An Epideictic on Failure

An Epideictic on Failure 

“You know, a world of critics is absolutely idiotic. So whatever they say is… I sincerely don’t give a fucking fuck about it. And I assure you that nobody from people who are consistent with their creative flow give a mother fucking fuck about it either. Because ups and downs is a normal condition, of any artist and any human being. And the lower you’re gonna fall, the higher you can fly, as Frederic Nietzsche said. So, what the fuck is the problem with a failure? Is no problem. Even if you fail, so fucking what? Is not a big deal. And, best artists have collapsed enormously, so, it’s like, lack of failure is kind of a sign of lack of talent, actually.” - Eugene Hutz of Gogol Bordello (“YouTube”) 

Hutz’s speech is not poetic and however broken his English may be, his speech assumes what Aristotle would call clarity: language that informs and illuminates rather than obfuscate. Aristotle says poetic language makes for a bad speech, and style to be good must be clear through using plain words and language that is not poetic. Hutz uses the common language of everyday speech without imbedding words that can obscure meaning and include members of only certain communities. According to Aristotle, Hutz’s credibility would be increased through his use of plain language. A most obvious use of Hutz’s plain language is his overuse of the word “fuck” and its forms. Without getting too occupied in his rhetorical uses of this word, it is important to note that by using it he involves the common uses of language (whereas sophisticated use does not), as well as to emphasize his disapproval, discontent, and dismissal of the uselessness of “the world of critics”. He invokes the Aristotelian artistic pisteis, in which he predominantly appeals to logos and ethos. His appeals to ethos is foremost a part of what defines his logos. 

His ethos, and the presentation of his character first and foremost come through visually before he begins to speak, then audibly through the video clip of his delivered speech. Hutz’s presence is established in a restaurant with a fan conducting an interview in between eating and drinking, an ordinary activity. His appearance alone is congruent with that of someone in touch with their “artistic flow”: he looks like a gypsy punk. A militant shirt with pins, a large bandana of Guadalupe holding back his disheveled hair, visible piercings and multiple necklaces, sunken eyes alertly drowsy with drink, a waxed moustache, and an accent indicating fluency in more than one language (and consequently more than one way of viewing and creating meaning of the world through different languages). His accent indicates his Eastern European background, connecting him to a pre-communist way of living, and his mashing of the English language is consistent to that of an immigrant who came after his first language was fully developed, in his late teens. He is a most credible source for generation 1.5 immigrants, who also embody the double voicing of Hutz’s sociocultural background pre and post immigrating. He creates community with his immediate audience (the interviewers) and clip viewers, foremost by his status as an immigrant rock star. Considering, then, his audience, it is in this common condition that he becomes worthy of credence, in addition to the message he conveys through his speech. He embodies the “artist” and he is a “human being”. 

Hutz’s logos, is evident through the way he unfolds his speech and the sequence of his appeals to reason and logic. Hutz’s speech operates around two modern enthymemes: (1) The normal condition is in constant up and down flux / I am an artist and human being / Therefore I experience ups and downs, (2) Because I experience ups and downs / After falling low I can fly high / Therefore I have artistic talent. 

Based on the previous enthymemes, Hutz positions himself to be an authority. He lays down the foundation of “the world of critics” as consisting of a give and take relationship between the critic and the artist. Regardless of the critic being positive or negative, the artist is always vulnerable on account of what the critics say about them. 

This “world of critics” is transcending boundaries of culture, language, and country, education, and even professional qualification – yet it is still linked together in criticism of the artist. Hutz, who has gained international attention, more accurately portrays the artist in the “world of critics” by linking them across all of the aforementioned boundaries. The condition of the “idiotic” critic can and does occur everywhere, and no artist is safe from it. But Hutz finds a loophole to combat his vulnerability as an artist: by dismissing the “world of critics” be denies his vulnerability to it. The dynamic power struggle between the artist and the critic becomes exposed and turned on its head. His freedom from the vulnerability imposed by critics lies in his “creative flow”, and it is a secret that Hutz shares with us: consistency of creativity cannot be touched by critics. Here, the artist becomes more powerful than the critic. Hutz is using his authority as an artist, “I assure you,” to give his audience the inside scoop on the secret of combatting critics: “…nobody from people who are consistent with their creative flow give a mother fucking fuck about it either.” Here he exposes the solution which poses a threat to the “world of critics”: if artists are confident and “consistent with their creative flow” then the critic’s power is diminished because their criticism does not cause any effect for the artist in any way. Hutz implies that he is not the only one that knows about this loophole, and that if you are an artist it is inevitable that you have found the loophole by being “consistent with [your] creative flow”. 

The critics he refers to are critical to artists of any kind, not exclusive to music artists, and are even more broadly critical of “any human being”. Artists are human beings, and all human beings are to some degree artists. Hutz’s interview contains a double voice: one which holds implications specifically for artists, and one which more broadly encompasses to account for all human being. Hutz parallels the artist with “any human being”. 

As Hutz describes the ‘world of critics’ he unavoidably becomes a critic himself, but in a different sense of the word. What he means by this and how he simultaneously separates himself from the “idiotic” critics lies in the separation that is attributed by the subtle difference that Hutz draws between himself and the “world of critics”. To further define “the world of critics” as Hutz refers to it, it consists of people “who judge[s], evaluate[s], or analyze[s] literary or artistic works, dramatic or musical performances, or the like, especially for a newspaper or magazine.” (“Dictionary.com”). Hutz separates himself from this view of “the world of critics” by criticizing it in a less specific way: “a person who judges, evaluates, or criticizes” without the determiner of artistic criticism as suggested in the previous definition of the word (“Dictionary.com”). 

He is himself the front man and brain behind gypsy-punk band Gogol Bordello. Coming from this position, the audience can better understand the insider’s point of view. Hutz does not criticize artists, but he does criticize critics. The “world of critics” he refers to is, most obviously, the evaluation of an artist (or group of artists) by those who are not artists. As with all evaluations they can be either positive or negative and Hutz is assigning the “world of critics” a negative connotation: it is “idiotic”, and through his blatant disapproval and dismissal of it: “I sincerely don’t give a fucking fuck about it.” The shortness of his blurb is expressive of this feeling, choosing to discuss the larger implications “of any artist and any human being.” Hutz does not at any time become a critic that is part of the “idiotic” “world of critics” he describes because he keeps his distance: he does not criticize artists. 

One of Hutz’s assumptions in his speech is that critics dispense negative criticism. It is a critic’s job to prod at things, whether assuming the position of constructive criticism or not. The assumption is that criticism dispensed by “the world of critics” is often not constructive and is negative instead. Hutz’s suggestions include that negative criticism and “failure” is the focus of the “world of critics”. He views the focus on failure as a wrong approach, because failure “is not a big deal”. He best sums up the sentiment by saying that “lack of failure is kind of a sign of lack of talent, actually.” Hutz proves how “ups and downs is a normal condition, of any artist and any human being”. Yet there is a certain weakness in Hutz’s argument: critics are humans, and humans are artists. According to this hypothetical syllogism critics are artists. However, critics don’t actively engage in being artistic when they criticize. They rather follow a pre-determined formalist process of criticism, which is far from being consistent with Hutz’s “creative flow”. According to Hutz’s logic, do critics experience ups and downs? Can critics claim a certain type of artistry and be vulnerable to other critics? It is certainly possible, but this topic goes beyond Hutz’s specified boundaries. 

Hutz uses a blatant claim to the authority of Friedric Nietzsche, a philosopher who attempts to make sense of the human condition, to support his own authority even further. “…The lower you’re gonna fall, the higher you can fly, as Frederic Nietzsche said.” Here he sets up his second modern enthymeme mentioned earlier based on “lack of failure is kind of a sign of lack of talent, actually.” (2) Because I experience ups and downs / After falling low I can fly high / Therefore I have artistic talent. 

On the surface, Hutz’s speech appears to be epideictic: praise of the artist and blame of the critic. According to the epideictic, his audience would be one of spectators. He does not press his audience into a judging position. Aristotle’s trifecta of speaker, subject, and audience is made complete by encouraging the audience to discover the truth for themselves: they too can be “consistent with their creative flow” through dismissing critics. It is possible that Hutz’s speech could be seen as a “failure” in the eyes of the “idiotic” “world of critics”; however, I feel assured he would be untouched by it. He would become his own critic: if he saw it as a failure, it would only motivate him to refine his thoughts and explanations in the future, therefore flying higher, above the reach of “the world of critics”.