Have you ever felt like the odd ball in the conversation
because the ideas that you present defy conventional wisdom or pedestrian familiarity?
Don’t you just love it when you see that look of confusion in a person's eyes
when they don’t quite comprehend exactly what it is that you are attempting to
communicate? You know how when a dog looks at you sideways with that dazed head
turn? You know, as though you were speaking
another language or from another planet like a ‘Spanglish speaking Martian’
when presenting a new concept or idea to a fairly conventional audience? I know
I have. Often I have run across mindsets that are so conservative and
conventional in their daily pursuits of the misnomer known as "life", that their
behaviors borders on repression more than convention. You know that unconsciously imprisoned cell
block ‘D’ (Dead) inmate. That said I do realize that it takes all kinds to make
a society, and all kinds are justifiably needed. E.g., we might need that
overly conservative, anal retentive personality to babysit the hyperbolic
activities of the pink haired overly illustrated tattooed, body pierced, Chuck
Taylor wearing, inhibition lacking, gnarly skateboard dude. In such cases we might
need the supervision of a more repressed persona just for the sake of balance. But
what about those times when an idea is just simply new or untested? Should we then
employ the supervision provided by the safe and unadventurous? Or are they just
in the way of a potentially great idea or fresh new approach, i.e. progress?
The reason I am posing this query, is that it seems that it is only when a new
concept is worthy of monetization that it is deemed valuable or worthy of buzz or assimilation. What if a new paradigm is worth more than money...
exponentially more?
What if this brand
new idea is never monetized, does it not have value? Like being a great parent because their ability
to relate and communicate is so radically more effective than the infantilizing
warden inmate relationship that our society so complacently accepts and
embraces due to convention or just plain laziness and lack of imagination?
The reason I am pressing this issue is because as a
Spanglish speaking Martian I have come to realize that most people can't
recognize a great idea without being told that it’s a great idea, via the
assimilated, e.g. Madison Avenue.
It does seem not until an idea makes money or popularized by
marketing that it goes viral, even if it’s only for fifteen minutes. Why isn’t it
universally embraced until the bean counters deems it so?
Another method of assimilation is when an idea is a result
of folk culture and grows legs all on its own to walks among the general
public. It is immediately swept up, co-opted, corrupted , bottled, packaged and served
up for mass consumption to the world. E.G. the story of Hip-Hop, voilà MONETIZED!
Hip Hop is just a prime example of the tampering and diluting of an organic
folk cultural phenomenon for the sake of a buck. Jazz is another, the original sin! What was
originally a hybrid of blues and swing gets cheapened by impostors passing off instrumental Pop; forgeries of black classical American music for that all mighty dollar.
It would be great to once propose an idea or concept that is
solely based on its merits and not on its commercial value. It would be even
greater if the greatness of merit
actually garnered incidental commercial success. But I guess that idea is
more ideal than real.. Forgive me, my Martian antennas are showing. Don’t you
just hate when that happens?
As a member of the artists’ community I witness a great deal
of con art, i.e. posers and pontificators perpetrating a fraud, and just
plainly in the damned way! But as much as this art theft is known and
tolerated, it also seems to have favored a great deal of these con artist to
the unwitting and unknowing, while often genuine effort and creativity goes
unnoticed and uncelebrated.
That brings me to this question, is our populace so dim and
dumbed down that they wouldn’t know an original idea even if they had thought
of it themselves, unless they were told by a media of so called experts?
I just recently saw the movie Pollock for maybe the third
time, regarding the life of mentally ill American artists Jackson Pollock.
There is a scene where his wife reads a ‘Life’ magazine article where an art
critic that once berated Pollock’s drip technique as a tangled mop of hair or
baked macaroni, then recants after Pollock popularity grows (or paintings sell)
then praises Jackson’s work as a revolutionary breakthrough in modern art.
Again, just like perception, monetization is reality... As a
matter of fact, monetization is a strong component of perception. Did you know
Jackson Pollock was once a Spanglish speaking Martian? Now that his paintings
are valued in the one hundred million dollar stupid-sphere, he’s an American
genius! Maybe I need to take a drunken whiz in the fireplace of a potential
benefactor. I might still be a SSM but I'd at least be a SSM with means.
Ok, my question is, why is it that it takes money or the
perception of money to dictate to a so called free; independently thinking
society such as America, what is valuable? Is our society fickle, or just a collection of
spineless sheep more than eager to graze on the perception of the green of
popularity or the perception of money?
Our culture, (America ) professes to
celebrating individuality and creativity, at least that what their brochure advertises.
But this advertisement often hedges it’s bet when faced with the reality of its own brochure.
In compendium, why do the clichés of con artistry; snake
oil mediocrity thrive while genuine artists are segregated and or dismissed
like Spanglish Speaking Martians?
P.s.
And how can we change that?
Comments
Post a Comment