See, this is exactly what I meant by “bullshit ironic faux-cynicism”. You deny having an ideology but really all that’s going on is that you haven’t examined your own ideology (you even predicted you wouldn’t). What your ideology says is “I’m superior to you because I don’t care about things and you do; therefore you make commitments where I can remain a moral coward and you can be hurt by things that I would never let affect me.”
It is very much an “ideological package which gives you safety” – including the safety from having to acknowledge to yourself that you subscribe to an ideology (and an especially safe and boring one at that).
This is obviously something you just can’t wrap your head around.
In past centuries, before the last century that is, there was indeed religious art, so art did, in some sense, reflect an ideology but since the beginning of modern art in the end of the 19th century, art and ideology are forever dissociated and art that was driven by ideology instantly stops being art.
Oh my… okay, here we go: his or her
better?
One thing I learned: in a discussion, once someone starts pointing out your language and grammar, he automatically admits he has nothing to set against your arguments. Right?
Did I? And where exactly did I talk about my own ideology?
Read again: I am talking about the ideal role of an artist. I have no idea why you are calling me a moral coward and all that. Actually, sir or madam, I call you a coward for attacking me from behind your little screen.
I dunno. Don’t understand. Right now, all I can say is: I’m happy I live with my head and not yours
[quote=“awjt, post:54, topic:11497, full:true”]Exactly. Who knows if he’s intended to be dead or the kid told him to play dead, but it’s fun to punk the punks because they seem to be having more field days here, of late.
Just think of the original Dumbo movie: he isn’t dead, just exhausted and passed out after making his drunken, flaming leap.[/quote]
A million thankyous for letting me borrow your shiny rosy glasses. I like the video even better now!
Can someone describe what it is that is racist about this?
The fact that some Muslims have shot at things with rocket launchers in the past, or the fact that when they do so they sometimes shout “Allahu Akbar”?
Because this video is making fun of the many, many videos (released by, e.g. the Syrian rebels) where those two things do, in fact, happen.
Oh I can wrap my head around it all right – I did so, and declared it nonsense. You wrote, again, “A work of art can impossibly reflect a system of thinking or ideology.”
Trouble is, nothing and no one can “impossibly” do anything. Just try it: I want my friend to impossibly cook dinner for me tonight. (Say wut?)
As for “ideology,” your conception of it differs from mine. What you can’t seem to wrap your own head around is the concept of ideology as invisible and undeclared. Dude, you’re soaking in it!
If we differ between general and personal ideologies, then yes, you may define anyone’s impulse as the result of his own personal ideology. We started the discussion by referring to general ideological systems, so I assumed, you were still referring to those.
Also: no need to take it to a personal level. Ideas can be discussed without putting on an aggressive or disrepectful tone. Even over the internet
Your ideas about “the ideal role of an artist” betray your ideology…inevitably. What you consider “the ideal role of an artist” could only be informed by your ideology, at least w.r.t. art.
I didn’t call you a moral coward, I pointed out that your ideology protects you from having to make moral commitments, i.e. allows you to justify being a moral coward. It’s hardly an “attack” to point out that you do adhere to an ideology and to point out the implications of that ideology.
Of course, I could call you a “coward” for “attacking” milliefink from behind “your little screen” since I’ve done no more to “attack” you than you have to “attack” milliefink.
Which is pretty funny coming from someone who said this:
This bit that comes after that is also rather amusing:
Go ahead and give an example of art that isn’t driven by an ideology. I’ll give you an example of art that is driven by your own ideology.
A pretty good example of someone bending over backwards to avoid examining his own ideology.
Well, you said this:
So it seems to me you’re the one who made it personal.
I definitely see that as part of this dense and tight video. I think it discusses at least:
A) how leisure media is perceived as a colonizing force
B) How this colonizing force is almost always perceived to be most dangerous to the minds of impressionable children
C) how fundamentalists can become laser-focused, to an amusing degree, on cultural products that we find innocuous (racism embedded in the actual DUMBO film notwithstanding)
D) How children don’t give a shit about fundamentalism, and just love cute things, you ridiculous grown-ups
E) terrorists are people too, for all their posturing, and their shins hurt just as much as ours, when kicked, and they look silly.
F) How we actually DO export innocuous seeming media as a colonizing force
G) A personal-best challenge for Banksy to see how may blog posts / racism fights / DCMA takedown notices can be generated with as few minutes of film as possible.
Haha, yeah. You got me there. I obviously betrayed a part of my personal ideology. I still don’t see how this disproves that the inclusion of general ideologies deminish the quality of an artwork as such.
So you did call me a coward.
I think you need to learn where the fine line is which separates a difference of ideas from a personal attack. What I expressed towards milliefink was merely a different set of ideas. What came back was a personal attack which included the assuption that I was a misogynist, only because, in a moment of inadvertance, I referred to an artist as “him”. This is really getting pretty stupid. I don’t know what exactly leads you and milliefink to behave in such an aggressive, self-righteous manner. I’m not your frustrated schoolteacher or bossy dad.
So what? So I didn’t understand your pseudo-intellectual gibberish and now I’m an idiot. I can live with that.
Excuse me. Are you still a teenager because, honestly, you sound like one. In this case, the discussion has no sense because you obviously lack the maturity to discuss something without trying to ridicule your oponent.
“Diminish the quality” with respect to what reference point? If all art is driven by some ideology then the reference point you’re using is imaginary.
One’s subjective assessment of the quality of a piece of art is driven by one’s own ideology and some people don’t recognize their own ideologies as ideologies; therefore, people who don’t recognize their own ideologies think that the highest-quality art isn’t driven by ideology. That’s about the closest I can get to making sense of what you’re trying to say here.
I didn’t notice any accusation of misogyny before you tried to dismiss milliefink’s take on the video as a product of some foolish, benighted ideology. From my perspective, I merely expressed a different set of ideas that your take on the video is also a product of some foolish, benighted ideology.
Edit: The accusation of sexism definitely came AFTER the bit about ideologies to which I responded. When you do it it’s “a different set of ideas”. When I do it it’s “a personal attack”.
I’m not actually trying to ridicule you and I’m not sure where you got the idea that I was. The statement to which you were responding was simply me pointing out what I said above: if you think the “highest-quality art” is not driven by ideology then the chances are that the art in question is actually driven by your own ideology which you are simply not acknowledging as such.
Well if you’re going to take everything so personally…
I like the cut of your fire-breathing jib. (While I recognize your name, I don’t think I’ve seen you modding before/didn’t realize you’d taken over for @Antinous and/or @Felton. Glad to have you on the team!)
