– How do you view Slavoj Žižek’s “What the hell is Laibach all about”?

Laibach: It’s an interesting interpretation, but Žižek’s Laibach is, of course, only one possible interpretation. The fundamental principles of Laibach were presented in detail in our manifesto, Ten Items of the Convent, from 1982.

– How was your visual aesthetic influenced by the progress of technology? You once said that were strongly influenced by the German anti-Nazi artist John Hartfield. You used his work Four Bloodied Axes as the cover of the album Opus Dei, which some interpreted as a Nazi symbol. How has Hartfield influenced your work?

John Hartfield’s work has been a significant influence on us, in an aesthetic, programmatic and philosophical sense, particularly with his method (collage). Hartfield’s “bloodied axes” arranged in a swastika (“Blut und Eisen”) are a reference to the fact that, in its formation stage, the Third Reich often cited German military history. It is also why Otto von Bismarck’s quote from the 19th century, stating that “the great questions of the day will not be solved by speeches and majority decisions, but by iron and blood”, resonates in his, and our own montage. But in the context of our work, the montage is also infused with additional content.

– Elements of avant-garde, Nazi and socialist art are recognizable in your performances and visual production. How do you react to criticism that certain elements of your art resemble Nazi symbols?

We do not react because the statement is accurate. Elements of Nazi aesthetics are also an important part of the visual history of the 20th century, from which Laibach draws inspiration.

– Laibach uses the concept of entelechy to reach full artistic potential, through provocative art that merges different disciplines (music, performance, visual arts, philosophy and politics). Does the appropriation of that philosophical concept in such a distinct and provocative way make Laibach a unique representative of contemporary art?

We could not be the judge of that because Laibach, in principle, negates originality, and thus, in a certain sense, uniqueness.

– How important is conceptual art to you, and how does it compare to figurative art from the spectrum of ideological arts?

Both are important to us; conceptual art can also be expressed figuratively. All art is, of course, also ideological.

– Although you merge visual and musical aspects in your creative work, what led you to choose music as the dominant form of expression?

Sound and image have always been compatible elements for Laibach; our first exhibitions took place at concert events, and our first concerts were held in galleries. For us, sound is image, and image is sound. Laibach moved more specifically into the field of music with the founding of the “Neue Slowenische Kunst” movement in 1984, because we then left the galleries to the Irwin group, which primarily used Laibach’s aesthetics in its work. Following the transformation of NSK into a global state in 1992, Laibach started working more with visual production, but it was always a part of our performance.

– How does Laibach adapt to constant change and respond to the contemporary era? Why does this create controversy and uncertainty in the perception of the group’s message?

Laibach is constantly changing and adapting in order to remain the same because we believe that we have already clearly defined the content of the relationship between art and ideology, politics and culture in our manifesto. The principle remains unchanged; the rest is a matter of nuance. If there is controversy and uncertainty in the perception of the group’s message, it means that we are still on the right track.

– Your art reflects how media, propaganda and culture shape our perception of reality using propaganda methods and means for collective consumption to manipulate public perception: films, mass events (rock concerts), uniforms, posters and flyers. These means are particularly suitable for collective consumption and often deter the masses from critical thinking. Can you tell us more about it?

You said it yourself; visual language is extremely powerful and cannot be considered a prerogative of art exhibitions in galleries. It is more present in mass media and manifestations of mass culture. Avant-garde artists in Russia from the beginning of the 20th century, who supported the Russian and October revolutions, were deeply aware of this. The same thing happened in Italy, where many Italian futurists aesthetically supported the rise of fascism to power through mass media and manifestations. That principle was also adopted during the period of Stalinist rule in Russia and Nazi Germany, as well as, of course, in America and elsewhere. John Carpenter’s film They Live is a perfect illustration of how media, propaganda and culture use various means of collective consumption in capitalism, in combination with methods of propaganda, to manipulate public perception and discourage critical thinking through subliminal messages; to which we can add very little.

– Your visual identity was influenced by many conceptual artists. How important has the visual segment of your creativity been for your developmental process (from the very beginning, the visual and musical elements have been equally represented, but music prevailed in the end)?

We have already answered this question and we believe that the visual component of Laibach is just as important as the sound component. It is true, however, that in the formation of our aesthetics, we spent a great deal of time socialising and being inspired by conceptual artists from Yugoslavia, e.g. Goran Đorđević, Braco Dimitrijević, Raša Todosijević, Mladen and Sven Stilinović, Vlasta Delimar and others, and that conceptual understanding of art remains a dominant feature of our work.

– Your contribution to contemporary art is at the centre of the current controversy of how your work as a whole reflects on the audience – confirmation and its negation, i.e. substitution. One of the better known postulates of Laibach’s philosophy states that “all art is subject to political manipulation, except for that which speaks the language of the very manipulation.”

How does Laibach use political manipulation as a means of artistic expression and what impact does it have on the audience?

This is a question for art historians, not for us. Our manifesto contains a detailed depiction of our methods. To speak the language of politics means to expose and acknowledge the omnipresence of politics. The role of the most humane form of politics is to overcome the gap between reality and spirit by mobilising the masses. Ideology takes the place of an authentic form of social consciousness. In modern society, by acknowledging that fact, the subject takes the position of a political (politicised) subject. Laibach exposes and expresses the union of politics and ideology through industrial production, underlining the unbridgeable gap between that union and the spirit. It practices provocation, the revolt of an alienated consciousness (which must necessarily look for an opponent) and unites protagonists and antagonists through a cry of static totalitarianism. It acts as a creative illusion of strict institutionality, as a social theatre of popular culture, and communicates exclusively through non-communication.

Art production is an alchemical process that is mostly a matter of intuition and instinct, rather than rational decisions. Political manipulation is also woven into the very foundations of social processes, and cannot simply be extrapolated from the whole. The work and method of Laibach embed all layers of history. We already mentioned John Hartfield and his collage art, we mentioned Russian and Italian avant-garde artists and Yugoslav conceptualists, we mentioned John Carpenter and the power of film art… History, especially art, is an endless source of inspiration for Laibach.

– What experiences have you had in other areas of the former Yugoslavia and are there any former SFRY republics where you feel more welcome than in others?

In principle, we do not differentiate between different cultural backgrounds. We were in every country of the former Yugoslavia in the past, and remained present in one form or another.

– Regardless of what you do, you manage to adapt to contemporary trends and topics, thus keeping up with the times. You are always fresh and modern.

We don’t particularly try to do so. Laibach is knowing the universality of the moment and exposing the absence of balance between sex and work, between devotion and activity. It uses all the statements of history to mark that imbalance. That work is limitless; God has one face, the devil has many. Laibach is the return of action in the name of idea.

– You are obviously fuelled by, relatively speaking, dislocations of a political pattern. What is driving Laibach: is it social reality?

This question is also covered in our manifesto: Laibach analyses the relationship between ideology and culture of late, as presented through art. The tension between them and the existing disharmony – social unrest, individual frustrations, ideological opposites – Laibach sublimates and thus eliminates any kind of direct ideological and systemic discursiveness. In other words – anything can be a trigger for Laibach.

– When Tito died, we were hungry for the West, and you looked pretty Western then.

In the West, we were generally told that we looked very Eastern. Which was not surprising, considering that we played our first European concerts and tours dressed in Yugoslav army uniforms, and that our lyrics were all in Slovenian.

– “With regards to Slavoj Žižek’s interpretation of the concept of “over-identification”, whereby Laibach uses extreme identification with symbols of power only to present the structures that these symbols represent through a lens of irony, do you think that your expression is recognisable and authentic precisely because of this feature?

Laibach does not engage in irony, and Žižek explicitly underlines this in his interpretation. He uses the principle of over-identification to describe Laibach’s method, which creates a lasting sense of discomfort in the audience on the one hand, and fascination on the other. Žižek says that the discomfort (especially among left-leaning audiences) stems from the assumption that only distancing through irony can automatically lead to a subversive attitude, and Laibach’s over-identification frustrates the audience because it does not provide those explicit signs of ironic mimicry, which would imply a distancing from the material in question; instead, it over-identifies with the content it thematises. The problem, therefore, lies in the insecurity of the audience, whereby the enjoyment or rational deciphering of Laibach’s work always contains a hint of suspicion that the audience has fallen for a potential suggestion or a potential trap. The same discomfort is experienced by those who are fascinated by our work. It is, in a certain sense, a known feature of Laibach in every medium that we use.

– Can Laibach survive our times, and continue to support their ideas?

We have more concerts than ever. We are releasing new albums, creating new projects, all while exhibiting more than ever. Therefore, we can say that we are still very alive, i.e. that we undeniably are.