Laibach is no longer just a former Yugoslav and Slovenian music group. For several decades now, Laibach has been a planetary art collective that has been constantly considering the phenomenon of totalitarianism through all its forms and historical changes. They first registered it in the territory of SFRY back in the 1980s, and in the meantime they expanded their horizons to Europe, and then to the world. It could be said that almost all of Laibach's predictions - which at first seemed very controversial - have been fully fulfilled.
However, does today exceed even the wildest imagination of these innovative philosophers of new sound, based on documented historical facts and visible consequences? It seems that Laibach is still finding a challenge in the new age, perhaps with an increasing appetite as time goes on. Not to mention their audience. Proof of that could be two long-sold-out concerts in the "Amerikana" hall of the Belgrade Youth Center on March 8 and 9 (organization: Balkan Art Collaboration), where Laibach will present the latest reading of his famous album. Opus Dei. If you face today the front page of this record, from which you seem to be looking at you personally Vlad Cepes - another legendary icon of the wider Balkan areas - as well as the unforgettable rhythm of the new world order that is growing behind, you can only scream Live is life.
"WEATHER" The band Laibach was founded on 1. June 1980, and last year marked the 40th anniversary of its creation New Slovenian Art, of the artistic community that brought true political turmoil to the areas of the former SFRY. We are also celebrating the anniversary of the release of your debut album Laibach (1985). How do you look at that ancient era today? "brotherhood and unity", in which the free-spirited provocation of the Yugoslav system could simultaneously be a powerful creative drive? Is such an artistic diversion even possible today??
LAIBACH: Laibach always tried to function as a reflection of society, using its iconography, language and contradictions, to create an aesthetic commentary that would be both subversive and deeply rooted in the context of the time. The 1980s were specific - Yugoslavia was a unique experiment between East and West, with relatively free space for artistic provocation, but also clear boundaries that were not to be crossed. Art could then have a strong political charge and influence, because the system, although repressive, was still ideologically defined and identifiable. Today, in the era of global capitalism and fragmented identities, the system is more amorphous, more diffuse, harder to target precisely, and resistance is often co-opted as part of the market spectacle. Then it was possible to play a dangerous game with the powerful; today the powerful are algorithms and the market, and the game becomes trivial. In this sense, artistic diversion still exists, but its mechanisms are changing - it is no longer enough to simply provoke, but it is necessary to redefine the space and discourse of functioning in conditions where any provocation can be quickly absorbed and neutralized. If, for example, the current protests in Serbia allowed any comparison with art, they could easily be defined as a superb collective artistic performance that wittily practices discourse that may be relevant at this very moment. But we believe that the ambitions of these protests are not artistic and only such have meaning.
Considering the time when it was created, whether the earliest Laibach can conceptually be considered as a kind new wave Yugoslav band, challenging for the establishment in a similar way practiced by bands from the modern SFRY scene in different republics and cities at the time? What are these compositions?, in your opinion, possibly made a mistake or did not at least use their moment more powerfully?
Laibach was never considered new wave band even though we were active in the same time frame. The new wave scene in Yugoslavia was inspired by Western models and, in principle, leaned towards individualism and subversion through an ironic deviation and aesthetics of pop culture. We, on the other hand, aimed for a collective expression using totalitarian aesthetics, ritualization of sound and ideological hyperbole, which made us significantly different.
Yugoslav new wave he had a strong artistic and social potential, but he often remained trapped in his urban milieu, not always recognizing wider historical and political processes. Many bands broke down walls in aesthetics and expression, but failed to capitalize on those breakthroughs politically in a way that would outlast the system they opposed. Perhaps the mistake was that they often believed that subversion alone was enough, while at the same time remaining part of a scene that could easily be co-opted or ignored by the establishment.
Laibach, in contrast, used the language of power from the beginning to make power grotesque, leaving little room for neutralizing its action. That is the key difference.
What was the most radical innovation in the performance and activities of the Laibach group? Were you already aware then that you were stepping on your original artistic attitude "forbidden territory", as well as that the members of the group can suffer not at all naive consequences?
The most radical innovation was that Laibach was not really a band in the classical sense. Laibach was - and still is - an idea. An idea has no face, no name, no individual will - the idea just exists and spreads. The group practiced a complete deconstruction of identity - both personal and collective - which is not always the easiest thing to do. From the beginning, Laibach denied the individuality of the members, used aesthetics without a clear moral stance, and spoke the language of ideology to the point where political power was indistinguishable from its parody. Our approach to art was industrial, militant and devoid of classical emotional expression - everything was ritual, manifesto, propaganda.
Were we aware that we were stepping into forbidden territory? Of course. But we, in fact, never "set foot" on that territory, we were born there. In Yugoslavia, which insisted on freedom while at the same time stifling criticism, playing with symbols of power meant walking on a knife's edge. The system saw something in Laibach that he couldn't easily define—neither a threat nor a joke—and it made him nervous. The consequences were not unimaginable - they were expected and they were real: bans, pressures, hearings. They were part of the process, part of the game in which no one is innocent, and especially not the system that wanted to suffocate us. The more they tried to silence us, the louder we became - and through the ban we also became a myth. But, as we know, the system changes, and Laibach remains.
photo: ulf jacob...
Have any of you been taken into custody?? Did they recognize you on the streets and insult you or vice versa, raised? What should be done today so that artists can cause a similar reaction from the public?
Yes, we were detained, interrogated, banned, but for us it was always a performance that we knew how to turn to our advantage. In his beginnings, Laibach was treated as a threat, and not only the government treated him as a threat, but also a large part of the public who simply hated us, because we were destroying the illusion in which they wanted to believe. Some people recognized us on the street, but most didn't, because we didn't stand out as individuals and - what was most important - at that time we wore the uniforms of the SFR Yugoslav Army, so people mostly perceived us as JNA soldiers, who were not very popular in Slovenia anyway. There were also insults, but our personal reaction was never important to us.
Today, it is certainly more difficult to provoke a similar reaction, as the line between art, politics and marketing has become blurred. Provocation has become a commodity, subversion is a commodified part of the algorithm. The question is, is there even a language in aesthetic action that could function subversively, or are we all just echoes of our own noise? Right now, once again, one such public political and ideological lynching of two artists - Maja Smrekar and Simone Semenič - is taking place in Slovenia. Certain media and the largest opposition parties want to use their provocative artistic work to create a pogrom over the entire contemporary artistic production in Slovenia, and essentially demand the legal and social devaluation of artistic work as such. Which means there might still be hope after all.
The worst label they have stuck on you, we assume, it was about the alleged propagation of fascism on the soil of the self-governing socialist Yugoslavia. The very name of the band, as well as the NSK collective, they were a finger in the eye of the petty-bourgeois nationalist transversal, which took us not long after, we already know where. What was the social atmosphere that surrounded you in the very beginnings?
The label of fascism was both the worst and the funniest – because it actually showed the system's ability to understand what it was looking at. Laibach did not propagate anything other than the reflection of that system and that authority. But power and ideology are - as in The Picture of Dorian Gray - scared of their own image in the mirror. The social atmosphere in our beginnings was really contradictory. On the one hand, as is known, Yugoslavia was more progressive and freer than other socialist countries. On the other hand, it had its own taboo topics and dogmas that were not to be touched. The system still had some kind of ideological coherence, but the cracks were already visibly widening. It was, therefore, possible to play with symbols and irony, but only until the invisible red line was crossed. We crossed that line with a smile and a marching step. The petty-bourgeois nationalist transversal that you mention already existed, just hiding behind false brotherhood and unity. Shadows of future wars could already be seen through the thick smoke of progressive socialism. Yugoslavia was still singing songs of brotherhood and unity, but the drums of ethnic rituals could already be heard in the background. So we were that symptom of a disease that everyone denied for a long time - until it became incurable.
How would you describe the state of mind in Yugoslavia just before its collapse? Did that also serve as an inspiration for your authentic historicization of a utopian world that was destined to disappear??
Before the breakup, Yugoslavia was like an orchestra Titanic - the waltz was still being played, but the water was already knee-deep. The state of spirits was tense, divided, filled with false hope and inevitable fear. They all felt that something big and dark was coming, but they pretended not to know what. For us, it was the end of one experiment - and the beginning of a new one. Inspiration? Sure, why not? Laibach always functioned as a witness of an epoch, a chronicler of the collapse of great ideas. Yugoslavia was a reality-tested utopia and we documented its final chapter - not as nostalgics, but as those who record how history repeats itself, always with the same vocabulary of hope, ideological dominance and conflict. Because utopias do not die. They are just waiting for a new form and a new opportunity.
illustration: matjaž komelj...
Do you feel a similar vibration in the air today?, only now in a much wider area of Europe, and the world? Does this division between opposing extreme political options remind you of the Weimar Republic a hundred years ago??
Yes, the vibration in the air is recognizable – but now it's reverberating globally. The world is once again on the brink of great change, and historical patterns are repeating themselves with almost mathematical precision. Polarization of society, economic insecurity, the rise of populism and technological surveillance - these are all elements that we have already seen in the era of the Weimar Republic, just before things went in the inevitable direction. The difference is that today there is no longer a centralized ideological struggle, but the conflict is fought on fragmented fronts - informational, economic, technological, identity. In the past, ideologies required marches and barricades, today an algorithm and the attention of the masses are enough for them.
As we know, history repeats itself - the first time as a tragedy, the second time as a farce. The question is: are we now in the third act and if so, what follows after the farce?
What Laibach said four decades ago, What does he say today?? The whole world has changed once or twice, and the terrible events of World War II, as well as the Cold War, as if they were completely forgotten. What dangers threaten us because of that?
If we really reduce our message to the most important, then we can say that Laibach said four decades ago: "You think you have a choice. You don't have". Today, Laibach says: “You think you are free. You didn't". The world has changed its facade several times, but the matrix remains the same - it only adapts to new technologies of control: the power of capital rules, the masses follow the illusion, history is recycled. Forgetting is the greatest ally of repeating mistakes. When the emotional distance from the horrors of the past increases, space is opened for their repetition - in a new form, with new narratives, but with the same outcome. Today, the little man does not, in principle, get involved in the currents of power, not because he cannot, but because he is too absorbed in the endless spectacle that is being served to him. The perversion of the system is that he is given the appearance of choice, while essentially he remains only a passive observer, a consumer of narratives that have already been written for him. The horror of World War II and the Cold War has been repackaged into entertainment, into an algorithm, into three-second news. Danger? There is no danger. Everything is under control. The little man is part of the system - not as a participant, but as a resource. He doesn't have to decide, he just clicks. But don't worry - the algorithm will decide for you.
On the current tour, during which you also come to Belgrade, you are returning to the famous album Opus Dei from 1987. - it's about the record with which you broke through globally on the new label Mute. What did that album mean to you and why was the decision made to take a step towards commenting on the world of pop music and the totalitarian tendencies that were hidden within that world?? How much is the entrance fee? mainstream culture made possible by Laibach-to pass on his message, here it is until today?
Opus Dei was a key moment in Laibach's history – a moment when we entered the Western and global cultural space, but without compromise. It was an album that used pop music as a weapon, taking its forms and turning them into a manifesto of totalitarian aesthetics. Totalitarian tendencies are not hidden in pop culture - they are its essence. Pop culture has always been a tool of mass manipulation, a softer, more seductive version of propaganda. The decision to therefore comment on the world of pop was a logical one. Songs like Live is life i Birth of a Nation we transformed them into something that they had always been, but that no one saw or wanted to see. Entry into mainstream it was part of our strategy, it was a Trojan. We entered that global musical order and at the same time remained outside it, untouchable. The system thought it assimilated us, but we assimilated it. We use his tools, but we don't belong to him. That's why we're still here today, and we're playing that album again, which was originally primarily about contemporary American fascism. And he is, generously, here again – but in reality he is ever-present.
Is today's popular culture still a sphere in which totalitarianism is practiced covertly and unconcealed, without anyone noticing? What kind of place is Laibach?-and in that galaxy - are you still party breaker to whom no one can do anything, or there is a danger that you will start to be counted on as intended "error" in the system, thus any interference is deactivated in advance or at least mitigated? How, in a word, the twisted system of corrupt people and brutally instructed AI armies of oligarchic capitalism these days?
Totalitarianism in popular culture is no longer hidden – it has become explicit and even fun. Once the masses were controlled secretly or by force, today the algorithm does it publicly and with your permission through a song, a trend, meme and continuous stimulation. He knows what you want before you even know it. And people still think they are free, because they choose the color and length of their own chains of slavery.
Laibach is still an anomaly in the system, but that system has become more sophisticated – it does not prohibit, it integrates. The danger is no longer in repression, but in absorption. Any provocation can become just another filter on Instagram, another subtitle in the entertainment industry. The distraction is not turned off, but added to the playlist. Danger? Possibly. How to screw up the system? Maybe by giving him what he wants - but in a way he can't digest. But, if we are a "predictable error", we must act like a virus and mutate faster than the system can recognize us. Or even more radically - let's start enjoying that system ourselves, maybe that way we'll force it to self-destruct.
Let's get back to the album. Opus Dei which is in December 2024. experienced even two new versions of itself - one was performed by the band itself, and the other by original producer Rick Koning. Which of those versions is more drastic?? Will the new ones/old songs to shock the Belgrade audience?
A more drastic version is the one that the listener does not recognize. Our version is evolution - adapting to new times without losing the essence. Koning's version is a reinterpretation - a look back through the prism of today's sound and production.
Will the new/old songs shock the Belgrade audience? It is difficult to shock the audience today - they are already used to everything. It also depends a little on Belgrade. If Belgrade is the same as before, they will not be shocked. If he's different, maybe he will. But we should not forget that Opus Dei it was never just a collection of some songs there, but an ideological construct and experiment. The sound will be slightly different, but the message is basically the same: We are Laibach - Resistance is futile., you will be assimilated.
