We're still talking about David Bowie.

[ex_truepenn]

matociquala: Can I love him for admitting that he's only scared about an album if he thinks it's a good one?

truepenny: Yes. And that if he's not scared about it, he's doing something wrong. Totally. ::loff::

matociquala: Yes

Comments

[nicked_metal]

Although I now understand men who say "No, really, I do respect..." *g*

One of the most frustrating things that can happen to me is when an attractive, smart woman is wearing something that grabs my attention. The internal dialogue gets hopelessly cluttered with repetitions of "Look at her FACE, damn you!"

Which is the difference between "popular entertainment" and "art." If his genderfuck was not accompanied by catchy and popular songs, and wasn't saturated in popular culture--if, you know, it was all stark and demanding, with all the theory showing, no one would watch him, but everyone would write about him.

Our society has got fucked in the head somehow.

I disagree. Egan makes the point well in his novels Distress and Diaspora. There are people whose role in life is to come up with new ideas. There are people whose role in life is to communicate ideas. As both of those tasks become more difficult, there is going to be an increase in specialization

[matociquala]

I don't think you're following Sarah's line of argument. What she's saying (what we're talking about in depth, in fact) is how he uses the charisma and performance to get across something subversive and important that people wouldn't sit still for if it were stripped of entertainment value.

***

Is the black magic one the eyeroll and annoyed dismissal of magical thinking in all its vagaries? Or something I haven't seen?

[nicked_metal]

I don't think you're following Sarah's line of argument. What she's saying (what we're talking about in depth, in fact) is how he uses the charisma and performance to get across something subversive and important that people wouldn't sit still for if it were stripped of entertainment value.I agree with that. What I'm disagreeing with (and not very skilfully) is the idea that it's a bad thing. There's a lot of 'doing' that is essential to human survival, and there will always be a conflict between 'doing' and 'thinking

[matociquala]

She's not saying that that's a bad thing.

It's a beautiful thing. It's the core of art.

She's saying that it's fucked up that if he were doing a starker performance, he'd be taken more seriously.

(The other thing about Bowie is that he lies in interviews, and can't be arsed to keep the lies straight. So.)

But yeah, he's obviously a phenomenally smart man, and one who figured out very early on that dichotomies are sort of generically false. And in the process of insisting that, loudly, for forty years, he's managed to change the world in some interesting ways.

[nicked_metal]

She's saying that it's fucked up that if he were doing a starker performance, he'd be taken more seriously.

Oh, OK. I have misread it then.

The other thing about Bowie is that he lies in interviews, and can't be arsed to keep the lies straight. So.

Heh, it's amusing, that apparent disarming honesty is one of the tricks I use, you'd think I'd suspect him of it! Although the interview series with the scandanavian guy (with subtitles into whichever language it was) is still the stuff that I consider most honest. For certain values of 'honesty vs truth'.

But watching various interviews spanning decades and seeing how the answers changed, I like to pretend that I learned something :)

[ex_truepenn]

Yes.

What I'm saying is that because audiences enjoy David Bowie's performances (and because he's performing rock music, which is obviously too much fun for anyone's good), they are judged to be unworthy of serious attention.

It's that Puritan streak in American thinking. If you like it, it can't be good for you.