If Mort Divine ruled the world

I doubt forms can be perfected, in which case failure would always be a component of art.
....
Perfection is rather boring, after all.

The unreachability of perfection is precisely why the pursuit is *not* boring.

Broken and ugly is easy and everywhere. Entropy is the default. This is boring.

This assumes a set of normative values that art should preach. Order and harmony aren't transparent and apolitical concepts; they can be appropriated for political ends. The problem with art in service to normative values is that it never challenges us to think otherwise.

This is always the case. It's simply a matter of what norms are pushed, where the overton window lies; what may and may not be challenged. Currently, art is destructive, and not in a Schumpeterian sense.

This all sounds a bit Platonic and utopian, which is unusual for you (although the ideas about art are vaguely familiar).

If working towards ideals is utopian then sure. I don't feel like that is new for me but maybe using language like forms is. I was trying to be as encompassing as possible.
 
Last edited:
The unreachability of perfection is precisely why the pursuit is *not* boring.

Broken and ugly is easy and everywhere. Entropy is the default. This is boring.

But now it sounds like you've contradicted yourself. You said that art should be the perfection of form(s)--not striving to perfect the form(s). If you would categorize modern art generally as the pursuit of imperfection, I would disagree. The history of art and criticism has tended to home in on the dynamic (some would say dialectic) between formal mastery and the failure to achieve it. In some way, albeit to varying degrees, art is always about mastery; what varies is the manner/style/method by which an artist incorporates the vicissitudes of failure.

I agree completely that the impossibility of perfection makes art interesting if not exciting; but then part of that is also art's capacity for acknowledging imperfection/failure.

I disagree that art strives for brokenness/ugliness as its sole focus. Art is always about the dynamic between formal structure and the incommensurability of what it wrestles to contain.

This is always the case. It's simply a matter of what norms are pushed, where the overton window lies; what may and may not be challenged. Currently, art is destructive, and not in a Schumpeterian sense.

An individual artist might have values that inform their art; but there is no agreed-upon set of values or morality that informs the entirety or even the majority of the contemporary art world.

If working towards ideals is utopian then sure. I don't feel like that is new for me but maybe using language like forms is. I was trying to be as encompassing as possible.

You seemed to imply that it wasn't working toward ideals but the achievement of ideals that sanctified art. That sounded utopian.

Art is always working toward ideals--specifically, art is always working toward ideals of order and structure, but the interaction between structure and disorder is what produces the aesthetic drive. Pure structure is boring, pure disorder is boring. Art falls between the two (as do most things honestly, but art is an engagement with this dynamic).
 
But now it sounds like you've contradicted yourself. You said that art should be the perfection of form(s)--not striving to perfect the form(s). ...... The history of art and criticism has tended to home in on the dynamic (some would say dialectic) between formal mastery and the failure to achieve it. In some way, albeit to varying degrees, art is always about mastery; what varies is the manner/style/method by which an artist incorporates the vicissitudes of failure.

I agree completely that the impossibility of perfection makes art interesting if not exciting; but then part of that is also art's capacity for acknowledging imperfection/failure.

Yeah I spoke imprecisely the first time. I meant striving to perfect.

If you would categorize modern art generally as the pursuit of imperfection, I would disagree.

I disagree that art strives for brokenness/ugliness as its sole focus. Art is always about the dynamic between formal structure and the incommensurability of what it wrestles to contain.

An individual artist might have values that inform their art; but there is no agreed-upon set of values or morality that informs the entirety or even the majority of the contemporary art world.

You can read the purported "goal" or the "source" of various art pieces put out these days, and it's overwhelmingly variations of themes of leveling. Flattening. Warping. Ugly. The values are ugly. The ideal to which they strive is an ideal of nihilistic elimination or the twisting of everything into a hideous amalgam.

You seemed to imply that it wasn't working toward ideals but the achievement of ideals that sanctified art. That sounded utopian.

Art is always working toward ideals--specifically, art is always working toward ideals of order and structure, but the interaction between structure and disorder is what produces the aesthetic drive. Pure structure is boring, pure disorder is boring. Art falls between the two (as do most things honestly, but art is an engagement with this dynamic).

Disagree with the emboldened part. Additionally, I'm not sure what "pure structure" would mean.
 
You can read the purported "goal" or the "source" of various art pieces put out these days, and it's overwhelmingly variations of themes of leveling. Flattening. Warping. Ugly. The values are ugly. The ideal to which they strive is an ideal of nihilistic elimination or the twisting of everything into a hideous amalgam.

Can you give an example?

Disagree with the emboldened part. Additionally, I'm not sure what "pure structure" would mean.

Pure structure = the “perfection of form” (your prior comment)

Again, can you give an example of art that strives solely for “nihilistic elimination”? And maybe give a definition of nihilistic elimination?
 
Can you give an example?

I should have been taking pictures the last two times I was in a gallery with the "inspiration/meaning" quotes but alas. There's far too many images available that meet the criteria on some level. Found these with a few clicks.

maurizio-cattelan-italian-artist.jpg


714816b20f6d1bf16146ea75088734f6.jpg


oMCVf.jpg


upload_2021-4-10_17-47-51.png




Pure structure = the “perfection of form” (your prior comment)

Again, can you give an example of art that strives solely for “nihilistic elimination”? And maybe give a definition of nihilistic elimination?

Something approximating a perfect form could appear in a variety of ways and not be "pure structure", in the way I would think of structure. Pure structure sounds like a perfectly rendered cylinder re: a column. On the other hand there are approximations towards perfection of the form of the column which do not attempt to be pure cylinders.

Nihilistic elimination I mean in the rather direct translation of "meaningless death". Art which is at home with the spectacle of a holocaust/genocide.
 
I should have been taking pictures the last two times I was in a gallery with the "inspiration/meaning" quotes but alas. There's far too many images available that meet the criteria on some level. Found these with a few clicks.

maurizio-cattelan-italian-artist.jpg


714816b20f6d1bf16146ea75088734f6.jpg


oMCVf.jpg


View attachment 28299






Something approximating a perfect form could appear in a variety of ways and not be "pure structure", in the way I would think of structure. Pure structure sounds like a perfectly rendered cylinder re: a column. On the other hand there are approximations towards perfection of the form of the column which do not attempt to be pure cylinders.

Nihilistic elimination I mean in the rather direct translation of "meaningless death". Art which is at home with the spectacle of a holocaust/genocide.

The third piece here is Banksy's Whitewashing Lascaux, and it's highly conscious about form and history. I mean come on, it's a work of street art incorporating cave art--the oldest art we know of, which also happens to be akin to street art! Street art is an incorporative and accumulative medium, much like cave art was (i.e. it painted over itself); but Banksy is also aware of the fact that modern traditions paint over and obscure older ones. I think there's also an analogous commentary going on here about the ways that modernization erases, sterilizes, and homogenizes older traditions. Banksy is acknowledging street art's place in the lineage going back to cave art, but also acknowledging that he's covering up the past, so to speak. The piece is caught between these two poles and reflecting on that conflict.

Formal and historical considerations aside, though, it's a very well-made and practiced piece. It looks fantastic.

The architectural one might be unpleasant to look at. I often find such juxtapositions quite jarring and bit heavy-handed; but you can't say it's inconsiderate of form. Architectural pieces are by definition concerned with form. Buildings have to stay standing. You could say that it courts disorder through form; but it's still engaged with the dynamic between formal order and disorder, in that respect. And like Banksy's piece, it's conscious of historical traditions.

The other two are nothing special, and might speak to your claim--but I do find something pretty funny about reversing the "animal-head-mounted-on-a-wall" trope.

Overall, I don't think all of these are convincing examples of your thesis. I also don't see how they're "at home with the spectacle of genocide." That just seems like a provocation lacking in substance and evidence.

View attachment 28307

I didn't read the full quote or anything, but imaging phrasing the physical manifestion of racism this poorly

I imagine he's referring to highways that were purposefully built through black neighborhoods.

To outsiders, though, the 15th Ward was the scene of abject poverty close to two of Syracuse’s biggest draws—the university and downtown. They worried about race riots because so many people were crowded into the neighborhood and prevented from going anywhere else. They decided that the best plan would be to tear down the 15th Ward and replace it with an elevated freeway.

The completion of the highway, I-81, which ran through the urban center, had the same effect it has had in almost all cities that put interstates through their hearts. It decimated a close-knit African American community. And when the displaced residents from the 15th Ward moved to other city neighborhoods, the white residents fled. It was easy to move. There was a beautiful new highway that helped their escape.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/03/role-of-highways-in-american-poverty/474282/
 
Last edited:
Been thinking about this, in the wake of chauvins guilty verdict...is there any hope to appease those who consistently cried out about the inability of our justice to find him or others like him guilty?

Quickly, it went from "it ain't never gonna happen" to "so what, this don't mean shit and there's all this evidence" and I wonder if this has been written about in a global sense let alone american.

I remember reading about this in Japan with how they treated sub-Asians during the second world war and no matter how much the Japanese tried to do, those affected were never satisfied (arguable to say they should be)
 
View attachment 28307

I didn't read the full quote or anything, but imaging phrasing the physical manifestion of racism this poorly

i actually heard the audio of when he said these words out loud
when taken in context you can clearly understand that he's refereing to a "problem" that he, with the power of his brand-new job-title, intends on "fixing"
 
When I went to school we had classes grouped by ability. It wasn't labelled as gifted, but the top class tended to be pushed ahead to do the math and sciences a year above.

The dumbest kids dropped out of regular maths and did 'applied maths'. They got to go outside and measure stuff and shit. I fondly remember one of the dumbest white kids who lived near me and was a couple of years younger than me seeing this and saying "I wanna do cabbage maths, it looks awesome!" As an adult he worked hard on his tan and then joined the motorcycle division of a Maori gang (Mongrel Mob Riders MC). Incredible given our sheltered upbringing in one of the poshest suburbs and catching the bus out to a not-so-public school.
 
When I went to school we had classes grouped by ability. It wasn't labelled as gifted, but the top class tended to be pushed ahead to do the math and sciences a year above..
we have that in America
the smart kids are labeled as "gifted" and the dumb kids are labeled as "special ed"
 

I'm going to use this as an example for my (half-baked) argument that cancel culture is less about "the libs" (if by that we mean something like a left-wing thought police a la HBB's insane theory of American liberalism being more Marxian than Marx) than it is about capitalism and the market.

All these places supposedly caving to "cancel culture" aren't being forced to fire anyone. They're making business decisions based on optics and future returns. Now, do these decisions sometimes fall in line with what a vaguely liberal/leftist/democratic (I use all the terms because I'm not sure which is correct, and I suspect in some way they all are) demographic pushes? Yes, absolutely.

But they don't have to. Emily Wilder wasn't the target of liberals, but of conservatives:

Emily Wilder spoke with BuzzFeed News after she was fired by the Associated Press when conservatives shared her old social media posts and noted her pro-Palestinian college activism.

This isn't to say that so-called cancel culture never aligns with purportedly liberal values, but that it also can align with conservative values. Wilder's firing corresponds precisely to current Zionist conservative politics that aim to demonize Palestine, and the source of the pressure came from the Stanford College Republicans.

All this is to say, cancel culture has less to do with leftism or our contemporary notion of liberalism/"the libs" than it does with the bottom line, and in this society that means financial incentives. The AP wants to avoid any controversy that might impact membership. Conservatives are rip-roaring cancel culturists, and they take any chance they can to silence those they don't like. The notion that cancel culture is a liberal movement isn't accurate, I'd say. Or rather, it's liberal insofar as liberal means liberalism--i.e. free markets.

You can say whatever the fuck you like, but the market will have the final say. All hail capitalism.
 
It's a stretch to call Israel dickriding specifically "conservative" when it is (across most of the political spectrum) the safest position to take. Even if the witch-hunt was started by conservatives (they start them a lot) what matters is if it catches on, if only conservatives see someone as problematic they rarely then become radioactive enough to be fired. Being pro-Palestine is still pretty radical.

Rainbow capitalism is "in" right now and so yeah I 100% agree that these companies are acting this way because it makes the most sense financially, as opposed to any ideological alignment with progressivism.
 
Yeah, 100% that's fair. A ton of democrats still identify as pro-Israel. I guess I'd say that's just another sense in which I see cancel culture as a trans-political phenomenon, if that makes sense. It isn't really about left versus right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CiG
In order for "cancel culture" to be effective the grievance has to have purchase in the culture that individual exists within.

This is why Liz Cheney is being "cancelled" within the Republican demographic even as society at large is basically defending her or at least agrees with her views on Trump. Similarly this is why "cancel culture" is perceived as left-wing (even though this thing can be traced back to the PMRC-types in the US and the Mary Whitehouse-types in the UK---conservative) because what is considered "cancellable" now are issues the left is primarily concerned with; bigotry, racism, rape culture, etc.

When corporations start pandering in a certain direction, it usually means they're playing catch up with the broader social norms. I think "cancel culture" pisses off the right more because it's evidence their social views are outdated as opposed to because they end up being targeted by it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Einherjar86