With his new EP Society Of The Spectacle, Ancient Methods isn’t illustrating Debord, he dissects him and makes us reflect on whether Techno itself has become part of the spectacle it once stood outside of.
In 1967, Guy Debord published The Society of the Spectacle, a surgical dismantling of a world where lived experience had been replaced by representation. Where reality collapses into image and participation becomes passive consumption.
Nearly sixty years later, the spectacle is no longer theoretical. It’s algorithmic.
With the evolution of Techno, a genre conceived with principles and values such as the refusal of conformity, collective ritual experience through unity bonded with an anti-commercial and anti-image philosophy, now exists inside the same circuitry: branding, metrics, visibility, persona with image as commodity. The notion of Sound as an element of resistance has faded.
Dirty Epic: Everybody with common sense would agree that the scene has deeply changed since the first Siren and AM1. Do you interpret this EP as a commentary on contemporary Techno culture itself, particularly its relationship with image and branding ? As an allegory to the precepts and fundamentals carried by Underground Resistance’s manifesto.
Ancient Methods: When I reread the book some time ago, I was fascinated by how incredibly precise and detailed these analyses were, which, in retrospect, come from a time when social media did not exist and therefore seem almost like predictions — and how they have come true, in general, but with particular clarity in techno culture. I have incorporated what I consider to be the most relevant passages into the album. I would say that these are primarily observations that I have attempted to link to the lyrics and quotations. However, I make no secret of the fact that I am quite critical of these observations. This applies in particular to the rapid devaluation of musical groundwork and craftsmanship as the basis of musical culture through mere showmanship (euphemistically described as “content creation”) and the accompanying alienation from the culture’s core. This also includes the example you mentioned of self-marketing through images rather than music. But I believe that the sometimes boundless narcissism evident in techno culture as part of this alienation (amongst each other, but also from the essence of culture itself) is part of a more general, much broader social phenomenon. The German philosopher Byung-Chul Han has described this under the concept of “psychopolitics” as the essential self-preservation mechanism of neoliberalism, which, I believe, is deeply intertwined with the structures of Debord’s Spectacle.
I must confess to my shame that I have only just read the UR Manifesto for the first time. And although it contains everything that fascinated me so much about the new movement long ago, I cannot claim that I consciously set out to create an allegory for it. Many of the ideals described in the manifesto persist in isolated spaces, but overall, you have to search long and hard for them today: more walls are being built rather than torn down. Even the original idea of turning away from the classic rock star business — the musician/DJ as part of the crowd — has been turned on its head and expanded even more excessively. I definitely share the idealistic attribution that techno has no definitive sound, but in light of spectacular standardization and conformity, this does not seem immediately apparent. But in my opinion, not all of the manifesto’s ideals have fallen victim to the self-alienating structures of the Spectacle described by Debord. For example, I believe that the basic consensus on which techno was founded, namely to unite all people regardless of their origin, status, etc., is being destroyed more by the infiltration of tribalist political ideology than by spectacular structures — even if such attempts to exert influence are fueled by the same media channels and their psychological dynamics, such as excessive self-marketing.
Dirty Epic: We are used to having references to French philosophers and samples from French movies from the past century with your latest works. I’m thinking about Deleuze, The Loud Age and even the sound collage inspired by Baudelaire, what is that connection to these?
Ancient Methods: I definitely see common cultural-critical motifs in Deleuze and Debord, but I don’t think there is any direct connection in the selection of quotations, especially not in terms of the nationality of the artists and thinkers referenced. The Loud Age, Society Of The Spectacle, and the Baudelaire Collage are self-contained projects with no intended connection.
Dirty Epic: Debord critiques the commodification of lived experience into representation. Explain to us the parallels between that critique and today’s digital music ecosystem with streaming platforms, social media personas, algorithmic visibility and music instantly consumed?
Ancient Methods: I must preface this by saying that I am not a scientist and can only attempt to address my interpretation and a few aspects of my perception:
Structurally, algorithms ultimately fuel a system which, in terms of attention economics, literally blocks out the majority of cultural diversity and thus establishes a system — in the classic capitalist sense — that feeds a few at the expense of many. This accumulation of attention is ultimately cannibalistic for a healthy, diverse overall culture. Debord describes how we see more and more quantitatively, but qualitatively always the same. The visible diversification of techno culture is currently taking place primarily outside of music, the fundamental cultural asset. The algorithmic conformity of users („Spectators“) seems at least paradoxical, because never before has there been as much musical diversity as there is today, and technological means allow everyone access to music from all times and places. But the algorithmic structure of the Spectacle also makes it difficult to “search for and find” music.
The flood of the quantitative also has the effect of making it much more difficult to engage with music that requires greater attention – here, the everyday need for regeneration in the working world described by Adorno/Horkheimer comes into play as sort of a “fatigue barrier,” which fundamentally contributes to the further spread of easily consumable entertainment – and also makes it more difficult to break out of the “circle of the algorithm.” It is therefore probably no coincidence that the technological developments of recent years have been accompanied by a renaissance of extremely accessible music – whether one thinks of “mainstream” TikTok rave music or the revival of ultra-conservative “underground” techno.
If, due to the structures of spectacle, most music behaves in a functionally conformist manner in this sense and is available to the masses at all times, then the inertia or superficiality of consumption leads to the loss of an extremely important experience: the spiritual experience of music. What special moments in our lives do most of the music we consume connect us to? How many songs do we remember exactly when and where we heard them for the first time, and what we felt when we heard them? Of the amount of music we consume every day, do we even remember the names of the songs? This loss of the experience of being, which Erich Fromm already described as “having more instead of being,” is devalued even further by Debord’s Spectacle: the shift from having to mere representation — a separation even from passive consumption, as we constantly feel compelled to show (“represent”) the experience as part of our immaterial possessions, our social participation, status, and lifestyles — and we ourselves miss out on the consumption of the experience. The idea of interrupting a party or a mountain hike to post selfies of it no longer seems absurd to us, but completely normal.
The arguably most extreme form of spectacle is evident in the self-alienation of artists, which is often marketed today as “artistic development.” If my social existence depends on representation and conformity to the structures of Spectacle, I may even adapt the opinions and ways of thinking of my “bubble” to feed my ego with approval and consent. If this largely algorithm-driven self-representation goes that far, it is only a small step to adapt the artistic part of my personality as well, especially if my economic livelihood as an artist depends on it. In my view, Debord described with the Spectacle the structure that is a prerequisite for this development, and people like Fromm or Han described the psychological aspects that are necessary to feed the structure, which constitute, so to speak, “the fabric” of the Spectacle
But I would like to spread at least a little optimism: I am convinced that authentic music and art, in the sense of being genuinely personal and not self-alienating, will always exist. Unlike showmanship, it is not merely a tool for achieving a certain social status, but an essential means of expressing one’s deepest inner self. This need has always existed and always will.
Dirty Epic: Could this release be interpreted as a sequel to The Loud Age with the French vocal samples, the sonic identity and patterns? Can we put this release into perspective with your track from 2017 featuring Huren “The Standards Will Come And Go”?
Ancient Methods: “The Loud Age“ emerged from a wild hodgepodge of subtle discourse criticism and surreal nightmares, drawing on a wide variety of sources. Any connection to “Society Of The Spectacle” was unintentional. Certainly “The Standards Will Come And Go”; I think this has been happening in techno and many other music and art cultures for a long time. What I believe is truly new for the first time is the widespread separation from performers and the actual musical content and from visible performers to an actual artistic performance.
Dirty Epic: Debord’s work is inseparable from Situationism and political critique while industrial music is fundamentally and inherently suited to philosophical/political discourse, would you consider this EP political?
Ancient Methods: Okay, I will try not to get lost in the semantics of “politics.” Especially for those for whom everything is and must be political, the question will probably not even arise, especially in view of the reference to a book with such a background, which was written in an almost militant environment. But everyone who knows me also knows my fundamentally anti-political, or at least anti-ideological, stance. In particular, I reject the patterns of thought and action of hegemonic striving that are so essential to politics, and I am skeptical of all ideological-missionary ambitions, all the more so when they use music as a vehicle or amplifier. For I do not see myself as a propagandist for instructions for action, but adhere very much to “Think for yourself, question authority,” which in this case of the “SoS EP” includes the algorithm as an authority. I see the observations that have been fundamental to the concept of the EP as an invitation to agree or disagree, but mostly to think about it. From my observations, I try to derive and follow a personal ethical agenda, which is evident in what I support and what I do not.
I believe that every individual still has the tools at their disposal to escape the spectacular, algorithmic constraints. But that means a considerable effort to swim against the tide, to burst the bubble that feeds one’s own ego. Therefore, I do not think that artists or consumers are “virtually defenseless” against an overpowering economic culture system. Rather, I see conscious decisions to conform. And these are based on the highly personal, all-important question: What does music mean to me? Is it something so inextricably linked to my person that no Spectacle, no algorithm can separate it from me? Or is it rather just a means to another end, to achieving socially representative goals that I could also achieve with any other job – and that is why I consciously and willingly make myself part of the Spectacle?
Finding this decision for oneself and acting on it seems to me more like a concentrated or meditative act than a political decision.
If Society Of The Spectacle began in 1967 as Guy Debord’s warning about image replacing lived experience, today it feels less like theory and more like infrastructure.
With this EP, Ancient Methods doesn’t offer comfort or his nostalgic and introspective touch. He offers a diagnosis. A cold examination of a scene and to another extent, our society, where visibility often outweighs substance and tangibility, where branding competes with belief.
The release stands as a beacon of light in times where resistance seems futile and stands as a testament to the values that the scene was built on.
-Interview by Rodolphe Vidal
Listen to our podcasts here.
Find out more about our Events here.
Listen to our review picks here.
