Posts
IT WASN'T ME: We are, of course, totally in agreement with Marilyn Manson when he says he's not to blame for Jodi Jones' murder - the goth clown has issued a statement saying "That Luke kid? He was a bit icky - and, having seen him already take off the make-up to do a "Columbine? That wasn't my fault" piece, it's no surprise he's undermined his own act some more to try and distance himself from the Jones case. What's interesting, though, is how thin Manson's supposed intellect is when it rubs up against the real world.
He [Manson] admitted he had heard of the Jodi case but he did not want "to give it much publicity"
Why not? You and your band have taken their names from famous murder cases - why do you give publicity to the Manson killings but not the Mitchell crimes? Or do Roman Polanski's feelings not count because Sharon Tate was vaguely famous? Why would you think it fine to do paintings of the slaughter of Elizabeth Short, but don't want to "give much publicity" to a killing of another girl? Unless you're just afraid of the negative publicity being linked to another murder will give you - but isn't your whole schitck based on pretending you walk alongside the darkness? Why is it as soon as someone says "look, Marilyn, someone's taken you at your word" you suddenly go whey-faced and say "it's nothing to do with me."
"What I do know is that it is all about the education that parents give their children and the influences they receive, not putting the blame elsewhere," he said.
Which makes a certain degree of sense, although it's funny that when Marilyn does his "but seriously, folks..." he comes across like Liam Fox - we don't know if he went on to suggest having more people employed as truancy officers, but we bet he did.
Monday, February 14, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
To be fair (well it's Valentines Day, let's spread a little love), Mr Manson has never actually advocated going out and stabbing people to death after tying them up for kicks.
The campy, goth images of violence etc that he draws upon aren't exactly extreme or new, and can be found in any dodgy comic shop/trashy video joint. Mr Manson didn't invent dressing in black and looking like a PG rated Alice Cooper in Depeche Mode's castoffs.
The whole name thing was supposed to be about the relationship between celebrity and psychosis, the idea that the difference between Marilyn Monroe and Charlie Manson flattens out in the sensationalist glare of the media.
I don't think this is a celebration of famous murder cases but actually a comment on the way American culture commodifies everything from the beautiful to the ugly. As long as it turns a buck/gets viewers then it's game.
What I think Mr Manson does seem to do quite well is uncover some of the hypocritical posturing that the "guardians" of American morality indulge in.
Regardless of the value or impact of the "shocking" content of his art, it seems to me that all Mr Manson is doing is picking up on and amplifying the various tactics and techniques of corporate life in America.
I mean is there that much difference between live autopsies on TV, pictures of troops abusing their prisoners, and fetishising Elizabeth Short in a painting?
Manson is just as much a product of a Conservative cultural and political environment as Dubya. He's part of that whole reductionist shift in the US that boils morality down to a cartoon; good versus bad, us versus them, God versus Satan. In uncertain times people want certain answers, including who is to blame for the kids killing each other.
Any effective artist will be looking at the grey areas, those places that make us uncomfortable, where there are no Springer style thoughts of the day to lead us gently into the ad break.
I'm not sure if Mr Manson is an effective artist but he's certainly not a dangerous one.
In a strange way, Mr Manson's position is actually quite moral. However, he seems to be still working through the whole "artistic responsibility" thing.
On the one hand not wanting to give publicity to the Jodi Jones case and at the same time stating that he has no responsibility for the actions of people claiming to be influenced by him.
I guess you could argue that this is simply good business practice, but my view is that Mr Mansons presence in our lives will continue as long as he's seen as economically productive by the suits bankrolling him.
xx
Post a Comment
As a general rule, posts will only be deleted if they reek of spam.