Why are artists allowed to be selfish and materialistic but not businessmen?


Marcus

Recommended Posts

Apparently in our culture, artists are given a great deal more sanction by the public to be egregriously and unapologetically selfish and egoistic than are businessmen who would be publicly skewered and shamed for taking the same actions. There would even be calls for resignation and boycotts.

Can you imagine a prominent businessman chauffeured into work in a Bentley, wearing a flamboyant suit, diamond luxury watch and gold chain while being escorted out of his luxury vehicle by two buxom, beautiful women? A rapper doing this wouldn't bat an eye, but it'd make front page news and be called a scandal if it were Mark Zuckerberg. This may seem like a silly example, but it illustrates the stark difference in treatment two different types of rich people receive. One is given the full go-ahead sanction, the other is pilloried.

Artists, musicians (especially rappers), but also actors, comedians, and other entertainers are allowed to say and do virtually whatever they want with very little public repercussion or people will just look the other way and excuse them. In fact, the end result of their so called controversies, is usually just getting more attention and fame.

My question is, why does the public even make this silly distinction? And what does it say about their premises/motivations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, interesting question.

I think part of the reason why artists (namely rappers) are allowed a free pass is that it's expected, and even encouraged, that they act flamboyantly and flaunt their money. It's part of the nature of their (the rapper's) game. The rap industry is focused on money, fast times, beautiful women, drugs, and sweet cars. On a similar note, businessmen are expected to be formal and reserved, which is how most business, of the suit and tie variety, is conducted.

In short, the public expects the players in the game to reflect the nature of the game itself. When this DOESN'T happen (i.e. if a businessman shows up with well proportioned women on either arm and a sweet car), then controversy ensues. Additionally, dog bites man isn't interesting news. Man bites dog, however, is interesting and newsworthy.

I'm sure there is more to this, but this is just my five cents in five minutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think part of the reason why artists (namely rappers) are allowed a free pass is that it's expected, and even encouraged, that they act flamboyantly and flaunt their money. It's part of the nature of their (the rapper's) game. The rap industry is focused on money, fast times, beautiful women, drugs, and sweet cars. On a similar note, businessmen are expected to be formal and reserved, which is how most business, of the suit and tie variety, is conducted.

In short, the public expects the players in the game to reflect the nature of the game itself. When this DOESN'T happen (i.e. if a businessman shows up with well proportioned women on either arm and a sweet car), then controversy ensues. Additionally, dog bites man isn't interesting news. Man bites dog, however, is interesting and newsworthy.

I think you got it exactly right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To an extent I have to agree with Kyle.

It should be noted that rappers of the kind the OP is criticizing (mainstream super-rich "glam rappers") are both a relatively recent invention (they simply did not exist in old-school hip-hop and plenty of rappers still focus more on the issues of poverty and violence and oppression-by-the-cops endured by African-American and urban-poor communities.... Rapping about Cristal, Bitches, Blow and Bling is only done by the most mainstream and popular of rappers) AND they often get criticized by other hip-hop artists and fans (precisely because they aren't looking at the social issues which the genre often focuses on, and are instead too busy rapping about pimping out their bitches and cars).

So, in fact there is NOT universal approval of "glam rappers." Or "artists being materially indulgent" in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Kyle. So did Rand. She was an enthusiastic admirer of the glamour of the movies and the other performing arts and of the performers in them.

I can't help noticing that the article in #2 is about a corporate VP, not an artist. It counts as evidence against your point. If Jobs were running things today, methinks he'd mind his own business and not kill the goose that lays so many billions worth of golden eggs. People who've gotten rich from IT entrepreneurship and stock options are legendary for their ostentation. Read the real estate ads in the Palo Alto Post. See how many Teslas you can count at any red light in the neighborhood.

One might argue that the public does not come down sufficiently hard on stars' hypocrisies in politics, about inequality and about global warming. In fact the media call them out constantly on this, and the public responds to the stars' fatuous pronouncements by flatly ignoring them, no matter how noisily they huff and puff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marcus writes:

Apparently in our culture, artists are given a great deal more sanction by the public to be egregiously and unapologetically selfish and egoistic than are businessmen who would be publicly skewered and shamed for taking the same actions. There would even be calls for resignation and boycotts.

That's true for majority feminized leftist culture... but not the minority American culture.

America has more useless leftist failures than Americans. That's why the government is so big, and why successful productive Capitalists are regarded as villains.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be a boring dis-interesting world if there were no alternative to the buttoned-down businessman or woman who need that sort of thing so they watch movies, go to see plays, listen to music and appreciate glamor. The complexity of human endeavor means concentration through division of labor and some relief through vicarious living. I was never much of a basketball player, but I watch the high level college game--not pro ball--and imagine doing those things as they are happening. I do remember playing on an outdoor court in Tucson when I was 15 against some bigger and stronger college boys when I got a vicious, paralyzing hack under the basket across the forearms. I managed to toss the ball up and made the basket. That sort of thing is part and parcel of real basketball. I have no fantasies involving getting hurt playing basketball nor do I have any fantasies about the life behind the glamorous life of a movie star. As for admiration I'd go with Jimmy Stewart and Harrison Ford. I feel I knew/know those fellows as real people. I have no intention of tearing the lid off Hollywood Babylon, however, for I suspect too much slime, with reason.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Socialists and mixists (who believe in a mixture of capitalism and socialism) might say that the rich businessman 'exploited' the work of others and didn't really earn his fabulous wealth. But in the case of a great singer or a great athlete, it is harder for them to say that. The work that the wealthy businessman does is usually not very visible to the public, so the wrong kind of person might imagine that it is 'exploitation'. The work that the great singer or great athlete does tends to be more visible to the public. The great singer is obviously not exploiting other people's singing. Even a commie can see that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Kyle. So did Rand. She was an enthusiastic admirer of the glamour of the movies and the other performing arts and of the performers in them.

I can't help noticing that the article in #2 is about a corporate VP, not an artist. It counts as evidence against your point. If Jobs were running things today, methinks he'd mind his own business and not kill the goose that lays so many billions worth of golden eggs. People who've gotten rich from IT entrepreneurship and stock options are legendary for their ostentation. Read the real estate ads in the Palo Alto Post. See how many Teslas you can count at any red light in the neighborhood.

One might argue that the public does not come down sufficiently hard on stars' hypocrisies in politics, about inequality and about global warming. In fact the media call them out constantly on this, and the public responds to the stars' fatuous pronouncements by flatly ignoring them, no matter how noisily they huff and puff.

I posted the article as an example of the public criticism businessmen recieve for spending (their own money) and living lavishly. It was a blatant example almost taken word for word from my post.

My point is, the public perceives artists as "freer" than businessmen. Businessmen, even in their personal lives, are slaves to public opinion, artists for the most part, are not. They have free reign. I find that an interesting quirk of our culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, interesting question.

I think part of the reason why artists (namely rappers) are allowed a free pass is that it's expected, and even encouraged, that they act flamboyantly and flaunt their money. It's part of the nature of their (the rapper's) game. The rap industry is focused on money, fast times, beautiful women, drugs, and sweet cars. On a similar note, businessmen are expected to be formal and reserved, which is how most business, of the suit and tie variety, is conducted.

In short, the public expects the players in the game to reflect the nature of the game itself. When this DOESN'T happen (i.e. if a businessman shows up with well proportioned women on either arm and a sweet car), then controversy ensues. Additionally, dog bites man isn't interesting news. Man bites dog, however, is interesting and newsworthy.

I'm sure there is more to this, but this is just my five cents in five minutes.

Interesting and I see what you mean. Upon thinking about it I might offer another explanation.

Businessmen are more burdened with altruistic notions of the "public good" and "social justice" than are artists, due to the public's perceptions of the responsibilities of each. One is perceived as liberal, the other conservative. So businessmen have to be "reigned in" on their behavior because they "owe" society for their transgressions. Artists have the opposite, they have "free reign". They are for and by the public and its causes. Businessmen are "greedy" individualist misers and robbers, artists are starving strugglers who struggle for a righteous (public) cause, whatever the cause of the moment.

IMO the real power in American society lies not in Washington, but Hollywood. Maybe this is making me sound a bit like Gail Wynand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Rand, businessmen deserve the highest praise and accolades a society can bestow (which, in a sense means higher than that received by a list actors, star athletes etc), for their incomparable productivity and incalculable contribution to the wellbeing and and living standards of men in any given society.

But this is just not what I see in American society at all. In fact, just the opposite. The recieve the highest scorn, the most shackles and and the most open contempt. They are associated and blamed with everything wrong about America. They are guilty before proven innocent.

It's just a bizarre spectacle to see two clearly rich individuals treated so starkly different given the same situation. According to the public the rapper "deserves" his millions, while the CEO doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Hollywood has been mostly in the hands of anti-business leftists for generations. Very little anti-government much less pro-freedom. The Hollywood business and cultural model is breaking down, it's just happening sooner and faster than in the publishing industry. All thanks to the technological revolution we are smack in the middle of.

--Brant

I gotta learn Twitter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, I see this as a core story issue.

Business story (for people in general--and there are exceptions): Whenever we want to do our banking, buy a car or food, get on an airplane, etc., it feels uncomfortable to imagine the people who are responsible for the quality of these things basking in distracted luxury. The image of relaxation does not come with an emotional load indicating high skill or competence. In a business environment, it makes us wary. Is that person so relaxed, he or she is careless?

In general, when we want business-like products, we want high quality. We know quality-control comes with seriousness, therefore we unconsciously want business-people to look serious and rationally focused.

Entertainment story: However, when we consume entertainment, it's freak-out time. We want to get emotional and turn off our thinking brain a bit--to recharge our energy batteries, to escape, to let go, to do the mating dance, whatever the reason. The last thing we want at such a moment is to be reminded of work and all the emotional constraints that comes with it.

So we don't want a serious look in the people who serve up products that induce our emotional flip-around. On the contrary, at let-go time we want to feel good, feel pampered, feel excessive, feel sexy, and so on. Even feel outrageous. Ergo, popular artists look and act the way they do and we like it.

In high art, we want more restraint in our artists, but that's because we consume high art with more cognition and emotional restraint. It's a different story we live at that moment.

Also, when businesspeople act like restrained royalty, we tend to accept their lavishness without complaint. That's even another story.

I bow to the epistemological truth from the old bard, Shakespeare: "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players."

That might be metaphysical crap, but epistemologically, it's spot on.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't have to look far for examples (and almost word for word!):

http://valleywag.gawker.com/apple-design-boss-jon-ive-gets-chauffeured-to-work-in-a-1686287300

That picture of Joffrey on the Throne of Swords is too rich....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant writes:

Well, Hollywood has been mostly in the hands of anti-business leftists for generations.

Ironically, Obongo is coming to Hollywood today for the 21st time to get money for the Democratic party from those same "anti business leftists".

His motorcade creates these unbelievably monumental traffic jams! :laugh:

6a00d8341c630a53ef01543666ad4e970c-640wi

obamatraffic1_092611-e1316913232186.jpg

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Un - believable. And I complain about these roads here. You ever get caught in that, Greg? 20 lanes jampacked.

I'm with PJ O'Rourke, a man's birthright is his car. :-}But now I'm seeing the sense in putting up some monorails along that freeway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A book about the time of the "selfish and materialistic" businessmen, with stories that make hip-hop moguls look like coupon-clippers:

The Big Spenders: The Epic Story of the Rich Rich, the Grandees of America and the Magnificoes, and How They Spent Their Fortunes by Lucius Beebe
http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Spenders-Grandees-Magnificoes-ebook/dp/B00LV8IRGY

From the author:

“ Nowhere, it has been remarked, is moderation so debilitating and destructive of character as in the expenditure of money. The decision to spend excessively on the caprices of their choice is what lent the stature of greatness to most of the people who will be encountered in this book. It was they who validated the lost art of being rich.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now