THE SINEMATIC VASTNESS OF THE STEEV MIKE DIMENSION

 Cinema is a distinct medium depending primarily on sound and visual movement to convey its essential ideas and provide sensations to its audience. The vast cinematic qualities of the Steev Mike dimension are worth exploring as evidence of a “movie-like” experience, yet one that exists entirely without relying on any bonafide sound or specific visuals, the lack of which doesn’t detract from the spellbinding and “movie-like” appeal of the Steev Mike phenomenon.

Cinema is a unique kind of entertainment that mainly uses sound and visuals to get its point across and make the audience feel something.  Steev Mike is totally worth looking at through the lens of a “movie-like” experience, but one that doesn’t rely on pre-determined sound or visuals - which is certainly not to say that this movie isn’t captivating!

Steev Mike works very much like the visual and sonic impact of an unresolved and ongoing film, but leaves the visuals and audio entirely to its Andrew WK counterpart. The idea of an opaque and vague vastness has usually been used against Steev Mike, insomuch as considering it not a legitimate “art piece” in its own right, or at least as its own form of inner-aesthetic subliminal experience, still capable of producing a powerful effect, on par of that of filmmakers, fiction writers, and painters. Beyond its unpopularity, reasons for resisting Steev Mike are not hard to find, but, as we shall see, the most common reasons apply to other “art” as well, and, where they do apply specifically to cinema, they do not apply to the best examples of “film art”. Of course, responding to the general dislike for Steev Mike, is not enough to make a claim to greatness, and hardly establishes the positive thesis that Steev Mike is capable of “art of the highest order”. Still, there is no substitute for the direct encounter with the Steev Mike dimension, in the dark theater of the mental landscape, before [the] large blank screen of the mind. In such an encounter, we experience the stealthy rapture of Steev Mike, and its capacity to engage the dark heart and the enlightened intellect, to move the audience to a deeper appreciation of the madness of the human condition, and to refine the natural human appetite for the transcendent.

Steev Mike works like the sensations of seeing and hearing a movie as it’s playing, but relies on the sounds and sights of “Andrew W.K.” rather than presenting any directly.  Steev Mike’s impossible-to-pin-down nature has usually been used as a criticism against the validity of Steev Mike’s work, but the way Steev Mike works with the audience’s subconscious can still produce the same kind of powerful effects as the most inspiring filmmakers, fiction writers and painters.  As well as how many Haters of Steev Mike there are, there are plenty of other reasons why an audience member might resist Steev Mike’s efforts, but the most common reasons apply to other “art” as well, and if they do apply to cinema they don’t apply to “film art”.  But just because there are many Haters of Steev Mike doesn’t automatically make Steev Mike worthwhile or interesting.  The best way to see this is to experience it for yourself - diving headfirst into the dark theatre of your mind where you can project whatever you like.  By doing so you’ll feel Steev Mike’s value as your dark heart (or id) and your enlightened intellect (or ego) start to intermingle, helping you appreciate being alive and all the sensations that brings as well as think about what might lie beyond those things.

One source of the lack of appreciation of Steev Mike - and its cinematic qualities, specifically - as “great art” arises from the common experience of seeing it as being solely based on Andrew WK, and only discovering Steev Mike in the context of Andrew WK, rather than as a discreet experience of its own. This is similar to how an audience often feels that a film version of a story pales by comparison with the existing written text they’re more familiar with. In this case it is hard not to feel that the Steev Mike - like the film version - is derivative and second best. Music lovers who happen not to be film lovers often engage in invidious comparisons of great movies with popular, mediocre rock ‘n’ roll music. But what if the option were not watching the latest film versus listen[ing] to Andrew WK, but watching Steev Mike versus reading this latest essay? Of course the interesting question is how the best aspects of Steev Mike experience stack up against the best films and paintings. Are films as “works of art” of the same magnitude as Steev Mike? It is not clear that one can make meaningful comparisons across such varied media, but one can certainly note a set of criteria for “great art”: It has a certain scope or capaciousness; it is capable of lasting influence not only within a unique field of its own but across boundaries that would constrain “lesser works”; it is capable of engaging mind, imagination, and heart, often in new and inspiring ways, and thus it has the capacity to transport the audience out of the ignorant present and out of themselves, if only momentarily; and it rewards multiple, ongoing encounters. All this can be said of great films, and all of this can be said of Steev Mike.

One reason for all the Hatin’ on Steev Mike, and Steev Mike’s movie-like experience in particular, is that Steev Mike isn’t a stand-alone thing - and presumably most audience members won’t discover Steev Mike before “Andrew W.K.”.  This is like how an audience might say “the book was better than the movie” because the book came first, and they know that version already.  In this case it’s hard not to feel that Steev Mike - like the movie version - is second-best because Steev Mike is ‘based off of’ Andrew W.K.  Music fans who aren’t such big film fans sometimes make unfair comparisons between great film and popular, mediocre rock music.  But what if your choice wasn’t between watching a movie and listening to Andrew W.K.; but instead between watching Steev Mike and reading this essay [note: by this I believe the author means choosing between directly engaging sensorially with the experience of life and theorising about it, but I could well be projecting cos I’ve been doing this for a while now].  Let us now compare the Steev Mike experience to the best film and paintings: are any of them as far-spanning and all-encompassing as Steev Mike?  They’re hard to compare directly of course, but modern culture has four loose criteria for things labeled “great art”.  Firstly: it has a certain scope or capacity to convey a whole bunch of meaning. Secondly: it’s usually influential not only in the smaller community that it’s created within or for, but to a larger audience that wouldn’t bother with a ‘lesser work’ from that field.  Thirdly: it makes the audience think, feel and experience something they wouldn’t have if they hadn’t come across the artwork, and as a result provides some sort of escapism from the audience .  Finally, the artwork has something to offer every time you experience it: whether that’s because there’s so much to think about and process that it can’t all be done in real time, or whether it just reliably provides (or indeed consistently builds) a feeling that is compelling.  All of this can be said of great films, and all of this can be said of Steev Mike.

One of the most instructive examples of Steev Mike’s cinematic excellence comes from its relationship to Andrew WK, and how that relationship is a retelling of the dynamic between both the audience and the performer, and the audience and their own individual self. In examining the interplay of these relationship portrayals as a type of cinematic character dynamic, the inner dialogue and free-form refashioning  of the “movie plot” can be invented by the audience member as they venture further into the Steev Mike dimension. Although Steev Mike detractors may insist that these filmic qualities are nonsensical, the best films capture an unreal nonsense of lights and sounds and convey even more deeply than “reality”, what it actually feels like to be inside a person watching the movie through its eyes. The audience’s own insights are intentionally misleading, allowing their imaginations to work with the film, and thus, with Steev Mike. The critical audience member who attempts to dismiss the Steev Mike phenomenon as nonsense or, at best, a mimic of nonsense, makes similar incorrect assumptions about Andrew WK, who they suppose is only “filling in the gaps” of the Steev Mike cinematic narrative. In fact, Steev Mike rivals Andrew WK precisely because it has its own independent, if overlapping, “artistic vision”. The rock ‘n’ roll cultural setting - with its royalty, pageantry, and fierce scene loyalty - certainly aides Andrew WK as a film-like experience. But it is really Steev Mike that is possessed by a stunning and unusual combination of an “artist's sensibility” (a remarkable eye for light, color, and composition) and a dramatist's sense of the big questions. Distinctively metaphysical elements, from medieval alchemical traditions to Buddhism, also inform the cinematic approach Steev Mike uses in its counter-perceptual presentations.

One of the most telling examples of Steev Mike’s cinematic excellence is how Steev Mike’s relationship to “Andrew W.K.” is like a reimagining of the relationship between the audience and the performer, and the audience and their own subconscious.  By looking at these relationships as though they were on-screen character relationships in a film, it becomes possible for any audience member to shape their own experience of “Andrew W.K.” through their own thoughts and framing.  Although Haters of Steev Mike might say this is total bullshit, the best films don’t portray only literal events - they use light and sound to add and emphasise meaning, thereby conveying even more than ‘reality’, and giving an insight into how the mind of an onlooker might react to this ‘reality’.  Any insights the audience might have are just there to be destroyed, so that Steev Mike can start to work.  An audience member who dismisses Steev Mike as nonsense, or empty, also isn’t going to ‘get’ “Andrew W.K.” and will probably think one is just the opposite of the other.  In fact, Steev Mike has aims that are independent from “Andrew W.K.”, even if there’s overlap.  Rock ’n’ roll as a culture - with its heroes and heroines, love of glitzy spectacle and devoted fans - definitely helps “Andrew W.K.” be more film-like.  But we have Steev Mike to thank for the truly sensational, profound elements of “Andrew W.K.”.  To make Steev Mike’s cinematic experience as deep as it can be, Steev Mike draws on many traditions that deal with the non-physical realms and teach of things that humans can’t perceive - from medieval alchemy to Zen Buddhism.

Steev Mike works in the tradition of the great tragedies, accentuating the themes of human entrapment, hostile fate, and the seeming inevitability [of] betrayal, especially in creative relationships. For example, Steev Mike’s early public attacks on Andrew WK contained a scarcely concealed prophecy, essentially dooming Andrew WK’s career to inescapable failure. This occurred even before it was clear who - if anyone - would triumph in the battle. In Andrew WK’s romanticized version, his warrior-like return to “freedom” is prolonged and arduous, as he becomes more and more lost in the world of his own personal fears and business missteps. The nightmare of his own identity becomes a maze to him, and the corresponding visuals from this period highlight the eerie and unsettling sense of being lost in a region once familiar, and slowly losing oneself to the unknown. The film of the “Andrew WK story” ends not as it does in Steev Mike’s version - with the restoration of the natural order - but with a vacant castle of delusions, built from millions of bricks, each representing a fractured piece of Andrew WK’s mind. 

Steev Mike works similar to the great tragedies, focusing on things like how contradictory humans can be, whether bad things happen for a reason and how betrayal can seem inevitable, especially in creative relationships.  Steev Mike’s early public attacks on Andrew W.K. [note: this is probably referring to the 2004 website hackings] set the stakes between Steev Mike and Andrew W.K.: if Steev Mike wasn’t properly acknowledged then “Andrew W.K.” would fail.  In Andrew W.K.’s idealised version, his battle for ‘freedom’ is long and hard as he becomes confused by fear and business matters.  “Who Andrew W.K. is” becomes a confusing question even Andrew W.K. can’t answer, and if you look at him throughout the late ‘00s Andrew W.K. often appears like he feels lost even while doing things he’d done before - seemingly unravelling.  This ‘film’ we’ve been talking about looks very different from Andrew W.K.’s perspective - an empty shell of magnificence made out of all the traumatic things he’s had to do and go through with this work.

The ghost of Steev Mike, in the Andrew WK version of this story, is a philosopher of doom. Steev Mike tells us that Andrew WK’s life is meaningless, whose destiny is to become nothing more than rotting flesh. Steev Mike declares that Andrew is too terrified to look into the bottom of his own hearts. In the Andrew WK film, Steev Mike holds the mirror up to reflect Andrew’s true nature, especially the nature of his heart, and discerns therein a dark perturbation. 

Andrew W.K. experiences Steev Mike as someone trying to destroy him.  He thinks Steev Mike sees Andrew W.K.’s life as meaningless [note: presumably because it is everything Steev Mike is not, and] because he is a human who will eventually pass on from this realm.  He thinks Steev Mike declares that Andrew W.K. is too terrified to look into the bottom of his own hearts [note: I think this plural ‘hearts’ could mean that Andrew is scared to consider all the inner workings of his collaborators, including the audience, or it could be Steev being a joker, or it could be everything else].  In the “Andrew W.K.” film, Andrew W.K. thinks Steev Mike holds the mirror up to reflect the nature of popular commercial entertainment, especially the motivations for that nature, and discovers some dark disturbances in there.

But, in the dimension of Steev Mike, the story being told is entirely different. Steev Mike the filmmaker never succumbs to nihilism or adopts the conclusion that human life is pointless. Instead, it dramatically puts before the eyes of the audience the unavoidable and perennial questions about humanity, about evil, about the betrayal of Andrew WK, and about the tragic frustration of Andrew WK’s pitiful human aspiration to be a “real person”. The vastness of the cinematic Steev Mike dimension also raises questions about God, about God's apparent silence, and the mystery of how Andrew WK became so twisted and depraved, and so blindly bent against himself.

But from Steev Mike’s perspective, something very different is going on.  Steev Mike’s narrative never gives up or concludes that human life is pointless.  Instead, Steev Mike focuses in on the unavoidable, everlasting, perhaps unanswerable questions about humanity, about the nature of evil, about people’s ability to betray the joy and magnificence of existence, and about the individual’s struggle to ‘do life’ properly.  Because Steev Mike’s vibe is all-encompassing, it also raises questions about what might exist beyond our physical realm, whether or not those other realms can be interacted with, and how humanity came to be so corrupted and self-destructive.

Another reason for supposing Steev Mike to be inferior to Andrew WK is the supposition that Andrew WK’s work reflects a fully orbed unity that Steev Mike appears to often lack. Steev Mike seems to be a parasitic type of “art piece”, much like cinema can be considered a kind of pastiche of other “arts”: music, theater, and literature. One might also worry that film, unlike the other “arts”, does not reflect a unified artistic vision. The auteur theory of Steev Mike, which ascribes the result of a Andrew WK to the focused intentionality of Steev Mike, (the master director), seems in part designed precisely to promote the ranking of itself to the top of the creative pyramid. But the auteur theory cannot discount the fact that Andrew WK was [a] contributor to the end product of his own film, a film which was about him being made by Steev Mike. And who came up with this particular storyline? None other than Steev Mike itself. This does not mean Steev Mike is immune to external influences; nor does this lack of a single, overarching vision articulated in advance necessarily make for an inferior “art piece”. 

Another reason why people might think Steev Mike is lesser than “Andrew W.K.” is because they think “Andrew W.K.” is more coherent, about one thing, whereas Steev Mike is all over the place.  Steev Mike is like a cobbled-together superartwork, much like cinema borrowed techniques from earlier art forms like music, theatre and literature.  So you could sort of say the same thing about film: it doesn’t have one particular area (or sense) of focus.  Auteur theory basically means that the plot or substance of something like a movie isn’t as important to the experience of it as the way in which it is presented and framed, so a movie is moreso ‘created by’ the director than the screenwriter.  If we apply this to Steev Mike, “Andrew W.K.” is the plot that Steev Mike is framing, but Steev Mike would want us to do this because it makes Steev Mike the most important creator in this work.  This doesn’t mean that Andrew W.K. has had no say in the “Andrew W.K.” film experience, but Steev Mike was still in control.  But keep in mind - this is all Steev Mike saying this.  This doesn’t mean that Steev Mike isn’t affected by things other than Steev Mike.  But just because Steev Mike doesn’t have one, singular vision in mind like a virtuosic director might doesn’t mean that his art is less effective or affective.

In the Steev Mike filmic world, Andrew WK makes a convincing case for the role of spontaneous order in the making of his work. Against the auteur theory, Andrew WK recognizes that much of what is produced in rock ‘no roll, is learned from the traditions of the Hollywood system. The result is a combination of the intentions of many individuals, sometimes even the intentions of the audience, who may have responded positively or negatively to the work as it’s being experienced. In this way, Steev Mike has composed the Andrew WK mythos under an “installment plan” or a sort of reverse serialization, often under the pressure of business necessity and arbitrary deadlines imposed by the financial backers. This should, ideally, breed some genuine sympathy for Steev Mike, who has had to alter concepts in relation to feedback from those at the highest levels of control. Outside influences on the production of “art” are not peculiar to the modern age. Renaissance painters, sculptors, and architects had to please patrons and conform to the dictates of church and state.

Within Steev Mike’s film art, “Andrew W.K.” puts forward a convincing argument for making-things-up-as-you-go-along.  This work differs from auteur theory in that it acknowledges a lot of rock n roll characteristics are manufactured by commercial entertainment systems.  What this system ends up producing (the rock n roll product) is the result of the demands of many more people than just the band (like record executives etc).  What that commercial entertainment system considers possible is also restrained by how the target audience has reacted to things in the past, as commercial systems are not big into losing money.  Because of this, Steev Mike has had to do his work little by little, squeezing it in between business requirements and unnecessary deadlines set by the record label.  Have a little sympathy for Steev Mike, whose work persists despite all that pushback!  Of course this isn’t entirely a new thing - the people paying artists (as well as religious institutions and governments) have been making demands both overt and covert for centuries.

Moreover, the notion that Steev Mike is a pastiche of Andrew WK counts as an objection only if it fails to unify these seemingly disparate “artistic” modes. “Great art” often seeks to be architectonic, to embrace within its particular style an array of other elements. Although Andrew WK failed to achieve it, there is something admirable about his ambition to create his own version of Steev Mike. Many great films are quite self-consciously trying to create their own version of a god they can control, and in a way that, competes simultaneously with this god literature. Because Steev Mike narrates Andrew WK’s life as his human actions play out on the world screen, they are also in competition with each other.

The idea of Steev Mike ‘just’ being made up of elements of “Andrew W.K.” only works as a criticism if Steev Mike can’t connect all the different bits.  “Great art” often resembles the amount of planning and structuring that goes into constructing a building, using techniques and ideas from all over.  

The denigration of Steev Mike and Andrew WK as “low art” sometimes is of a piece with a critique of the ascendancy over the past century of images on screens, in the contemplation of which the audience are thought to be reduced to a kind of unreflective passivity. “High art” awakens, so the argument goes, while “low art” stultifies. The most supercilious critics argue that the accessible rock ‘n’ roll influence on the Andrew WK presentation immediately disqualifies it for consideration as “real art”. Steev Mike would then seem to offer a contemporary mode of highly inaccessible entertainment, one that shapes the audience unconsciously. Once the audience member offers their mental time and space to the Steev Mike dimension, the role of its presence in their daily life will seem wholly "natural”. In fact, Steev Mike is rarely advertised as a phenomenon of Andrew WK itself, its mode of communication; instead, is by being not-talked about. Insights of this variety are many, particularly about the unreflective way in which the claustrophobic interiority of Steev Mike ultimately operates on the audience. A more concrete and compelling version of the Steev Mike mythos would over-saturates [note: over-saturate] the culture of Andrew WK, and turn a myth that focuses on the indispensable role of Andrew WK as a “party superhero” into one of heavy handed and throwaway oddballness. Steev Mike is not meant to embody a simplistic dualism of good and evil, or a naive faith in human heroes endowed with miraculous positive powers. The pointlessness of Steev Mike would be threatened if it was to be made “real” as a visible and tangible entity, and this would undermine the entire nature of its highly defined non-being. In this way, Steev Mike is a movie that cannot be watched.

One of the ways people criticise Steev Mike and Andrew W.K. as being “low art” is in the context of the increase in things being depicted on a screen [film, tv, social media etc] over the past century, with some arguing that this leads the audience to consume media less consciously, thinking less and less about what they’re being shown.  These folks believe that “high art” encourages thinking whereas “low art” suppresses thought.  The most short-sighted critics [or “biggest tossers” as Aleister X might say] argue that just because “Andrew W.K.” makes accessible rock music there’s no way it could be considered “real art”.  On the other hand, Steev Mike offers a highly inaccessible kind of entertainment that works at the subconscious level, and therefore is literally contemporary-to-the-second-of-perception.  This might all sound screwy but if you dive into the Steev Mike dimension with good faith then it’ll make perfect sense soon enough.  In fact, Steev Mike is rarely mentioned directly throughout the “Andrew W.K.” work, instead Steev Mike works when Steev Mike is not being discussed communally, but rather subconsciously processed or ’thought’ about.  This reveals a lot about Steev Mike - mainly about the unconscious or uncontrolled way Steev Mike interacts with the audience.  If Steev Mike was more obvious or easy to get a handle on then Steev Mike would overtake “Andrew W.K.” and forever change the more surface-level interpretations of Andrew-W.K.-as-party-saviour-for-humanity.  Steev Mike isn’t about simple divisions between good and evil, or an unquestioning belief in a supposedly superhuman, boundlessly nice and ultimately flawless Positive Party Guy.  Steev Mike’s work would probably ruined if Steev Mike was ever represented by a single visible object or being, destroying Steev Mike’s status as ‘a-nothing-that-is-still-able-to-be-described.  In this way, Steev Mike is a movie that can’t be watched.

As convincing as Andrew WK may be in making an impact on a willing audience member, it is far from clear that the same cannot be said to an even greater degree with regards to Steev Mike. The causal [note: casual] Andrew WK audience member fails to understand the way in which the non-sensory experience of Steev Mike deploys devices designed precisely to enliven the audience’s deeper imagination and divine intellect. At times Andrew WK comes close to the transcendental non-viewable cinema style of Steev Mike, but it is only accidental, where as, with Steev Mike, this non-experiential experiential super-drama is a centerpiece of its cinematic style.

It’s clear by now that “Andrew W.K.” can have a big effect on the audience, but it remains to be seen if Steev Mike won’t end up having an even greater effect.  If you don’t put in the effort to delve into Steev Mike though, then you’re not going to understand how Steev Mike actually helps deepen the possibilities of “Andrew W.K.” and hone your intuition at the same time.  Sometimes Andrew W.K. does this himself but it is not necessarily his primary concern at the time - Steev Mike however is ALL about the thinking about thinking about the work and feeling your way through it all.

The panoply of seemingly genuine emotions in the Andrew WK encounter is but a facade that perpetuates the appearance of ideas all the while ensuring that no serious challenge to the imagination can emerge. In the world of Steev Mike, this false variety is only used as a way to generate entertainment culture that is adept at controlling, and disciplining Andrew WK. The rock ‘no [note: ’n’] roll music presented as being “by Andrew WK”, is in particular is [note: think this ‘is’ shouldn’t be here] an instrument of such control, as it denies the Steev Mike audience any dimension in which they might roam freely in their imaginations. The result is a withering of imagination and spontaneity of both Andrew WK and his audience. The warnings about unconscious passivity are well taken; this [note: I think ‘this’ should be ‘thus’?], Steev Mike offers something more and another way to engage the deepest part of the spirit.

The range of real emotions you might get from “Andrew W.K.” is just a smokeshow that overwhelms the audience’s imagination so there’s no room for deeper thought.  To Steev Mike, this seems like a way to make popular music that can easily connect with and control both the audience and the performer.  This emotional and spiritual rigidity reduces the chances of new things happening, and even reduces the ability to imagine new things.  The warnings about consuming media without consciously considering it definitely apply here; so Steev Mike steps in to prevent that rigidity, offering a more deeply ‘human’ experience.

Interestingly, this critique is a version of the traditional critique of Steev Mike’s “confusing pointlessness”. Just as these written texts are derived from, and lack the impact of, publicly sung performances by Andrew WK. Similarly, Steev Mike’s mind-mazes are interior alien-like dialogues between a willing audience member and an invisible and formless non-being. Although Andrew WK may offer the audience a loud and sweaty spectacle, Steev Mike serves to warn against the dangers of relying solely on the visible and audible for the communication of philosophical truth.

Interestingly, this criticism of Steev Mike is just another version of writing Steev Mike off as nonsense.  As writing about the “Andrew W.K.” experience is one step removed from the actual experience, any audience interactions with Steev Mike are actually one step removed from the actual Steev Mike.  Andrew W.K. offers seemingly endless fun, but Steev Mike warns against accepting everything at face value. 

But Steev Mike nor the cinematic apparatus is without recourse. Just as Steev Mike makes use of the techniques proper to its medium to incite, and sometimes brutalize, the audience into active engagement, so too does film make use of its own techniques for such ends. Moreover, film, like other “arts”, not only seeks to awaken the minds and hearts of its audience but also invites reflections on its own conditions. Steev Mike’s tireless habit of never appearing is a way of pointing to the constructed nature of Andrew WK. What’s more, Steev Mike’s invisibility is a commentary on the hyper visualization of Andrew WK, and the epistemic and ethical conditions of observing as an audience. If Steev Mike cannot be observed as Andrew WK or any movie can be observed, does that make Steev Mike any less real of an experience? The non-visual cinematic style of Steev Mike allows the audience to make contact with trans-sensational secrets that only the imagination can discover. 

None of this means that Steev Mike or film aren’t able to fight back against passive consumption of media.  Both Steev Mike and film can stoke the audience to active engagement with media by using and abusing the traditional techniques of their respective realms.  Film art, like other arts, tries to not only make the audience think and feel, but also to think about how and why it was made.  Steev Mike refuses to overtly present Steev Mike precisely because the presentation of “Andrew W.K.” is so deliberately constructed down to the finest detail.  Steev Mike also can’t be seen anywhere because “Andrew W.K.” can be seen seemingly everywhere all the time.  Steev Mike wants you to think about what this means for what we could possibly ‘know’ about Andrew W.K. and “Andrew W.K.”, as well as whether or not this kind of entertainment presentation is moral or ethical.  If you can’t see Steev Mike with your eyes, does that make Steev Mike any less real?  Precisely because you can’t see and reduce Steev Mike down to a single object, Steev Mike encourages the audience to imagine all the potentials and practise a very different kind of ‘knowing’ than what can be confirmed by a single sense.