When do you disregard an artists? Should society as a whole (whatever that means) disregard an artists for any reason? When and how?
There seems to be some relationship between the quality of the work VS the level of horror perpetrated by the person, as perceived by the public.
Micheal Jackson has some sweet pieces of music.
Da Vinci's contributions are obvous.
Woody Allen has his moments.
I was/am listening to Amanda Palmer and despite whatever is going on with her professional and personal life, her music has helped my considerably the way music does sometimes.
In more rational persuits facts are laid down very clearly and the personal acts outside of those persuits don't really have any bearing on those facts. It doesn't matter if Al Gore is an asshole or greedy or whatever as long as the facts he presents about the climate are true. The one doesn''t wash the hand of the other.
Is that true of art? More to the point, does it matter?
Art has an affect on society, our dreams lead us to very real places. Which is not to say that because Micheal Jackson's music creates incidences of sexual abuse. But does it perpetuate the culture which allows for more sexual abuse?
If so, just what does anyone do about that.
Of course, every indidivual person makes up their own mind. I don't listen to MJ's music, even though I really liked it as a kid. Hah.
I'm not sure what I think about all that.
Interesting.
There's quite a few questions here and I'm too tired to get into it now so consider this more a reminder post.
I guess there's the "how separate is the artist from the art" angle too.
I suspect that Micheal Jackson's 9(et. all) cultural legacy will not be as large as you may think. As far as I know, the most recent big thing about him was prisoners dancing to something. Hardly the way I'd like to be remembered. The other side of this I guess is how much/frequently does it impact your life? If you're listening to Jackson or Glitter daily, for some reason, then I'm sure you have little problem overlooking their antics.
You can choose the media you consume to some extent, why you'd bother to go after something by Rolf Harris compared to well, a literal infinity of other films/music/whatever is beyond me. You could, literally, right now, listen to a different song, every single minute until you die. Same for video of various forms. Add video games. Add the infinity of other things you can do. You already need to be hyper selective right now as the choice will only increase.
Anyway, rambling because tired but tl:dr - Art probably not artist, but why buy fucked up art when good art is free?
And what the fuck was it with all those people having nothing better to do with their lives than wait outside that Jackson trial? That's some scary shit.
The question is: how much does personal life affect the work? And that not only goes for artists, but also intellectuals.
Real Example 1: Psychiatrists on a general basis tend to focus on treatment based on medication rather than a mixed approach of also including some kind of talk therapy, which has been shown to be more efficient. What dictates the general practices of psychiatrists? The DSM. Who writes the DSM? Psychiatrists that are on the pay roll of big pharma. Therefore, they're personal life of corruption is tied to their work.
Hypothetical Example 1: The band "They Might Be Giants" makes cute and fun music that can be nice to play for kids. Now imagine if one of them was a pedophile. Kind of creepy, right?... So one would need to revise the lyrics carefully to see if there's some hard to spot double entendre that disqualifies their work.
Real Example 2: I really dont like pop music because its real empty and all that, but, Lady Gaga. Lady Gaga might be into some of those pop artist lifestyles in which she spends a million dollars on a golden wheelchair (look it up) and all that stupid show business antics... but the content of her lyrics is the only mainstream pop artist that embraces and supports LGBT culture... in this case its two different issues that dont conflict with each other, but to me on a general level she gets a pass.
Real Example 3: Ayn Rand. Her works and philosophy completely contradict her personal life, therefore this renders her a hypocrite and disqualifies her work.
Real Example 4: Hitler's paintings. From what ive seen, its just realist style of buildings and wildlife... so one could love his paintings if one is very much into realism (i guess?) while still being against nazism and racism.
I think everyone has to make up their own mind, really. I don't enjoy listening to Michael Jackson's music because I associate it with accusations of pedophilia. Someone might not enjoy listening to Amanda Palmer because they feel her treatment of other musicians is exploitative, or that that her husband should be bankrolling her career as a musician. I don't know that Michael Jackson was a pedophile, and I don't know whether Amanda Palmer is exploitative of other musicians.
Sometimes a bad interaction can leave a bad taste in someone's mouth that spoils the art of a certain artist for them. I know a glassworker who thinks I am a royal-class asshole because on an anonymous forum (on which I was not anonymous, but he was) he private messaged me to tell me that people wouldn't be talking to him the way they were if they knew who he was. I asked him if he was seriously pulling a "do you know who I am?", said it was a dick move, and told him that I don't control anyone, and that he should expect people to respond to him based on what he says and does, not based on his status as an artist.
Dude hates me. And I no longer care for his art, which I used to admire. Art, including music, is something that evokes emotion, and if the emotion it evokes is unpleasant for any reason, including an irrational or unrelated association, people won't enjoy it.
Some people have opinions of Amanda Palmer that colors their enjoyment of her music. Others have completely different perceptions of her. LMNO can't stand her because of her fundraising, Waffles works with her and loves her. One isn't right and the other wrong; they simply have different experiences with her and interpretations of her actions.
If I like a picture, painting, or sculpture I will continue to look at them and if possible try and own a copy.
If I like a song then I will listen to it and perhaps get the record. Same with movies.
What the artist does in their personal life doesn't phase me at all.
I admire Chris Benoit as one of the best technical wrestlers of all time, not as Father of the Year.
Its really a personal thing. I can see associating an artists irl shittiness with a piece of art could make you less able to enjoy it. What pisses me off are the people who pretend they are making some kind of moral stand. Like really? Youre wearing clothes that were made in a sweat shop you keep all your money in BoA and carry around electronics that the Congo was destabilized over. But the new Xmen movie, thats where they draw the line. They refuse to let your money be tainted by it so theyre going boycott it, and I assume, every single product who whos profit might eventually reach the hands of a sex offender.
Quote from: xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed) on June 16, 2014, 06:26:20 AM
Its really a personal thing. I can see associating an artists irl shittiness with a piece of art could make you less able to enjoy it. What pisses me off are the people who pretend they are making some kind of moral stand. Like really? Youre wearing clothes that were made in a sweat shop you keep all your money in BoA and carry around electronics that the Congo was destabilized over. But the new Xmen movie, thats where they draw the line. They refuse to let your money be tainted by it so theyre going boycott it, and I assume, every single product who whos profit might eventually reach the hands of a sex offender.
Hi New Guy, you seem alright.
Quote from: Junkenstein on June 16, 2014, 07:04:36 AM
Quote from: xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed) on June 16, 2014, 06:26:20 AM
Its really a personal thing. I can see associating an artists irl shittiness with a piece of art could make you less able to enjoy it. What pisses me off are the people who pretend they are making some kind of moral stand. Like really? Youre wearing clothes that were made in a sweat shop you keep all your money in BoA and carry around electronics that the Congo was destabilized over. But the new Xmen movie, thats where they draw the line. They refuse to let your money be tainted by it so theyre going boycott it, and I assume, every single product who whos profit might eventually reach the hands of a sex offender.
Hi New Guy, you seem alright.
Shhh, he is just doing it so he can collect quotes of people saying
QuoteYou know, Ron Paul is one smart cookie!
Or something similar.
Don't fall for his tricks!
...
Dammit!
Quote from: Alty on June 15, 2014, 08:35:41 PM
When do you disregard an artists?
Me personally? When they aren't saying anything relevant to me.
QuoteShould society as a whole (whatever that means) disregard an artists for any reason? When and how?
We don't make decisions as a whole - that subjective quality is what makes art so interesting.
QuoteThere seems to be some relationship between the quality of the work VS the level of horror perpetrated by the person, as perceived by the public.
I think that the act of becoming a public figure sensationalizes your life. You become part of the spectacle you have created. Your life becomes just as much a commodity, a product of consumption, as the work you produce.
I think any one of us would seem like an absolute monster if subjected to the piercing glare of the celebrity panopticon.
QuoteIn more rational persuits facts are laid down very clearly and the personal acts outside of those persuits don't really have any bearing on those facts. It doesn't matter if Al Gore is an asshole or greedy or whatever as long as the facts he presents about the climate are true. The one doesn''t wash the hand of the other.
Is that true of art? More to the point, does it matter?
No human, living or dead, is above criticism
QuoteArt has an affect on society, our dreams lead us to very real places. Which is not to say that because Micheal Jackson's music creates incidences of sexual abuse. But does it perpetuate the culture which allows for more sexual abuse?
I don't think there ever will be a moral litmus test for artists
nor should there be
MJ is a poignant example because I see him as kind of a Frankenstein's Monster. We created him and we eventually had to destroy him
en mass with torches and pitchforks. This has been the nature of celebrity for thousands of years.
Celebrities are Holy, that's why we rip out their hearts and send their severed heads bouncing down the steps of Chichén Itzá.
Quote from: Cramulus on June 16, 2014, 01:49:20 PM
MJ is a poignant example because I see him as kind of a Frankenstein's Monster. We created him and we eventually had to destroy him en mass with torches and pitchforks. This has been the nature of celebrity for thousands of years.
Celebrities are Holy, that's why we rip out their hearts and send their severed heads bouncing down the steps of Chichén Itzá.
This in particular made me associate with some book of Mircea Eliade... I dont know the direct translation but i think its "sacred vs. profane", in which whatever is rare or strange over the course of history has either been brought up, or brought down but never has a neutral reaction.
Example 1: Cats either have been worshipped as god's companion (Egypt et al) or have been thought of as THE devil's companion (witches).
Example 2: Schizophrenics have been thouhgt of as either being the medium thru which gods speak, or possessed by teh demons.
And what is an artist after all? Some strange minion that is either put in an altar or demonized depending on the person that is subjected to them... artists are the lightning rods for the masses sentiment, or their altar, or their punching bag...
I don't think any action the artist could perform could turn me off a painting, book, comic, song, or a film or television show.
William Burroughs shot his wife in a drunken game, and Felicia Pearson from The Wire shot and killed another teenager when she was 14.
Vladimir Nabokov is my favorite writer and there are those that believe he was a pedophile. If he was, I don't care, I love his work I'm not all that interested in the man.
Quote from: The Johnny on June 15, 2014, 10:49:00 PM
Real Example 3: Ayn Rand. Her works and philosophy completely contradict her personal life, therefore this renders her a hypocrite and disqualifies her work.
Funny, I find Rand the person and life fascinating and her work devoid of artistic merit. I think I would warm to her philosophy much better as a theses from her as opposed to the clunky shambling horrors like Atlas Shrugged.
Quote from: Faust on June 16, 2014, 02:39:06 PM
I don't think any action the artist could perform could turn me off a painting, book, comic, song, or a film or television show.
William Burroughs shot his wife in a drunken game, and Felicia Pearson from The Wire shot and killed another teenager when she was 14.
Vladimir Nabokov is my favorite writer and there are those that believe he was a pedophile. If he was, I don't care, I love his work I'm not all that interested in the man.
Its like you're trying to evolve, or something.
Sorry, I don't follow?
Quote from: Regret on June 16, 2014, 01:19:11 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on June 16, 2014, 07:04:36 AM
Quote from: xXRon_Paul_42016Xxx(weed) on June 16, 2014, 06:26:20 AM
Its really a personal thing. I can see associating an artists irl shittiness with a piece of art could make you less able to enjoy it. What pisses me off are the people who pretend they are making some kind of moral stand. Like really? Youre wearing clothes that were made in a sweat shop you keep all your money in BoA and carry around electronics that the Congo was destabilized over. But the new Xmen movie, thats where they draw the line. They refuse to let your money be tainted by it so theyre going boycott it, and I assume, every single product who whos profit might eventually reach the hands of a sex offender.
Hi New Guy, you seem alright.
Shhh, he is just doing it so he can collect quotes of people saying QuoteYou know, Ron Paul is one smart cookie!
Or something similar.
Don't fall for his tricks!
...
Dammit!
Youve caught me. For years Ive studied the ancient tibeten technique of turning internet forum compliments into raw magical power. Ive spent the better part of my life posting on forums, carefully posting compliment-bait, calculating my next move. And now its all been unraveled. 3 years of reposting shitty memes on Reddit for karma, wasted. Do you realize how close I was? How close I was to
absolute power? I could have done anything, world peace, perpetual motion, replaced Reality Shows with good TV. But no, you just had to shit all over it. Hope you feel good about yourself.
edit: lol wut
I'm pretty sure the bases have been covered; in that every person decides for themselves, art evokes emotion and negative associations can be off-putting despite the actual art itself, some people can separate the artist from the art and some can't.
Personally, I am more on the emotional side than the analytical side. If I don't like the person, then I tend not to like the art. MJ is a great example where I listened to his shit as a kid and won't touch it now. I don't think I liked it all that much then, except the song "Black or White". And after the Macauly Caulkin thing, the video squicked me out. So that sucked.
Orson Scott Card is apparently hugely anti-gay. I still love his Alvin Maker books, but that's because the books mean something to me and Mr. Card does not. I likely won't read the Ender's Game series or anything, though.
John Mayer is a complete tool and I will turn off the radio if his shit comes on the station. But I think both his music and his personality are shit.
Maybe it's different with books, comics, movies, etc because there's that level of remove. With actors and singers and such, the person is always right there - their voice, their face, their presence, because that is the medium through which they communicate their art. So perhaps reactions are more emphatic in those cases. Unless you're Anne McCaffrey.
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on June 16, 2014, 04:00:41 PMOrson Scott Card is apparently hugely anti-gay. I still love his Alvin Maker books, but that's because the books mean something to me and Mr. Card does not. I likely won't read the Ender's Game series or anything, though.
that reminds me of a good youtube discussion via IdeaChannel
How is Seeing Enders Game a Political Action? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHZyzvLxEpU)
Consumption, especially when money is involved, is political in nature.
Speaking as a consumer, it gets really exhausting to only engage things that have "good politics". Once again I'm standing in the pasta isle wondering which brand (http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/eats/barilla-fix-anti-gay-scandal-article-1.1506397)to have for dinner, and in my head, I'm making up my mind about gay adoption. There is no "just pasta" option in global commerce.
If I judge an object or concept by its shittiest manifestation (ie judging a pasta brand based on the homophobia of its CEO), I am now operating on a level of awareness where I'm only going to engage "clean" products. We've all gotta develop more awareness of where our money comes from and where it goes. But are there any clean politics? Is it even possible to boycott assholes? You can, but it comes at a premium, it's often a luxury.
It's hard to boycott assholes but it's very easy to steal from them. Ender's Game? I thought it was an amazing movie. Watched it on blueray a couple of months before it came out. Orson Scott Card? Never made a penny out of me.
My guess is that your piracy was not specifically based on boycotting Card, but a more broad "you're not gettin mah money" to the movie industry? :p
The messy thing (mentioned in the video) is that it's likely that every single member of the cast and crew had views more moderate than Card's. So if you make a principled boycott, you're not just denying Card some money, you're also denying much less shitty (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/12/harrison-ford-gay-marriage-_n_3069845.html) people money as well.
Where I draw the line is explicit links between object consumed and undesirable cause.
Like Chick-Fil-A actually gave money to "traditional marriage" causes. So there is a clear link between that chicken sandwich and meaningful political action.
Barilla Pasta, Orson Scott Card, Brandon Eich... I'm not sure their opinions on those topics actually matter.
I don't think buying a Michael Jackson album meaningfully contributes to "a culture of pedophilia". You can (validly) be squicked out by the association, but the relationship isn't clear enough (to me) for that to be an explicit link. If money from MJ albums was going to NAMBLA or something, I might read it differently.
Quote from: Faust on June 16, 2014, 02:51:24 PM
Sorry, I don't follow?
I'm praising you for being a biped. Sorry for bad signal.
I feel like maybe "New Criticism" is a little to strong for me:
QuoteIn 1946, William K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley published a classic and controversial New Critical essay entitled "The Intentional Fallacy", in which they argued strongly against the relevance of an author's intention, or "intended meaning" in the analysis of a literary work. For Wimsatt and Beardsley, the words on the page were all that mattered; importation of meanings from outside the text was considered irrelevant, and potentially distracting.
In another essay, "The Affective Fallacy," which served as a kind of sister essay to "The Intentional Fallacy" Wimsatt and Beardsley also discounted the reader's personal/emotional reaction to a literary work as a valid means of analyzing a text. This fallacy would later be repudiated by theorists from the reader-response school of literary theory. Ironically, one of the leading theorists from this school, Stanley Fish, was himself trained by New Critics. Fish criticizes Wimsatt and Beardsley in his essay "Literature in the Reader" (1970).[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Criticism
I understand taking into accout socio/cultural implications of work, however, accusations leveled against the public aspect of a person tend to be simply secondary or tertiary sources.
I feel the same way when I listen to MJ. If some asshat is going to lecture me about listening him. I'm going to shit in that person's mouth for liking John Lennon. Fuck him til the ends of the earth.
Quote from: George Edger Dingleburry on June 16, 2014, 05:37:50 PM
Quote from: Faust on June 16, 2014, 02:51:24 PM
Sorry, I don't follow?
I'm praising you for being a biped. Sorry for bad signal.
Cheers.
The counter argument to what I said, enjoying the separation of artist and art is that it perpetuates a culture of the disposable artist. We consume, they produce, just like any other product being sold to us. In some cases it leads to the organic growth and perpetuation of ideas, but a lot of the time it's just entertainment on tap, used up and forgotten about.
Quote from: The Johnny on June 16, 2014, 02:02:01 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on June 16, 2014, 01:49:20 PM
MJ is a poignant example because I see him as kind of a Frankenstein's Monster. We created him and we eventually had to destroy him en mass with torches and pitchforks. This has been the nature of celebrity for thousands of years.
Celebrities are Holy, that's why we rip out their hearts and send their severed heads bouncing down the steps of Chichén Itzá.
This in particular made me associate with some book of Mircea Eliade... I dont know the direct translation but i think its "sacred vs. profane", in which whatever is rare or strange over the course of history has either been brought up, or brought down but never has a neutral reaction.
Example 1: Cats either have been worshipped as god's companion (Egypt et al) or have been thought of as THE devil's companion (witches).
Example 2: Schizophrenics have been thouhgt of as either being the medium thru which gods speak, or possessed by teh demons.
And what is an artist after all? Some strange minion that is either put in an altar or demonized depending on the person that is subjected to them... artists are the lightning rods for the masses sentiment, or their altar, or their punching bag...
I had to look it up, that looks like a really interesting book! http://www.amazon.com/The-Sacred-Profane-Nature-Religion/dp/015679201X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1402958096&sr=8-1&keywords=eliade
Quote from: LuciferX on June 16, 2014, 05:39:49 PM
I feel like maybe "New Criticism" is a little to strong for me:
QuoteIn 1946, William K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley published a classic and controversial New Critical essay entitled "The Intentional Fallacy", in which they argued strongly against the relevance of an author's intention, or "intended meaning" in the analysis of a literary work. For Wimsatt and Beardsley, the words on the page were all that mattered; importation of meanings from outside the text was considered irrelevant, and potentially distracting.
In another essay, "The Affective Fallacy," which served as a kind of sister essay to "The Intentional Fallacy" Wimsatt and Beardsley also discounted the reader's personal/emotional reaction to a literary work as a valid means of analyzing a text. This fallacy would later be repudiated by theorists from the reader-response school of literary theory. Ironically, one of the leading theorists from this school, Stanley Fish, was himself trained by New Critics. Fish criticizes Wimsatt and Beardsley in his essay "Literature in the Reader" (1970).[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Criticism
I understand taking into accout socio/cultural implications of work, however, accusations leveled against the public aspect of a person tend to be simply secondary or tertiary sources.
Cute, but retarded.
Interpretation of a text cannot be done seriously if its done in said "closed manner". Why is it you might ask?
Well, because if you arent taking into account its context of creation, or intent, then you are interpreting based on YOUR OWN context and bias, making it just a mirror of your inner thought process but nothing much about the work itself.
How would satire be interpreted?
How about a very strong sarcastic work that means the opposite of what it says?
How about a diary of a statesman that just talks about his dog and family (while under war)?
If im off base, correct me.
I don't like to use Gill Sans or Perpetua because Eric Gill was a thoroughly nasty dude:
QuoteA deeply religious man, largely following the Roman Catholic faith, his beliefs and practices were by no means orthodox.[19] His personal diaries describe his sexual activity in great detail including the fact that he sexually abused his own children, had an incestuous relationship with his sister and performed sexual acts on his dog. This aspect of Gill's life was little known until publication of the 1989 biography by Fiona MacCarthy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Gill
Think about
that next time you see the BBC logo.
Quote from: Net (+1 Hidden) and 5 guests on June 17, 2014, 01:35:21 AM
I don't like to use Gill Sans or Perpetua because Eric Gill was a thoroughly nasty dude:
QuoteA deeply religious man, largely following the Roman Catholic faith, his beliefs and practices were by no means orthodox.[19] His personal diaries describe his sexual activity in great detail including the fact that he sexually abused his own children, had an incestuous relationship with his sister and performed sexual acts on his dog. This aspect of Gill's life was little known until publication of the 1989 biography by Fiona MacCarthy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Gill
Think about that next time you see the BBC logo.
How oddly appropriate for the BBC.
Quote from: The Johnny on June 17, 2014, 12:53:01 AM
Quote from: LuciferX on June 16, 2014, 05:39:49 PM
I feel like maybe "New Criticism" is a little to strong for me:
QuoteIn 1946, William K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley published a classic and controversial New Critical essay entitled "The Intentional Fallacy", in which they argued strongly against the relevance of an author's intention, or "intended meaning" in the analysis of a literary work. For Wimsatt and Beardsley, the words on the page were all that mattered; importation of meanings from outside the text was considered irrelevant, and potentially distracting.
In another essay, "The Affective Fallacy," which served as a kind of sister essay to "The Intentional Fallacy" Wimsatt and Beardsley also discounted the reader's personal/emotional reaction to a literary work as a valid means of analyzing a text. This fallacy would later be repudiated by theorists from the reader-response school of literary theory. Ironically, one of the leading theorists from this school, Stanley Fish, was himself trained by New Critics. Fish criticizes Wimsatt and Beardsley in his essay "Literature in the Reader" (1970).[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Criticism
I understand taking into accout socio/cultural implications of work, however, accusations leveled against the public aspect of a person tend to be simply secondary or tertiary sources.
Cute, but retarded.
Interpretation of a text cannot be done seriously if its done in said "closed manner". Why is it you might ask?
Well, because if you arent taking into account its context of creation, or intent, then you are interpreting based on YOUR OWN context and bias, making it just a mirror of your inner thought process but nothing much about the work itself.
How would satire be interpreted?
How about a very strong sarcastic work that means the opposite of what it says?
How about a diary of a statesman that just talks about his dog and family (while under war)?
If im off base, correct me.
It's funny how people just don't get satire :lulz:
I once wrote an essay about the hypocrisy of people denying that "Lolita" was satirical.
Quote from: LuciferX on June 17, 2014, 07:50:19 AM
I once wrote an essay about the hypocrisy of people denying that "Lolita" was satirical.
I'd like to read that. Lolita is only satirical on the surface though, we're looking from humberts perspective and he is an unreliable narrator who downplays his involvement in her abuse.
At best he is what he portrays himself as, a bumbling humbert. But we only have his word for it.
At worst he's a man who murdered his wife to take up a sexual relationship with a child.
There's a lot of situational comedy and satire, but that is the narrators defense.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on June 16, 2014, 10:31:46 PM
Quote from: The Johnny on June 16, 2014, 02:02:01 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on June 16, 2014, 01:49:20 PM
MJ is a poignant example because I see him as kind of a Frankenstein's Monster. We created him and we eventually had to destroy him en mass with torches and pitchforks. This has been the nature of celebrity for thousands of years.
Celebrities are Holy, that's why we rip out their hearts and send their severed heads bouncing down the steps of Chichén Itzá.
This in particular made me associate with some book of Mircea Eliade... I dont know the direct translation but i think its "sacred vs. profane", in which whatever is rare or strange over the course of history has either been brought up, or brought down but never has a neutral reaction.
Example 1: Cats either have been worshipped as god's companion (Egypt et al) or have been thought of as THE devil's companion (witches).
Example 2: Schizophrenics have been thouhgt of as either being the medium thru which gods speak, or possessed by teh demons.
And what is an artist after all? Some strange minion that is either put in an altar or demonized depending on the person that is subjected to them... artists are the lightning rods for the masses sentiment, or their altar, or their punching bag...
I had to look it up, that looks like a really interesting book! http://www.amazon.com/The-Sacred-Profane-Nature-Religion/dp/015679201X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1402958096&sr=8-1&keywords=eliade
He was an interesting man. And quite apt, given the topic. Eliade was known for his admiration of the Iron Guard and Romanian far-right in general. He also basically defined how religion was studied in the 20th century.
His student, the extraordinarily talented Ioan P. Culianu, was also an interesting man, though certainly less controversial, and well worth reading too (I have a copy of
Eros and Magic in the Renaissance on my bookshelf next to me). The matter of his death is also much cause for speculation.
Quote from: George Edger Dingleburry on June 16, 2014, 05:42:54 PM
I feel the same way when I listen to MJ. If some asshat is going to lecture me about listening him. I'm going to shit in that person's mouth for liking John Lennon. Fuck him til the ends of the earth.
Rah!
Quote from: Faust on June 17, 2014, 11:00:14 AM
Quote from: LuciferX on June 17, 2014, 07:50:19 AM
I once wrote an essay about the hypocrisy of people denying that "Lolita" was satirical.
I'd like to read that. Lolita is only satirical on the surface though, we're looking from humberts perspective and he is an unreliable narrator who downplays his involvement in her abuse.
At best he is what he portrays himself as, a bumbling humbert. But we only have his word for it.
At worst he's a man who murdered his wife to take up a sexual relationship with a child.
There's a lot of situational comedy and satire, but that is the narrators defense.
Yea, I don't think those papers made it into this millennium. More or less, I illustrated a few situational anecdotes: true, superficially, to set the stage. Then, the contentious part, was to implicate the reader as an accomplice. In order for the story to have any credence or import whatsoever, per force, you must identify with the "unreliable narrator who downplays his involvement in her abuse". I thought that was funny as hell given how vehemently judgmental it gets people :lulz:
Hmm.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=36621.0
Seems a relevant empirical test. I seem to recall something negative about this chap recently and can't recall what. I do remember it being "Fuck that guy" worthy levels, will try and find it to add required context.
ETA - Crudely pasted context which I can't be arsed making look nice. You do it.
Quote from: All-Father Nigel on May 23, 2014, 05:35:47 pm
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 23, 2014, 01:17:31 pm
Quote from: All-Father Nigel on May 23, 2014, 04:33:12 am
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 23, 2014, 01:50:59 am
Apparently, Adam Gorightly is Adam GoRIGHTly.
https://www.facebook.com/adam.gorightly/posts/10202980233000687?comment_id=10202980276641778&offset=0&total_comments=7¬if_t=share_reply
Women in congress? SELL THEM INTO SLAVERY.
Shit, what?? I got a page not found on that.
Weird. Works for me on both computers. It should be on his wall.
Basically, Adam is saying that any women congressmen who expressed an interest in the Boko Harum women should be traded for those women, on account of women congressmen are WHORES. The a pack of his new teabagger buddies comes on and yuks it up with him.
I called him on it, he was serious.
Junkenstein, all you have to do to make a quote readable is hit quote on the post and copy/paste that.
Yeah, but it was badly done and I can't be arsed fixing it.
Edit - Typo. Yes, I'll fix a typo but not a fucked up quote.
Quote from: Junkenstein on June 19, 2014, 02:57:04 PM
Hmm.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=36621.0
Seems a relevant empirical test. I seem to recall something negative about this chap recently and can't recall what. I do remember it being "Fuck that guy" worthy levels, will try and find it to add required context.
ETA - Crudely pasted context which I can't be arsed making look nice. You do it.
Quote from: All-Father Nigel on May 23, 2014, 05:35:47 pm
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 23, 2014, 01:17:31 pm
Quote from: All-Father Nigel on May 23, 2014, 04:33:12 am
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 23, 2014, 01:50:59 am
Apparently, Adam Gorightly is Adam GoRIGHTly.
https://www.facebook.com/adam.gorightly/posts/10202980233000687?comment_id=10202980276641778&offset=0&total_comments=7¬if_t=share_reply
Women in congress? SELL THEM INTO SLAVERY.
Shit, what?? I got a page not found on that.
Weird. Works for me on both computers. It should be on his wall.
Basically, Adam is saying that any women congressmen who expressed an interest in the Boko Harum women should be traded for those women, on account of women congressmen are WHORES. The a pack of his new teabagger buddies comes on and yuks it up with him.
I called him on it, he was serious.
Quote from: Junkenstein on June 19, 2014, 04:55:56 PM
Yeah, but it was badly done and I can't be arsed fixing it.
Edit - Typo. Yes, I'll fix a typo but not a fucked up quote.
There you go, you lazy fucker.
I had to guess how to split up the quotes among the quotees but i think i got it right, i vaguely remember reading this but can't be arsed to find it.
Yes, I'll manually type quote function code but won't google a phrase.
Edit: Gah! fucked it up.
You know, this thread shrunk by 66% while the quality improved by 200% after i blocked UB.
That means UB's posts contain almost nothing of value and merely dilute the signal thereby reducing the enjoyment per minute spent reading.
I strongly endorse this home-improvement technique.
I would think that consuming art by bad people would eventually boil down to if you want to give some horrible person your money or not. This tempered by, as mentioned earlier, the fact that in our day to day lives we probably already give a lot of horrible people our monies when we purchase our food, clothing, electronics, and probably damn near everything we own and did not create ourselves.
Though there are times when a person's horrible actions do manage to totally ruin something they have created as in this example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oi7ds7Lmmrk
I forgot about this thread. I could have spewed my Marion Zimmer Bradley mini-rant here. Maybe. Urk.
I am learning so many horrible things about people I never thought twice or first about (because I didn't know who they were) and Jesus fuck, isn't there one decent creative person out there who isn't a flaming fuckwit?
Elton John, David Bowie and Bruce Forsyth may be the only British celebrities from the 1970s who are not in fact pedophiles.
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on June 23, 2014, 03:58:18 AM
I forgot about this thread. I could have spewed my Marion Zimmer Bradley mini-rant here. Maybe. Urk.
I am learning so many horrible things about people I never thought twice or first about (because I didn't know who they were) and Jesus fuck, isn't there one decent creative person out there who isn't a flaming fuckwit?
In my experience, extremely creative people are also usually deeply troubled. Not always in a way that is so profoundly repellent to human kindness and decency, but I have definitely noticed that many creative people walk an edge that is a tad too close to excepting themselves from socially accepted ideas of morality.
A lot of artists also seem to (uncritically) accept the role of transgression in creativity too, which can sometimes lead them onto...questionable paths, especially if they are already quite troubled people.
Quote from: Cain on June 23, 2014, 06:46:10 AM
Elton John, David Bowie and Bruce Forsyth may be the only British celebrities from the 1970s who are not in fact pedophiles.
I wouldn't be too confident about Bruce.
Quote from: Cain on June 23, 2014, 07:13:02 AM
A lot of artists also seem to (uncritically) accept the role of transgression in creativity too, which can sometimes lead them onto...questionable paths, especially if they are already quite troubled people.
Yes, I'd have to agree with that. I think that artists seem to often embrace the idea that their creativity makes them exempt from common decency, in a way not too dissimilar from the ways aristocracy also often concludes that their privilege exempts them from social mores.
B̵̷̤̯̖͈̭̏̒̕Ȇ̢̢̩̲͇̮̮͖̣̌N̛̯̦͎͉̗̦͒̓̀̆̈̄ͣ͢͞ ̧͖̦̲͔̬̹͊̓́͟M̻͎̬̎̉ͫͤ̈͊ͧ̋͝Ȃ͔͖̐̿̋̊͋͘͢͞C̶̈̃͂ͤ̋̓ͪ̒҉̥̩͕̳̩̠͉K̶̜̟̙̱̜̠̪͑͒̿̎ͩ͘
͓̤͍̟̩̈͒̔͝
̳̫͉͕̺͂́̋̕H̲̦́̾̂Ę̸̪̹̠͔͇͖̌ͤ̒̒̉͌ ̴̥̲̱̙̯̂ͦ͛͜ͅC̷̻͓̻̖̟͕ͥ̾Ō̶̫͔͓̦͕͎̅̄̿ͣ͑M͓̯̮͈ͫͮ͆̄͌͑̿ͩE̛̗̻̰̼̗͕͖̿͒ͪ̀S̡͕̟͈̀ͥ̊͛̕̕
YOU REMEMBER WHEN BEN MACK TOLD US THAT WE SHOULDN'T JUDGE THE NARRATOR IN POKER WITHOUT CARDS TOO HARSHLY BECAUSE IT WAS ACTUALLY HIM?
THROUGHOUT THAT BOOK HE PUSHED SEVERAL PEOPLE INTO SUICIDE AND THEN LATER BRAGGED ABOUT HIS PERSUASIVE SUPERPOWERS
THAT CHARACTER SUCKED; THAT AUTHOR SUCKED; THAT BOOK SUCKED
For the love of god don't say Ben Mack one more time or he will appear!
I love me some artsy horror flicks.
I also HATE me some animal abuse.
There's ways to do it that aren't so bad. You've got stuffed animals, of the cotton variety and the straw/sand variety. Nowadays you have CGI. Either way, it's uncomfortable to watch, but you still have that knowledge that it isn't quite real. Then you have the balls ass crazy "artists" who say "you know what, fuck it. let's just do this for real". I have no respect for these people, and it pretty much just ruins movies.
Back in the 80's Italian people decided that they were going to become arbitrarily obsessed with found-footage movies about cannibals native to Africa. Two of the more prominent ones were Cannibal Holocaust and Cannibal Ferox. Both of these were about people wandering into the jungle to create documentaries about cannibal tribes. Both of these movies also included real animal deaths. In Holocaust you see natives eating monkey brains and in Ferox you see natives eating a turtle. These are somewhat less terrible in that it is something the natives would do naturally, without interference from the film makers. Perhaps this speaks to the differences in society between us "civilized" folk and these "un-civilized" natives. There's also a few movies I can think of where they showed animals being butchered and cleaned for consumption. Even this isn't terrible, because while it isn't something you would normally be exposed to, however it is something that you are probably at least somewhat aware of taking place.
Then you have the terrible people who make movies like Melancholie der Engel, a French horror movie that came about in 2009(iirc). This is one of those movies that is absolutely sickening for absolutely no reason. There is too much animal cruelty to even list, and thinking about the movie makes me sick. It hardly contributes to the plot, and exists purely for the shock value of it. It was never art. It was just sadism. The worst part is that probably the only reason anyone heard about the movie is because it's so disguting. I can't watch any of his other stuff anymore. He made a movie, Cannibal, a few years before this, and it was actually decent. I can't watch it anymore. His very existence as a person makes me ill and has destroyed my taste for anything he has ever done.
Even the Holocaust and Ferox people couldn't resist randomly harming other animals for no good reason. It's a disgusting display.
Quote. In Holocaust you see natives eating monkey brains
Crazy thing is, were you ever to find yourself there, in all likelihood it would occasion a ceremonial feast where the most disrespectful thing would be to refuse the (offal) offering.
Quote from: Cramulus on June 23, 2014, 01:27:09 PM
B̵̷̤̯̖͈̭̏̒̕Ȇ̢̢̩̲͇̮̮͖̣̌N̛̯̦͎͉̗̦͒̓̀̆̈̄ͣ͢͞ ̧͖̦̲͔̬̹͊̓́͟M̻͎̬̎̉ͫͤ̈͊ͧ̋͝Ȃ͔͖̐̿̋̊͋͘͢͞C̶̈̃͂ͤ̋̓ͪ̒҉̥̩͕̳̩̠͉K̶̜̟̙̱̜̠̪͑͒̿̎ͩ͘
͓̤͍̟̩̈͒̔͝
̳̫͉͕̺͂́̋̕H̲̦́̾̂Ę̸̪̹̠͔͇͖̌ͤ̒̒̉͌ ̴̥̲̱̙̯̂ͦ͛͜ͅC̷̻͓̻̖̟͕ͥ̾Ō̶̫͔͓̦͕͎̅̄̿ͣ͑M͓̯̮͈ͫͮ͆̄͌͑̿ͩE̛̗̻̰̼̗͕͖̿͒ͪ̀S̡͕̟͈̀ͥ̊͛̕̕
See whAt you did?
Quote from: LuciferX on June 24, 2014, 08:44:45 AM
Quote. In Holocaust you see natives eating monkey brains
Crazy thing is, were you ever to find yourself there, in all likelihood it would occasion a ceremonial feast where the most disrespectful thing would be to refuse the (offal) offering.
wow
much bondings
very taste
Quote from: LuciferX on June 24, 2014, 08:44:45 AM
Quote. In Holocaust you see natives eating monkey brains
Crazy thing is, were you ever to find yourself there, in all likelihood it would occasion a ceremonial feast where the most disrespectful thing would be to refuse the (offal) offering.
But afterwards you wouldn't wander around arbitrarily killing snakes and muskrat.
Quote from: The Johnny on June 24, 2014, 05:45:41 PM
Quote from: LuciferX on June 24, 2014, 08:44:45 AM
Quote. In Holocaust you see natives eating monkey brains
Crazy thing is, were you ever to find yourself there, in all likelihood it would occasion a ceremonial feast where the most disrespectful thing would be to refuse the (offal) offering.
wow
much bondings
very taste
:lulz:
Quote from: Net (+1 Hidden) and 5 guests on June 25, 2014, 03:56:15 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on June 24, 2014, 05:45:41 PM
Quote from: LuciferX on June 24, 2014, 08:44:45 AM
Quote. In Holocaust you see natives eating monkey brains
Crazy thing is, were you ever to find yourself there, in all likelihood it would occasion a ceremonial feast where the most disrespectful thing would be to refuse the (offal) offering.
wow
much bondings
very taste
:lulz:
So
How very brothers
Grim rate.
Quote from: Raz Tech on June 24, 2014, 06:49:37 PM
Quote from: LuciferX on June 24, 2014, 08:44:45 AM
Quote. In Holocaust you see natives eating monkey brains
Crazy thing is, were you ever to find yourself there, in all likelihood it would occasion a ceremonial feast where the most disrespectful thing would be to refuse the (offal) offering.
But afterwards you wouldn't wander around arbitrarily killing snakes and muskrat.
Muskrat should take care of the snake - otherwise I take two intwined at a time, yes :lulz:
(never got passed the first scene - very credit)
Some "trve metul grrl" recommended this to me. I still dont understand whyt its a holocaust of cannibals. Yellow print all over it.
My understanding is that it's a reference to/satire on the senationalist Italian media and their portrayal of Red Brigade terrorism at the time. Using "holocaust" to describe the violence is in keeping with their usual hyperbolic tone.
Quote from: Cain on June 25, 2014, 02:55:03 PM
My understanding is that it's a reference to/satire on the senationalist Italian media and their portrayal of Red Brigade terrorism at the time. Using "holocaust" to describe the violence is in keeping with their usual hyperbolic tone.
The Italian Media, with the possible exception of Rete-Quatro's daytime programing, now submit to the requirement that the news be delivered with objective disinterestedness and according to standard journalistic guidelines. The one thing that you can't force them them to do is chose the right fucking stories.
Quote from: The Johnny on June 25, 2014, 01:15:01 PM
Some "trve metul grrl" recommended this to me. I still dont understand whyt its a holocaust of cannibals. Yellow print all over it.
My guess about the yellow print is to also prime for Italian "giallo" detective/crime category.
Quote from: LuciferX on June 25, 2014, 09:51:37 PM
Quote from: Cain on June 25, 2014, 02:55:03 PM
My understanding is that it's a reference to/satire on the senationalist Italian media and their portrayal of Red Brigade terrorism at the time. Using "holocaust" to describe the violence is in keeping with their usual hyperbolic tone.
The Italian Media, with the possible exception of Rete-Quatro's daytime programing, now submit to the requirement that the news be delivered with objective disinterestedness and according to standard journalistic guidelines. The one thing that you can't force them them to do is chose the right fucking stories.
Thus it ever was. The right stories in Italy, as always, have a secondary effect of dramatically shortening one's expected lifespan.
Quote from: Cain on June 26, 2014, 09:03:19 PM
Quote from: LuciferX on June 25, 2014, 09:51:37 PM
Quote from: Cain on June 25, 2014, 02:55:03 PM
My understanding is that it's a reference to/satire on the senationalist Italian media and their portrayal of Red Brigade terrorism at the time. Using "holocaust" to describe the violence is in keeping with their usual hyperbolic tone.
The Italian Media, with the possible exception of Rete-Quatro's daytime programing, now submit to the requirement that the news be delivered with objective disinterestedness and according to standard journalistic guidelines. The one thing that you can't force them them to do is chose the right fucking stories.
Thus it ever was. The right stories in Italy, as always, have a secondary effect of dramatically shortening one's expected lifespan.
Go figure. I think Passolini would tie this up nicely.