All art is useless unless it operates out of a moral imperative. It seems as though that in the past few decades we have completely lost this essential quality of art and forgot what a true moral imperative really is. Instead artists have turned to creating art in response to current trends. Unfortunately, trends are by their nature short term and easily disposable, and as such, art created out of this imperative is itself disposable. As if this isn't bad enough, another set of artists continue to make art which is supposed to be shocking or "controversial", either by it's content or by the nature it gets created. Art created within this single mindset, to the exclusion of everything else, is at best art that should be overlooked, but is at worst a poison slowly killing our collective unconscious.
First, I would like to point out that in no way am I offering any sort of diagnosis of Slavoj Zizek’s speech impediment. This article/essay is a simple exercise in perception, and yes, a Zizekian analysis. What do we get when we apply Zizek’s theories to Zizek himself? The answer may or may not be surprising, depending on whether you are a Zizek follower or an anti-Zizek propagandist. In an analysis of The King’s Speech, Zizek points out that the king’s stuttering makes the king self-conscious and in a way embarrassed. As a divine ruler, the king of England should be a confident authority figure perfectly capable of assuming the role of the head of state. Delivering messages to the masses through oratory on the radio is just one of the ways that the king’s authority is projected to the public and if the people hear that in the voice of the king is a slight imperfection, this may be read as a fault that might preclude the king fr...
Comments
Post a Comment