Imagine There's No Context

A couple days ago I came across this cartoon floating around Facebook:

It's a pretty adorable cartoon rendition of John Lennon's "Imagine". I like the song and I even kind of like the cartoon too. Though, it called to mind a debate that occurred in one of my poetry classes. Essentially one of the poets in the class decided to evoke the image of Hitler. Our professor posed the question to the class: is the use of Hitler as an idea, image or context...cheap?

I would argue yes, unless your work is about the holocaust, I think utilizing it as a vehicle cheapens not only your work/argument, but it also sort of trivializes the holocaust as well. That sort of serves for anything in my mind, whether you're just in a Reddit debate or writing poetry. Essentially, I'm saying you're not going to be the next Wilfred Owen if you've never served in a war, so write about something closer to you. In my opinion you don't need a universally recognized image to conjure up a universally recognized idea. Now for the Rorschach test, what comes to mind when you see this:

As is the case with the a fore mentioned cartoon, I think in using the image of some great figures in society is cheapening. Bob Marley, Albert Einstein and MLK Jr. I understand all have similar messages and are appropriate for the cartoon representation of the song itself. Though, I think in the age of bad emotional outbursts on social media, there are quite a few  people with the "what about Gandhi? syndrome". The WAGS is a serious condition in which many people believe they can manifest absolute good on their side by simply throwing the name out there. 

WAGS is a serious condition. People within my generation love to prattle on about love being this ultimate force...or something like that. The Beatles, Bob Marley, Gandhi, they're all used as posters for exception to societal expectations. I wear a Bob Marley T-shirt so I'm subversive enough to smoke weed and the government can't touch me. I have a picture of Gandhi as my wall paper so everyone can see I have a vague understanding of civil disobedience. I have a John Lennon bumper sticker so people know that I'm a friendly atheist. I think you're cheapening their causes by turning the focus on your own trite little struggles as opposed to keeping them centered on what they originally meant. Maybe I'm just bitter. If you're fighting for, writing about or arguing in favor of the gay rights movement, by all means quote Milk, but if you're arguing about whether or not it's OK to litter, it might be a little out there.

The WAGS is a watered down appeal to authority, maybe an existential fallacy too. Although, I'm not sure where to take the argument with Jesus. Seems like I'm more understanding of people using him, like Jesus is more outside the realm of WAGS. Maybe it's because the idea of using Jesus as a model on how to live your life is more institutionalized. Or maybe it's because I see Jesus used less to prove a point than I do John Lennon. Although I do see quite a few floating Jesus quotes out there, as though I'm just supposed to think the matter is settled because someone bust out divinity with an absolute lack of context. 

My advice, even though it's easy and even though it's cool and even though it might even work, think about what you're doing. If you're going to live your life like these people, please do, but don't use it to attempt to sway others. If you're going to write about these people write about them, but don't call up emotions that are predetermined, that's like...plagiarism.

Today I'm listening to Minimum Wage and wondering who let a wolverine loose in my bank account. 

Thanks for Listening,

Kyle