kagablog

[an interview with Nana Rapeblossom}

www.myspace.com/nanasg

www.rapeblossom.com

When does art become crime? The line between fashion and porn is thinner than a single strand of bleached hair these days. In this fascinating vortex of techrotica, neo-hentai, torture porn, burlesque revival and post Suicide Girls fallout you will see the oiled nymphs, walking that bleached hair tightrope over an abyss of biblical debauchery. The immediacy of social networking systems and new communications technologies have utterly dissolved the safety nets. They have also made it easier for individuals to market themselves, dispelling the stranglehold of ad exec spin doctors and creating miniature vortices of panic in previously omnipotent industries. The Bacchanalian splendor of various entertainment technologies and emerging maverick fashion trends have invented a meat market of excess: An arena where it has become far easier to act on fantasies and push the boundary of acceptable experience due to these push-button technological advances. And so the rudder falls back to its original setting: impeccable taste. After years of having taste dictated to us by established media founts, we are now confronted by a host of self-invented individuals who are redefining the perimeters of dictated taste. Those who have a true sense of urgency about their tastes and a bibliophile’s obsessiveness have clarified the boundaries between those who pretend to knowledge and those who have earned the title through a slow accumulation of knowledge and experience. The average joe is learning about discernment from the fringe lunatic and carnival barker breaking the ’spell of sell’ brick by brick. And this radical redefinition has led to an intense expansion and exploration of subjects which the industries have always dubbed taboo. So when does exploration become violation? The final frontier for this question, however one cuts it, has always been either murder or rape - in their various forms. But these two cul-de-sacs lead to very different dead ends in the dark forest of social taboo. Murder is always defined by a death, and therefore has a material anchor. It’s easy to understand murder as an act. Rape, on the other hand, can be blurred and sometimes even deleted from memory. But the effects are always permanent. So lets now run a finger along the candy glazed razor’s edge of rape as a fashion statement.

Examples of how this new aesthetic have impacted the mainstream are prevalent. And one of the dark little star’s in the firmament of this glorious new Pervaverse is Nana Rapeblossom. Nana did only one shoot for Suicide Girls, using paedophilia, neo-Nazi imagery and rape for her stylistic themes. She was quickly dismissed from SG but left with a large entourage of artists and photographers who were impressed by such creative verve. Colin Christian has made a sculpture of her, Saturno Butto and Kolaboy have painted her portrait. Many have argued what the appeal is of a model who has flirted with dangerous aesthetics. Painters and photographers seem to be able to explore anything from the detached perspective of their craft, but when an independent model seeks to physically embody the iconography of such taboo subjects, in a sense; become her own muse, she quickly becomes ostracized. And mimicked. And it’s not because Nana harbours rape fantasies or Nazi sentiments that she is both persecuted and idolized. After all she is open about the fact that she has no interest in either save as subjects of creative exploration. So why then, in a climate of gansta aftermath, call girl chic and cinematic protoviolence are girls who explore rape and taboo so misunderstood?

I asked Nana some questions in the invisible zone; this new limbo and spirit underworld where thousands drift like hungry ghosts. All of them watching the decline of civilization from the comfort of their own private hells.

Q: You have mentioned an attraction to the idea of being raped. This seems rather extreme. Could you explain this interest?

A : I feel a particular attraction to people who have been affected by some form of deviation; either through history or in their own mind. My eros is sick and has undergone bad experiences. I therefore live it as an aspect from which there is no escape. But if i truthfully follow this theory, I’d eventually have no choice but to end up getting damaged - or to overcome the affliction. Though, personally, I don’t fully believe that I actually have the strength or the willpower to follow through with this to the bitter end. I’d prefer to leave it up to chance. Things that happen without warning. If I prepared for it then I would feel like I’d be forced to live out a contradiction. The idea of a rape experience is something that sickens me really utterly. It is something that pushes me away completely - but seems to draw me closer just because of the disgust it causes.

Rape is surely the result of my research. My search for an extreme that, in a rational way, is reflected in my work. While, in an irrational way - as I still dont have an end or a goal defined - is becoming a desire that is difficult to manage. I am moving towards the most disturbing thing that I could imagine to exist for me.

A “passion” for rape, for a rape not acted nor played out, but truly suffered (which is far more difficult to realize), would result in the complete abandonment of my dignity and of my person. I wonder if I can find something of worth in it. I think that losing myself in my absolute lowest could help me find a lot part of myself. A part I have been searching for. Because I feel that in losing myself I can really find out what I am.

As Cioran said, the beauty of suicide is the fact that you can avoid it daily. And the best of my desire for rape is the fact that it still can happen - but also that I still avoid it. It could appear to be a search for purification through a “conception of the gesture”; a kind of carnal martyrdom conceived as an act of catharsis.

But for me, this purge is rather a process in which I’m experiencing a fate for which I have consciously destined myself. And I intend to live it through, fully and without restraint.

Q:We’ve seen the swastika emerge tentatively as a fashion motif in various quarters recently, though in its original symbolic form: as an antidiluvian sigil, divorced entirely from the Nazi mythos. How do you feel about the Nazi stigma which has made this ancient symbol something of a taboo?

A : I think that there have always been large misunderstandings between the historical relevance of Nazism and Nazi pop-culture; which is kept in a dark “exploitation” corner, and seen by the general public as a representation of absolute evil. Especially in it’s stylistic excesses, decadence and in the strangeness of its general consent to all manner of practices. It’s erotic elements are however far from taboo. An obvious example would be the occasion when Steven Spielberg publicly announced that he cast Ralph Fiennes as the monstrous Amon Göth in Schindler’s List primarily because of the “sexual evil” he was able to portray. To me, this raises the question; is this is meant to be seen as a contrast? Is it an unspoken statement which proclaims the nature of man to be evil and inherent sexuality to be ‘dirty?’ etc. Or are sexuality and evil meant to be seen as something inescapable and linked indefinitely. Personally I’ve always been more interested in contrasts such as these; the juxtapostion of things from opposite extremes, brought together to create something new and exciting…

Something that is not easily accepted usually evokes a knee-jerk reaction before a deeper understanding of the concept is acquired. Which is necessary. A necessary “evil” if you like, because this reaction seems to be somehow inescapable when introducing a new way of understanding. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe I am personally significant in this shift. I’m more devoted to raising the general consent of the public towards these themes and exploiting the confusion it raises. I’m not actively seeking confrontation. It’s not something I would want to engage head in order to understand it’s relevance - either emotionally or aesthethically. However, you will never hear me say that it is easy.

In fact symbols have the tendency to rise above their original intention, allowing just about anyone exploit them for their own purposes. The swastika has still a strong connection to Nazism and there is still a huge feeling of uneasiness when confronted with it. I take it for the reaction it creates without directly associating it with any political or spiritual meaning. This doesn’t mean that it’s devoid of meaning to me though. But to use a symbol is to change its meaning. Whatever connection it has for others personally. The personal resonance it has when I use it is up to others to figure out.

Q: In ancient cultures we see that women, and the sexuality of women, played a dominant role in the shaping of society. The ancient RU symbol, which was the primary prehistoric totem, was is in fact no more than a simplified vagina. There are also the thousands of fertility Venus’s we see constantly cropping up in archeological digs across the world. Do you feel that women who explore taboo pornographic roles of their own accord are in fact reverting to these ancient ways of power and evoking a new version of an ancient form of worship?

A : I wouldn’t use the word power immediately, as the origin of Venus figurines is an endless debate. I’m personally closer to the notion of those who describe these Venus’s as a piece of stone-age stroke material - in reference to the Venus of Willendorf statue (see ‘Some Thoughts Concerning Pornography’ essay by Alan Moore). Anyway one of the reasons that made me choose the name Nana, was as a reference to the ancient goddess Nana as an avatar of Ishtar - which is exactly the ancestral woman you are describing. And in particular, there were rites of sacred prostitution which were dedicated to Nana. This is indeed the aspect I embody; and obviously my “fertility” can’t be related to a physically generated process, but rather to a process of generating new forms of thoughts.

Sexuality as a form of power is already horribly difficult terrain. Physical power is just as easily obliterated by emotion and vice versa… However putting my thoughts on the original surrealist preoccupation with “woman as an object of desire”, I think I like playing in a field where this can be lighthearted as well as complex and difficult. I don’t feel I would gain all that much from any form of worship whatsoever… The interest for me lies with the reaction and how this is reaction is relevant to me. Pretentious or not, any form of sexuality I use is mostly based on self exploration.

About the rest, I think you’re generalizing by asking about “women who explore taboo pornographic roles”… I don’t feel part of this like of any cathegory. I actually find quite ridiculous the “female empowerment” attitude of these people. It seems to me as though they are still slaves of their role ass “women”. They aren’t protagonists of what they are doing, which is actually derived from a male-centric culture (see the porn industry). I’m not a woman, neither I do want to be. One of my goals is to act in a way that is detatched and moves beyond simply being a “woman” or a “man”, but rather a intelligent being. Sorry, but putting me next to a pornstar like Sasha Grey just makes me want to punch people!

Q: The general public dismisses ultra-violence in popular culture as a deviation, a sort of malignant candy whose existence is paradoxically accepted and shunned. We see acceptance in the sales figures of video games and the success of movies like SAW. We see it’s scapegoat side in all that it is credited with causing in so-called ‘dysfunctional youth’. What are your feelings about ultra-violent entertainments and how they affects the grass roots of popular culture?

A : To be perfect is to have total understanding of everything, including the absolute worst. If movies and video games can give the same “thrill” as doing something or seeing something in real life without needing to violate the another, then why shouldn’t this artificial stimulation be of absolute importance to us? I don’t think it is a necessity, or that it applies to everyone, but it certainly has its place. Like all predatory animals, the human being hasn’t overcome it’s cerebrally structured aggressiveness. This violent nature has always played a central role in the advancement of general history and the development of human culture. For ’social order reasons’ though; through the habitual cultural-religious conditioning, and throughout centuries, every manifestation of aggression has been slowly condemned and repressed - unless of course it was directly useful to the aims of the ruling classes.

In the meanwhile, in our current era, the contrast between the possibility of having freewill versus the presence of rules, after centuries of repression, creates a large crisis in people’s conscience, especially in the most hypocritical and cowardly ones. It may happen than somebody snaps and sets free his most bestial insincts, even considering it justified because this release was undertaken in the name of the individual’s freewill. In those “others” who observe him an unconscious sense of envy grows, even an occasional sense of admiration (serial killers worshippers, retard teenagers, Joe Coleman blabla). Some of them even want to be at the place of massacres perpetrated by those they admire.

Being a witness of violent episodes is morbidly attractive to us… and for a reason. Or, on the other hand, it has a sort of cathartic (and hypocritical?) effect on us, because we exorcise what we think could never have anything to do with us. A Society of the Spectacle knows it’s people, shows us violence, real or not, always through the media of a screen but it tries to hide the real essence of it from us. The only way to understand this real essence is being directly confronted with images of true violence. And only in this way people will really have to face their own conscience.

Q: So far we have only discussed your involvement in this new movement of re-imaged cultural boundaries and exploration of taboos. A movement which some have called PANZER PINK, and whose female proponents have been referred to as SURGEON MARIES. What other artists and Surgeon Maries are out there that you feel are spear-heading this inversion of re-imagined morality? And what figures from the past do you feel appear most often as universal inspirations for this shift?

A: Cultural engineering Goddess, Mrs. Genesis P.Orridge.

Q: In the past, the ‘creative underground’ was always seen as the bohemian fringe, the artists, writers and musicians who were exerting an influence whilst remaining commercially unviable to the larger entertainment/fashion industry’s. Yet the ability to self-market has changed and we are witnessing a new form of ‘fame’. There is an argument that the very definition of an underground is merely the description alloted to those who have been rejected by the money-spinners. And that this stranglehold is loosening as individuals create their own audiences. How do you feel about this new form of fame and the experience of it?

A : I wouldn’t use the word “fame”. I’d rather talk about the fact that the Internet finally allows everyone to be the editor of themself. And if a person has some great ideas they can spread these all over the world. I would not call this fame. Commercialism has always failed to predict the future, however being always one step behind hasn’t stopped it from making ridiculous amounts of money… which becomes a weird area when the supposed underground (which doesn’t really exist anyway) is constantly being plundered by advertising agencies to connect to new “hip” crowds of idiots to lure them with faux-Banksy imagery to a post-Vice crowd.

How do I experience this? I don’t; I’m sure the sexualising of children in media and fascism in fashion is well in the hands of commercialism and the only way I experience it is how you or any other person experiences it. Sometimes it’s interesting, but mostly it’s bizarre and confusing. I’m sure most people would agree that the message or product you’re trying to sell is immediately lost when you put a Terry Richardson on your ad campaign, which -as a result- will only make Terry Richardson look interesting (or not). Being backed by Saatchi or being backed by Deviantart… it makes little difference visually, though economically there might be a bit of a gap. The ability to attract a crowd by doing something that is good and real without the taint of money has, in a way, a reward in itself. I’d like to make clear that this doesn’t mean receiving that money is a painful experience.

Q: In an interview, the person being interviewed is often asked which people they like and look up to. But I am interested in who you hate and why. Which persons or cultural institutions do you feel are the enemy of contemporary creativity? And what are your reasons?

A : The first thing that comes to mind is any educational system (especially art schools). These institutions have dumbed down any form of true creativity or the stimulation of the individual’s own personal interests. I’d love to be able to say that it helps a person find their own way, but students cannot convince me that they aren’t unlearning every single piece of unwanted garbage the system has been pushing inside their head since day one in the classroom. The other thing about educational systems is that they force you to daily confront large groups of people you may never even have the desire to mix with. I feel that this tactic does not help you socially - in any way. It’s a system of frustrated people and it only manufactures bullies and victims. I was forced to read Dan Brown when I’d already read all of Dostoyevsky. It has been extremely frustrating to get escape it without my personality being permanently damaged or my interests shaved down to levels of idiocy. Also, I detest imitation. Imitation is not the most sincere form of flattery, having been influencial to someone is in fact the most sincere form. An imitation is just that… a mere imitation; watered down, sugar-free, quickly exposed and far too easy to dismiss in retrospect.

Q: Many people use the images of you for their own personal pleasure. The ethos which you have created and explored simply does not exist for them. They are only interested in seeing you unclothed and in compromising situations. To these persons, your images are taken as pornography. Alternative, but still basically porn. How do you feel about these sorts of fans? And what feelings do you harbour toward them?

A : It’s an equally important element - though not the only one. I don’t mean to be clinical about it; but I am conscious of the arousal my images create. And this was indeed part of my intention. Receiving this attention is flattering. It’s humane and it’s cute… I wouldn’t want to put so much weight on horny boys and girls getting off on an image of me , but it’s a very honest expression and thus I feel happy about it. It’s far more desirable than dodging cumshots when walking outside!

Q: What new projects are you working on/collaborators are you working with?

A: Right now everything is pleasantly confusing. I’ve just illegaly moved to a different country and half of my stuff is still in Italy. I’ve started a new life and everything seems possible. When things are finally settled I will be able to open my website and display my work without any form of restriction. What I really want right now is to restart drawing (yes, I used to be very good at it) and creating my own art. I feel like what I’ve done until now is not enough and I feel the need to find new ways of expressing my ideas. If all else fails I want to become a drugdealer because my new neighborhood is filled with them.

Q: How do you think this new resurgence of taboo exploration is going to look in lets say ten years? Do you think it will all date badly?

A: Sadly, the impression is that we’re in a regressive period. Many things that weren’t taboo 30 years ago became taboos now. And this is why we’re exploring them now - because we feel that THEY are panicking and desperately trying to regain some form of control by telling us what’s right and what’s not. I am optimist anyway. It might appear like a sort of new middle age from a certain point of view, but I still hope that we are at the gates of a new Renaissance.

Some basic info:

Ten favourite books

- Le feu follet by Pierre Drieu La Rochelle
- A vision by William Butler Yeats
- Der Tod in Venedig by Thomas Mann
- Rudolf Steiner in general
- L’Homme Révolté by Albert Camus
- Franz Kafka in general
- The Idiot by F.M. Dostoevskij
- Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov
- Faust by Goethe
- Teorema by P.P. Pasolini
- Histoire de l’oeil by Georges Bataille

Ten favourite films

(I really CAN’T pick 10)

- Le feu follet by Louis Malle
- Der todesking by Jorg Buttgereit
- Seul contre tous by Gaspar Noe’
- Teorema by P.P. Pasolini
- Il conformista by Bernardo Bertolucci
- anything by Rainer Werner Fassbinder
- Zerkalo by Andrej Tarkovskj
- 8 e mezzo by Federico Fellini
- Le mepris by Jean Luc Godard
- Angst by Gerald Kargl
- Alice by Jan Svankmajer
- Belladonna of sadness by Eiichi Yamamoto
- The Embryo Hunts in Secret by Koji Wakamatsu
- A Snake of June by Shinya Tsukamoto
- Throw Away Your Books, Rally in the Streets by Shuji Terayama

Ten favourite bands/performers

- Coil
- Throbbing Gristle
- Current 93
- Death in June
- Nurse With Wound
- The Beatles
- Anthony and the Johnsons
- Whitehouse
- Gerogerigegege
- loliripe

Ten favourite artists

- Hans Bellmer
- Gottfried Helnwein
- Trevor Brown
- Suehiro Maruo, Shintaro Kago and Makoto Aida
- Chapman brothers
- Kiki & Loulou Picasso
- Sally Mann
- Gilles Berquet
- Saturno Butto’
- Francis Bacon

Three photographers you would most like to work with

Eikoh Hosoe, Nobuyoshi Araki and Erwin Olaf

Three artists you would most like to work with

Gottfried Helnwein, Suehiro Maruo and Matthew Barney