Irish Examiner view: Inimitable Sinéad O'Connor a force of nature who was true to herself
In Picture Andres Her Never Leverage Conformist, A Poveda Sinéad O'connor Music, Art In Or Used Life As
Possessed of a voice that was not only a unique and beautiful singing talent, but one which expressed her constant fury at the vicissitudes, unfairness, and ugliness of modern life and the human failings which shaped her and many of those around her, O’Connor was truly inimitable.
Hers was a mission to underline the power and beauty of song while educating her audience about the darkness at the outer edges of life.
She was a person for whom comfort zones were a rare commodity and often the only peace she found in her life came when she stood in front of a microphone in a studio or leading a band and engaging with an audience.
Her humanity was refracted very publicly by her obvious frailties and led to many open debates about her wellbeing, but she was undeterred by the school of public opinion. She consistently railed against those forces that tried to prevent her living her life the way she wanted to live it and in doing so highlighted the greater absence of humanity in modern life.
Never a conformist, either in life or in music, she used her art as leverage, but few could possibly argue that the beauty, poignancy, and originality of her work was anything other than blessed by genius.
Though in many ways the antithesis of a pop star, because she so often raged against the industry and its febrile attempts to mould its stars into its own vision of how its performers should conduct themselves, her popularity and success allowed her to be true to her own vision of herself.
Sinéad O’Connor was a force of nature and a person that was not always kind to herself or those around her. However, she was true to herself and her artistic principles and that, perhaps, is the way she would have wanted to be best remembered.
The image of her tearing up a picture of Pope John Paul II on live television was a defining moment at the time and threatened to destroy her career but for her, it was a simple act of protest and validation.
Her real legacy, as she would have wanted, will be the continued love of her children, whom she adored, and the resounding authenticity of her music, which she said was the only place she could manage the pain in her life.
She will feel pain no more, but her passing and her music will continue to shine a light on those dark places too many others never want to visit.
Wednesday’s report by the Mental Health Commission once more highlighted the need for a complete overhaul of children’s mental health services because those currently in operation are unfit for purpose.
Quite simply, we are failing young people who are desperately in need of help.
The funding, staffing, and operational needs of these services have to be revised completely if the State is to properly care for those most in jeopardy. Lack of reform in the system, according to the report, is “propping up” a failing system in Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (Camhs).
Susan Finnerty’s report made a total of 49 recommendations, 12 of which related to the lengthy waiting lists young people in need are subjected to. That children with suicidal intent have to wait 23 days on average between referral and assessment is obviously unacceptable.
The question of staff shortages is a pertinent one, but Dr Finnerty’s assertion that the delivery of Camhs services should be looked at in the light of ever-changing and evolving mental health treatments is something that could see the services deviate from an over-reliance on psychiatrists.
Apologies from ministers or the HSE are not much use to families whose children have suffered because of well-highlighted systemic failings and the finalisation of the new mental health bill cannot come quickly enough to address the issues we know now to be failings.
The manner in which grievous offence has been caused by the feminist themes threaded throughout the Barbie movie almost harks back to the 1970s world in which sections of society took offence at for its “‘blasphemous” content.
For some to complain that Greta Gerwig’s blockbuster “neglects to address any notion of faith or family”, smacks of a pickiness not seen since Arthur Penn’s was accused of overly-graphic violence — something the
subjects actually glorified in and which the film highlighted.
Others have burned Barbie dolls on their Youtube channels and condemned the film for being ‘woke’, fuelling the idea that men and women cannot collaborate positively. This is plainly nonsense and any suggestion that it is wrong for people to see and enjoy something frivolous, but with a deeper message, is nearly censorious.
Their angst at the film is both erroneous and egregious. It is a further sign that they believe anything that does not fit the tight parameters of modern-day conservative thinking is plainly bad for the audience and the world in general.
Their petulance is pitiful.