The recent spectacle surrounding Bad Bunny in the context of the Super Bowl sparked a conversation many people would rather avoid.
This is not a musical debate. It is a cultural one. Because behind the show lies a question that defines our time: What happens when the message and the messenger do not fully align?
We live in an moment where entertainment does more than entertain. It shapes imaginaries, models values, and constructs collective narratives. And within that space emerges an tension that is hard to ignore:
Are we applauding the message… or the mechanism that sustains it?
There is an old phrase that seems to have become a quiet rule of contemporary culture:
“Do as I say, not as I do.”
We see it repeated at many levels:
- discourses of justice spoken from positions of privilege
- advocacy for the vulnerable sustained by powerful structures
- critiques of the system voiced from within the heart of that very system
This is not an accusation directed at one individual. Its just an observation about a recurring cultural pattern. And that pattern invites a deeper question:
Who signs the fine print of these narratives? Who finances the spectacle? Who ultimately benefits from the circuit it creates? Who decides which messages circulate widely and which remain invisible?
Do these questions belong to conspiratorial thinking? No, I’m just approaching critical thinking.
Another dimension surfaces alongside this discussion.
Those who have spent decades accompanying artistic development know that art has historically been inseparable from discipline, technique, and craft. Developing a voice, a stage presence, or a musical language is long, rigorous, and deeply human work. Yet contemporary industry increasingly rewards the ability to generate media impact over the patient construction of artistic mastery.
It may seem that I want to “anchor the past,” but I am actually asking about what we choose to value.
When marketing outweighs craft, art shifts from expression toward product. And that shift inevitably transforms the meaning of applause.
As Latin Americans, we carry a particular cultural inheritance.
We are often celebrated for warmth, affection, and the centrality of human connection. Family, emotional expression, and shared time are seen as hallmarks of our social fabric. At the same time, our region has been shaped by intense ideological clashes and historical promises that left deep marks. For that reason, a spectacle that claims to represent Latin identity cannot be read innocently.
I invite you to ask yourself if it’s just about cultural representation or is it also a symbolic dispute? Tell me what you think.
And in every symbolic dispute, the same question arises: What forces operate behind the stage?
The message may be clear. The messenger is complex.
The performance can be interpreted as a critique of harsh immigration realities and social injustices. The message is explicit and powerful. Yet the figure carrying that message exists within a global machinery of consumption, capital, and influence. Does that coexistence invalidate the message? I think it makes it complex, it complicates it. And complexity demands reflection, not automatic applause.
The final question
Perhaps the point is not to judge an artist. Perhaps the real challenge is to sustain a question that resists easy answers: Who are we applauding when we applaud?
The message?
The spectacle?
The industry?
The narrative we want to believe?
And more importantly: What part of ourselves needs that applause?
Because within that answer lies more than a critique of entertainment culture. It reveals something essential about the culture of our time.