In which I rant, in a very disorganized fashion.
I've been thinking about the whole concept of "emo," and, quite frankly, I don't like it. The term derives from "emotional;" therefore, everyone is "emo." Yet "emo" is frequently used as an insult. Does this suggest, then, that emotion is bad? Or are only negative emotions (eg. Sadness, loneliness, etc) bad? It's an odd concept. Furthermore, it seems that any expression of negative emotion, whether it is appropriate giving one's situation or not, is labeled as "emo", and therefore bad. Finally, is now ok to dismiss the feelings of others, if they are considered "emo"? Are the works of great artists to be dismissed as "emo", as well?
I get called emo a lot. Whenever I was depressed over my grandmothers' and uncle's death, it seemed that I got called emo quite frequently. Was my emotion response inappropriate, then? Or is emo now a term used so no one has to deal with anything unpleasant?
A classmate of mine termed Emily Dickinson as 'emo.' I couldn't help but feel that such a judgement was beyond her and a slap in the face towards art in general. How many great artists have struggled through emotional turmoil to create amazing art? Yet now pioneers of artistic expression can be dismissed as worthless, because they were "emo."
I also have to wonder just how many people needed help, but just got written off as emo. And what right does any have to judge whether or not another person has the "right" to be sad (i.e., emo)?
It irks me.
Yeah, my rant was badly organized, illogical, etc. But I felt like ranting.
Or is ranting "emo" now?
x-posted from a long-ago entry in my LJ, found here
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Being emo might be more about not taking charge of your emotions.
Insesativity is a skill of playing off your emotions, or at least pretending to.
Emo is probably often associated with 'wearing your heart on your sleave' or using emotions to manipulate sympathy. Some people use anger as a manipulative tool, but they are never accused of being emo.
But at what point is one not "controlling his/her emotions enough"? Is that really a judgement any has the right to make?
Maybe not by all opinions, but it is more a matter for their own concience.
The benefit (and price) of controlling your emotions is all yours. If you are using the emotion to get a reaction from someone else they have a right to handle that as they see fit. You are making them witness the emotion, so you placed it into the public domain. One of the benefits of control is not being called emo.
You are right. Some of the most compassionate and meaningful pieces of music and art have evolved out of emotional experiences. However, we do need to be careful that our emotions do not rule over us because when this happens, unneccessary actions and consequences occur. When we are able to channel our emotions into something for the betterement of others and ourselves though, emotions can be great!
"If imperfections are what make us beautiful, then I must be a total babe!"
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/missionsminded-maiden
Thank you
I'm not a pop culture expert by any definition of the term, but it sems to me that "Emo" was created by business and advertising esecutives to create more things for teenagers to buy, than out of any sort of pure, emotional expression. It woudl certainly explain the number of "My Chemical Romance" backpacks and "Fall out Boy" commemorative basses.
It's not the pop culture movement I'm concerned with- it's the dismisal of the feelings of others.
While I was youtube-ing one day I found an interview with Panic! At the Disco. They said that if emo is simply being emotional, than they must be pretty emo because god forbid music have any emotion in it.
If music isn't emotional, what's the point of it anyway?!
Exactly!