Stewart Home - what's up with him?

This indicates where Home is coming from ideologiocally

Gay Times, August 1997

Speaking of his novels he says "I was interesteted in the relationship between anarchism and fascism as ideologies. There's a structural similarity in the way the two ideologies function and in particular the fetishisation of the role of the state in politics, and a failure to deal radically with economics - as you go through the three books, your ability to distinguish between the two ideologies becomes more difficult"

The guy has always been a parasite on the anarchist movement. He dislikes anarchists and aims to damage anarchism, but wishes to move in their milieu, and be supported by them financially.

That Projectile got into bed with him last year indicates either

a. Great ignorance

b. Great stupidity

His obsession with Green Anarchist has been listed above.

I could also add his pathetic attacks on Larry O'Hara, at a time when Searchlight were encouraging physical attacks on him, Home weighed in with a series of juvenile texts (see for example the Larry O'Hara short story competition leaflet given out at one Anarchist bookfair, where the humour consists solely of sentences about masturbation and mattresses, or the book Home wrote where he registered Larry O'Hara as the author with the British library)

But most of all Home fails what I call the Brian Clough test. When asked what he wanted to be remembered for, Clough famously said "I hope people will think I made a contribution..... "

Stewart Home does not make a contribution to anyone, or anything, other than Stewart Home.

Thats reason enough to dislike anyone.

It is a pity that critique based on class analysis cannot be adopted here, rather than mere moral condemnation.

Home’s ‘contribution’ is the collective name. This is a meme-like sobriquet that can be adopted by anyone who wants to ‘produce’ a Stuart Home ‘object’ (it works on the ‘No, I’m Spartacus’ principle) I have heard of groups of people producing ‘Stuart Home’ objects thinking that this is a radical artistic act. Perhaps it would be if there weren’t an actual Stuart Home collecting royalty cheques.

As far as I know this technique began with the ‘smile’ magazines, (one name, many different magazines produced by many different individuals). It was expanded to include other collective names which have included ‘Luther Blisset’ and ‘Karen Elliot’ (it struck me that ‘Monsieur Dupont’, which I helped set up, is attributable to this practice). The adopted names signify nothing but the repeated and meaningless appearance of the names... their spreading, like the occult recognition of the number ‘23’ becomes more significant the more it is recognised. The more it is recognised the more it will be reproduced.

It seems to me that Stuart Home, the individual, performed an Indiana Jones style roll under the closing door of ‘alternative’ culture as it existed in the ‘80’s: a culture of one part Psychic Youth, to one part waiting for the the next fanzine through the post... He could therefore be classified as ‘pre-rave’/pre-digital.

As for the fascist/anarchist identity thing, it is not so absurd as all that when you consider Home as part of the post-punk milieu of that time. I knew more than a few people who would drift between both ‘scenes’; the similarity between the two was based in a male cult of extremity and of being ‘uncontrollable’. Mostly, those involved would be working class males who were ever keen to talk about ‘my mate Stanley’.

Since that time the ‘uncontrollable’ element of anarchism has declined and retreated from ethnic white estates whilst fascism has remained. Again, this had something to do with raves... but also more effective social reproduction, many more working class anarchists (as mature students) have been processed through university now than before, alongside recruitment into ‘service industries’, this has tended to abstract them from the anti-intellectual milieu Home is nostalgic about.

As for the Stuart Home artefact, it now occupies a defined space in culture with his name on it, a space that expands every time his meme appears (he gets decent reviews in the mainstream press). He is what people reach for when they want to name something avant garde in the current array of cultural products. He occupies that particular space.

It is a pity the phenomena of Stuart Home is not addressed in class struggle terms, as it is a trick that has not been learnt, but it is also a pity, I think, that the anarchist milieu has ceded this ‘bohemian’ ground to ‘him’, because ‘culture’ used to be the space, rather than ‘politics’, through which many working class people were first attracted to the idea.

If cultural space/activity is to be taken back from overt commodification a new anarchist aesthetic would have to be adopted... and encouraged.

pilpil

Cous Cous - I don't see what is 'moralistic' about the previous comments - it's an accurate answer to a question. You've hardly denied what he's been criticised for here. A 'condemnation' of a cultural specialist careerism and his use of elements of class struggle theory as a marketing exercise is a basic class analysis. (The Situationists called it recuperation). Those who seek a celebrity specialist role are always seeking a hierarchical position in this society - he markets himself relentlessly, as you illustrate. And if he attempts to make a lucrative career out of cynically misrepresenting and taking the piss out of those who try to resist this world, then that is worth pointing out, whether it fits your definition of class analysis or not.

Part of the weakness of the cultural identity with anarchism was that it was often limited to the adoption of an image or attitude - just another cultural commodity, the anarcho-punk/post-punk role etc. Home's work encourages this kind of attitude; it has no value outside of an intellectual/cultural pose.

Hi Cous Cous

as I said in my 1st thread, I don't think he's very important - but some were curious about him, so I answered. I don't see there's alot more to say about Home, he's not some great obstacle blocking me or anyone else from moving on - unless you take him at face value. But I don't see any problem with useful criticism of someone like him - even if it's not deeply theoretical - he's made a career out doing it to others, for totally cynical motives.

A professional artist's role is economically different from others; they generally don't generally get a wage, they get 'commissions', 'grants' and 'gallery sales'. They market their supposedly 'unique' creativity, they cultivate opportunist relationships with rich gallery owners, they publicly market themselves etc. You can say that a rich artist is technically 'exploited' by a gallery owner, much as a multi-millionaire footballer is by his club, but it's a mutually beneficial form of 'exploitation'. One not really requiring of a collective class struggle against the 'exploiter'. To make everyone who sells their labour equivalent to each other is to deny we live in a class society; Tony Blair collects a wage...

And I don't care much who funded the long-dead Situ's - I care what is or isn't still useful in their legacy. Which includes concepts that still clarify the role of idiots like Home.

I don't think Home's success has any great secret about it, this society is awash at various levels with cultural self-promotion and fame-chasing, from Home to Pop Idol. He just chose a relatively under-exploited area to operate in, made a little niche for himself. It's not a success that can be used in a radical way - it's totally integrated into this society and its culture industry.

I also said earlier I didn't think he was worth any great effort - it might be more useful if, rather than focussing on one unimportant individual, you started a new thread on identity, aesthetics etc in general if you feel they're relevant questions.

RM