Wtf is MysticPunk?

My official answer to that question is: MysticPunk is a tongue-in-cheek label describing personal works of art—works being used here in the broadest possible sense—done in an unconventional style, which attempt to “express the inexpressible.” It is a vague term, masquerading as a subgenre of speculative or fantastical fiction, regardless of medium, which explores the borderlands between science and spirituality, reason and intuition, faith and fact, as experienced and presented by those on the rational (but not to say dispassionate) fringes of society, religion and research. In this author’s opinion, there are a number of diverse rumblings, clashes and currents in the art world (modern society) heading for convergence—a host of tastes, textures, delusions and unborn revelations ripe for emergence. It is this author’s hope that with a bit of prodding, or some inappropriate fondling—maybe even some wet tearing and cracking of bone, if that suits you better—we might be fortunate enough to play midwife to this…thing.

That’s the official answer. The unofficial (and far more truthful) one is: I haven’t got a clue—I’m making this shit up as I go along…

I don’t claim to have originated the term, but the first time I used it was after seeing that some of Clive Barker’s work had been included in a “Splatterpunk” collection [1]. Being a fan of Clive’s, I was (inappropriately) offended for him. My knee-jerk response was, “It isn’t Splatterpunk, it’s Mysticpunk!” I remember thinking that, despite the sometimes shocking levels of gore, sexuality and violence in his work, he used it in the service of stories with genuinely spiritual/metaphysical aspirations. Of course, at that time I’d only read several of his novels (Imagica, Weaveworld, The Damnation Game, The Great and Secret Show—must-reads, all, IMO), and I wasn’t yet familiar with The Books of Blood or The Hellbound Heart/Hellraiser. I hadn’t even seen his contributions to those Splatterpunk collections—a dreadful sin, I know, judging before properly analyzing. Prejudice much?

I’ve since read Clive’s other work and laid my prejudice aside. For a good article on Splatterpunk, and a revealing excerpt from one of Clive’s stories, go here. Since then I’ve also seen him refer to his own work as “metaphysical fantasy [2],” thus allaying any misplaced outrage that remained in me. However, in typical obsessive-compulsive fashion, I continued to gnaw on that term, “MysticPunk,” for years, thinking: “I know there’s something for me here. I know there’s something here!”

But it wasn’t until I came across the Stuckist Manifesto, with its proposal for a model of art that is a; “…holistic…meeting of the consciousness and unconsciousness, thought and emotion, spiritual and material, private and public…” that I felt moved to not only somehow participate, but to do so in a way that gave form to these feelings I have on the subject of MysticPunk.

So, after extraordinary procrastination (also typical fashion for me) I have convinced myself this is something worth exploring—hopefully, in the company of others.

Why not use the term “metaphysical fantasy”? Well, it isn’t very catchy, is it? And, despite being a lover of the fantastical, I find the term “fantasy” too constraining, too indicative of a certain style to be really useful. Why not “Mystical-Stuckism”? Well, I’ve certainly considered it. But the Stuckist is first and foremost a painter. Don’t argue, it says so right there in the manifesto. And I want to explore this through every possible medium, and with a rather specific focus.

Hence, the term MysticPunk. Such as it is.

The problem here, and the problem of discussing anything pertaining to mysticism or spirituality, is, I believe, one of definitions. One purpose of this blog will be to delve into the definitions of such things as spirituality, the soul, salvation, damnation, enlightenment—to name just a few. I won’t merely revisit what they’ve meant historically, but I’ll try to discover whether they have any relevance or importance to us in the modern world. Obviously, I think they do. But I will allow time and public discourse to determine the veracity of that assumption. I’ll specifically use the next few entries to try to define what mysticism is, at least as I understand it, and how the punk aesthetic (a broad and equally vague term that should feel right at home here) might be used to explore this in an artistic context.

Which brings me to the primary purposes of this blog:

1.) To provoke the thoughts of other artists.

2.) To provide those who wish it some direction and/or inspiration.

And most importantly,

3.) To provide artists wishing to participate in this journey with a venue to display their work. Which obviously necessitates that they actually DO some. Art, that is.

To that end, I’ll be starting a separate website and forum soon. I hope you’ll join us there.

Lastly, I would like to issue a couple of caveats. Writing this blog will entail, as is true of all such endeavors, a certain amount of USI—Unwarranted Self-Importance. And as a corollary of said USI, I will definitely exploit this opportunity for SSP—Shameless Self-Promotion. I apologize for all this in advance. I suspect, however, that the carnivorous (and undoutedly carnal) nature of web2.0 culture will probably keep me in check. Mostly.

So, with clenched cheeks and a song in my heart, I travel this road.

(TL; DR: We haven’t got a clue WTF MysticPunk is. But if you can come out to play, maybe we’ll find out together.)

1. Splatterpunks: Extreme Horror — Paul M. Sammon, St. Martins, 1990 ISBN 0-312-04581-6 and, Splatterpunks II: Over the Edge — Paul M. Sammon, Tor Books, 1995 ISBN 0-312-85786-1

2. Lord Of Illusions – A Fable Of Death And Resurrection, by Simon Bacal, Sci-Fi Entertainment, Vol 1 No 5, February 1995. Reference found at Clive Barker’s official site