Friends are Electric

To put it another way, why do we not read poetry anymore?  Most people give up on poetry the moment they finish their last English course, be that in high school, college or university.  Is it that poetry lacks the ability to convey deep and important meaning between human beings?  Is it that we have developed newer and better ways of sharing this message?

Or is it just that society has chosen a different form of writing to be the medium by which we exchange thoughts and emotions.  Poetry has its place and is still of great value, but it has been long since supplanted by the novel as the primary literary form.  The novel too will be replaced as the primary, but never shall it fully disappear for some messages are best for it.

A response to a currently circulating article from 2003.

The premise is that American’s don’t like jazz because they are a visually focused, ADD society which has lost its ability to appreciate high art.   The argument takes on the fact that much pop music is vocally driven and assigns the reason for this to the fact that American’s cannot relate to music without it.  The author extends this to the appreciation of visual arts, where he makes the claim that Americans cannot appreciate art which lacks something which they recognize.  That, for instance, Voice of Fire is less liked than Creation of Adam because the later is easier to understand due to having recognizable figures from stories well known to those viewing the work, while the earlier is much more abstract and minimalistic and thus much more challenging to understand.  Ignoring, of course, the relative fame of each work.  Take Mondrain’s Composition 11 in Red, Blue and Yellow and  Le Radeau de la Méduse by Théodore Géricault for a similar comparison.

The argument presented is tainted by an all too common nearly anti-American elitism which we of other countries often take.  The first hint of such taint is the lack of discussion of music in other English speaking countries, such as Canada, Great Briton, Australia, New Zealand or even India.   The author likely lacks personal experience of these countries and places, so he can be forgiven on this front.  It must be noted, however, that singling out the United States is a ploy often driven by the rest of the world’s subconscious loathing-envy relationship dichotomy with the Americans.  If nothing else, a quick look and presentation of sales numbers in the UK would have been in order, as such information is available.

Moving on from the subconscious, let us return the heart of the matter. American’s don’t like jazz because they cannot accept and understand abstract art. The abstract was the central feature and philosophy of the modern movement in the arts; musical, visual and performance.  It was a reaction to that which came before, the romantic.  No one considers jazz to be part of the modernity movement, however, but the generalities still stand.  Jazz was less structured than the romantic music which preceded it, while still maintaining similar instrumentation.  In the arts, the modern replaced with abstraction the vivid, photosimilar paintings of the previous period.

In architecture, modernity lead to buildings with high utility and little ornamentation.  Architects were some of the first to react to modernity itself by reintegrating aspects of ornamentation to increase the aesthetic appeal of their structures, transforming the understanding of the movement.  It was not that unadorned buildings did not function perfectly appropriately for their purpose, it was that the statement they made was insufficient to these first post-modern architects desires.  Post-modernity is the name of the age recently closed, where the artists decided that they no longer held with the idea that you can communicate everything through abstraction alone.  Abstraction has its place, but just because you can reduce something further does not make it necessarily desirable.  I say post-modernity has passed since this is the consensus that is currently forming, although considerable debate exists as to whether post-modernism existed at all.  We would likely find the author of the article in question would be one who denies the post modern and by extension its passing.

What is the meaning of all this?  In short, the experiment that jazz represented has been replaced.  We have moved on, which is not to say that jazz, like pure utility, has no place.  Its place, however, is no longer the main stage.  Jazz does not fit in what, for lack of a better term, we shall call the post-postmodern.  To pretend that jazz is no longer commonplace because we are too unintelligent to properly grasp its meaning is pure and dangerous fabrication.  If we lack the capacity to understand it, it is because it no longer resonates as it once did.  Contemporary musicians have jazz, what came before and what came after to work with.

The purpose of the artist is not to create mocking works which the common human is incapable of understanding for the sole purpose of this elitism.  The artist does their best to present the feelings, interactions and images they experience in a form which they feels best expresses it.  Separating form from purpose is a meaningless endeavor doomed to create emotionally dead works which are, quite honestly, boring.  Art in the style of Composition 11 in Red, Blue and Yellow created now might rightfully be accused of elitism, since we have moved on.  The same with traditional jazz.  It has its place, and certainly a too direct comparison of musical and visual arts leads to false results, but I feel as though the comparison stands.

In short, humans, the world and the arts have all moved on.  Criticizing any of the above from moving on is foolhardy and wrongheaded.  There is nothing wrong with not moving on, it is not necessary.  I often wonder why certain types of alternative rock from the 1990s had to cease being produced, but I do not attack those who fail to grasp the greatness of many of these works and accuse them of being intellectual light weights.  I may question their taste, however.

And a final point, the classical, and I use classical to mean premodern orchestral music, form of musical appreciation is outdated.  I believe that the popular music, popular to mean all that has come since jazz (excluding country) form of appreciation is superior.  Traditional folk music is meant to be played and enjoyed through participation and by just being in its presence.  People would be doing things, preparing foods, talking and preforming other similar tasks during the performance.  This is closer to the popular music form of presentation, which involves plenty of background noise of people enjoying more than just the auditory experience of the music itself, since music has always been about much more than just the sound.  There is nothing wrong or wrongheaded about listening to music in silence, taking it all in.  There is also nothing wrong about experiencing it as something else, as a background sound or as a participatory experience.

In days gone by, action was judged based on outcome.  The why of the action was entirely ignored.  No one thought about the why.  No one cared.  They were not thinking at that level.  This style of living is not inferior or superior, just different.

We no longer behave this way.  We, in the West especially, consider intention to be the highest truth.  Giving isn’t seen as a good since there is an intention of getting something back.  In the past, it wasn’t that this intention did not exist, it was that such behaviours were not consiously thought of.  Even in law, we consider intention to be superior to the action itself.  Intention can make or break a conviction.  But intention doesn’t change the reality of the event, just the colour of our interpretation.

In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche spoke of moving beyond intention as the judge of action.  His idea was that action, regardless of outcome or intention, was “good” if it was a conscious decision.  That the intentionality, not to be confused with intend, of an action or event determines its value.

Clearly there is some overlap between conscious action and intent.  Just as there is overlap between outcome and intent.  One can consciously act with an intended outcome.  Like much of Nietzsche’s though, such action required that those with a stronger will (will to power) should force theirs on those with less.  Like much of Nietzsche’s thought, he was at the very least incorrect, and at most outright wrong.

There is some inherent value in purposeful action.  Just as there is some value in the intent of an action.  But only the  outcome changes reality. We must not forget this last fact. What you intend does not change anything except how you justify it to yourself.  If you think you are doing what is best for people, and the outcome becomes highly negative, then you will blame some outside cause beyond your control.  Usually the complexity of people.

Know that what you intended to do does not change the nature of the world. Know that whether you consciously decided to do it or not changes things even less.  In the end, the action and the outcome are what matter.

Even Zarathustra went under sometimes.

The human mind clings to symbols like it grasps few other things. Symbols have intense power. Ask any person of religion how they feel when viewing their holy symbols, especially in trying circumstances. Or all of the ideas and violence that went into something like the Soviet hammer and sickle. These images contain much more information due to collective memory than their basic parts ever could.

People do get attached to symbols.  The feelings and ideas attached to them are very strong.  The same is true of certian slogans, musical tunes and moments.   Charlemagne did not have to go to Rome and be crowned ruler of the Holy Roman Empire, it was a symbolic act who’s value and purpose is far beyond the simple action itself.  It represented the subservience of European kings to the church and changed the course of Western Civilisation forever.  Mickey Mouse is the most famous being on earth.  This character is not human, not an animal, not anything, really, except a symbol.

A symbol’s power is not in its direct form.   The actual form is immaterial, its the meaning associated with the form which contains the power.  The form and the meaning, however, are inseparable.  A change in form may result in the loss of the meaning and thus of the power and use of the symbol.  And a symbol without any power is a useless symbol, it may as well be a transient piece of graffiti on a railroad car.

When modifying something as powerful as a symbol, one must consider what is meant by it.  Denying history is a certain road to failure, ignoring it is likely worse.  A symbols past is its memory and purpose.  A change in direction is a process which must take a prolonged period of time as adjustment to modified symbolism will not happen overnight.  If the Catholic Church were to change one of their most important symbols, the cross, how many years would the transition take place over?  How about a modern nation, changing their motto or animal representatives?

Any modification of such symbols must have abundant need and must be gradual in nature.  To do otherwise is to deny their purpose, value and to undermine popular support for such an action.  If such need exists it must be clear to all.   Symbols belong to the group as a whole and are not a responsibility of any one person or subgroup.  Their meaning exists from group consciousness, not any one individual.  Any one individual lacks the insight needed to understand that with which they deal.

Symbols are the primary means of human communication.  All language, visual art, music and literature are all entirely symbolic.  One cannot simply change things abruptly and expect the desired results.  Group ownership, memory and the power of the symbol must be accounted for.  To do otherwise is to destroy the power, purpose and meaning of the symbol, deny your own participation within the group at large and to fragment that which you meant to improve.

Westernism, for the sake of this discussion, is thinking like a Westerner.  This may include a belief in spreading civilisation, ethnic superiority, looking down on those who are not western in lifestyle or thinking, the pursuit of the `American Dream,’ strong belief in democracy and liberalism, personal certainty of the necessity of capitalism, love of globalisation, consumerism and, most importantly, belief that we in the West have the most ideal lifestyle imaginable.

The important question I wish to address is the source of Westernism, more specifically: is Westernism something you are born with, or is it something you learn.  Thus, can someone not born in the west truly become western, and can someone born in the west ever really escape it.

This stems from a discussion I had with a friend who’s family are not from the western world.  My parents, and their parents, and some of their parents, etc., were born in Canada.  Clearly, if Westernism is to any extent inherited then I am fully in line with this ideology.  And clearly my friend is entirely separate from this way of thinking.  Both of which are entirely false.

To hold with Westernism is a stereotype of what a person from the West might be like.  True, there are those who follow all of the stereotypes to perfection, and there are those who do not.  For instance,  I know a great many people who believe in democracy and liberalism but who reject many aspects of capitalism in its pure from: these people are generally called social democrats.  Are social democrats therefore not western?  I also know people who would consider social democrats to be antiwestern or antiAmerican.

I also know environmentalists who hold with few of the traits I described as being part of Westernism.  To them, Westernism is a tool of those who push for globalisation and further pure capitalism.  Some even go so far as to reject governments, although this is a very small minority.  Are these people Western?  Not by the above imperfect definition.  Could this ideology exist outside the west?  No.  Then they are Western and my definition is imperfect.  Let us craft a new one.

Westernism: any thought of belief that can only come into being in the west.  That is, conditions only exist for the development of this ideology in the land area we consider to be `The West.’

Included in this new definition are still all of the original definition, but it now includes any other ideology unique to the west.  Environmentalism, general equality, human rights.  Not that these are currently unique to the west, but that they were developed through the liberalism which defined the west.

Now all the example people I have talked about are thoroughly western.  My friend is as well, since they wish to use the capitalist system and Westerners’ love of luxury to her advantage.  By their own definition, they were not of the west.  But they are now, by the very structure of the argument they used to prove the converse.

Now, can someone born in the west ever become something else.  Well, I know that we can reject many aspects of Westernism, as I personally have done.  For example, consumerism and the `American Dream’ are not desirable for me, neither is capitalism to a large degree owing to my Social Democratic roots.  But can I reject liberalism, democracy and all other aspects of Westernism?  No.  If all Westernism is defined by the controversial, Globalisation, Environmentalism, cultural imperialism, etc., then yes.  We can reject Westernism.  However, westernism is much more defined by several core beliefs, mainly democracy, liberalism and capitalism.  Can anyone in the west truly reject all of these beliefs?  Not if they wish to live here.

The rejection of any of these aspects of our life would change the West in tremendous ways.  But change is not always good.  Removing any of these aspects to our lives would ruin life in the west, even capitalism, an ideology which I have never been comfortable with.

Here is the crime of westernism, then.  It is like a virus.  Yes, Westernism is imperialistic and relentless in its goals.  Its goals are to make everyone else like us.  Not in every way, of course.  We, however, are so sure of liberal democracy that we demand others use it, regardless of cultural tradition.  I am as guilty as anyone of this.  But I know that I am guilty of it, and I do not feel in the least bit mournful of this knowledge.

Then perhaps the most important aspect of Westernism is not  liberal democracy, but instead that we have the best systems and that failure to adopt these systems might mean forced adoption against your will, since it is for your own benefit.  I can think no of no other alternative ideologies which do not share this fundamental belief, even if they will not admit it to themselves.  We are all convinced of our moral superiority.

The sad fact is that by this final, and perhaps most accurate description of the motivations of Westernism, we are all westerners.  Even those who do not hold with the central tenants of Westernism.  Therefore, westernism, a more pleasant way of saying moral superiority, is something we are born with.  And the liberal democracy we are born within demands being spread everywhere, except where it is we who have the power.  And therefore it is inescapable for those who are born with it, and since I cannot escape from it, I cannot say how those from outside will behave.