Dark Matter
Satanic Readings : Theistic or Traditional Satanism
Information on Satanic beliefs. Articles, comments, links, recommended books, and more.

Is Satanism anti-modern?

Two things happened today. I was browsing the Theistic Satanism Yahoo! Group, reading old messages, and I came across one entitled "grab the barf bucket!", posted by Winter's on Aug 1 2004. "But one thing is absolutely sure," it said, "Satanists have no taste. The question is, WHY?" Next, I was reminded that someone had suggested that I go read some Don Webb (Temple of Set), and so I did a Google search. It came up with an essay entitled Concerning our Patron (http://www.balanone.info/patron.html), a text - as I understand it - mostly about imagination, and how people who have a sense of imagination can be said to be "bridge-builders" between that which is not (but can be, i.e. which has not yet become) and that which is (i.e. which has become). Even though it did seem to me that Mr. Webb could perhaps have explained himself a bit more clearly, the essay was - I thought - a rather interesting read.

I think Winter's has a very good point. Most Satanists - judging from their web sites - have no taste. Or to be exact: They do have taste, of course; it just that it's so bloody awful. "If there was a Satanist Martha Stewart," Winter's post said, "this is what she'd say about website decoration; "The best way to start decorating your website is by using pictures of skulls - lots of skulls. You simply can't go wrong with these, and the more of them the better. Then, accessorize."

What bothers me especially, having just read Mr. Webb's essay, is not only that most Satanists have such rotten taste; it's that Satanist aesthetics - it would seem - are so thoroughly reactionary. Satanic taste is static, and it does not change. It's old-world anti-Modern. Satanists like the Pre-Raphaelites (see http://persephone.cps.unizar.es/General/Gente/SPD/Pre-Raphaelites/Pre-Raphaelites.html), and they like art nouveau (see http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Jugendstil); they like all the stuff that became cultural anathema in Europe in the decades following WW1. In Europe, still, art nouveau style is not just considered bad taste; it's suspicious (see note). Goth - to me - seems to be nothing more than some sort of old world Victorianism turned inside-out, and it can hardly be said to be imaginative, or progressive. (It can however, I'll admit, at times be somewhat sexy.)

Being imaginative is to be able to see new opportunities, new possibilities, new ways. Being, as Mr. Webb puts it, a "bridge-builder" is to be able to actually do it. During the era which we usually refer to as the modern we've seen a great many such "bridge-builders", and not least in regard to art. The greatest painter of the last century, Pablo Picasso, is perhaps the best example. Picasso was indeed a "bridge-builder". So was Ezra Pound in regard to writing, and Arnold Schönberg in regard to music - or more recent examples: John Cage and Karlheinz Stockhausen.

One has to ask: How can Satanists preach imagination while at the same time being so unimaginative? And also, is Satanism anti-modern? In regard to aesthetics, certainly, I see no difference between most Satanists and fundamental Christians. Disregarding the new, they glorify the old ways; talk "thou" and "thee", and continue not to invent or be creative but to re-produce the same old stuff.

Do you have an opinion on this? Talk to me.

Note

When art nouveau it often regarded as suspicious it is primarily because it is so ornamental, and ornaments (apart from being decorative) obscure the mind. In Europe members of the cultural elite reacted to the atrocities of World War 1 by seeking clarity of thought. "Philosophy," said philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, "is a battle against the bewitching of our mind." Post-WW1 art was for example analytical cubism (dedicated to "the simplification of painting"), an entirely different kind of thing. During the late 1960s, however, art nouveau was 're-invented' by young up-and-coming artists, and it became yet again part of popular culture.