What the fuck just happened? Did I get sucked into the Twilight Zone?
When I was in high school I remember there being two highly controversial news stories surrounding freedom of speech: the National Endowment of the Arts funding a traveling art exhibit which included the works of Robert Mapplethorpe (which offended the conservative right) and Ice T's rock group Body Count releasing the song "Cop Killer" (which offended just about everyone). There were some other hot issues in there too like "Piss Christ" and the advent of shock jocks but these two stories always seemed to be mentioned whenever the subject of freedom of speech came up.
Maybe it was the post-Reagan bliss that a lot of burgeoning young liberals were experiencing but at the time I remember it being people on the left defending this controversial speech. Warner Bros. was lambasted as sell-outs for taking "Cop Killer" off the market and the liberals cheered when Contemporary Arts Center in Cincinnati was prosecuted for "pandering obscenity" for showing Mapplethorpe's art and found not guilty. Conservatives (like Tipper fucking Gore) helped to organize things like PMRC and worked to demonize public funding of the arts. It seemed like if you were a liberal then you were a proponent for free speech.
Flash forward to today. A couple of days ago I saw an editorial (I don't know what else to call it since there was only one person being interviewed about the 'news story') on CNN about how the words of conservative talk show hosts are hate mongers saying things which can incite violence from the right and that she questions the constitutionality of their diatribes. She may be right that some of them are hate-mongers and she may even be right that some are calling for violence even though no specific examples were given. But if they are how is that different from the ultraviolent lyrics of "Fuck Tha Police?" The last time I checked "There will be a sea of cops dying in LA" wasn't meant as an olive branch.
Or what about words that the left use to justify violence? Should the actions of the Animal Liberation Front nullify the words of "The Sexual Politics of Meat?" Or does the Unabomber's violence mean that one cannot criticize industrialization? Thomas Jefferson openly called upon violent rebellion when he said, "What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Yes, it is ugly, unruly speech but I cannot fathom anyone who supports the words of the First Amendment wanting to place limits upon it's protections. Well, that is unless it's The New York Times:
"The court has already heard arguments in a challenge to a federal law barring material support to terrorists, which prohibits some kinds of speech in support of controversial causes. We hope it narrows the statute’s scope, carefully sorting through what kinds of assistance are protected speech, and what are the sorts of aid the government can properly prohibit."
"The Court and Free Speech," April 23, 2010
(emphasis added)
How about none? What if there is no speech the government can "properly" prohibit?
But what's crazier to me is how conservatives now position themselves as the defenders of free speech. They aren't actually going to do anything about it like dismantle the powers of the FCC but they will be glad to sing the praises of anyone making anti-Islamic statements (but not necessarily anti-religion) or anti-gay commentary. Maybe they actually do support freedom of speech but it just seems far too convenient that these ideologically charged issues would be the ones they cite. It remains to be seen if they are such fervent supporters of civil liberties that they will push to do away with speech codes on public school and university campuses.
Whether you're a conservative, a liberal, or something else you owe it to yourself and your beliefs to support unhindered freedom of speech. Don't get bullied into thinking that your thoughts and voice are criminal even if some other person's actions are. If you advocate for the silence of your opponents now know that your words will be on the chopping block within a generation.
Oh, by the way, I'd really like to say that I want to shoot a gurgling load of my jizz down Tipper Gore's throat but I'm afraid that it may contribute to global warming so I'll refrain.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
A Few Words on Art
During a weekend visit by my friend Shane we had the most wonderful opportunity to talk for hours about a variety of topics and I'd like to thank him for the inspiration of this blog.
Artists suck. Okay, that's an untrue, horrible generalization but I thought that knowing my audience they would either stop right there and never talk to me again or they'd want to know what would make me have that momentary fit of intolerance. And since I consider myself to be an artist of sorts I better clarify my intent.
In all of it's forms I think art is a valuable, important aspect of the human experience. On an individual level it's a (usually) thoughtful person's attempts at reaching out and communicating and translating a part of themselves. It could an be an external expression of her views and feelings about herself, her friends, her community, life, the universe, anything imaginable. Her art may say things she thinks are true or untrue or both. It may represent everything from the most beautiful to the most horrifying aspects of life. It doesn't have to be "right" or "perfect" but it does allow the artist the opportunity to create something that exists outside of herself and can stand on it's own. Most of my friends share a love of many of the same works of art because they speak to us and because what we identify with in the art is a projection of our self and world perceptions.
On a broader level art is part of the artifacts with which a society is remembered and judged. It's like the status update of a culture: it gives clues, puzzle pieces which when assembled reflect the broader picture of what that society is really about. Works created by artists of different ideologies may still show the mosaic of ideas that create the intellectual and social landscape of the society. If one wants to see how fragmented and diverse the American psyche is one can look at the artistic output of one city and compare it to another and you'll see what a broad spectrum of ideas that make up our national identity.
But what I find to be the most wonderful aspect of art is it's purely non-essential quality. It absolutely doesn't have to exist but it does. In effect, it's entirely useless. It doesn't supply nutrition, it doesn't protect against the elements, it doesn't give warmth or protection. It's completely unnecessary to our survival but we can't stop it from happening. The horses of Chauvet Cave didn't supply sustenance or function to increase the chance of humans to compete for resources with other organisms but reflected the growing intellectual and communicative prowess of our species. We don't have to make art to live but because we live we make art.
A society that produces great art is a reflection of that society's greatness. It exists because of an excess of resources and talent. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors had very little opportunity to make art because they were busy, well, hunting and gathering so that they and kind weren't dead. Jump forward about 30,000 years to a feudal society, like feudal China for instance, and you'll see an exponential growth in the amount of art. It's not just because the population is greater but because they were more efficient in providing the basic tools for survival for their communities. Simply put, they had more free time on their hands and since idle hands do the devil's work they made art.
Jump forward to today and you'll see a mind-boggling number of self-described artists. Art-collecting.com has a list of nearly 100 art galleries in Atlanta alone. That doesn't even count the number coffee shops, tea houses, tattoo and curio shops that sell art by original artists. And that's just for visual art. When you consider the number of musicians, writers, filmmakers, and theatrical artists this city has you can tell this is a town that doesn't concern itself with whether we our crops will yield enough food to feed our families. I'd argue that even if Georgia had no Arts Council, and unfortunately that decision is in the hands of politicians, you couldn't stop Atlanta from having a thriving artists' community.
So back to why artists suck. I'd think it would be obvious: we don't need 'em but they can't admit it. The most self-important artists think that they serve an integral role in the survival of their society and that they alone are commissioned to be the prophets of our times. Alan Moore will always on my list of favorite comic book writers but, frankly, I decided I didn't really like the guy when I read an interview with him in which he argued that artists are gifted with a special spiritual power to see the other realms of the universe. He can't simply say, "I'm more talented and thoughtful than many in my field" but instead suggests that his soul/mind has tapped into another magical universe and that he is some sort of vessel for other-worldly communication. Get a grip, Moore.
I often equate artistic arrogance to athletics. Athletes have skills that entertain and captivate large numbers of people. They perform well and receive the adulation of others. They are praised for their accomplishments and, quite understandably, they internalize this praise. But they often mistake the praise of their performance as praise for themselves as humans. Their coddling and revenue generation make them seem superhuman. I think the same thing can ring true for artists. Seriously, how many actors have you encountered that think they have a greater connection with their fellow human because they can convincingly pretend to be someone else? Or how many musicians have you known that have quit bands because they weren't getting the personal satisfaction they think they deserve as an artist?
I love art. I collect books and movies. I listen to a wide spectrum of music. I buy art when I can afford it. I even have art permanently tattooed into my body. When I write, whether it is a blog like this or a screenplay, I feel that I am making art. I'm trying to communicate a portion of myself and my worldview. I openly put my mind and thoughts out for the world to see and actually welcome the criticism and dialogue that comes from it. Just as I am willing to change my life and my opinions my art reflects that journey. And maybe this is my self-important arrogance shining through here, but I for one most certainly do not suck.
Artists suck. Okay, that's an untrue, horrible generalization but I thought that knowing my audience they would either stop right there and never talk to me again or they'd want to know what would make me have that momentary fit of intolerance. And since I consider myself to be an artist of sorts I better clarify my intent.
In all of it's forms I think art is a valuable, important aspect of the human experience. On an individual level it's a (usually) thoughtful person's attempts at reaching out and communicating and translating a part of themselves. It could an be an external expression of her views and feelings about herself, her friends, her community, life, the universe, anything imaginable. Her art may say things she thinks are true or untrue or both. It may represent everything from the most beautiful to the most horrifying aspects of life. It doesn't have to be "right" or "perfect" but it does allow the artist the opportunity to create something that exists outside of herself and can stand on it's own. Most of my friends share a love of many of the same works of art because they speak to us and because what we identify with in the art is a projection of our self and world perceptions.
On a broader level art is part of the artifacts with which a society is remembered and judged. It's like the status update of a culture: it gives clues, puzzle pieces which when assembled reflect the broader picture of what that society is really about. Works created by artists of different ideologies may still show the mosaic of ideas that create the intellectual and social landscape of the society. If one wants to see how fragmented and diverse the American psyche is one can look at the artistic output of one city and compare it to another and you'll see what a broad spectrum of ideas that make up our national identity.
But what I find to be the most wonderful aspect of art is it's purely non-essential quality. It absolutely doesn't have to exist but it does. In effect, it's entirely useless. It doesn't supply nutrition, it doesn't protect against the elements, it doesn't give warmth or protection. It's completely unnecessary to our survival but we can't stop it from happening. The horses of Chauvet Cave didn't supply sustenance or function to increase the chance of humans to compete for resources with other organisms but reflected the growing intellectual and communicative prowess of our species. We don't have to make art to live but because we live we make art.
A society that produces great art is a reflection of that society's greatness. It exists because of an excess of resources and talent. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors had very little opportunity to make art because they were busy, well, hunting and gathering so that they and kind weren't dead. Jump forward about 30,000 years to a feudal society, like feudal China for instance, and you'll see an exponential growth in the amount of art. It's not just because the population is greater but because they were more efficient in providing the basic tools for survival for their communities. Simply put, they had more free time on their hands and since idle hands do the devil's work they made art.
Jump forward to today and you'll see a mind-boggling number of self-described artists. Art-collecting.com has a list of nearly 100 art galleries in Atlanta alone. That doesn't even count the number coffee shops, tea houses, tattoo and curio shops that sell art by original artists. And that's just for visual art. When you consider the number of musicians, writers, filmmakers, and theatrical artists this city has you can tell this is a town that doesn't concern itself with whether we our crops will yield enough food to feed our families. I'd argue that even if Georgia had no Arts Council, and unfortunately that decision is in the hands of politicians, you couldn't stop Atlanta from having a thriving artists' community.
So back to why artists suck. I'd think it would be obvious: we don't need 'em but they can't admit it. The most self-important artists think that they serve an integral role in the survival of their society and that they alone are commissioned to be the prophets of our times. Alan Moore will always on my list of favorite comic book writers but, frankly, I decided I didn't really like the guy when I read an interview with him in which he argued that artists are gifted with a special spiritual power to see the other realms of the universe. He can't simply say, "I'm more talented and thoughtful than many in my field" but instead suggests that his soul/mind has tapped into another magical universe and that he is some sort of vessel for other-worldly communication. Get a grip, Moore.
I often equate artistic arrogance to athletics. Athletes have skills that entertain and captivate large numbers of people. They perform well and receive the adulation of others. They are praised for their accomplishments and, quite understandably, they internalize this praise. But they often mistake the praise of their performance as praise for themselves as humans. Their coddling and revenue generation make them seem superhuman. I think the same thing can ring true for artists. Seriously, how many actors have you encountered that think they have a greater connection with their fellow human because they can convincingly pretend to be someone else? Or how many musicians have you known that have quit bands because they weren't getting the personal satisfaction they think they deserve as an artist?
I love art. I collect books and movies. I listen to a wide spectrum of music. I buy art when I can afford it. I even have art permanently tattooed into my body. When I write, whether it is a blog like this or a screenplay, I feel that I am making art. I'm trying to communicate a portion of myself and my worldview. I openly put my mind and thoughts out for the world to see and actually welcome the criticism and dialogue that comes from it. Just as I am willing to change my life and my opinions my art reflects that journey. And maybe this is my self-important arrogance shining through here, but I for one most certainly do not suck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)