THERE IS NO ALTAR-EGO

When considering Steev Mike‘s relationship to Andrew WK (and when considering Andrew WK as an individual and performer), it needs to be pointed out that Steev Mike is neither an alter-ego of Andrew WK, nor an alter-ego of itself. In keeping with this, it must also be understood that this in no way negates the reversals and mirrors of the edifice that Steev Mike seeks to overthrow. For Steev Mike, Andrew WK always inhabits himself and the audience, and all the more so when the audience does not suspect it. Thus, it is important to recognize that the mere reversal of the “Steev Mike and Andrew WK” opposition does not necessarily challenge the governing framework and presuppositions of the audience that are attempting to be reversed by Steev Mike. As a result, the savvy audience member cannot rest content by merely prioritizing Andrew WK over Steev Mike, or by seeing Steev Mike as an alternate “form” of Andrew WK, nor should “Andrew WK” be considered an alternate form of Andrew WK, but while acknowledging these pitfalls, the audience member has the opportunity to accomplish another major aspect of Steev Mike’s strategies, that being to corrupt and contaminate the opposition to pure experience of Andrew WK itself.

Steev Mike is not an alter-ego of Andrew W.K., or indeed of anyone.  This doesn’t mean the binary in Steev Mike’s sights has been destroyed though.  Steev Mike reckons “Andrew W.K.” inhabits Andrew W.K. and the audience all the time - even more so when the audience is not aware of it.  Just switching Steev Mike with Andrew W.K. doesn’t really mash that binary, it just inverts it.  So if you’re paying attention to Steev Mike, you won’t be satisfied just by focusing on Andrew W.K. or Steev Mike or if they’re maybe the same thing, and in doing so we might be able to achieve one of Steev Mike’s main goals: blurring and maybe even repurposing any resistance or opposition to “Andrew W.K.”.

In this effort, both the audience member and Steev Mike work as an informal team to highlight the false notions which sustain and safeguard the dualisms, and then deliberately displace them. To undertake this aspect of Steev Mike’s strategic intent, it is crucial to come to terms with - or rework through - the permanently polluted structure of traditional entertainment dynamics, into which Steev Mike has intervened on behalf of Andrew WK and his audience – examples of this include the interpretation of the musical experience as a psychospiritual drug or a transcendent revelation, the meaning of which will always come up short of the experience itself. To phrase the problem in slightly different terms, Steev Mike seeks to eradicate binary oppositions between the Andrew WK audience and the Andrew WK performer, and expose them as one and the same. This is not a case of mere similarity, nor of a melding of oppositions – on the contrary, the goal of Steev Mike is a total rupture within the metaphysics of the entertainment experience, and to enhance and even delight in the pattern of incongruities where the metaphysical Andrew WK rubs up against the non-metaphysical audience - it is Steev Mike’s job to juxtapose and expose this as best as it can. The power and tension found in this “rubbing” does not appear as such, but the logic of its path in the body of work presented by Andrew WK (through Steev Mike) can be mimed by the non-physical “clown” intervening and distracting the audience enough to bring the more desirable pure experience to the fore.

To do this, we have to work with Steev Mike to point out what’s wrong with black-and-white thinking that maintains binaries, and actively mash them.  To do this we have to understand and/or re-imagine the broken modern entertainment system, e.g. treating music more like a mystical religious experience or an acid trip, where you won’t be able to do justice to the experience with mere words!  In other words, Steev Mike is trying to totally dissolve the very IDEA of the binary between “Andrew W.K.”’s audience and ANDREW W.K., saying there’s no way to tell them apart.  It’s not just that they’re similar or that two opposites have been combined, it’s that this artwork is as much about how things are interpreted by people who aren’t in the ANDREW W.K. band as it is about the idea of “Andrew W.K.” including everything that involves, and it’s Steev Mike’s job to point out where those two things don’t quite fit together.  Steev Mike’s power doesn’t lie in pointing out that dissonance though, it lies in how Steev Mike can affect Andrew W.K. by forcing him to react to the audience’s reactions.

The logic of the non-alter-ego purity of Andrew WK is also an important aspect of Steev Mike’s efforts. This purity is something that, allegedly secondarily, comes to serve as an aid to Andrew WK in presenting a breed of entertainment that is both “original” or “natural”. His rock music is itself an example of this structure, for as Steev Mike seems to point out, if music is a [note: don’t think that ‘a’ is meant to be here] necessarily an indefinite process, then the audience is the creator since it proposes itself as the receiver of the indefinite, the sounding board of a sound, taking the place of the organized sound being submitted to it. Another example of this purity might be masturbation, as many of Andrew WK’s lyrics seem to suggest. What is notable about both of these examples is an ambiguity that ensures that what is pure can always be interpreted in two ways. For example, the use of masturbation involves a non-alter-ego intimacy, both pure and also remote. Lyrical references to this solitary act might be interpreted as suggesting that the natural way of finding pleasure is both lacking and also total, hence it replaces a fault in nature. On the other hand, it might also be argued that such solitary activities merely add on to, and enrich the natural way of purity without staining it. The making love to oneself, and simultaneously eliminating any trace of alter-ego, is ambiguous, or more accurately undecidable, as to whether the act adds to itself ad [note: think this is meant to be as] a plenitude enriching another plenitude, through the fullest measure of personal presence, or whether the act adds only to replace what is missing from outside of itself and makes in its own image. Purity of self-love and egoless pleasure is, in this case, the mark of emptiness. Ultimately, this type of purity is an impure-purity that the [note: think this ‘the’ shouldn’t be here either] is both an accretion and a substitution. Andrew WK’s non-alter-ego is more than a representer or a presence. It comes before all such modalities.

Steev Mike’s efforts are also important to maintain the purity of the “Andrew W.K.” character.  Though he might not be upfront about it, that purity helps Andrew W.K. create work that is simple but unmistakably “Andrew W.K.”.  His music is a perfect example of this, because if music can be heard everywhere, all the time [note: it totally can, have a listen], then it’s actually the listener that creates the music, because the listener decides what bits of everything they’re listening to are part of “Andrew W.K.” and which ones aren’t.  Another example of this purity might be masturbation, as many of “Andrew W.K.”’s lyrics seem to suggest [note: no need to edit perfect sentences hey!].  The purities in both these examples can be understood two different ways though: for example, masturbating involves being intimate with your Self without pretending to be someone else at the same time [note: unless that’s your thing, no kink shaming in “Andrew W.K.”] so at the same time it’s a pure kind of intimacy it’s also kind of totally removed from the idea of intimacy that traditionally involves a relationship between two parties.  Lyrical references to blowing your bone alone could be understood to point out that masturbation is missing something but also totally self-sufficient, which is replacing a fault in nature [note: this phrase very up for discussion!].  On the other hand, you could say that masturbation is its own thing entirely, so it doesn’t ruin partnered sex so much as (potentially) add to it.  It’s hard to figure out if making love to yourself, not involving anyone else through fantasy or role-play or whatever else, is more like a whole being enriching itself or more like that being just doing its best to try to fill the role that would usually be occupied by their partner.  In this case, loving yourself just for the sake of it and experiencing pleasure without an ego (which is the part of the personality that experiences and reacts to the outside world) has no point.  This type of purity is both an addition and a substitution.  Andrew W.K.’s ego always comes first.

This is not just some rhetorical suggestion that has no concrete significance. Indeed, while prudes and stoics may consistently lament the frequency of the masturbatory urge in contemporary entertainment dynamics, the perspective Steev Mike offers through Andrew WK argues that it has never been possible to desire the presence of a performer “in person”, without the symbolic experience of one’s own auto-affection. By this, Steev Mike means that masturbation celebrates the space between the presence and absence of the performance, and which allows the audience member to conceive of being present and fulfilled in sexual relations with themselves and the performer as an abstract stand-in for themselves. In a sense, this type of masturbation (even if it is non-physical) is the action of the audience member taking on the roll of the alter-ego. The audience member is Andrew WK’s alter-ego who, according to Steev Mike, symbolizes the impure-purity of all sexual relations. All erotic relations have their own masturbatory aspect in which we are never present to some ephemeral “meaning” of sexual relations, but always involved in some form of un-understanding. Even if this does not literally take the form of imagining another in the place of oneself, or imagining an intimate encounter with the performer, the presence is still with an individual, and even if we are not always acting out a certain role, or faking certain pleasures, for Steev Mike (and Andrew WK), such representations and images are the very conditions of desire, and of the key to the enjoyment of their particular brand of entertainment.

This isn’t just bullshit for the sake of bullshit.  While dweebs might moan [heh] about how common masturbation is in popular entertainment, Steev Mike argues that it has never been possible to want to experience live performance without engaging with some sort of self-love.  By this, Steev Mike means that masturbation metaphorically celebrates the blurry space between “no sex” and “intimate sex”, so praising the performer in this case for their creation and performance is a stand-in for praising yourself for your part in this work (which is kind of everything you’ve ever done).  In this sense, we make ourselves out to be the magical “Andrew W.K.” master-behind-the-scenes alter-ego that some people have falsely attributed to Steev Mike.  By Steev Mike’s logic, we ourselves come [heh] to represent the issue with all sexual interrelations in that there is some aspect of self-focus or selfishness - even if this doesn’t mean literally pretending to be someone else, or imagining making sex with Andrew W.K. [we’ve all done it though right?], that kind of desire underpins all of our interactions with popular entertainment that we like (because that reflects on who we are).