…There is something about most cultures which brings them together in certain stages of cultural analogies. That each in their history reveres certain figures in society and assigns them with very special roles—especially with regards to the maintenance and well-being of its people in relation to the culture as a whole. I’m talking here about ‘artists’ which I guess prior to ‘Western’ domination were referred to as ‘orators’ or ‘storyteller’ amongst other terms related to the creation of elements ‘artistic’ in that society’s own interpretation. Obviously, with these figures in the ‘video-boxes’, we can understand that elements of what they express are exaggerated if we are to distinguish between what they re-present and actual reality in a scientific-positive sense—yet this is not the nature of ‘art’ as it might be generally understood. Yet also, ‘art’ and ‘life’ here as therefore two very distinct elements must be and are united in the self or the artist as I mentioned beforehand through Mikhail Bakhtin.
One thing about ‘art’ in general we have to understand—it is a reflection of reality but which is slightly organised and anticipated; which is why we refer to it as re-presentation. By this, it is a process orientated towards the present but which draws itself from the past—a backward temporal motion yet facing the front if it is to be perceived in a sequential nature. It creates a particular imagined ‘space’ constituted by assemblages of various elements drawn from different dimensions of life. Their certain co-existence in this ‘space’ is the source of its imaginary perception since we can assume that these elements—as important as they are to the telling of a certain story—don’t really exist together in a single magnitude or spatiotemporal frame of reality. Yet, for this, we can still suppose that its ‘real’ on the basis that we can identify some of these elements as events in our life—to which we can further relate our own life. So this answer between the individual, ‘life’, and ‘art’ does not only exist between the ‘artist’, her/his ‘life’, and ‘art’ but also extends to the experience other people (audience) have in relation to these ‘creations’ or ‘re-presentations’.
It has been asserted that African-American comedy—given its contents—is a peculiar process of rising above the oppressions and situations of African-American in America. By turning their situations and packaged them into absurd ‘images’ some have claimed gives them ownership over their own selves as opposed to being ‘owned’ by the oppressive system in which they are a part of. Turning certain negative stereotypes about themselves into elements which they can laugh at eases the rigidity and struggle which is their reality—which further aide the process of moving forward even amongst these negative elements about them inherent in their reality. Even if these elements are perceived as immoral and offensive, how do you tell someone growing up in a violent and racist environment to stop carrying themselves upon a plane infused with violent and racial elements, in a way that is non-violent, no profane languages, and insensitive to racial elements?
Are what we understand to be profane and violent universal that it is perceived also upon the same level of understanding as the communities these artists are from? I remember Bernie Mac in ‘Original Kings of Comedy’ analysing the word ‘motherfucker’ and how it is used amongst “brothers”.
“...everybody can understand it, don’t be afraid of the word motherfucker, I’ma break it down to you. If you’re out there this afternoon and you see about four or five brothers talking, you might here a conversation, and it goes like this—You seen that motherfucken Bobby? That motherfucker owe me thirty-five-motherfucken dollars. He told me gon pay my motherfucken money laaas motherfucken week. I ain’t seen this motherfucker yet!! I’m not gon chase this motherfucker for my thirty-five-motherfucken dollars. I called the motherfucker four motherfucken time!! But the motherfucker won’t call me back!! I called his mama the motherfucken day, she gon play like the motherfucker wan’t there. I start to cuss her motherfucken ass out!! But I don’t want no motherfucken trouble!! But I’ll tell you one motherfucken thang, the next motherfucken time I see this motherfucker, and he ain’t got my mohterfucken money, Im gon bust his motherfucken head!!!...”
The idea of taking ownership of social elements which once (or even still) worked fundamentally within the process of enslavement (both mentally and physically) in African-Americans relations with America or Jim Crowe is an important process to the understanding of present events which might be found offensive by many people of moral and ethical conduct. Such as what has been discussed here about Nas’s new album ‘Untitled’ and the word ‘Nigger’. On a similar level—although definitely not the same in terms of historical impact—we as Polynesians can call and tease each other with the term ‘coconut’ and it wouldn’t generate any sense of political and racial episodes yet, when someone of a different ethnic or racial belonging do the same, it would surely have a different end otherwise. As Nas said about the word ‘Nigger’, I can say it and I can use it, but you can’t—referring to the ‘Colbert-dude’ who is ‘white’.
Surely, most people can argue that Chappelle is very wrong about the ‘ghetto’ as he was making jokes about passing through gun-stores after liquor-stores successfully, yet it is something most people from the ‘ghetto’ can answer to as an actual part of their reality—interesting analogy is the movie ‘Boyz in the Hood’ where the father (played by Laurence Fishburne) was almost preaching about the systematic and institutional assault and condemnation of low socio-economic areas in America—which happens to be filled with African-Americans. That is, the overwhelming presence of gun-stores and liquor-stores in street-corners. Now, the same can be said about the low socio-economic areas which happens to be populated by Polynesians and Maori here in New Zealand where there is a ridiculously large amount of liquor stores conducting business in these areas—if someone was to joke about it the same way Dave Chappele has (except for the gun-stores), I would not only laugh my ass off, but I would also agree with it to the extent that out of the three nearest sets of shops or corner-stores in the area I grew up (recently moved out two-years ago—but still go there as my parents and family still live there) in, two have liquor stores. If that same person makes the same joke about mini-gambling places with Pokie-Machines consistently with Money-Loan businesses, I would not only laugh my ass off again but agree with it to the same extent as the former evidences.
Lets continue this later…
No comments:
Post a Comment