“We agreed that it was what you like, not what you are
like.” –High Fidelity
This has always been one of my favorite quotes because of how much it speaks to how most people I know live their lives. In our “millennial
modernity”, one of the first things I do when I meet someone new is add them on
Facebook and look at their liked pages - and I do not think I'm alone in this. It may sound shallow, but there are certain things that if someone likes them on facebook, I assume we won't be the best of friends. While some of them are obviously connected to morality (for instance, if you like The Bible on facebook, I assume we probably won't be friends because I'll offend you at some point) whereas others seem to fall more into the category of 'taste'. However, where exactly do they overlap?
We talked today about Miley at the VMAs. If someone takes pleasure in her performance, are they having immoral pleasure? But what about other things? Take Breaking Bad's character Skylar White. If you call her a bitch in front of me, I assume that we have different beliefs about women. It sounds strange, but Skylar White has become a symbol for may underlying sexist views. (For more info, Anna Gunn wrote a great article about it: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/opinion/i-have-a-character-issue.html?_r=0) However, I see my distaste of Skylar-hate as justified because I see that hate as exhibiting characteristics of sexism, or someone secretly buying into an overall sexist society.
On the other hand, what about things that really do seem to fall into taste and have nothing to do with who someone is as a person? When discussing this with a friend, her example was that she tends to judge people who like crappy art. Does that really tell us something about who they are as people? And if not, should we judge them for those tastes?
The line seems to be very blurry here. On one hand, the content we choose to consume really does reflect what type of people we are. On the other hand, certain things really do seem to be just taste, not really ethical. (But then, of course, we bring up pornography as 'art' and everything gets even more confusing). What do you guys think?
I think that the Miley Cyrus example isn't the best way to get this point across. Miley has certainly behaved immorally recently, but I don't think liking her music reflects on your own personal choices. However, believing that Miley is a good role model for the youth of America is a good indicator of your morality. It is important to make the distinction between her art and her personality. If Leonardo de Vinci had been twerking in the square, we would still respect the Mona Lisa for being a fantastic work of art.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it seems many people make judgments about others based on what they like. I think, though, that doing this relies on stereotyping which could lead to bad judgments. I am NOT saying that this is on the same level as racial or gender stereotyping, but I think that there are similarities. I mean, I like the Bible because I think there are some pretty cool stories in there...but I don't think I would disagree with anyone for that reason (I don't know). Where I do see your point though is when people model themselves after certain things that they like. I feel that liking Miley Cyrus's music and her performances are harmless for the most part, but modeling yourself after her might call into question one's morals. I agree, Megan, with your comment about how liking her music doesn't reflect one's personal choices.
ReplyDeleteBefore reading this post, I still hadn't seen the Miley Cyrus clip, so I popped on over to some news outlet's website to take a look. Firstly, I didn't watch the whole thing; I even struggled to get through the minute and a half I did see, muted. Although her act definitely doesn't seem like kid-model material, I kind of wonder what all the outrage is about. (Again, I didn't watch the whole thing, so maybe I missed something crucial.) The craziest thing about the whole situation is that MTV chose her to headline an awards ceremony supposedly designed to celebrate music. Apart from issues of taste, her technical ability as a musician didn't seem anywhere near up to standard. All that aside, she represents a country's demand, or at least MTV's idea of what a country wants. Rather than being shocking or outrageous, her performance seemed like a simple spectacle. The grotesque tongue movements seemed super mocking and destabilizing; she takes the whole animalistic hetero-male fantasy to a hyperbolic and transgressive level(what is the aphorism, freak in the sheets?). Maybe I'm giving her too much credit, but this read like social commentary to me. Those who watched that feeling appalled clearly haven't been paying much attention to the way in which woman are actually portrayed in so many contexts. Clearly, in this context, the question is so not much whether or not her music is good but about what her performance says about current norms, etc. Clearly, there is an overlap between taste and morality, but this whole scenario is so convoluted--to parse it would need a whole treatise.
ReplyDelete