I just watched the documentary "Michael Moore Hates America". I've always enjoyed Moore's films, and I've always done so with a grain of salt/peering through the sensationalism. Overall this movie wasn't exactly cohesive, but also wasn't the Glenn Beck inspired witch hunt I expected. It certainly left me thinking that Michael Moore seems far more concerned with entertainment over truth (more so than I had believed), nor much with change. His documentaries are certainly more "personalized" than most, and he may also possibly be a bit of a martyr jackass.
The one phrase in this movie that caught my ear (that surfaces in so many left vs right movies) is the idea of Americans being self-reliant. This more than anything is probably the true American dream. The concept has changed though. For me the idea of self reliance would mean that you can work hard and take care of yourself, and I would unquestioningly embrace and defend that idea. The modern American pattern for the overwhelming majority is that, if you are reasonably successful, you work hard and pay to depend on other people. Mortgages, insurance, and to a far lesser extent car loans (lesser but part of the aggregate): all cover those wants and needs that have become inaccessible through hard work alone yet are a staple of modern life. Though it may be easy to diminish their roles when divided up into convenient payments, the water that they are holding can easily drown most people.
There is also the money that we are constantly paying the governments for services they provide. And though that may be a heated topic by itself, the necessity of some of those services is inarguable and evolving technology expected in infrastructures increasingly precludes external coordination. The bottom line is that this is another area in which we are not self-reliant.
The time of true (for all intents and purposes) self reliance through hard work alone wasn't that long ago, but for the moment at least, for several reasons (primarily the introduction of prohibitively high costs) it's gone. The one above that can't be responsibly skirted around is insurance, which is also the most directly at odds with the concept of self-reliance. No matter what other argument there may be, insurance amounts to relying on a company to bail you out should you need it. As a quick aside, in the documentary the person touting self-reliance was doing so as they were shouting for the police.
My personal perspective is that it is the fundamental ideas of self-reliance that should be upheld as much as possible. If people work hard, collaborate, & compete society will benefit and that society in return should absorb those obstacles which impede that progress, which can make the independence to perform freely impossible. The original American ethic of work hard and get ahead should not be jeopardized by any forced dependence which could fall through.
No matter what other solutions are envisioned it is presently idealistically short sighted to espouse the idea of true self-reliance and that people are able to take care of themselves, or at least to build themselves up to the point where that is possible through hard work. Any romanticized rhetoric of the truly independent American left to his/her own devices is glossing over all of the dependencies behind the curtain. Anyone who thinks that they are truly their own person financially needs to think more about where their finances are going. It's not nearly as cool, it sucks to admit it, but it's not going to go away and machismo doesn't help.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Friday, July 23, 2010
Bob Dylan and the Institution of Celebrity
(No it's not a lesser known Roald Doahl book)
I watched a little bit of a PBS show about Bob Dylan last night which got me thinking about celebrity. The part of the program that I watched featured interviews with people that were around Dylan during the early years, when he was looked to to be a voice for his generation. These people seemed confused and/or annoyed by the fact that Dylan was apparently primarily concerned with being a singer/songwriter. This was the 60's after all and the times were a'changin' and a hard rain was gonna fall, and a whole bunch of other Dylan references to change that were, of course, uniquely applicable to that time period. I'm not saying he didn't write topical songs (some are undeniably pointed like Talkin' John Birch Blues) but that maybe, as crazy it sounds, he wanted to write and not to lead a revolution. Maybe it was because he was a kid who had spent his life playing music: a young, gawky entertainer and artist who was emulating Woody Guthrie, not Thomas Paine. In the 60's art and thought were hoisted onto the shoulders of cultural upheaval, and it is this abduction that can be considered responsible for the confusion resulting from any forced pretenses. This also presents a particularly interesting case in which to evaluate the often overlooked channels that are responsible for the dissemination of these ideas: the media.
In addition to being a time of cultural tension and perceived shift, the 60's were also a pivotal time for celebrity. It is very easy to forget (as I was just reminded when speaking to someone from an older generation) that the modern concept of celebrity is a very young one, in the 60's it would have been in no more than in its adolescence. First, a bit of history.
The idea of a celebrity on a large (national) scale is dependent upon media and technology: the ability to distribute the idea of celebrity. Before the spread of the different types of media even those people that were "famous" were basically known by name and would be free to intermingle Peter the Great style. The shift due to media is glaringly obvious in the music industry. In the early 20th century a successful musician would have been one that was paid a modest amount to play at a club on a regular basis. When sound recording became accessible suddenly people could essentially buy performances. One anecdotal aside is that I'm always reminded of some jazz performers who had to shift their acts because recordings left the audience expecting songs to sound a certain way. This grew into a business, and in turn artists grew more popular as they were able to reach a larger audience. In a very short time music shifted from a landscape of scattered names of composers to one that was dominated by performing stars. Prior to the 60's music stars were similar to Woody Guthrie, able to play their music on the radio and TV variety shows. Some celebrities grew into idols, like Elvis, but their role remained one of entertainment. It's easy to think that Dylan entered the limelight with thoughts that that is what the limelight would be: a conduit for his performances.
He was not afforded that luxury however. He himself became an idol but one that was attached to ideas bigger than entertainment, and more ambitious than art. The questions shifted from what do you have to say to what are you going to do (at a time when these questions were asked of many). Since he became a star for his music, he became a name, a valued commodity and therefore something that was to be mined for any other resources that may benefit the miner. He obviously didn't suffer notably, and maybe some of it was planned, but he was a kid who was most likely more than anything else uncertain and being inflated in ways that he did not foresee. He may have been just trying to do what he had set out to do, what those before him had done: play music.
Dylan therefore becomes a pivotal person in the evolution of celebrity, among other things helping establish a precedent in how easily tangled art and actions can become in modern media. Others in his generation would be subject to the same expansion of focus that strongly connected their lives and their jobs, but it happened to him early in the period, early in his life, and became an integral part of his identity. This is easily attributed to the expansion of media and technology coupled with the more investigative era. It is an interesting sign at a crossroads between the past of celebrity performers and the present of celebrity as a business. It also provides a ruler for how rapidly the concept has evolved and how transient it may be in light of a digital future.
I watched a little bit of a PBS show about Bob Dylan last night which got me thinking about celebrity. The part of the program that I watched featured interviews with people that were around Dylan during the early years, when he was looked to to be a voice for his generation. These people seemed confused and/or annoyed by the fact that Dylan was apparently primarily concerned with being a singer/songwriter. This was the 60's after all and the times were a'changin' and a hard rain was gonna fall, and a whole bunch of other Dylan references to change that were, of course, uniquely applicable to that time period. I'm not saying he didn't write topical songs (some are undeniably pointed like Talkin' John Birch Blues) but that maybe, as crazy it sounds, he wanted to write and not to lead a revolution. Maybe it was because he was a kid who had spent his life playing music: a young, gawky entertainer and artist who was emulating Woody Guthrie, not Thomas Paine. In the 60's art and thought were hoisted onto the shoulders of cultural upheaval, and it is this abduction that can be considered responsible for the confusion resulting from any forced pretenses. This also presents a particularly interesting case in which to evaluate the often overlooked channels that are responsible for the dissemination of these ideas: the media.
In addition to being a time of cultural tension and perceived shift, the 60's were also a pivotal time for celebrity. It is very easy to forget (as I was just reminded when speaking to someone from an older generation) that the modern concept of celebrity is a very young one, in the 60's it would have been in no more than in its adolescence. First, a bit of history.
The idea of a celebrity on a large (national) scale is dependent upon media and technology: the ability to distribute the idea of celebrity. Before the spread of the different types of media even those people that were "famous" were basically known by name and would be free to intermingle Peter the Great style. The shift due to media is glaringly obvious in the music industry. In the early 20th century a successful musician would have been one that was paid a modest amount to play at a club on a regular basis. When sound recording became accessible suddenly people could essentially buy performances. One anecdotal aside is that I'm always reminded of some jazz performers who had to shift their acts because recordings left the audience expecting songs to sound a certain way. This grew into a business, and in turn artists grew more popular as they were able to reach a larger audience. In a very short time music shifted from a landscape of scattered names of composers to one that was dominated by performing stars. Prior to the 60's music stars were similar to Woody Guthrie, able to play their music on the radio and TV variety shows. Some celebrities grew into idols, like Elvis, but their role remained one of entertainment. It's easy to think that Dylan entered the limelight with thoughts that that is what the limelight would be: a conduit for his performances.
He was not afforded that luxury however. He himself became an idol but one that was attached to ideas bigger than entertainment, and more ambitious than art. The questions shifted from what do you have to say to what are you going to do (at a time when these questions were asked of many). Since he became a star for his music, he became a name, a valued commodity and therefore something that was to be mined for any other resources that may benefit the miner. He obviously didn't suffer notably, and maybe some of it was planned, but he was a kid who was most likely more than anything else uncertain and being inflated in ways that he did not foresee. He may have been just trying to do what he had set out to do, what those before him had done: play music.
Dylan therefore becomes a pivotal person in the evolution of celebrity, among other things helping establish a precedent in how easily tangled art and actions can become in modern media. Others in his generation would be subject to the same expansion of focus that strongly connected their lives and their jobs, but it happened to him early in the period, early in his life, and became an integral part of his identity. This is easily attributed to the expansion of media and technology coupled with the more investigative era. It is an interesting sign at a crossroads between the past of celebrity performers and the present of celebrity as a business. It also provides a ruler for how rapidly the concept has evolved and how transient it may be in light of a digital future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)