A Live Earth observation…
July 6, 2007
I find it very interesting to observe that Al Gore, a statesman I much admire for his real commitment and firm stance on Global Warming and Climate Change, was unable to bring about any change in awareness through the political process of democracy, and that it took moving into the field of art & entertainment to make any sort of meaningful progress in raising awareness and consciousness.
The political process of democracy failed. Failed at a time when it should have excelled. Mark that well, it failed. Democracy is no longer an effective element for change in societies. Gore has admitted it in his interview at MSN, and his falling out of life with politics is as telling a sign of the state of freedom our civilization has as any other. Of course democracy, particularly in America, is an owned service of exceedingly shortsighted Borg collectives.
But more interesting is the traction Al Gore gained for this issue by making a movie. It is my observation after years of research that it is the artists who are most capable of leading and promoting meaningful change. The LiveEarth concerts are a part of that, and again I am struck that it is the power of the arts that is brought to bear to bring about meaningful change. While I have my own thoughts about why this is I am very interested to know what others think. Why is it that where democracy and politics fail, artists, entertainers and the work they do can succeed? What is it that makes the difference?
I think we should all be looking at what this may mean for our society and civilization.
Email this article to a friend - or a nemesis, it doesn't bother us.
Subscribe now to receive notification of new Free Articulator articles like this one.
Interesting observation. I think “famous people” might be a better title to give some of these people who hitch their wagons to environmental causes.
Politicians are generally ineffective because young people are not interested in politics.
At this point, if we’re talking about artists raising awareness of global warming, you might as well have Paris Hilton as the spokesperson for this cause. And in no way is Paris Hilton an artist or a “Creative Artist.” Yet she would have the most influence on getting people to become aware of global warming.
It’s debatable whether this concert will bring about any meaningful change, as Live Aid didn’t seem to do much for lowering world hunger.
Interesting viewpoints, NDK. I’m looking forward to reading your work.
Thank you for your remarks, Cabe. As you point up, the whole issue of fame and celebrity is an interesting one and we will be having a look at that very issue of fame and celebrity in the business of art & entertainment and our culture from the Creative Artists’ perspective in the Free Articulator at a later point.
Paris Hilton as a spokesperson for Global Warming? No, I can’t see that working. For a start the business to which she is heir is, I think, part of the problem of global warming. Though I agree that Paris appears to have an undeniable reach into a certain teenage female audience whose fascination with Paris is exploited to sell products and shape frivolous attitudes and expectations, I doubt the power of her influence to be more than something to do with shallow superficial social and commercial values. As a phenomenon Paris seems to me to be a part, and an example, of the culture of excess that creates and contributes to the problems of global warming. From what I can see (media sensationalist perspective), I don’t think it’s a socially or culturally responsible reach, though perhaps Paris may be capable of doing something more substantial with her current status. From what I can see Paris Hilton is building the Hilton and the Paris Hilton brands, adding to and expanding her commercial empire, trading on her wealth and the family name in a way that is “smart” (from a marketing and PR perspective), but ultimately irresponsible. I do not agree that her influence would be valuable in the long term, and I doubt its sincerity, though I’m sure her followers would feel otherwise. as this would suit their self-image, which has yet to develop a mature big-picture human perspective. She’s an interesting case study, but a force for big picture constructive change of benefit to humanity? I don’t see it at the moment, though would encourage a sincerely motivated effort in that direction, though it would seem to run counter to Paris’ current appeal to that same audience. Paris Hilton without the family name and legacy she will ultimately control would I suspect, be nothing. I’d probably have a different perspective had she elected to build her career based on a pseudonym, but she hasn’t done that, and that indicates much of her probable motivation.
As to the nature of these concerts, there is some merit to the implications behind what your statement about the debatability of their merits says, though it is difficult to determine with certainty the veracity of the effects, outcomes and benefits aside from the most obvious objectives. However, from a purely awareness-raising perspective, what Al Gore, his supporters and the many people who have helped to organize, promote and deliver these concerts have managed to do is continue to put the perilous position of life on this planet firmly on the public and political radar, and that is the objective. That this sort of organization and event is what is required to bring attention is I think deplorable in terms of what it says we have to do before we believe or care about the state of ouc culture and civilization. Surely, our much vaunted human intelligence, has been inattentive, careless and irresponsible. We should in fact be smarter, and not require spectacle to realize the truth we are offered by people who truly care and have taken on board the responsibility of communicating the inconvenient truths that plague our civilization (and all life) in its current state.
Thanks for your attention, interest and thoughtful reply to what I have offered, it is much appreciated.
Thanks NDK for your reply. I can see you take this issue very seriously.
There is something I would like to ask you about - your opinion on popular artists “borrowing”, to put it nicely, the work of non-famous and obscure artists.
For example, in their early days, Metallica used to play songs by obscure European bands and pass them off as their own songs.
I’m sure there have been numerous other cases of such shenanigans. The point is, how does a non-famous artist who has perhaps published their work on the Net, protect their rights? If a famous author, for instance, steals or even just incorporates parts of an obscure author’s work into their own novel, what can the struggling, non-famous author do about it?
If the plagiarized work goes on to sell millions of copies, sure, the popular artist may make reparations of some monetary value, but is it likely they would pay all the profits to the non-famous author? The popular novelist would still come out ahead and benefit even if they are forced to pay damages, no? Would there be sufficient damage to their reputation to ensure they were finished as a credible author?
-Cabe
Hi Cabe, thanks for your remarks and response. I will answer your questions in an article, under intellectual property category in art & entertainment business section at a later date. In the meantime there is no substitute for knowing your national intellectual property law, and enough of international property law so that you can work and distribute in the global market place. Cheers!
NDK Creative Artist
I can understand Al Gore’s disillusionment with the political process, but much of that is directly due to the currently very adversarial system now being used by the Republican Party to control who is thought to be “correct”.
Anyone they disagree with is tried and convicted in an apparent court of public opinion but most of that is based upon who can shout the loudest. It is rarely based upon truth, as we now know about case for invading Iraq.
I do agree that art can make a very powerful and easily understood statement. But let us also understand that showing a movie is effectively multiplying one’s voice as many times as the movie is viewed. Had Al Gore gone for the same amount of impact while he was Vice President, we would likely have a decent environmental policy in place (if the Republicans didn’t disassemble it upon getting into office).
What really counted was the number of times and the ease of understanding of the subject matter that the movie enabled. In the ’60’s, John F. Kennedy got people fired up about space by a concerted campaign designed to lift people up, just as good art tends to lift people up.
Moving a populace going in one direction into another requires lots of effective exposure to an idea. Gore did this in his movie but not personally while in office. And that, I think, is why politics is being attributed to the failure when it was really ineffective promotion of an idea.
If Al Gore had promoted the environment cause as assiduously as Dick Cheney has promoted the cause of war in Iraq, we would have lots more wind farms and many fewer gross gas guzzlers than we have now. He did not really do that until he made his movie.
Thanks, Doc. However, I think it’s worth considering that Gore, from all accounts I have read, attempted to use the much vaunted US democracked system to accomplish the necessary change to achieve some environmental. But it failed and he “…fell out of love with politics.”
As a result he did not abandon the task, but worked with determination to bring about the attention necessary to create a change in attitude and he has succeeded in doing so. The point I was endeavoring to make is that the arts accomplish a damned sight more change than does any political system, and that the arts have more credibility and trust than any poltician ever will, apparently.