Thanks for the kind words and the thoughtful response. I find it fascinating that we live in an era wherein shows about serial killers, sociopaths, and greedy megalomaniacs are so popular ... there's something to be said about the grotesque / wanton nature of "freedom" these types of people exhibit ("freedom" in the sense of believing th…
Thanks for the kind words and the thoughtful response. I find it fascinating that we live in an era wherein shows about serial killers, sociopaths, and greedy megalomaniacs are so popular ... there's something to be said about the grotesque / wanton nature of "freedom" these types of people exhibit ("freedom" in the sense of believing their actions have no problematic consequences). I recently rediscovered "The Fall" by Camus and I wonder in eras of such decadent living--which surely also accompany ages of illumination--how we get back to some sense of a more holistic / universal meaning without resorting to autocracy and dictating what SHOULD or SHOULDN'T be believed in. It's a wild ride, isn't it?
How do we get back to holistic/universal meaning without resorting to autocracy and dictating what should and shouldn't be believed in?
I don’t have the answers, but I think it's our job as artists to change the culture by making people feel this meaning rather than be didactic about it. I wrote the following last night for an article I'm working on: Most pop stars are nothing more than mass hallucinations orchestrated by corporate greed and clever marketing tactics. They planted the seeds with simple texts that teens can feel, let the roots take hold with social movements that do nothing to dismantle power structures, and let the plants grow to monstrous sizes to block the view to the empty wasteland behind them.
Celebrities have a responsibility to lead by example, but these people aren’t leaders; they’re puppets with the influence given to them by those in power. Buying 20 million dollar homes with 5-car garages and flying in private jets is not the example we need. It’s the opposite.
These celebrities aren’t artists; they’re corporate-created entertainers. I don’t give a shit if AI replaces these plastic, formulaic brands. With the right marketing schemes, I promise you won’t be able to tell the difference between them and a robot in the future.
We need real artists, people brave enough to stand up to the system making us sick. We need artists who burn the masks of materialism, not those who wear and decorate them with hubris. We need artists who overwhelm us with the truth, confront us with the uncomfortable, and submerge us in the sublime.
There are many celebrities who are just celebrities, but there are certainly celebrities who are artists too. And I agree with you that all artists have a responsibility to change the culture by breathing some life into some corner of it. (Whether famous or not). I choose to be progressive with my art, to see the light. I hope there are artists with much more celebrity who choose the same. Celebrity, at the end of the day, is just more followers for the work!
(That corporate interests take advantage of these artists, doesn't take away from the fact that they are still artists!)
Yeah the linguistic idea of what a “celebrity” is should be defined. Is Frank Ocean a celebrity? I think not. Is Tom Cruise? Probably more so. But regardless of the terminology, I agree, Nolan: “We need artists who burn the masks of materialism, not those who wear and decorate them with hubris.” Killer line. And this materialist question is something we need to be particularly aware of on a platform that tells us success is related to material gains. Because in some sense it is. We’d all love to make more money from our art. But when we start making art to make money, the materialism has already defined the creation. Making sure we create in spite of “success” is the kind of artists we still uphold (a Taylor Swift comes to mind; I’m not a fan but respect her art)...but she’s also fought back at the system when possible. Subversion is ALWAYS key.
Thanks for the kind words and the thoughtful response. I find it fascinating that we live in an era wherein shows about serial killers, sociopaths, and greedy megalomaniacs are so popular ... there's something to be said about the grotesque / wanton nature of "freedom" these types of people exhibit ("freedom" in the sense of believing their actions have no problematic consequences). I recently rediscovered "The Fall" by Camus and I wonder in eras of such decadent living--which surely also accompany ages of illumination--how we get back to some sense of a more holistic / universal meaning without resorting to autocracy and dictating what SHOULD or SHOULDN'T be believed in. It's a wild ride, isn't it?
How do we get back to holistic/universal meaning without resorting to autocracy and dictating what should and shouldn't be believed in?
I don’t have the answers, but I think it's our job as artists to change the culture by making people feel this meaning rather than be didactic about it. I wrote the following last night for an article I'm working on: Most pop stars are nothing more than mass hallucinations orchestrated by corporate greed and clever marketing tactics. They planted the seeds with simple texts that teens can feel, let the roots take hold with social movements that do nothing to dismantle power structures, and let the plants grow to monstrous sizes to block the view to the empty wasteland behind them.
Celebrities have a responsibility to lead by example, but these people aren’t leaders; they’re puppets with the influence given to them by those in power. Buying 20 million dollar homes with 5-car garages and flying in private jets is not the example we need. It’s the opposite.
These celebrities aren’t artists; they’re corporate-created entertainers. I don’t give a shit if AI replaces these plastic, formulaic brands. With the right marketing schemes, I promise you won’t be able to tell the difference between them and a robot in the future.
We need real artists, people brave enough to stand up to the system making us sick. We need artists who burn the masks of materialism, not those who wear and decorate them with hubris. We need artists who overwhelm us with the truth, confront us with the uncomfortable, and submerge us in the sublime.
There are many celebrities who are just celebrities, but there are certainly celebrities who are artists too. And I agree with you that all artists have a responsibility to change the culture by breathing some life into some corner of it. (Whether famous or not). I choose to be progressive with my art, to see the light. I hope there are artists with much more celebrity who choose the same. Celebrity, at the end of the day, is just more followers for the work!
(That corporate interests take advantage of these artists, doesn't take away from the fact that they are still artists!)
Yeah the linguistic idea of what a “celebrity” is should be defined. Is Frank Ocean a celebrity? I think not. Is Tom Cruise? Probably more so. But regardless of the terminology, I agree, Nolan: “We need artists who burn the masks of materialism, not those who wear and decorate them with hubris.” Killer line. And this materialist question is something we need to be particularly aware of on a platform that tells us success is related to material gains. Because in some sense it is. We’d all love to make more money from our art. But when we start making art to make money, the materialism has already defined the creation. Making sure we create in spite of “success” is the kind of artists we still uphold (a Taylor Swift comes to mind; I’m not a fan but respect her art)...but she’s also fought back at the system when possible. Subversion is ALWAYS key.