"This is an annual free non-commercial gathering for the healthy evolution of life and culture, encouraging individual and group autonomy, celebrating independent art and culture, experiencing diy technologies and encouraging a harmonious relationship with the earth"

eastlewiscountychamber.com/mutant.htm

(heh.)

Good question, nikO. I've got plenty of free time. Allow me to force my lengthy opinions on you.

What is a mutant?

In this context you could define a mutant as "an enthusiast/participant in the AMF" in the same way a BM enthusiast is labelled a "burner". But something tells me most self-identified mutants would cringe at such an accessible label. Sooo...

Well, the term "mutant" implies something that is randomly, inherently different from what is considered "normal". However, biologically we are all mutants.

My impression is that the term is used here to imply cultural mutation; that is, the random variety of different choices people make when they accept the responsibility for making their own decisions; This can be applied across the cultural spectrum, from how we interact/organize with each other and ourselves, to the choices we make in clothing, diet, and music.

Generalizations sort of defeat the purpose of what I'm trying to get at (the essence of AMF), but it's a nearly unavoidable linguistic tool: A mutant is generally an artist in the sense that any form of expression is art, and opposed philosophically to the pervading corporate monoculture.

We traditionally categorize and separate functions in Western society. He's not an artist, he's a plumber. She's not a philosopher, she's a mother. That sort of thing. In Bali they have a saying: "We Balinese have no art. We do EVERYTHING as well as we can."

But what makes that different from a burner? Is there a difference? I know several people who are comfortable at both festivals, and who fully embrace themselves as artists in every facet of their lives.

In the "real world", culture is generally only paid attention to if it can be reproduced identically for a mass audience, and given a numerical value. If something is utterly unique, if it is not for sale, it must at least have entertainment value to the masses, or the outlets for culture will ignore it completely.

So, embracing random cultural mutations (art) on the basis of their intrisic uniqueness, whether they are "popular" enough to reproduce for mass consumption; this is a hallmark of AMF, and initially was true of Burning Man.

I would say that Burning Man has had ample time to examine itself, and is itself a commodity with mass market value. It has stated principles which at its core is not much different from AMF, but as it has become more attractive to the masses, has first accepted, then required mass consumption on the part of its attendees.

Meanwhile, AMF has certainly learned a lot about what NOT to do from BM; hence the increased focus on environmentalism, the almost rabid rejection of consumer culture, and a much more hands-off approach to teaching participants what to get out of the festival. Burning Man sends out pamphlets to help ticket-buyers figure out how to have fun.

At AMF there is no founder-deity, no leader. People are assumed to already know how to enjoy themselves and nature. Perhaps that's a premature assumption.

Mutants are still (for the most part) more focused on doing artistic and community-changing projects year-round. They then MAY bring it to the festival. Burners tend to spend much more energy preparing a project specifically for their festival.

My point here is that AMF has partly come to define itself as "what Burning Man once was or could have been". So, nikO, you're partly correct there.

I've noticed a lot of soul-searching on this tribe lately, and in the months leading up to this year's AMF. Tempers have flared, and people are bickering about the direction AMF should go in. I get the impression that AMF is becoming self-aware. It has become big enough to attract bad press, and the word is getting out about AMF.

It won't be long before the organizers will have to think about increasing crowds, people there to party, bereft of the spiritual goals and higher ideals they themselves have. With that comes increased costs: more food to feed everyone, more time and effort cleaning up shit-splattered T.P. and beer cans. Oh, yeah, and the cost of getting busted. The bigger AMF gets, the more narcs it will attract. Will it splinter off into smaller, more sustainable regional festivals? Will it, god, forbid, get permits or find some private land? Will it disappear entirely? Who knows?

I know it seems I've drifted off topic, but this I think is central to what you're trying to get at, nikO. Mutants are struggling to AVOID rigid definition, to being placed in a category that allows others to see them as members of a group, rather than individuals with their own intrinsic value. Burners have embraced being burners. It has a cohesive, tribal community identity, independent of geography or other affiliations(although having the $ for a ticket is part of it, rather like tithing). But it also is a much more fixed identity than anything AMF could provide even if it wanted to.

When someone identifies as a "mutant", they are probably not trying to tell you they like to party with trippy art in the woods. They are telling you something about their worldview, that they embrace the unique, that they at least see THEMSELVES as incompatible with mainstream society.

But when someone tells me they are a burner, I'm pretty safe in assuming they mean "I like to party with trippy art in the desert." This is partly because it is a mass-marketed identity. "Burner" doesn't tell me anything about you or your worldview. It's like being a Raiders fan. It is a brand name affiliation.

Am I mistaken? No. There may be people who disagree with what I have written here, but on the whole they are wrong.