If Mort Divine ruled the world

[CiG]

Milo Yiannopoulos just came out as "ex-gay and sodomy-free" lmfao. The next grift begins.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

The other big issue I have with viewing aesthetics and politics as inseparable is that it stifles artists' creativity.

suggest that some of the themes that come up in metal (i.e. misanthropy and glorification of violence) are indications that a lot of great art arises from a headspace where the artist is detached from concerns about the political implications of what he's creating.
.

The artist being able to properly enjoy being in the headspace of being thoroughly enough detached from the implications of their art is something that is clearly visible in art beyond just merely metal music

The artist just not giving a shit about implications of their art is how "underground" music happens
Including the existence of the entire genres of "horror-core" and "trap music"
The artist Making stuff to entertain himself (instead of being "mainstream") is how ICP created the"juggalo" fan-base and the idea of writing music to entertain yourself is why the specific artists that refuse to get their music on the radio still make tons of songs

On the other hand
All of the different American "boy bands" and Brittany Spears and Jessica Simpson have all had songs on the radio that were all written by one single guy (can't remember his name) who is a "professional song-writer"
These songs have no personal meaning for the singer, they're just merely interchangeable Pop lyrics

Jessica Simpson didn't even pay attention to the lyrics of what she was singing, she had no clue that the song "genie in a bottle" was about eating pussy until the westboro Babtist church bitched about it

But this idea of writing what you want instead of censoring your artwork goes well beyond even just music

Writing what entertains himself and refusing to alter his work to pacify any one else is how Stephen King writes his novels

Stephanie Meyer had already completed writing the first twilight book just merely to entertain just herself, it was a while before she was even able to show it to anyone else, and even then, her friends had to beg her to get it published

Romance novels on the other hand, are usually written where they're interchangeable
When you read a romance novel with weird-sounding character names, you're reading a book that's completely identical to a previous novel with nothing else but the character names being changed, the publisher Harlequin is really bad at this

Romance author Danielle Steele writes each book to entertain the fans of the previous books, her books are kinda interchangeable because they kinda have to be because she is one of the handful of fiction authors that still works with a speed-contract, it has been referenced by other people that her books get published more frequently than Stephen King's and
It's because she's contractually obligated to publish them that fast

I have a lot of respect for Stephen King because he writes down what is already swimming around in his head instead of figuring out how to write what will entertain the readers

Also
This idea of being able to be who you really are instead of being what anyone else says that you should be is how YouTuber Trisha Paytas makes her YouTube videos (yes, I noticed that Paytas is clearly batshit crazy, but at least she is not trying to be anything other than who she really is)

 

[zabu of nΩd]

It's really just kinda sad that @Einherjar86 has gotten to this point where his unstoppable need to know and discuss the deeper meaning behind EVERYthing is now preventing him from being able to properly enjoy the prettyness of art
He's overthinking art in the same way girls overthink porn and movie critics overthink the script for the transformers movies
Girls overthink porn and then discuss it with other girls
Whereas for a random guy porn doesn't need to be anything more than boner-inducing
Movie critics overthink the script for the transformers movies and then bitch about the script being horribly written
Whereas other people are able to properly enjoy the prettyness of the bright shiny CGI special effects when they watch the movie with the sound muted while listening to the music of their favorite band blaring so loud that it bothers the neighbors

I don't need to know anything about the artwork or artist when I look at something, I've retained my child-like ability to just merely enjoy the prettyness of the artwork

When I see the Mona Lisa I am able to properly enjoy the prettyness of her face

Every one else just always sounds so pretentious and elitist when they talk about what might be going on in the mind of "the thinker" but to me it always just kinda looks like a hung-over naked guy trying to figure out what happened to his clothes

I get your point, but I think you're projecting your values on Einherjar too much. He's damn good at his profession, and being good at a profession requires narrowing your focus. People are capable of amazing achievements in a state of focus, and realizing that potential often requires overthinking things to the point of giving up the "child-like" perspective you refer to. It can be a worthwhile tradeoff.

I think the type of people you're associating with elitism include people responsible for many of the world's greatest achievements. Without hyper-focused thinkers, we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now, since there'd be no internet.

 

[Einherjar86]

Thanks mate.

I also hope that conversation didn't come off as elitist on my part. As I remember it, it was a genial discussion and not dismissive of any contribution. Furthermore, unless I'm forgetting certain posts, the discussion wasn't about what makes good art, but about the relationship between politics and aesthetics (or art and social context, more generally speaking). That's hardly a "subjective" matter, to quote Dak's earlier comment.

I also wouldn't equate something not being art (as I would define it) with it not being "good." Among the things that I wouldn't describe as art--a Bob Ross painting, say--I still find a lot to admire in terms of skill and craft, Bob Ross paintings included. I might not call it art, but they're still impressive. I certainly couldn't paint them.

 

[CiG]

I think (generally speaking) conservative-minded people judge art based on talent/skill and liberal-minded people judge art on meaning or lack thereof, whether it be personal, cultural or political. Which is how you get views like "modern art sucks, anybody can fling paint on a canvas" while simultaneously having people like Ein exclude Bob Ross' paintings from the category of art.

Could be opening a can of worms here but this tends to hold for all of my interactions with people on the left and right, broadly speaking.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think that's accurate--and yes, generally speaking.

Robert Smithson once wrote that a great artist can make art simply by casting a glance. That's a hot take obviously, but there's an element of truth to it. Although becoming an artist certainly involves learning a skill or craft, it also involves developing a perspective on expression/representation. Without getting too in the weeds, this means becoming aware of one's frame, i.e. the borders that constitute a work and its context; and becoming aware of the frame entails understanding (in some way) the relationship between work and context, and the meanings that derive therefrom.

Artists (again, as I would define the practice) understand these two things to be in conversation with, and inextricable from, each other.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

I can still look at a painting or comic panel or watch a movie or listen to a song and enjoy the prettyness of the art before even recognizing the artist

I can say "this landscape painting is pretty" before I recognize it as a Bob Ross
I can look at "the thinker" with out thinking about how all of the artist's statues are all naked guys
I can look at the Mona Lisa with out thinking about how she would look like a guy if you put eyebrows on her
I can dance to a bouncy pop song a million times before I have any idea what the fuck the lyrics are
I can watch the transformers movies with the sound muted while blaring motley Crue
I can agree with the rest of the world that "Identity Crisis" was the most horribly written story that the Justice league has ever been in and still enjoy looking at the amazing Rags Morales artwork for that story-arc

 

[rms]

You don't need to be in a sociology class to think that purposely being apolitical is itself a politicized act.

lol of course but it's a concept introduced in a socy 101 class. You guys are really wild though, wondering if Bob Ross was actively non political for political reasons. You guys need some fucking hobbies we all should be too old for this kind of shit

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

lol of course but it's a concept introduced in a socy 101 class. You guys are really wild though, wondering if Bob Ross was actively non political for political reasons. You guys need some fucking hobbies we all should be too old for this kind of shit

 

[Einherjar86]

lol of course but it's a concept introduced in a socy 101 class. You guys are really wild though, wondering if Bob Ross was actively non political for political reasons. You guys need some fucking hobbies we all should be too old for this kind of shit

Does it really annoy you this much when people have a conversation that doesn’t include you?

 

[CiG]

lol of course but it's a concept introduced in a socy 101 class. You guys are really wild though, wondering if Bob Ross was actively non political for political reasons. You guys need some fucking hobbies we all should be too old for this kind of shit

I have plenty of hobbies. This might shock you but it's possible to work, have hobbies, and post here. There are these things called phones and you can use the Internet on them outside your house, pretty wild right grandpa?

Yikes what a whiny cunt.

 

[Dak]

That's hardly a "subjective" matter, to quote Dak's earlier comment.

Well I agree with this actually, but was rolling with what people tend to Motte about. My Bailey is the same as yours, it's just on a different continent. It's not that I'm ignorant of art philosophy - quite the contrary. I just find the accepted versions hilariously bad.

 

[Einherjar86]

Fair enough.

 

[Dak]

Fair enough.

I want to stress I wasn't trying to "psychologize" you earlier. I've read Lacan, Baudrillard, etc, and what Fine Art students must profess in general. I can't speak to all of your personal intricacies but my point was that regardless of what we might like to have in terms of flexibility of thought, we have career constraints in terms of what is promoted, or accepted, or funded, and it's hard to serve two masters (as the proverb notes).

 

[Bloopy]

I think (generally speaking) conservative-minded people judge art based on talent/skill and liberal-minded people judge art on meaning or lack thereof, whether it be personal, cultural or political. Which is how you get views like "modern art sucks, anybody can fling paint on a canvas" while simultaneously having people like Ein exclude Bob Ross' paintings from the category of art.

When it comes to modern art, I wonder if I'm in that 'lack thereof' camp more than anything. At least when the artist sets out primarily to "make art" above anything else. Eg. a gallery has a weird-shaped room to fill, so they ask a familiar artist (who'll conform to art world conventions) to make art for it. Or something like that. It feels forced. The meaning the artist tacks onto their art seems like an afterthought. Whereas if an artist sets out with a statement to make from the beginning, or a story to tell, or to entertain, or to decorate a space (that serves some purpose other than just to have art made for it), then any artistic merit in their creation emerges naturally. But once they're somewhat renowned in their field and given a brief to curate an exhibit and make the centrepiece for it then it's hard not to see their art as just a self-congratulatory wank.

A similar thing happens when renowned experimental musicians set out to "experiment". They take obscure instruments gifted to them by tribes on their travels to far reaches of the globe, maybe play them in an unconventional way, combined with sounds of Western objects or some electroacoustic setup patched at home, and most importantly describe their entire process and its parallels to society in a press release or liner notes of several dozen paragraphs. It's hard to call it an experiment when they began with the conclusion: that what they make will be received as important art because they've made it to the art world's formula.

 

[Einherjar86]

I want to stress I wasn't trying to "psychologize" you earlier. I've read Lacan, Baudrillard, etc, and what Fine Art students must profess in general. I can't speak to all of your personal intricacies but my point was that regardless of what we might like to have in terms of flexibility of thought, we have career constraints in terms of what is promoted, or accepted, or funded, and it's hard to serve two masters (as the proverb notes).

I appreciate that, and I also didn't mean to imply that I felt psychologized. I took it as playful sparring re. professions.

You're right, too, about working within a set of disciplinary expectations. When it comes to this stuff, my thinking is pretty firmly fixed.

When it comes to modern art, I wonder if I'm in that 'lack thereof' camp more than anything. At least when the artist sets out primarily to "make art" above anything else. Eg. a gallery has a weird-shaped room to fill, so they ask a familiar artist (who'll conform to art world conventions) to make art for it. Or something like that. It feels forced. The meaning the artist tacks onto their art seems like an afterthought. Whereas if an artist sets out with a statement to make from the beginning, or a story to tell, or to entertain, or to decorate a space (that serves some purpose other than just to have art made for it), then any artistic merit in their creation emerges naturally. But once they're somewhat renowned in their field and given a brief to curate an exhibit and make the centrepiece for it then it's hard not to see their art as just a self-congratulatory wank.

This speaks to the commercialization of the art world and the unavoidable overlap between museums as institutions of culture and institutions of profit. It's a dilemma that goes back decades, and part of the reason why certain artists in the '60s began trying to make art beyond the museum. Of course, even that winds up at the mercy of donors, and ultimately finds itself curated by some kind of foundation.

There's an ongoing debate (starting back in the 1940s, roughly) about the autonomy of art--whether it escapes the constrictions of institutionalism or whether it's always bound in some way to the demands of funding and expectations of culture. It's a fascinating question with no easy answer.

 

[Bloopy]

 

[CiG]

 

[Einherjar86]

Now that’s fucking art.

 

[Bloopy]

An Australian Arts Festival Has Canceled Artist Santiago Sierra’s Plans to Douse the British Flag in the Blood of Indigenous People

Perhaps a good example of the art establishment revealing how artificial and autofellatorial it truly is with that misstep.