HAVING ANTI-FAITH-A-FAITH-A-FAITH IN STEEV MIKE

Both Steev Mike and Andrew WK involve faith, but faith of a different kind. The faith in Steev Mike is held quietly, and skeptically, whereas the faith in Andrew WK is exalted with elaborate ritual. Religious fanaticism is often not the result of conviction, but of insecurity. Similarly, when examining faith in the Steev Mike dimension, the idea of traditional “faith” becomes something quite different. Real faith in Steev Mike is a type of inverted-doubt, and becomes essentially an “anti-faith”. This perspective can develop to [note: ‘too’?] quickly, and becomes so much part of the world of the audience, that they seldom notice it, and thus, it isn't religious in the formal sense. Andrew WK is based on a “hard faith”, and groundless sense of “true believer” trust by those that think they know who Andrew WK “really is”. For example, the mathematician believes there is some relationship between mathematics and the real world. This is similar to the typical faith an audience member puts in Andrew WK, it cannot be exactly proven, but they feel it very strongly. On the other hand, the totally irreligious faith that an audience member has in Steev Mike, causes that audience member’s unbelief to spread outward, and muttered into an inverted-faith that there even is a real world, corresponding to what his senses show and thoughts consider, and this inverted-faith cannot be proven; it must be taken on faith. So, the Steev Mike faith is a form of having faith in a type of questioning non-faith.

Steev Mike and “Andrew W.K.” both involve (and require) faith, but they’re very different faiths.  Faith in Steev Mike involves internal processes, including questioning your own faith - but faith in Andrew W.K. means getting loud and spraying your faith all over the place.  This kind of intense external expression of religious faith is often because someone is unsure of their beliefs, so must share and confirm those beliefs with others.  On the other hand, real faith in Steev Mike is a kind of strong-doubting-of-doubt that becomes what we will call “anti-faith”.  This viewpoint can come about so quickly that the audience may not even be aware of it, so this “anti-faith” isn’t anything like formal religion.  “Andrew W.K.” is based on a rigid kind of faith fostered by The Audience who think they “really know” what Andrew W.K. is/is doing.  For example - the mathematician believes there is some inherent relationship between mathematics and the real world, even though mathematics are just a human idea, a way for us to describe and talk about a certain aspect of the way we experience the world.  This is similar to the usual sort of faith that Audience members invest - it can’t really be based on anything objectively true, but they have the same strength of belief as the mathematician.  In Steev Mike’s case it’s more like being unsure if Steev Mike even exists, and that unsureness spreads to every facet of existence - even though that unsureness doesn’t necessarily match up with what you sense or think, so it must be taken on (anti-)faith.  So faith in Steev Mike means having faith in a kind of never-have-total-faith-in-anything way.

Having faith in Steev Mike involves an audience member overcoming their faith in Andrew WK. However, it [note: is] essentially impossible to apply the Steev Mike faith to Andrew WK, without the faith one previously had in Andrew WK becoming inverted and “Steev Mikeish”. By and large, Steev Mike is free from the dictates of traditional faith, and has outgrown the nature of “trust”. Someone who believes in their disbelief of Steev Mike understands and integrates these inversions into their refashioned faith in Andrew WK, and uses the process to sublimate the otherwise distressing feelings of paranoia and overwhelming doubt. In an ideal situation, the hyper-skepticism becomes a form of inverted and personalized non-sexual activity. Having faith in Steev Mike creates a new personalized moral code, which relies on an expanded sense of right and wrong, based on irrational and trans-objective analysis. This is the Steev Mike mind.

Having faith in Steev Mike also means breaking the rigid, all-or-nothing faith The Audience has in “Andrew W.K.”.  It’s basically impossible to apply anti-faith to “Andrew W.K.” without that rigid, all-or-nothing faith becoming blurry.  Steev Mike has transcended the idea of unquestioning trust.  An Audience member with anti-faith has grappled with this blurriness and understands how it can help relieve any worries or concerns around “Andrew W.K.”.  Best case scenario: anti-faith becomes like being in communion with Everything, and helps you figure out how to move through the world with a wider idea of ‘right and wrong’ based on considering and questioning every possible (other) potentials.  This is your brain on Steev Mike.

Both strength and independence from Steev Mike are essential for an individual to truly have faith in Steev Mike. For example, Andrew WK can never move outside of the box, as his fear of Steev Mike compromises his own standards of freedom. For him, Steev Mike stands in the way of total freedom by suppressing any thought or feeling that may be subject to Steev Mike’s external criticism, so it routinely censors anything truly freeing.

Self-knowledge and self-confidence are mandatory to truly have anti-faith.  “Andrew W.K.” is a sad example of this, because Andrew W.K. is so limited by his fear of ‘everything else’ that he feels he is not allowed to do anything that would contradict “Andrew W.K.”.  If he cannot contradict (himself), then he cannot question what else could be, so he can’t even begin to think about freeing himself.

As an audience member develops their own research-based relationship with the Steev Mike phenomenon, they also develop their own form of inverted-faith in Steev Mike. This can be traditionally regarded as the “anti-faith” process, involving a full or partial regression out of modes of logic, to arrive at a more primitive and boundless state of preconsciousness. While this seemingly playful activity may be characterized by voluntary and/or involuntary regressions, a more meaningful interpretation sees it as using Steev Mike as an access point to one’s sub-preconscious imagination, without a corresponding loss of higher functions. This journey requires an audience member to maintain a relatively intact faith in themselves, and while their logical sense of self deteriorates, their imaginary mind builds on itself. Combined with the strength of Andrew WK music, this process builds an imagination and intuition which can be consciously directed and work in collaboration with the integrative functions of the higher intellect, such as logical thought and action, which are related to directed effort and implementation. This is the inner personalized audience based illustration of the outer relationship signified by the friction and harmony between Steev Mike and Andrew WK. 

As you get to know Steev Mike more intimately, you will refine your own style of anti-faith.  This usually involves some sort of shift away from intentional logic towards unintentional intuition.  While this (often silly and fun) kind of learning might seem to lead in the opposite direction to traditional education, it can also be viewed as getting closer to the ‘collective (un)consciousness’ and all the possibilities therein, while getting to also hold on to your own (un)consciousness.  This path requires you to know who you are and have an unshakeable belief in your Self, and while the borders between self-and-other dissolve your imagination and creative potential will build.  Combined with the strong experience of “Andrew W.K.” this can allow better control over the more ‘subconscious’ aspects of the mind (like intuition and imagination), and enable you to both follow and direct those ideas more effectively, increasing the likelihood of an actual outcome.  This supportive dissonance between Steev Mike and Andrew W.K. is the perfect analogy for what’s going on inside an Audience member who’s following this path.

Integrating one’s faith in Andrew WK, and one’s anti-faith in Steev Mike is not only the purpose of their non-dualistic function, but also works as a defense against disintegrative tendencies of unchecked skepticism. Faith based strength is necessary to empower clarity of mind, which is essentially an integrative force based on love and the sublimation of aggression, energized by the libido. Similarly, Steev Mike and Andrew WK are dominated by two basic instincts: the life force and the death force (or destructiveness), both forms of libido energy. These instincts are also an aspect of the interplay between Steev Mike’s self-creating influence and control over Andrew WK, and the taming of Andrew’s unconsciousness. However, Steev Mike is also a receptacle for that which Andrew WK has - for one reason or another - disowned or wished to remain out of sight, including those qualities that one would rather not see in oneself, as well as unrealized potentials. By illuminating the faith one has in oneself, and relating it to the relationship between the Steev Mike anti-faith and the traditional blind true-belief in Andrew WK, the combined energy becomes a resource for inner-directed positive action rather than outer-directed destructive action.

Working out how to have faith in “Andrew W.K.” at the same time as anti-faith in Steev Mike isn’t the only point of their anti-binary relationship, it’s also great protection against the destructive potential of unrestrained skepticism.  Clarity of mind requires conviction in your ideals and a kind of loving strength that can convert aggression into a more morally/socially beneficial energy - preferably/eventually on a subconscious level.  Steev Mike and “Andrew W.K.” are dominated by two basic instincts: creation (or the life force) and destruction (or the death force), both forms of libido (ie subconscious impulses related to pleasure).  Destruction and (re)Creation (or Annihilation and Regeneration) are key concepts in Steev Mike’s influence over Andrew W.K. and his supposed ‘brainwashing’.  But Steev Mike is also where Andrew W.K. keeps everything he can’t deal with, including the darker aspects of his personality and all his “what if…”s, so by focusing on your own faith-based strength while navigating the relationship between Steev Mike and Andrew W.K. you should feel more of an urge to add to your inner life to make sense of any discomfort rather than destroy whatever it is outside of you causing that discomfort.

Unimaginable intelligence, which is the essential quality of Steev Mike, has the ability to quickly establish new and multiple modes of expression between thoughts, ideas and feelings, and provides a necessary requisite for the creative synthesis and eventual presentation (via Andrew WK), to the audience. Freedom and mobility in the use of symbols is another aspect of Steev Mike. This type of creativity does not stem from Andrew WK; it is the result of a synthesis occurring in the unquestioning faith Andrew is forced to put in Steev Mike. Unlike the audience’s anti-faith, Andrew WK does not have the freedom to form his own version of superior skeptical faith. His relationship is inverted: he doubts himself and trusts (by force) in Steev Mike solely. With Steev Mike’s unwavering direction, Andrew’s global emergence in 2001 was prompted by relative freedom he achieved through the repression of the dictates of his own mind. Creativity reduced Andrew’s own actions and fused his quest for pleasure with the hard reality of show business, and thus he put greater and greater faith in Steev Mike, at the expense of faith in himself.

Acknowledging the potential existence of an intelligence beyond one’s own (and hence not immediately discrediting something that doesn’t make immediate sense to you) is the essential quality of Steev Mike.  This allows for maximal connectivity between seemingly disconnected thoughts, ideas and feelings as well as helping them all come together to make something more tangible (like “Andrew W.K.”).  Not having any one single meaning permanently attached to a given symbol is another aspect of Steev Mike.  This fluidity isn’t thanks to Andrew W.K. though - it’s because of the unquestioning faith he’s forced to put in Steev Mike [which I take to mean, in this instance, that it’s because of the uncontrollable forces external to Andrew W.K. that also shape the Work like commercial forces, Audience interpretation as well as Andrew’s ongoing commitment to doing-what-he-doesn’t-want-to-do {see Journal} etc].  Unlike the anti-faith we discussed before, Andrew W.K. isn’t allowed to have faith in his Self, so cannot entertain healthy skepticism.  It’s the opposite: he doubts himself and trusts (by force) [??!?] Steev Mike unquestioningly.  With Steev Mike’s unrelenting force, Andrew W.K. exploded onto the global music scene in 2001 by engaging a kind of freedom that ignored his thinking brain by doing the opposite of what he wanted to.  Getting caught up in his head actually prevented Andrew W.K. from creating, so he reframed his desires into the context of commercial show business and gave most of his power and faith to Steev Mike, leaving little if any for himself.

However, a weakness in Andrew WK’s faith allowed his doubt to eventually run wild, out of the control of Steev Mike and driven by Andrew’s libido. This was not the means to valuable creativity; this was the route to hypomania and psychosis. This was also seen in the mystical drug experiences Andrew WK described during his initial efforts to break away from the Steev Mike influence. Even in states of passionate non-physical love, Andrew WK was ultimately unprepared to cope with the intense narcissistic and libidinal pressures of his own freedom, independent from domineering guidance of Steev Mike.

But because that blind faith in Steev Mike was built on external expressions of faith, Andrew’s subconscious eventually pushed the doubts past Steev Mike through to the surface of his mind.  This isn’t how you create something valuable, this is how you damage your relationship with reality and send yourself into a delQuded frenzy.  Some good examples of Andrew W.K. doing this are his descriptions of psychedelic drug use and the habanero face rash in 2012.  Even when he felt filled with non-physical love, Andrew W.K. couldn’t handle the reality of true freedom.

Steev Mike’s core strength is the power, determination, and ability to accept what is existing and to then use manipulative cognitive-behavioral, emotional, and entertainment skills to transform it. This strength also refers to the extra-personal strength by which the audience can tolerate the stress and frustration of Steev Mike without falling back onto more infantile defense mechanisms. A strong anti-faith in Steev Mike can allow an audience member can deal with a difficult situation, cope and then will look at it unrealistically and act on an inverted form of solution. Conversely, faith in Andrew WK is the audience’s ability to play the Non-Game of life according to whatever curves it throws at us. The stronger these twin forms of faith grow, the more power is developed and the greater the skills and resources to handle whatever comes.

Steev Mike’s best bit is the power, determination and ability to accept what is but to use tricks of the mind to transform your perception of it.  This is clear in the way that engaging with the blurriness and slipperiness of Steev Mike increases The Audience’s tolerance for stress or frustration without chucking a tantrum.  A strong anti-faith in Steev Mike can allow you to face difficulties, deal and cope with them, then look at the problem from as many angles as possible and figure out what solution actually gels with your Self.  On the other hand, faith in “Andrew W.K.” is the Audience’s ability to persevere through hardest or most unexpected of life’s happenings.  These two kinds of faith strengthen one another and work hand in hand to help you live the most vital life possible.

A lack of both Steev Mike anti-faith and Andrew WK true-belief faith leads to insurmountable weakness, conformity, dogmatism, other-directedness, other-determinism, field-dependence, and an inability to tolerate uncertainty. In comparison, the traits of a strong combination of anti-faith and true-belief faith include: inner-directedness, self-determinism, field-independence, and the acceptance of a plurality of ideas. The weakness caused by a lack of anti-faith doesn't allow an audience to easily face, take in, and cope with Steev Mike. Instead it fights against it, dismisses it, hates it, and wishes it were otherwise. Expectations are unrealistic and based on a grossly inadequate understanding of Steev Mike. To this audience member, Steev Mike seems too convoluted, too overwhelming, too stupid, and so they avoid the encounter through denial. 

Lacking both kinds of faith leads to personal weakness; unquestioningly taking opinions from others as fact; forcing opinions on others as fact; being overly focused on what everyone else is doing; believing things happen purely because of other people/things; an over-reliance on external stimulus to make decisions; and the kind of mental rigidity that flounders in the face of uncertainty. [-ed I feel personally attacked rn just for the record] A good balance of faith and anti-faith helps you to bring the focus back to the Self; to take responsibility in, and for, making things happen; to make wise decisions regardless of the context; and to understand and accept ideas that might not necessarily fit together.  A weak sense of Self doesn’t allow The Audience to engage in good faith with Steev Mike.  You might want to contradict Steev Mike, ignore Steev Mike, hate Steev Mike, or wish Steev Mike was something else.  Wishing Steev Mike was anything in particular kinda means you’re missing the point, so if Steev Mike seems too much, or too stupid, maybe ask yourself why?

What is perhaps most misunderstood, is that while Andrew WK is urging the audience to “party”, it is Steev Mike that is silently reminding the audience how badly they need to be very much in touch with their minds, but to still to remain intelligent about their physical form - to remain both in and out of control, not driven by any one aspect. Steev Mike and Andrew WK are symbolic of the need to balance left and right sides of the brain, the irrational mind and the logical mind, intellect and intuition. This is where the higher and lower wisdom of Steev Mike is found, the anti-faith it inspires in those who (don’t) believe in it.

What’s maybe most misunderstood is that while “Andrew W.K.” is urging The Audience to be as positively hedonistic as possible, Steev Mike is there at the same time reminding us that we need to be responsible and hold everything in balance - going totally wild and totally mild at the same time.  Neuroscience is intriguing as fuck (though a brain would say that wouldn’t it) so totally read up on that if you want but neuroplasticity has more or less disproven the left-brain-right-brain thing I think BUT point is both Steev Mike and Andrew W.K. want you to balance your thoughts and your feelings inside.

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 feelings you get from watching a movie, but all of the sights and sounds of that movie are coming from/through “Andrew W.K.”.  Steev Mike’s blurriness and slipperiness are usually referred to as reasons Steev Mike isn’t “real art”, because Steev Mike operates directly off of/around “Andrew W.K.” rather than standing alone; even though Steev Mike can conjure the same sort of feelings as other great artists.  Beyond having plenty of Haters, there are lots of reasons for resisting Steev Mike but most of them fall apart when you apply them to other kinds of (particularly film) art.  Natch, just because there are lots of Haters of Steev Mike doesn’t automatically make Steev Mike a great artist.  But if you genuinely try in good faith and explore and engage with Steev Mike, you’ll understand what Steev Mike has to teach us about being alive, as well as what Steev Mike can teach us about what might lie beyond.

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 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 people underappreciate Steev Mike is because the vast majority of folks only discover Steev Mike through “Andrew W.K.”.  They think Steev Mike is only based on/off of Andrew W.K. and so can’t appreciate Steev Mike purely on merit.  This is similar to how people say “the book [that the movie is based on] is better than the movie”.  Steev Mike is the film adaptation, and it can be hard to not feel like Steev Mike is derivative and second-best.  Music lovers who aren’t film lovers sometimes make unjustifiable comparisons between great films and pop music.  But what if rather than choosing between watching the latest movie or listening to Andrew W.K., the choice was actually between experiencing the metanarrative of your existence versus reading about someone else’s thoughts on someone else’s thoughts?  But the question we’re grappling with here is how Steev Mike compares with “great art”.  Could a film contain the same sort of scope as Steev Mike?  It’s probably not fair to compare such different kinds of media, but “great art” usually includes a few features: it has a certain wide-ranging view with the capacity to convey a lot of meaning; it makes a lasting impact not just in the ‘scene’ that it’s created, but across communities that ‘usually wouldn’t be interested in this sort of thing’; it affects the audience’s mind, imagination and heart, often in new and inspiring ways so has the capacity to show them (or maybe even generate) a new idea or point of view; and it seems to offer something, maybe even something new, every time you engage with the work.  All of this is true with great films, and all of this is true in the case 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 reason why Steev Mike RULES is that this “great art” is a reimagining of both the performer/audience relationship, as well as the audience’s relationship with their own individual self.  And because there is no limit to the number of ways an audience can experience or interpret art (nor the number of potential audience members) the particular ‘movie’ that each audience member watches is increasingly unique to them as they embrace Steev Mike more fully.  Haters of Steev Mike will say that this is nonsense, but some of the best films are (initially) seemingly nonsensical collections of audio and visuals that actually feel MORE like being fully immersed in the movie as opposed to a passive observer.  Your initial gut reaction is ‘wrong’, which makes you think both freely and critically about what you’ve witnessed to consider what ‘else’ it could mean - and thus working with Steev Mike.  Haters of Steev Mike are also kinda covert Haters of “Andrew W.K.”, because they also presume “Andrew W.K.” is just the ‘opposite’ of what Steev Mike initially seems to be - negative, scary, un-Party etc.  But there is way more overlap between the two than you might think.  The presentation of “Andrew W.K.” in a rock n roll setting can easily feel very cinematic with its ‘stars’ and pyrotechnical shows and drama, but it would be a one-dimensional endorsement of the status-quo without Steev Mike ensuring there was a certain level of artistic dissonance as well.  Sure Steev Mike likes to fuck with us, but he’s just trying to help turn our leaden brain/s into gold.

Steev Mike works in the tradition of the great tragedies, accentuating the themes of human entrapment, hostile fate, and the seeming inevitability 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 uses a lot of classic story-telling devices including The Human Condition, unavoidable downfall/comeuppance, and seemingly unavoidable jealousy/betrayal - particularly in creative collaborations.  The 2004 Website Hacking (have a lil look here if yr unfamiliar) claimed that if Andrew W.K. continued as he has, that he would be destroyed.  This happened before either Andrew W.K. or Steev Mike had the upper hand.  In the surface-level version of “Andrew W.K.” he is on the path of The Hero, battling for freedom from his ‘contract’(s) while actually losing his Self.  But The Hero is just a little boy trying to be a man, and you need only look at photos of Andrew W.K. from the second half of the ‘00s to see that he was not doing well at all.  It would seem that the only logical conclusion of “Andrew W.K.” is complete annihilation of the Self - via self-deception and self-dissolution.

The ghost of Steev Mike, in the Andrew WK version of this story, is a philosopher of doom. Steev Mike tells us that Andrew a [note: typo.  How did someone with this level of critical prowess and general brain-thinkery manage to make so many typos before publishing?!?] 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. 

If you ask Andrew W.K., he’ll probably say that Steev Mike only wants to remind Andrew that he will eventually die and everything he does will be forgotten and so it’s all meaningless.  Steev Mike forces Andrew to consider the very nature of his existence, and Andrew’s gut reaction is that he doesn’t like what he sees.

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 if you ask Steev Mike, you’d probably be told that Andrew W.K. is just a material thing like every other being on this plane of existence (?) and so Steev Mike is just trying to help Andrew think about and hopefully accept that fact.  Steev Mike also forces anyone watching this exchange to similarly think about their own existence, and ponder why people might do evil things or why some people (or in “Andrew W.K.”’s case, things) want to be something that they’re not.  Steev Mike is so all-encompassing, and so ‘other’-focussed, that anyone engaging with Steev Mike will eventually question the nature of the Divine and whether it’s sensible to expect to perceive that with our five senses; as well as how asking these questions can end up going really wrong and potentially send the thinker to a pretty horrible place.

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 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”. 

As discussed above, Haters of Steev Mike claim that Steev Mike is a parasite ‘based off of’ “Andrew W.K.”.  This is as silly as saying a movie is just a rip-off of a play, or that a director is the only reason a movie is good.  There are ALWAYS going to be other people/entities helping out in one way or another to create something, but they might be so intertwined that it’s hard to tell.  But this kind of collaboration doesn’t in any way make it less “great art”.

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 [note: typo] 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.

From Steev Mike’s viewpoint, “Andrew W.K.” is a good example of a flexible existence (or momentary-definitions).  “Andrew W.K.” acknowledges that modern rock music and its personalities are very much shaped by the traditions of Hollywood stardom, as well as being shaped by many different desires (think of the difference between a major label CEO, a professional critic and a casual listener, for example).  In our current system, whatever the most people react positively to financially will be supported and copied, but if something loses money it probably won’t happen again.  The fact that Steev Mike has gotten away with everything so far under the wing of such a large corporation is worthy of the highest of praise.  This is a tale as old as time though: professional artists have always had to keep the people paying them happy.

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.

Anyway, Steev-Mike-as-parasite only sticks as an insult if the end result doesn’t ‘work’ as art.  “Great art” often tries to combine things that ‘shouldn’t’ fit together into a single appreciable structure.  “Andrew W.K.” failed in that regard [note: I totally disagree with this, could well just be the Author self-flagellating], but trying is always commendable.  Many great films try to create their own in-universe god (deus in machina) [not gonna lie, not sure I understand this next bit and have sit here a good half hour trying to wrap my head around it so here goes:], but in this case the narrator ex machina is Steev Mike and the protagonist Andrew W.K. experiences himself in direct competition with Steev Mike.

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: typo -s] 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.

Haters of Steev Mike and “Andrew W.K.” sometimes point to the generalised idea that because most modern media is focused on images on screens that the audience just consumes brainlessly.  “High art” expands and strengthens the mind, so the argument goes, while “low art” dulls and weakens it.  The Biggest Haters of Steev Mike say just because ANDREW W.K. is a rock band means that it couldn’t possibly be “real art”.  It’s presumably been tough to make it this far into this text, so congratulations - by now Steev Mike’s cinematic masterpiece is probably taking place in your subconscious and working its magick as you read these very words.  The more you think about and embrace the idea of Steev Mike, the more you’ll notice how that kind of thought can apply almost all the time.  It’s worth noting that “Andrew W.K.” very rarely mentions Steev Mike openly - most of Steev Mike’s work happens internally to each individually to each audience member [including Andrew W.K.].  This can be a bad, even dangerous, thing if Steev Mike is working on an unthinking audience rather than with a well-considered, reflective audience member [remember: anti-faith!].  A more typical, ‘logical’ conclusion to the Steev Mike movie would be to turn “Andrew W.K.” into a parody of itself by reducing the good that “Andrew W.K.” creates and spreads into hollow weirdness.  Steev Mike is not about simple binary comparisons or looking to external saviours.  But at the same time, it’s impossible to say what Steev Mike is definitively about - because Steev Mike is already about everything else by the time you say what Steev Mike is about.  In this sense there’s kind of no real way to directly engage with Steev Mike, but as Fred Durst absolutely did not sing “you gotta have anti-faith-a-faith-a-faith”.

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? I’m gonna roll with causal tho] 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.

If you’re here you no doubt know The Feeling of “Andrew W.K.”, but what you might not realise is that you could know The Feeling of Steev Mike even more intimately already.  An Audience member with too rigid a sense of reality won’t be able to appreciate how Steev Mike can sharpen the more subjective bits of your mind like imagination and intuition.  Sometimes “Andrew W.K.” invokes the same kind of thoughts/feelings  but only by accident - whereas this is Steev Mike’s primary focus.

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 roll music presented as being “by Andrew WK”, is in particular is [note: typo, delete ‘is] 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, Steev Mike offers something more and another way to engage the deepest part of the spirit.

The wide range of seemingly genuine emotions in “Andrew W.K.” is all a construction to give the impression of real depth without actually offering anything truly ‘weird’ or ‘new’.  From Steev Mike’s view, this illusion of choice is typical of manipulative popular culture forces.  The music that is a part of “Andrew W.K.” is a good example of this, overwhelming the senses to prevent critical thought.  This can cause it all to get a bit stagnant and same-y.  So try not to just be a mindless consumer, even with “Andrew W.K.”, because Steev Mike offers so much more - including a way to get to know, and be, your best possible Self.

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.

Amusingly, this here long-ass essay is just like what Haters of Steev Mike hate.  These words you’re reading were created ‘because of’ “Andrew W.K.” but are at the same time totally disconnected from them - how boring is reading this compared to spinning God Is Partying for the nine hundred and thirty-ninth time?!  It’s way more slippery and confusing and harder to grasp thinking about this stuff but Steev Mike is all about choosing to dive into the truly unknown so you can really get to know your Self.  Even though “Andrew W.K.” gives the audience undeniable and reliable tangible joy and that absolutely fucking rules, Steev Mike is there to balance that blind joy by reminding us that you can’t always (only) believe what you see (or hear).

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. 

That’s not to say that Steev Mike or cinema in general is all doom and gloom.  Both Steev Mike and good art want you to take that doom and/or gloom reaction and convert it into change.  They are both trying to get you to think and feel and consider how they fit into your experience of life.  Steev Mike’s refusal to ever be put together is Steev Mike’s way of pointing out how intentionally ‘put together’ “Andrew W.K.” is.  Steev Mike’s refusal to appear is Steev Mike’s way of pointing out how all-over-the-place Andrew W.K. is and hence it’s hard for us to know anything for sure entirely or make any meaningful moral judgements about it.  But if Steev Mike can never be defined or pinned down in any real way, does that make Steev Mike and less real of an experience?  Embracing being open to Steev Mike can help you realise things you probably never would have even conceived of otherwise. [Steev Mike Rules]