There was a phase in my life where I could listen to The Smiths endlessly. Their songs made me feel all sorts of inexplicably profound and deep feelings, and they still do. From the comically sweet but tragic "There's a Light That Never Goes Out", the desperate yet hopeful "Please, Please, Please, Let Me Get What I Want", to the darkly soothing "sing me to sleep, don't try to wake me" lyrics of "Asleep". Just like our erratic emotions, their songs are rife with inner-turmoil and never sharply defined. Then I heard the news of Morrissey's controversial views on race and religion, apparently for the umpteenth time, and it broke my heart. He called Chinese a subspecies and he quoted "halal slaughter requires certification that can only be given by supporters of ISIS".
A little bit closer to the life as I know it, I have such a respect-loathe relationship with Ahmad Dhani. (You guys with me?!) The man behind such admirable lyrics and melodies of Dewa 19 and Ahmad Band. The man behind everyone's go-to-everything songs. Falling deeply for someone? Go listen to "Larut". Going through a rough heartbreak? have a warm shower while singing your heart out to "Separuh Nafasku". Ending things with your significant other? you have "Sudah".
Like other things, all good things must also come to an end. Remember the time when he said, quoted from The Jakarta Post, "anyone who supports the blasphemer is scum and deserves to be spat in the face"? I will not go into detail but nevertheless he did not deserve to be in jail for that. We must admit that he is more political than ever that his statements have been unbearable most of the time. I was seeing Dewa 19 at a music festival the other day, half an hour in until it was Dhani's moment to steal everyone's attention–or he thought he would. It was his part to perform solo and he got booed by the audience instantly. At that very moment, the collective effervescence proved me that politics and art can very well be merged.
On a more delicate end of the spectrum, still with a similar matter at hand, my boyfriend and I recently chatted over the book that we read called 'Essays in Love', of the fact that the protagonist is most likely the writer himself. We suddenly talked about the physical appearance of the writer that he is no longer a 20-something year-old boy as described in the book, and it kind of contaminated our imagination of the story.
Similar disappointments have happened to me again and again. What if, in reality, the artist's actions or conditions contradict the art?
My personal opinion on the matter is that an art is not something owned by the artist once it is out there–each individual can have a personal and distinct take on that. Seeing it solely will give it more objectivity, may it be for better or for worse, without the artist's life comes into play and clutters it. The actions and conditions of the artist should not influence how good or bad the art is, let alone cause it to be a certain way. Honest art will find its audience. Ahmad Dhani may be a bizarre human being in real life, but he might have been honest while brewing those poetic lyrics and catchy melodies. He might have fallen in and out of love while making them.
Ordinary human beings change, so do artists. Perhaps, we do not metamorphose ourselves into new personages or to be what we were not, but unbeknownst to us, our traits that were once concealed are now unapologetically revealed.
People go to different phases in life and all things that happened in the past are puzzles that have grouped together and formed who you are, and will keep on forming who you will be. If artists transformed themselves, then the values and feelings they had while making their works might no longer exist, but that does not mean that those were artificial at the time. I myself am still struggling with the theory of artist and art separation. Indeed, easier said than done. Could it be a self-reminder disguised in the form of scribbling?
PS: yes, I was listening to The Smiths while writing this.
Comments
Post a Comment