When I was a high school senior, I took an AP Art History course. It was the most challenging class I took at Mead High School as I struggled with identifying, analyzing, and re-creating (yes, there was a hands-on component) most of the art.
I also faced an uphill battle from another perspective: I simply wasn’t interested in the subject matter. I had an incredible teacher named Carla Nuxoll who did her best to instill in me the same passion she held for art. But it was to no avail.
My same “ho-hum” attitude for the course remained even though it was effectively taught to me that we were studying masterpieces. My class was learning about art that had stood the test of time for its brilliance. Art critics from around the world and throughout different eras could all agree that the stuff I was looking at in my textbook was the best of the best.
It didn’t matter. The art didn’t resonate with me and I dropped the course at the semester.
—————
It seems to happen every year. After the Super Bowl halftime show concludes, an intense debate convenes at water coolers and on social media about the merits of what transpired. In the same way that Ms. Nuxoll was passionate about art, people who watch “The Big Game” express similar passion about the halftime show artist and the performance that was given.
This year was no exception. In fact, and perhaps I am wrong, but it seemed like the back-and-forth about Kendrick Lamar’s halftime performance was even more hotly contested than those halftime shows of recent past.
The Kendrick Lamar halftime show has proven to be quite polarizing (photo courtesy of Getty Images).
I kept hearing a couple recurring arguments/opinions that didn’t sound fair to me. The first argument was that the halftime show was garbage because it didn’t appeal to enough people and that Kendrick Lamar wasn’t well-enough established (never mind all the Grammys he won earlier this month) to headline the show. In response to that, I go back to what I said in my Super Bowl recap. The Super Bowl doesn’t select a halftime show to please you nor to please the most people. The entertainment is selected based on a strategically identified target audience and the potential to sell more advertising because of that audience. Agree or disagree, that’s the Super Bowl’s right.
Speaking of agreeing or disagreeing, fans also have the right to still determine whether or not they like a halftime show. Predictably, many people expressed that they didn’t care for Lamar’s performance. Their dislike was countered by an argument that I thought was equally unfair as those who thought the show should appeal to a larger audience. Even before Lamar had left the stage, the internet was abuzz with the symbolism, hidden meanings, and different layers infused into the performance.
Advocates of the show reasoned that the show went so beyond surface level that it deserved a spot in the hall of fame of halftime shows. Furthermore, those who disliked the show must be crazy and insensitive for not enjoying the many finer points of Lamar’s performance.
This reasoning brought me right back to my Art History class. The point was made over and over that many of the pieces we studied went way beyond the canvas. The backstory, the time devoted, the nuances, the cultural ramifications, the painstaking attention to detail—how could it not inspire and transform you? How could it not be the single best thing you ever saw in your life? Well, based on my own experience, I couldn’t articulate eloquently why all these masterpieces didn’t inspire me. But did I really need to? In my mind, what makes art so great is that it is subjective.
It has now been 20 years since I took that class. Even though the art didn’t resonate with me, I still had foundational respect for it. Would I want to hang it in my room? No. But did I understand that someone worked extremely hard to produce it? Yes. I think we can take a similar attitude to the Kendrick Lamar halftime show. Don’t Blink.
Facebook