Do politics keep you from liking certain artists?

[Artknocker]

Well, if that's all you can say, then touche to you.

[Rit]

I can't believe you all still don't get this. Bill Maher has just as much right as Bill O'Reilly to say what he wants. I have every right to dismiss it as anti-American tripe if I so wish. But they are paid to opine. Actors are paid to act. Musicians are paid to sing and play.

so because they are paid to opine, that's when it's okay to take them seriously?
their intrinsic worth comes from a paycheck endorsement?

[Artknocker]

You don't have to take any of them seriously. You don't have to take me seriously. All I'm saying is they're misusing their celebrity. You and I cannot get in front of a camera and ramble on about how horrible conservatives or liberals are (and you can't equate message board posting to that). But if you're paid to do it, that's another matter. You have to do your job. And btw, I wouldn't want to be any kind of celebrity. Rich, sure. Famous, no.

[Artknocker]

I mentioned Alan Colmes. That's one liberal that despite his thinking that O.J. is innocent and Clinton was our greatest president (*choking on bile*) I can respect. He is actually proud to be an American. I can get with a lib a little if they're at least that. If you're ashamed of our country, then I say you need to get the heeeeell out!

[ken]

It's only a misuse because you disagree with them. There's a ton of shit Eddie Vedder can do that I can't because of his celebrity. He can, for example, buy an Infinity Pool and put it in a million dollar house. He can also have his opinions heard by millions.

[ken]

What if all Eddie Vedder did was make politically charged songs? You know, what if he spent no time actually badmouthing the President in speech, but did it in song. Would that make it ok? He wouldn't be doing anything outside of what he's paid to do, which is perform music. Would that be ok, knocker?

[Rit]

You don't have to take any of them seriously. You don't have to take me seriously.

true, this is what i mean. i don't take a paid opinion too seriously. i would rather have clear and honest opinions from people, from conversations.

however, you're using the word "celebrity" as though it were a term which carried meaning:

All I'm saying is they're misusing their celebrity.

how does one misuse one's celebrity? isn't celebrity a totally devoid concept? why behave any different or think any different if you happen to be famous?

i'm trying to get at the fact that you have these ideas in your head which are so large, that they shape your opinions. why give any credence to the idea of celebrity or public endorsement of a human being who happens to be singing one agenda or another in that public space?

once you validate the idea that a person in some particular public forum has an accumulated unthinking raised value to them, for the mere fact that they are famous, you've warped one facet of clear humanistic honesty in your thinking, without realizing it.

[chrisfan]

artknocker said:

You really think songs should always be taken literally, DED?

I can't believe you all still don't get this. Bill Maher has just as much right as Bill O'Reilly to say what he wants. I have every right to dismiss it as anti-American tripe if I so wish. But they are paid to opine. Actors are paid to act. Musicians are paid to sing and play. If I pay (with my hard-earned money) to attend a Pearl Jam concert, I'm not expecting a rally--I am there to rock, not to hear Vedder go off on Bush. That will turn me off as a fan and as a consumer. Why don't they get that? Now, if he was for Bush, it may not turn me off as much, but if he kept it up for like, a good five minutes, I would be rolling my eyes impatiently (or getting up to take a leak). They all have a right to free speech--every last one of them. I have a right to disagree not only with what they say, but with the manner that they espouse it. And I guess it does steam me that they are all liberals. (Why does anyone need to hear from has-beens such as Ed Asner and Harry Belafonte anyway? If you have 100 Hollywood liberals bashing Bush or the Republican agenda, why does there need to be 101 all saying basically the same thing?) If there are any conservatives in Hollywood, are they expressing their opinions--at least near as vocally? But I don't think any of them should be contributing their political views unless asked--and even so, why would you want or care to know? You see, they have to access to unduly influence people, and they take full advantage. You may not see it this way, but I think they cross a line. Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes are paid to give their opinions behind the microphone--it's their job. You can argue that you can turn them all off, and none of them know anything more than anybody else, but I see a clear difference between Sean Penn opening his fat mouth and Rush Limbaugh opening his. People actually want to hear Rush's opinions--as evidenced by his ratings. Maybe I should just let the elite celebs continue to sound idiotic and self-important, but now that I think of it, I think the real problem is the complicit liberal media that's all too happy to give airtime to them and mask it as news. They're all in cahoots. That's my conspiracy theory and I'm sticking to it.

Okay, you've covered concerts. But what about celebrities who express their opinions in places other than concerts? You've given a pass to O'Reilly, Mahr, Hannity and Colmes. Each of them, from time to time, has invited celebrites on their shows to express their opinions on politics. Are you okay with politically active celebrities in cases like this? You mention Ed Asner and Harry Belafonte. Those are two men who have been expressing their political opinions at political rallies. What is wrong with that? Isn't that what you'e supposed to do at political rallies?

[chrisfan]

artknocker said:

You don't have to take any of them seriously. You don't have to take me seriously. All I'm saying is they're misusing their celebrity. You and I cannot get in front of a camera and ramble on about how horrible conservatives or liberals are (and you can't equate message board posting to that). But if you're paid to do it, that's another matter. You have to do your job. And btw, I wouldn't want to be any kind of celebrity. Rich, sure. Famous, no.

There are most certainly common every day people who manage to get on TV and express their opinions. Kristen Breitweiser (sp) is one. The woman camped outside of Bush's ranch right now is one. Anyone who writes a letter to the editor worth printing has that voice too.

I'll agree with you on one aspect of this. When a big event such as a political convention is taking place, and you've got all sorts of politicians and people involved in the process right there under one roof, and the news discussion programs go to interviews with people like Ben Affleck, it really annoys me. But I can't say I blame Affleck for that nearly as much as I do the producers of Fox, MSNBC, CNN and the rest of the networks.

[Galactus]

artknocker said:

You really think songs should always be taken literally, DED?

While it is true I think that's a terrible song, it was a joke, ha ha. But since you brought it up I don't really think that one has too much symbolic or metaphorical value do you?

Also at this point if you go to a Pearl Jam and don't acknowledge the possiblity of a political exposition, you're the one that's just not paying attention.

I don't buy the notion that there are places you can't have an opinion. While I agree there are places that are more appropriate then others for ranting...for instance I think awards shows are generaly inappropriate forums for political statements, I also can't really fault anyone for using it as such. If you felt strongly about an issue and had the ablity to get your side heard by more poeple I have little doubt you'd use it.

[shin]

That's some nice Karma you got there, Art.

[Nepenthe]

mary said:

It's completely 100% fine with me if you dislike Picasso and Rivera - I didn't mean to sound at all snippy about it. It's just that Rivera's most famous work is so, as Ken put it, naturalistic, it seemed odd to dismiss it as "sick and demented" so I was doublechecking - yeah, he went through a cubism phase because he was influenced by Picasso, but I was thinking of the murals he drew to represent working people in mexico and couldn't imagine how those could strike anyone as "demented" - that's all.

Of course, as Ken points out, Picasso himself did more straightforward work too, but I could comprehend your take on him since his more experimental stuff is his most famous...

And ftr, ken was just quoting a line from a song called Pablo Picasso by the Modern Lovers....I don't think he was actually trying to make a point about Picasso's temperament!!

I do love Picasso, and lots of modernists, but I understand that lots of folks have some line beyond which art just gets too strange, or non-representational, or willfully unpleasant, to be appreciated - we just have that line in very different places. I could stare at the Guernica all night, but abstract expressionism and minimalism invariably put me to sleep. I just don't get it.

Cheers,
M

This pretty much sums up the way I feel about Picasso ;D

[JACkory]

If I were at an REM concert and Michael Stipe started ripping on Bush, saying Kerry deserved to win, I'd chuckle and scream "Boo!"
Then I'd yell, "Play 'Kahoutek'!"
Thankful for the chance to express a contrary view and fully supportive of his 1st ammendment right to express himself.
Ya see, "celebrity" don't mean a thing to little old me.
He's earned the platform and the chance to spout off his views simply by the fact that through his art he's won the hearts of enough people who care what he thinks to fill up a stadium ..whether they agree or not.
It's called integrity.
It can be found in conservatives AND liberals.

[Kensterberg]

jackory said:

If I were at an REM concert and Michael Stipe started ripping on Bush, saying Kerry deserved to win, I'd chuckle and scream "Boo!"
Then I'd yell, "Play 'Kahoutek'!"
Thankful for the chance to express a contrary view and fully supportive of his 1st ammendment right to express himself.
Ya see, "celebrity" don't mean a thing to little old me.
He's earned the platform and the chance to spout off his views simply by the fact that through his art he's won the hearts of enough people who care what he thinks to fill up a stadium ..whether they agree or not.
It's called integrity.
It can be found in conservatives AND liberals.

With you all the way here JAC. I don't have anything politically in common with Bruce Willis, but it doesn't stop me from seeing his films (when they interest me, anyway). If Stipe goes on a vegetarian rant onstage, I'll politely clap out of respect for his opinion, burp from my steak fajita lunch, and then yell for them to play "Gardening at Night!"

[Mary]

artknocker said:

If you're ashamed of our country, then I say you need to get the heeeeell out!

Did it ever occur to you that people might have more complicated opinions about America? Not everyone is either 100% proud or 100% ashamed of this country. Some of us are ambivalent. We are thankful for the many things about this country that make it a wonderful place to live, and we are deeply saddened for the many things about this country that make it a wonderful place to live only for some of us.

I'm not trying to start an argument about America here - we can do that on CE if you want - but I'm only trying to point out that the only two choices are not ra-ra-ra blind patriotism or equally blind animosity. It's possible to feel a range of conflictng emotions about this very complicated country.

Cheers,
M