Elvis
Elvis is sexy, but Fat Elvis is sexier.
Why? Because I've come to think that sexiness is more meaningful in terms of coherence theory than in terms of correspondence theory. That is, sexiness is only minimally a response or an interaction or a status that an individual has with the phenomenal world. It's a state of mind; essentially what it is to feel GOOD. In the most desperate moments, it's an escape. For that reason, I think of sexiness as something analogous to fiction. Its a mental place that we need to construct for ourselves, and like fiction, it's effective only insofar as it's independent of (and hence without correspondence to) our real-life experiences.
Spoken like a person with zero sexiness, huh? I won't try to defend how good or bad I look, physically. The extraordinary thing is when a person can have no regard for physical reality, and through sheer force of will or imagination or DENIAL maintain a seamless image of that fictional location of well-being that I define as sexiness. Hence, Fat Elvis. He struts and glitters and croons, until he encapsulates some concept desire that is in no way accidental - and that's artistry.
It's also rebellion, the spirit of rock n roll. I don't believe in the Elvis-vs.-Beatles debate, but if I had to choose, I'd come down on the side of Elvis. Not that I know or like Elvis' music better, nor do I deny that the Beatles were more influential. But Elvis was offensive and excessive and glorious all to himself, where the Beatles were socially-conscious and self-consciously artistic. To me, it's obvious which of these has defined rock n roll more.
This discussion, actually, reminds me of a lot of the stuff I've heard about Arthur Miller today, God rest his soul. He and the other major 20th century American playwright (the love of my life) Tennessee Williams represent the two different ways of approaching art. Miller believed that a work of art should be socially responsive and critical, and Williams was far more concerned with representing and constructing the internal psychic reality. Again, correspondence vs. coherence. I guess I can't defend my preference on any philosophical grounds, but I've always had a special place in my heart for subjectivities - and fantasies that are viable.
Why? Because I've come to think that sexiness is more meaningful in terms of coherence theory than in terms of correspondence theory. That is, sexiness is only minimally a response or an interaction or a status that an individual has with the phenomenal world. It's a state of mind; essentially what it is to feel GOOD. In the most desperate moments, it's an escape. For that reason, I think of sexiness as something analogous to fiction. Its a mental place that we need to construct for ourselves, and like fiction, it's effective only insofar as it's independent of (and hence without correspondence to) our real-life experiences.
Spoken like a person with zero sexiness, huh? I won't try to defend how good or bad I look, physically. The extraordinary thing is when a person can have no regard for physical reality, and through sheer force of will or imagination or DENIAL maintain a seamless image of that fictional location of well-being that I define as sexiness. Hence, Fat Elvis. He struts and glitters and croons, until he encapsulates some concept desire that is in no way accidental - and that's artistry.
It's also rebellion, the spirit of rock n roll. I don't believe in the Elvis-vs.-Beatles debate, but if I had to choose, I'd come down on the side of Elvis. Not that I know or like Elvis' music better, nor do I deny that the Beatles were more influential. But Elvis was offensive and excessive and glorious all to himself, where the Beatles were socially-conscious and self-consciously artistic. To me, it's obvious which of these has defined rock n roll more.
This discussion, actually, reminds me of a lot of the stuff I've heard about Arthur Miller today, God rest his soul. He and the other major 20th century American playwright (the love of my life) Tennessee Williams represent the two different ways of approaching art. Miller believed that a work of art should be socially responsive and critical, and Williams was far more concerned with representing and constructing the internal psychic reality. Again, correspondence vs. coherence. I guess I can't defend my preference on any philosophical grounds, but I've always had a special place in my heart for subjectivities - and fantasies that are viable.
posted by Rex at 2:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home