Most of human existence inhabits a narrow bandwidth of experience. Most people follow the social norm, the rules written and not. They have interests that are normal, appropriate for their age, gender, and race. The art we consume is largely “normal” too. Most films stay within the expected, whether they’re about superheroes, sports, or singers. Popular songs play the same few chords. Even the once avant garde assimilates into the comfortable. Cubism and Dadaism which aroused violent reactions in their times are taught in art and appreciated as classics worthy of emulation. True artists, of which there are many, constantly seek to push beyond the normal and create something “original.” But these works are confined to the niche and non-profitable. Often the original just isn’t very good - a rule usually arises from its utility (consider perspectives in visual art or the entire Western music scale) - but often the audience is the problem. Before they can even give the work a chance and judge it on its own terms, they categorize it as “weird” and dismiss it out of hand.
Weird is the enforcer of social and artistic norms, the muscle that keeps everything in line. Weird is a synonym for creative and unique, except it carries a negative association. Weird allows one to shut off empathy and shift into judgment mode, from caring into disgust.
My original topic for this piece was the impact of weird on our consumption of art, how the downward cycle between popular taste and the corporatization film produces worse and less interesting movies. The erosion of popular art is a real problem; even masterpieces with popular appeal are drowned by the Sonic 2s of the world. Yet weird can’t be talked about without talking about people and how the category of weird is used to harm them.
Openness to Experience is one of the big five personality traits which helps determine whether a response to novelty is “cool!” or “weird!” It also correlates to politics, where high openness disposes one towards liberalism and low openness towards social conservatism. Right now, social conservatives are flexing their muscles in state legislatures around the country, passing laws around abortion and LGBTQ education. These motives represent real differences between blue and red values and between the parents and the teachers' writing curriculum. But bigotry is part of it, particularly a disgust for trans and gay people. Many people hold the view that “when I was growing up, we dealt with problems ourselves. There didn’t use to be all these trans and LBG-something-or-other walking around.” For many people, transgenders are a new experience and their reaction is “that’s weird.” Not all norms need to be changed, not all rules transgressed, but our reaction should be in good faith. Weird doesn’t provide a chance.
I believe there is a generational impact on what is considered weird or normal/acceptable. Younger people haven been exposed to different cultural and aesthetic norms which influences what they consider normal. Rap is a good example. Once a non traditional form of music, it grew to be accepted and innovative in Broadway hits such as Hamilton.
So weird can and will evolve over time......... Carla Visser