Never meet your heroes

[Shadow Wolf]

I am kind of suprised though that no one else has mentioned Bill Cosby. I mean, just about every last one of us thought the man was a saint. And, indeed, he did do a lot of great work, especially for his community. But oh my god what a vicious and savage predator.

 

[SomeRandom]

I listen to music that is basically slasher amd snuff flicks in lyric form. The artists though obviously aren't raging psychoti lc serial killers. Marilyn Manson is a wild and fascinating gimmick and stage persona. Brian Warner is about as boring and bland a man as they get. So I don't really see why this would be odd.

.

I don’t think that’s really a fair one to one comparison. Much of Mr Warner’s alter ego is about expression. Utilising his medium to portray what he considers a “good art.”
He’s expressed such in interviews saying that he does the things he does out a sense of artistic liberation. That he does not go to such extremes in real life is sort of his entire point. He goes extreme to fulfil an artistic desire, not that he lives like that in real life.
But being part of a band that actively in its artistic creation promotes specific political ideologies, one would reasonably expect the band members share that ideology, even if it’s not as extreme as the finished work. I’m aware that people are multifaceted and that not every project a person signs onto will reflect their beliefs necessarily. Like a Shakespearean trained actor might in real life hold fast to the Anti Stradfordian conspiracy (Shakespeare didn’t write Shakespeare because he was poor and therefore not educated enough to create all the masterpieces to his name.) But it would at least raise an eyebrow or two, surely?

Analysing anything in relation to the cultural zeitgeist can be problematic. This is how things today get banned for racist depictions even though the references are entirely lost on a modern audience. Like a handful of Tom and Jerry and Looney Tunes cartoons. By and large, no one would even know there is even any racism there going on because the references are so obscure, but we know anyways because this cultural zeitgeist allows these racist depictions to be brought up, made contemporary and current, and allows them to live on and breath a new life for a new audience that are now aware of these depictions, rather than just letting them remain buried in the past by obscurity where they belong.
.

I don’t know. Academia loves analysing everything. And I’m not really sure that just allowing racist or negative portrayals in the past to remain under wraps would satisfy humans for very long. We are often inquisitive and I don’t think those, especially those of us who grew up with an expectation of information at our fingertips 24/7, would even allow that to happen. I think it is cowardly to just sweep under the rug the cultural expectations and portrayals of the past. Because in doing so you effectively fail to come up with an argument of why those cultural attitudes exist and why they were so harmful. This vagueness is a vulnerability that can be exploited. Recontextualising it to a younger less informed audience and allowing prejudice to thrive again. Of course, I do understand that this method certainly has drawbacks. By opening old wounds and expanding “white guilt.”
But the way I see it, we can’t hide from our past. That’s cowardly. We need to acknowledge it and why it was wrong then and wrong today.

Commissioned art is a reason we must be weary of making assumptions into interpreting art. It is possible, that for all we know, the real reason Da Vinci made such extensive edits to Mona Lisa, and all the enigmatic features of the painting are really just the result of a finicky patron looking for something unusual.
And, of course, what really was the intent behind "For sale: baby shoes, never worn."? It wasn't even actually Hemingway where that originates from.
Or another example would be what people claim is a Nietzschean influence on Ayn Rand, although Rand herself sternly denied this and, if I recall correctly, harshly criticized Nietzsche when she was asked about the similarities between Nietzsche's philosophies and Fountain Head.
Just read your Harry Potter.

Whilst I do agree with that, the solution of “just read your Harry Potter” is intellectually unsatisfying for me.
I like the series and it will always be a part of my reading identity. But I also like looking into the nitty gritty of artistic works. I like having arguments about philosophical approaches to art critiques, I want to know more about the artists I like. I want to explore the myriad of ways that this can all be connected or argued. It’s not enough to just read, I’m curious by nature. It’s just not in me to stop short of just reading/watching/looking at something. I need more. I need to be able to geek out properly.

 

[Heyo]

So who are some of your toppled idols?
You first “mask off” moment?

I never had any heroes. I know that's unusual and many psychologists stress the importance of having heroes, role models. Many successful people have above average interest in biographies and they try to emulate an other famous human.
I don't and never did. There are no heroes, no perfect humans (or even super humans). Someone can be an absolute expert in a field and I can value her/his contribution to the field - even if s/he is a despicable human being. An author can write a book that is groundbreaking, excellent and I can love it - even if other works are crap.
There are no good people and no evil people only good deeds and evil deeds.

 

[SomeRandom]

I am kind of suprised though that no one else has mentioned Bill Cosby. I mean, just about every last one of us thought the man was a saint. And, indeed, he did do a lot of great work, especially for his community. But oh my god what a vicious and savage predator.

Lol same thing happened in Aus with Rolf Harris. This family friendly guy who was the face of wholesomeness for like 50 years, turned out to be a sexual predator and a pedophile. And jaws very sharply dropped around Australia when it was dramatically revealed.

 

[SomeRandom]

I never had any heroes. I know that's unusual and many psychologists stress the importance of having heroes, role models. Many successful people have above average interest in biographies and they try to emulate an other famous human.
I don't and never did. There are no heroes, no perfect humans (or even super humans). Someone can be an absolute expert in a field and I can value her/his contribution to the field - even if s/he is a despicable human being. An author can write a book that is groundbreaking, excellent and I can love it - even if other works are crap.
There are no good people and no evil people only good deeds and evil deeds.

For what it’s worth, I think that is a very pragmatic approach to life

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don’t think that’s really a fair one to one comparison.

I would say it is. Marilyn Manson is dark, intriguing, exciting, and is an explosion of creative brilliance. Brian Warner, the man, to meet him, is nothing like his gimmick. He's bland, dull, and pretty boring from what I've read about him (he doesn't even like taking his pants all the way off during sex because he's terrified something might happenand people will see him naked). Of course it's all the same person, but the gimmick and the man are two very different characters.

 

[SomeRandom]

I would say it is. Marilyn Manson is dark, intriguing, exciting, and is an explosion of creative brilliance. Brian Warner, the man, to meet him, is nothing like his gimmick. He's bland, dull, and pretty boring from what I've read about him (he doesn't even like taking his pants all the way off during sex because he's terrified something might happenand people will see him naked). Of course it's all the same person, but the gimmick and the man are two very different characters.

I don’t know. Artistic personas are one thing. Being part of an artistic expression that is explicitly political and not aligning to that ideology seems a good way for a band to split. Though in saying that, the band in question did split. Besides Mr Manson is a singer, he’s not part of a collaboration like a band is. You’d expect that a band would reflect the message much more cleanly than just one guy doing a shtick.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

ou’d expect that a band would reflect the message much more cleanly than just one guy doing a shtick.

That goes on quite a bit. Or, more commonly, some band members do the writing and others more or less just play with the band (originally, of the classic nine members of Slipknot, only three or four of them actually contributed to the writing). And then the ones doing it because they have to control every aspect going on without it officially being a solo act tend to have a revolving door of musicians playing for them over the years. Amd then with the top 40, super hit, mega friendly radio songs, the writer may not even play in the band the recorded the song and made it famous. The writer may not even play in a band at all and just make a living writing licks and lyrics and selling them (The Monkeys are a great example, as they wrote none of their stuff for the show).

 

[SomeRandom]

That goes on quite a bit. Or, more commonly, some band members do the writing and others more or less just play with the band (originally, of the classic nine members of Slipknot, only three or four of them actually contributed to the writing). And then the ones doing it because they have to control every aspect going on without it officially being a solo act tend to have a revolving door of musicians playing for them over the years. Amd then with the top 40, super hit, mega friendly radio songs, the writer may not even play in the band the recorded the song and made it famous. The writer may not even play in a band at all and just make a living writing licks and lyrics and selling them (The Monkeys are a great example, as they wrote none of their stuff for the show, especially early on).

That is true. It is still jarring to the audience when someone “goes off script” when they basically know the identity and politics of said band as it is sold to them as a sort of “brand.”
It’s like having Johnny Rotten praise the queen or something. Like we know this is all for show, but something just seems “weird” about it regardless.

 

[PureX]

Having been an artist, and having met other artists who's work I greatly admired, I've never been foolish enough to presume them or myself to be heroic. Heros don't make art. Unless a hero is someone who sees the world through their own peculiar lens, and is oddly driven to share that vision with others.

 

[SomeRandom]

Having been an artist, and having met other artists who's work I greatly admired, I've never been foolish enough to presume them or myself to be heroic. Heros don't make art. Unless a hero is someone who sees the world through their own peculiar lens, and is oddly driven to share that vision with others.

Doesn’t that describe much of the makers and shakers who’s statues are literally being toppled in America right now?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...a-94d2-d7bc43b26bf9_story.html?outputType=amp
Not that I have a horse in the race either way, just my naive observation

 

[Stevicus]

So as the shockwaves of Rowling’s recent “controversy” let’s say, continue to ripple through social media, the fans are going through the grieving process of losing someone they probably looked up to for their entire lives. Metaphorically speaking, obviously.

I’m firmly for following the idea of the death of the author when analysing art, but it is hard not to constantly think about the artist’s views when looking at their art.
Possibly thanks to more scrutiny due to social media.

Lovecraft fans seem to have come to terms with his less savoury views, which apparently softened throughout his life.

So who are some of your toppled idols?
You first “mask off” moment?

I'm not sure if I ever had any real "idols." We're all human; no one is larger than life. If we admire people for having a certain skill, whether it's writing, art, athletics, acting, etc., then that's one thing. But to make it more than that seems like it's going too far.

There's far too much celebrity worship in this society anyway. That's something I never could understand.

 

[PureX]

Doesn’t that describe much of the makers and shakers who’s statues are literally being toppled in America right now?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...a-94d2-d7bc43b26bf9_story.html?outputType=amp
Not that I have a horse in the race either way, just my naive observation

No. Those were just a bunch of rich guys fighting to maintain their wealth and power. As the wealthy elites have done in every culture since the dawn of time (with their servants on the front lines, of course). They love to proclaim themselves "heroes" rather than the criminals, tyrants, and oppressors that they actually were.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No. Those were just a bunch of rich guys fighting to maintain their wealth and power. As the wealthy elites have done in every culture since the dawn of time (with their servants on the front lines, of course). They love to proclaim themselves "heroes" rather than the criminals, tyrants, and oppressors that they actually were.

Do you think everyone who has had people looking up to them has thought of themselves as a hero? Do you believe they intentionally set out with that as a goal?
And don't forget, hero can be inferred to mean many things. But it often denotes having a major influence. Such as my prior mentioning of George Carling. When I first started watching him, being young and fresh out of Christianity, I truly do believe he had a tremendous influence on me and helped me to find a good means for looking at the world and interpreting the things within it (such as the very vital importance of context, the dynamics of changing language changing ideas and perceptions about what the language describes, or rights being things that do not inherently exist and really are actually privileges). I've seen all his stand ups, I've watched the George Carlin show, read all his books, and it's not often I come across an interview with him I haven't seen. He taught me more about life than my own father did. And I'm not ashamed to say I do idolize him, pretty much about as I do Einstein (who had about an equal influence, but more in areas such as my views towards ontology and epistemology). Or Telsa, someone I will unashamedly call a hero (somewhat of a real life tragic hero given his potential and visions, along with Edison's greed damning his ideas and slowing technological and energy progress for all of humanity in the process).

 

[SomeRandom]

Do you think everyone who has had people looking up to them has thought of themselves as a hero? Do you believe they intentionally set out with that as a goal?
And don't forget, hero can be inferred to mean many things. But it often denotes having a major influence. Such as my prior mentioning of George Carling. When I first started watching him, being young and fresh out of Christianity, I truly do believe he had a tremendous influence on me and helped me to find a good means for looking at the world and interpreting the things within it (such as the very vital importance of context, the dynamics of changing language changing ideas and perceptions about what the language describes, or rights being things that do not inherently exist and really are actually privileges). I've seen all his stand ups, I've watched the George Carlin show, read all his books, and it's not often I come across an interview with him I haven't seen. He taught me more about life than my own father did. And I'm not ashamed to say I do idolize him, pretty much about as I do Einstein (who had about an equal influence, but more in areas such as my views towards ontology and epistemology). Or Telsa, someone I will unashamedly call a hero (somewhat of a real life tragic hero given his potential and visions, along with Edison's greed damning his ideas and slowing technological and energy progress for all of humanity in the process).

I must agree that George Carlin is a boss.