Home
Click opera - The King of Yet-Also
July 2008
 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
 
 
Page 1 of 2
[1] [2]
Sun, Mar. 13th, 2005 08:07 am
The King of Yet-Also

One of the reasons the Michael Jackson trial is so unfortunate is that the world of Either-Or will pass judgment on a creature of Yet-Also. The world of clear, unambiguous categories will pass judgment on someone who flies Peter-Pan-like over the binaries that confine and define the rest of us.



When we look at Michael Jackson, I believe we're looking at the future of our species. Michael is a creature from a future in which we've all become more feminine, more consumerist, more postmodern, more artificial, more self-constructed and self-mediating, more playful, caring and talented than we are today. But it's hard to use those adjectives, because they're Either-Or adjectives and he's from the world of Yet-Also, a world I believe we will all come to live in if we're lucky, a world where there is no more authenticity-by-default-through-brute-necessity and no more "human nature". A world of pure synthesis, pure self-creation.

Jackson is what all humans will become if we develop further in the direction of postmodernism and self-mediation. He is what we'll become if we get both more Wildean and more Nietzschean. He's what we'll become only if we're lucky and avoid a new brutality based on overpopulation and competition for dwindling resources. By attacking Jackson and what he stands for -- the effete, the artificial, the ambiguous -- we make a certain kind of relatively benign future mapped out for ourselves into a Neverland, something forbidden, discredited, derided. When we should be deriding what passes for our normalcy -- war, waste, and the things we do en masse are the things that threaten us -- we end up deriding dandyism and deviance. And Jackson is the ultimate dandy and the ultimate deviant. He can fly across our Either-Or binaries, and never land. It's debateable whether he's the king of pop, but he's undoubtedly the king of Yet-Also.

Consider all the extraordinary ways in which Michael Jackson is Yet-Also. He's black yet also white. He's adult yet also a child. He's male yet also female. He's gay yet also straight. He has children, yet he's also never fucked their mothers. He's wearing a mask, yet he's also showing his real self. He's walking yet also sliding. He's guilty yet also innocent. He's American yet also global. He's sexual yet also sexless. He's immensely rich yet also bankrupt. He's Judy Garland yet also Andy Warhol. He's real yet also synthetic. He's crazy yet also sane, human yet also robot, from the present yet also from the future. He declares his songs heavensent, and yet he also constructs them himself. He's the luckiest man in the world yet the unluckiest. His work is play. He's bad, yet also good. He's blessed yet also cursed. He's alive, but only in theory.

There's one way in which Michael Jackson is not Yet-Also though. He's not famous yet also ordinary. Almost all the other stars in the world, the stars of Either-Or world, anyway, make an exception to Either-Or's categorical thinking in this one instance: given the choice between being either famous or ordinary, they all insist they're both. It's the one instance in which hardline Either-Ors will accept a Yet-Also answer. It's an answer they like because it fills the positions of talent with the representatives of the untalented. It affirms them as they currently are rather than challenging them to become something else. They want affirmation, not aspiration. They don't want their artists and celebrities to embody the values of worlds they don't understand. Ambiguous worlds, future worlds. They want to walk, not moonwalk, and they want their stars to walk too.

And so our creature of Never-Land will be judged by the creatures of Never-Fly. They will almost certainly throw him into jail. Their desire to see him as grounded, categorised and unfree as they themselves are is overwhelming. The grounded, situated, unfree creatures of Either-Or are baying for the clipping of fairy wings. Knives, hatchets and scissors glint in Neverland. There's an assembly of torch-bearing witchfinders. Peter Pan must be ushered back from fiction to reality, from the air to the ground. Back into a race, back into a gender, back into a confined clarity. Assuming he doesn't commit suicide, as he threatens in Martin Bashir's documentary, by jumping from a balcony, Jackson will be ushered away from the fuzzy subtle flicker states of our future, back to the solid states of our past and present. Either-Or will have its triumph over Yet-Also. Yet it will also, unknowingly, "triumph" over its own better future.

70CommentReplyAdd to MemoriesTell a Friend

illf0
illf0
Bastós
Sun, Mar. 13th, 2005 07:12 am (UTC)

i've seen your writing once or twice (on past entries), i believe it was stuff you did for VICE? ...i could be wrong.

but GODAMN you are a brilliant writer.

Insane.


i'll be keeping tabs sir.


ReplyThread Expand


(Anonymous)
Sun, Mar. 13th, 2005 07:18 am (UTC)

Sorry, this is not about the post..

I got your album today. I love it! It feels nice, like warm classical electronic music. Lute Score is lovely, but Life of the Fields is like the end to a videogame! Good job, it's all dark, hellucinogenic chamber music.

Adam


ReplyThread Expand


(no subject) - (Anonymous) Expand
lord_whimsy
lord_whimsy
lord_whimsy
Sun, Mar. 13th, 2005 07:35 am (UTC)

This may be hopelessly 'binarian' of me, but I'd rather my nieces and nephews stay on Neverfuck Ranch for the time being.


ReplyThread Expand











paletree
j faithless
Sun, Mar. 13th, 2005 07:36 am (UTC)

this is up there with the john peel post.
you seem to write best when you write about other people. not that you don't write well at other times. do you know what i mean?


ReplyThread


imomus
imomus
imomus
Sun, Mar. 13th, 2005 08:13 am (UTC)

In the bath just now I started thinking about Sartre's book about Genet, Saint Genet, Actor and Martyr. Sartre sees Genet's early ostracisation as a thief being the starting point for a virtuous self-construction:

"The biography ascribes Genet's career as a thief to a conscious decision made in childhood to be what others accused him of being. To Sartre, Genet is a splendid example of a man who made himself as he wanted to be by inverting other people's values."

Since a large part of Genet's oeuvre is dedicated to the eroticisation of young rough trade, Sartre could just as easily have called his book Genet, Pedophile and Martyr. How can a human being be both criminal and saintly? How can criminality lead to saintliness? Isn't criminality and saintliness an Either-Or state, not a Yet-Also state? Well, Sartre can hold these two "contradictory" ideas in his mind at the same time when thinking about Genet. And actually, one of the more positive legacies of the Christian tradition is the idea that we're all sinners, even the saints amongst us. Christianity, although it does propose a Final Judgement and a separation between heaven and hell, allows a certain ambiguity, at least while we're alive. It tolerates and even understands ambivalence... at least until the hammer falls and the trump sounds. Perhaps that's why so many mixed-up characters become priests.


ReplyThread
fuckfarm
fuckfarm
Pants
Sun, Mar. 13th, 2005 09:19 am (UTC)

interesting man
with interesting thoughts!


ReplyThread
insomnia
insomnia
Insomnia
Sun, Mar. 13th, 2005 09:31 am (UTC)

As I previously noted in a comment on the last post, there is no simple answer as to what to do with/for Jackson, I think.

How do you propose dealing with those who are criminally creative, especially when the charges appear to be valid? Do existing laws regarding sex with minors encourage a small evil, in order to protect society against a larger one... or visa versa?

Where and how do you rewrite the laws regarding consentual sex with minors? How can you reasonably judge the ability of a minor to give consent? Is any decision they make truely a consentual one, or are they victims, addicted to and overwhelmed by the attention or the stimulation... were they willing participants, or "sucked into it", as it were?

I say this based on having sex back in my early thirties with a few people who were the age of consent, plus a few months... and if I found out after the fact that they were a few months younger than I suspected, would I have stopped having sex with them entirely?! Questionable. They knew their own minds quite well.

While I believe that society should try to protect children from becoming victims of preying adults, why should society insist on protecting mature and worldly minors with years of sexual experience from consentual sexual relationships with mature individuals, set upon established ground rules? Why insist instead that they settle for young, immature, inexperienced lads who are, by and large, lousy lovers... with no ground rules, no sense of forming lasting relationships, and the occasional propensity for date rape? Aren't minors imminently qualified to victimize each other sexually, in the modern "Lord of the Flies" world, where adult supervision is often completely missing, a la "Kids"? Why shouldn't parents ever take any responsibility for the premature deflowering of their "sweet, innocent child"?

Personally, I doubt that Jackson will be legally convicted -- his lawyers are too good, and the witness' motives are too tainted -- which is to say that he'll only be convicted in the court of public opinion. That, however, is arguably a worse sentence for an artist like Jackson. Exile, however, might be good for Jackson. It was, arguably, the best thing that could've happened for you and many other artists.


ReplyThread Expand





qscrisp
qscrisp
qscrisp
Sun, Ma