Public outrage as the end-point of creative power

It is highly likely that many will attempt to interpret the rollercoaster life of the artist formerly known as Kanye Omari West (now Ye). His life’s trajectory may have already been foreshadowed by Orson Welles in his film Citizen Kane (1941). And thirteen years earlier, Sigmund Freud contributed to this task by analyzing the personality of Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky.

How can the legendary film Citizen Kane and Ye be connected—could one be a key to understanding the other? The first analogy was, surprisingly, outlined by Aristotle, who wrote: “It appears that the magnanimous man is one who deems himself worthy of great things and is truly worthy of them.” (Aristotle, 1937, p. 83). The driving force behind both of our protagonists is an unshakable belief in their own abilities, crowned by an obsession with their own image. “Few private lives were more public.” (Citizen Kane, 08:50). This Aristotelian magnanimity, pushed to the extreme by blindness to their own greatness, stripped both of any ability to listen to those around them. Charles Foster Kane “But he didn’t believe in anything except Charlie Kane. He never had a conviction in his life.” (Citizen Kane, 50:45). He proudly proclaimed: “There’s only one person in the world to decide what I’m going to do – and that’s me.” (Citizen Kane, 1:08:45). Ye mirrors this life philosophy perfectly as he asserts an authoritative claim over his audience: “If they were real fans, they’d listen to the song ‘Can’t Tell Me Nothing’ and live by it.” (The Download, 03:56).

The ambition to change the world led both of them into politics: “Here’s a man who might have been President. He’s been loved and hated and talked about as much as any man in our time.” (Citizen Kane, 13:30). Yet the world of politics embraced neither of them: “Kane, molder of mass opinion though he was, in all his life was never granted elective office by the voters of his country.” (Citizen Kane, 09:47). Similarly, Ye made an unsuccessful bid for the presidency of the United States in 2020 (BBC, 2020).

The entire issue also has a gender and status-related dimension. The constant need to prove something—whether to themselves or to others—deeply shaped both men’s relationships with their partners, who were pushed into the role of yet another personal project. They became instruments for demonstrating their men’s limitless power to the world. Charles Foster Kane decided to make his wife Susan, against her own wishes, a famous opera singer. In addition to forcing her into constant practice with the best teachers, he even had an opera house built specifically for her.

“I don’t know. He was disappointed in the world. So he built one of his own – An absolute monarchy – It was something bigger than an opera house anyway” (Citizen Kane, 1:23:15).

Ye likewise used his own media efforts and visual stylization to transform the reputation and life of his (now former) wife, Kim Kardashian, who had previously been infamous mainly for a private sex tape. Ye helped Kim Kardashian to become one of the most influential celebrities in the worlds of show business and fashion. That this was more Ye’s creation is evidenced by the fact that a similar attempt to elevate a partner through extravagant stylization—this time far less successful—was visible in his relationship with his next wife, Bianca Censori. Both powerful men used their wives as instruments, symbols of their own power.

Charles Foster Kane and Ye are, in many ways, textbook protagonists of classical tragedy as defined by Aristotle. “Tragedy portrays a man who is not eminently virtuous or just, yet who falls into misfortune through a serious error, and who belongs to the ranks of those enjoying great fame and prosperity.” (Aristotle, 1996, p. 81). Their magnanimity came at the cost of a childish stubbornness, which Charles Foster Kane was warned about by his political opponent Jim W. Gettys.

“You’re the greatest fool I’ve ever known, Kane. If it was anybody else, I’d say what’s going to happen to you would be a lesson to you. Only you’re going to need more than one lesson. And you’re going to get more than one lesson.” (Citizen Kane, 1:09:03).

From stubbornness, it is only a short step to self-destruction. And the notion of life as self-destruction leads us to a parallel with Dostoevsky, whom Sigmund Freud explores in this very regard.

“He created a tangible representation of guilt, as is often the case with neurotics, in the form of indebtedness… He never stopped until he lost everything. The game was also a way of self-punishment… If he brought himself and his wife to the utmost poverty through losses, he drew further pathological satisfaction from it… And the young woman grew accustomed to this cycle because she noticed that what was the only real hope for salvation—his literary work—never thrived better than when they had lost everything and when they had pawned their last possessions.” (Freud, 1990, pp. 163-164).

For Dostoevsky, it was gambling that forced him to lose everything before he could sit down and begin writing his best works. In this light, I propose to view Ye’s past—full of controversies and scandals—as a source of energy, strength, and guilt that was subsequently sublimated into great musical, fashion, and other artistic achievements. While Dostoevsky could lose all his family’s money and all borrowed money, there inevitably had to come a moment when no one would be willing to lend him again, and thus there would be no money left to lose.

Similarly, if Ye drew strength (and guilt) for his creativity from the public outrage he provoked, every subsequent controversy had to—and still has to—be more scandalous to stir any outrage at all. There’s no point in debating or highlighting what he does today, because what comes next will most likely be worse. Ye has found himself in a vicious circle with no way back. The new scandal must be anything, but above all, it must be more scandalous than the previous one.

Another lifelong source of guilt that Freud examined in Dostoevsky could be found in Ye’s song “Cousins,” in which he shares that during his adolescence he had regular sexual relations with his cousin. This song could justifiably cast a completely different light on all of Ye’s life decisions.

Freud writes:

“A strongly bisexual constitution thus becomes one of the conditions or reinforcing factors of the neurosis. In Dostoevsky, it manifests in an existentially acceptable form (latent homosexuality) in the significance of male friendships for his life and in his unusually tender behavior toward love rivals, as well as in his remarkable understanding of situations explainable only by repressed homosexuality, as shown by many cases in his novellas.” (Freud, 1990, p. 158)

On the other hand, the song “Cousins” could very well be just another more extreme attempt to provoke interest, stir up controversy, and cause a stir. With my article, I wanted to show how unsustainable the path of generating outrage and guilt as a creative driving force is, because eventually it must inevitably lead the creator to a place from which no artistic work can rescue them.

In this context, Ye “missed the opportunity to become a teacher and liberator of humanity and joined the jailers.” (Freud, 1990, p. 152) and “was a man who got everything he wanted, and then lost it.” (Citizen Kane, 1:54:00)

The article was originally published in MOST, the student university magazine of the Faculty of Arts at the University of South Bohemia. You can read the magazine here.

---

References:

• ARISTOTELÉS. Etika Nikomachova. Laichterova filosofická knihovna. Praha: Laichter, 1937.

• ARISTOTELÉS. Poetika. Antická knihovna. Praha: Svoboda, 1996.

• BBC, Kanye West election: How many votes did he get? In: bbc.com [online]. 05.11.2020 [cit. 2025-05-27].

• FREUD, Sigmund. O člověku a kultuře. Eseje. Praha: Odeon, 1990.

• Občan Kane [film]. Režie Orson Welles. USA, 1941.

• THE DOWNLOAD: JUSTIN LABOY+YE. In: Youtube [online]. 5.2.2025 [cit. 2025-05-27].

• Illustration: Marttina