Damn, Clapton can "rot". (Historically, not as a human being).

Ah. So you agree that your sentiment "now he can rot" is included in the list of sentiments about Peterson I quoted that illustrate that people are willing to treat Peterson as un-human.

What?

I neglected to quote it, but the sentiment "now he can rot" is included.

Here's a piece of music that reminds me that no one is damned; no one is un-human. :heart:

I've honestly never understood the staying power of this thread. Is it a doppelgänger of the shoutbox? Do 50 pages compare to 900? I call on @Hanover to give a reckoning. Again...

The Cunt deserves every ounce of his troubles. — Evil

who gives a shit — Maw

no one should care what happens to him — Maw

Is that Twat still down and out? — Evil

What exactly makes people hate Jordan Peterson enough to say these things about... any human being?

#1 How can one know what truth is, without knowing what truth is — Monist

Removing "in the first place" should clear things up, I would think. In other words, the question is non sensical.

I have no idea.

:heart:

Can I spam in this thread? I put this record out in Nov... check it out FFS y'all!

https://matthewanderson.bandcamp.com/album/the-window

The problem is that this vaguely poetic/emotional tone is supposed to resonate with us.

Here's a reminder about what good art is. I figure we need these, every 19 pages or so:

Word, I guess I missed that genial attitude in your initial posts... must have been my mistake...? regardless, Tarkovsky is a master of presenting reality as dream, and dream as reality. The Mirror, the film I posted that clip from, is admittedly not a good staring point...if you like what you saw, I would recommend Stalker as an entry point. Tarkovsky is a true poet, as his father was (who's work Tarkovsky used in his films). The imagery in his work functions as imagery does in poetry. Image functions as...memory does...? it becomes impossible to talk about when you watch his films.

Why talk about Tarkovsky if you're not familiar with his work?

You responded to me posting a Tarkovsky clip with "Why not try to break that down like a poem? Dot points. What are it’s qualities, what does it allude to, do it until you run out of meaning."

To which I eventually asked if you were familiar with his work, to which you responded

No, I don’t know Tarkovsky, but I watched the video, then the short interview after. My interpretation? Who knows? I’ll need to look at it longer and assume the comments on translation are accurate enough to go by. — Brett

To which I responded:

So in other words, why waste space with this? — Noble Dust

So you felt like you were being instructed. An old school hangover. — Brett

No, I felt like you were trying to instruct me, apparently about things you don't know about; i.e. Tarkovsky.

No, I don’t know Tarkovsky, but I watched the video, then the short interview after. My interpretation? Who knows? I’ll need to look at it longer and assume the comments on translation are accurate enough to go by. — Brett

So in other words, why waste space with this?

.

You're right in the sense that it does require interpretation. But "dot points" got me riled up; dot points are high school teacher non-sense, as are the questions you ask after that turn of phrase. I'm not here to get a good grade.

You apparently know Tarkosvksy. What's your interpretation of the clip?

Interesting juxtaposition. Do you find one more arresting over the other? I'm not well versed in political cartoon-ism.

Why not try to break that down like a poem? Dot points. What are it’s qualities, what does it allude to, do it until you run out of meaning. — Brett

Because then what makes it art is gone.

"What is art?"

Being inspired by what you see is not art.

We have a classic thread reviver.

Yes, it presents you with what might be a good work of art and claims that a political position is good because it is associated with the good work of art. — Punshhh

I would step back further and say that the work presented isn't even good in itself because of the political ramifications. For the audience (who already agrees with the message), it's not a real question of whether the art itself is good (on a purely aesthetic level), it's just a question of agreeing with the message. And, remember, this is the exact same principle at work in fundamentalist religious art as well.

Yes, I was very impressed with their performance, I was surprised the authorities tolerated it. — Punshhh

I saw the show in the US, so I wasn't necessarily surprised that it was tolerated. But the venue itself I was working at was exactly the type of venue that would claim on paper (like the Pharisees, to continue the religious metaphors) that they fully supported the zealotry; but in reality, the venue management was horrified by the show. I'm talking about a deeply left-leaning (American) politically oriented music venue. It's a distinctly memorable concert experience for me on so many levels; I'll never forget it. It was one of the best shows I've ever seen.

But why does so much political art not accomplish what Pussy Riot has? I don't have the energy to jump into a new tangent (edit: I did), but there's something to be said about political art coming from nations that are actually experiencing dehumanizing and fundamentally crippling oppression; nations that are not strictly first world nations. There's a heroism to Pussy Riot that gets the blood flowing; it gets the righteous indignation pumping; actual fight/flight kicks in, and fight takes over. On the other hand, what boils my blood in the worst way is political art from first world nations like mine that essentially pits (unwittingly) this first world work from privileged artists who are not subject to arrest, mistreatment, and, most importantly censorship against the work of artists like Pussy Riot that actually are experiencing real oppression. When you see it clearly, you see the children, and you see the adults.

I certainly don't disagree. The distinction I'd make is being active (creation) vs. passive (experiencing as an audience member).

Edit: but I think I would make that enough of a distinction to say that the "flow" isn't exactly the same.

And those that don't fall into "most" are just people that have studied art, established the criteria for "why they like/don't like this" and then attempted to create some authority so their opinion applies to the rest of us. — ZhouBoTong

I think that's an oversimplification. Why does someone like or dislike something? This goes back to the concept of a direct aesthetic experience. Not to mention social/psychological factors; a common phenomena is taste being determined not by the individual, but by their environment. Yes, this means following the critics, but it also just means fitting into the social situation; if it's not cool to like Coldplay, I won't admit that I do, unless I have enough self confidence to do so. So taste is complex, and to suggest that that complexity can be boiled down and answer the broader question of what makes art "good" or "bad" feels like an oversimplification.

In other words the simple facts of taste (real or fake) and power structure within the art world don't actually have anything to say about the concept of a concrete aesthetic standard.

Sorry, can't resist. It is what you said; I quite literally re ordered your sentence in a clearer way; this is not disputable.

:up:

Just clarifying. That being the case, if I were to rephrase the statement in a clearer way, as in "the best explanation of why reason would disapprove of us approving of or creating bad art is that reason disaproves of bad art", would you not call that circular?

So bad art is art that Reason disapproves of, for that is the best explanation of why... she would disapprove of us approving of it or creating it, or whatever. — Bartricks

Does "she" refer to reason?

Circular argument my friend.

lol

Perhaps political art is a good place to start, I accept that there are a few pieces of good political art, but most isn't. — Punshhh

Not to keep agreeing with you (which is boring around here), but what I think makes the majority of political art "bad" is that it has a concrete, direct, and specific message it's trying to communicate, and not only that, but it has a telos: to convert, to change the audiences mind. It functions the exact same way as Christian Contemporary Music, for instance: there's an orthodoxy of belief that needs to be maintained in the work, and there's a goal for outsiders to be converted through the work.

What makes this "bad" is that most political/religiously apologetic art ends up just preaching to the choir, rather than changing political or religious views or belief. I experienced this first hand working at a very artsy-fartsy, politically focused music venue in a major city; political works were presented all the time, and naturally the audience all agreed with the message. I guess at best maybe the work inspired the audience to be more politically active? But it's tough to make the claim that any of these works actually enacted real change. And as the works themselves were concerned, they were so far removed from what @csalisbury called a direct aesthetic experience, that I found it sad. The only exception from that experience was Pussy Riot; their show kicked ass because it was loud, fearless, profane and brimming with passion. Basically the opposite of the other works I saw. But to this day, I remember the aesthetic experience of that show better; the political message I can remember well enough, but it wasn't what stuck.

Well I think it boils down to the idea that humanity's purpose in life is to become a follower in the divine plan via the Christ. A situation where there is a divine art, of which human art is a pale derivative. — Punshhh

To be clear, this isn't what I'm saying by "higher purpose". I don't have any answers as to what the higher purpose is, I just am of the conviction that there is one, and that the history of art, as it coincides with history at large, demonstrates this.

Right. I'm more experienced in art than philosophy myself, and I find that there's two truths to the creative process. One is that disciplined, steady work ultimately brings the best results; practicing the craft, "forcing" oneself to sit down and work, is important. I find that, at worst, when I do this, I can last maybe two hours, and at least have something down, even if not exciting. But, eventually (days or months later), along comes an idea, and I can work for 5-7 hours straight. Those instances are more rare, but they consistently yield the best work. But paradoxically, the second truth to the process, is that sometimes, even when I'm not disciplined and not working much, something from the unconscious/spirit/creative brain will still bubble over, and I'll write something good. Usually my stamina is lower, so I can't work as long, but it's the same creative urge. So, that process of the creative emanation exists in and of itself, but it's best served when you are disciplined in the work.

obscuring theory dialogue I've accumulated — csalisbury

I think I just mean whatever seems to be in the way of a pure aesthetic experience. — csalisbury

So more like theory over direct experience/creativity? Are you talking about the creative process as an artist, or as the experience as an audience member?

It's really hard to separate what you want to express from the muck you've accumulated, while still finding the proper place for that muck. That's what I struggle with. Like there's so much I want to say, but I can't figure out how to disentangle it from the obscuring theory dialogue I've accumulated - and to add to that, I have to recognize that accumulation is part of it, and also needs its place (but its proper place, not as the directing impulse, but as one element among others) — csalisbury

By "muck" are you talking about personal baggage, etc? I would say that certainly has to play an integral role, and it doesn't have to be the stereotype of a super introspective, personal, almost private expression. It's easier said than done, but personal issues are reflected universally as well; so reflecting them in the work can be a universal expression. If that's not what you meant, then let me know.

I noticed you switched your avatar to a still from Stalker - I think Tarkovsky handled this well with that long shot with all the debris in the water. But easier seen than done. — csalisbury

It's a great film. I don't know him super well, but I would wager that that film expressed something personal as well, but in a masterful way.

Edit: unless it’s severely controlled like Communust Russia. But then it simply reveals the Russian zeitgeist. — Brett

And to my argument, look at Mikhail Bulgakov. He quietly but persistently railed against Stalinist Russia, sending Stalin letters pleading him to allow his plays to be performed and novels to be published. A few were, but ultimately he died in poverty, a typical story. But read The Master And Margherita, and you will feel all of that rage against oppression, suffering, and the surge upward to find meaning. And the novel gets read more and more with each year. It does indeed express the anguish of that situation. Censorship could not and has not quelled it. It's also outrageously funny, which only underlines the pathos he was able to express.

I understand you to be saying something like this : art is created in a shared environment. It's a broad, bigger world, in which artists are embedded. If that broader world is dim and bombed-out, or otherwise dark, but that's a massive part of your lived individual experience, it's part of your reality, it's part of what you're trying to express. If you're in a 'bombed-out world' of Jeff Koontz bubble statues, then that's part of it. And a reaction against it, is still linked back to the world. If there's a full aesthetic experience to be had, it has to take into account the landscape it emerges from? — csalisbury

Yes, you've said it better than I did. :up: