David Bowie Dead at 69

[luke wilson]

What about if making good music/good art is no more different than being good at something else e.g. Being a good engineer, doctor, programmer etc? What about if its no reflection of your actual value as a person (from an ethical/moral point of view)? What about if you can be amazing and still be crap in other fundamental aspects to the point of bridging the threshold of legality... You can have a musician who makes truly profound music and challenges norms but who on the other hand is an addict, egotistical, womaniser etc or you can have a genius level scientist who makes bombs for the military as part of his job...

Isn't the problem that we project all sorts of stuff onto those we hold in high regard? They almost take on a super human quality in our eyes whereas in reality they may be no more greater or lesser than their fellow man except that they are good at doing something valued? How else can you explain art from those who produce it? Do you denigrate the art because the person is found to have had a darker side or do you just take it as proof that art is not an indication of these supernatural qualities that are meant to represent the perfect or evolved man/woman?

 

[ROEL]

We must not forget that most of the time so-called stars are manipulated as a tool to hypnotize the masses. And btw, this black star song does not make any sense, with the exception maybe to Bowie himself. It is too dark also.

 

[beherenow]

What about if making good music/good art is no more different than being good at something else e.g. Being a good engineer, doctor, programmer etc? What about if its no reflection of your actual value as a person (from an ethical/moral point of view)? What about if you can be amazing and still be crap in other fundamental aspects to the point of bridging the threshold of legality... You can have a musician who makes truly profound music and challenges norms but who on the other hand is an addict, egotistical, womaniser etc or you can have a genius level scientist who makes bombs for the military as part of his job...

Isn't the problem that we project all sorts of stuff onto those we hold in high regard? They almost take on a super human quality in our eyes whereas in reality they may be no more greater or lesser than their fellow man except that they are good at doing something valued? How else can you explain art from those who produce it? Do you denigrate the art because the person is found to have had a darker side or do you just take it as proof that art is not an indication of these supernatural qualities that are meant to represent the perfect or evolved man/woman?

Excellent remark Luke! thanks...it does seem to be the "high regard" that we project on to them that gets wounded when the ugly bits come out.

I think that, like so many that get mainstream "approval", it falls in the category that G called "subjective art".

My understanding of that is its steeped in ambiguity, and it "goes both ways", so to speak. Although any given song/poem most likely has a more well defined meaning in the mind of its producer, it is still a subjective idea on his part. Then, due to the ambiguity of language itself,( especially English), it all gets quite malleable in the mind of the receiver to the point that he/she can forge their own notions onto the song.

I once read something about how to write a hit song and the big point seemed to be what they called "universality",...to write in a way that almost any personality type would be able to get something personal out of it. It does, IMO, appear to be a key element in all pop songs. I understand that in making something too specific or arcane will limit its wider appeal, but there was something about it all that made me think it wasn't good...the "suqishiness" of it..that you couldn't really pin down a clear meaning. I've never been very comfortable with that kind of thing. I now look at it as, ambiguity + subjectivity="universality".

From Solarmind:

... and it is a nice thing about his work, that he is not imposing anything to anyone, he is just doing his thing .. and using symbols instead of directly formulating a statement, already said that he by himself was open to interpretation, learning, possible personal misunderstanding etc . ... so if his work bring one individual to be aware of choice is a huuuge step forward, comparing to the state of a sleep mood ...

I think that statement kind of proves my point. If it's open to interpretation then it has to be possible that it gives a "huge step forward", and a huge step nowhere, or back, in equal portions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to imply that a clear objective song is "imposing upon" others?

...and it is a nice thing about his work, ...

That's just an opinion. I'm not saying that it isn't valid for you, but my opinion is that it isn't really "nice" to be ambiguous and possibly confusing. Personally, if i had such a wide audience I'd hope that the message i put out there was understood in a similar way by different people rather that the opposite, but that's just my own personal desire. I think a lot of pop performers just want their songs out there,( for the $$) and aren't really that concerned about a message or how its received.

Please know that as a musical person I'm not against ambiguous, or silly non-sense songs..they have their place when one needs to unplug and dissociate, or dance and let the body play. I think the thing here with Mr. Bowie, that sticks in my crawl a bit, is that so many in the mainstream music biz are lauding him for some kind of "depth" that i just don't see. It may be my own lack of depth being projected onto him, but i have doubts about that due to the involuntary reaction of the ole BS meter getting pegged every time i hear some ass-kissing DJ talk about him lately.

 

[Deleted member 11729]

Beharenow, must to say that I don't understand your question? Are you asking me why artist are using metaphors and symbols? Or do you ask me why there is no straight forward understanding in his work, that will be understandable to all on the same level?

 

[beherenow]

Sorry I wasn't clear...i think i might have taken what you said wrongly, or twisted it and added my own interpretation.

...I read your whole post again and i think i understand better what your point was. In the part about "not imposing anything to anyone".. you are saying that by using symbols and things open to interpretation he did not force anything on anyone, right?

.. then, erroneously,i jumped to the to the idea that if the above is true, then something that is not open to interpretation is imposing...a bit of black and white thinking on my part.

This is not true, as one can say something that is, true or false, not open to interpretation without "imposing" or forcing it upon another.

My disdain for ambiguity (and imposition) had me defending what I read into your words as an attack on clarity....or in other words,i thought you were implying this:
ambiguity=not imposing, clarity= imposing.

Solarmind, I apologize. i jumped to that conclusion way too fast. I'll shut up now before i say anymore stupid stuff.

 

[striveforselflessness]

I once read something about how to write a hit song and the big point seemed to be what they called "universality",...to write in a way that almost any personality type would be able to get something personal out of it. It does, IMO, appear to be a key element in all pop songs. I understand that in making something too specific or arcane will limit its wider appeal, but there was something about it all that made me think it wasn't good...the "suqishiness" of it..that you couldn't really pin down a clear meaning. I've never been very comfortable with that kind of thing. I now look at it as, ambiguity + subjectivity="universality".

Great point, I hadn't considered that. That his lyrics are whimsical and fun, may inspire movement and energy, but also more easily our own projections as to what they mean, so that we more easily make the mistake of idolizing him. It's a leap to say he's a channel for higher energies. Maybe like countless other artists, authors, and so on he can tune into a few things here and there, but given how random it seems to be overall there's no reason to assume he's a profound mystery-man. (sorry for the whimsy)

Another user replied to the transcripts about a possible link of 'Ormen' to Ormethion, and that along with someone's finding in this thread about Ormen referring to long snake, makes me think that Bowie continued to be attracted to the 'strange.' Maybe it's even in Crowley's work somewhere? I don't feel like reading it. :P

 

[Deleted member 11729]

Sorry I wasn't clear...i think i might have taken what you said wrongly, or twisted it and added my own interpretation.

...I read your whole post again and i think i understand better what your point was. In the part about "not imposing anything to anyone".. you are saying that by using symbols and things open to interpretation he did not force anything on anyone, right?

yes

.. then, erroneously,i jumped to the to the idea that if the above is true, then something that is not open to interpretation is imposing...a bit of black and white thinking on my part.

This is not true, as one can say something that is, true or false, not open to interpretation without "imposing" or forcing it upon another.

My disdain for ambiguity (and imposition) had me defending what I read into your words as an attack on clarity....or in other words,i thought you were implying this:
ambiguity=not imposing, clarity= imposing.

Solarmind, I apologize. i jumped to that conclusion way too fast. I'll shut up now before i say anymore stupid stuff.

;) is okay ... just to ad a bit to this what can maybe give you a hint why you came to this conclusions - there is plausibility that if something is "masked" intentionally, that it is done for manipulative purpose, as we can see every day in mainstream media for example, but also if we think about other levels of communication, through art for example, that is usually metaphorical way of telling things, it is mostly because there is no other more suitable "language" to express it, or the idea is to broad, that just saying it in explanatory way will lose a "meaning" that it can bring to the one who is "reading" it. and usually good art is the one that is open to interpretation and that is inspiring to move beyond. On a way quite opposite form science. Also understanding of something that is highly metaphorical or philosophical or scientific or what is communicate to us through higher concuesnes, as we can see for example from channeling materials, it is usually giving us answer, or explanation, available to the level of the recipient knowledge and experience about the subject. You probably experience that reading some of the things here, if you don't know much about it, it will take some time to learn about things, to understand final concepts, even though it is said clearly, we are not able to understand it without basic knowledge of things.

It is a quite complex and interesting field to explore.

 

[Deleted member 11729]

That his lyrics are whimsical and fun, may inspire movement and energy, but also more easily our own projections as to what they mean, so that we more easily make the mistake of idolizing him. It's a leap to say he's a channel for higher energies. Maybe like countless other artists, authors, and so on he can tune into a few things here and there, but given how random it seems to be overall there's no reason to assume he's a profound mystery-man. (sorry for the whimsy)

yes sure .. and I didn't imply that ... as Approaching Infinity said those are all assumption until we are able to discuss it with the artist to know if that was what he/she had on his mind. My experience from talking with artists about their art work and what I was reading form it, it is not necessary that artist even was aware of telling that, but most of the time, after pointing to that, they found it present there, and the reasons for that is because that knowledge was in their subconsciousness while doing that. Also when I am watching some of my art work after some time, I can see there things that I wasn't aware off in the moment of doing that, and that is quite interesting, as it usually makes me think how do I came to that "conclusion" without knowing some things at that time, what I know now .... so maybe for most of his work probably is the same thing, he was tapping into something and than translating that to his language ... but it is also assumption again, as we don't know until we ask him. But also from such a richness of symbols and metaphors about "richer" reality, maybe through his work he wanted to say things, but not directly, for many reasons, so maybe he was doing something what is called "Strategic enclosure" .... maybe he know about G. and all other stuff, I know he knew a lot about Tesla for example ... but also he was just a man, a machine, and he could be corrupted and "used" to lead astray ...

And for the Crowley reference and all other "interpretations" here is quite interesting interview with Black Star music video director, and basically he said that all we reading into it is our own projection ... and on a way I totally understand the way how they work, it is newer like you came with manifesto you want to promote, where each symbol has strictly assigned reference, it is always about how you feel the "truth" within the whole ... difficult to explain by words ;) ... but this is definitely interesting reading

_http://noisey.vice.com/blog/david-bowie-blackstar-video-johan-renck-director-interview

 

[striveforselflessness]

That his lyrics are whimsical and fun, may inspire movement and energy, but also more easily our own projections as to what they mean, so that we more easily make the mistake of idolizing him. It's a leap to say he's a channel for higher energies. Maybe like countless other artists, authors, and so on he can tune into a few things here and there, but given how random it seems to be overall there's no reason to assume he's a profound mystery-man. (sorry for the whimsy)

yes sure .. and I didn't imply that ... as Approaching Infinity said those are all assumption until we are able to discuss it with the artist to know if that was what he/she had on his mind.
...
also he was just a man, a machine, and he could be corrupted and "used" to lead astray ...

That is my mistake then.

The interview comes across as giving excuses, no it doesn't mean this or that, it means whatever you want it to mean. I remember a youtube video where Bowie gets 'annoyed' because people put meaning into his work, and he says "no, it's nothing, nothing." Could be strategic enclosure, as you say, but what if it's that he's trying not to bother people with his own noise (nice of him, but doesn't suggest anything more than that)? Did he ever mention Gurdjieff, or where does that impression come from? The linked interview mentions that they put in whatever appealed to them (like women with tails because: whatever!), and they are even materialistic about it. So like I say it seems a bit random. In any case, as you say they are communicating on intuitive, symbolic, unconscious levels, and there is a use for that.

 

[beherenow]

From Solarmind:

Also understanding of something that is highly metaphorical or philosophical or scientific or what is communicate to us through higher concuesnes, as we can see for example from channeling materials, it is usually giving us answer, or explanation, available to the level of the recipient knowledge and experience about the subject. You probably experience that reading some of the things here, if you don't know much about it, it will take some time to learn about things, to understand final concepts, even though it is said clearly, we are not able to understand it without basic knowledge of things.

Good points. I do understand metaphor, and the richness and multi-level meanings that come from it....but the hick/farm-boy little "i" (maybe not so "little"?) oft times speaks first at the very pragmatic/basic level.

The conclusion i so readily jumped to was due to a bias that colors my opinion, which i know i have, but oft times forget about...(thank you for pointing it out, Solarmind :))....the bias is a certain intolerance for people who mix metaphors and/or use them incorrectly and as a smokescreen. I guess I'm getting cranky as i age, but when i run into some poseur who " muddies the waters so as to appear deep " i just roll my eyes, bite my tongue and walk away.

 

[Renaissance]

That his lyrics are whimsical and fun, may inspire movement and energy, but also more easily our own projections as to what they mean, so that we more easily make the mistake of idolizing him. It's a leap to say he's a channel for higher energies. Maybe like countless other artists, authors, and so on he can tune into a few things here and there, but given how random it seems to be overall there's no reason to assume he's a profound mystery-man. (sorry for the whimsy)

yes sure .. and I didn't imply that ...

Saying you didn't imply that is strange because you state the following:

I am kind of getting impression of him, and some of his friends artists of that generation, and I get a chance to know some in person, that maybe they can be observed as a kind of a wanderers, a humans who has a strong attachment to outwordly, but have no idea how and for what they got that "talent" ... and through their life and work they are kind of "channeling" a new language that can evoke building of a higher centers in man without direct knowledge of occult of spiritual teachings ...

I don't see where diligence is mistaken.

 

[BHelmet]

without direct knowledge of occult of spiritual teachings ...

The Vigilante Citizen has put together a really nice bit of well-supported analysis that is very balanced and fair and enlightening on the occult aspect of David Bowie without drawing any conclusions for the reader.

_http://vigilantcitizen.com/musicbusiness/occult-universe-david-bowie-meaning-blackstar/

It seems to me that the repetitive, hypnotic, ritualistic nature of those last 2 music vids was not some random what-the-heck-let's-mess-with-their-heads-one-last-time-just-for-fun compilation but very deliberately and seriously put together. I don't doubt he thought of himself as an eternal soul in the Gurdjieffian sense. However, I don't mean to say his slant on life had anything to do with the 4th way. Perhaps the bit about his soul rising a meter and stepping aside was a reference to his own becoming a vessel for either some other entity or an other-worldly aspect of himself which overtook the incarnated man/vessel who was the fearful, mortal sock-puppet with the button eyes.

"I am the Great I am" = about as pretentious as you can get. Yet there is truth in it for all of us from a certain perspective. However my impression is that Bowie says this from an occult ritual magick sort of point of view as he also derides the listener:"You're just a flash in the pan / I'm not a Marvel Star" i.e., You are not what I am and I can't or won't 'save' you. And, to me, this implies: Ah, if you WERE like me, well, then you'd really be something! (the lord of the serpent 33 invitation/temptation)

Darkstar and Lazarus don't strike me as fluffy or random pieces. I sense that Bowie wants us to witness something and to be affected by it. I also sense that it is something I don't want any part of: the achievement or celebration of immortality via the left hand path. A charming, likable, good looking Pied Piper beckoning down a long, wide descending path.

"I can’t answer why (I’m a blackstar)" ((Can't because you don't know, or are not allowed to say?))
"Just go with me (I’m not a filmstar)" ((A very gentle ' submit your will to mine'- {no thanks}))
"I’m-a take you home (I’m a blackstar)" (( Home? Whose home? Will you throw me in the basement dungeon when we get there?))

Anyway, these songs/vids are jam-packed with bizarre content to kick around. That much is for sure.

 

[Deleted member 11729]

That his lyrics are whimsical and fun, may inspire movement and energy, but also more easily our own projections as to what they mean, so that we more easily make the mistake of idolizing him. It's a leap to say he's a channel for higher energies. Maybe like countless other artists, authors, and so on he can tune into a few things here and there, but given how random it seems to be overall there's no reason to assume he's a profound mystery-man. (sorry for the whimsy)

yes sure .. and I didn't imply that ...

Saying you didn't imply that is strange because you state the following:

I am kind of getting impression of him, and some of his friends artists of that generation, and I get a chance to know some in person, that maybe they can be observed as a kind of a wanderers, a humans who has a strong attachment to outwordly, but have no idea how and for what they got that "talent" ... and through their life and work they are kind of "channeling" a new language that can evoke building of a higher centers in man without direct knowledge of occult of spiritual teachings ...

I don't see where diligence is mistaken.

where do you see I am assuming - "he's a profound mystery-man."? Maybe you are assuming that if I think if someone can be wanderer I am automatically giving profound connotation? ... but I m not ... as much as I know the trick with the idea of the wanderer is that they can be serving STS or STO forces, depend on their awareness of things ... also building of higher centers, from what I learned so far, doesn't mean that it is automatically something that leads one person to STO orientation ... specially if that happened thorough intuitive, but not guided process, without realy knowing that it happens, it can lead to "wrong" crystallization of hydrogens, if I remember right ... maybe from my stile of writing, where is obvious that I have sort of "adoration", better to say intrigue, for the "mystery" behind his work, you assuming that I automatically also think it is profound ... or maybe I am mistaking that word profound giving automatically positive connotations?

 

[Deleted member 11729]

when i run into some poseur who " muddies the waters so as to appear deep " i just roll my eyes, bite my tongue and walk away.

sure, ... and the saddest things is that today in the art and philosophy, most of the individuals who are clamming that they are artists, and who are even well respected by media and so, are just empty bozos, so I understand the people ambiguity when art is observed, as it is also derogated as any other human intellectual and creative activity, specially in last 20 years ... the situation is getting worst day by day, specially since most of the art critics are people who are frustrated by the fact that they are untalented and non imaginative, so in order to make them self look serious and important, with their "pretentious writings", at the top of already complex information, that are accepted through media as the only one possible explanation of the artwork, they actually "killed" the artist ...

 

[Hindsight Man]

I've also personally never connected to Bowies music. On an interesting note though and to show how widespread his fame is. Here in Western Australia we've had a state of emergency with bush fires. was on the news every night, first thing, hour long specials and everything. The day bowie croaked, bushfire is no longer important and Bowie's life story is everywhere. I had to have a chuckle about the priorities. :)

Either way, its amazing that one person can evoke so much in people. I guess we all have our own heroes in todays world.

It's nice to know that there are forum members in WA.I was thinking that i can't be the only one,but WA isn't exactly super populated :D