Jordan - the most iconic shop girl ever; the original Sex Pistol incarnating the attitude before the band even existed - died last week.
Before she was a punk - the first face of punk - she was a glam fan. There's a story about her turning up to a Bowie concert wearing amazing self-made earrings and Bowie leaning down off the stage and asking if he could have them - and she said "no!"
The glam connection spotlights the essence of punk - or let's say, a particular strand of punk (to me maybe the truest punk and certainly the most confounding nowadays to think about, as a grown-up). And that is a spirit of empty provocation.
"Her face was the front of shop" - shops plural, although all in the same premises: Let It Rock,Too Fast to Live Too Young to Die, Sex, Seditionaries. And what the face was selling was the idea of being looked at, but in a peculiar anti-attraction way. Call it atrocity-exhibitionism. Arrest the gaze and assault it. Kick the passer-by in the eye.
The look - hair, make-up, clothes, expression - mimes out a ruthlessness, that's brandished like a warning (I did this to myself; this is what I'm capable of; beware!). It's analogous to, yet also the inverse of, actual terrorism (where the goal is to blend in with the populace - "we dress like students, we dress like housewives / or in a suit and a tie", Talking Heads, "Life During Wartime"). Political terrorism and cultural terrorism share a common goal: strike fear. But with punk (this kind of punk) it's all means, no end. The means is the end: shockwaves rippling across the faces and minds of the normals.
Why so appealing, to be so appalling?
For sure, it takes fearlessness. More bravery than I would ever have been capable of mustering. And to be the first, and all alone, and female, running the gauntlet of the street - yes, that is fucking fearless.
Yet it is a peculiar sort of fearlessness. Not the courage of someone involved in the French Resistance, or Greek Resistance. Nor the bravery shown by an eco-warrior in a speed-boat squaring off with a whaling ship or oil tanker, tying themselves up a tree, lying in front of bulldozers....
Fearlessness combined with pointlessness.
More so than even the Great Rock'n'Roll Swindle (where there's some kind of smash-the-Spectacle politique), the filmic expression of this particular fashionista-as-terrorista idea of punk is Jubilee. Not smashing the spectacle but making a spectacle of yourself. Beauty as cruelty, cruelty as beauty.
Jordan is the star of the show. And here, as Amyl Nitrate, she reads a paean to child-murderer Myra Hindley.
She starts by talking about how her school motto was Faites votre désir réalité - make your desires reality, and adds “I myself prefer the saying ‘don’t dream it, be it’ " i.e. the glam maxim first heard a few years earlier in The Rocky Horror Show.
“In those days desires weren’t allowed to become reality, so fantasy was substituted for them – films, books, pictures – they called it Art – but when your desires become reality, you don’t need fantasy any longer – or Art. I always remember the school motto – as a child my heroine was Myra Hindley – do you remember her? Myra’s crimes, they said, were beyond belief – that was because no one had any imagination – they really didn’t know how to make their desires reality – they were not artists like Myra – one can smile now at the naivete.
"When, on my 15th birthday, Law and Order were finally abolished, all those statistics that were a substitute for reality disappeared. The crime rate dropped to zero… I started to dance. I wanted to defy gravity.”
(That last phrase became the title of her autobiography, Defying Gravity)
Jordan's other big Jubilee scene is as a ballerina Britannia. (She'd trained as a ballet dancer as a child until an injury put paid to it).
The odd thing is that the memorials and tributes invariably mention what a sweetheart she was - kind and nice and lovely.
So it's a false front - an image (Myra Hindley crossed with Margaret Thatcher with a bit of Ruth Ellis) that's the opposite of how you are inside.
There is a fascinatingly detailed Jordan interview transcript that Jon Savage has made available at punkgirldiairies - originally done for England's Dreaming.
Jordan starts by denying that the way she dressed was designed to offend.
"I liked to treat myself like a painting. I didn’t consider that people would be offended or outraged by it. It really never crossed my mind".
That's a fairly typical punkoid posture of that era - a profession of innocence combined with a feigned plea for tolerance ("we just want to dress like this, why are people so closeminded"). See also this bit, which cues off tales of her commuting from Brighton to London wearing see-through chemises that showed her breasts, psychotic spiky hair, virulent make-up (a scene of this creating consternation among British Rail passengers - mums shielding the eyes of their kids, Jordan having to be moved to a First Class compartment by the conductor - is recreated in the new Sex Pistols TV drama by Danny Boyle)
"Some of the men got rather hot under the collar, paper on the lap.... There was absolutely nowhere you could go where people wouldn’t say something. It was just too blatant for them. People up on scaffolding would shout, there’d be tourists running, trying to get photos. This is long before it all burst, taking pictures of punks and what have you."
[Note how these reactions are presented as if an unexpected byproduct of her dressing that way, hassle that she'd really rather not have gone through - rather than exactly the response actively sought and achieved with enormous effort]
As the conversation goes on, the front of "just wanted to dress this way" drops - it becomes clear that symbols are being wielded in awareness of their likely effect, the goal is to goad
"People were very offended if you wore a Cambridge Rapist T-shirt; I got a lot of trouble on the buses at that time. They didn’t like people wearing them."
[Bear in mind that "at that time" = when the Cambridge Rapist is a at-large rapist depredating on women - he wore a leather mask bearing the words 'Rapist' on it, so victims would have no doubt what was about to happen to them. Sometimes, if he couldn't break in to a house or flat, he would write 'the Rapist was here' on the window', just to sow fear and so his evening wasn't a total bust. Turning the Cambridge rapist into a "pop star" - McLaren & Westwood's provocation and act of "cultural terrorism: here - relies on exploiting the actual state of terror that women lived under]
On appearing on the TV show So It Goes
"They got my back up because they wouldn’t let me wear this swastika armband, right, there was the biggest do about it. They eventually put a piece of sticky tape over it."
On her later-phase twinset-and-pearls Thatcher look
"People found it very perplexing. The look was very rigid, the hair was always very tightly controlled."
The opposite of a come-hither look.
"People were terrified of coming in [to the shop]. I’d heard reports from people who later became friends, that people wouldn’t go in because of me, that I wouldn’t say anything to them, I’d be horrible.... It was just my attitude. I thought I looked better than anyone else. I was very introverted, I know people thought I was an exhibitionist, but I was pretty stand-offish. Even today I don’t take pictures smiling, because I think I look better when I don’t smile. I felt powerful, and I think I looked powerful, I know I looked very intimidating. People were very worried, even the guy who eventually became my husband [Kevin Mooney of Adam and the Ants] was very worried about coming in to see me. Adam was the same. By that time I’d built this reputation for myself."
On Johnny Rotten's asexuality and her own ability to repel approaches:
"He didn’t see himself as attractive in any way, I suppose, if you were to ask him. He didn’t want the trappings of a normal person. He was John Rotten, and much the same as myself, I didn’t go out with anyone either, the image was everything, in a way.
"People were scared out of their wits of me. Absolutely.
"I never got anyone saying they’d like to take me out.... I exuded that leave me alone-ness."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A few extra thoughts, part-triggered by the comments from Tyler below
The thing about the dialectic of outrage is that there's a constant pressure to up the anti, as it were - you have to go from sticking a safety pin through the Queen's nose and comparing the Royal Family to a fascist regime, to recruiting an actual fascist on the run into the Sex Pistols ("Martin Bormann", symbolically not literally, but this is all symbol play).
That then leaves you nowhere to go - you either have to escalate ("kill someone / kill yourself" as "Belsen Was A Gas" puts the options) or climb down, de-escalate, relapse into normal life, reveal that hidden niceness.
The other thing that struck me was that although Too Young To Die/Sex/Seditionaries is considered a convulsion within the post-Sixties fashion-etc culture, a drastic break (symbolized by the "What Side of the Bed" T-shirt - with recent heroes consigned to the condemned side of the garment), really there's a fair amount of continuity. Not just with the shock aesthetics of glam (the swastika and iron cross play of the Sweet, Lou Reed and others; Alice Cooper's ghoulish make-up; Rocky Horror, with some of the cast reappearing in Jubilee of course). But actually there's a continuity with the counterculture and underground press. Think of OZ and the infamous Rupert the Bear comic strip that led to the magazine being prosecuted: there's the desecration of a children's favorite in pretty much the same way as Who Killed Bambi and the photograph of an actual dead baby deer with an arrow in its bloody throat (except that being Sixties cats OZ use Eros in all its hairy and tumescent graphic-ness, rather than Thanatos).
You can see the anti being upped across the '70s in the escalation from defiling beloved images from children's literature (a priapic and monstrously endowed Rupert) to "celebrating" actual torturers of children (Myra Hindley, Ian Brady - both namechecked in "No One Is Innocent", the Pistols tune featuring Ronnie Biggs and "Martin Bormann". And then the brief infamous existence of a band called The Moors Murderers, featuring another exhibitionist later known for geometric make-up, Steve Strange).
With OZ / Rupert the Bear and "Who Killed Bambi" alike, innocence - the sanctuary of childhood itself, not just its sentimentalization by grown-ups - is the target. And the assault comes from the adolescent, the ex-child who's discovered the power of cynicism.
(Also assaulted: the innocence of domestic pets and wild animals: Vicious's "to think / I killed a cat", members of Clash shooting pigeons for a laugh, and the actual living creature killed for a scene in movie, Russ Meyer's aborted Who Killed Bambi).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
postscript: another '60s pre-echo that occurred to me later. Jeff Nuttall's 1968 book on the UK Underground, Bomb Culture, has this passage on the Moors Murderers that rehearses the Jubilee / Jordan monologue about Myra as Artist:
"Romantics, Symbolists, Dada, Surrealists, Existentialists, Action painters, beat poets and the Royal Shakespeare Company had all applauded de Sade from some aspect or other. To Ian Brady de Sade was a licence to kill children. We had all, at some time, cried "Yes yes" to Blake's 'sooner murder an infant in its cradle than nurse an unacted desire'. Brady did it."
Vicious lives this idea out... and the echoes continue through postpostpunk with Big Black and Rapeman, zines like Murder Can Be Fun and Answer Me! (a series of issues dedicated respectively to murder, suicide, and rape), the Slacker scene in which the aging radical academic exalts the "Texas sniper" Charles Whitman who gunned down strangers from the top of a tower... To this way of thinking, the serial killers, assassins, etc, aren't just Artists; they're superior to artists, more committed. They don't act out ruthlessness, they take ruthless action. They dissolve the barrier between art and life, take their desires for reality.
It's interesting - the 'don't dream it, be it' mantra could arguably be the radical/countercultural ethos in miniature, but the whole paradox/point of the punk 'image' was that it could only ever be that - an 'image', not reality. If you didn't want to actually, literally be Myra Hindley or the Cambridge Rapist, the distance between presentation and substance could never be bridged - it was a deliberately unlivable ideal of nihilism. And that's what eventually tripped up McLaren and Lydon and Burchill and the rest, maybe - the impossibility of both living actual lives and preserving these apocalyptic fronts that they had invested their souls into.
ReplyDeleteMcLaren's invocation of the Situationists (and after him, a too-credulous Marcus citing Dada et al) disguised what I think of as his true intellectual forbears and descendants - the alternate strain of disingenuously-apolitical-to-openly-far-right avant-gardism that includes the futurists, Ezra Pound and Wyndham Lewis, Anton LaVey, the Vice/McInnes consort, and the 4Chan/edgelord base. All were/are anti-humanist; deliberately pushing beyond any possible restraints, ethics, or positive emotion; fixated on technological advancement and 'the future' for their own sake, regardless and/or because of who it might crush on the way...
DeleteGood points - while loading the dishwasher I thought of some other continuities and echoes that I'm going to add to the blogpost.
ReplyDeleteBut yeah, the punks - or at least the non-goodhearted ones, the nihilistic-gestural, stab-in-the-eye poseur-as-terrorist-as-poseur type - did set themselves up with nowhere to go. You either live it out (like Vicious or Darby Crash - self-destruction, with a few others taken along the way possibly) or you have to climb down from it. Like Johnny Rotten - who gradually revealed himself not to be a monster but a sensitive, if sarcastic, individual - cried in a documentary about his lost friend Sid - and ever so slowly publically became (shitty politics aside) a loving husband and kind of exemplary human in at least one department, the care he's giving to his Alzheimer-afflicted wife.
Glad to have provided you with additional thoughts. Regarding the update - there is ABSOLUTELY a continuity with underground comics, in particular the more extreme work of Crumb and S. Clay Wilson, but also an interesting difference. Underground cartoonists were not only concerned with 'pushing the envelope' ad infinitum, but with consciously, deliberately exposing the worst sides of themselves, exposing it to light in order for others to bear judgment. This had the effect of actually pushing the artists to develop themselves beyond superficial id-vomiting and towards a more thoughtful, contemplative ethos and aesthetic (even Crumb, the most doggedly cretinous, advanced by far in terms of reflection and self-awareness in his later work). It (mostly) successfully checked their initial instinct to simple-mindedly offend and shock.
DeleteAnother contemporaneous figure that seems simpatico with McLaren and co is P.J. O'Rourke, the National Lampoon editor turned establishment conservative - Michael Gerber, fellow humorist and magazine editor had a Twitter thread responding to his death a few months back which articulated a lot of my criticism in better terms https://twitter.com/mgerber937/status/1494060745335660547
That overlap with "sick humour" / bad taste comedy is an interesting one. At the same time as Steve Jones's "what a fucking rotter" on the Bill Grundy show, "filth and fury" was on offer from Peter Cook and Dudley Moore's legendarily obscene Derek & Clive records.
ReplyDeleteBefore I was into punk, the two things I was into as a teenager were science fiction and comedy - Monty Python particularly (they seemed subversively surrealist, made bourgeois existence absurd) and all the Python offshoots with attendant books, films and records (Rutland Dirty Weekend, Ripping Yarns, Fawlty, Jabberwocky, Bert Fegg's Nasty Book for Kids). But I did search out and find with some difficulty in London a copy of National Lampoon, and my younger brother had the album That's Not Funny That's Sick.
An other area where the same sort of impulses - symbol-desecration, iconoclasm, raging against the establishment, shock aesthetics, obsessions with terrorism / envy of terrorists - surfaced was UK fringe theatre and experimental performance. And in fact surfaced ahead of punk - from the end of the 1960s. That's obviously not something I would have known about at the time, but it's become a recent interest. A rather frustrating one to develop, given that almost no archival traces of it can be found - at least in terms of footage - but there are images and scripts, as well as criticism https://hardlybaked.blogspot.com/2022/04/fringe-benefits.html
ReplyDeleteYes - if you get around to investigating its counterparts on the other side of the pond, there's a lot to be found, from the Theaters of the Absurd/Ridiculous/etc (which has a lot of musical connections, from Patti Smith and Jayne County to Hair lyricists/bookwriters/stars James Rado and Gerome Ragni), Sam Shepard, Stuart Gordon (before Re-Animator)...it's a little more documented, too - Brian de Palma filmed the Performance Group's version of Dionysus, for one
DeleteAnother secondary source you might want to check out (if you haven't already) - J Hoberman and Jonathan Rosenbaum's Midnight Movies, which has a lot on underground/exploitation film's connection with both experimental theater and the counterculture in general
Ultimately, I think what separates the kind of outre art I love from the kind I don't is that it has to be rooted in empathy of a kind - if nothing else, the shared recognition and humility in admitting that one is going the same place as everybody else. That's what strikes me as fundamentally dishonest and evasive (and yes, adolescent in the most negative sense) about McLaren - everybody else is phony and stupid except for him, the master manipulator, Granny's special boy.
ReplyDeleteOne of the strangest things for me is the incredible mortality rate of the punks. In five years' time it will be the 50th anniversary of "God Save The Queen", and I'm wondering if there will be anybody left alive to be the talking heads on the inevitable three hour BBC 4 documentary. It's like the egregor is actively attempting to erase itself - the whole thing was a bad dream...
ReplyDeleteI know the astrological musings on my last blog didn't exactly get everybody's juices flowing, but I think this aspect of punk was very Plutonian. Pluto is (or rather was) the planet opposed to cosmos, harmony and beauty, and I think a phenomenon like Jordan could only have existed while Pluto was still in its pomp. That's not a satisfying explanation for anybody who is a rationalist, of course, but it seems to me that some cultural phenomena are so inherently strange and fleeting that they beg to be explained metaphysically.
One thing I will confidently predict however, is that something like Punk will never happen again, and it will appear increasingly baffling as the year pass.
Another thing about Jordan is that she was also quite the traditionalist. I remember a documentary on Punk that the BBC made in the late 90's or early 2000's, when she was being driven around London in a black cab, and she was expressing her disgust at the contemporary Londoners with their baseball caps and mountain bikes. She said "they don't look like English people at all. They look like California beach people."
ReplyDeleteThe disdain with which she said "California beach people" actually made me laugh. It was a very Morrissey-esque sentiment. But this kind of trad view runs quite strongly through Punk, what with Vivienne Westwood being proud of the fact that she tried hard at school, and John Lydon describing the Army as "One of the most beautiful things about Britain". I think a lot of the animus of Punk towards the establishment was not because it was repressive, but because it wasn't repressive enough i.e. it's the anger of children against neglectful parents.
Yes "increasingly baffling" seems almost certain. That's what I was getting in the end to the McLaren piece at LRB - that punk especially, but all of the rock legends, will seem like fables and fairy tales. Later generations will think "what were they thinking?" "how could this ever have been a good idea?", "what were they even trying to achieve?". It will all seem like a strange sideshow to the real battles going on and the stuff that actually decided how the world would turn out.
ReplyDeleteThe thing I increasingly wonder is how much was "rebellion" about the craving (maybe conscious or unconscious) for the firm hand of authority? I think by the Seventies the British authorities had lost their authority, so to speak (or at least their confidence in their moral authority) and a lot of youth culture, perversely enough, was a craving for that authority to return.
ReplyDeleteThere was this strange double standard going on throughout the era, and even today, where a lot of the supposed "subversion" was tacitly or actively approved of by the establishment. Like the notorious "Prostitution" exhibition at the ICA, which was effectively a taxpayer-funded event, while Mary Whitehouse's Viewers & Listeners Association depended on voluntary contributions. So the power dynamic was often the very opposite of how the progressive polemicists have presented it.
Part of the mythology of the Age of Aquarius is that it is going to be an era where external hierarchical authority is replaced by intuitive internal authority. But in the post-war era, starting with Suez, the external structures of authority collapsed before anybody had time to create their own sense of inner authority. So maybe this is why there was such a strange and violent reaction from the young - partly exploring a world without repressive limits, partly craving for them to return.
Dunno if that makes any sense, but I very strongly agree with your point about leaving the 20th Century, and Punk, behind because neither are going to provide a useful guide to the future.
'I think a lot of the animus of Punk towards the establishment was not because it was repressive, but because it wasn't repressive enough i.e. it's the anger of children against neglectful parents.'
ReplyDeletereminds me of
'It’s true that Spheeris gravitates toward hardcore’s destructive rather than constructive aspects—the DIY ingenuity and egalitarian spirit, for example—and has a definite taste for the scurrilous side of life. Along with the circle-the-wagons insider ethos of punk, she seems to be fascinated by its puritanical undertone—an understandable emphasis given that it sets punk apart from its countercultural antecedents, with hardcore among other things appearing as a response to the license of the positivistic “Do your own thing” sixties, which had produced skyrocketing divorce rates and the broken homes from which T.R. flee.'
from: criterion.com/current/posts/6476-the-truth-about-punk-according-to-penelope-spheeris
At its core, punk on both continents had more intellectual sympathy with the Moral Majority in the US and Mary Whitehouse in the UK than either party would've admitted
As for 'leaving the 20th century behind' - well, it depends on which 20th century you're talking about. Simon's predicted that the 'youth of today and tomorrow' (for lack of a better term) will look back in bafflement and contempt for the rock mythos in total, but I don't necessarily see that in the younger people I know. They've definitely removed the stars from their eyes (by and large, and for the better I think) but I see more imaginative sympathy than confusion or dismissal - they can see, and feel, that what they were trying to fight against and deal with then is the same as what they're trying to fight against and deal with now. I think that's a good starting point for advancement, rather than simple revivalism.
ReplyDeleteI'll leave with this Bunuel quote :“How is it possible to shock after the Nazi mass murders and the atom bombs dropped on Japan?...One has to modify one’s method of attack, although one’s aims remain essentially the same—for the moral oppression has remained unchanged, it has simply assumed another disguise. What I’m aiming to do in my films is to disturb people and destroy the rules of a kind of conformism that wants everyone to think they are living in the best of all possible worlds.”
Great post. For my money, though, you are underplaying the significance of Jordan being first, and all alone, and female. I think that's why you're wrong to describe her stance as pointless. To adapt the popular phrase: the bravery is the point. I can't really imagine what it must have been like growing up as a young woman in 1970s Britain. The Britain of Benny Hill and Page 3, Pan's People and Are You Being Served. And, not least, the Britain of the Cambridge Rapist. Making your own way in that world, living a life of independence and self-determination, must have taken enormous courage. And it doesn't really seem surprising that some women were pushed towards extremity.
ReplyDeleteWhich is why I think it's a bit reductive to see punk as nothing but a sideshow to the real battles of the 70s. By living out a life of absolute freedom - the freedom to wear and do and say absolutely anything - Jordan was clearly an inspiration to many, just as the Sex Pistols were. Everyone from Green Gartside to Simon LeBon found the Pistols liberating, not because they were enrolling people into a movement, but because they showed that anyone could do anything.
White Light White Heat started a student revolt in Czechoslovakia not because it highlighted the flaws in Soviet state capitalism, but because in a world where the sound mix in Lady Godiva's Operation or Lou Reed's guitar solo in I Heard Her Call My Name are possible, the rejection of Russian rule must be possible too. Jordan was surely the same.
One more thought on this. For a woman, especially a young woman in the 70s, exuding an aura of "leave me alone-ness" is not an abstract philosophical stance. It is a totally practical strategy. And often a prerequisite for anything else you might want to do.
DeleteTyler - well I wrote a blog all about how I saw the transition from the 20th to the 21st centuries, but the general gist was that the transition in consciousness would be so profound that it would be difficult to relate one to the other. As part of it I wrote a big long (rambling?) essay about youth culture and punk, and how these related to the various machinations of the British establishment. The conclusion, in which I suggested that Malcolm McLaren may not have been particularly good news if you were Arthur Scargill, is here:
ReplyDeletehttps://theinterregnumnavigationservice.blogspot.com/2021/03/from-suez-to-falklands-part-5.html
And I'm not all that sure that Luis Bunuel was the complete opposite of Richard Heydrich or Curtis Le May. I think he embodied much of the same impulses - the urge to extremes, the urge to abolish all limits - but just happened to be in a less harmful profession. His quote is quite a good example of the unspoken assumptions of 20th Century consciousness - why must we shock? Why must we attack? Why must we disturb? Why must we destroy the rules? Are there not more productive and peaceful ways to reduce conformism and oppression? That he doesn't consider the possibility that his disturbing films might only make things worse is very typical of that era.
Point taken about the inherently militaristic language of the 'avant-garde' (again, see my above mention of the Futurists etc.), but I disagree that Bunuel was part of that lineage (when he talks about the outmoded need to shock, he's referring to his own early work vs his far cooler, more placid middle to late style).
DeleteAgain, I suppose it could be because I'm a typical 20th century romantic/hysteric, but I don't believe the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater, as it were. Take what you need, leave what you don't, and don't assume what you need is what someone else does, I guess...
I think it's true that a good portion of 20th Century culture will survive, and the sorting will be fairly organic I suppose. But that sorting will be undertaken by people with a very different consciousness to you and me. I once made the quip that you will know that the 21st Century has truly arrived when Alfred Munnings is rated more highly than Pablo Picasso. I was joking, but only half joking....
Delete