I’m curious if you’d be saying the same thing if Beyonce had performed a patriotic song while draped in the American flag.
The NFL is all about politics. If NFL fans they think are being served apolitical entertainment whenever they tune in, they are sadly, profoundly mistaken.
A good friend of mine posted something on Facebook about that chick who disrespected police while demanding a police escort to the game. I didn’t respond publicly but we had a discussion about being able to respect most police but still have issues with certain police actions.
I kind of think the show was a mess the be quite honest. Though I did love each individual performance, they didn’t fit. I did like that that each of the performers seem to resect each other’s segment by joining together. But then it’s a Pepsi ad and it’s 50 year retrospect.
It didn’t sync, and Beyoncé’s bit was just as off as everything else.
I LIKE Beyoncé, but that’s my impression.
Perhaps the noise is because of the signs her backup singers held up at halftime.
I did not catch the game so I don’t know if it was a fleeting moment or a more prolonged gesture.
I was more offended by the rubber pajamas that Bruno Mars was wearing. Who decided that that was a good look?
The concept of art is shaped by the cultural context. Democracy and free market tends to label entertainment as art. There has always been entertainment for the masses but at least in the past critics did not equate it with art, which presupposes some effort and transformation along with what we may or may not regard as pleasure.
In my opinion, there is no problem at all when a work of art includes political attitudes. I enjoy art that include ideas I don’t agree with. Art has the power to sublimate non-art and turn it into an act of pure beauty, the only one which can influence people where it matters - kalokagathia.
A lot of entertainers who pose as artists hope they can incorporate non-entertainment into their performance with the same effect but they experience opposite results specifically due to the ephemeral nature of entertainment, which addresses strictly the senses and aims to offer instant pleasure.
Are you really arguing that critics treating mass market entertainment like Shakespeare’s or Homer’s plays as art is a recent phenomenon?
Ya know, if you want to call me an asshole sexist racist for it, have at it*. But I generally don’t think listening to the political opinions of entertainers is a wise decision. I’ve listened to many over the years. At best, they usually present a one-sided caricature of the problem, with few solutions. My first cite is the collected works of Jello Biafra. I like it a lot, but he’s sometimes a dangerously foolish man, and knows he shouldn’t be taken seriously.
I don’t think they should shut up, in fact I wish they’d actually write songs about wider variety of subjects. But to form your political views based on what makes a good song, movie, painting, or poem is foolish. What makes good policy doesn’t usually translate well into good entertainment.
As to the commercial aspect: yeah, I’d say that just about any commissioned work is compromised in some way. Once someone else has the right to control the release of a work, you’ve subjected yourself to censorship. That’s why persons with truly subversive ideas usually follow a DIY method of releasing their works.
People aren’t any more or less sensitive today than they were in the past, but it’d be nice if we learned to collective unwad our panties.
*What do I care what some person on a messageboard who I don’t know and doesn’t know me thinks, anyway?
True.
I’m aware it is a fluid reality and volatile issue. In the post above, I simply expressed an opinion on the matter (which I would have probably refrained from doing if I had came across the thread in “Great Debates”). If you find my views wrong, please correct them. I don’t think I have the energy to engage in a debate regarding art.
Ya know, there’s a difference between saying:
(1) “I disagree with X’s opinion” or “X doesn’t have the credibility for me to give his or her opinion credence”
and
(2) “People of X category should express themselves in public in only the ways I say.”
Once someone has gained any size audience of any description, he or she as a human being has the moral right to say whatever he or she wants and see whether that audience agrees or disagrees.
And people with large audiences have the moral duty to make statements about things that are important to them.
“That’s a stupid thing to say” is a perfectly fine reaction to such a statement. “Shut up and dance and sing pretty songs” is a reprehensible reaction.
Ya know, people post on discussion boards because they expect that other people will react to what they say. That indicates some non-zero degree of care about responses to a post. Otherwise, one might instead post a LiveJournal or a blog.
Ya know, I’m saying:
Why? Because they’re not qualified to be a relationship counselor, and their goal was to write a song, not fix your relationship. Political/social activist songs have the same problem.
Why? They don’t necessarily have any special insight into the subject just because they have an audience. All they’ve done is increased the potential for damage if their idea is stupid.
I’ll go back to Jello and DK. Wiping a mix of DMSO and LSD on cop car handles is a very entertaining idea. It is not wise, and anyone forming their opinions on what would be a good solution based off of that song is an idiot. It’s still a good song, and their audience had no problem with it. It’s just bad advice.
They can do whatever they want. The varied reasons behind how the art is created is how we get beauty and variety. But it’s silly to pretend that they’ve come up with a solution to the subject of the song when their actual goal was to write a song about the problem, not solve it.
On top of all of that, art is notoriously difficult to interpret. People bring their entire lives to their interpretation of the work, ignore the obvious and see things not put there by the author.
So, yeah, they can and absolutely should do art about whatever subject strikes their fancy. However, I think you’re doing yourself a great disservice if you follow entertainers to form your political and social views. We have loads of songs, stories and art about love, infidelity and murder. Almost none of them present an accurate picture of what your experience will be if you endeavor to engage in them.
Ya know, most people agree that once someone has devolved to name calling, they’re not worth listening to. Bring an argument, and I might care. Come up with a list of unsavory names and insults? meh, I’ve been insulted more creatively by people who knew what they insulted, so they could make it work.
People who are interested in making art are interested in using their art for a very wide variety of purposes, including making social and political statements, some of which has actually had significant impact in the world.
You can say that about nearly anyone. In fact, you can probably say that about 99 percent of the people who post on this message board.
And again, there’s a huge difference between saying “I don’t take this particular person’s word as credible on this issue” or “This person is wrong about this for X, Y, and Z reasons” as opposed to “This person should shut up about issues and sing pretty songs.”
That is a fundamentally dehumanizing attitude, a disrespectful one, and an antidemocratic one. And whoever says this about people in general—based on whatever category
We live in a society in which ordinary people have the legal, ethical, and moral authority and duty to give their voice to the decisions that society makes. “You’re wrong” is a perfectly fine comment. “You need to shut up” is one that reflects disrespect for a fellow citizen and member of society.
So, Jello Biafra is wrong about that. He has a right to be wrong. You have the right to tell him he’s wrong. Telling him he needs to “shut up and sing pretty songs” makes you someone who is committing a worse wrong.
Do you post to this board in order to solve problems? You’re doing it wrong then.
You’re still responding to me, so you obviously think it’s worth your time. And I didn’t insult you. I described a reasonably accurate way of identifying bigots in the world. People who say that “X needs to shut up and sing pretty songs” when X is of a race and gender who historically has been denied a voice in politics and society but has been accepted as “mere entertainment” … yeah, it’s pretty accurate.
But a great deal of even the most earnest art is dunderheaded foolishness.
Which is why I don’t follow the advice of a great deal of this message board or the advice of entertainers.
I’m not actually telling them to shut up. I’m telling people to stop taking the positions of entertainers so damn seriously. The made an entertaining work, and 99% of the time, that’s as far as you should take it. Their opinion on any given subject is worth about the same as anyone you’d ask on the street.
I really don’t know what having a conversation on a messageboard has to do with entertainers trying to solve the world’s problems. I’ve been on a stage often, it’s a lot more one-way. What happens on stage is almost invariably mere entertainment. My politics might enter into it, I sometimes don’t see how it can’t in some way, but it doesn’t even come close to a discussion. To imagine it’s even on the level that happens here is a claim that I’m not willing to buy without a lot of convincing.
Well, you didn’t go on to insist I was any of the insults I mistakenly thought would be directed at someone of my position. I apologize for thinking I might be.
A great deal of everything is dunderheaded foolishness, including expert commentary. But some of society’s and history’s most powerful statements come from people who other people say should stick to doing X, like, for example, athletes —
— who are really just a type of entertainer.
The argument is whether a particular statement is correct or effective, not whether that person has failed to understand his or her place in society by stepping beyond the bounds of what is his or her “job” in life.
Then what exactly are you arguing with me about?
I have set forth the applicable definitions in my point of view; I have no stake in determining whether they apply to anyone specific.
In fact, I think elite athletes betray the privileges that society gives them by failing to speak out more often on matters of social concern. I think they should do it more often. Many times they will reveal themselves to be dunderheaded fools, but sometimes they will say something important, and that’s what is important.
You know, that’s kind of what I’m getting at here. A bunch of people did (and sometimes still do) take that as a statement of “black power”. But the athlete himself says differently:
And for people taking that gesture too seriously, and misinterpreting it, they were booted from the games. A bad overreaction to a protest that wasn’t exactly clear in its meaning.
So yeah, for the most part, you should ignore a lot of everything as dunderheaded foolishness. It might tell you part of the story, but it’s far from the whole picture. There are a few gems out there, but most of it should be taken in aggregate, at best. I do generally hold expert commentary in higher regard, because if it’s incoherent, it’s not part of the game, but more about that later.
I don’t have a particular opinion on whether it was correct. It’s just about as bland as the rest of the halftime show. I don’t think anyone should have been up in arms about it.
Well, I think it started with me mistakenly quoting you as being against my general position of thinking that most entertainer’s opinions aren’t worth much of a second thought. Then, you began to at least imply that the opinion of experts might be of equal value to that of entertainers. I don’t think that is the case. Even when I think say, Shields and Brooks, aren’t really addressing the meat of a question, they aren’t trying to fit it in to a meter or cover it with a catchy rhyme or dance move. If their argument for an idea fails, it fails on the merits they present. It can’t be enjoyed for other reasons.
If you want to continue that line of argument, then we still have have one. If you don’t, then it’d probably be best to accept my earlier apology for misinterpreting your post and move on.