The rise of nonchalance and the death of passion

this subject has already been talked about here but here are my two cents

I think that if we’re all here on Substack it’s because we’re passionate about something. It can be science, political science, politics, writing, art, whatever. We’re all passionate. But the rest of the internet is very nonchalant about everything, and I’m tired.

I’m never on Instagram, but my friends send me reels sometimes, and it scares me to see the lack of caring people have for things they should be passionate about.

I just had one of the best nights of the year karaoke-ing at home with my friends to Like a Prayer by none other than Madonna and other iconic artists we all love, and we all cared so much about the music, putting all of our love and energy into the karaoke.

I wish more people could let go of their fears because that’s what nonchalance is: a fear of being seen as genuine and serious about something and letting their feelings out and explode in the most imaginative ways possible.

An author who strikes me as authentically chalant is

Janu

who writes about her love for the stars and astronomy, a subject I’ve had no interest in until she started writing about it and now I’m waiting for every article on the subject to get to know more about the world I’ve been denied for so long as a humanities major.

But where does nonchalance come from? It’s a disinterest in current politics, the current world, and the current culture. To be nonchalant is to be completely disconnected from the world, a beautiful world, no matter what politics tell you. The world is beautiful; it’s messy and devastating but beautiful, like a David Lynch film.

To be nonchalant is to say that you’re apolitical in a world that needs political involvement, a world that needs you to care for it to improve. To be nonchalant is to be privileged, a privilege most of us can’t afford in the current political climate.

We need people who are passionate. Millie Bobby Brown is a famous actress who doesn’t watch movies because she ‘can’t stand to sit down for that long.’ What does that tell you about her passion? Do you think she has any, or was she just a child star who is now just looking for another paycheck, no matter for the project?

I understand that some people are nonchalant because they can’t allow themselves to care about specific topics for mental health reasons. You can’t care about everything all the time.

But to take joy in the act of not caring, to choose not to care, simply because you take joy in the act of not caring makes you an asshole. Point blank. To decide not to care, because it makes you happy not to care, to be passionless, makes you an asshole.

Some people are passionate about their own specific niche, and that’s cool; you don’t need to care about everything to be passionate.

Andy Warhol is another artist who might not be an artist at all - to be an artist is to be passionate, no matter your medium- and I don’t think dear Andy was passionate about anything other than money and fame. I love his work, but I’m being honest here. I’ve read his autobiography and his essay on Fame and went to exhibits of his work, and while I am fascinated with the man, I can’t help but wonder: is he an artist?

But at the same time, he wrote in Fame:

I go crazy when I can’t have first choice on absolutely everything

He had a vision, he had a critical eye for things, and he was a curator, but was he an artist? Was he passionate? I’m not so sure.

At the very least, he was not nonchalant, he was passionate about specific things even if they were not the ‘right things’ for an artist to be passionate about.

I’m thinking about the Kieran Culkin and Jeremy Strong debate because of this article by

Sophie

in which we praise Kieran for being ironic and not really caring about the craft of acting, whereas Jeremy Strong gives everything in his performance (he’s a method actor). Like I said earlier, not caring is a privilege. Kieran fell into acting when he was a child, and Jeremy is from a working class background that has nothing to do with acting. Jeremy takes acting incredibly seriously, and I wouldn’t have it any other way. I love both of those men (they did give us Succession), but I find Jeremy’s form of caring for his craft endearing. He is passionate. Kieran is passionate too, but like the article linked above mentions, Kieran only decided he wanted to act when he was in his 30s and well-established in his career.

Once again I love both of those actors, whenever I see them act in something you can get bet your ass I’m going to watch it. And while they’re both deeply passionate about their work, it seems that Kieran’s nihilistic, sarcastic approach to acting and giving speech gets him more fans, whereas Jeremy gets tons of hate for using vocabulary not well known to the common folk. Remember that iconic dramaturgically moment?

So to conclude, let’s bring back caring in 2025, being passionate about something, being so passionate you’re not able to breathe without that thing like it’s the vape glued to your hand.

So let me ask you this: What are you passionate about? What makes your heart sing? What makes you so animated when someone asks you a question that you can’t stop talking for 20 minutes and then apologize for monopolizing the conversation (not your fault, you were just passionate)?

From Marseille with love,

*vapes away*