David Bowie was an artist not a prophet

Too many pop-culture heroes are hailed in their youth as radical prophets of a new order, only to prove in later life - though not necessarily in their art - to be rather conventional. (John Lennon also springs to mind.)

In large part David Bowie took on early identities like Ziggy Stardust not primarily for reasons of prophetic social commentary but because, as he revealed at the time, he felt more comfortable playing a persona on stage than appearing as himself. (To his great credit, Bowie seems to have been relatively self-effacing from the start, at least for a young rock star.)

Certainly Ziggy added shock value, which is important when you're an emerging artist looking to make your mark. Bowie studied the art of mime early in his pre-stardom career. He knew how to use make up and clothing to create visual noise. Why not let that simply stand as something in itself, for the clever device that it was? Why must it be seen as prophetic?

When weighing up the impact of a Da Vinci, Micheangelo, Mozart or Beethoven, we don't feel the need to consult their attitudes to social issues of their time.

These have been long forgotten while their art speaks as loudly now as it has ever done. We don't need to call them prophets, or to ascribe to them a social impact they did not seek nor claim for themselves.

It's the quality of their art that sets them apart in our minds and hearts. We should apply the same thinking to artists and other prominent figures of our own time. That should be enough.