The fact that you feel that he is an icon does not make anyone’s criticism of him less valid and people’s criticisms don’t have to make him less iconic in your eyes. As far as holding him accountable for things he said long ago after he’s dead, I’m sure there are lots of fans who would have had feelings about those things he said who never saw those interviews in the pre internet world and people didn’t have these kinds of public forums to have these discussions pre internet.
If his words in interviews legitimized fascist beliefs in any fans who read those interviews it deserves to be discussed, but as a human who can appreciate nuance I can still experience all the feelings I have attached to certain Bowie songs even after having these discussions.
I’m tempted to get into the influences he took throughout his career and the postmodern, absurdist etc stances they took, and how he very much (at times, anyway) saw his work as a part of that continuum, so ‘face value, nothing behind the mask’ actually plays into what he might have been trying to do. But it’s time for tea so I’ll just drop in this quote that suggests he, at least sometimes, dealt with his own considerations of what worth he may or may not have had:
“The filming was interrupted at one point by an old man walking his dog, looking for driftwood. Mallet asked him if he wouldn’t mind moving, and pointed out Bowie sitting outside the catering van. ‘Do you know who this is?’ he asked. Sharp as a tack, the old man responded with, ‘Of course I do. It’s some cunt in a clown suit.’ Sometime later, Bowie remembered, ‘That was a huge moment for me. It put me back in my place and made me realise, “Yes, I’m just a cunt in a clown suit.”
Well my comment had to do with the sort of redundant interviews the documentary included. Probably the most telling thing about it was when he talked about his brother who had schizophrenia. Seems like Bowie very much suffered through-out his life from a lack of love and affection from his parents.
It’s an absurd notion that we aren’t supposed to be critical of someone’s icon or as if an icon is somehow universal. Bowie is an icon to all? If that’s the case I guess Lady Gaga and Ted Nugent are too.
I thought art was in the eye of the beholder, so it’s very existence cancels out it’s own very existence… but has that now changed in this crypto era?
How many times does an artist have to write a great song to be considered a proper artist, imo none… you’re a proper artist whether you’ve written great songs or not, but he did write great songs over and over and over again…
as far as the racism, there is a difference between a racist that thinks racism is right, a racist who thinks racism is wrong, and a racist so delusional that they think everyone is a little racist as if people are born racist rather than indoctrinated and taught racism, and of course there’s a difference of people who use racism for shock value who aren’t racist and who are racist… who knows which bowie was definitively?
I actually think Bowie made some fantastic music but I’m not so invested in any legacy artist to care enough to get upset if someone says something bad about them.
art is in the eye of the beholder, but the messages within art are not contained to the art, nor are the artists intentions for said art.
not all art is created with ethical intentions, and not all artists deserve redemption
seperate the art from the artist all you want: it doesn’t change the fact that the artist still made that art, and even with death of the artist their message can still live on in the art itself.
this is especially true if said artist was, ya know, a nazi. can we truly seperate art created with white supremacist idealogy from its creators? can you listen to a black metal band that writes racist music that supports cryptofascism in a way that “seperates the art from the artist?”
I don’t think so, but it’s complicated for sure, and is definitely worth thinking about. our intake of art and creativity is as important as our output, and I think it’s worth really weighing in our conscience on such matters. sometimes art is just bad, not for a lack of quality, but for the reason the art exists in the first place.
I personally don’t care to intake art made by people who hold such beliefs, especially when they are directly represented in their art. It’s certainly not black and white though and in the age of late-stage capitalism it’s an even trickier question to answer.
Does this mean we can not discuss the past now?
Can we not look at an icon’s problematic behaviour in the light of what we know today in order to better understand the character and why it was acceptable then for example? Or maybe in order to better prevent it from happening now?
We all know that if we stopped enjoying art from artists with bad behaviour we would not have any art to enjoy, does that mean that we must cover our eyes and ears and forbid any discussion about said behaviour?
this is how I feel about classical western music theory and the “classics” within it.
were a lot of those composers messed up people? yeah.
have most of them been dead for so long that their lives were largely irrelevant to us now? also yeah.
did a lot of them make absolutely brilliant art that deserves to be studied? also also yeah.
none of these things are mutually exclusive and that’s fine actually. it is human to be complex and our understanding of the past and how it shapes our culture now is going to be doubly so.
Cancel culture trying to nail Bowie. Sometimes people do stupid shit - it’s called being human. Bowie will always remain top of the food chain as far as I’m concerned.
There was a real fashion through the late 70’s in the UK to use Nazi iconography, philosophy and language in popular culture. I can’t reasonably explain it because I wasn’t there to experience or properly understand it but Bowie wasn’t alone.
It can’t have been simple being raised by “the greatest generation”, most of whom refused to talk to their children about the horrors of the war they fought, and most presumably bore the scars of such horrors. If I was to be pushed into an explanation, I’d say that this use of Nazism was an act of rebellion against their parents’ silence, a scream of “if you won’t talk about it I’ll bloody well rub your nose in it”.
Our current culture is one that loves to look back and sit in judgement, but how could Bowie’s generation make any sense of what came before them if nobody wanted to talk about it?
If we are to accept that being harassed on a bus can give someone PTSD, then we have to accept that Bowie and his peers were brought up by a generation wholly and completely suffering from PTSD who’s only coping mechanism was silence. Is it completely inconceivable that a few decided the best way to wake them up was to shock them with the only thing they knew would scare them?
Not condoning it, but I think context is important in trying to gauge someone’s intentions. Not a big fan of Bowie’s music/art/whatever, but I’m not convinced his whole Nazi thing was much more than a bit of a scream at his elders.
I just thought the documentary sucked and made Bowie seem a lot less interesting to me. I told myself after watching that well done Clash documentary which made me feel like Stummer was a scheming asshole afterwards not to watch anymore documentaries on artists whose music I admire but at least that one gave me even more reason to love Mick Jones.
I haven’t seen Moonage Daydream yet but many of my friends who are huge Bowie-fans absolutely loved it.
I have all his albums and I’d be willing to say that he’s my number one musical hero in the world ever and I won’t let one documentary chance that even if it turns out to be bad or reveal things about him that are somewhat sketchy etc.
In my job I see cancel culture live all the time. Internet tells that Marilyn Manson is a douche and in a weeks time a lot of people come to my shop to sell their Marilyn Manson cds away. It’s happened on many occasions and with many musicians and stars. I’ll never sell my Marilyn Manson, Ariel Pink, Michael Jackson etc. vinyls although the artists’ political views or sexual preferences don’t match my own. I try to keep the art and the artist’s personal life separate.
Recently I read a biography of a local Finnish (dead) musician whose work I absolutely adore. The book painted a picture of him as an absolute asshole and a very hard person to live with. For a few weeks I had trouble because one of my favourite artists turned out to be a dick, but after that I kinda forgot it. His music is still the absolute best. Better be careful what you read (or watch).
Maybe we can just let people decide for themselves?
If some artist does something so unbearable (for you) that you just can’t appreciate their art anymore and feel uncomfortable with their object in your home, it’s your right to sell it, it’s nobody’s business and it’s not “cancel culture”? How are you cancelling anyone by selling something you already gave the artist the money for? Should we keep everything we own, even if some of it makes us uncomfortable, because we’re scared of taking part in “cancel culture?”
You separate the art from the artist, cool, your thing, some people don’t, also cool.
