I agree with you on Flanagan, Pinprick. I found him in the documentary, as a fan of documentary. But he is, to his mind, making art. Is that not perhaps the best practical definition of art? You point to his choices, the choices all artists make, but perhaps you could be making random choices and still intend 'art', and have it be art? — Jeremy Murray

I think that would probably work..maybe. Because what if someone is just trolling? Or if someone misunderstands the definition of art entirely? Could we tell the difference between sincerity and insincerity? Also, choosing randomness is still a choice, and a meaningful one I think.

Are horror films art? — Jeremy Murray

Yes.

Is popular culture, like pro wrestling? — Jeremy Murray

I haven’t considered it as art, because it seems to primarily be about entertainment. I don’t see much storytelling in it typically. But, I see how it could be viewed as a sort of loosely choreographed interpretative dance.

Is storytelling art? — Jeremy Murray

I think it can be. Listening to your grandfather’s war stories probably aren’t, but on a stage to an audience, sure. Because then there are other things to consider than simply recalling events: posture, volume, audience capacity, titles, etc.

Maybe Blues music isn't really just 200 years young. Perhaps it already occured 20,000 or 100,000 years ago ...

Maybe, but there’s no evidence of that. Even if it was around it still would have taken a specific creative spark to turn it into rock. Maybe no one had that creative spark at that time.

interpreting experience to a different medium offers the audience a chance to understand the dimensions of that experience, rather than just to witness it as they might a car crash.

Or, one could argue that eliminating the medium creates a more direct experience and understanding without the need for interpretation. It’s more pure in a way. Either way though, the performances were created with intention, and some had symbolic significance which differentiates it from something you may see out your window. But regardless, the content of the work remains the same whether it’s performed, painted, filmed, etc. The medium shouldn’t make a difference in classifying it as art or not.

Because it is the opposite result of what art is for.

It’s up to the artist to decide any intended result. Art in general is multi-faceted; it creates reactions along the entire spectrum of human experience.

If combat is art and butchery is art and degradation is art, then what is not art?

Well, I would say that how something is presented matters. It’s not the only thing that matters, but it does make a difference because it provides context for whatever is being presented. A butcher butchering a pig, for example, could be interpreted as making a statement about how animals are treated, eating meat, etc. if presented in a gallery instead of a slaughterhouse. In the same way that a urinal hung in a gallery and titled is art, but not one in the men’s restroom.

Also, the other thing to keep in mind is art is intentional. Every movement potentially has purpose and is completed in order to achieve a desired result. Bob Flanagan chose to mutilate himself in certain ways, with specific utensils and settings and order of events. The same way a painter chooses certain paint types, colors, canvases, etc.

We have very different notions of culture and language.

Perhaps, but different doesn’t automatically mean wrong.

Maybe some ancient Egyptians played Rock'n'Roll already. I don't know. The thread title is just a symbolic picture. The main question is about the link between contemporary music and contemporary environments, and whether Rock'n'Roll can only be a product of our time.

I’m not a music expert, but my assumption would be that later forms of music developed over time due to reactions to whatever music is currently in style. From what I remember the Romantic period was in contrast to Classical, which was in contrast with Baroque. I interpret that as people reacting in certain ways to what they’re hearing. I mean why does music change at all if not due to our stimulation/boredom/inspiration with the music we’re exposed to?

Also, I would assume that different musical styles need a foundation to build upon. It took various exceptional talents to expand musical ideas further and essentially establish new genres. So, rock may not have existed yet because blues didn’t exist yet, and so on and so forth.

How is that art and not just some kind of gladiator blood sport for the blood lust of the audience?

How is it that a gladiator blood sport to satisfy the blood lust of the audience not art? It seems to fit your definition of intentionally attempting to communicate something to an audience.

His performances were much more meaningful than the shock that they induced. Something deeper was being communicated than mere spectacle. But, even if it was just spectacle, is there a reason why that can’t be considered art? If instead of communicating through performance he had simply written or painted the experiences, I don’t think there would be any question of its validity as art.

Because it debases the performer as well as the audience and every generation of notoriety-seekers becomes more brutal and the audience, more callous.

So what? Is being debased somehow an automatic disqualification for art? If so, why?

Bob Flanagan was certainly doing art, violently, no?

Lol, then why would you prefer that to be the case? If not allowing businesses to hire children is unjustified, then that implies businesses should be able to hire children.

So, the world would be a better place if businesses were able to exploit child labor?

You restrict the rights of children to work. What if they want to? Instead they have to sell chiclets on the streets. — NOS4A2

Selling chiclets on the street is a form of work. Children are free to start their own business, and many do. But it’s ridiculous to think that employers should be forced to hire a child simply because the child wants to work.

You didn’t answer my question.

As a business owner, shouldn’t I have the right to hire whomever I want, for whatever reason? I should also have the right to pay whatever wage I want, but the government restricts these rights. My question is whether or not you think this restriction is justified.

But you don’t restrict the rights of everyone to be alone with children so as to protect children. Isn’t that so? — NOS4A2

We do restrict the rights of every employer to employ children or discriminate based on sex, race, etc. in order to protect children and other marginalized groups. Is that ok?

If everyone agrees that people with severe mental illnesses should not have guns, then why not start requiring mental health exams to purchase firearms? Not only should this appease both sides of the debate, but should also improve overall well-being by ensuring that mental health becomes more of a priority on par with physical health.

:up:

Just to elaborate, I often think that the ideas we’re most emotionally attached to are the ones we have the least justification for. That makes us somewhat insecure so we compensate with “passion.”

Ones I forgot:

The Dark Knight
American History X
Morvern Caller
The Chumscrubber
Elephant
The Elephant Man
Saw
Se7en
A Huey P. Newton Story

TV Shows:

Avatar: The Last Airbender/The Legend of Korra
House
Person of Interest
The Andy Griffith Show
SpongeBob SquarePants
Criminal Minds
Oz
Chopped
Anne With an E
Deadliest Warrior
Forged in Fire

Lol, it’s a parody of the movie Menace II Society.

Just what comes to mind, in no particular order:

Requiem for a Dream
Pi
Natural Born Killers
Gummo
Julien Donkey-Boy
Stay
Oldboy (original)
Akira
The Shape of Things
Enter the Dragon
300
Gladiator
Rambo
Don’t be a Menace to South Central while Drinking Your Juice in the Hood
What’s Eating Gilbert Grape

Oh, ok. I do typically post metal songs, so you’re memory is correct.

Yeah, Tomas is always impressive, as well as Meshuggah. Kinda apples and oranges to me though with Sepultura. To me you can feel their personal connection to the music. Almost like it’s spiritual, soulful. Meshuggah is strict precision and technique. More machine like. Both impressive, but for different reasons.

Such an incredible performance!

Everyone's afraid of their own lives
If you could be anything you want
I bet you'd be disappointed, am I right?

No one really knows the ones they love
If you knew everything they thought
I bet that you would wish that they'd just shut up

Well, you were the dull sound of sharp math
When you were alive
No one's going to play the harp when you die
And if I had a nickel for every damn dime
I'd have half the time, do you mind?

Everyone's afraid of their own lives
If you could be anything you want
I bet you'd be disappointed, am I right?
Am I right, am I right, am I right?
Am I right, am I right, am I right?

And it's our lives
It's hard to remember, it's hard to remember
We're alive for the first time
It's hard to remember, it's hard to remember
We're alive for the last time
It's hard to remember, it's hard to remember
To live before you die

It's hard to remember, it's hard to remember
That our lives are such a short time
It's hard to remember, it's hard to remember
When it takes such a long time
It's hard to remember, it's hard to remember

My mom's God is a woman and my mom she is a witch
I like this
My hell comes from inside, comes from inside myself
Why fight this?

Everyone's afraid of their own lives
If you could be anything you want
I bet you'd be disappointed, am I right?

@schopenhauer1’s threads that I’ve encountered/participated in didn’t have anything remotely close to “life sucks” as a premise. Therefore, I don’t see how the title of the merged thread can be viewed as anything other than demeaning/insulting. I mean, what other reason is there to choose not to name it something generic like “Antinatalist Arguments” or some other benign title. Should pro-natalist threads be merged into a “Life is Awesome!” thread?

That said, when the author of any thread continually starts the same discussion from slightly different perspectives, it makes one question their intent. To me, once you’ve had the discussion, and it’s run its inevitable course there’s no need to do it all over again. It’s isn’t likely to change anyone’s mind or accomplish much of anything. Also, I could see how newcomers to TPF could be led to believe that this is primarily an AN site, with half of the threads on the main page being dedicated to that topic. So something clearly had to be done. I just think titling the thread using negative language is asking for criticism and concerns of biases among the mods.

Industrial music created by a mechanical engineer who creates his own instrument controllers.



Here’s an explanation for those interested.

In general, I don’t advocate for making act’s illegal unless they cause actual harm, not just because they have the potential to cause harm. Besides, law should also be as scientific as possible, so making the case that someone watching/having sex with childlike adults will cause them to do the same with actual children seems like a very weak argument.

It may play some role in actual pedophilia, but it may not. There would need to be studies done to determine any causal factors between the two, but these studies themselves would very likely be unethical. Therefore, I would err on the side of allowing adults to engage in whatever sexual act they prefer as long as it’s consensual.

Behavioral analysis would consider having sex with childlike adults an acceptable replacement behavior for actual pedophilia. Taking that potential replacement behavior away may actually cause people who are attracted to children to perform more drastic actions in order to satisfy their desires.

I want to watch the NIN deep dive, but 40 minutes is a commitment. I will watch soon. — Noble Dust

I don’t think all of them are that long.

Also, is she single... — Noble Dust

Just wait until she says she wants to fuck you like an animal. :rofl:

The only indie rock band needed: — Noble Dust

Nah.



By the way, I found this a while back and thought someone like you might enjoy it. Basically a music theory deep dive into NIN and other 90’s alt bands. Mostly over my head, but still interesting.

everyone hates God? — Agent Smith

Actually, it’s the other way around…

I forgot Nine Inch Nails; Trent is a genius. — Noble Dust

I agree, but wasn’t lumping them in with nu metal. I just find it confusing how you can like NIN/Ministry, but not Static-X, or how you can like Rage, but not System. Static-X is like Ministry 2.0, and System is pretty similar to Rage too.

I just re-listened to Chop Suey. This songs blows. — Noble Dust

:rofl:

I think it’s pretty good, but not their best. They’re first album was more aggressive, and probably more experimental as well. Here’s a couple examples.







They have a couple cool covers as well.

Original is by Berlin


Original is by Black Sabbath

The only good "nu metal" band, although they don't really count: — Noble Dust

:brow:

Cherry Waves is close to my favorite Deftones song, but I gotta disagree that all other nu metal bands suck, lol.

How can you like Rage, but not System of a Down? NIN and Ministry, but not Static-X? Explain yourself!