David Buckley is the author of a biography that is widely regarded as the most comprehensive biography on David Bowie (Strange Fascination: David Bowie: The Definitive Story there is yet by critics and Bowie fans alike (I’m not included in this throng as I haven’t read this biography as of now)…and, aside from being a long-time fan, his drive behind this motive? It was part of writing a PhD thesis on the “Chameleon of Pop” – can you imagine, basing a thesis about David Bowie? I’m not being critical – no, in fact I’m actually quite astounded. A PhD thesis about David Bowie…I can only imagine. It seems that David Bowie isn’t that far off from being a subject studied in university – if Shakespeare is studied, why not Bowie? Having said that, while it does sound grand to have written a PhD thesis about him, (and I’d love to read it, if I should ever get the opportunity I don’t know if studying him as an academic subject, analyzing, would necessarily fare well…he is a person after all, not a specimen. But then wouldn’t that apply to all other persons that could be studied, to the point of being a core subject on their own? I think it would depend on the person being studied; I think that for a person to be extensively studied there has to be a lot of mythology and such surrounding him to be studied – in other words, whether it’s a man or a woman, this person in particular has to have dimension as well as his work. I think also what contributes to the possibility of an academic studying of a person is also how much they have influenced and contributed to society.
This takes us back to the question, “If Shakespeare is studied, why not Bowie?” It is not Shakespeare the person that is being studied, but rather his works. There may be some biographical study, yet overall it is his works that are being studied. It is intellectual. To study David Bowie on the other hand, put frankly, is, in my opinion, studying a personality of pop culture – yes, a major pop and music icon who has a lot of influence, but in the intellectual field this influence falls almost to nil. (Whereas let’s say Beethoven or Mozart, or any other great figure in classical music were to be studied, it would be their music that would be studied – music theory, time signatures, etc.) Certainly, his art is for enjoyment but for it to be painstakingly researched and analyzed to the tiniest detail possible…it strips it down to the point where there’s nothing left. In my opinion, David Bowie’s work (songs and albums in particular) can only be analyzed so much – which it’s received throughout the decades of him being in the music industry – though there will hardly be – if ever – any conclusive, final answers because what he does is very dynamic and consequently can have many, different meanings – really, it all boils down to personal opinion, doesn’t it? – and in some cases, no sensible meaning at all. Some people have this determined idea that there is some great, big mystery to be solved, some underlying meaning in “that song” or a particular set of songs, but most of the time, they’re just stories. Even David Bowie himself has said that he’s not trying to tell or prophesy anything through them; they’re just stories. It’s the people who listen to those songs that put meaning into them, by their perceptions and their beliefs. Anything one does is a personal thing: one puts what he puts in it, and as soon as he gives it away to share with others that work is no longer his. It’s then left to what the people make of it.
To be a big fan and knowing “everything” is one thing, it’s another when you actually take someone as a serious study for example DANIELLE,. Studying a person has its limits – you can only go so far, and some people you can study more than others. In my opinion, if one wants to take the initiative on studying a person do it with the sense as if writing a biography or a PhD thesis, whatever, but don’t make it so that the person becomes a study. There’s a key difference between studying a person and making a study out of a person. Do you get what I mean? I’m not saying that having a person as an academic subject isn’t relevant, but there has to be some, for lack of a better word, ethics involved: don’t make the person being studied into a specimen that has to be put under a microscope.
