entry nine

Firstly, I was pleased by the mention of artist Carolee Schneemann compared to Zappa on page 275 of the text. I just finished writing a short paper that focused heavily on her and the Guerilla Girls, specifically in the context of gender and sexuality in art. Schneemann was mentioned as an illustration of how Zappa might have been better suited to the performance art community and might have actually been warmly accepted--Schneemann especially was doing a lot more with Meat Joy and Fuses than firing whipped cream out of a stuffed giraffe's ass. Was this not the raw representation, the authenticity and seriousness that Zappa always tried to convey? I suppose the rift appears with his supposedly juvenile humour...and his need to be popular. Tickets for a naked cellist don't exactly sell out at the box office (though I've no idea why). Whatever reasons exist for Zappa's not joining the performance art community of the '60s and '70s, I thought the comparison between Zappa and Schneemann compelling. I could be putting more thought into this since just yesterday I made up my mind on Zappa's sexism, a topic that's also focused on around that section of the text. I was struck by how well they served as representations of the gender binary in postmodern artists and what an intriguing essay topic that would make. I love to think of the arty men I know as enlightened, sexually adventurous and fair-minded. Perhaps they will usurp the art world throne, but it's possible they will inherit stats the Guerilla Girls are all too happy to provide on the grumbling coming from men when women start to infringe on their creative territory. It's understandable, and not their fault every single time: it is difficult for men and women to grow up, especially creatively, seeing more naked women in paintings than actually painting. Were this an essay, however, I wouldn't want it to have a feminist bent. I'd rather assume the cool eye of the art critic and try to look at both genders with curiosity and a mind to be champion of both. For example I am beginning to feel that women are starting to have it easier when it comes to a discussion of sexuality in their work. Because of all these associations with the patriarchy that develop when we look at men's art from a feminist point of view, a piece like Meat Joy (which involves nudity, sausages, raw fish and rope) could come off as just another juvenile repressed fantasy if created by a man. But especially in 1964, such a performance piece done by a woman is lauded as celebratory, wild, uninhibited, curious and my favourite, sensual. Schneemann's use of flesh as material is not all that different from Zappa's reference to the Tower of Power, except in execution--and if I continue in this way, I'll just end up writing the whole imaginary paper.

entry eight (hypocrisy)

You had mentioned in one class that some students were finding issues with Barry Miles' maybe too aggressively unbiased account of Zappa. I'm actually enjoying it a lot. For example, his account of Zappa's initial dealings with producer Tom Wilson on pages 103 - 104. Miles responds to Zappa's claim that Tom Wilson was unfamiliar with the music of the Mothers: "This scenario is both extremely unlikely and an insult to Wilson's intelligence." This example might have less of the aggressiveness that I was talking about than some other episodes in the book, but it struck me because I felt it really exposed between the image Zappa carried of himself in his head and how his actions appeared to others. I think Miles can be credited for his exploitation of that throughout the book.

The interesting thing about it is though Zappa was something of a hypocritical character and that's not what we like to see in our artists and social critics, in a way he was just mirroring the hypocrisy he saw putting a stranglehold on America. His mission of blowing apart conformity had become so associated with a certain "look" that people began to associate Zappa with activities (namely drug-taking) that he was not only not involved with, but to which he was vehemently opposed. We see it all the time: something truly groundbreaking gets developed and slowly gets all these meaningful connections attributed to it, has all these reasons behind its invention--and then we see all these disparate, meaningful attributes homogenized into a lumped-together, two-dimensional copy. I reminded of the "Flaming Moe's" episode of The Simpsons: Homer invents a new drink, Moe pretends he invented it, all the cool New Yorkers come and flip out over it, and then at the end everyone learns Moe's secret and before you know it Springfield is overrun with bars advertising "Flaming Meaux" and the like. I wanted to find a clip of it or a link to the episode, but the Simpsons people must be taking some action at the moment because all the links are currently dead.

I just wanted to bring up the notion of hypocrisy, have been considering the personal implications of Zappa's mission/personality, mostly in relation to Tank C. John Milton was similarly questionable in his artistic motives - he was also a man with politically volatile opinions and it could be argued that much of his writing and indeed his sympathetic take on Satan in Paradise Lost was a reaction to having to go into hiding (simply for speaking his mind). So when Zappa gave the finger to that stewardess on page 132, I wonder whether he truly wanted to personify the ugliness all around him, or whether it was nothing more than a moment in time when he was unable to control his pent-up rage.

entry seven

Food, sex, drugs, it's all related...or is it?

As I continue to take in Zappa's opinions, I am struck by his individualistic and separate takes on aspects of society which I am beginning to feel are just constructed to appear related. SEX & DRUGS: the two things you are taught not to do in high school, the two things bad role models are involved with, the two things which have become the ultimate representation of excess in the West. The fact is these things need be neither excessive nor related. I feel angry when I look back at my education on these topics, since the emotional response that I usually felt towards sex and drugs after receiving that education was fear and discomfort. I understand that there is no way to simulate the experience of sex or drug-taking safely in a classroom in the way that we might be able to simulate other experiences, but the negativity was overbearing. It is necessary to inform kids of the risks involved with sex and drugs, but the negativity accompanying this information seems to have the opposite of the intended effect, kind of like Zappa said with legalizing drugs--it simply romanticizes and "spices up" those activities. Now that I am attending university the curriculum I was introduced to regarding substances and sexual intercourse is clearly unhelpful - it was taught like a science class, with very little discussion that I can remember of emotional or political aspects of these topics and little encouragement to develop one's own opinions.

So why are sex & drugs related? I used to think, like a lot of people probably, that the link was mainly indulgence and pleasure. Now I am beginning to see that the discourses that arise from certain places (political figures, institutions) are aimed mainly at controlling people; subduing the masses, as Zappa might say. Getting better at sex will likely result in overall wellbeing, a healthy prostate, and a happy family if you so choose. Getting better at taking drugs will probably get you killed. Consult any sex expert, heck, even walk into one of those wildly uninformative classrooms and the first thing you will hear is never to have sex drunk or stoned. Sex is a heightening of bodily experiences and drugs is more of a way of tweaking them which, if persistent, will result in an eventual dulling of those bodily sensations.

This dulling concept that Zappa introduced was really something to me - I had always known that certain outside forces were trying to control the masses. But it was actually a pretty interesting idea to me that the government (or whoever) was creating a machine that would trick the public into thinking it was their idea, that they want to be stupider, lazier. And that this machine could operate in a fashion that was not totally and blatantly duplicitous. I mean sure, we see an ad with a sexy young woman driving a car, and the sexual implications of that make us want to buy that car. But what about after school when your gut is screaming for fries and you know, you KNOW they are bad for you, but that badness is almost like a little covenant with yourself. Something that makes you feel special. What I'm realizing now is that that may be exactly how some people want me to think.

I think Zappa's rejection of the Catholic church was beneficial to his career in that it taught him from a young age to be skeptical, but I don't think his entire vision was a response to that. I think Zappa was a genius, but that his particular combination of circumstances gave him tools for expression.

a note on the type (o's)

Sometimes I think I'm in English just because I can't stand typos. There are a lot of texts I've been required to read throughout my education which were based on the merit and depth of the information contained over the quality of writing. As someone who's shooting for a Writing degree, this is pure offense. I understand that Miles is the expert on Zappa, so it's solely a comment on my own reading style that I feel I have to write a silly ten-line blog entry about the fact that by Ontario, CA I already feel exasperated with the number of errors I've found.

sleepy

Better to understand a world of chaos than to be complicit with a world which merely appears orderly.