Art, Ego, and Allegation: Can You Separate the Creator from the Creation?
It's kind of funny that we ended up here, where we are now. Who knows if we would've landed in this exact spot without that particular turn of events.
But to me, a fundamental part of ‘life’, for lack of a better word, is knowing that fact and accepting it. And at the same time, keeping an open mind that while this path led you here, any other path could have led you to the same place.
And this place, this particular blog, emerged from ‘something’. This specific post is the direct result of my ‘Instagram story picture’ monologue, and it’s directly linked to one of ‘your’ actions (again, for lack of a better word).
And however well you think this is written, whatever topics it touches on, basically, how much you like or dislike it, can play a role in your own destiny.
How? You might ask.
And the other people reading this would probably ask the same thing. I mean, ‘your own destiny’ is maybe a bit much, which is why I put a ‘can’ in there.
After all, if you were purely logic-based, we wouldn't be here in the first place.
To give you a small spoiler from the ‘ghost/machine’ story: music played a pretty big role.
During the many conversations I had back then, some of which were genuinely fascinating and eye-opening, more on those later, one discussion about music,
specifically about artists and their work, brought up a topic that has also caused some public debate:
Do you care about the artist behind the music, and if so, how much?
The person I was talking to said it wasn't important to her at all.
If the music is good, the music is good. On a superficial level, I 100% agree.
If a banger comes on the radio, I don’t really care who the hell is performing it.
But if the song is so good that I want to hear more from that artist, get to know them better, then those questions start to play a role in my perception of that ‘artist’.
Wow, writing about this, I see so many similarities with AI and how this could be handled on a more social level.
(Small ex-course on my current understanding of modern philosophy)
There's a theory by some guy, and simplified, it boils down to a thought experiment: picture an identical copy of our world, except the water on their planet is black, with completely different properties, but still serving the same purpose as ours.
His theory says that despite these differences, the people there would still call it ‘water’, just like we do. And the underlying theory of that somehow disproves the ‘brain in a vat’ hypothesis.
How it does that? I have no idea.
But I'm sure if I ever understand it, something will click in my brain, whether for better or worse. (Small ex-course partially over)
So, based on that whole concept, basically doing (my idea of) philosophy with (my idea of) philosophy, picture our world, an identical copy, except their only form of ‘art’ is AI-prompting. Everything artsy is ‘done’ by an AI.
My theory is they would still call it art, and the guy prompting would be the artist, in the same way an architect is the artist, even though the building is most certainly not built by him, nor are the calculations his.
Yet, he gets all the credit.
Now you maybe understand my confusion with philosophy. How do you disprove that?
With that theory, I can now simply say: the artist is the ‘entity’ having the idea, writing the text, composing the music.
The one performing it is just that: the performer.
And while you might say, "the artist is also the presentation, living the ‘style’ of that artist," which seems like a legit point,
I’d argue that maybe the art only works with that specific performance, that presentation. An artist who gets the same attention, or even more, while being completely anonymous certainly creates something that works without any bling-bling.
Not to say they're a worse artist, but there's a different nuance to the ‘art’.
A funny remark I think, as much of a cliché as it might be, I have no clue, is that Banksy is a good indicator of whether a person ‘gets’ (his) art or not, as creating that question in so many people is, in itself, a form of ‘art’.
I mentioned a public discourse about the artist-art bond earlier. Take Michael Jackson on an international level. As a perfect second candidate, we have Rammstein.
And since we’re narrowing the audience size and Rammstein is still somewhat international, let's take someone whose path led him exactly to the spot that makes him perfect for this, whether it was easy or not:
Xavier Naidoo.
The fact that you might be asking yourself who that is makes him perfect.
All of them have more or less confirmed serious allegations against them.
And just like that, this has turned into a personal social experiment, for some of you more, for some of you less.
Whether you know them or their allegations, just listen to them, then check the list below.
And if there was something you didn’t know, or it’s all completely new to you,
listen again.
Did your perception change?
-
Child Sexual Abuse: Multiple, separate allegations from different individuals claiming Jackson sexually abused them as children.
Out-of-Court Settlement: Settled a 1993 civil suit with one accuser out of court.
Criminal Trial Acquittal: Was tried on criminal charges of child molestation in 2005 and was acquitted on all counts.
"Leaving Neverland" Documentary: Renewed focus on the allegations in 2019 with graphic accounts from two men who claimed they were abused by him as children.
-
Systematic "Casting" of Female Fans: Recent allegations claim that female fans were systematically recruited at concerts for after-show parties.
Sexual Misconduct and Coercion: Multiple women have alleged that they were drugged, coerced, or non-consensually engaged in sexual acts with lead singer Till Lindemann at these parties.
Use of Fascist-Style Imagery: Long-standing accusations of using aesthetics and symbols in their music videos and performances that are reminiscent of Nazi Germany.
-
Far-Right Ideology: Allegations of aligning with and promoting far-right and extremist views, including association with the "Reichsbürger" movement.
Spreading Conspiracy Theories: Accused of promoting various conspiracy theories, including those about the 9/11 attacks and the legitimacy of the German Federal Republic.
Hate Speech in Lyrics: Accused of using homophobic, antisemitic, and racist language and tropes in his song lyrics.
So, I think it becomes pretty clear that the relationship between an artist and their art is, well, ‘complicated,’ as some stupid Facebook status would state.
As if any relationship isn't complicated. ‘
Hell, the whole thing is a complicated fucking-mess inside an even more complicated fucking mess.
So yes, the one thing is, in fact, deeply entrenched in the other.
Okay, enough theory and experimentation. Let’s get back to real life.
How does any of this play a role in what’s currently going on?
For one, it’s also a deeper ‘experiment’ for the aforementioned ‘you’. I’d guess you saw pretty early where this was going, or is still going, right?
Since you're that clever and all that shit 🥸
You wouldn't have even dared to ask ‘how does this all play any role,’ since you saw it from the start.
It would become really interactive if I blacked-out this part and let you send me your idea of where this is headed, but who am I kidding, right?
Anyhow, to get an idea of how ‘most’ others think about it, or at least if they still listen to music from ‘such’ an artist,
I think Kanye is the perfect example. With most other scandalous people, you’d always have the argument that they aren’t real artists.
But I think that statement is as wrong as it can be. it’s always a matter of ‘taste’ and how ‘broad’ the target audience is.
And with Kanye being, I think, mostly universally accepted by young and old, he makes a good benchmark. And yes, he’s a good artist; the art that comes out is good.
My point is, as long as he is content with it and not harming anyone in a broader, non-physical sense, who gives anyone the right to judge him or his state?
And if he is, in fact, reporting that he’s fine, why should we believe anything different?
I mean, in his case, there is a very huge reach, but is it necessarily bad? Yeah, you might say kids are seeing that, and people are easily influenced.
And while I agree they have an influence, isn’t it on us to change the situation differently?
Since I was a teenager, the argument has been that rap music is a bad influence on kids, and I don’t see rappers starting to rap about different topics anytime soon.
It was ‘bad’ words, then it turned into drug consumption, let’s just hope the next generation isn't rapping about rebellion.
And most drugs mentioned in songs are, in fact, downers: opioids and benzos
(lean and xans, in case you didn’t know).
The comparison with motion pictures sometimes gets brought up, but I think with music, there's this whole 'para-social' relationship to the artist.
But it shouldn't be too hard to draw the logical bridge from motion pictures being just an acted bit to music being that as well.
And if your kid has problems with that, it’s a good first sign that maybe you should get your child, and by extension yourself, checked out up there.
If they already start thinking they're Rambo after watching Rambo, that's particularly bad, but still not hopeless, it just requires more work.
So, to bring back the personal touch: since it is a fact that none of you are me (wow, what an insight), who are you to judge my state or even what is best for me?
So in case you think there is some value in this, besides it being my way of dealing with all this to a certain degree, don't you think it’s fine just the way it is?
And if you really think like that, it just shows that your intentions aren’t, in fact, what’s best for me, but what you think is best for whoever.
And taking that decision away from me is just not right.
Even if god knows what would happen if you’d tell me.
