Shades of Gray

Alright, fellow philosophers, I pray this will be a short post because as my usual subject matter goes, this is fairly shallow. I'm going to talk about myself.

Well, let me rephrase. I'm going to share with you a thought process which led to a realization of how not-simple the world is. This is another one of those 'everyone knows this' times, but it was causing a dissonance in my mind and I wanted to share the reconciliation.

I was raised in a fairly isolated environment, which is not to be confused with being sheltered. All my friends were much more sheltered than I was, it was simply that I saw the same people every day, and did not see much of the rest of the world.

This left me to form subconscious mindsets which have only recently been brought into question and discarded.

Being surrounded by Christians and having limited contact with non-Christians, I developed the notion that only Christians were good people. To a child's mind, this should make sense. Good=moral. Moral=This-one-set-of-beliefs.
Another concept was that all talents come from God, therefore if someone seems really talented, they must be blessed which must mean that even if they are hiding it, they are believers. This should also make sense when you think about how many Tony's, Oscars and other awards are accepted with God mentioned in the thank yous. Even if it insincere, it is 'the thing to do', and when I was small, it was hard to discern a difference.

Now, flash forward. I think most people are inclined to justify or stick up for those we admire, actors, celebrities, singers, and so on. Part of this is that identity notion I talked about earlier. We identify with certain people, certain tastes, and it is hard having those questioned. The other part is that very few people would want to admire BAD people. It simply doesn't make sense.
So we come up with lots of reasons for why people do what they do and what we think it means. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as I've said before, art is subjective.

I give you the example of Eminem because that's what got me thinking about all this.
No one is ever going to say that his music is family friendly or remotely aligned with Christian values. However, I am preinclined to say 'Well he really doesn't mean THOSE parts because of X, Y, Z and he's really doing D.'. This is because I have a hard time imagining someone could be so talented and really so selfish and hateful, it is inconsistent with my understanding of the universe's works. And I want him to be a good person because I don't want to believe that someone I respect is all the things others accuse him of.

But, as the great Neil Gaiman said about another author: He's not your bitch.

I have heard the argument made that people like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly are purposefully inflammatory because they want to shake things up, they want people to argue with them because it forces them to think. The exact same argument can be made for Eminem (and has, numerous times). And to be honest, Glenn and Em DO do what they do for the same reason (wow that sentence sucked). They do it for money. Eminem sells more records by being controversial and Glenn Beck gets higher ratings and more listeners by being a hateful jerk-I mean opinionated pundit. I'm sure there are times where they really are sincere in their anger, where they truly desire to wake people up, using intemperate language to shake people off the fence. But they are also certainly aware that they are now personas which must be kept up for the sake of sales.

My point for this is that I know now that there are plenty of good people in the world who don't believe the way I do. And there are a depressing many terrible people who claim to believe the same things, though I don't believe them. I still believe that people are talented and given ability for a reason, but I also recognize that circumstances play a strong role. Would Elizabeth I have been such a great queen if she hadn't been faced with such adversity right from the beginning of her rule? Adversity breeds greatness. I believe God gives each of us potential, but it is up to our own determination and our surroundings to develop it. And because we all have free will, we do not have to use our abilities for what was perhaps their original intention.

So now, if someone says 'Why do you like that celebrity, he/she is such a douchebag who does K and U?', I'm not going to be all that bothered by it unless they are being inaccurate or unnecessarily malicious because who we are isn't only defined by who we enjoy having entertain us and it IS possible to be talented but not moral, and/or good but with different beliefs.

I know all of this is incredibly elementary but I feel like the universe is less frightening for not having the contradiction. Things are rarely as black and white as we considered them when we were little.

Have any of you ever come to a conclusion that you felt you should have realized a long time earlier?

A Note on Art

Art is a transcendental concept, I think. It rises above nationality, creed or religion, above social class and circumstances. Art is transitory, amorphous as a child of Nereus and just as desirable.

Most of all, art is universal.

There is, I personally believe, an understood, though frequently unconsidered agreement between the Artist and the Public. But first, a few terms.

Art, in this case, refers to anything the Public deems it is. This means that what is considered art now, will not be art later, and what was scoffed at in its creation is now lauded as classic. This will be readdressed later. Art can include anything visual, auditory, tactile...anything the individual experiences sensually (as in, through the senses).

The Public is exactly what it sounds like, the people, the general consensus, thems that talk. In this way, art is incredibly democratic, for good or ill, though with many, many revolts and revolutions.

I think Art is such a sticky and amalgous (no, that's not a word) subject because its very nature changes when its status changes.

I will give an example to explain my point.
Recently, I was reading the blog of the great Neil Gaiman who was answering a reader's question about whether his blogging on his life and writing process made him more accountable to the Public who now had easier access to him. He (the reader) cited George RR Martin who seemed to be doing [everything in his power to avoid writing this novel and doesn't he owe it to his Public to finish this?] (paraphrased) to which Mr.Gaiman had the single greatest reply I have ever heard come from an Artist:

George R.R. Martin is not your bitch.

~~

This is something of an unfortunate side-effect of the information/net age, though I think the entitlement mindset was always there. The Public feels the Artists are obligated to feed their insatiable hunger for Art. What they don't apparently remember is that Artists are People too (sounds like a button slogan) and in actuality owe them NOTHING. The contract is between the Artist and the Editor/Gallery Owner/Commissioner/Record Label...not you. It is their (the artist's) prerogative if and when you get their work.

Which brings us to Form 1 of Art. As long as he/she is working on it, the Art belongs to the Artist. No one else has the right to judge, critique or interfere with it while it is in this Form/Stage. They can change it, destroy it or put it out.
Should they take the third option, Art takes on Form 2.

Any Art that is PUT OUT THERE, that is, made available for mass consumption (published, hung in a gallery, recorded on a record) it belongs to the PUBLIC. The Artist is still credited, still respected but how their art is received/perceived is up to the Public. This is why the status of Art can change from era to era, because though the Art piece is the same, the Public changes.

This leads me to several conclusions.

1) If Art belongs to the People...if it is there for them to critique, love, be affected by...then they are allowed to do what they want with it. This is why people getting up in arms about musicians who do cover songs aggravates me. If the original musician did not want their work covered, they should not have recorded it and made it available for others. In a similar way, if you are only writing 'for yourself', don't expect to get published. The strongest way I can think of putting this is: The Artist has no rights. This may seem cruel, if not downright blasphemous, but I believe it is necessary for Art to reach its ubiquitous state. It's like the essence has to be released into the aether.
That being said, we are totally allowed to blast an artist for a terrible cover, but you do that based on the merit of the cover itself and if it sucks, not on the fact the cover exists.

Likewise, think about movies. I understand that Alan Moore is understandably full of hate considering the treatment of his work in Hollywood. But I also think he's got too tight a hold on it. It's Out. Yes, it should absolutely be treated with respect and I wish more had, but the fact that someone makes a movie of it? That is their right as a member of the Public.

And Art is open to interpretation. What the artist intended, what they meant when they created the piece...does not HAVE to match what the Public receives as the meaning. This is why Art can be so personal to the individual. Which leads to my second conclusion.

2) The Bible should not be considered a Work of Art.
Yes, it has some beautiful poetry, marvelous imagery. But if you are going to make the argument that it is the Word of God, and that it holds actual Truths...that is, NOT being open to interpretation...then this is not Art. It is a message, just like this blog is a message, or a text is a message. From Sender to Receiver. Yes, every single person is a Receiver and yes there WILL be interpretation which is actually a good thing in some cases, I think. If you believe all the Bible is open to interpretation, that it is up to each individual how they take it, then feel free to call it Art. But I don't think you can have it both ways.

This doesn't mean that Art can't contain truths, simply that it has more to do with the Public's perception of truth, and not the Artist's intention.

Any thoughts from the studio audience?

Oh, holy shrine of aural pleasure!

(You all thought of something dirty, didn't you? Cretins!)

Okay, here's another thing that's been rolling around in my head for a while, so everyone put their rant helmets on.

Like most people, I love listening to music, and there are some singers and bands and genres I like more than others. There are others I can't stand. But I try to be respectful of everyone's tastes and to keep an open mind. One thing I can't stand though, is music elitism. This takes many forms, obviously the most common is "This artist is the best in the world and everyone else is crap". Most people don't necessarily say it like that, but that's the implication. Usually, it has something to do with technical skill. I reject that as a basis for greatness. Certainly, a musician had best be able to play his/her instrument to be considered great, and obviously there must be some talent but...Yngwie Malmsteen is considered the fastest guitarist in the world but that doesn't change the fact that his music has no soul. Equally as annoying is "Oh, you like X type of music? Do you like Y artist? Well then you don't know anything about X music!"

A slightly subtler, but personally more vexing form of musical elitism is having a problem with covers. Now, I realize that some covers totally suck, and I also realize that 'totally suck' is a normative term and a matter of opinion. Fine, we can argue over whether this or that cover is really bad, but that is different from what I'm talking about.
Here are my reasons for hating the haters. Or at least hating the hating.

1. It used to be...before records, before any form of preserving music through technological means...that the only way for an artist to have his/her songs heard elsewhere was by someone ELSE covering it in some other King's court or in some other tavern. Covers are the only reason we still have some old songs. That is how music used to be perpetuated.
2. It is NOT being disrespectful. Most people who cover a song, especially if they are really trying, are doing it as an homage, out of respect for the original. I mean, think about it. Everyone sings their favorite songs. Musicians don't live in some other dimensino where they don't get to do what everyone else does. If you get paid to sing anyway, then there's nothing wrong with singing the songs you'd like to, that you'd be singing regardless.
3. Most importantly: NO ONE IS SACRED. WTF, people, why is it that someone can cover THIS band and no one minds, they even support it, but when an artist covers THAT band, oh bob, the world is freaking OVER...?! It doesn't make any flipping sense. I know, I know, sometimes it seems like some bands have no business touching another because of difference in genre or style or (for some odd reason) morality, but it isn't our place to decide that. We don't get to say who plays what.

Here are my two biggest peeves: Bob Dylan and Pink Flloyd.
First of all, listening to Bob Dylan is like having your ear object raped with a screwdriver. I know he's a great poet but seriously, I cannot listen to him sing, and I know this for a fact because I have to at least 2 days a week since my boss loves him.
So when My Chemical Romance covers 'Desolation Row' for Watchmen, I do not get up in arms about it. For one thing, I like MCR WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY more than I like Bob Dylan. Secondly, even if it doesn't quite 'fit' the original, it fit the movie (in my opinion) and it made a lot of sense to me. I enjoyed listening to it. Now, I'm down with arguing that if you're going to change a song a lot, you shoudln't really be singing it, I understand that. It does seem a little strange. On the other hand, Me First and the Gimmie Gimmies only does punk covers of songs, usually showtunes. And I like their version of 'What I Did For Love' a lot more than the version from A Chorus Line. I think if an artist wants to get a little expiremental with their music...well that IS kind of their job isn't it?
Now, there is something equally appealing about staying more or less true to the original song while improving on it. I give you exhibit 'Nightwish-Phantom of the Opera', which has all the original elements of Andrew Lloyd Webber's classic rock opera but with someone who sings a lot better than Sarah Brightman does. Again, just my opinion, but my point is that we can't just sweep away all covers as bad AND we can't pick and choose which ones we are willing to accept as legitimate.

Next...there are a LOT of good reasons not to like KoRn. And I respect pretty much all of them. I like listening to KoRn under certain circumstances and only for short periods of time. I like...maybe four songs. So don't get me wrong, if someone were to say 'Yeah, I don't like KoRn', I would nod and say 'That's cool, I understand that.'
What I do NOT understand is rejecting them as a band because they covered 'Another Brick in the Wall Part 2'. I mean, seriously, of all the decent reasons, this one just seems dumb. Pink Floyd is not some holy parliament of music. To be honest, they don't really do a thing for me, yet their fans are among the most elitist people I've ever heard. I like the KoRn version more, I think it expresses what I personally take to be the meaning of the song better. Obviously, I coudl be misunderstanding the song, and maybe that's just how bad they butchered it but if I had to choose which of those two I was going to listen to, I would take KoRn over the original. Heresy, I know.

It just aggravates me because I don't consider these bands/artists the paragons of musical greatness. I mean, no one gets really upset when someone covers the Beatles. And when Metallica did Queen's 'Stone cold Crazy' they got a friggin' GRAMMY out of it, and even Queen likes their version more than the original. So if we aren't going to get violent over the Beatles and Queen...two bands that I would definitely consider Greats before either Bob Dylan OR Pink Floyd...why do we freak out over others? Metallica loved it when KoRn covered them, they thought it was cool. It's a form of flattery.

I know this is all really subjective, but I'm hoping that my fellow philosophers understand at least the concept that I'm fighting against here. Covering another band is not a good reason not to like someone, and no one is so special that they can't be loved enough that another band will pay their respects in their own fashion.

Consider all ye selves warned.