Actor Seth Rogen recently hypothesized that art is not useful because, according to him, all useful things stand the test of time. If you have ever listened to an old school record or read a really great obscure novel, you probably fervently disagree and so should you. Why does Hollywood always feel so attacked? Critique does not have to make people so fatalistic; it can a way to really get to know your audience, something modern performers are increasingly falling out of touch with. By the way, I am not trying to "cancel" the dude from Pineapple Express; I would never do that because...Why? What would be the point? What could I possibly have to gain? The satisfaction of being able to look my grandchildren in the eye and say, "that's right sonny, I was the guy who took down Seth Rogen, the guy you would have never heard of had I not just told you about him." Yeah, no. I have bigger fish to fry. I am not reprimanding Rogen here; I am simply stating that I disagree with him, something that online master debaters seem to believe is synonymous with taking away a millionaire's salary. How I obtained the power to make or break celebrities, I will never fully comprehend. I suppose I am to believe that social media comments and independent podcasts are now officially more powerful than the multi million dollar marketing agencies that are now in the employ of people like Seth Rogen. Well, I don't. I am not naive enough to believe that I have the kind of power it would take to bring down Hollywood's best and brightest. I do not believe that anyone has that power. It is instead the performer who takes themselves out of the game. This can occur for any number of reasons: perhaps the celebrity offends their audience, perhaps the celebrity is not as interesting as they once were, perhaps they produce a bad piece of art, perhaps they try to push their political opinions on others in a way that is unwelcome, etc. There can be many reasons a celebrity becomes unpopular. But when did anyone ever talk about canceling art in general? When did anyone ever talk about ending artistic expression? I have heard it mostly in religious and extreme conservative circles and Hollywood certainly employs some of these people, whether they want to admit it or not. And that is where this negative reaction to what has been deemed "cancel culture", a political pop psychology term used to describe the end of an unpopular celebrity's career, is mainly originating. I still remember those silly articles about Steven King being sad because no one was going to the movies. "This makes sense," I remember thinking to myself, "Steven King gets a movie made out of one his books every month; he is certainly losing a lot of money when there are not butts in the seats." It makes sense that actors were once liked would turn to fatalistic predictions about the future of art in a world that has turned so cruel...to them. But this is quite pretentious when you think about it. Do they actually consider themselves to be art or are they implying that the appreciation for the arts are dwindling, just as their father and their father's fathers did before them? I sense a bit of dishonesty here. Art found its way onto our laptops and phones just like everything else and it is thriving online in a way it never could have in real life. We artists are reaching people quicker and we are also reaching more people than ever before. Sure, not all of those people are interested in what we have to say, but an artist is not an egoist. A true artist creates art for the consumer of said art. We either learn to do this or we fail as artists; there is no other way. If the consumer of art is online, then that is where I will be. And to be honest with you, I do not really miss the long commutes to distant theaters just so I could see your lovely smiles. But the best part is that I still get to see those smiles right in front of me on my computer screen. What is so dystopian about a smile?