To ignore true art, the re presentation of a life lived, is to pull the trigger of the gun that lodged a bullet in Van Gogh's stomach.
Did you know Vincent Van Gogh wanted to be a preacher, and, when failing to earn a theology degree, he became an evangelist?
That, when he became an evangelist, in St. Ignatius fashion, he donated all his belongings and earnings to live a life a poverty?
Eventually, however, because his superiors felt Van Gogh's abject poverty was disgraceful, and he lacked the dignity for ecclesiastical work, he was dismissed?
That upon dismissal, Van Gogh, went into a deep depression and abandoned all his religious ideas, eventually becoming a subpar painter living off his brother's connections to the art world?
How about the fact that Vincent van Gogh died from a gunshot wound to his stomach?
Though ruled a suicide, many believe the renowned artist, known for The Starry Night and cutting off his ear, was murdered, taking his last breaths in the arms of his brother.
Why is Van Gogh, a depressed alcoholic, lauded for the art he created to cope with his mental and physical struggles, yet the artists who paint their reality in words, often depressed, addicted to some sort of drug, and find themselves on the receiving end of a bullet, disregarded and relegated to a realm far removed from Van Gogh?
How does Van Gogh separate himself from the reality that his death is remarkably similar to the likes of Biggie, Tupac, Nipsey Hussle, or Pop Smoke?
Do Van Gogh's landscapes provide a haven for his viewers, removed from his agony, while the lyrics of some artists provide an all too personal encounter for listeners, giving them no way to detach from the experience?
Had his superiors not held on to their pretentious ideals on serving the poor, would Van Gogh have suffered the death he did: would many rap artists find themselves dead if their stories were not shunned for being part of a misunderstood genre?
I do think it is important to clarify, Van Gogh was a member of the Protestant Calvinists and not Catholic. His vow of poverty is remarkably similar to the vows of poverty and willful life of simplicity many Catholic saints have embraced.
With a re presentation of evangelism denounced by his Protestant leaders, imagine what could have been if his re presentation of a life lived in service, his personal vow of poverty, a vow many Catholic orders take, was not shunned.
Would he have become the artist we know him as?
I cannot say.
Yet, to acquiesce to the belief he had to suffer deep bouts of depression, alcoholism, manic episodes, rejection by society, and a bullet to the stomach all to have his art appreciated only after his death, is deeply troubling.
Moreover, it is deeply hypocritical in our society's treatment of rappers to glorify Van Gogh: both created art to process and express the struggles of their lives, both were rejected by the mainstream, both suffered in violent deaths at the, likely, hands of others.
I am deeply moved, and do appreciate Van Gogh's art: the Doctor Who episode with him as the focal point is touching. I do believe he should be celebrated for his work on my favorite types of art: landscapes. Yet, there must be a serious reckoning in the seeming double standard of art.
Vincent Van Gogh provides a lens to understand rap.
The point here is simple: because someone re presents their art in a way that seems incorrect or inaccessible, does not mean they are wrong.
Yet, modern rap finds itself in a precarious balancing act of the art created and its reception amongst the masses.
If the art is pure, made to capture a lived reality, the musician in question is manifesting their life into a fixed medium: they are creating for themselves, not for mass consumption.
This is why I Miss Mixtapes: much of the current rap landscape is not true art, and I am not sure it ever will be.
Artistry aside, when you get to the content of most popular rap music, there are ideas presented in that are less than ideal to the casual listener: ideas that you don’t really want children trying to emulate. Ideas that make you cringe and stop to consider why exactly are you listening to the particular songs.
Knowing that the music is commercial, it is hard to argue against the uproar condemning the proliferation of the lifestyles presented in the music.
If the art is not true, if music is a cash grab, then yes, I agree, rap should not exist.
Roughly 50% of 16-24 year old consumes rap music, with those younger than 16 unaccounted for: the wisdom needed to hone in on the commercial product that rap is, to tease out the fictitious, comes with time these demographics have not had.
I was no different in high school.
At 27-years old, I clearly still grapple with the gray area that is the ethics of rap music.
A 14-year-old Wiz Khalifa fan, I still have a Pittsburgh Pirates hat I had embroidered with “TGOD”: Taylor Gang or Die. Long gone, I had my camo cargos, Chuck Taylors, and graphic t-shirts to compliment the Wiz Khalifa aesthetic.
Much of this convoluted issue could be dealt with by stricter parenting, but part of the allure of rap music is the rebellious, flashy, lifestyle.
My interactions with a musician whose sole focus was, is, and will be marijuana, did not change who I am: granted, I attribute this to the looming thought of my mother's many discussions that would scare any kid straight.
My point from the last post still remains:
One can consume rap music and not come to emulate the messaging.
Part of growing up is the loss of innocence that comes with the knowledge that the WWE is just as real as Santa Claus. At some point, the allure of rap becomes a mall Santa or a staged fight.
In that same vein, part of growing up is a growth in the skill of interpreting and understanding art: I am not claiming to be perfect, yet everyone has the ability to interpret art to a degree.
But at 27, I did not appreciate art museums until I was 22.
I think this analytical deficiency gets to the issue of commercial music.
In the same way a child will believe in Santa Claus or The Rock, they will believe in the life and sounds of Lil Baby, NBA YoungBoy, The Mexican OT, and a whole host of others. To try to explain the complexities that surround marketing, music's effect on the mind, and the problematic messaging of the songs to a teenager is impossible.
The music and the messaging are embedded into the fabric of popular culture: how can it be bad if it is everywhere you go.
This is what makes rap such a difficult genre to deal with.
At the end of the day, though, adults consume the media too.
This begs the larger question: who is the problem, the one producing the content, or the one consuming, demanding more of the thing they decry?
BishopSJ, Caleb Gordon, Hulvey, nobigdyl., Andy Mineo, Lecrae, KB, are people out there making Christian rap music that is good, yet I do not think that means other artists have to go out the window.
Everything is balance.
Far too many people prefer to deal in black in white, avoiding the chaos that exists in the gray. It is easier to stand on one side, holding fast to an ideal, never considering a both and situation, only believing in an either or.
One's ability to live life is measured in their ability to exist in the gray.
Like life, rap is not a black or white issue, regardless of what the racial makeup of the sides of the arguement are.
The irony is, when I have played some of my favorite Christian rap artists, because they borrow similar sounds to that of most rap, people turn their nose up, the volume down, and assume the sound they hear is the sound they fear.
Believing a certain sound of music could never be sophisticated simply because one does not understand the art form is categorically pretentious.
The pretentiousness of Van Gogh's superiors ultimately is what left Van Gogh with a bullet hole in his stomach and a cold case still yet to be fully solved: though ruled a suicide, modern science supports the belief of many that Van Gogh was murdered due to the placement of the bullet.
Sure, he became the artist we know him as after being denied a post with the Protestant church, but in his day, his art was an afterthought. Van Gogh lived a life of deep alcoholism, unending physical pains, frequent loss of consciousness, and an inability to control his emotions. He was forced into seclusion in a small town, where he would eventually be killed: by himself or the hands of someone else.
Van Gogh's death, be suicide or murder, comes after the re presentation of his understanding of service to the poor was disparaged by the pretentious ignorance of his superiors. This rejection would be internalized by Van Gogh and understood to be a reflection of who he was.
Art is dangerous.
To make art is to open oneself up, fully, without any prerequisite conditions for viewing.
Understanding need not exist to behold, but this ignorance can become fatal. Critiques are warranted, yet one must recall the art they are seeing is a manifestation of some aspect of a real person.
It is okay to admit you do not understand something, yet the ignorance cannot be used as a launching point to vilify in hopes to create a red herring for your perceived lack of knowledge.
I am not sure how many of you know this, but you cannot hide when you record a song: the pop filter, the $700 mic, they catch everything.
If that was not enough, you can't really write a song about something you do not know. So not only are you standing naked to be heard, you are talking about personal emotions and experiences while you do so. It is a very debilitating feeling until you lean into it.
If someone is making true art, a true re presentation, not a commodity driven product, what they are making is a lived experience transfigured. I do not have to agree with it, support it, or believe in it, yet this does not mean it does not exist in some form.
To ignore this fact, is to pull the trigger of the gun that lodged a bullet in Van Gogh's stomach.
The issue of rap music is not black or white: it is gray.
Can you vilify someone from talking about what they quite literally live?
Is the issue the music or one's inability to accept that someone lives a life so far from their own reality?
In vilifying the lifestyle, should we not also vilify the issues causing the lifestyle: both are wrong?
And, as stated before, one's ability to live life is measured in their ability to exist in the gray.
Amidst the Drakes and Harlows, the numerous Babies and Lil ones, there do exist some who are making true art: for these we cannot simply throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The stories being told by these artists are invaluable tales of the human experience many of us are so far removed: their existence only captured in a poetic retelling.
Imagine telling your story, a story removed from the purview of most, hoping someone will listen, trying to make sense of what you are living, only to be shunned and demonized for attempting to make others aware of your reality.
The results of this eschewing can be seen in the tragedy of Van Gogh's life: a life stolen from him, as every part of his existence was plagued by beasts beyond his control.
Vincent was rarely more than a man violently strapped into the passenger seat of his own life. - The Unending Violence of Vincent van Gogh
To dismiss an entire genre is to disallow an expression of self: the literal point of art.
Had Van Gogh not been renounced by his superiors, his life may have turned out much different.
The commercial musicians who proliferate a lifestyle, message, and brand, that misuses the medium are often the loudest voices in the room: I was raised to know the loudest voices are the weakest.
To focus on commercial musicians who proliferate a lifestyle, message, and brand, is to forgo entire swaths of an art museum because you saw one painting, could not understand it, and let your confusion fester into disdain.
Music is just as much art as a painting is, and it should be treated as such.
It takes time to grow in one's ability to analyze anything, and this process cannot be rushed.
To acknowledge the time needed to grow in understanding is to assure the death of Van Gogh and the artitis that have died similar deaths were not in vain: it is forcing oneself to sit in the grey area of rap. The music can be offputing, the imagery and dicition questionable, yet to capture a life unlived by many is likely to bring with it confusion, anxiety, and fear.
Yet, in my six years of teaching, I have come to understand you cannot take away an oppurutnity that may benefit some because other's will take an in-class work-day and abuse it: there are some who need a day to work with the teacher around. For these students, you provide the space for their success, for their growth and devlopment.
Simply because the higher acheivers, or the disengaged, will forgo the opportunity does not mean you deny the possiblity for others to engage.
In the same way, one cannot assail a genere of music that allows many to communicate their lived reality, to re present their lives, because the louder, commercial, voices promote ideas that, yes, are problematic.
There are some who need the medium to process the lives they have lived, things they have seen, trauma they have internalized. For many, this is the best form of counseling they may find: the ability to openly express their emotions and thoughts with thier friends around, processing as they deliver each bar.
To deny someone this oppurtunity to create and counsel, is to put a bullet in young man's stomach: only this time the art will not be adorned on walls or celebrated by entire countries, no, it will be dismissed as just another statistic.
If you are interested in Vincent Van Gogh's life, I drew from The Unending Violence of Vincent van Gogh: in 25 minutes, this video essay covers, in depth, what I only touched in regard to Van Gogh's life.
If you are not getting emailed each time I publish a new post, be sure to click the Mailing List button: I do not post everything to other outlets.
If you found something worthwhile, don't be stingy, share the wealth!
I am not sure if you are here from an email, my Instagram, Medium, LinkedIn, or something else entirely, but I am appreciative of the fact you made it to the end.
Thank You!
-JBJ
Komentarze