In Defense of Bastardization

Steve Jobs knew the line between innovator, inventor, manager, and artist quite well.

He had to admit, when confronted with the success of Pixar, that art survives. Creating metal and glass objects that help solve and create human problems, will ultimately be assigned to the nearest waste dump once the next shiny object is created.

To call Jobs and Zuckerberg both “artists” is stretching the term to where it could mean anything. Are the wonderful creaters of credit default swaps artists as well, one might wonder. Or is the chirpy barista who fashions a heart in your halfcaf cap?

The key in understanding art vs. technology is simply that technology, though it can be as beautiful as a Bauhaus Wasilly Chair, is ultimately for a purpose. Les Demoiselles d’Avignon, just one of a million examples, has no purpose, unless you are from the Frankfurt school and fascinated by its potential monetary worth. Or if you are a fabulist and interested if your head could be sliced off with that melon.

It is ignorant of both art and technology to compare Zuckerberg to Mozart. Or Jobs to Picasso. Both of those men composed alone, and Z and J were collaborators trying to navigate the creation of a complex and evolving project thet will never have any of the certainty of a Barnett Newman line. Picasso only changed the world because he was himself. Jobs changed the world because he wanted less shit in it.

I’m sure that many Roman emperors would be disappointed by the ”problematic” depictions that have gone over the centuries. Nixon would have despised Nixon. Most bio pics, save for a few, usually have the depth and clarity of an animated gif.

But Sorkin’s mission is to try and distill a life force within a 3 Act structure, not account for every noble gesture or warm advice or hug or wedding toast that he transcribed in the memories of his friends and colleagues.

His job is not, in other words, to be a propagandist.

We should applaud that Sorkin is taking chances with the typical cradle to grave bore story. Steve himself always appreciated a little gusto, after all, though he would have hated any depiction.

And I appreciate that Shakespeare didn’t care about hurting Brutus’ feelings, or getting everything historically accurate. Or that Stone’s fabilust history of JFK has been “proven wrong.” Or that Howard Hughes had 15 piss bottles, not the 13 depicted or whatever actually is an argument to rest aesthetic judgement on.

The bottom line is that creators have the responsibility that a historian lacks. To bring life to the table in all its complexity and show us something about our own common humanity.

If Sorkin fails aesthetically, I will be the first to be disappointed. But all of this crtiticism and prebutthurt emanating from the Bay Area, combined with this Oprah-level psychological analyses, is not serving anyone well.