.  I psychologically cannot take another dystopian RPG.  

Hasta La Victoria Siempre,

Your Friend,

Jack Turnbull 

Speech Given to the Cape Cod and Islands Art Educators Association (CCIAEA) at the Closing Reception of Art Teacher Art: 20 Years of the CCIAEA

As Lenin once said, there are decades where nothing happens.  And there are weeks where decades happen.  I propose that our culture is at a crossroads and the present moment is one in which we are facing dramatic environmental, political, cultural and hegemonic change.  

         Evidence of our drastically changing times can be found everywhere, from the daily weather to declining housing affordability rates to endless acts of brutality both nationally and abroad.  It feels that we are in an era of decline. 

         Do not regress to a state of petrification.  The time for action in the arts has never been more paramount.  

         We have a gift and a curse which is our country's rhetoric of "freedom of creative expression" which has enabled my speech today but also enables fantasy versions of world events.  Remember your history books, remember the USS Maine, yellow journalism, Hearst's newspaper misfeeding that enabled the Spanish-American War on false pretenses.  Remember how the New York Times buried their own false apology on page whatever after misreporting weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  "Freedom of creative expression" and the right for art to be anything, say anything, do anything, can be used as a Jedi mind trick to lie, manipulate, coerce and even traumatize our youth into misogyny, racism and resentful, bitter, hurt fascism.   

         Make no mistake my Cape Cod community.  The honor of president is a title I take great pride in and I do not take the title lightly.  And I will give you all no false illusions.

We are at war to win the hearts and the minds of the youth. Our handmade stuffed felt animals battle against mass produced, mass advertised cheap pieces of plastic, created on the other side of the planet for its exploitative labor. 

It is of the utmost importance that you all continue to make art that is in opposition to the status quo and all of its contradictions.  The status quo is currently destroying man and earth at an alarming rate.

If you feel you are powerless, remember Martin Luther's 1517 98 Thesis and how a piece of paper on a door changed the world.  And remember Martin Luther King saying "I have a dream". These are mere words.  Think about what we can do with felt.  Paint. Clay. Film. Fiber.

Until Victory, Always.  

Reflecting upon the Fall 2023 JV Soccer Season at Monomoy Middle School

    Soccer is one of the world’s simplest games and therefore one of the most accessible.  There are few to no gatekeepers in the game of soccer and it is enjoyed by members of all social-economic classes.  For example, Pele, arguably the greatest soccer player of all time, began his career with a “ball” that was a sock stuffed with newspaper.  

With the exception of offsides, which seems to confuse American audiences so much that the Washington Post has to routinely publish articles explaining the rule during World Cups, the rules and goals of the game are simple.  Don’t touch the ball with your hands.  Keep the ball “in bounds”.  Don’t grab, push, check … but as long as the player is going for the ball and not the man, all is fair. Try and score a goal. 

This simplicity is the game’s beauty and why it has taken over the world in popularity. The simplicity allows each individual player to develop their own style.  It allows each team to develop their own tactics and strategy.  As a result, no two soccer games are exactly alike. 

The 2014 World Cup Championship German team is known for their almost telepathic teamwork.  The 2022 World Cup Championship Argentina team gained glory and victory through pinball resembling passing sequences.  The 2006 Italian World Cup Championship team is known for their stellar defense and brilliant counter attacks.  

There are tried and true formulas and strategies for winning the game.  We also sit on the shoulders of giants who inspire us to play our best games and study their styles.  But at the end of the day, there is no right way of playing soccer and each team must find their way of playing soccer.  

This year was the first year I was given a team that had a distinctive character and culture.  I have never seen it before in all my years of playing and coaching soccer.  The team supported each other with an empathy that was not performative, but genuine and came from the desire for glory.  I will never forget watching one of my players get hurt from a blasted shot at net that hit him in the body during a cold day.  Anyone who has experienced this knows it can be painful.  The injured player demanded vengeance for this pain, but a teammate came up to him, wrapped his arms around him and acknowledged “I know it hurts.  It is painful.  It’s OK.  You OK?  Let’s keep playing.”  The level of focus, teamwork and determination was off the chart.

The team was comfortable with one another.  Frustration and exclusion only occurred when it was unclear if a player’s heart was in our scrimmages.  As a result, we won all of our scrimmages.  The players performed the improbable on their way of one day achieving the impossible.    

There is a natural human desire for glory; for praise, honor and distinction.  We desire to be seen and our efforts acknowledged.  This can be achieved academically, athletically, socially, artistically and many other ways.  Right now, it is time to recognize the Boys B soccer team and give them glory.  It is well deserved and their record stands as evidence of their achievement. 

I will leave you with this - when our future seems grim, when the odds are stacked against you, when hope is lost … remember that in the town of Chatham Massachusetts, there was once a group of 5th grade boys who routinely played teams who were larger and older than them.  They were the underdogs, but their hearts were in the right place and their focus was undeterred.  They ended their modest season with a 4-0 record, they surprised everyone and they played each game like it was their last. 

Punk Rock is a Trauma Industrial Complex (Abstract)

 Punk Rock is a Trauma Industrial Complex 

Abstract

Punk rock, from Pink Flamingos to Pig Destroyer, is a "Trauma-Industrial Complex".  It both repels and allures.  The audience of punk rock is exposed to traumatizing sounds, physical experiences and imagery, from brutal chicken murder in Pink Flamingos to injuries suffered from mosh pitt beatdown; certain members of the audience become shocked.  This upsets the default reflection mode of the brain which is responsible for analysis.  When this becomes overloaded due to the shock, the audience becomes depressed and anxious as they try to process what they have witnessed.  This sometimes means returning to the scene of the traumatization; the punk show, the midnight porn theater or starting back up Grand Theft Auto on the computer.  This normalizes the trauma.  As Warhol says, "the more you look at the same thing, the more the meaning goes away and the better and emptier you feel." 

               The peddlers of the trauma-industrial complex, hardcore bands, pornographers, avant garde artists, must therefore continue traumatizing more audience members for them to keep coming back.  The level of shock must increase, shift perspective or transform somehow.

               Many of these artists and peddlers are themselves often traumatized, having the false illusion that they can cathartically release their emotions as an exorcism through the act of punk rock.  While punk can serve as exercise, (a natural antidepressant), occasionally an exercise in community building (although when "freedom of creative expression" is prioritized over community building, venues can get shut down), documentation and aesthetic design for material, by its very queer historical origin, is not heteronormative and is therefore shocking to heteronormative society by definition.  Punk is norm breaking by definition, the word punk originally coming as English street or prison slang for homosexual.  

              The only way out of the Trauma-Industrial Complex is to internalize and understand the Trauma-Industrial Complex and apply it directly to one's life. This enables us to see that those who have scorn and betrayed us only did so because they were somehow traumatized or marginalized themselves.  While it is vital to communicate and address the pain that  occurs when injustices are committed upon us and it is vital to speak up for our rights, have no illusions.  Art cannot exercise trauma from the body.  There is currently no cure for PTSD.  Do not get caught in a trauma-industrial complex.  In extreme situations, attempting to exorcise trauma from the body only makes it worse because it makes more trauma.  Be selective about the sounds, imagery, news, and generally speaking, content you consume as much of it profits from exploitative labor of those who have histories of intergenerational trauma, sexual trauma, physical trauma, trauma from racism, trauma from sexism, trauma from homophobia, trauma from transphobia, and trauma from watching video games.