It’s entirely subjective, though. And outside of my head, kinda meaningless.
Unlike, say, a movie, where I could point to individual parts of it (script, acting, etc.) I can only take the piece as a whole and with art, context and even the previous work of the artist play a factor in deciding whether or not the art is good or not. I don’t have enough info to judge it so it just becomes an unqualified opinion.
And opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one and thinks it’s only their own one that doesn’t stink.
I mean, I like it. But I like this sort of thing anyway. It resonates with my inner punk. But that don’t mean shit.
Humans are humans, the second you go into [skin colour/race] is more [factor of choice here] because of their [skin colour/race] you’re well into racist territory.
Which is why the approach from the person in the original article is so bad, it’s trying to fight racism with racism*. That does not reduce racism, it just adds more of it and so promotes it.
Be equal or racist, choose one. Treating all humans equally is the only way out of this quagmire.
You’re being simple all right. I’ll certainly grant you that.
As for the rest of it, ugh. I don’t have patience any more for colorblind white folks[quote=“anon61221983, post:47, topic:90944”]
I do think, over and again, people with progressive view points are asked to put things in terms that don’t “hurt” the feelings of the “opposition.” But little or nothing is asked of those with position and privilege already.
[/quote]
Right?? Fuck white liberal sensibilities about race. Especially their insistence that conversations about racism (and even the conduct during fights against racism) be conducted in THEIR terms.
.
I think you’ve ended up on a different wavelength to the people you’re talking to because you’re using two different meanings of the word “racism”. You’re using it in a way that treats racism as an ideology with multiple components. Therefore:
In the mind of a racist, these things are true:
Humanity is actually split into “races”
These “races” are well defined, eternal , and antagonistic.
It’s OK to treat members of “races” that you don’t belong to badly.
They are using a definition that’s all about power relations, privilege, deconstruction and so on.
It might aid understanding if both sides would do some essential substitutions when reading what the other is writing. Privilege theorists- when someone uses “racism” in a way that doesn’t fit your ideology, substitute it with “bigotry” and you’ll get their meaning.
Dictionary definitionists- When someone from the other side says “racism” substitute “deconstructed theory of racial hierarchy”.
Then we might possibly be able to talk to one another, rather than at one another.
You’re selling yourself short. The modern art movement was mainly pushing the boundaries as far as what we can consider to be art. The answer was - pretty much everything.
Now, fancy art critics, sort of like fancy wine critics, might make it feel like your opinion has less meaning than theirs, or at the very least, theirs are much more refined (I know I have never tasted the flavors fancy wine critics claim to taste.)
So, it DOES help to have some art history under your belt so you can look at older art with the context of the times (why they drew or painted like that.) But at the same time, while context can help you understand WHY something was done, it doesn’t mean that one still LIKES it.
It also helps to have a knowledge of the vocabulary, like hue, tone, line weight, brush strokes, contrast, gestalts, typography - etc.
But even with out that language, one can critique art with common language and expressing how it makes you feel.
A good critique might praise or fault some of the technical aspects (type, readability, colors, lines and shapes, etc) as well as comment on the subject matter, and wrap up with whether it evokes any emotion or provokes thought.
But seeing all three of those arguments are false, where do you go from there?
I kind of see what you mean, but then again i’m not sure there’s not enough common ground here.
They’re literally trying to downgrade significant human populations to a sub-human* level through ancestry, that by definition, nobody gets to choose…
It may be considered ideology, but this is not something that can be accommodated in a sane society… This isn’t like economic principle A or B, it’s genetics that cannot be changed by will…
I’m all for discussion for ideals, but race isn’t one of them.
There’s very few things i think warrant a concrete line-in-the-sand approach and to ignore all counter arguments. But if there is to be one, anti-racism should be it.
I’m not keen on accommodating racist views that hit any of the three points that I’ve listed. I mean, people can think the first two in the privacy of the inside of their head all they want, but if they start acting on it, we very rapidly get to 3, which is completely intolerable.
I think we need to keep on pointing out when people are being racist (or bigoted about race, for all those of you in group 2).
I think we need to push back against anyone who says or does hateful things towards groups of people. I think we shouldn’t accept meaningless sophistry or bullshit excuses, and I think we should hold our friends to the same standards as ourselves.
But who are you referring to… the artist and what they are saying or the people commenting here about the art and saying it’s bad or not productive or whatever?
Why should that translate into “don’t make that particular statement” then? No one piece of art is ever going to make all people happy, especially when it comes to art that has a political edge. Does that mean that a person shouldn’t express themselves as they see fit? For fear of offending someone?[quote=“popobawa4u, post:64, topic:90944”]
Empathy is important but I don’t know that we can debate or legislate empathy.
[/quote]
Where did I say that and what does this have to do with the artist work?
