That's an iconoclastic statement. It's also still written on my friend's wall until I get over to her house with the exact right white paint. In my defense, I had no idea that there were so many whites to choose from. I think we're playing pretty fast and loose with the word 'white' lately, Home Depot.
But that other word, 'iconoclasm' was used in the eighth and ninth centuries by the early catholic church to describe someone who tore down religious icons. Since then, it has come to mean one who attacks cherished beliefs, traditional institutions, etc., as being based on error or superstition. It's such an omni directional word as it is, though. It makes it sound like the iconoclast just wants to tear every icon down. In a way, that's our job- to tear down, but it's not our only job. We're not a shotgun. We have to build and recognize what is built that is worth keeping.
More importantly, someone who considers him or herself an iconoclast has to figure out what the hell an icon is. What is fair game to tear down in 2005? More importantly, what the fuck does this have to do with music? I ask that because the band's manager keeps begging me to post something that is connected to music in some way. I think he figures at some point I'll post something that will offend someone besides Adam, the Anti-Hipster. It's coming around, I'm sure.
I'll tell you what I think and icon isn't. Paris Hilton. Christina Aguilera. Bono. Ted Nugent. Britney Spears, even Kevin Federline (k-fed). These are people. We call them icons because we confuse them every day with the ideas they represent. Paris Hilton represents irresponsibility, Christina Aguilera represents sexual aggression. Bono represents political responsibility, Ted Nugent private gun ownership, Britney and Kevin seem to represent bad television lately, but that's passing, probably. We confuse them with the iconography they generate and it makes it easy to treat them the way we KNOW we have to treat ideas.
As Iconoclasts, we HAVE to tear down ideas. We have to challenge them always and force them to prove themselves. We know that ideas thrive under challenge and the only way they get better is to never let them get away without being tested and destroyed if they are found wanting. But what do we do with people?
That's where the job gets tough. It's out job to rip apart ideas, but at the same time we have a responsibility to nurture and respect people. How the hell do we do that? I'm not going to suggest it's easy, but what do we get if we are able to successfully separate an idea from the speaker- the icon from the person? We get a unique freedom of thought. We get the freedom to support a great idea- test it, challenge it and then maybe- if it lives up to its claim- support it and pass it around- regardless of where it comes from. At the same time we get to reject a piece of shit idea from the mouth of the smartest person we know. If it's wrong- it's just wrong.
Once we can separate the person from the icon we get to accept our responsibility to treat people with respect, as well. If you've ever heard something out of Nichole Ritchie's mouth that seemed profound, you're not alone. I'm sure there are smart ideas, good points and wisdom to be had just about everywhere. I'm also sure that even the Beatles had some duds (I am not crazy about Rocky Raccoon. I recognize that this was an important song in the context of the history of the lyrical narrative. I still don't like it).
We tear down ideas, not people. As long as we're prepared to challenge every idea those people have, we can do our own position a lot of good by just respecting the speakers. And even if we're not prepared to make people into icons, we can let them be great people. Duds or not, I cried for a week when John Lennon died and again when George Harrison did. On a side note, is it that much to ask that Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr just take care of themselves?
