The Parts Being Greater Than the Sum of the Whole
When I was in seventh grade, I was asked to write a paper on someone I admired. It was a difficult task as I did not idolize anyone. In fact, at the time, I believed that everyone ought to find his or her own path free from being some sort of following automaton or sycophant. After trying to write a paper on how I had no heroes and having that paper rejected, I think I ended up randomly choosing Harrison Ford as someone I admired (keep in mind, he hadn’t made Air Force One yet). I’m a little less extreme and anarchist now, but the young version of me was on the right path. In youth, though, I was lacking some additional insight.
Picking and Choosing What to Admire
When one asks people what they think of Woody Allen, some people mention his great movies and others speak of Allen screwing around with his ex-girlfriend’s young adopted Korean daughter. For many, it is impossible to divorce one aspect of the man from another. Some bring up Marten Luther King’s affairs or Jefferson having sex with slaves as some sort of tangential way to discredit an individual. Of course, these things have little, if anything, to do with their achievements, but, none-the-less, people with simple minds like looking at the full package.
Admiration and idolization, though, ought to be more like the Chimera. Humans ought to divorce the strong pieces of various individuals and cultures from their weaknesses. Once identified, one can emulate the chosen pieces in order to create a better self.
Too Much on One’s Own Path
Woody Allen, like most artists, has another weakness besides womanizing and being self-centered.
Meryl Streep said this after making “Manhattan”:
“On a certain level, the film offends me because it's about all these people whose sole concern is discussing their emotional states or their neuroses. It's sad because Woody
has the potential to be America's Chekhov.”
Actually, I think Allen did achieve the potential of Chekhov. Reading a lot of Chekhov is much like seeing a number of Allen’s films. They are all about self-absorbed, depressed, overly analytical characters who one cannot relate to, but one can admire for their intelligence and wit. More notable, though, Chekhov and Allen are same crap, over and over, over and over, over and over, etc.
The reason why bands break up, comics stop being funny and artists fade away is that they become famous. Once famous, they lose their insecurity, stop admiring others and stop checking their work. They think they are the shit, but old shit begins to stink. (Yeah, yeah, new shit stinks too. No metaphor is perfect).
So, admiration is a good thing after all (if only partial and not complete). One need admiration to avoid the redundancy of the self and to continuously improve.
Picking and Choosing What to Admire
When one asks people what they think of Woody Allen, some people mention his great movies and others speak of Allen screwing around with his ex-girlfriend’s young adopted Korean daughter. For many, it is impossible to divorce one aspect of the man from another. Some bring up Marten Luther King’s affairs or Jefferson having sex with slaves as some sort of tangential way to discredit an individual. Of course, these things have little, if anything, to do with their achievements, but, none-the-less, people with simple minds like looking at the full package.
Admiration and idolization, though, ought to be more like the Chimera. Humans ought to divorce the strong pieces of various individuals and cultures from their weaknesses. Once identified, one can emulate the chosen pieces in order to create a better self.
Too Much on One’s Own Path
Woody Allen, like most artists, has another weakness besides womanizing and being self-centered.
Meryl Streep said this after making “Manhattan”:
“On a certain level, the film offends me because it's about all these people whose sole concern is discussing their emotional states or their neuroses. It's sad because Woody
has the potential to be America's Chekhov.”
Actually, I think Allen did achieve the potential of Chekhov. Reading a lot of Chekhov is much like seeing a number of Allen’s films. They are all about self-absorbed, depressed, overly analytical characters who one cannot relate to, but one can admire for their intelligence and wit. More notable, though, Chekhov and Allen are same crap, over and over, over and over, over and over, etc.
The reason why bands break up, comics stop being funny and artists fade away is that they become famous. Once famous, they lose their insecurity, stop admiring others and stop checking their work. They think they are the shit, but old shit begins to stink. (Yeah, yeah, new shit stinks too. No metaphor is perfect).
So, admiration is a good thing after all (if only partial and not complete). One need admiration to avoid the redundancy of the self and to continuously improve.
posted by American Dilettante at
4:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home