Something I've been wondering again, for the umpteenth time, as I've been reading T.S. Eliot... Why are so many fans unwilling to allow their idols or the persons they admire human faults and shortcomings? And why are they then so shocked and surprised when the idols then indeed turn out to have human faults? I recall during Pete's The Boy Who Heard Music - I'm using it as an example because it had a great personal significance for me - some complaining that he was at fault for doing the blog at all, because he was shattering the "mystery" of The Who. I also think that many did not take part in it at all, lest it shatter their images. Apparently, something similar happened with T.S. Eliot when biographical information came to publicity and it turned out that he was indeed very much a human with shortcomings to share. For example, I saw a customer review at amazon.com on Eliot's published letters and the review was about how very prosaic the letters of one of the greatest literary figures of the 20th century are. Oh really? What should he have written to his friends and acquaintances? Literary essays only? The idealised views of admirers, especially in the case of artists who in the public opinion are decided to be geniuses, manifest themselves not only in disappointment and surprise when the admired personages turn out to be human but also in a tendency to view everything they do and say as manifestations of their genius. To exaggerate a little, if Pete Townshend says 'I could really do with a good cup of tea', surely the cup of tea is not just a cup of tea but a profound metaphor for the universe, because he's saying it?
Methinks, if artists were superior beings, above all human faults and shortcomings, their art would be bloody boring, because they would have no understanding of humanity.
Another thing I'm somewhat puzzled about is fans' and admirers' need to know everything about the artists they admire. Not all fans/admirers have this need but quite many do. Sure, I understand that it may be a way to feel connected, to feel that you "know" your idol who is otherwise quite distant from you. But it can also lead to unhealthy forms. The biographical detail that fans know may not be reliable. What an artist says in interviews, for instance, may be vague or intentionally misleading because the artist wants to maintain his or her privacy. Many biographies are written which are based on flimsy sources and are more the writer's interpretation of the person than fact. If this kind of biographical information does not cause disappointment or shattering of dreams, it is used to construct an image which matches the fan's pre-established ideas/ideals. If the artist then does or says something that seems to deviate from the ideas/ideals which to the fans are fact, there is an outcry: how dare the artist do it? It's not what he or she is about! A case in point, The Waste Land, when published in 1922, became the "bible" of a generation, expressing its disillusionment after the war. Eliot himself was adopted as an anti-establishment, anti-authoritarian, revolutionary hero, opposed to everything jaded and old. His conversion to the Church of England in 1927 caused a violent disappointment: Eliot was supposed to have sold out to the conservative establishment. Ring a bell with how some of the later actions of certain rock figures have been viewed by many, the established view having been that in their music they claimed to be revolutionaries?
The not always reliable biographical information is also often reflected onto the artist's work. Eliot a case in point again, in his case not only with regard to the fans but also to literary scholars. And don't say the latter are an entirely different matter, because that's nonsense. Plenty of literary scholars (or art historians) specialise in a given author because they are fans. It's just that the work they produce enjoys a different position because of their academic status. But I digress. Eliot held that his poetry is not autobiographical, yet numerous scholarly studies have been written in which the writers maintain with the whole weight and authority of their academic status that 'oh yes it is, all of it.' Another example from The Boy Who Heard Music: I remember some readers who at every turn maintained that it's autobiographical and also wanted to "teach" others who did not see this, with essays (mainly from the history of The Who) on what this or that part of the text was drawn from.
Irrespective of what is true with Eliot or any other artist, in the end, does it really matter whether or not an artist's work is autobiographical? Isn't the essence of art in the thoughts and emotions and impressions it causes in the reader/listener/viewer? A conversation between the work of art and the one who enjoys it, if you will? It's a subjective, personal process, and people love a work of art, whether a pop song, a painting or a poem, for personal reasons. I'm not saying the artist's person does not matter. I'm not an artist but I am convinced that the creation of a work of art is always a subjective and personal process in one way or another: the artist makes choices of what to include and what not to include, how to express things, and so on, based on reasons that cannot be entirely separate from what he or she is as a person, his/her experiences etc. He/she is human after all. I'm also convinced that a work of art always reflects the artist's person - but not (always) in the superficial level of biographical detail but in a much deeper, and to me more relevant, way, in that it reflects his or her spirit and soul.
Well, I went on a bit again, didn't I? That's the lovely thing about blogs: it's your blog and you can go on at will, without let or hindrance. :-)
10 comments:
Hi Maria,
You have written a very thoughtful piece here, and I think the reason people want to find out about their idols is because they want to feel as close to them as possible. This is not always a good thing, because if one is not prepared for it, facts that are ugly can sometimes destroy our perception (false, in all likelihood, or incomplete) of that artist. I think Michael Jackson was a good example of an artist who did not commercially survive all the scandals at the time. I suppose it's because you make an unpleasant association and then can't listen to the music without doing so.
I don't remember people being like that during Pete's blog days, but I did not always read everything. I suppose a lot of the readers, being lifelong Who fans, recognised his Psychodelerict character and made all sorts of inferences from that link.Personally, I thought Pete was really lazy with his short story and avoided what I thought was a decent attempt at character development by relying too much on that previous work to explain itself. Anyone trying to read TBWHM without knowing its history would likely have come out confused.
I just finished reading a biography of the Beatles' finances, and yeah, they do come across as petty and mean in places. Doesn't diminish their musical accomplishments to my ears, though, and doesn't surprise me given what expectations were placed on them as young people. I think we often forget how young some of those subjects are or were, and how much that could influence your decisions.
xx
AM
Michael Jackson is a good example of that, yep. I think maybe reading biographies of your idols when young is a bit dangerous. :-) Just kidding, obviously - how many times in history have the older generations warned the young of the dangers of literature? Or pop music? Or any new art? I think such "returns to reality" may actually be healthy.
excellent piece here Maria. These thoughts have passed through my head many times.
There is the old saying, "one should never meet their 'idol'." for they could be let down. and that goes with what you've said here, sure they are someone we 'idolize', but afterall they are human! and agree too, it's the complex one's that are interesting (ei: Pete). I think it was brilliant for Pete to do his blogging, and I am happy to be a follower of it at the time. Bollocks to those naysayers. That's the problem with the who.com sometimes, (sorry to use who.com) but all this analyzing and chit chat about why'd they do this, or why'd Pete do that. Because he's human and so what. Sorry, used Pete as an example here too. But if you want to go another level, look at those followers of some famous people who become obsessed and jump over into stalking. It'd be scary for me, if I was a famous person in that respect.
I ve always been one to enjoy the music, the reading, the movie or whatever. I find it interesting how artists are in real life. that's all, interesting. Neat to see them as "human beings" actually. Like the other old saying, "they put their pants on one leg at a time too!"
ps: society puts artists on a pedestal, and some feel they should live up to that, and others carry on their lives in spite of it. MJ is a perfect example, he was on such a pedestal from society, he could do no right, or wrong. It's a strange thing.
What a thoughtful and thought provoking post, Maria., and yes, I also like the fact that your blog is your place to go on at will, but then that's why I prefer blogs to FB. They are so much more about the bloggers themselves and the group of friends who like to share thoughts and ideas.
Anne Marie raised the same issue of stars falling off their pedestals in her post about the Beatles' book, and it is always something difficult for people to reconcile - the fact that those they admire so much should be less than perfect. I think the danger is in assuming that brilliance in a certain field doesn't automatically come with equivalent loftiness in other areas, and especially not with ideas that match one's own. I cited Elton John as an example of a brilliant musician who, for a while at least, displayed less than admirable behaviour towards the people who worked for him and to his fans as well. It was somehow difficult to dissociate the man from the music, but it is essential to do so. I knew that TS Eliot suffered from negative publicity and I seem to remember this was one of the reasons he retired, or shall we say, retreated to Somerset. He was a deeply spiritual man whatever label he gave his faith, and his poems reflect that totally. What does it matter, then, whether he was catholic, protestant, CofE, muslim or otherwise? The essence of the man lies in his work, but as you say, is not necessarily about his day to day existence.
Grace, or: famous people go to the toilet too :-) I think there's nothing wrong with being interested in learning more about an artist you admire, beyond the work - as long as it indeed doesn't become obsessive, in any sense of the word. Fans are sometimes strange creatures. Or should I say: humans are.
Val, I guess it's a human need: if an artist's work has touched one deeply, there is a need to see the creator in an elevated way. The ability to create such work sometimes seems above the capabilities of the ordinary human, and surely only a person who is similarly above the ordinary human in his or her nature could create it?
As for Eliot having been a deeply spiritual man, I fully agree. He could have not written the way he did otherwise. The need to put labels on people and then classify the labels as acceptable and unacceptable is another human thing that I find strange, especially when it's to do with spirituality.
oh, these odd creatures of humans..;)
It's pretty cool all the complex's of this race, maybe I chose the wrong field of work, or maybe I didnt - Hairstylist-more than just the skill of the hand.
awesome post Maria.
The difference between Elliot's critics and Pete's fans is exactly: critics -to- fans. Elliot's fans did not write in ways against him.
One irk I have of Elliot is his adoption of a British accent. He's an American. It hurts fans to believe this is so.
Yep, I've heard some voice samples, from documentaries and such, and the English accent was quite a peculiar thing, particularly as it was an accent of the patrician, aristocratic sort. I can see how it stands out to an American, and indeed may irk - though I think it's possible to explain where it came from: a desire to assimilate after he took British citizenship, in a way by becoming more English than the English, coupled with, perhaps, his apparently conservative social and political views. Not that his family background was modest. Wasn't one of his ancestors the founder of Harvard?
Post a Comment