| |
 |
|
|
Movies Forum Index » Past Movies Forum » jean-luc godard and bob dylan and the phenom of Iconoronism.
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| to see or not to see |
 Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 9:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
we all know that many cultural figures have been lauded for their
iconoclasm. they are said to be abrasive and ironic about society,
life, people, values, and institutions. they undermine, counter,
subvert, question, and/or mock all things that we take for granted as
conventional wisdom or truth.
yet, such ironists have, ironically, become icons either thru their
own design/intention or by the adulation of their fans, among whom are
many influential figures who control the cultural institutions.
this is both amusing and distressing. how is it that these figures who
are admired for their iconoclasm have become surrounded by a new kind
of iconography. instead of serving as models, they serve as giants
or gods. by looking up to them, it's as though we don't have to
ironic or iconoclastic ourselves on an individual basis. instead, we
can just slavishly rely on the Great Maverick to do the rebelling,
questioning, and subverting for us.
cosider two key figures in the modern culture. godard and dylan.
both were hailed as great iconoclastic figures in the 60s. they were
supposed to be rebels who questioned authority. yet, in time, at
least for the people involved in certain cultural communities, they
became the new iconographic heroes or even gods. somehow, it was
cool for godard and dylan to question authority but we are not
supposed to question their authority or agenda but to mutter 'ditto'
like those stupid rush limbaugh fans.
this explains why the critics slavishly treat the newest godard film
as a special cultural event when, in fact, godard has nothing new or
important to say, or even if he did, his way of saying it is so opaque
that no one can figure out what the hell he's saying. but, we've
reached the emperor-has-no-clothes-on level with godard. we must take
it on faith that he must have something important to say since...
since, well... he's GODard.
a similar kind of slavishness surrounds the myth of dylan. in the mid
60s, dylan gave us some truly great rock albums. and, he's done alot
of fine work over the yrs. but, he's often treated as some kind of a
guru, hero, wiseman, prophet, or even a god. dylan worship is
sickening. there are so many photo books, bios, encyclopedias, and
etc, etc.
supposedly, we admire dylan for his rebelliousness yet we are not
supposed to rebel against or question his bullshi* of which there's
plenty.
same goes for The Clash, a worthless band if you ask me except for
side one of 'The Clash', a couple of songs on 'London Calling', and
the song Rock the Casbah on 'Combat Rock'. but, if anyone in rock
world dare say that The Clash mostly sucked, the dude is hounded as a
retard. we are supposed to take it on faith that the Clash were
genius gods of rock and that's that.
The Clash were rebel maverick iconoclasts but worshipped as iconic
gods of pop music.
of course, this has happened all throughout history. people often
admire the figure who rebels against the old and brings on the new,
but people also wanna turn the new into the old and never dare to do
anything new for themselves.
consider christians who worshipped jesus. jesus did something new, yet
his followers were merely happy to follow him instead of following his
example. following jesus's example would mean trying to go beyond
jesus since jesus went beyond moses and the jewish prophets. but,
jesus's followers wanted to end rebellion with jesus. somehow, jesus
was the final authority on all things.
so, it's nothing new with guys like godard and dylan. they've come to
be hailed as icons though they started out as ironists. they became
iconoronic.
it's often said that most people are like sheep and just go along with
conventions. opposed to these kinds of people are the so-called
rebels and mavericks. but, whether it's a matter of maintaining the
status quo or creating a new order, only a few people are willing or
able to lead. most follow. only a few are willing to play the
leading roles in a conventional society. but, it's also true that only
a few people are willing to lead a rebellion. most people just wanna
follow. so, even most 'rebels' are sheeps following rebel leaders.
since most people cannot rebel on their own or create something new,
they need to cling onto the icongraphic image of The Great Rebel who
shall save us all--like che guevara.
whether right or left in politics, most people would rather follow-the-
leader. if one is not praying at the feet of jesus, it's praying at
the feet of marx.
if one is not praying at the feet of sinatra, he's praying at the feet
of dylan.
so predictable. all irony turns into icony. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Aug 30, 2008 3:35 am
|
|