Award shows are useless

Jakob Lopez

Kanye West did it again.

At the 2015 MTV Video Music Awards (VMA’s), the provocative Chicago-raised artist yet again befuddled the world with his spontaneity.

Many will remember, the 21-time Grammy Award winner’s memorable interruption of country-pop superstar Taylor Swift to dispute her receiving an award during the 2009 VMA’s. The incident, which became an Internet sensation, garnered negative publicity for West.

This time, though, West kept his interruptions to himself. Instead, the rapper/designer rattled off a perplexing speech filled with anecdotes aimed at the millennial generation.

Despite the artist’s unabashed attitude and negative attributes, the speech surprisingly had substance.

Expressing his discontent with award shows, West claimed that music — art — should not have any losers.

And the artist has a point.

Award shows such as the Grammy Awards or the Oscars often deem what they find is the “best” work, which is complete nonsense.

Although art is tangible, it is also undoubtedly subjective. It affects people in different ways — whether the art is a song, book, movie or painting. So why judge, with disdain, an artist’s work?

While criticism and critique of pundits are acceptable among certain awards — such as the Pulitzer and Nobel Prize — award shows often serve as popularity contests rather than an accurate portrayal of assessment.

Both the Grammy’s and Oscars have a similar voting style — a panel of “experts” who deem, subjectively with which work is the “best.” While they may be experts in their respective fields, there is no rubric for which a song or movie is assessed. This panel of experts surely, does not speak for the whole of the listening and viewing populace.

So, instead of awarding artists accolades based on popularity and an opinion of a small panel of experts, why not respect the art for what it is?

There are no losers in art, only different forms of expression.