I gained a great deal from our zoom call with Richard Stremme. For one, I acquired a great admiration for the punk rockers of the 1970s. They were highly ambitious and made immense financial sacrifices for their musical passion. In order to market their music, they had to create their own zines, reach out to bands and utilize artistry. They were true hustlers. This history rebutted my perception that the punk rockers were lazy. I thought many of them raged against the machine and the establishment because they didn’t want to work. Isn’t it common knowledge that they just wanted to scream at the top of their lungs? However, Rich’s description sold me on the idea that punk rockers were thoughtful people whose work and motivations were as legitimate as any other group of musicians. In addition, in the words of Rich, they engaged in a “labor of love,” as they always had to invest more money into financing their projects and almost never broke even. Breaking even was a fantastic accomplishment. They pursued art purely for its own sake in the same fashion as Robert Mapplethorpe. I think the message of punk art, described by Rich as raw individual expression, was influenced by its artists’ pure dedication to their work as opposed to money. Since they didn’t need to satisfy commercial interests, their art could be an outlet for the fullest expression of their individual selves. Additionally, since many of the early punk rock artists were not beholden to record labels, their message was not regulated from the top-down. They could be as anti-establishment and boundary-breaking as they wished. Thus, there is some truth to the idea that in art, there is purity in poverty. One who is not influenced by money and simply wants to produce art for an artistic purpose will likely create more authentic art. They will create art which is not reflective of market desires, but of their internal monologue. This is an oversimplification to some degree, as one can have multiple motivations and find a way to produce art which is both marketable and artistically fulfilling. However, one who does rely on the market will always be inhibited in their creative output to some extent-as they will be moved by its forces-even if such influence is subconscious. There are a couple of points to be made about three things which were raised during the zoom call. The first relates to the anti-racist thread of punk rock and the album called “Ashamed to be White.” Anti-racism has defined the cultural zeitgeist in recent years. The Black Lives Matter movement, as a social movement, was supported by a majority of Americans. Additionally, the capitalist establishment-meaning large corporations-were also heavily supportive of BLM. Furthermore, today, MLK is a figure who is revered by both sides of the political aisle. However, during the 1970s, racial egalitarianism was the subject of a polarized culture war. Those who critiqued their own whiteness-a notion which still raises eyebrows today-were regarded as extremist radicals. I may not agree with the idea that white people should feel guilt over racial injustices. I suspect Kimberly Drew would agree. The greatest degree of responsibility lies at the hand of systems of discrimination rather than individuals. Nevertheless, I sympathize with what the punk rock artists did. At the time, white pride was an unvoiced but highly influential idea that shaped racist power structures. In discussing whiteness in a critical way, the punk rockers questioned the assumptions of white superiority, which were often left unquestioned. Although white people shouldn’t feel a sense of shame in their identity, this genre of anti-racist punk art expressed deeper reservations about the harmful exclusion at the heart of “whiteness.” Egalitarian racial dialogue is a critical issue and we should all be grateful to punk rockers for pushing the envelope towards equality and away from hierarchy. A second point concerns the straight edge movement in punk rock. This was a movement to abstain from drugs, alcohol and promiscuous sex, which were perceived as excesses of punk rock. These behaviors had become so ingrained in punk rock culture that to be contrarian meant to be as abstinent as a Mormon. I think the same kind of reaction to the excesses of the punk rock lifestyle were paralleled in new age movements during the same time which were seeking meaning in spirituality. Just as punk rock was countercultural, eastern religions were perceived as distinct from Christian American culture. Today, arguably the No-Fap movement and the popularity of a “trad” lifestyle on social media platforms represent a reactionary response to greater openness to sexuality and pornography. Even so, these latter movements come from a place of close mindedness and are heavily influenced by the far-right. That is a potential reason why these contemporary trends do not inspire art like straight edge did. Straight edge, new age, vegetarianism and other searches for purity were part of a pursuit of an altruistic ethic and represented an attempt to open one’s mind to new ways of thought. On the other hand, the tendencies of intolerance and closing oneself off from the world seem to animate the contemporary pietistic movements more than openness. To become a traditionalist is not to explore something new, but to tap into a nostalgic, imagined ideal of restriction. Art must be creative and therefore must explore new ideas. That requires an openness, which is why great art was inspired by straight edge but has not been sparked by contemporary puritanical movements. A third point to make is regarding the neo-Nazis. Rich said he was opposed to punk rockers kicking anyone out of their audience because of their potential for violence in reaction to their exclusion. I would argue that tolerating neo-Nazis or other extreme figures emboldens and strengthens them. If they exist unhampered within one’s art audience, they can spread and grow. It is up to an artist to regulate their audience and to exclude hateful people-so that they don’t possess the influence necessary to cause significant harm. Otherwise, one’s message can be co-opted to support horrific causes. Although there is the possibility that people who are excluded will do harm as a result of their rejection, one could argue that it is not the exclusion but the hateful ideology which causes harm. The consequences of allowing such an ideology to grow within one’s artistic community are far worse than those of exclusion because fringe groups can do far more harm with social inclusion than without it. When it comes to something like deplatforming, one sees that figures who are silenced and banned from social media forums lose a significant degree of their audience. Although those people are pushed into echo chambers where they are only surrounded by people who share their extreme views, they are not able to spread their message to a wider audience when they are ostracized in this manner. An artist should not abdicate control over their message when their message is being used for tremendous harm. That is the limit to allowing one’s audience the right to interpret one’s art. The playwright for “The Woman Who Gave Birth to Rabbits” echoed the same sentiment in our Q&A. In hearing from Richard, I can no longer state with confidence that punk rock artists are anarchist hooligans. On the contrary, they are as thoughtful as they are brash.

This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.