CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Western Society, Pop Culture, and the Cacophony of Social Media
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Western Society, Pop Culture, and the Cacophony of Social Media - Page 85

post #4201 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post

That's not the same thing at all, and I think I pretty clearly outlined that.
You did indeed make that case, but not everyone agrees with your conclusions. Welcome to the Internet!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

Lieberman went too basic and extreme with his claims. Parents were all too happy to buy into it. Kids were gonna reject it outright. That's not really comparable to the conversation today.
Isn't it? The fundamental questions here are still A. where the line is between depiction and endorsement, B. whether enjoying a piece of entertainment culture necessarily results in internalizing its worldview, and C. if the viewer internalizes a different worldview than the work was actually written with (Fight Club fans being the already-mentioned canonical example,) is that the fault of the work? Lieberman's histrionics don't really change anything about that.
post #4202 of 4641

I was saying it's not comparable because Lieberman was actively trying to use direct government involvement to curtail it.

 

And our current discussion on such matters is generally relegated to thinkpieces and hottake mushrooms ideally pushing a greater degree of self-awareness about how we process this stuff.

 

 

Also, specific to video games... Lieberman's platform came at a time when there was a much clearer split between parents who didn't grow up with video games... and kids who were growing up with video games.

 

There's a LOT more nebulous areas of the discussion now because parents today are those kids that grew up with video games.  And now they have kids... and their views on what they're comfortable with their kids being exposed to has shifted perspectives.  

post #4203 of 4641
Except that the thinktweets and blogtakes and whatnot are all written with an implicit subtext of What Culture Should Be. And then people on the Myface and the Tweeter collectively organize and attempt to exert social pressure to bring that about. Sure, it's a free country, and it's not as bluntly authoritarian as using government muscle, but pretending that this is all taking place in purely abstract thought-experiment terms and there's no whiff of censure wafting through the discussion is disingenuous to say the least.
post #4204 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
 

I was saying it's not comparable because Lieberman was actively trying to use direct government involvement to curtail it.

 

And our current discussion on such matters is generally relegated to thinkpieces and hottake mushrooms ideally pushing a greater degree of self-awareness about how we process this stuff.

Well a greater degree of awareness im ok with. To understand the messages and think critically about them is fantastic. But then it turns into anyone who makes or enjoys these things are evil and they must be stopped.

post #4205 of 4641
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post

It doesn't matter if the "average person" had these conversations or not. What matters is that the average person saw 300 and either consciously or subconsciously

Taking it as given that this isn't Inception and we cannot police the subconscious of others, I would like to hear your solution to this supposed issue.
post #4206 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post

Except that the thinktweets and blogtakes and whatnot are all written with an implicit subtext of What Culture Should Be. ....... but pretending that this is all taking place in purely abstract thought-experiment terms is disingenuous to say the least.

Sure, but that's something that's always going on in some form whether we realize it or not.  There's always a back and forth push about what culture SHOULD be.  Even by those who would say that they're agnostic about it. 

 

And this stuff is definitely not just purely abstract thought experiment, I agree.  Because it's people using outlets to push various ideas to continue the ongoing back and forth of cultural forces.

 

I don't think that's ever anything that will stop.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Waaaaaaaalt View Post
 

Well a greater degree of awareness im ok with. To understand the messages and think critically about them is fantastic. But then it turns into anyone who makes or enjoys these things are evil and they must be stopped.

 

well that goes into the PERFORMATIVE aspect of this back and forth

 

since everybody has a voice, how're you gonna get your platform the attention it needs for traction (or clicks, ooooh-weeee!)

 

makes me wonder if Lieberman originally had more nuanced views on video game violence... or he had to amp it up in order to gain momentum...

post #4207 of 4641

NO ONE IS SAYING IT'S THE FAULT OF THE WORK. NOBODY IS BLAMING THE WORK. EVERYONE HERE, ALWAYS CONCERNED ABOUT THE WORK AND THE ARTIST.

 

What the argument here is pretty simple - This work has interpretation x which is of a piece with other works in cultural-historical period y. What, if anything, can and does that that say about that cultural-historical period in which that work was created, both at the macro (who we elect as President) and micro level (how we treat the people around us).

 

There was a really good thread on Twitter around the time of the election about how one of the biggest problems we face as a culture/society is that nobody wants to admit their own culpability in this stuff, and that we think of the "alt-right" as the fat guy with a MAGA hat, when in reality, it's the guy who sees 300 on the weekends and has no problem using racial slurs when he plays videogames.

 

Or, to use a recent example, it's the guy who writes a manifesto about why women are bad at programming/computers.

 

And I think it's important not to dismiss the messages in our everyday entertainment when thinking about these things. 

 

This is all very similar to the "artist vs. the art" argument that comes up around Polanski, Allen, Cosby, R. Kelly, honestly. You want to separate the art from its political and historical context. All art is political, no matter how it's interpreted. And that's not the work's fault! But to deny that it isn't at all is folly. 

post #4208 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post


Taking it as given that this isn't Inception and we cannot police the subconscious of others, I would like to hear your solution to this supposed issue.

 

there are technologies being worked on...

 

microchips in our skin...

 

 

soon...

 

tumblr_mhkydcJIAl1ru12jho1_500.png

post #4209 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post


Taking it as given that this isn't Inception and we cannot police the subconscious of others, I would like to hear your solution to this supposed issue.

 

For someone that repeatedly, continuously threatens people as a moderator when you feel like your intelligence is being insulted or someone is being condescending to you, you certainly have no problem doing it to others when you disagree with them or you don't like their argument. This creates an environment that is not fun for folks, and I'm not the only one that feels this way.

post #4210 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

Sure, but that's something that's always going on in some form whether we realize it or not. There's always a back and forth push about what culture SHOULD be. Even by those who would say that they're agnostic about it.

And this stuff is definitely not just purely abstract thought experiment, I agree. Because it's people using outlets to push various ideas to continue the ongoing back and forth of cultural forces.

I don't think that's ever anything that will stop.
Sure! But the fact that it's always going on and isn't going to go away doesn't mean that specific cultural conversations don't present the possibility of real social consequences for opponents or advocates of a given idea or work. If liking 300 becomes the cultural equivalent of, say, Confederate apologia (outside the deep South,) then a whole bunch of thirty-something dudebros are going to have a new source of awkwardness and discomfort in their lives that wasn't there before. Naturally they're going to have an opinion on that.
post #4211 of 4641
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post

For someone that repeatedly, continuously threatens people as a moderator when you feel like your intelligence is being insulted or someone is being condescending to you, you certainly have no problem doing it to others when you disagree with them or you don't like their argument. This creates an environment that is not fun for folks, and I'm not the only one that feels this way.

Did I threaten you? Did I insult you? Or did I merely ask you a question?
post #4212 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post

Sure! But the fact that it's always going on and isn't going to go away doesn't mean that specific cultural conversations don't present the possibility of real social consequences for opponents or advocates of a given idea or work. If liking 300 becomes the cultural equivalent of, say, Confederate apologia (outside the deep South,) then a whole bunch of thirty-something dudebros are going to have a new source of awkwardness and discomfort in their lives that wasn't there before. Naturally they're going to have an opinion on that.

 

I think there's a big difference between liking 300 and being a Confederate apologist - I don't think anyone is arguing that at all here! I think what people are saying is looking at some of the trends in culture/politics today and trying to trace that back through recent culture. I personally don't have an opinion on 300, but I always enjoy - and there's the other word, enjoy - talking about this stuff. 

post #4213 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post

Sure! But the fact that it's always going on and isn't going to go away doesn't mean that specific cultural conversations don't present the possibility of real social consequences for opponents or advocates of a given idea or work. If liking 300 becomes the cultural equivalent of, say, Confederate apologia (outside the deep South,) then a whole bunch of thirty-something dudebros are going to have a new source of awkwardness and discomfort in their lives that wasn't there before. Naturally they're going to have an opinion on that.

and how they decide to express their opinion on that will result in another network of responses and push people into ideological ends

 

It's not as if these views on 300 weren't around back in 2006.  I don't recall anyone HERE having a problem with the film being called out as kibble for conservatives back then.  But Fox News conservatives were an easy go-to target that didn't really affect anyone on this site too much.

 

But when this talk encroaches upon our own lives and sense of self (and not just about trifles like movies), having a new source of awkwardness and discomfort is a part of the game.

post #4214 of 4641
Nevermind.
post #4215 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post


Did I threaten you? Did I insult you? Or did I merely ask you a question?

 

Please. It was a question dripping with contempt and condescension, Johnny. It was remarkably similar to other statements you've reacted poorly to. 

post #4216 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waaaaaaaalt View Post
 

Sure like say certain types on the left not understanding their role as well and trying to find an easy scapegoat like say movies and TV.

 

Explain. 

post #4217 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post
 

 

Explain. 

No, this is one I withdraw. I don't have the energy for it. 

post #4218 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waaaaaaaalt View Post
 

No, this is one I withdraw. I don't have the energy for it. 

 

See you the next time you want to make a sweeping generalization about the left! 

 

signed,

 

a fan of sweeping generalizations

post #4219 of 4641

That being said, I'm going to withdraw from this conversation too - I can feel myself getting too heated and this stuff should be fun, rather than combative. 

post #4220 of 4641
Hee hee, this thread is always best when Boone starts shouting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post

What the argument here is pretty simple - This work has interpretation x which is of a piece with other works in cultural-historical period y. What, if anything, can and does that that say about that cultural-historical period in which that work was created, both at the macro (who we elect as President) and micro level (how we treat the people around us).
Except that this conversation is never, in the end, about "cultural-historical periods." It's about people, and what other people think they should be, and what kind of forces are exerted to pressure them to be that or to punish them if they aren't. Internet progressives love to label things as "problematic" but then do a funny little no-you-just-don't-understand! dance anytime someone suggests that they're attempting to censure culture they don't like. It's all abstract, we just want to examine the issues, we're not telling anybody how to live, oh hang on I have to go mob Joss Whedon on Twitter because of what I understood the subtext to be in one line in the latest Avengers, now where were we again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post

I think there's a big difference between liking 300 and being a Confederate apologist - I don't think anyone is arguing that at all here!
But it may be, down the road, after somebody writes a thinkpiece about 300 and fourteen thousand other somebodies have an epic Twitter war over it and suddenly anybody who likes it must be one of Them!
post #4221 of 4641

Oh, I lied - I think I'm a little bit more generous towards thinkpiece writers and "Internet progressives" than you are, commodore, but I actually think we agree more than we disagree about the broader, bigger picture stuff. It's always a pleasure to argue with you. 

post #4222 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

But when this talk encroaches upon our own lives and sense of self (and not just about trifles like movies), having a new source of awkwardness and discomfort is a part of the game.
Precisely! And that's why people react to it. Playing the Progressive Cultural Analysis Game and labeling things as "problematic" is all well and good until it's something you like under the microscope.
post #4223 of 4641
Thread Starter 
Sure. I have no issue admitting that I have utter contempt for the argument itself (or at least the language deployed), but I also had no problem saying that the movie that sparked this conversation is likely guilty of what it's accused of being. My side of the argument isn't that films don't have a role in the culture, but how significant or worrying that role is on a macro-level.

You propose, as is your right, that there is a problem. Problems, generally, have something approximating solutions.

- in response to Boone.
post #4224 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post

Oh, I lied - I think I'm a little bit more generous towards thinkpiece writers and "Internet progressives" than you are, commodore, but I actually think we agree more than we disagree about the broader, bigger picture stuff. It's always a pleasure to argue with you.
Let us spar!
post #4225 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waaaaaaaalt View Post
 

Sure like say certain types on the left not understanding their role as well and trying to find an easy scapegoat like say movies and TV.

I don't know what thinkpieces you read...

 

but I've generally found that while the headlines might come off like movies and TV shows are being scapegoated, the actual pieces usually use a prominent example of media as a figurehead of an overall pattern found in similar works.

 

Similar to how I don't think anyone here would question that while Trump wasn't the originator of today's toxic political climate, his stumbling into the presidency is both a symptom of an ongoing problem as well as something that emboldens existing toxicity to be expressed more outright.

 

I think a pattern found in media can be legitimately cited similarly as both a reflection of its times as well as an enabler of certain attitudes.

 

 

I mean... I don't disagree that there are poor writers who push these ideas really poorly and aggressive to the point of turning off those who would normally be on the same wavelength. 

post #4226 of 4641
What about 300 2? Where does that fit in this problematic paradigm of perpetually pervasive Pepe pushers?
post #4227 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
 

I don't know what thinkpieces you read...

 

but I've generally found that while the headlines might come off like movies and TV shows are being scapegoated, the actual pieces usually use a prominent example of media as a figurehead of an overall pattern found in similar works.

 

Similar to how I don't think anyone here would question that while Trump wasn't the originator of today's toxic political climate, his stumbling into the presidency is both a symptom of an ongoing problem as well as something that emboldens existing toxicity to be expressed more outright.

 

I think a pattern found in media can be legitimately cited similarly as both a reflection of its times as well as an enabler of certain attitudes.

 

 

I mean... I don't disagree that there are poor writers who push these ideas really poorly and aggressive to the point of turning off those who would normally be on the same wavelength. 

NO NO I DIDN'T WANT THIS, I WITHDREW MY COMMENT!

post #4228 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post


Precisely! And that's why people react to it. Playing the Progressive Cultural Analysis Game and labeling things as "problematic" is all well and good until it's something you like under the microscope.

 

I have no problem with that though.  I love breaking down stuff I like.

 

more people should be like me

 

HEDGING

 

like all the time

 

like crazy

 

like the dickens

post #4229 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waaaaaaaalt View Post
 

NO NO I DIDN'T WANT THIS, I WITHDREW MY COMMENT!

y'see walt...

 

what if I told you there was a man...

 

and in that man...

 

was a man...

 

the size 

 

of a tangerine?

post #4230 of 4641

Last thing: You can like things that are problematic while acknowledging they're problematic, the problem becomes, as commodore has pointed out, when progressives equate liking problematic work with being bad people - and they shouldn't do that. I do also think that this has to do with the theme of the thread, which is the cacophony of social media. That batshit piece I linked about YA is a great example - one person within a community posts a condemnation, and then the DESTROY HIM BOT 3000 is activated, and then it blows up into a much bigger deal than, perhaps, it is. So you're really talking about a very, very small group of people equating liking Joss Whedon with being bad people, for example. 

 

Furthermore, I think, as film fans, we adopt and treasure this stuff deeply, so it's easy to take an attack - or even dislike - of something you love as an attack on you. That's what I see, and what I've had to work through.

 

Johnny, my argument was laid out pretty cleanly in my original post. The solution to the "problem" is to talk about this stuff and to think about it - and what effect it may have not just on the macro but also the micro. Not censorship. Not saying work shouldn't be made. But thinking and talking, with empathy and awareness. 

post #4231 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Munson View Post

What about 300 2? Where does that fit in this problematic paradigm of perpetually pervasive Pepe pushers?

Well, for propaganda to be effective, someone has to actually see the damn thing.
post #4232 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post
 

I personally don't have an opinion on 300, but I always enjoy - and there's the other word, enjoy - talking about this stuff. 

 

You don't sound like you're enjoying it. :)

post #4233 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by flint View Post
 

 

You don't sound like you're enjoying it. :)

 

I mentioned this elsewhere, but sometimes when I get passionate/heated, I can flip back to the "strident, un-nuanced internet tough guy" voice without thinking. I need to not do that. :D

post #4234 of 4641
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post


Johnny, my argument was laid out pretty cleanly in my original post. The solution to the "problem" is to talk about this stuff and to think about it - and what effect it may have not just on the macro but also the micro. Not censorship. Not saying work shouldn't be made. But thinking and talking, with empathy and awareness. 

This is what we do here. We talk about these things. We talk about our reactions to a piece of work and how it may or may not relate to our own experiences. The Ex Machina thread was a great one for this. I saw Elle and praised its enormously original lead character and how her journey defined the stark differences between the act of rape and the person who was the victim of it.

The problem isn't a lack of empathy or discussion, but whether any one of us is discussing it based on the terms and with the language that another person may prefer or demand.

Shit, virtually every season of Game of Thrones brings these kinds of discussions to the fore. What we've seen, what was meant, and how we ultimately feel about it.
post #4235 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

The problem isn't a lack of empathy or discussion, but whether any one of us is discussing it based on the terms and with the language that another person may prefer or demand.

 

Agreed - but I also think language, even in these discussions, evolves. I try and be empathetic in these discussions. I don't always succeed. But I do think I've seen the boards/this community make tremendous strides over the last decade, and that was through discussing language when it arose. And I think that's why a thread like this is, ultimately, good - we're working through this stuff collectively. 

post #4236 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post
 

 

Johnny, my argument was laid out pretty cleanly in my original post. The solution to the "problem" is to talk about this stuff and to think about it - and what effect it may have not just on the macro but also the micro. Not censorship. Not saying work shouldn't be made. But thinking and talking, with empathy and awareness. 

 

here's another thing that complicates this kind of discussion is that it exists within a huge capitalistic system...

 

because there ARE people who are arguing that CONFEDERATE shouldn't be made.  very directly.

 

but because we're not just talking about art, but commercial/corporate art made for profit, I don't think this is simply a matter of people trying to silence someone's form of expression

 

because I doubt anyone reasonable would actively BLOCK somebody deciding to write an alt-history about slavery still existing as a book, essay, thinkpiece, etc on their own.  people have and do continue to do that.  There are avenues to explore those ideas if you want.  Moreso than ever.

 

In CONFEDERATE's case, it's HBO being told to not support that kind of product with these particular showrunners.  It's not as simple as censoring art.  It's about a business decision that involves a lot of money and a lot of reach in terms of visibility.  And HBO is being told by a group of people that "we will not support you if you do this."  In that regard, it's less outright censorship and more like somebody not going to Chick-fil-A or Hobby Lobby for the publicly stated ideology of the respective companies.

 

And anybody on any end of the ideological spectrum can do this!

 

We see it whenever we see corporate sponsored examples of progressive representation (such as Proctor & Gamble's recent ad or General Mills representing a gay couple or mixed couple in commercials) is met with conservatives saying that they'll no longer be purchasing anything from this or that company.

 

CONFEDERATE isn't even ART yet, since it doesn't exist.  Right now it's just a notion or a worldview of "hey what if we made a show where slavery is still a thing?" which to me isn't all that different from General Mills going "hey what if gay couples enjoy cereal too?"

post #4237 of 4641

I have my own feelings on Confederate, as articulated in this thread and elsewhere, as well as my own conclusions based on the reading I've done around it, but what it comes down to at this moment is that I'm not as a straight white guy going to tell the black writers and activists who are opposed to it that they shouldn't be. 

 

I like your point about idealogy, though! 

post #4238 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post
 

Not censorship. Not saying work shouldn't be made. But thinking and talking, with empathy and awareness. 

 

This terrifies me Boone. That's the personal reality of it. It sounds like I'm entering an argument where the terms are if I don't agree it's because I'm dumb or a soulless monster.

 

Empathy sounds like "Won't someone think of the children???". Awareness sounds like "You've not read the studies on the harm this stuff can do!!!". Either way, leads to the first thing. And the left has been very very clever about trying to change the definition of what censorship is, but it's still all very Comic Code Authority to me. Trying to force people to self regulate for the greater good as defined by someone whose idea of entertainment is radically different to mine.

post #4239 of 4641
What flint said. No matter how people try to dance around it, these conversations always come down to censure in the end.
post #4240 of 4641

When I read EMPATHY, I'm usually thinking more along the lines of:

 

"hmmm, I can see why this person's experience would be different from mine"

 

and I read AWARENESS as:

 

"oh yeah... I DO do that too.  I'd never thought about that."

 

 

Of course these conversations always come down to censure in the end... because that IS the end point.  No different from all internet arguments leading to Hitler.  To me, such fears seem to make some assumption that there was some bygone paradise when nothing was censured or censored.  But we know that's not true.  

post #4241 of 4641

I can only speak for myself, and not the Twitter Tumblr Economy or the whole of the progressive left. But to me, empathy means trying to understand the argument of the other side even if their reaction makes me uncomfortable, and awareness involves asking "well, what does this mean/what could this mean/what is this saying?" Not necessarily with judgement or a critique of someone's personal character - but more a willingness to confront my own responses and feelings to a work, and my response to the response. 

 

edit: DAMNIT, NOOJ, YOU SAID IT RIGHT. 

post #4242 of 4641
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

here's another thing that complicates this kind of discussion is that it exists within a huge capitalistic system...

because there ARE people who are arguing that CONFEDERATE shouldn't be made.  very directly.

but because we're not just talking about art, but commercial/corporate art made for profit, I don't think this is simply a matter of people trying to silence someone's form of expression

because I doubt anyone reasonable would actively BLOCK somebody deciding to write an alt-history about slavery still existing as a book, essay, thinkpiece, etc on their own.  people have and do continue to do that.  There are avenues to explore those ideas if you want.  Moreso than ever.

In CONFEDERATE's case, it's HBO being told to not support that kind of product with these particular showrunners.  It's not as simple as censoring art.  It's about a business decision that involves a lot of money and a lot of reach in terms of visibility.  And HBO is being told by a group of people that "we will not support you if you do this."  In that regard, it's less outright censorship and more like somebody not going to Chick-fil-A or Hobby Lobby for the publicly stated ideology of the respective companies.

There is a painter. The painter makes their living with their work, but said work is idiosyncratic and maybe confrontational, and though said painter clearly states their intentions, no gallery will support them in a commercial endeavor b/c one or more groups of people insist that said work is either A) Something other than what the painter contends it to be or B) Undeserving of support because irrespective of intent, it makes them uncomfortable.

Benioff and Weiss are rich men, but they are storytellers and the genesis of Confederate is creative. That it's a superficially more commercial endeavor based on the medium is wholly irrelevant.

It's not my place to tell a group of people what they should or should not feel comfortable with, but I have no problem calling out April Reign as a fuckhead, because I think the heart of her campaign is illiberal at best.
post #4243 of 4641

Counterpoint: If Benioff and Weiss came out and said "We made Confederate because we thought the biggest mistake America's made was the 14th Amendement and the Confederacy losing. We want to show people how things would be better if that hadn't happened," would you be fine with HBO still cutting them a check because they're storytellers? 

post #4244 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post


There is a painter. The painter makes their living with their work, but said work is idiosyncratic and maybe confrontational, and though said painter clearly states their intentions, no gallery will support them in a commercial endeavor b/c one or more groups of people insist that said work is either A) Something other than what the painter contends it to be or B) Undeserving of support because irrespective of intent, it makes them uncomfortable.

Benioff and Weiss are rich men, but they are storytellers and the genesis of Confederate is creative. That it's a superficially more commercial endeavor based on the medium is wholly irrelevant.

 
 

 

If they are rich men who are truly committed to the premise of CONFEDERATE as their creative outlet, perhaps they can produce it themselves if this doesn't work out with HBO (of course it'll work out with HBO).

 

I don't think the commercial aspect of the endeavor is irrelevant... especially since commercial concerns factor HEAVILY into what HBO decides to support with such immense financial resources

 

If the painter can't find enough support of their work due to idiosyncratic and confrontational elements, they'll have to make a choice as to how to support themselves while also making the time to create.  It sucks, but that's common for an artist's life.  Is that all that different for an actor who has to support themselves by waiting tables while waiting for the opportunity for someone to support them in a commercial endeavor (getting hired to act in something)?   Or filmmakers who make commercials to support their actual creative impulses.

 

at first, I was all... April Who???

post #4245 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

To me, such fears seem to make some assumption that there was some bygone paradise when nothing was censured or censored.  But we know that's not true.
Well, in a more narrow context of "some bygone paradise when the things I like weren't censured," sure it was, for certain kinds of people (imagine being the guy who likes all those ridiculously sexist smutty cartoons from the '60s - I mean, hey, Dan DeCarlo was a brilliant cartoonist, to be fair!) But it's also the threat of a future where the things I like might be on the chopping block and suddenly I'm "problematic" and people are giving me funny looks when I wax nostalgic about whatever it is the Twitter mob has decided is verboten. We're all just one twist of the cultural narrative away from being Hank Ketcham trying to figure out why people were upset about this, and the more apparent that becomes, the more hypersensitive people get when the Progressive Cultural Analysis conversation starts turning to things they're attached to.
post #4246 of 4641
How is that a counterpoint? That would be like the hypothetical painter producing a blatantly racist piece of work, verbally proclaiming it's racist intent, and then being shocked when any reputable exhibit or gallery telling said painter "Absolutely Not"
post #4247 of 4641

Are you talking to me or Johnny?

 

edit: oh it was to Boone!

post #4248 of 4641

I honestly think a lot of this has to do with the Internet/Twitter Mob flattening everything out. I went to one of the most liberal/progressive/hippie-dippie schools in the country, and we read the Greeks, Faulkner, Moby-Dick, American Psycho, Dennis Cooper, Mary Gaitskill, Gone Girl, and H.P. Lovecraft. We watched Shame, Videodrome, and Point Blank, to name a few other "problematic" works. And we were able to discuss them and analyze them without casting judgement on each other - because we all had an understanding we were acting in good faith. 

 

That's ultimately what I was getting at with empathy, and the reason I won't use FB/Twitter to interact with people I don't know in my real life, for the most part. Because there's a presumption of bad faith that I think is unhealthy, and I think we on the left need to work on. 

post #4249 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by mondguy View Post

How is that a counterpoint? That would be like the hypothetical painter producing a blatantly racist piece of work, verbally proclaiming it's racist intent, and then being shocked when any reputable exhibit or gallery telling said painter "Absolutely Not"

 

You know what, that was a bad analogy. 

post #4250 of 4641
Quote:
Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post


Well, in a more narrow context of "some bygone paradise when the things I like weren't censured," sure it was, for certain kinds of people (imagine being the guy who likes all those ridiculously sexist smutty cartoons from the '60s - I mean, hey, Dan DeCarlo was a brilliant cartoonist, to be fair!) But it's also the threat of a future where the things I like might be on the chopping block and suddenly I'm "problematic" and people are giving me funny looks when I wax nostalgic about whatever it is the Twitter mob has decided is verboten. We're all just one twist of the cultural narrative away from being Hank Ketcham trying to figure out why people were upset about this, and the more apparent that becomes, the more hypersensitive people get when the Progressive Cultural Analysis conversation starts turning to things they're attached to.

 

And that's the THRILL OF PROGRESS.

 

Yeah, it sucks.

 

And yeah, everyone will have it coming to them eventually.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movie Miscellany
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Western Society, Pop Culture, and the Cacophony of Social Media