Se7en - Should art advocate hopelessness?
Tom Wood
recently, so I thought I'd ask for opinions on this. The "message" that I
get out of Se7en is: "If you try to do good in this world, you will be
destroyed." Considering how popular this film seems to be, I guess I'm
curious as to why. The photography and acting are great, no doubt. It's a
thriller for sure. But is it responsible to make art that carries such a
deadly message? Does its popularity give license to make no effort to
improve the world we live in? Am I a hopeless romantic? Anyway, it seems to
me that there is enough cruelty in real life...
Tom
Alexander Williams
> get out of Se7en is: "If you try to do good in this world, you will be
> destroyed." Considering how popular this film seems to be, I guess I'm
The cynic in me would like to argue that this message isn't art, its
documentary, as pretty much every screenwriter who collects rejections
knows.
But I'd rebut to you and ask why this isn't a message you think needs
to be spoken more loudly? Se7en is a thriller, it borders on horror
through quite a bit of its length. Its prime departure from the
formulea is at the end, where the villain wins. Its really that
simple. The villain gets exactly what he wants, and the good guys
lose. Shocking, no? And yet, its a far more frequent scenario than
most movies would suggest, in which the protagonists merely have to
suffer enough before the Laws of Drama take pity on them and drop the
MacGuffin in their lap so the universe can, inevitably, be saved.
I think children should be FORCED to watch Se7en (and Fallen) to
better learn what real life is about. Intelligent, clever, ruthless
people get what they want, those who merely react to their drives are
often left behind.
--
Alexander Williams (tha...@telocity.com) | In the End,
"Blue Jester needs food." | Oblivion
"Blue Jester needs fuku-wearing cuties." | Always
http://www.chancel.org | Wins
traw...@my-deja.com
> I searched in DejaNews a bit and noticed that Se7en has been in
discussion
> recently, so I thought I'd ask for opinions on this. The "message"
that I
> get out of Se7en is: "If you try to do good in this world, you will be
> destroyed."
Gotta rebut you on the "message" here. What I got out of it was that to
fight evil, you have to have both idealism and wisdom. Mills (Pitt's
character) was a firebrand. He was loudmouthed, cocky and none too
bright, but he had the heart and the will. Contrast Somerset (Freeman).
He's smart, smarter than anyone else in the movie aside from the
killer. He's the one person who could have truly caught the guy and put
him away (*without* completing his "masterpiece"). And what do we see
him doing? Preparing to retire.
So what happened to Mills? Same thing that happens to anybody who takes
on evil of this magnitude without smarts. Tragic, yes, but from a
larger point of view, is it any less sad that someone like Somerset was
so eager to quit? Who was it who said that all evil needs to triumph is
for good men to do nothing?
It's a devastating movie for sure, and one of my favourites. But I
don't think I'd love it so much if it weren't for its ultimately
optimistic ending. Yes, optimistic, because Somerset chose to postpone
his retirement at the end. Someone of his wisdom and experience, who
was such a cynic and a coward in the beginning, had regained his
idealism. He would go on fighting the good fight. *That's* the ultimate
triumph of the story.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Paula
wrote:
>But is it responsible to make art that carries such a
>deadly message? Does its popularity give license to make no effort to
>improve the world we live in? Am I a hopeless romantic? Anyway, it seems to
>me that there is enough cruelty in real life...
Art has no responsibility.
One could argue that artists have responsibility (I don't believe they
do), but Art does not.
Who's to say what "improves" the world? What might improve the world
for ME might not improve the world for YOU.
We are all of us individuals, and the way each of us interprets or
responds to art should have no real bearing on whether anyone else
thinks it's good or bad, necessary or unnecessary, life-affirming or
cruel.
Paula
BrickRage
>From: rub...@att.net (Paula)
>Art has no responsibility.
Yay!
Nesci
Everything I need to know about life I learned by killing smart people and
eating their brains.
The FAQ for this newsgroup is http://www.communicator.com/faqs.html
SS Johny
>fight evil, you have to have both idealism and wisdom. Mills
Or more specifically, you can't possibly begin to defeat or deal with evil in
the world until you deal with the evil in yourself. Maybe that's wisdom or
self-knowledge. The ending is only a downer because Pitt's character couldn't
overcome his (sin of) wrath. If anything, I think Freeman's character should
have put it together that Spacey's character was targetting and tailing Pitt
because of his deadly sin and advised him of it beforehand.
I still think Chinatown's ending is more disturbing though.
PEace,
jim
traw...@my-deja.com
> If anything, I think Freeman's character should
> have put it together that Spacey's character was targetting and
tailing Pitt
> because of his deadly sin and advised him of it beforehand.
Much as I love the movie, till today I still don't know why Freeman
didn't just stand in front of Spacey to prevent Pitt from shooting him.
TonyBoy74
I'm changing my name to Art.
badump-bump-bump.
Who said movies were art?
Peace,
Tony B.
douglas...@hotmailnospammy.com
>
>> If anything, I think Freeman's character should
>> have put it together that Spacey's character was targetting and
>tailing Pitt
>> because of his deadly sin and advised him of it beforehand.
>
>Much as I love the movie, till today I still don't know why Freeman
>didn't just stand in front of Spacey to prevent Pitt from shooting him.
I thought it was rather smart of Freeman's character to not give
Spacey's character his back...
Doug
Just a virtual guy... in a virtual world.
Chris Bateman
in a wheelchair and Pitt dies. The last scene is Freeman and Paltrow having
a conversation outside a hospital. (Obviously she doesn't die either...)
<traw...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:953cue$c90$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
lfe...@airmail.net
-L
true...@my-deja.com
Responsibility of art aside, I thought the ending of Se7en contained a
rather positive message. All this shit, reaffirming Sommerset's
negative view on the world, and he's staying to fight. An earlier
draft hit this aspect over the head with a hammer (Sommerset watches a
father play with his kid) but I think they did it perfectly in the
final film when Ermey's character asks Sommerset where he's going to be
and Sommerset replies, "I'll be around". And then the final
line, "Ernest Hemmingway once wrote, the world is a fine place and
worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." Brilliant.
Tom Wood
> Responsibility of art aside, I thought the ending of Se7en contained a
> rather positive message. All this shit, reaffirming Sommerset's
> negative view on the world, and he's staying to fight.
::snip::
> And then the final line, "Ernest Hemmingway once wrote, the world is a
fine place and
> worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." Brilliant.
Okay, I guess by the time I got there, I was too traumatized to hear this.
Also, since I didn't see this movie until last year, Pitt's star was bright
enough that I expected this to be HIS character's story, not Freeman's. My
error.
Now, whether art has responsibility, or whether movies are art.....
Maybe when a movie is a "film"?
Or "A film by....."
Oh, let's not go there.
Thank you all for the responses.
Tom
Geealexand
From: rub...@att.net (Paula)
Date: Mon, Jan 29, 2001 2:33 PM
Message-id: <3a75047b...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>
Art has no responsibility.
Paula
>>
Or, to paraphrase O.W., Art is neither moral nor immoral, it is the viewer who
falls on side or the other.
Geoff
Tad Davis
> Gotta rebut you on the "message" here. What I got out of it was that to
> fight evil, you have to have both idealism and wisdom.
But that suggests that if you have both idealism and wisdom, maybe the
same horrifying thing wouldn't happen to you. That's the same reasoning
that has 11th graders searching for "Macbeth's tragic flaw" as if
somehow finding the flaw would explain the tragedy. It reduces to
another form of "there but for the grace of God go I amen." It leaves
you feeling safe. When somebody was shot dead in a robbery half a block
from my house last week, my first thought was: "What time of day was
it?" (If it was 2:00am, then I'm safe, because I'm never out at 2:00am.)
This movie did not leave me (at any rate) feeling safe.
> It's a devastating movie for sure, and one of my favourites.
Agreed on both counts. But I don't think there's an optimistic message
in there. Sometimes life picks up people at random and stomps the shit
out of them.
--
Tad Davis
dav...@voicenet.com
traw...@my-deja.com
> But that suggests that if you have both idealism and wisdom, maybe the
> same horrifying thing wouldn't happen to you.
That's the reality that the movie presented, vis-a-vis Freeman's
character. Did anyone who saw the movie doubt that Somerset was the
only person who had it all together? It would have been a massive
betrayal of the audience's expectations, and a huge mistake on the part
of the filmmakers, if it was Somerset who was destroyed at the end.
Wait. My Idea Detector(TM) is pinging. No, it wouldn't have been a
mistake, just a very different movie.
> That's the same reasoning
> that has 11th graders searching for "Macbeth's tragic flaw" as if
> somehow finding the flaw would explain the tragedy. It reduces to
> another form of "there but for the grace of God go I amen." It leaves
> you feeling safe. When somebody was shot dead in a robbery half a
block
> from my house last week, my first thought was: "What time of day was
> it?" (If it was 2:00am, then I'm safe, because I'm never out at
2:00am.)
"There but for the grace of God go I" is arguably what *all* stories
are about. The robbery near your house is tragic, no doubt. But it's
reality. Its bearing on where a story should go is minimal. Truth is
stranger, shittier, and sometimes even more beautiful, than fiction.
But none of these things necessarily make a good story. Call me a Bible-
thumping conservative, but I believe that all stories have to have a
moral center. You *can* make a movie in which the bad guys win and the
good guys lose, but for it to really work, the audience has to somehow
get the notion that the good guys didn't really deserve to win. It's
basic human nature to search for Macbeth's tragic flaw - and I believe
he had one.
> Sometimes life picks up people at random and stomps the shit
> out of them.
I know this already, and I don't need to go to movies that tell me
this. In fact, I actively avoid them. I felt incredibly cheated by the
ending of Arlington Road, for instance.
So in a movie like Se7en, in which all other elements (dialogue,
direction, acting, etc.) are excellent, I look for the silver lining.
Brian Anderson
>
> is it responsible to make art that carries such a
> deadly message?
If you want a really intense examination of this question, take a look
at CRUMB, the 1994 documentary on the life of underground comics creator
Robert Crumb. There's a whole lot of disturbing stuff in his artwork,
his life, and the film itself, making it impossible to consider the
question from only one perspective.
D C Harris
----------
In article <oSZc6.6664$467.2...@news.flash.net>, "Tom Wood"
<tomw...@flash.net> wrote:
I get accused by people of writing sometimes of writing black immoral stuff
- but if those elements are there they are intended as comedy.
The way to deal with your question is to apply it universally - do you feel
a moral sense adds to or detracts from things generally?
Do we want a partner who is exciting but totally fickle? Do we want stories
that have no message, that argue no case? Does it matter whether cowboys
wear black or white hats?
We need a moral sense the way we need oxygen. Sure, many good works of art
contain no moral message, but it is hard to imagine a major work of fiction
that has no such message.
Films? Think of the Onibaba, the Japanese film, where all the characters are
immoral and meet dreadful fates as a result. The sheer cleverness in making
this morality tale entertaining, engaging, *and* artistically real, is
what makes it a great film.
There is nothing clever at all about an absence of moral sense - only
thickos think that.
D C Harris
----------
In article <3a75047b...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, rub...@att.net
(Paula) wrote:
>
> Who's to say what "improves" the world? What might improve the world
> for ME might not improve the world for YOU.
>
This is a wonderful case for destroying society as we know it.
Does writing this shit come easily - or does it take an effort?
D C Harris
----------
In article <3A7662...@flash.net>, Brian Anderson <socr...@flash.net>
wrote:
Sure - but could the work of this cripple be called 'art'?
traw...@my-deja.com
> We need a moral sense the way we need oxygen. Sure, many good works
of art
> contain no moral message, but it is hard to imagine a major work of
fiction
> that has no such message.
>
> thickos think that.
Yay, what you said!
I totally don't get the whole "art has no responsibility" stance. A
good artist would be able to predict the effect his/her art has on
society. So you wanna create a work of art that expresses your
tendencies towards violence. You do it, it's critically acclaimed, and
then some kids shoot their classmates and cite your work of art as
their inspiration. And you claim the "art has no responsibility"
defence.
But at any one time in the process of creating your art, did it ever
occur to you that this could really fuck up some kid's mind? If it did,
what kind of rat bastard are you? And if it didn't, what kind of
talentless hack are you?
Gary Pollard
> I totally don't get the whole "art has no responsibility" stance.
Art is an inanimate object. I think the question should be whether the
artist, not the art, has responsibility. But responsibility isn't always
enough. Wrong-headedness is a danger too. Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the
Will" is an amazing piece of art. It is also, (like many US movies
incidentally on a much trashier level) a wrong-headed celebration of
Fascism. Responsibility and worth are not always connected. The danger of
too much emphasis on responsibility is you end up with propaganda movies
aimed at social engineering, or "Movies of the Week".
> A
> good artist would be able to predict the effect his/her art has on
> society.
Goethe wrote a novella called "The Sorrows of Young Werther", about a rather
sensitive young guy who, rejected in love, committed suicide. In its wake a
number of young men adopted Werther's clothing, created an image of
themselves as sensitive, and - in many cases - ultimately committed suicide.
Would you be responsible if you had written "Batman" and kids had jumped off
roofs wearing bat-capes?
No artist can control absolutely what people do in response to the work.
> So you wanna create a work of art that expresses your
> tendencies towards violence. You do it, it's critically acclaimed, and
> then some kids shoot their classmates and cite your work of art as
> their inspiration.
My feeling is that they, or more likely their lawyers, are full of shit. I
don't think that the individual work makes them violent. I think it maybe
DOES suggest the form their violence takes. This whole concept that there
were these healthy kids, and they saw a movie so they killed, is laughable.
As a teenager I loved horror movies. Still do when they are good. I always
found that it was the assholes who laughed and giggled at the whole movie
who were more likely to beat the crap out of someone after the movie, not
the ones who took it seriously.
Still, if someone DID cite something I wrote as responsible for an act of
violence I'd have sleepless nights. I decided years ago that I would not
belittle violence, will not contribute to the cardboard cut out inhumanity
of much work. In "Young Offenders" we had two murders, drive-by shootings,
arson, blackmail, and school violence. But at no point did we suggest this
was hip or cool. The whole point of our film was to examine the consequences
of actions. In 50+ TV scripts I have never offed a character lightly either.
In two, characters committed suicide. I think work should connect with our
humanity at some point. That's MY philosophy of work. No one else is under
any obligation to share it.
> But at any one time in the process of creating your art, did it ever
> occur to you that this could really fuck up some kid's mind? If it did,
> what kind of rat bastard are you? And if it didn't, what kind of
> talentless hack are you?
Well as I said before, if you believe art can have a good effect, logically
you have to admit it can have a bad one. If you think it has neither, then
your reasons for doing it are quite likely pretty shabby.
But I don't think ANY one film makes the difference. I think the problem is
that many of them contribute to an atmosphere of heartlesness whereby
society's losers and rejects identify with the most inhuman tendencies and
adopt them. I'd liken it to water eroding rock. One drop doesn't make much
of a difference. But a perpetual erosion will.
The bottom line for me is that most (not all) of the violence in movies is
just bad writing by talentless hacks, an admission of inability to move us
dramatically without the most extreme form of human conflict. I've said it
before - give us a character we care about and we'll be blown away if he or
she cuts a finger. In most of these movies we don't give a damn when people
lose their LIVES. It provokes a yawn. If you can't make an audience
horrified when people die, you are a bad writer. Period.
Gary
traw...@my-deja.com
> Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the
> Will" is an amazing piece of art. It is also, (like many US movies
> incidentally on a much trashier level) a wrong-headed celebration of
> Fascism.
What about movies that revel in violence and misogyny, whose sole
purpose is to make quick bucks from the very same fucked-up kids who
are only waiting for something to trigger their impending acts of
violence? There's plenty of examples of "perpetual erosion" right there.
OTOH, Hollywood hasn't been half as guilty as the PC game industry.
There's a game out called Carmageddon 2. You're driving a car around
city streets, and you earn points by mowing down pedestrians. It
actually got generally good reviews from most critics, because it
ultimately was a well-designed game with good production values. But
who was the sicko who actually made it *fun* to kill innocent people??
(Also, the game is a sequel, which means there was an original that
actually made enough money to justify a sequel.)
> Responsibility and worth are not always connected. The danger of
> too much emphasis on responsibility is you end up with propaganda
movies
> aimed at social engineering, or "Movies of the Week".
True.
> > A
> > good artist would be able to predict the effect his/her art has on
> > society.
>
> Would you be responsible if you had written "Batman" and kids had
jumped off
> roofs wearing bat-capes?
Man, I know this. After A Better Tomorrow hit cinemas in Hong Kong,
membership in triad gangs leapt. (As did sales of trenchcoats, and I'd
suspect toothpicks as well.)
I'd have sleepless nights, like you said. Agreed too. I loved Fight
Club, but one some level I'm actually glad that it was a flop in
theatres.
> My feeling is that they, or more likely their lawyers, are full of
shit. I
> don't think that the individual work makes them violent. I think it
maybe
> DOES suggest the form their violence takes. This whole concept that
there
> were these healthy kids, and they saw a movie so they killed, is
laughable.
Yeah, I know this. When I was a kid, my dad loved horror movies and had
no qualms watching them with me around. Gave me nightmares, but I never
killed anybody. (And I'm trying to write a horror script right now, go
figure. :)
> I think work should connect with our
> humanity at some point. That's MY philosophy of work. No one else is
under
> any obligation to share it.
I'd say *all* artists are under obligation to share that philosophy.
> But I don't think ANY one film makes the difference.
Natural Born Killers? It may not deserve all the blame, but it may have
been the last straw.
I wonder if an examination of the actual effects of these films would
have any bearing on this subject. NBK spawned copycat crimes. Fight
Club didn't (yet), but that could be attributed to the fact that not
very many people saw it in theatres. (Could there be any significance
to watching in theatres vs. video?) The Lost Boys, Joel Schumacher's
teenage biker vampire flick, did. Did A Clockwork Orange?
Gary Pollard
traw...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the
> > Will" is an amazing piece of art. It is also, (like many US movies
> > incidentally on a much trashier level) a wrong-headed celebration of
> > Fascism.
>
> What about movies that revel in violence and misogyny,
Misogyny? I don't see much of that in movies. Certainly no more than I
see misandry. Do you mean misanthropy?
> whose sole
> purpose is to make quick bucks from the very same fucked-up kids who
> are only waiting for something to trigger their impending acts of
> violence?
To me it's the "only waiting" that's the problem. As I've said before,
if you are on that wavelength, even the Bible will push you over the
edge.
> OTOH, Hollywood hasn't been half as guilty as the PC game industry.
> There's a game out called Carmageddon 2. You're driving a car around
> city streets, and you earn points by mowing down pedestrians.
I enjoy running around in computer games and shooting things. I do
prefer the ones where you don't shoot innocent people. But I've found
the research on this very suspect. People like to try to prove that
playing violent computer games makes you violent. I'll tell you -
playing Tetris or chess gets me just as wound up as playing Doom, but
no-one has even researched that.
> > Would you be responsible if you had written "Batman" and kids had
> jumped off
> > roofs wearing bat-capes?
>
> Man, I know this. After A Better Tomorrow hit cinemas in Hong Kong,
> membership in triad gangs leapt. (As did sales of trenchcoats, and I'd
> suspect toothpicks as well.)
Hmm. I don't know if you are based in Hong Kong. You said you were
based in Asia. Outside of that movie, I never DID meet a triad wearing
a trench coat, and I have met, drank with, and worked with, quite a few
through industry contacts here. Those include White Paper Fan bosses
and Double Flower Red Pole enforcers.
The rise in triad recruitment took place over a rather longer period
than you seem to think. I covered it for TV here several times, and
have talked with the anti-triad bureau. Much had to do with triad
influence in schools. Besides, given triad influence in the industry
here there were pro-triad films long before A Better Tomorrow AND long
after. They DO have what THEY saw as social reponsibility. They were
made by triads and glorified the triad life. Their concepts are
different from ours.
What DID tend to happen here is that the trash-hounds in the press went
out looking for connections and then claimed to have found them. It was
knee-jerk media analysis of the kind we have come to know and love so
well.
> I wonder if an examination of the actual effects of these films would
> have any bearing on this subject. NBK spawned copycat crimes. Fight
> Club didn't (yet), but that could be attributed to the fact that not
> very many people saw it in theatres. (Could there be any significance
> to watching in theatres vs. video?) The Lost Boys, Joel Schumacher's
> teenage biker vampire flick, did. Did A Clockwork Orange?
Some have claimed that video nasties led them to violence (the Bolger
killing in the UK). They also claimed Clockwork Orange did. I think
both claims were bullshit. It's not even as if the message of Clockwork
Orange IS pro-violence
Gary
douglas...@hotmailnospammy.com
>Yay, what you said!
>
>I totally don't get the whole "art has no responsibility" stance. A
>good artist would be able to predict the effect his/her art has on
>society. So you wanna create a work of art that expresses your
>tendencies towards violence. You do it, it's critically acclaimed, and
>then some kids shoot their classmates and cite your work of art as
>their inspiration. And you claim the "art has no responsibility"
>defence.
I'm tempted to say, "Art don't kill people, people kill people."
And there I've said it.
D C Harris
----------
In article <957umv$g5h$1...@m5.att.net.hk>, "Gary Pollard"
<gpol...@mysite.com.hk> wrote:
> Art is an inanimate object. I think the question should be whether the
> artist, not the art, has responsibility. But responsibility isn't always
> enough. Wrong-headedness is a danger too. Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the
> Will" is an amazing piece of art.
snip
> Goethe wrote a novella called "The Sorrows of Young Werther", about a rather
> sensitive young guy who, rejected in love, committed suicide. In its wake a
> number of young men adopted Werther's clothing, created an image of
> themselves as sensitive, and - in many cases - ultimately committed suicide.
>
> Would you be responsible if you had written "Batman" and kids had jumped off
> roofs wearing bat-capes?
>
> No artist can control absolutely what people do in response to the work.
>
Do you really mean all this?
Where do we start?
Can we possibly separate the intentions of a work of 'art' from its
style? Can a work which advocates that which is evil or reckless ever be a
complete or worthy work of art? If 'Triumph of the Will' was intended as an
apology for fascism if fails even on that humble level, showing the all too
dreadful nature of the beast concerned. (Frankly I think the film is tedious
and meretricious - but that is not the point.)
Can we just pause for a second and remember the film your praise celebrates
an organisation that fostered, murder, torture, child abuse, genocide, and
in all a complete death of the heart? (I do not suggest for one moment you
have fascist sympathies, and the fact you do not makes your argument all the
weaker.)
To resort to cartoon characters to justify your flimsy arguments is quite
extraordinary. Who would blame poor speech on Donald Duck?
You confuse merely discussing issues, themes, and acts, with the advocating
of individual negative views and actions. You imply that a moral stand in
art is irrelevant to the art itself. By definition, morality in your view is
pushed to the back of things, and seen as a confusing distraction.
I am the last person to want 'politically correct' art. Some moral issues
are complex - abortion for example. To seek the best way in art (or life)
may lead to mistakes but is not per se dishonourable. A decent moral
contributes to even a bad/indifferent film, e.g., Star Wars. Is a story with
bad guys as heroes ever even remotely a strong story?
Most people would think hurting people is bad - you don't need to be a
philosopher to work that out - could you find for example a film firmly
advocating rape worthy tolerable because of its supposed style and quality?
Evidently so, if you can tolerate hymns to fascism.
It is a tough hard cruel world, lazy thinking on moral issues, when it is
for serious, is a danger and a disgrace.
There is nothing personal when I say this post of yours is sheer shameful
retarded bollocks.
D C Harris
----------
In article <958er5$nuh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, traw...@my-deja.com wrote:
> OTOH, Hollywood hasn't been half as guilty as the PC game industry.
> There's a game out called Carmageddon 2. You're driving a car around
> city streets, and you earn points by mowing down pedestrians.
I like your posts. Just a point here ---
I am not a game player but I tried one driving game where you accumulate
points by bashing other vehicles to hell. Very amusing and great fun.
This is just obvious fantasy though - cowboys and indians in another form.
If you have no sense of humour (like Gary Pollard possibly) you do not
quickly see the difference between fun and serious business.
Gary Pollard
"D C Harris" <brookwo...@lineone.net> wrote:
> > No artist can control absolutely what people do in response to the
work.
>
> Do you really mean all this?
Yes. It is obvious. I repeat. More serial killers are influenced by the
Bible than any other one book.
> Can we possibly separate the intentions of a work of 'art' from its
> style?
A work of art, as an inanimate object, can have no intent. Only the
artist can.
> Can a work which advocates that which is evil or reckless ever be a
> complete or worthy work of art?
To some communism is evil. To some capitalism is evil. Artists with
both of those views may well produce great works of art. They may also
both consider they are making socially responsible art. If you really
don't like lazy thinking on moral issues, then you have to go a bit
deeper than terms like "evil".
> If 'Triumph of the Will' was intended as an
> apology for fascism if fails even on that humble level, showing the
all too
> dreadful nature of the beast concerned.
Please explain how.
> Can we just pause for a second and remember the film your praise
celebrates
> an organisation that fostered, murder, torture, child abuse,
genocide, and
> in all a complete death of the heart? (I do not suggest for one
moment you
> have fascist sympathies, and the fact you do not makes your argument
all the
> weaker.)
Abel Gance's "Napoleon" also happens to "celebrate" a man who murdered
hundreds of thousands. As does Eisenstein's "Ivan the Terrible". There
is a fascist tendency in human nature. Some films make us aware of
that. All the same, did you become a card-carrying Fascist after
viewing "Triumph of the Will" or "Olympiad"? Somehow I doubt it.
> To resort to cartoon characters to justify your flimsy arguments is
quite
> extraordinary. Who would blame poor speech on Donald Duck?
Funny you should say that. Donald Duck and OTHER cartoon characters,
even the Teletubbies for fuck's sake, HAVE received criticism for such
issues. Many of those who overestimate the effect of individual works
clearly would.
> You confuse merely discussing issues, themes, and acts, with the
advocating
> of individual negative views and actions.
Audiences only too often take what they want from movies. You'd be
amazed how many people see "Citizen Kane" as a celebration of American
capitalism, while others see it as a devastating condemnation. Are
certain works repulsive to me? Undoubtedly. Are some of them worthwhile
works of art? Quite possibly. Personally I find the "Dirty Harry"
movies disturbingly fascistic. I find Soutine's paintings of rotting
animal carcasses quite disturbing too. I still contend they are very
good paintings.
> You imply that a moral stand in
> art is irrelevant to the art itself. By definition, morality in your
view is
> pushed to the back of things, and seen as a confusing distraction.
If by that you mean that I don't think that art's first function is to
serve as some form of social medicine you are right.
> A decent moral
> contributes to even a bad/indifferent film, e.g., Star Wars.
Funny you should say that. "Star Wars" HAS been criticised for having
fascistic tendencies. The final scenes of one of the movies, where Luke
is honoured, have a distinct Riefenstahl feel about them. (And I KNOW
the responses this comment will bring.)
>Is a story with
> bad guys as heroes ever even remotely a strong story?
Seen "The Grifters"? Seen "Macbeth"? Seen "Dangerous Liaisons"? Seen
any movies on Robin Hood? Whether he's a bad guy or not surely depends
on where you sit.
> Most people would think hurting people is bad
Judging by the movies they reward at the box office - "Die Hard" for
example, or the whole James Bond series, or any action movie - most
people evidently do not.
> - you don't need to be a
> philosopher to work that out - could you find for example a film
firmly
> advocating rape worthy tolerable because of its supposed style and
quality?
Seen any of Pedro Almodovar's films? "Tie me Up, Tie me Down"?
Seen "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers"? based on the rape of the Sabine
women? There was one Eastwood movie where our "hero" raped a woman. Id
de Sade's "Justine" a negligible work of art?
Doesn't often happen though. Films very rarely FIRMLY ADVOCATE any damn
thing. Would I disagree with such a film? Of course. Would I claim that
because its message was abhorrent to me it could automatically not be a
well-crafted work of art? No. In fact, the danger would be if it was.
> It is a tough hard cruel world, lazy thinking on moral issues, when
it is
> for serious, is a danger and a disgrace.
Disagreeing with you on the overall effect of an individual work of art
on individuals' moral sensibility does not seem to me to be lazy
thinking. Using catch all and not clearly defined phrases such
as "evil" does seem to be.
> There is nothing personal when I say this post of yours is sheer
shameful
> retarded bollocks.
Back at ya babe.
Gary
D C Harris
----------
In article <95acif$f7e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Gary Pollard
<gpol...@my-deja.com> wrote:
Here we go again - start the music ---
>
> Yes. It is obvious. I repeat. More serial killers are influenced by the
> Bible than any other one book.
I no Bible scholar and I know fuck all about serial killers. I said
previously no sane person will take the New Testament as an excuse to kill
people. What the fuck do you talk about? What serial killer and what Chapter
and Verse? Did Manson waft about a cherised King James' black leather bound
Bible when dispatching Polanski's wife and frienmds? Did the Nightstalker
gently recite the Psalms to his terrified female victims before raping them
and transforming them into mincemeat? Did Fred and Rosemary West bow before
the Cross before suffocating and tormenting their 'friends' in a dark mouldy
basement? Did 'Fred' Shipman exclaim "Thou shalt not Kill" before injecting
yet another pathetic trusting old woman?
Gary, I am not saying your posts are piss and wind, but when you get to the
piss and wind department it would take an army to compete with you. Of
course all this Bible stuff isirrelevant anyway. As I imagine and hope you
know. We discuss whether good art can contain a deliberately immoral
message.
>
> To some communism is evil. To some capitalism is evil. Artists with
> both of those views may well produce great works of art. They may also
> both consider they are making socially responsible art. If you really
> don't like lazy thinking on moral issues, then you have to go a bit
> deeper than terms like "evil".
Okay, let me explain my position to you slowly. A work extolling the virtues
of Communism is not deliberately immoral if the author believes what he is
saying. Shaw backed Communism, as did many well meaning intellectuals.
"Animal Farm" showed the true situation. Can you imagine an 'Animal Farm'
which backed the commies that in any sense at all was a worthy product? If
you can Gary you lack what is called in polite circles sophistication.
Sorry to be brutally frank.
>
>> If 'Triumph of the Will' was intended as an
>> apology for fascism if fails even on that humble level, showing the
> all too
>> dreadful nature of the beast concerned.
>
> Please explain how.
Assorted regimented zombies wonderfully parodied by UK propaganda films.
Come on, for fuck sake. It's 2001, not 1939.
>
> Abel Gance's "Napoleon" also happens to "celebrate" a man who murdered
> hundreds of thousands. As does Eisenstein's "Ivan the Terrible". There
> is a fascist tendency in human nature. Some films make us aware of
> that. All the same, did you become a card-carrying Fascist after
> viewing "Triumph of the Will" or "Olympiad"? Somehow I doubt it.
Completely irrelevant. We speak of good art - not its influence. Perhaps we
can discuss the latter sometime.
>
>> To resort to cartoon characters to justify your flimsy arguments is
> quite
>> extraordinary. Who would blame poor speech on Donald Duck?
>
> Funny you should say that. Donald Duck and OTHER cartoon characters,
> even the Teletubbies for fuck's sake, HAVE received criticism for such
> issues. Many of those who overestimate the effect of individual works
> clearly would.
I should have said who blessed with half a brain would blame Donald Duck
which is again a different issue.
>
>
> Audiences only too often take what they want from movies. You'd be
> amazed how many people see "Citizen Kane" as a celebration of American
> capitalism, while others see it as a devastating condemnation.
Yes, but that does not illustrate your point as I am sure you are aware if
you think about it. Kane was meant well, albeit a crap pretentious film.
>
>> You imply that a moral stand in
>> art is irrelevant to the art itself. By definition, morality in your
> view is
>> pushed to the back of things, and seen as a confusing distraction.
>
> If by that you mean that I don't think that art's first function is to
> serve as some form of social medicine you are right.
You amaze me. I do not see art as a "social medicine" at all. I do not
though see good art as ever advocating what is clearly a shit view (to
anyone, Gary, with half a brain.)
>
>
>> - you don't need to be a
>> philosopher to work that out - could you find for example a film
> firmly
>> advocating rape worthy tolerable because of its supposed style and
> quality?
>
> Seen any of Pedro Almodovar's films? "Tie me Up, Tie me Down"?
> Seen "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers"? based on the rape of the Sabine
> women? There was one Eastwood movie where our "hero" raped a woman. Id
> de Sade's "Justine" a negligible work of art?
>
>
As ever, utterly irrelevant. A confusion of issues. De Sade - a totally crap
writer - to anyone with half a brain.
Gary, you can kid a lot of people round here maybe - not me.
Try if you like.
Disturbed42
>I do not
>though see good art as ever advocating what is clearly a shit view (to
>anyone, Gary, with half a brain.)
> De Sade - a totally crap
>writer - to anyone with half a brain.
Well, glad to see nobody need bother have their own opinions, DC. You've
figured it all out for us. Before I judge anything I'll be sure to run it by
you first.
Now I'm going to go write a nasty letter to every living scholar who ever gave
even the slightest praise to De Sade, and inform them that the Almighty Harris
hath decreed that half their brain is missing, or was never there at all.
D C Harris
----------
In article <20010131221920...@ng-bj1.aol.com>,
distu...@aol.com (Disturbed42) wrote:
>
> Now I'm going to go write a nasty letter to every living scholar who ever gave
> even the slightest praise to De Sade, and inform them that the Almighty Harris
> hath decreed that half their brain is missing, or was never there at all.
>
>
Thank you.
Paula
<brookwo...@lineone.net> wrote:
>Did Manson waft about a cherised King James' black leather bound
>Bible when dispatching Polanski's wife and frienmds?
Actually, Manson "wafted" (?) about the Beatles' White Album when he
and/or his followers went on their killing sprees.
There was a song on the album called "Helter Skelter" - it was about
an amusement park slide.
There was "Blackbird" - about ... a blackbird.
There was "Revolution #9" - a sound collage.
There was "Piggies" - about ... um ... well ....
And there was a song called "Happiness Is A Warm Gun" - about ... um
.. well, perhaps not the best example.
Manson believed these songs were instructing him to do all sorts of
things. I kind of doubt the Fabs had this in mind. I can pretty much
assure you they weren't hoping someone would scrawl their words in
blood across some walls in Southern California.
But then Manson was crazy.
Paula
Gary Pollard
"D C Harris" <brookwo...@lineone.net> wrote:
> > Yes. It is obvious. I repeat. More serial killers are influenced by
the
> > Bible than any other one book.
>
> I no Bible scholar and I know fuck all about serial killers.
Then read up on it.
>I said
> previously no sane person will take the New Testament as an excuse to
kill
> people.
And a "sane" person would kill someone based on a movie because....?
Interesting how you have to hedge your bets by denying half of the
Bible there Derek.
> Did Manson waft about a cherised King James' black leather bound
> Bible when dispatching Polanski's wife and frienmds?
Manson found sections within the Beatles' song Helter Skelter and
within the last book in the Christian Bible, Revelation which he felt
referred to a devastating future race war between blacks and whites. He
expected to take over control of the surviving Afro-Americans after
they had exterminated the whites. By murdering some high-profile
people, he expected to trigger the "final days" conflict.
Or how about serial killer John George Haigh:
"I saw before me a forest of crucifixes which gradually turned into
trees. At first there appeared to be dew, or rain, dripping from the
branches, but as I approached I realized it was blood. Suddenly the
whole forest began to writhe and the trees, stark and erect, to ooze
blood...A man went to each tree catching the blood...When the cup was
full he approached me. 'Drink,' he said, but I was unable to move."
John Wayne Gacy enjoyed handcuffing his victims, anally raping them,
beating them to a pulp, reciting verses from the bible, and then
strangling them to death.
>Did the Nightstalker
> gently recite the Psalms to his terrified female victims before
raping them
> and transforming them into mincemeat?
From an article on Ramirez:
"While his mother sent him to Bible studies, hoping he'd learn the
Christian ways of life, Richard took the lessons to heart – but learned
them in reverse. That is, after class he would go to the library and
read up on Satan and the fallen angels, the characters that his
teachers merely skipped over while exemplifying Jesus Christ and the
twelve apostles."
>Did Fred and Rosemary West bow before
> the Cross before suffocating and tormenting their 'friends' in a dark
mouldy
> basement?
The Wests no. Heard of "Bible John" though? In 1969 Glasgow lived in
terror of Bible John. The scripture-quoting serial killer had become a
bogeyman in the city's East End. He preyed on young women, all regulars
at the Barrowland ballroom.
Heard of the Yorkshire Ripper? Read up on him. Biblical references
and "sin" play a large part in his predilections. Peter (The Yorkshire
Ripper) Sutcliffe also claimed that he acted on the command of voices
from God.
Frank Alexander, a teen-aged satanic cultist, along with his father,
hacked his mother and sister to death in 1970. "I saw that Mother was
looking at me and I had the feeling that it was not permitted for her
to look at me in this manner. I therefore took the clothes hanger and
struck her over the head. She fell over and lost consciousness. Father
continued to play the organ and praise Jesus."
David Berkowitz: Son of Sam claimed to be demonically possessed as a
teenager: "I was overwhelmed with thoughts about dying, and I wasn't
even a teenager yet! I had no idea what to do, and neither did my
parents. They raised me in the Jewish faith, but they knew nothing
about Jesus, the Messiah of Israel. Many of the things that happened to
me might shock some people. But none of this was a shock to the Lord.
In Jesus' day, when He walked among humanity, cases of children being
victimized and possessed by evil spirits were very common. (See Mark
7:24-30 and Mark 9:17-29)."
David Berkowitz again: "There is, no doubt, a deep hidden array of
forces behind the Son of Sam killings... Good and Evil, God and
Lucifer, yet, while every seat in the courtroom is taken, likewise,
every corner space at the ceiling will be taken by those of the spirit
world. There is no doubt in my mind that the outcome of this trial
would affect all of God's angels and all of Satan's demons... I have a
fear now that I too will become a demon, or I may be a demon right now.
Sometimes the need to kill becomes so overwhelming that I fear myself.
However, I know this is not me. I'm certain there is someone inside me,
an alien presence whose need to obtain blood and kill is in relation to
his rebellion to God."
> Did 'Fred' Shipman exclaim "Thou shalt not Kill" before injecting
> yet another pathetic trusting old woman?
I did not say all. I said the SINGLE book quoted as most often
influencing such individuals is the Bible. And it is.
Did Shipman, by the way, watch too many video nasties? Obviously not.
> Gary, I am not saying your posts are piss and wind, but when you get
to the
> piss and wind department it would take an army to compete with you.
Given, as I have shown above, that you do not let your almost total
lack of knowledge of a subject stop you from making sweeping judgements
on it, I'll leave it to others to decide where the piss and wind in
this thread is coming from.
> Of
> course all this Bible stuff isirrelevant anyway. As I imagine and
hope you
> know. We discuss whether good art can contain a deliberately immoral
> message.
First, define "immoral" in a sense we can all agree on.
> Okay, let me explain my position to you slowly. A work extolling the
virtues
> of Communism is not deliberately immoral if the author believes what
he is
> saying. Shaw backed Communism, as did many well meaning intellectuals.
> "Animal Farm" showed the true situation. Can you imagine an 'Animal
Farm'
> which backed the commies that in any sense at all was a worthy
product?
I can imagine many great books that back the "Commies" including most
of Lu Hsun's writings, Arthur Koestler, Sartre, and arguably many of
Steinbeck's. On the other hand a major book I know that totally
advocates capitalism is Ayn Rand which is crap. You clearly do not
produce good art by simply having the "right" goodpoint. Equally you do
not automatically produce bad art by simply having the "wrong" one.
> Sorry to be brutally frank.
Can you spell "hypocrite"? I think someone who is almost invaribably
insulting to others - your preferred mode of discourse - and then
claims to be sorry immediately afterwards would have a lot of use for
that word.
> >> If 'Triumph of the Will' was intended as an
> >> apology for fascism if fails even on that humble level, showing the
> > all too
> >> dreadful nature of the beast concerned.
> >
> > Please explain how.
>
> Assorted regimented zombies wonderfully parodied by UK propaganda
films.
> Come on, for fuck sake. It's 2001, not 1939.
I would have thought the "all too dreadful nature of the beast
concerned" lay rather more in mass exterminations than big parades.
Where were they shown in the film?
> > Abel Gance's "Napoleon" also happens to "celebrate" a man who
murdered
> > hundreds of thousands. As does Eisenstein's "Ivan the Terrible".
There
> > is a fascist tendency in human nature. Some films make us aware of
> > that. All the same, did you become a card-carrying Fascist after
> > viewing "Triumph of the Will" or "Olympiad"? Somehow I doubt it.
>
> Completely irrelevant. We speak of good art - not its influence.
These works are hardly negligible or bad art.
> > Audiences only too often take what they want from movies. You'd be
> > amazed how many people see "Citizen Kane" as a celebration of
American
> > capitalism, while others see it as a devastating condemnation.
>
> Yes, but that does not illustrate your point as I am sure you are
aware if
> you think about it. Kane was meant well, albeit a crap pretentious
film.
What does that mean? What do you view as its good intentions? Meant
well in what way?
> > If by that you mean that I don't think that art's first function is
to
> > serve as some form of social medicine you are right.
>
> You amaze me. I do not see art as a "social medicine" at all. I do not
> though see good art as ever advocating what is clearly a shit view (to
> anyone, Gary, with half a brain.)
That would make it clear why you reach that particular conclusion.
> >> - you don't need to be a
> >> philosopher to work that out - could you find for example a film
> > firmly
> >> advocating rape worthy tolerable because of its supposed style and
> > quality?
> >
> > Seen any of Pedro Almodovar's films? "Tie me Up, Tie me Down"?
> > Seen "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers"? based on the rape of the
Sabine
> > women? There was one Eastwood movie where our "hero" raped a woman.
Id
> > de Sade's "Justine" a negligible work of art?
>
> As ever, utterly irrelevant.
No. As ever, films that work against your thesis, and of which you are
quite possibly ignorant, so that you must try to withdraw them from
discusion. Ever heard of a movie called "Men Can't Be Raped" in which a
woman sets out to "rape" a man in retaliation for what he did to her?
Is her action evil? Is that a "bad" film because of what she sets out
to do? Is "To Die For" a bad fim because the woman at the centre of it
is amoral? I think not.
> A confusion of issues. De Sade - a totally crap
> writer - to anyone with half a brain.
Then I am not surprised you think so.
Gary Pollard
news:3a78f48f...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 02:28:44 +0000, "D C Harris"
> <brookwo...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> >Did Manson waft about a cherised King James' black leather bound
> >Bible when dispatching Polanski's wife and frienmds?
>
> Actually, Manson "wafted" (?) about the Beatles' White Album when he
> and/or his followers went on their killing sprees.
True. He also did claim to have derived much of his inspiration from the
book of Revelations.
Gary
Joe Myers
news:95avuh$ul8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
[the voices told me to snip! snip! snip!]
> John Wayne Gacy enjoyed handcuffing his victims, anally raping them,
> beating them to a pulp, reciting verses from the bible, and then
> strangling them to death.
Are you sure that was Gacy? I thought it was Jimmy Swaggart.
Joe Myers
"Ohhh! You mean religious nuts who didn't
*pay* for anal rape, beatings and Bible verses."
Joe Myers
> Manson believed these songs were instructing him to do all sorts of
> things. I kind of doubt the Fabs had this in mind. I can pretty much
> assure you they weren't hoping someone would scrawl their words in
> blood across some walls in Southern California.
I dunno, Paula. I've heard Ringo really hated "Valley of the Dolls."
> But then Manson was crazy.
Paula, Paula, Paula. You're trying to explain "crazy" to DC Harris.
Joe Myers
"That's like explaining 'ugly' to a frog."
traw...@my-deja.com
> > Of
> > course all this Bible stuff isirrelevant anyway. As I imagine and
> hope you
> > know. We discuss whether good art can contain a deliberately immoral
> > message.
>
> First, define "immoral" in a sense we can all agree on.
And *this* completely defines the futility of this argument.
I still remember when I first read Animal Farm. I must've been barely
15 or 16 at the time. I was kinda enjoying it at first. The animals
were endearing, the old farmer was hilarious, even the pigs were funny
in an I-can't-believe-they-can-get-away-with-that way. I was kinda
picturing it as a Disney animated movie.
Then Boxer got sent away, to be turned into glue.
Right then and there, I wanted to fling the book away as hard as I
could. I didn't want it in the same room as me.
Nobody is gonna call Animal Farm a worthless work. But I *hated* it,
and still do. So it was an effective satire on Communism. I could give
less of a fuck. All I cared was that it took great pleasure in creating
characters that I liked and cared for, and equally great pleasure in
pouring shit all over them.
But that's me. I'm sure a lot of people loved it, and have good reasons
for it.
What was the original genesis for the good old-fashioned good vs. evil
story? Cavemen sitting in a dark cave, huddled around the fire, while
predators stalked the night outside. That's why good-guys-vs.-bad-guys
resonate so deeply within us, because we all evolved from cavemen
hiding in a dark cave from monsters that stalked the night. But how has
the good-vs.-evil story evolved? Now we have good guys that aren't all
that good (Yojimbo, Dirty Harry, etc.). Now we have bad guys that are
pretty decent (Heat, The Rock, coupla others I can't think of right
now). Is that morally wrong? Does that negate their artistic, or even
entertainment, value? Not in my book. I happen to *like* shades of gray
in my stories. Even though I'm still that 16-year-old kid who hated
Animal Farm.
I'll agree that all stories need a moral center, because we are all
ultimately moral people, and stories that revel in immorality will
ultimately never find an audience. But like Gary said, nobody can come
up with a universal definition of morality that covers every
eventuality and that every human being can agree with. The sickest
people on earth never thought of what they did as evil.
traw...@my-deja.com
> > What about movies that revel in violence and misogyny,
>
> Misogyny? I don't see much of that in movies. Certainly no more than I
> see misandry. Do you mean misanthropy?
You know, I think I'm totally confusing my mediums here. When I think
misogyny, I'm thinking rap and hip-hop lyrics. My bad.
> I enjoy running around in computer games and shooting things. I do
> prefer the ones where you don't shoot innocent people. But I've found
> the research on this very suspect. People like to try to prove that
> playing violent computer games makes you violent. I'll tell you -
> playing Tetris or chess gets me just as wound up as playing Doom, but
> no-one has even researched that.
Well, of course any well-designed game needs to get you agitated and
frustrated, otherwise it'd be too easy. What I'm talking about are
games that deliberately create a pseudo-real environment and allow you,
nay, *reward* you by performing actions within this environment that
would be utterly reprehensible in real life. Critics agree that
Carmageddon 2 is a fun game. So why didn't they just make it so you
drove a cartoon car around and ran over bright floating amorphous
blobs? Why did it make it crystal clear that the collection of bytes
and pixels you just ran over for points is an innocent pedestrian?
This isn't OT. This analogy fits perfectly well into movies. How hard
is it to make a movie that paints vicious psychopaths as heroes and
cops as villains, and makes you cheer for its "good guys" and hiss at
its "bad guys"? (Hell, I bet it's already been done.)
> Hmm. I don't know if you are based in Hong Kong. You said you were
> based in Asia. Outside of that movie, I never DID meet a triad wearing
> a trench coat, and I have met, drank with, and worked with, quite a
few
> through industry contacts here. Those include White Paper Fan bosses
> and Double Flower Red Pole enforcers.
Well, no, I'm not from Hong Kong. Guess I bought into that knee-jerk
media analysis you mentioned. But I seem to remember John Woo saying
that he made Hard-Boiled in response to media criticism of ABT.
D C Harris
----------
In article <95bnij$grp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, traw...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> I still remember when I first read Animal Farm. I must've been barely
> 15 or 16 at the time. I was kinda enjoying it at first. The animals
> were endearing, the old farmer was hilarious, even the pigs were funny
> in an I-can't-believe-they-can-get-away-with-that way. I was kinda
> picturing it as a Disney animated movie.
>
> Then Boxer got sent away, to be turned into glue.
>
Yes - it ain't a kid's book. But the clever thing is that it sucked
you in and then showed the evil of the Commies. (And I'm no Republican.)
True, moving, as was 1984.
D C Harris
----------
In article <95avuh$ul8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Gary Pollard
<gpol...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>I said
>> previously no sane person will take the New Testament as an excuse to
> kill
>> people.
>
> And a "sane" person would kill someone based on a movie because....?
>
> Interesting how you have to hedge your bets by denying half of the
> Bible there Derek.
>
I am not engaged in making wagers with you, I am trying to make sense of
your assertions. Straw men and red herrings from you do not assist in this.
No work of art/philosophy can provide justification for deliberate wrong.
What is 'wrong' as a concept Gary? Let me see, some examples for you.
Perhaps coshing you, or robbing you, or raping you. Is the latter clear? You
seem to be beyond such simple things at times. Perhaps you tease us, or
there is a deeper problem.
Some moral issues are clouded by complexities, historical and cultural
factors. Often there is no black or white easily seen. Okay Gary? For
example Seven Samurai takes a position which is pro-war, yet I find it hard
to argue with the underlying themes. Okay Gary?
I do not believe if art deals with moral issues specifically it can be good
art if negative positions or acts are extolled. (An example, a Shane,
teaming up with the baddies against the homesteaders.)
The yearning for positive values is universal. Is it different down your
street Gary?
You seem to extract a thousand pieces of gobbledegook from simple
sentiments. I try and extract sense from nonsense.
D C Harris
----------
In article <3a78f48f...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, rub...@att.net
(Paula) wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 02:28:44 +0000, "D C Harris"
> <brookwo...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Did Manson waft about a cherised King James' black leather bound
>>Bible when dispatching Polanski's wife and frienmds?
>
>
> Actually, Manson "wafted" (?) about the Beatles' White Album when he
> and/or his followers went on their killing sprees.
>
Thanks, for one moment I thought he might have had The Catcher in the Rye!
; )
D C Harris
----------
I
>
> Paula, Paula, Paula. You're trying to explain "crazy" to DC Harris.
>
> Joe Myers
> "That's like explaining 'ugly' to a frog."
>
>
Hey Robert Crumb, I know some really pretty frogs.
Dena Jo
>> John Wayne Gacy enjoyed handcuffing his victims, anally raping them,
>> beating them to a pulp, reciting verses from the bible, and then
>> strangling them to death.
>
>Are you sure that was Gacy? I thought it was Jimmy Swaggart.
>
>Joe Myers
> "Ohhh! You mean religious nuts who didn't
>*pay* for anal rape, beatings and Bible verses."
You are a god, Joe.
Dena Jo
Dena Jo
>> Misogyny? I don't see much of that in movies. Certainly no more than I
>> see misandry. Do you mean misanthropy?
Misandry. There's a interesting word. Hate to admit it, but I'd never heard
this word. I looked it up in four dictionaries, including my compact OED,
before finally, *finally* finding it in my unabridged Websters. Means hater of
men (the gender, not mankind). As a result of my search, however, I discovered
a great web page, the Dictionary of Difficult Words,
http://www.lineone.net/dictionaryof/difficultwords.
Now, can anyone tell me when this word entered our language or point me to a
reference source?
Dena Jo (and to think I've spent most of my adult life wondering why no such
word existed!)
Disturbed42
>Carmageddon 2 is a fun game. So why didn't they just make it so you
>drove a cartoon car around and ran over bright floating amorphous
>blobs?
Because that would be stupid. Running over the pedestrians is funny. Though, I
find the game a little tedious and the control sloppy, mowing down a field full
of tourists is funny. So what? I don't do it in real life. It's a game. I've
played Clue and haven't become a detective, and last time I checked I don't own
any hotels on the Boardwalk.
Disturbed42
>The yearning for positive values is universal. Is it different down your
>street Gary?
There you go again, DC, deciding for the world what's good and bad.
D C Harris
----------
In article <20010201123237...@ng-mh1.aol.com>,
distu...@aol.com (Disturbed42) wrote:
I have often thought you dearly need to learn read before you try the
writing bit.
Gary Pollard
news:t7ivckr...@corp.supernews.co.uk...
> ----------
> In article <95avuh$ul8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Gary Pollard
> <gpol...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >>I said
> >> previously no sane person will take the New Testament as an excuse to
> > kill
> >> people.
> >
> > And a "sane" person would kill someone based on a movie because....?
> >
> > Interesting how you have to hedge your bets by denying half of the
> > Bible there Derek.
>
> I am not engaged in making wagers with you, I am trying to make sense of
> your assertions. Straw men and red herrings from you do not assist in
this.
No straw men or red herrings there Derek.
We are talking about the possible ill effects of art on individuals. Okay
Derek?
> No work of art/philosophy can provide justification for deliberate wrong.
Nobody has said it can. Now THAT is a straw man Derek.
> What is 'wrong' as a concept Gary? Let me see, some examples for you.
> Perhaps coshing you, or robbing you, or raping you. Is the latter clear?
You
> seem to be beyond such simple things at times.
You may not have seen good guys rape that much in movies Derek. But you
certainly have seen them cosh, rob and kill, from "Mission Impossible" to
James Bond.
> Some moral issues are clouded by complexities, historical and cultural
> factors. Often there is no black or white easily seen. Okay Gary?
Ah, you are beginning to get a glimmer of understanding Derek.
> For
> example Seven Samurai takes a position which is pro-war, yet I find it
hard
> to argue with the underlying themes. Okay Gary?
Are you sure it is pro-war? I certainly am not. It may well be pro-violence
as a solution to problems. But then Samurai were like that. Has it become a
bad movie then Derek?
> I do not believe if art deals with moral issues specifically it can be
good
> art if negative positions or acts are extolled. (An example, a Shane,
> teaming up with the baddies against the homesteaders.)
You are evading the issue that what defines a "negative" or a "positive" act
depends on where you are standing.
> I try and extract sense from nonsense.
Yes. You are trying.
Gary
Gary Pollard
den...@cs.com (Dena Jo) wrote:
> Misandry. There's a interesting word. Hate to admit it, but I'd
never heard
> this word. I looked it up in four dictionaries, including my compact
OED,
> before finally, *finally* finding it in my unabridged Websters.
Means hater of
> men (the gender, not mankind).
It's in my OED too, not the compact one. but they don't have a
derivation for it.
> Dena Jo (and to think I've spent most of my adult life wondering why
no such
> word existed!)
Why Dena, because there's no such thing ;-)
Gary
Gary Pollard
> What was the original genesis for the good old-fashioned good vs. evil
> story? Cavemen sitting in a dark cave, huddled around the fire, while
> predators stalked the night outside. That's why good-guys-vs.-bad-guys
> resonate so deeply within us, because we all evolved from cavemen
> hiding in a dark cave from monsters that stalked the night.
Even then there would have been two stories.
(a) With one mighty bound, Grog killed the tiger.
(b) (More realistic) The tiger ate Grog for lunch.
Some here would have you believe that (b) would automatically be bad
art. When it just might be more honest art.
Gary
traw...@my-deja.com
> Even then there would have been two stories.
>
> (a) With one mighty bound, Grog killed the tiger.
>
> (b) (More realistic) The tiger ate Grog for lunch.
>
> Some here would have you believe that (b) would automatically be bad
> art. When it just might be more honest art.
Perhaps, but cavemen would've probably lynched any shaman who told
story (b). And that is the Primeval reason why we are having this
debate.
Gary Pollard
Maybe it depends on what we think art is for. The story of how Grog got
eaten might tell us how to avoid getting eaten. The story of Grog
killing the tiger might be nice escapism (unles he really did), but it
might not stop us getting eaten next time we go out.
It's been said before that there are two contending types of fiction -
(a) the idealistic whch delineates how we'd like the world to be, and
(b) the descriptive, which shows how it is.
Much of the art we tend to see as immoral is of the latter kind.
In my own personal opinion the worst art is that which pretends to be
(b) when it is in fact (a), which is my own personal view of
say "American Beauty".
Gary
Joe Myers
[sniplet]
> ...cavemen would've probably lynched any shaman who told
> story (b).
Typical Republican behavior: attack the reporter for telling the truth.
Joe Myers
"Of course, Republicans have
devolved since caveman days."
D C Harris
----------
In article <95cs1p$b6v$1...@m5.att.net.hk>, "Gary Pollard"
<gpol...@mysite.com.hk> wrote:
From: "D C Harris" <brookwo...@lineone.net>
Subject: Re: Se7en - Should art advocate hopelessness?
----------
In article <95cs1p$b6v$1...@m5.att.net.hk>, "Gary Pollard"
<gpol...@mysite.com.hk> wrote:
>> > Interesting how you have to hedge your bets by denying half of the
>> > Bible there Derek.
>>
>> I am not engaged in making wagers with you, I am trying to make sense of
>> your assertions. Straw men and red herrings from you do not assist in
> this.
>
> No straw men or red herrings there Derek.
Eeeer - sorry. The original poster asks if art should advocate hopelessness
which seems a simple enough question till Gary cops hold of it. Your reply
that the Bible inspires serial killers, is a red herring of leviathan
proportions. Your statement here (which seems pretty silly to me anyway) is
deeply intellectually dishonest. To suggest a reasonable answer to the
poster's question is the statement that X book causes Y amount of distress,
when implicitly you argue against anyway censorship, is to indulge in the
sort of logic that arises neatly from a bottle of cooking sherry. Your
argument is comparable to saying that louts in the street should be ignored
by the police because some nice guys annoy people just as much as idiots.
Thanks though for the comments - I appeciate the debate - and this to me is
not a 'I'm right your wrong' scenario. Some of your comments though I find
so deeply contentious and misleading I feel a robust reply is necessary -
that's my story and I'm sticking to it1
> You may not have seen good guys rape that much in movies Derek. But you
> certainly have seen them cosh, rob and kill, from "Mission Impossible" to
> James Bond.
This too is veering gently away from the discussion. I hate for example all
this crap about not letting kids see violence on TV. I think a healthy kid
can easily distinguish between fact and fantasy. Who hasn't played cops and
robbers and the like? James Bond films are comic book art and barely carry
any moral message at all.
When negative qualities are mixed up with supposed 'art' the trouble starts.
You give yourself away with asking me to estimate the quality of 'Justine'
and ask if this is a "negligible" work of art - a rhetorical question
obviously. Is this really your idea of an 'artistic' book. I can forgive
Disturbed coming to de Sade's defence - I imagine he never read more than
one novel by anyone - but you told me once you had a large library.
'Justine' is a florid catalogue of sickening acts which has one moral -
people are naturally and unavoidably wicked so why bother? I will come out
without the boxing gloves with this one - if you like this sort of crap then
your opinion on anything is not worth a bucket of shit.
Don't 'Justine' me - I am someone proud to think I have decent taste - I am,
not ashamed of the latter - I am proud of it. Justine Disturbed - Justine
Joe Myers - but if you want to impress me in any argument try and do it
without changing the subject every ten seconds or peddling pornography - if
'Justine' is the sort of rancorous garbage you spunk your sheets with every
day good luck to you - but don't advance Justine to this poster in a moral
debate without thinking you will get the answer I think appropriate. -- You
might not give a toss what I think though - if so fair enough. And I don't
give one sweet tiny fuck.
>> For
>> example Seven Samurai takes a position which is pro-war, yet I find it
> hard
>> to argue with the underlying themes. Okay Gary?
>
> Are you sure it is pro-war? I certainly am not. It may well be pro-violence
> as a solution to problems. But then Samurai were like that. Has it become a
> bad movie then Derek?
Non sequitur again - I think it a great movie. It certainly advocates war -
which is why they hire an army. In no way though is the film an argument for
aggression. It does not advocate taking advantage of vulnerable people, in
the way your favourite nighttime reading, Justine, advocates rape.
>
>> I do not believe if art deals with moral issues specifically it can be
> good
>> art if negative positions or acts are extolled. (An example, a Shane,
>> teaming up with the baddies against the homesteaders.)
>
> You are evading the issue that what defines a "negative" or a "positive" act
> depends on where you are standing.
>
How on Earth do you extrapolate that from the prior quote from me? No don't
tell me - as you can't possibly advance a rational argument in your defence.
One question Gary. Please - puleeease answer. Should art advocate
hopelessness?
I say no. (Fool I am). What do YOU say. You are a clever guy - don't be shy.
Go on I DARE you - yes or no. Should art advocate hopelessness?
In closing I quote from the Bible a little section which I imagine has
inspired many a serial killer.
For love is as strong as death:
Jealousy is cruel as the grave:
The coals thereof are coals of fire,
Which hath a most vehement flame.
Many waters cannot quench love,
Neither can the floods drown it:
If the man would give all
substance of his house for love
It would be utterly contemned.
Best --
D C Harris
----------
In article <95cskt$lk9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Gary Pollard
<gpol...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Even then there would have been two stories.
>
> (a) With one mighty bound, Grog killed the tiger.
>
> (b) (More realistic) The tiger ate Grog for lunch.
>
> Some here would have you believe that (b) would automatically be bad
> art. When it just might be more honest art.
>
> Gary
>
>
Some of us round here see art as extending ordinary powers - some of us
round here see a difference between documentary and artistic reality, some
of us - well never mind --
traw...@my-deja.com
> One question Gary. Please - puleeease answer. Should art advocate
> hopelessness?
>
> I say no. (Fool I am). What do YOU say. You are a clever guy - don't
be shy.
> Go on I DARE you - yes or no. Should art advocate hopelessness?
I'll bite.
Art doesn't advocate anything. Yeah, so I bought into the "art has no
responsibility" stance - though I balk at the phrase "no
responsibility".
After all, the original poster thought Se7en advocated hopelessness. I
saw an optimistic ending. Who's right?
But my stand from the very beginning has always been that *artists*
have responsibility. Artists damn well advocate something in every work
they produce, even if they don't know it. And good artists *should*
know it, and make damn sure they're advocating something *good*.
My Idea Detector(TM) is pinging. How's this for an absolutely
horrifying scene: A bunch of filmmakers make an incredibly violent and
subversive movie. Some kids do another Columbine, mention the movie,
and it gets plastered all over the media. And the filmmakers throw a
*party* - celebrating the fact that their movie is now famous.
I sicken myself sometimes.
Gary Pollard
"D C Harris" <brookwo...@lineone.net> wrote:
> The original poster asks if art should advocate hopelessness
> which seems a simple enough question till Gary cops hold of it.
Uh Derek. It pains me to remind you that YOU were one of the first to
get into the cause and effect issue in this thread:
Your post from several days ago:
"This is a wonderful case for destroying society as we know it. Does
writing this shit come easily - or does it take an effort?"
Did that cooking sherry promote temporary amnesia by any chance?
What art "should" do surely depends, even to one with half a brain, on
what one regards arts potential EFFECTS as being.
> Your reply
> that the Bible inspires serial killers, is a red herring of leviathan
> proportions.
Actually no. The salient point of my reply, expressed clearly enough
apparently for most here, was "No artist can control absolutely what
people do in response to the work."
> To suggest a reasonable answer to the
> poster's question is the statement that X book causes Y amount of
distress,
> when implicitly you argue against anyway censorship, is to indulge in
the
> sort of logic that arises neatly from a bottle of cooking sherry.
Hardly. The issue of what art "should" do is surely bound up with a
perception of its social effects.
> > You may not have seen good guys rape that much in movies Derek. But
you
> > certainly have seen them cosh, rob and kill, from "Mission
Impossible" to
> > James Bond.
>
> This too is veering gently away from the discussion.
Not at all. You asked if these things in themselves were OK. I am
arguing that context is important.
> I hate for example all
> this crap about not letting kids see violence on TV. I think a
healthy kid
> can easily distinguish between fact and fantasy. Who hasn't played
cops and
> robbers and the like? James Bond films are comic book art and barely
carry
> any moral message at all.
That is a weird statement.
> 'Justine' is a florid catalogue of sickening acts which has one
moral -
> people are naturally and unavoidably wicked so why bother?
More than that. The book is - in a very real way - a challenge to the
concept of a benevolent God. An artist is perfectly justified in
presenting that challenge if he/she believes a benevolent God does not
exist. Tavernier's "Beatrice", an excellent film I think, is about a
character who feels exactly the same way.
> You
> might not give a toss what I think though - if so fair enough. And I
don't
> give one sweet tiny fuck.
Being a little unkind to yourself aren't you?
> Non sequitur again - I think it a great movie. It certainly advocates
war -
> which is why they hire an army. In no way though is the film an
argument for
> aggression. It does not advocate taking advantage of vulnerable
people, in
> the way your favourite nighttime reading, Justine, advocates rape.
Ah, we see that straw man raising its ugly head again.
It has been pointed out that the women in De Sade's novels are the ones
who seem free to make the moral choices, while the men are set in their
(usually lecherous) ways. Discuss, based on your in-depth reading.
> > You are evading the issue that what defines a "negative" or
a "positive" act
> > depends on where you are standing.
>
> How on Earth do you extrapolate that from the prior quote from me? No
don't
> tell me - as you can't possibly advance a rational argument in your
defence.
Well, from the fact you have posited several specific things as "evils"
and "wrongs" so far, except of course where they occur in such "comic
book art" as James Bond.
It is a patent absurdity to think Bond contains hardly any moral mesage
at all. All art does.
Many unthinking films - Bond for one - carry the moral message that as
long as you are on the side of "good" or "right" then violence is
justified on its behalf.
That's just as unthinking as your so far undefined "wrong" and "evil"
> One question Gary. Please - puleeease answer. Should art advocate
> hopelessness?
What you have perhaps failed to notice in this thread is that what we
have been discussing is that much depends on that "should".
"Should" art do any fucking thing? What any individual artist decides
art "should" do is his or her prerogative.
Have you read the Ripley books by the way? Fascinating presentation of
the mind of a sociopath. But does Ripley have to be defeated for them
to be worthwhile? Of course he doesn't. That would be kindergarten
thinking.
It also depends on what we mean by "advocate". Who says that a work of
art that REFLECTS an artist's perception of the lack of hope in the
world is ADVOCATING hopelessness? I do not believe "Seven" IS
advocating hopelessness.
If you honestly think these are the primary ways to evauluate art maybe
you should check out the Oprah Winfrey reading list. Or the Reader's
Digest one. Plenty of wholesome stuff there.
> I say no. (Fool I am). What do YOU say. You are a clever guy - don't
be shy.
> Go on I DARE you - yes or no. Should art advocate hopelessness?
See above. But have you read "The Wasteland"? Ever heard of Samuel
Beckett? Dostoevsky? The Existentialist writers? Or do you just like
fairy tales?
> For love is as strong as death:
> Jealousy is cruel as the grave:
> The coals thereof are coals of fire,
> Which hath a most vehement flame.
> Many waters cannot quench love,
> Neither can the floods drown it:
> If the man would give all
> substance of his house for love
> It would be utterly contemned.
Yep, and there's also a pretty "hopeless" and less "artistic" - in your
view I assume - chapter called Revelations.
Paula
>But my stand from the very beginning has always been that *artists*
>have responsibility. Artists damn well advocate something in every work
>they produce, even if they don't know it. And good artists *should*
>know it, and make damn sure they're advocating something *good*.
Okay. Let's take art. What is Mark Rothko "advocating" in his art?
Rothko certainly had his own ideas about what he was expressing in his
art, but I will bet that 99.9% of most casual visitors to art museums
have no idea what that was. They experience his art completely
subjectively. "I really like that purple rectangle!" Can one enjoy a
work of art without having intellectually digested an artist's
manifesto? Yes. (This is not to say that I don't believe there ARE
artists that create art in order to persuade others, but how many
people would say that that is the PURPOSE of art?)
Don't confuse the words "advocate" with "express". Don't confuse
didactic with presentational. Personally, I would rather learn from a
work of art, not be instructed by a work of art. There's a big
difference.
How can someone advocate something "even if they don't know it"? Can
one advocate passively? Unconsciously? Unintentionally?
Why should an artist advocate something good? What is "good"?
I know this argument is going nowhere, and painting and movies are two
completely different realms. In a successful movie, one generally has
a cohesive, coherent story, with a specific ending consciously
constructed to evoke a specific emotion from an audience.
But "Art" (capital "A" art) HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY! It does not exist
to "advocate" anything. Except, perhaps, itself.
But I'm just typing here....
Paula
Gary Pollard
"D C Harris" <brookwo...@lineone.net> wrote:
> Some of us round here see art as extending ordinary powers - some of
us
> round here see a difference between documentary and artistic reality,
some
> of us - well never mind --
Well, never mind indeed.....
... but perhaps, given that I don't recally anoyone else around here
giving you carte blanche to speak for them, some of YOU should look
back over the history of art at the conflict between the approaches of
idealisation and representation.
BrickRage
>From: rub...@att.net (Paula)
I'm quoting the whole of Paula's post because it bears repeating and I'm saving
it.
Yay. Keep typing gal.
>I know this argument is going nowhere, and painting and movies are two
>completely different realms.
I feel, however, that painting and movies aren't so completely different. Hell
of a thing for me to say on mws, but films are closer to paintings and other
visual arts than they are to literature.
Nesci
It ain't the size, it's ...
no, it's the size.
The FAQ for this newsgroup is http://www.communicator.com/faqs.html
traw...@my-deja.com
> Maybe it depends on what we think art is for. The story of how Grog
got
> eaten might tell us how to avoid getting eaten. The story of Grog
> killing the tiger might be nice escapism (unles he really did), but it
> might not stop us getting eaten next time we go out.
The story of Grog killing the tiger might be just as good at telling us
how to avoid getting eaten - by telling us how to kill tigers. It's
easy to depress people by telling them how shitty things are. It's
harder - but IMO, nobler - to inspire people by telling them how things
should be.
(I know, I know, that's probably the exact reason why Leni Riefenstahl
made Triumph of the Will.)
> It's been said before that there are two contending types of fiction -
> (a) the idealistic whch delineates how we'd like the world to be, and
> (b) the descriptive, which shows how it is.
>
> Much of the art we tend to see as immoral is of the latter kind.
>
> In my own personal opinion the worst art is that which pretends to be
> (b) when it is in fact (a), which is my own personal view of
> say "American Beauty".
What's wrong with a movie that starts off in (realistically) shitty
circumstances and ends with an (idealistically) happy ending? Grimm's
fairy tales are all like this. Same goes for American Beauty. Lester's
life is a pretty common suburban hell. What he subsequently does is
probably what every man in his circumstance fantasizes of doing. The
movie didn't shake the earth for me, but I don't see anything wrong
about it.
traw...@my-deja.com
> Don't confuse the words "advocate" with "express". Don't confuse
> didactic with presentational. Personally, I would rather learn from a
> work of art, not be instructed by a work of art. There's a big
> difference.
But you're an artist yourself. You're biased. Don't tell me you don't
watch a movie and go "Hey that's cool! I wanna do something like that
in my next script!" or "God that was dumb. I swear I'll never put
something like that in my scripts". Whereas someone else might
think "Should my kids be watching this?"
I'll admit that I've confused "advocate" with "express". But part of my
stand on artists' responsibility is based on the fact that a *lot* of
other people confuse it as well. A lot of people feel that a work of
art that expresses, say, the futility of trying to do good is also
*telling* everyone that it *is* futile to do good. And if so many
people feel that way, who am I, who are *you*, to say that what they
feel is "confusion"?
Paula
>I'll admit that I've confused "advocate" with "express". But part of my
>stand on artists' responsibility is based on the fact that a *lot* of
>other people confuse it as well. A lot of people feel that a work of
>art that expresses, say, the futility of trying to do good is also
>*telling* everyone that it *is* futile to do good. And if so many
>people feel that way, who am I, who are *you*, to say that what they
>feel is "confusion"?
...Huh?
There are a lot of stupid people in the world. Why feel the need to
cater to them?
Unless you want to be obscenely successful and make a lot of money.
Paula
traw...@my-deja.com
> There are a lot of stupid people in the world. Why feel the need to
> cater to them?
You're avoiding the issue. Who says they're stupid and you're smart?
> Unless you want to be obscenely successful and make a lot of money.
Totally unfair of you to call me this, if you've been following the
thread.
Gary Pollard
traw...@my-deja.com wrote:
> A lot of people feel that a work of
> art that expresses, say, the futility of trying to do good is also
> *telling* everyone that it *is* futile to do good.
Or simply saying that (a) trying to do good is not enough (if you are
wrongheaded) or (b) doing good and winning is a heck of a lot harder
than you think. The easy happy endings of many "positive" movies leave
you feeling smug and give you the wrong idea in my view.
Gary
Gary Pollard
traw...@my-deja.com wrote:
> The story of Grog killing the tiger might be just as good at telling
us
> how to avoid getting eaten - by telling us how to kill tigers.
Only as long as what the story tells you works.
> It's
> easy to depress people by telling them how shitty things are. It's
> harder - but IMO, nobler - to inspire people by telling them how
things
> should be.
Same thing. One inspires you to change things for the better, if you
are appalled. Take a story like the Brazilian movie "Pizote" about
street kids. If the kids had got out of the slums and gone to Harvard,
audiences would be able to sit back and say "All is for the best in the
best of all possible worlds". Even if you WANT to impel people to
action, and I don't think it's a necessity in art, "hopeful" endings
often encourage complexity.
> > It's been said before that there are two contending types of
fiction -
> > (a) the idealistic whch delineates how we'd like the world to be,
and
> > (b) the descriptive, which shows how it is.
> >
> > Much of the art we tend to see as immoral is of the latter kind.
> >
> > In my own personal opinion the worst art is that which pretends to
be
> > (b) when it is in fact (a), which is my own personal view of
> > say "American Beauty".
>
> What's wrong with a movie that starts off in (realistically) shitty
> circumstances and ends with an (idealistically) happy ending? Grimm's
> fairy tales are all like this. Same goes for American Beauty. Lester's
> life is a pretty common suburban hell. What he subsequently does is
> probably what every man in his circumstance fantasizes of doing. The
> movie didn't shake the earth for me, but I don't see anything wrong
> about it.
Some movies, in my view, do this well. That one didn't do it for me.
But do a Usenet search on "American Beauty" if you want to go into it
more. I don't want to discuss that movie again. I found it
fundamentally dishonest. Others disagree.
Gary
Gary Pollard
traw...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > There are a lot of stupid people in the world. Why feel the need to
> > cater to them?
>
> You're avoiding the issue. Who says they're stupid and you're smart?
If you can't realise that some people ARE stupid and will misunderstand
almost anything you do you are heading for sore disappointment.
Gary
traw...@my-deja.com
> >Critics agree that
> >Carmageddon 2 is a fun game. So why didn't they just make it so you
> >drove a cartoon car around and ran over bright floating amorphous
> >blobs?
>
> Because that would be stupid. Running over the pedestrians is funny.
Though, I
> find the game a little tedious and the control sloppy, mowing down a
field full
> of tourists is funny.
How Disturbing.
Lemmings is generally regarded as a classic. Gotta keep those dumb
critters from jumping off that cliff. Would it be more fun if they'd
changed it to Pre-school Toddlers?
Guess it's just too hard to make a really good game, or movie for that
matter, so we'll just fill it up with cheap sick thrills that appeals
to the base and vicious in all of us.
Nobody has proven that Carmageddon 2 will actually make someone get in
a car and run down pedestrians. But there's the simple matter of *good
taste*. At least a movie can pretend to have some "message" behind the
violence.
Brian Anderson
> story (b).
A whole lot of Grimm's Fairy Tales end like story (b). The ones
everyone knows are the ones with structure and where the good guy wins
in the end. The ones you never hear about are the ones where a stronger
party picks on a weaker party throughout the story and then kills him at
the end, but there are lots and lots of examples of those, and parallel
versions of many of these appear both in Germany (where the Grimm
brothers gathered their stories) and in Russia.
D C Harris
----------
In article <95dl4i$9fm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Gary Pollard
<gpol...@my-deja.com> wrote:
Noone has asked me to speak for them, but I know a number of posters
off group and am directly associated with five of them through work
activity. Also, people post their opinions here.
There is a rather great difference anyway between issues of'idealisation and
representation' in art generally and 'documentary and artistic reality' in
works if fiction. The latter is not a nicety but the enemy of the type of
quaint reductionism that you seem to favour at times. As I am interested in
this type of thing I often study it in various ways - but thanks for the
kind thought.
D C Harris
----------
In article <95dkuf$9db$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Gary Pollard
<gpol...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>:
>
> Your post from several days ago:
> "This is a wonderful case for destroying society as we know it. Does
> writing this shit come easily - or does it take an effort?"
This was a reply to a post that suggested trying to improve the world was
silly, as everyone had different tastes. Nihilism is lazy thinking Gary -
give it up.
(Snipped various statements not understood even after passing twice through
my brand new "Gary translation" programme.)
>
>> I hate for example all
>> this crap about not letting kids see violence on TV. I think a
> healthy kid
>> can easily distinguish between fact and fantasy. Who hasn't played
> cops and
>> robbers and the like? James Bond films are comic book art and barely
> carry
>> any moral message at all.
>
> That is a weird statement.
James Bond is about (if you like that type of thing) glamour versus
drabness, gentlemen versus thugs and despots. It is a modern pantomime with
little intrinsic harm at all. By the way, Fleming was a Christian concerned
about the moral impact of his books.
Again, James Bond is a total evasion of the subject. The question was
'should art advocate hopelessness?' The question was not are certain popular
works immoral. You sometimes seem to have a lovely little cocoon of evasion
in which you study different scenery, when the views outside are not
especially attractive. You have to remember that people with whom you share
thoughts do not necessarily occupy that parallel universe.
>
>> 'Justine' is a florid catalogue of sickening acts which has one
> moral -
>> people are naturally and unavoidably wicked so why bother?
>
> More than that. The book is - in a very real way - a challenge to the
> concept of a benevolent God. An artist is perfectly justified in
> presenting that challenge if he/she believes a benevolent God does not
> exist. Tavernier's "Beatrice", an excellent film I think, is about a
> character who feels exactly the same way.
You make this book sound very grand. Just the ill-written masturbating
fantasies of a tragic masturbating nut - wisely locked up for life by his
Mother-in-Law. If people want to take a leaf out the book (no pun intended)
of a character like this - then God help them - noone else will.
snip
>> One question Gary. Please - puleeease answer. Should art advocate
>> hopelessness?
>
> What you have perhaps failed to notice in this thread is that what we
> have been discussing is that much depends on that "should".
>
> "Should" art do any fucking thing? What any individual artist decides
> art "should" do is his or her prerogative.
>
So art *should* do what the artist thinks it should do? A belief in complete
freedom is the swan song of one forever constrained.
Your answer a cowardly evasion IMHO.
I think this particular conversation has run its course, but I will mention
that whatever you say to me on the subject of moral responsibility and
writing, you are the first often to censor posters for expressing views you
feel immoral. (And I agree with many of the comments you have thus posted.)
You are the one who bandies the word Śhypocrite' around.
Freedom of expression? People thankfully can indeed express what thoughts
they wish, (how would we know what they were if they did not) but should
they always express such thoughts? Quite obviously *you* do not think they
should. Great or truly memorable fiction? It seems to me this, invariably
possesses a positive moral sense, if not a prescriptive message.
D C Harris
----------
In article <20010202020603...@ng-mk1.aol.com>, bric...@aol.com
(BrickRage) wrote:
>
> I feel, however, that painting and movies aren't so completely different. Hell
> of a thing for me to say on mws, but films are closer to paintings and other
> visual arts than they are to literature.
>
> Nesci
Grief - I suppose you would say that about drama - because you can *see* the
stage actors and pretty scenery.
D C Harris
----------
In article <3A7AC...@flash.net>, Brian Anderson <socr...@flash.net>
wrote:
).
>
> A whole lot of Grimm's Fairy Tales end like story (b). The ones
> everyone knows are the ones with structure and where the good guy wins
> in the end. The ones you never hear about are the ones where a stronger
> party picks on a weaker party throughout the story and then kills him at
> the end, but there are lots and lots of examples of those, and parallel
> versions of many of these appear both in Germany (where the Grimm
> brothers gathered their stories) and in Russia.
Sure.
The stories people like are endless reinventions of justifiably favourite
human themes - the weak against the strong, the good against the bad, the
finding of purpose and values.
A thought - The only exception I can easily think of are Punch and Judy
shows, which kids in the UK love, and which feature wife and baby-battering
and general mayhem. These stories sound dreadful but are totally hilarious.
I think kids love a crazed anti-heroe who seems the antithesis of adult
constraint - there is no darkness in the tales at all, really. (I would hate
to mention same to Gary who confuses content and inner intent.)
Gary Pollard
"D C Harris" <brookwo...@lineone.net> wrote:
> Sure.
>
> The stories people like are endless reinventions of justifiably
favourite
> human themes - the weak against the strong,
... as if weak cannot be assholes or evil or wrong? Obviously they can.
> the good against the bad, the
> finding of purpose and values.
>
> A thought - The only exception I can easily think of are Punch and
Judy
> shows, which kids in the UK love, and which feature wife and baby-
battering
> and general mayhem.
There are plenty of exceptions, and so far you have acknowledged so
many of them, from Donald Duck to Batman, to James Bond, to Punch and
Judy, to Carmageddon, to ... well .... anything that happens to be
amoral that you happen to like, that you spear your own position.
> I think kids love a crazed anti-heroe who seems the antithesis of
adult
> constraint - there is no darkness in the tales at all, really. (I
would hate
> to mention same to Gary who confuses content and inner intent.)
No Derek. My contentions is that content is all that matters. You have
no way to define the inner intent of the artist. Authorial intent is
bollocks. Once the work is out there it stands for itself.
Gary
Gary Pollard
"D C Harris" <brookwo...@lineone.net> wrote:
> ----------
> In article <95dl4i$9fm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Gary Pollard
> <gpol...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > ... but perhaps, given that I don't recally anoyone else around here
> > giving you carte blanche to speak for them, some of YOU should look
> > back over the history of art at the conflict between the approaches
of
> > idealisation and representation.
Ah, the old "friends who support me off the newsgroup" ploy. It's a
tired one. We've heard it before.
> Noone has asked me to speak for them, but I know a number of posters
> off group and am directly associated with five of them through work
> activity. Also, people post their opinions here.
And a great many of them are at odds with you. Have you actually read
the thread?
> There is a rather great difference anyway between issues
of'idealisation and
> representation' in art generally and 'documentary and artistic
reality' in
> works if fiction.
No there isn't. Or if there is you have written nothing to back up that
concention.
> The latter is not a nicety but the enemy of the type of
> quaint reductionism that you seem to favour at times.
It rather seems to me that it is you who is favouring reductionism
through the advancement of such sweeping, simplistic bordering on
naive, and undefined, by you, concepts as "good", "evil", "right"
and "wrong". Or don't words need to be used for their real meaning
where you come from?
Gary Pollard
socr...@flash.net wrote:
> A whole lot of Grimm's Fairy Tales end like story (b). The ones
> everyone knows are the ones with structure and where the good guy wins
> in the end.
Nope. I have to originals on my shelf here. The ones everyone knows are
often liked because the original dark Grimm tales have been fucked
around with and given sappy endings by generations of well meaning but
dumb adults. Many of them are essentially Oedipal in their conflicts,
and killing off the big giant is a much darker concept than you seem to
imagine. Other excellent children's tales, just as known, such as "The
Little Tin Soldier", "The Little Match Girl" and "The Little Mermaid"
in fact also have quite dark endings.
> The ones you never hear about are the ones where a stronger
> party picks on a weaker party throughout the story and then kills him
at
> the end, but there are lots and lots of examples of those
Such as?
Gary
douglas...@hotmailnospammy.com
>I'll bite.
>
>Art doesn't advocate anything. Yeah, so I bought into the "art has no
>responsibility" stance - though I balk at the phrase "no
>responsibility".
>
>After all, the original poster thought Se7en advocated hopelessness. I
>saw an optimistic ending. Who's right?
>
>But my stand from the very beginning has always been that *artists*
>have responsibility. Artists damn well advocate something in every work
>they produce, even if they don't know it. And good artists *should*
>know it, and make damn sure they're advocating something *good*.
>
>My Idea Detector(TM) is pinging. How's this for an absolutely
>horrifying scene: A bunch of filmmakers make an incredibly violent and
>subversive movie. Some kids do another Columbine, mention the movie,
>and it gets plastered all over the media. And the filmmakers throw a
>*party* - celebrating the fact that their movie is now famous.
>
>I sicken myself sometimes.
Just what are you advocating?
Doug
Advocacy is a conscious thing...
Just a virtual guy... in a virtual world.
douglas...@hotmailnospammy.com
>The story of Grog killing the tiger might be just as good at telling us
>how to avoid getting eaten - by telling us how to kill tigers. It's
>easy to depress people by telling them how shitty things are. It's
>harder - but IMO, nobler - to inspire people by telling them how things
>should be.
And how should things be? Who knows that? That could be the basis
for the struggle and searching that underlies all art.
Or maybe not.
Doug
Gary Pollard
"D C Harris" <brookwo...@lineone.net> wrote:
> ----------
> In article <95dkuf$9db$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Gary Pollard
> <gpol...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > Your post from several days ago:
> > "This is a wonderful case for destroying society as we know it. Does
> > writing this shit come easily - or does it take an effort?"
>
> This was a reply to a post that suggested trying to improve the world
was
> silly, as everyone had different tastes. Nihilism is lazy thinking
Gary -
> give it up.
You still seem to be having a problem grasping the most simple
concepts.
"Trying to improve the world" through art involves a belief that art
has an effect.
Discussion of that effect is valid.
If you honestly consider that what I have been saying amounts to
nihilism then I suggest you buy a good dictionary or at least try to
use words as if they have meaning.
> > That is a weird statement.
>
> James Bond is about (if you like that type of thing) glamour versus
> drabness, gentlemen versus thugs and despots. It is a modern
pantomime with
> little intrinsic harm at all.
No more than say "Pulp Fiction" can make the same claim.
> By the way, Fleming was a Christian concerned
> about the moral impact of his books.
Who cares? What he was concerned about doesn't matter in the slightest
UNLESS it is in the books or movie. It is not.
Your contention that Bond is somehow a moral creature, particularly as
portrayed in the movie (which is what we were discussing) just makes a
farce of your whole claim that you believe art must have a moral base.
How is killing someone and making a sick quip somehow a "morally
positive" message? Ah the world is made safe for "capitalism". What a
profound moral sensibility you have Derek.
> Again, James Bond is a total evasion of the subject. The question was
> 'should art advocate hopelessness?' The question was not are certain
popular
> works immoral. You sometimes seem to have a lovely little cocoon of
evasion
> in which you study different scenery, when the views outside are not
> especially attractive.
Let me try to put it in easy words for you.
The corollary of believing thar art "should" do something is the idea
that value can be ascribed to it based on that belief. Otherwise what
does that "should" mean?
What we think art "should" do depends on what we see its effects as.
Are popular or good or great works of art sometimes "immoral"
or "amoral" by your dualistic definitions?
Yes they are.
So value judgement can be placed on art without recourse to its "moral"
suitability. Which is what I said many posts ago.
> You have to remember that people with whom you share
> thoughts do not necessarily occupy that parallel universe.
Well it becomes ever more clear that YOU may be inhabiting a different
universe.
> > More than that. The book is - in a very real way - a challenge to
the
> > concept of a benevolent God. An artist is perfectly justified in
> > presenting that challenge if he/she believes a benevolent God does
not
> > exist. Tavernier's "Beatrice", an excellent film I think, is about a
> > character who feels exactly the same way.
>
> You make this book sound very grand. Just the ill-written masturbating
> fantasies of a tragic masturbating nut - wisely locked up for life by
his
> Mother-in-Law.
And you make it sound more and more like you have not actually read it.
> > What you have perhaps failed to notice in this thread is that what
we
> > have been discussing is that much depends on that "should".
> >
> > "Should" art do any fucking thing? What any individual artist
decides
> > art "should" do is his or her prerogative.
>
> So art *should* do what the artist thinks it should do? A belief in
complete
> freedom is the swan song of one forever constrained.
What's the alternative? That art should do what you or some committee
of self appointed moralists thinks it should do?
Almost all art that presents a challenge to established ways of
thinking will be considered immoral, illegal or fattening by some
wanker somewhere. Even I have been accused by the Communists of
advocating the overthrow of the Chinese government, in a programme that
did no such thing.
> Your answer a cowardly evasion IMHO.
No, just suggesting that one should think rather deeper than you appear
willing to do.
> I think this particular conversation has run its course, but I will
mention
> that whatever you say to me on the subject of moral responsibility and
> writing, you are the first often to censor posters for expressing
views you
> feel immoral. (And I agree with many of the comments you have thus
posted.)
You sometimes find it hard to grasp the simplest concepts.
Was it not you who just wrote: "A belief in complete freedom is the
swan song of one forever constrained."
I may censure occasionally, but I censor no one. Doing so is impossible
on Usenet. Taking issue with them is not censoring them. I have made my
complete anti-censorship stance clear on many occasions. The best
counter to bad, stupid or even "evil" beliefs or ideas is reasoned
ones. Censorship is bollocks, event by one who feels: "A belief in
complete freedom is the swan song of one forever constrained."
> Freedom of expression? People thankfully can indeed express what
thoughts
> they wish, (how would we know what they were if they did not) but
should
> they always express such thoughts?
I am contending that art "should" do nothing, that its obligations are
what the artist thinks they are. YOU are contending that art that does
not follow your moral prescriptions is beyond the pale. So how have you
now become an advocate of freedom of expression?
> Quite obviously *you* do not think they
> should.
Don't they do "logic" in England any more?
> Great or truly memorable fiction? It seems to me this, invariably
> possesses a positive moral sense, if not a prescriptive message.
As you've said.
You also had to allow so many exceptions to that "rule" to render it
meaningless. Beckett's work is no lesser fiction than "Pollyanna". The
much darker Huck Finn is not a lesser novel than Tom Sawyer. It is a
greater one.
Gary Pollard
news:t7mjans...@corp.supernews.co.uk...
> ----------
> In article <3A7AC...@flash.net>, Brian Anderson <socr...@flash.net>
> wrote:
>
> > A whole lot of Grimm's Fairy Tales end like story (b). The ones
> > everyone knows are the ones with structure and where the good guy wins
> > in the end. The ones you never hear about are the ones where a stronger
> > party picks on a weaker party throughout the story and then kills him at
> > the end, but there are lots and lots of examples of those, and parallel
> > versions of many of these appear both in Germany (where the Grimm
> > brothers gathered their stories) and in Russia.
>
SNIP
>
> A thought - The only exception I can easily think of are Punch and Judy
> shows,
Ever read "Struwwelpeter"?
One of the many highlights of the book is the story of Little Suck-A-Thumb.
Mamma warns little Conrad not to suck his thumbs while she's away or the
great tall tailor will come and cut off his thumbs with great sharp
scissors!!
Well Conrad disobeys and...I'll leave it to you to guess the rest/
The Grimm ending of "Cinderella"
"When the wedding with the king's son was to be celebrated, the two false
sisters came and wanted to gain favour with Cinderella and share her good
fortune. When the betrothed couple went to church, the elder was at the
right side and the younger at the left, and the pigeons pecked out one eye
from each of them. Afterwards as they came back the elder was at the left,
and the younger at the right, and then the pigeons pecked out the other eye
from each. And thus, for their wickedness and falsehood, they were punished
with blindness all their days."
Of "Snow White"
"Then the wicked woman uttered a curse, and was so wretched, so utterly
wretched that she knew not what to do. At first she would not go to the
wedding at all, but she had no peace, and had to go to see the young queen.
And when she went in she recognized Snow White, and she stood still with
rage and fear, and could not stir. But iron slippers had already been put
upon the fire, and they were brought in with tongs, and set before her.
Then she was forced to put on the red-hot shoes, and dance until she dropped
down dead."
"Rumpelstiltskin"
"The devil has told you that! The devil has told you that," cried the
little man, and in his anger he plunged his right foot so deep into the
earth that his whole leg went in, and then in rage he pulled at his left leg
so hard with both hands that he tore himself in two."
A little heavy wouldn't you say? Even for treatment of "bad" guys?
We may live in times that choose to "improve" folk tales by making them
blander but they existed a long long time and were much appreciated in these
forms.
Gary
Brian Anderson
>
> socr...@flash.net wrote:
>
> > Grimm's Fairy Tales... The ones everyone knows are the ones with
>
> dark Grimm tales have been fucked around with and given sappy endings
> by generations of well meaning but dumb adults.
I agree that the ones people like today have been softened considerably
from the German versions of 150 years ago, but I think the reason they
became widely known in the first place is that their structure is more
engaging, and they typically involve a sympathetic underdog winning out
over a more powerful antagonist. As you pointed out elsewhere, the fate
of the antagonist was much harsher then than it is today.
> > The ones you never hear about are the ones where a stronger
> > party picks on a weaker party throughout the story and then kills
> > him at the end, but there are lots and lots of examples of those
>
> Such as?
In one called "Cat and Mouse in Partnership," a cat tells a mouse how
much she loves her, and they agree to live together. But they have to
make provision for winter so they don't starve, and the mouse can't go
out to get food for them because they're afraid she would eventually be
caught in a trap. So the cat goes out and buys a pot of fat, and
convinces the mouse that the safest place for it is in the church, since
no one steals from a church. So the cat hides it under the altar.
Later (but before winter comes), the cat starts yearning for the
fat, so she tells the mouse that her cousin just had a baby, and she
[the cat] was chosen to be the godmother, and has to go to the
christening. The mouse encourages her to go, and says if you find any
food, bring some home. But it was all a lie, and the cat goes to the
church and eats 1/3 of the fat ans spends the rest of the day lying in
the sun before coming home. The mouse asks her questions about the
christening, and the cat tells a series of lies.
Some time later, the cat wants to eat more fat, and claims again
that she was chosen to be godmother for a new kitten. Again she eats
1/3 of the fat, lays around, and comes home and lies about it. And then
again, she grows hungry for some fat, says she's going to be a godmother
again, and goes to the church and eats the last of the fat, stays out
all day, and comes home and lies about it.
Now winter arrives, and the mouse remembers about their pot of fat.
She says to the cat let's go together and have some, and the cat
agrees. When they get there the pot is empty, and the mouse figures out
what happened, so the cat grabs her and swallows her whole. "Verily,
that is the way of the world." The End.
Looking through my Grimm's book, I don't see as many like this as I
remember. There are lots of "start off bad, get worse, and then die in
the end" stories, but they don't involve a stronger antagonist like that
one, it's usually just circumstances. The Russian fairy tales are
especially heavy with stories of weltschmerz.
BrickRage
>From: Brian Anderson socr...@flash.net
>In one called "Cat and Mouse in Partnership," a cat tells a mouse how
>much she loves her, and they agree to live together.
Has mws turned into "When Animals Collide"? The kitty, doggy, and bunny
newsgroup? All warm and fuzzy inside?
Must be the cold weather.
Actually, Brian, I hadn't heard that tale before. At least not in that same
form. Then again, I wasn't raised with the Grimms, and except for excerpts,
haven't read the stories.
Nice post. Made me think of what is replacing the boogeymen and wicked witches
of the old stories.
>The Russian fairy tales are
>especially heavy with stories of weltschmerz.
Must we bring German beer into this discussion?
Actually it's one of my favorite words/expressions. "Ichschmerz" is another.
But I won't go there.
Joe Myers
news:3A7BA1...@flash.net...
[cat slander snipped]
>
> Looking through my Grimm's book, I don't see as many like this as I
> remember. There are lots of "start off bad, get worse, and then die in
> the end" stories, but they don't involve a stronger antagonist like that
> one, it's usually just circumstances.
The stories were cheerful; the brothers, Grimm.
Joe Myers
""Mother Goose'? How kinky is that?!?"
D C Harris
----------
In article <95fqpt$689$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Gary Pollard
<gpol...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <t7miegk...@corp.supernews.co.uk>,
> "D C Harris" <brookwo...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
>> ----------
>> In article <95dkuf$9db$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Gary Pollard
>> <gpol...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> You still seem to be having a problem grasping the most simple
> concepts.
Well obviously our thinking does not accord on many of issues currently
under the microscope. Frankly, I feel you present sometimes a mountain of
obfuscation, in the hope of avoiding any sort of debate at all. (This is a
very feminine tactic actually. If a woman is very angry with you, she will
often talk about anything but the issues that really concern her!) She is
perhaps mad about the forgetting of an anniversary, but instead moans about
the need to dig the garden.
It would be helpful in your discussions if some simple of train of thought
were followed, so as to avoid digression and repetition.
snip
>
> If you honestly consider that what I have been saying amounts to
> nihilism then I suggest you buy a good dictionary or at least try to
> use words as if they have meaning.
You espouse quite noticeably a philosophy of nihilism - why on Earth
otherwise would you query my post mocking the statement 'that there is no
point in try to improve life as everyone has different values'? Who but a
nihilist would state that art should advocate nothing? Who but a nihilist
would advance a tacky piece of pornography/cant philosophy as a worthwhile
read? Nihilism runs through your posts like the word 'Blackpool' going
through a stick of rock (a UK sweet for our US pals). I am not suggesting of
course that you have no beliefs, but rather that there is a forcibly
negative and naive strand to some of your thinking.
snip
> Your contention that Bond is somehow a moral creature, particularly as
> portrayed in the movie (which is what we were discussing) just makes a
> farce of your whole claim that you believe art must have a moral base.
Straw man department again, do you live on a farm? I do not think art must
have a moral base, and have never suggested that in any of my posts. An
example, a favourite film of mine is 'Picnic at Hanging Rock' that concerns
of course some girls who go on a picnic at the famous Australian beauty spot
and then become lost. This is simply an exciting and original piece of
cinema, and has no moral message at all.
I will make one further effort to delineate my position. I do not believe
great art would ever advocate hopelessness, and I do not believe,
personally, the artist should advocate hopelessness. I cannot think there is
anything specifically revolutionary about the latter thoughts - I would have
imagined really such thoughts would be shared by the vast majority of
people.
Can I make it clear, to help you respond - if you desire - to what I
actually think - that I am aware many stories contain dark elements. There
is no need for you to list them for me - I know enough to carry on with. But
the fact that some stories contain dark elements does not in any sense show
that art should advocate hopelessness. That would be a non sequitur Gary -
and I am sure you would not like to be guilty of such.
(By the way I think you observations on Grimm bros highly misleading as
their popularity lasts, as does that of the other the other European fairy
tales, because of their ability to evoke a sense of wonder and mystery. Only
in the magical work of Gary Grim would bad characters in stories be held up
as indications of inherently dark tendencies in the latter.)
What is art? Creative skill in various fields, intended to inspire, amaze,
educate, with beauty, dexterity, vision. However you define art it certainly
only exists to be a distraction or source of pleasure. You cannot eat a
piece of art typically, you cannot sleep in one, typically. (Please Gary -
no lists of restaurants or great architectural works please.) Art is
intrinsically a comfort, a weaving of concepts from equivocal thoughts, a
creation of harmony where there was dissonance, the extraction of form from
the formless. Art is by definition positive and ipso facto cannot properly
advocate hopelessness. I suppose we touch on metaphysics here, which is
dangerous in a Gary conversation. Put it simply though, if you are sick and
you want a doctor, you want a doctor, who at least thinks you are worth
curing. (I am sure Gary can think of numerous instances where people want a
doctor but do not want to be cured, or where it is reasonable for the doctor
not to be helpful - so let us assume all that as written to spare the Gary
digressions!)
>
> How is killing someone and making a sick quip somehow a "morally
> positive" message? Ah the world is made safe for "capitalism". What a
> profound moral sensibility you have Derek.
I am a confirmed lefty so the capitalist basher is another Gary agricultural
fantasy. You surely, Gary, can distinguish between these ridiculous comic
book fantasies, and serious moral thinking? Noone on Earth takes James Bond
seriously except you. Does liking 'Tom and Jerry' imply animal abuse? I
cannot believe really that I have to enlarge in this way, when the points we
discuss are so simple. But then . . I am replying to Garytalk.
snip
>
> The corollary of believing thar art "should" do something is the idea
> that value can be ascribed to it based on that belief. Otherwise what
> does that "should" mean?
Not at all, and this is another example of the deep divide between us. Art
cannot be assembled from off the peg beliefs. In fiction, it is rendering a
belief or character artistically real, that incorporates experience and
belief into a successful work of art. (We have differing ideas as to what
constitutes art of course - you are welcome to keep your ideas at home in
the magic world of Gary.)
>
> What we think art "should" do depends on what we see its effects as.
The latter is just part of our means of determining value. Good art for
example moves an audience in a positive manner, and we can see and sense
that. Apart from possibly in the wonderful world of Gary Grim.
>
> Are popular or good or great works of art sometimes "immoral"
> or "amoral" by your dualistic definitions?
I believe a deliberately immoral/negative work is by definition bad as it
will be cheap in structure and intent. Sade's work, is a wonderful example
and I need no other references to make my point. Utterly immoral poisonous
bullshit. As stated previously, I do not think a 'moral' is essential, but I
feel art without integrity is a contradiction in terms. I hate cheap tricks
for example in purely visual arts, e.g., electrocuting flies in a glass
case. I don't apologise for having what I feel is good taste, any more than
you feel the need to apologise for your dismal taste.
snip
>
> I may censure occasionally, but I censor no one. Doing so is impossible
> on Usenet. Taking issue with them is not censoring them.
How can you offer opinion of any such type, then mock a post of mine which
merely sets value on 'human progress'? Because you are confused.
>
> I am contending that art "should" do nothing, that its obligations are
> what the artist thinks they are. YOU are contending that art that does
> not follow your moral prescriptions is beyond the pale. So how have you
> now become an advocate of freedom of expression?
What is so dangerous about guys like you is that you cannot see the wood for
the trees. You sound plausible often, sadly. We cannot I believe separate
intent from content. Charles Dickens' work was infused by moral thinking for
example, but he was regarded as a dangerous radical rather than a teller of
fairy tales or preacher, because his work was artistically real rather than
dour documentary. As I have stated I do not think work needs a moral to be
good. I believe most great art, to repeat this yet again is positive in
nature. Van Gogh, Beethoven, Bach, are not known for writings, but for the
ideas they expressed in the form in which they excelled. Language exists in
many forms, except in the magical world of Gary Grim.
>
> You also had to allow so many exceptions to that "rule" to render it
> meaningless. Beckett's work is no lesser fiction than "Pollyanna". The
> much darker Huck Finn is not a lesser novel than Tom Sawyer. It is a
> greater one.
>
> Gary
>
Twain and Beckett exceptionally nice and positive people - Pollyanna
dreadful - so we end on a note of agreement.
Do try harder to read what people actually say, especially when they are
discussing complex subjects. It will save you time, among other things
Disturbed42
>I will make one further effort to delineate my position. I do not believe
>great art would ever advocate hopelessness, and I do not believe,
>personally, the artist should advocate hopelessness. I cannot think there is
>anything specifically revolutionary about the latter thoughts - I would have
>imagined really such thoughts would be shared by the vast majority of
>people.
If the artist feels that things generally ARE hopeless his work -no matter how
brilliant- is automatically for naught? Somehow any position OTHER than an
ultimate lack of hope is valid? No artist is allowed to feel that as we're all
certain to die the whole thing hasn't a point at all and may as well end
tomorrow as decades from now, and express this through his art without said art
being poor? Don't be stupid, Derek. Any valid viewpoint is acceptable - yes,
even if you disagree with it. The film Chicken Run had some Communist themes,
but it was still good, despite the fact that I think Communism is generally
silly.
Se7en does paint a bleak picture (though some don't agree that it's
hopeless...such is the room for personal interpretation which you seem so
at-odds with) but it's a good film. So the bad guy wins. So what? The bad guy
wins sometimes. So it says the world is a bad place. So what? Some people think
the world is a bad place, and they're just as free to express that opinion as
somebody who thinks it's all puppydogs and ice cream.
-Matt
D C Harris
----------
In article <20010203145849...@ng-fk1.aol.com>,
distu...@aol.com (Disturbed42) wrote:
> DC:
>>I will make one further effort to delineate my position. I do not believe
>>great art would ever advocate hopelessness, and I do not believe,
>>personally, the artist should advocate hopelessness. I cannot think there is
>>anything specifically revolutionary about the latter thoughts - I would have
>>imagined really such thoughts would be shared by the vast majority of
>>people.
>
> If the artist feels that things generally ARE hopeless his work -no matter how
> brilliant- is automatically for naught? Somehow any position OTHER than an
> ultimate lack of hope is valid? No artist is allowed to feel that as we're all
> certain to die the whole thing hasn't a point at all and may as well end
> tomorrow as decades from now, and express this through his art without said
art
> being poor? Don't be stupid, Derek. Any valid viewpoint is acceptable - yes,
> even if you disagree with it. The film Chicken Run had some Communist themes,
> but it was still good, despite the fact that I think Communism is generally
> silly.
>
> Se7en does paint a bleak picture (though some don't agree that it's
> hopeless..
I have to apologise for the fact I have not seen Se7en, and clearly there
are differing opinions as to what it represents. (Very little I suspect.
I am not *totally* certain by what you mean in all the above. Do you ask if
an artist "feels things are hopeless" that his work is "automatically" for
naught? Beethoven went through a period of intense illness and depression
and some of the most potent and positive music in the world emerged from
that: Of course Beethoven was a first class artist who was simply unhappy to
accept shoddy creative thinking and take the easy way out intellectually.
Most people I suspect would imagine chronic ongoing depression - a
persistent sense of hopelessness - to be symptoms of psychiatric problems.
Any valid point acceptable? I suspect by 'valid' mean by this any nonsense
that sweeps into the head of second-rate artist.
Chicken Run? I don't look for reasons to dislike any work and if this little
film was dedicated to the memory of Lenin it would still be good.
I was thinking - changing subject slightly - that mainstream film on the
whole is positive in outlook - by its nature mainstream culture has to have
a wide appeal.
Disturbed42
>I am not *totally* certain by what you mean in all the above. Do you ask if
>an artist "feels things are hopeless" that his work is "automatically" for
>naught?
More if he expresses said hopelessness in his art rather than just feeling it.
If an artist feels that the world is an awful, hopeless place and he writes an
incredible novel expounding upon this viewpoint, are we just to dismiss is
because we might not agree with the opinion it contains? I don't think so.
D C Harris
----------
In article <20010203184853...@ng-fk1.aol.com>,
distu...@aol.com (Disturbed42) wrote:
Well you get far closer to a question I can understand than Gary has in
these threads.
I have a problem with the above proposition as I feel the world is a
beautiful place. Maybe I am deluded, but I feel life has given me far more
than I have given it. I am not really your original convert for the 'let's
be miserable' club.
However I do not mind, in fact welcome, my possibly glib presumptions being
questioned. This is why I answer the points Gary makes as best I can, as
honestly as I can.
This is a digression, but the world if you think carefully is a remarkable
place. A rock sailing through a void, yet here we are debating points on art
and philosophy. You ever starved? You ever had real problems? In fact you
have more than average expectations. You see a career in one of the hardest
areas of all. You quite clearly are not a depressive.
If someone wishes to advance the proposition the world is awful, for my
money they need a very good case. Strindberg advanced the proposition that
women are dreadful. His work has an energy of its own, and he articulates a
point of view, but the work is too narrow I feel to ever verge on being
'great' art. He was half mad.
I am not speaking here about what we all settle for day by day - but rather
what are the things we can best aspire to.
Never forget Disturbed, whether you agree with me or not, life requires a
lot of thought. In the UK we have a saying - 'Don't care got hung'.
Disturbed42
>I have a problem with the above proposition as I feel the world is a
>beautiful place.
As do I, though I am at times struck by the ultimate pointlessness.
>If someone wishes to advance the proposition the world is awful, for my
>money they need a very good case.
So which is your contention...that art portraying the world as hopeless is bad
art, or that it's impossible to truly portray the world as hopeless?
-Matt
Gary Pollard
news:t7of919...@corp.supernews.co.uk...
> ----------
> >> In article <95dkuf$9db$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Gary Pollard
> >> <gpol...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Well obviously our thinking does not accord on many of issues currently
> under the microscope. Frankly, I feel you present sometimes a mountain of
> obfuscation,
I am sure those who ARE able to grasp these concepts do not see them as
obfuscation. But I will willngly accept that YOU cannot.
> It would be helpful in your discussions if some simple of train of thought
> were followed, so as to avoid digression and repetition.
I've made it as simple as I can Derek. It obviously still is not simple
enough for you.
> You espouse quite noticeably a philosophy of nihilism - why on Earth
> otherwise would you query my post mocking the statement 'that there is no
> point in try to improve life as everyone has different values'?
Short memory syndrome? I queried it because YOU alleged that OTHER posters
had changed the subject.
By the way, "relativism" is a concept that I feel has serious limitations,
but that previous post was more "relativist" than "nihilistic".
> Who but a
> nihilist would state that art should advocate nothing?
Obviously someone who disagrees with you but who does not happen to be a
nihilist. Or someone who questions whether are has obligations.
My own work is often quite positive, but I do not think the world is well
served by art that has a Pollyanna-like view of reality. It increases
smugness, and does not encourage action.
There is plenty of great art that you might well regard as negaitve. "Anna
Karenina" does dive under the train after all. Poor old Tolstoy should have
had a lesson in the D. C. Harris "shoulds" before unleashing that
monstrosity on the public.
> Who but a nihilist
> would advance a tacky piece of pornography/cant philosophy as a worthwhile
> read?
Well it certainly is a WORTHWHILE read. What you can't get into your head is
the idea that a work of art might inspire revulsion, anger, or unease, and
STILL be a valid work of art.
I would argue that "Justine", which makes us care for the its characters and
about the bad things that happen to them, even makes us ANGRY about them,
has a MORE moral base than James Bond, where we don't give a shit when
people are killed.
> > Your contention that Bond is somehow a moral creature, particularly as
> > portrayed in the movie (which is what we were discussing) just makes a
> > farce of your whole claim that you believe art must have a moral base.
>
> Straw man department again, do you live on a farm? I do not think art must
> have a moral base, and have never suggested that in any of my posts.
You are asking art to be "positive". Please explain how you separate that
from a moral injunction.
> An
> example, a favourite film of mine is 'Picnic at Hanging Rock' that
concerns
> of course some girls who go on a picnic at the famous Australian beauty
spot
> and then become lost. This is simply an exciting and original piece of
> cinema, and has no moral message at all.
As the girls are not found, is this work not advocating hopelessness? It
increasingly seems that your ideas of what is "hopeless" simply mean
"anything I do not like".
> I will make one further effort to delineate my position. I do not believe
> great art would ever advocate hopelessness, and I do not believe,
> personally, the artist should advocate hopelessness.
No problem so far. You, like all of us, are entitled to your own approach
and view.
> Can I make it clear, to help you respond - if you desire - to what I
> actually think - that I am aware many stories contain dark elements. There
> is no need for you to list them for me - I know enough to carry on with.
But
> the fact that some stories contain dark elements does not in any sense
show
> that art should advocate hopelessness. That would be a non sequitur Gary -
> and I am sure you would not like to be guilty of such.
You are missing the point big time Derek. I am not talking about "dark
elements". I am talking about works that depict / advocate (in your mind
perhaps) hopelessness and futility.
You are reducing your "shoulds" to meaninglessness. If a work of art CAN be
about hopelessness and still be great, like Beckett for example, what does
your "should" mean? That we should march in formation behind DC Harris and
reject Beckett?
> (By the way I think you observations on Grimm bros highly misleading as
> their popularity lasts, as does that of the other the other European fairy
> tales, because of their ability to evoke a sense of wonder and mystery.
That is your opinion, and that is all it is. The Grimm tales have many
aspects and I suspect many of them are responsible for their endurance. They
were told to children as much for the "moral of the story" as for any other
reason.
> What is art? Creative skill in various fields, intended to inspire, amaze,
> educate, with beauty, dexterity, vision.
Or to reflect. To observe. To comment on.
> However you define art it certainly
> only exists to be a distraction or source of pleasure.
I think you trivialise art.
But anyway, many derive pleasure from Schoenberg, from dissonance. Others
derive pleasure from Soutine pictures of rotting beef carcasses.
Because, here is the point you find it hard to grasp, the ART is the thing.
When Goya shows us men being kiiled by a firing squad, or Saturn eating his
children, his art is not somehow less strong than when it is showing the
Naked Maja. Picasso's "Guernica" is a cry of rage. It is not about being a
"distraction or source of pleasure".
This art may present bleak visions of reality, but they do not TRIVIALISE.
If this debate was about whether art should trivialise or be superficial we
might reach greater agreement. My objection is to art trivialising death for
instance, something you defend.
But if art is about hopelessness but deals with it profoundly, it can still
be great art.
>You cannot eat a
> piece of art typically, you cannot sleep in one, typically.
Art only exists to be a source of distaction because you cannot sleep in it
or eat it?
Now THAT is what we call a non-sequitur Derek.
> Art is
> intrinsically a comfort, a weaving of concepts from equivocal thoughts, a
> creation of harmony where there was dissonance, the extraction of form
from
> the formless. Art is by definition positive and ipso facto cannot properly
> advocate hopelessness.
See above.
> > How is killing someone and making a sick quip somehow a "morally
> > positive" message? Ah the world is made safe for "capitalism". What a
> > profound moral sensibility you have Derek.
>
> I am a confirmed lefty so the capitalist basher is another Gary
agricultural
> fantasy.
Uh no Derek. You seem to not understand that we are talking about the Bond
movies here and not about D. C. Harris.
You might read that other "confirmed lefty" Fischer on the uses of art, to
see why the lefty ("morally prescriptive" or even "positive") view of art is
necessarily limited.
> You surely, Gary, can distinguish between these ridiculous comic
> book fantasies, and serious moral thinking? Noone on Earth takes James
Bond
> seriously except you. > Does liking 'Tom and Jerry' imply animal abuse?
Both of these things show that art requires no positive message to be
enjoyed.
Here you are, saying that art needs to do so, and yet defending them.
You ceraintly appear adept at the fine art of shooting yourself in the foot.
> I
> cannot believe really that I have to enlarge in this way, when the points
we
> discuss are so simple. But then . . I am replying to Garytalk.
The remarkable thing about you Derek is how utterly incapable you are of
separating discussion of an idea from the need to constantly insult anyone
who disagrees with you, even in posts to third parties.
It's sad and megalomaniacal, brooking no disagreement with the God D. C,
reeking of hubristic outrage at how anyone can have the temerity to hold
views different from yours, and shows only a fear that your own
ratiocinative properties are not up to the task before you.
> > The corollary of believing thar art "should" do something is the idea
> > that value can be ascribed to it based on that belief. Otherwise what
> > does that "should" mean?
>
> Not at all, and this is another example of the deep divide between us. Art
> cannot be assembled from off the peg beliefs.
It seems to be that it's merely an example of the deep divide between your
"logic" and .... well your "logic".
The idea that art should NOT advocate hopelessness IS an off the peg belief.
I am the one arguing it cannot be limited in this way. Remember?
> > What we think art "should" do depends on what we see its effects as.
>
> The latter is just part of our means of determining value. Good art for
> example moves an audience in a positive manner, and we can see and sense
> that.
Glad to see that you are not limiting it with an off the peg belief there.
> > Are popular or good or great works of art sometimes "immoral"
> > or "amoral" by your dualistic definitions?
>
> I believe a deliberately immoral/negative work is by definition bad as it
> will be cheap in structure and intent.
Interesting. And how is Bond not cheap in structure and intent?
> Sade's work, is a wonderful example
> and I need no other references to make my point.
Personally I grow more and more convinced that you are utterly ignorant of
"Justine".
> I don't apologise for having what I feel is good taste, any more than
> you feel the need to apologise for your dismal taste.
Your "thought" processes are so amusingly transparent at times.
A less self-regarding version of the previous sentence would read:
"I don't apologise for having what I feel is good taste, any more than you
feel the need to apologise for WHAT IF FEEL IS your dismal taste."
A more honest one would read:
"I don't apologise for having good taste, any more than you feel the need to
apologise for your dismal taste."
> > I may censure occasionally, but I censor no one. Doing so is impossible
> > on Usenet. Taking issue with them is not censoring them.
>
> How can you offer opinion of any such type, then mock a post of mine which
> merely sets value on 'human progress'? Because you are confused.
Didn't you say something about non sequiturs earlier?
> > I am contending that art "should" do nothing, that its obligations are
> > what the artist thinks they are. YOU are contending that art that does
> > not follow your moral prescriptions is beyond the pale. So how have you
> > now become an advocate of freedom of expression?
> What is so dangerous about guys like you is that you cannot see the wood
for
> the trees. You sound plausible often, sadly.
That quite possibly puts "guys like me" way ahead of you.
My quoted paragraph makes perfect sense because your position is
self-contradictory.
> We cannot I believe separate
> intent from content.
We can only guess at authorial intent.
The concept of invoking authorial intent in judging a work of art is usually
given a pretty harsh drubbing by the time we get to the sixth form, for
those of us who got there.
If it ain't on the page, or canvas, or film, or whatever, it ain't there.
What the artist thought he or she was doing is irrelevant.
>Charles Dickens' work was infused by moral thinking for
> example, but he was regarded as a dangerous radical rather than a teller
of
> fairy tales or preacher, because his work was artistically real rather
than
> dour documentary.
I disagree. The death of Nancy might be "artistically real" but Oliver
Twist's happy ending is as sappy and contrived as they come. How "radical"
could a novelist published in conservative mags in weekly installments be?
> As I have stated I do not think work needs a moral to be
> good. I believe most great art, to repeat this yet again is positive in
> nature.
Ah. It doesn't need to be moral but it needs to be positive. You appear to
be defining "moral" in a rather limited way there.
Let's look at OED
Moral
1. pl. (earlier sing.) Used to render L. Moralia pl. as the title of St.
Gregory the Great's work on the moral exposition of the Book of Job, and
(later) as the collective title given to Plutarch's writings other than the
'Lives', to the ethical writings of Seneca, etc.
2. a. The moral teaching or practical lesson (of a fiction or fable;
sometimes, of a real occurrence); also in phr. to point a moral (cf. point
v.1 5 b).
"The world sucks" IS a moral Derek.
"The world is full of fluffy pink bunnies and you will kill the bad guys and
live forever" is a moral too.
From these observations are drawn moral conclusions.
b. An exposition of the moral teaching or practical lesson contained in a
literary composition; that part of a composition (e.g. of a fable) which
applies or points the moral meaning.
Hence the MORAL of the Grimm's tale that Brain Anderson pointed out: if
gullibility, and even love, meets with unscrupulousness gullibility will get
eaten.
I contend that a "positive" end would have fucked up that story
considerably.
> Van Gogh, Beethoven, Bach, are not known for writings, but for the
> ideas they expressed in the form in which they excelled. Language exists
in
> many forms, except in the magical world of Gary Grim.
Well it certainly seems to barely exist in the magical world of D. C Harris,
otherwise you would realise that such absurd conclusions cannot logically be
inferred from anything I have said, and have anyway nothing to do with the
issue under debate.
> Twain and Beckett exceptionally nice and positive people - Pollyanna
> dreadful - so we end on a note of agreement.
Who cares what they are like as people? Beckett's work is hardly "hopeful".
That foot of yours must be riddled with bullte holes by now.
> Do try harder to read what people actually say, especially when they are
> discussing complex subjects. It will save you time, among other things
On your own admission, YOU are the one having comprehension problems here.
Gary
Gary Pollard
> I have a problem with the above proposition as I feel the world is a
> beautiful place. Maybe I am deluded, but I feel life has given me far more
> than I have given it. I am not really your original convert for the
'let's
> be miserable' club.
This seems to me remarkably solipsistic.
"Art should not advocate hopelessness because life has been kind to me."
It has been kind to me also, but I'd find it hard to extrapolate from that
the idea that the world is necessarily a benevolent place.
Others in my acquaintance have had a bitch of a time.
If I'm only willing to reflect my lucky life and not their unfortunate ones
then I am certainly guilty of placing self-centeredness above insight.
> This is a digression, but the world if you think carefully is a remarkable
> place. A rock sailing through a void, yet here we are debating points on
art
> and philosophy. You ever starved? You ever had real problems?
Solipsism again. Obviously many in this world are not able to debate points
on art and philosophy. Obviously many have starved, and are starving.
Obviously good sometimes fails. Obviously people die of cancer, not because
they have done anything wrong, but because a cell mutates. Your position is
beginning to sound remarkably like the "I'm all right Jack" school of
artistic enterprise.
>If someone wishes to advance the proposition the world is awful, for my
>money they need a very good case.
Or merely a less privileged life than those we inhabit. OR even merely the
awareness that others lead such lives, and the selflessness to consider the
plight of others as important as our own.
The concept of an absurd - and in the sense we search for meaning,
meaningless - universe is a completely valid one.
In fact, it's rather harder to logically argue the opposite without invoking
new age optimism or wilfully blind religious belief.
Gary
D C Harris
----------
In article <20010203204638...@ng-fv1.aol.com>,
distu...@aol.com (Disturbed42) wrote:
Art portraying anything the world (by which I suppose we mean loosely life)
as hopeless could I suppose still be art, but IMHO not complete are the best
art. I say this not because I feel the 'world' needs any PR on it s behalf
but because I feel a negative take on anything needs more than casual
emotion to sustain it. It is one thing to step back from the globe and say
aspects of it are hopeless or discouraging - another to use free speech as a
Trojan horse to deliver negative sentiments. Disturbed, some emotions are
like a virus - don't catch them
It is not impossible to portray the world as hopeless of course, you can
portray the world as what the hell you like.
Thanks for your comments and best ---
Disturbed42
>Art portraying anything the world (by which I suppose we mean loosely life)
>as hopeless could I suppose still be art, but IMHO not complete are the best
>art.
Well, I disagree. Good art is good art and a point well made is a point well
made. Dali had some bizarre sexual tendencies that he sometimes referenced in
his work, but they're still fantastic paintings. I'm not going to quantify,
especially not based on my opinion of the message.
Just because I might not like or agree with something doesn't necessarily mean
it's not good. And it certainly doesn't make it evil.
-Matt
D C Harris
----------
In article <95iepu$dk5$1...@m5.att.net.hk>, "Gary Pollard"
<gpol...@mysite.com.hk> wrote:
Gary, I answered most of this in my last post to you --
>
> There is plenty of great art that you might well regard as negaitve. "Anna
> Karenina" does dive under the train after all.
I feel this does not bear upon those points at all.
snip
>> An
>> example, a favourite film of mine is 'Picnic at Hanging Rock' that
> concerns
>> of course some girls who go on a picnic at the famous Australian beauty
> spot
>> and then become lost.
> As the girls are not found, is this work not advocating hopelessness?
If you think Picnic at Hanging Rock "advocates hopelessness" call the
doctor.
I thank your for your comments but I am get off the merry-go-round.
Beckett - a word in closing. I don't like Beckett much - simply I think he
is mainly boring.
But his stuff was often humourous and most certainly did not advocate
hopelessness. He scoffed at the meanings attributed to Godot - which he said
had no meaning - and I am prepared to accept that.
Paula
<brookwo...@lineone.net> wrote:
Just the highlights, ma'am.
>Frankly, I feel you present sometimes a mountain of
>obfuscation, in the hope of avoiding any sort of debate at all. (This is a
>very feminine tactic actually. If a woman is very angry with you, she will
>often talk about anything but the issues that really concern her!) She is
>perhaps mad about the forgetting of an anniversary, but instead moans about
>the need to dig the garden.
You certainly despise a lot of people to have such a "positive" view
of the world. How in God's name did you get a woman to marry you? I
don't know why I even bother to respond to ANYTHING you say after the
above, except that your pronouncements on art are the strangest I've
seen in long time. These are just a few pearls.
>Who but a
>nihilist would state that art should advocate nothing?
There is a difference in these two sentences:
Art should not advocate anything.
Art should advocate Nothing.
>What is art? Creative skill in various fields, intended to inspire, amaze,
>educate, with beauty, dexterity, vision.
Where did you come up with this? Art is expression - it is the
outward manifestation of that which one feels needs to be released.
Art that is "intended" to do what you list above is more along the
lines of advertisement. Or propaganda. What artist sets out to
create a work of art in order to "educate" someone?
>However you define art it certainly
>only exists to be a distraction or source of pleasure.
This is ridiculous. This is, perhaps, the worst definition I have
ever seen of "art".
>Art is by definition positive and ipso facto cannot properly
>advocate hopelessness.
Art is NOT "by definition positive". Do you know ANYTHING about art?
I shudder to think that you probaby call yourSELF an artist.
>I suppose we touch on metaphysics here, which is
>dangerous in a Gary conversation. Put it simply though, if you are sick and
>you want a doctor, you want a doctor, who at least thinks you are worth
>curing.
I'm trying to follow this train of thought. An artist doesn't exist
to cater to other people. Who thinks that? Is this what you ACTUALLY
think?
>Art
>cannot be assembled from off the peg beliefs. In fiction, it is rendering a
>belief or character artistically real, that incorporates experience and
>belief into a successful work of art.
Again, I'm not sure I follow this. Does this mean you don't consider,
Magical Realism in literature or Dada and Surrealism in painting (for
example) to be true (or valid) art?
>Good art for
>example moves an audience in a positive manner, and we can see and sense
>that.
And I quote Branford Marsalis: "Bullshit."
>I believe a deliberately immoral/negative work is by definition bad as it
>will be cheap in structure and intent.
?! Huh? Perhaps how a person responds to a work of art speaks
volumes more about the viewer/reader/listener than it does about the
artist.
>I believe most great art, to repeat this yet again is positive in
>nature. Van Gogh, Beethoven, Bach, are not known for writings, but for the
>ideas they expressed in the form in which they excelled.
Do you not see pain and ... dare I say it ... hopelessness in many of
Van Gogh's works?
I'm tired. I know my opinions probably mean absolutely nothing to
you.
I'm just a woman, afterall.
I'm all muddled. Maybe I should lie down for a while.
Paula
D C Harris
----------
In article <3a7cd52...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, rub...@att.net
(Paula) wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Feb 2001 17:15:59 +0000, "D C Harris"
> <brookwo...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
>
> Just the highlights, ma'am.
>
High again Paula. Let's snip the highlights, and have a party. I thought
you'd forgotten all about me.
> You certainly despise a lot of people to have such a "positive" view
> of the world. How in God's name did you get a woman to marry you? I
> don't know why I even bother to respond to ANYTHING you say after the
> above, except that your pronouncements on art are the strangest I've
> seen in long time. These are just a few pearls.
The first sentence is not grammatical so I don't understand you - not a
grammar flame - I just don't understand.
You reminded me in October of last year that you had offered me, in a
"playfully flirtatious" manner, oral sex many months previously, an offer
you rescinded in the October post. (I am very particular where I put my bits
and pieces baby, but I am sure you would have taken care of them.) Anyway,
you suddenly sound a little bit picky! I assure you I am quite harmless
except when the Moon is full.
Lighten up. Try gathering a few of those laughter lines in to a nice smile
and you might find someone too.
>
>>Who but a
>>nihilist would state that art should advocate nothing?
>
> There is a difference in these two sentences:
>
> Art should not advocate anything.
>
> Art should advocate Nothing.
So what?
>
>
>
>>What is art? Creative skill in various fields, intended to inspire, amaze,
>>educate, with beauty, dexterity, vision.
>
> Where did you come up with this? Art is expression - it is the
> outward manifestation of that which one feels needs to be released.
> Art that is "intended" to do what you list above is more along the
> lines of advertisement. Or propaganda. What artist sets out to
> create a work of art in order to "educate" someone?
You are one amazing (but loveable) lady. Your definition of art is of a
fart, not art. If you have a decent dictionary look up "art" and consider
its varied meanings. In my post with Gary I was endeavoring to assemble my
argument from the bottom up, and see thus if it was reasonable to try and
establish some kind 'philosophy' of art. I did not suggest that the artist
*should* do any of the things that art can do, and I simply outlining art's
varied uses. To echo what I said to Gary, you Paula accomplish nothing by
replying to points I have not made, and that exist only in your hurried
mind.
>
>
>>However you define art it certainly
>>only exists to be a distraction or source of pleasure.
>
> This is ridiculous. This is, perhaps, the worst definition I have
> ever seen of "art".
That is not a 'definition' but thoughts on what 'art' typically represents
to people in the normal course of things.
*You* are the one extolling the virtues of 'pure' art, yet you quibble over
my suggestion that art is principally a pleasure, a distraction. You can't
have it both ways however much Southern Comfort you drink.
Of course, I should have added 'inspiration' to 'pleasure' and 'distraction'
so I make good that omission now. (Just to clarify when I refer to 'art'
take it I refer primarily to fiction.) Is art 'pure' and just 'an outburst
of feeling' to use your simple notion, or is it ultimately at its best, a
complex construction that draws on experience, belief, and effort? Shaw said
writing was 99 per cent perspiration and one per cent inspiration. Note
Paul, for if you ever take up writing.
>
> Art is NOT "by definition positive". Do you know ANYTHING about art?
> I shudder to think that you probaby call yourSELF an artist.
If you pump out little shafts anticipate them being answered. I will be
polite. Art per se is by definition 'positive' as the act of creation is,
inherently positive. A negative action is one that is not creative. As to my
work,I don't think you've read it. I think my stuff would be a little quirky
for you anyway. As a writer I try to cover the waterfront and appeal to most
people, and having had the opportunity to get a little luck, and even get my
work admired by Jane the petrol pump attendant, I will simply have to
tolerate Paula's disdain. Tough life.
>
>>I suppose we touch on metaphysics here, which is
>>dangerous in a Gary conversation. Put it simply though, if you are sick and
>>you want a doctor, you want a doctor, who at least thinks you are worth
>>curing.
>
> I'm trying to follow this train of thought. An artist doesn't exist
> to cater to other people. Who thinks that? Is this what you ACTUALLY
> think?
Not at all grammatical so I have no idea of what you mean - precious little
probably.
>
>
>>Art
>>cannot be assembled from off the peg beliefs. In fiction, it is rendering a
>>belief or character artistically real, that incorporates experience and
>>belief into a successful work of art.
>
> Again, I'm not sure I follow this. Does this mean you don't consider,
> Magical Realism in literature or Dada and Surrealism in painting (for
> example) to be true (or valid) art?
You labour under a misunderstanding.
I have read the above a few times and I can't see the relation between my
statement and your comments. I have not sought to define what 'valid' art
is, but discuss what constitutes the best art, and whether art should
*advocate* a wholly negative position. Whatsoever you feel about my posts
please read them before you form opinions.
Anyway -- say a writer is not just satisfying the instincts of a sixteen
year old romantic (with bursts of feeling) he is conveying some sort of idea
- whatsoever you wish to define 'ideas' as in this context. The idea may be
acceptable to its reader but the reader will not absorb the idea, and
moreover the work will not be artistically satisfactory, if form and idea
are not seamlessly linked. Therefore, a good book with pieces of propaganda
'stapled' into them will fail artistically. In a work of fiction artistic
and moral integrity demands philosophy and art flow from the same source,
before meeting the creative filter that is the defining point of art. I know
this is boring as fuck - but you ask I answer.
>
>
>>Good art for
>>example moves an audience in a positive manner, and we can see and sense
>>that.
>
> And I quote Branford Marsalis: "Bullshit."
How you feel this is a reply I cannot imagine. Perhaps you could annotate.
>
>
>
>>I believe a deliberately immoral/negative work is by definition bad as it
>>will be cheap in structure and intent.
>
> ?! Huh? Perhaps how a person responds to a work of art speaks
> volumes more about the viewer/reader/listener than it does about the
> artist.
The view of a sixteen year old, in my opinion.
>
>
>>I believe most great art, to repeat this yet again is positive in
>>nature. Van Gogh, Beethoven, Bach, are not known for writings, but for the
>>ideas they expressed in the form in which they excelled.
>
> Do you not see pain and ... dare I say it ... hopelessness in many of
> Van Gogh's works?
Grief, try and be an adult, try and sustain an argument on some sort of
level for a few moments.
Oh boy Paula, Van Hogh was a philosopher, not a nihilist. And to turn this
round for God's sake, haven't you ever seen the wonder in Van Gogh's
painting. Look at 'Fishing in Spring', 'Four cut sunflowers', 'Souvenir de
Mauvre' - glorious peach trees and blossom against a sparkling blue sky.
>
> I'm tired. I know my opinions probably mean absolutely nothing to
> you.
Of course your opinions mean something to me.
>
> I'm just a woman, afterall.
If you've got nice legs I don't give a fuck.
>
> I'm all muddled. Maybe I should lie down for a while.
Possibly And here is a big fat kiss for you mmmmmmXXXXXslobberslobber
bye.
>
> Paula
D C Harris
----------
In article <20010203234530...@ng-cu1.aol.com>,
distu...@aol.com (Disturbed42) wrote:
> DC:
>>Art portraying the world (by which I suppose we mean loosely life)
>>as hopeless could I suppose still be art, but IMHO not complete and not the
best
>>art.
>
> Well, I disagree. Good art is good art and a point well made is a point well
> made. Dali had some bizarre sexual tendencies that he sometimes referenced in
> his work, but they're still fantastic paintings. I'm not going to quantify,
> especially not based on my opinion of the message.
>
> Just because I might not like or agree with something doesn't necessarily mean
> it's not good. And it certainly doesn't make it evil.
>
> -Matt
Wheeee . . to start with what does your reply have to do with my
statement?
'Good' art is good art. A point well made is a point well made. Clothes that
fit you are preferable to clothes that don't fit you, warm dinners are nice
than cold ones, nice girls are preferable to sluts.
And I believe art should not advocate (as in champion/recommend)
HOPELESSNESS. If you wish to answer my points regarding the latter anytime
do so.
Till then, enjoy your hopeless art. ; )
BrickRage
>From: "D C Harris" brookwo...@lineone.net
Responding to Paula:
>The first sentence is not grammatical so I don't understand you - not a
>grammar flame - I just don't understand.
>You reminded me in October of last year that you had offered me, in a
>"playfully flirtatious" manner, oral sex many months previously, an offer
>you rescinded in the October post.
>You are one amazing (but loveable) lady. Your definition of art is of a
>fart, not art. If you have a decent dictionary look up "art" and consider
>its varied meanings.
>you Paula accomplish nothing by
>replying to points I have not made, and that exist only in your hurried
>mind.
>*You* are the one extolling the virtues of 'pure' art, yet you quibble over
>my suggestion that art is principally a pleasure, a distraction. You can't
>have it both ways however much Southern Comfort you drink.
Paula:>I'm trying to follow this train of thought. An artist doesn't exist
>> to cater to other people. Who thinks that? Is this what you ACTUALLY
>> think?
>Not at all grammatical so I have no idea of what you mean - precious little
>probably.
>The view of a sixteen year old, in my opinion.
>
>Grief, try and be an adult, try and sustain an argument on some sort of
>level for a few moments.
>If you've got nice legs I don't give a fuck.
>Possibly And here is a big fat kiss for you mmmmmmXXXXXslobberslobber
>bye.
This is the first post of yours I've read in about a year. Now I know why.
You, DC, are a disgusting pile of shit, a fucking moron, and the worst sin of
all. You're abysmally boring.
How many times do I have to flush before you go away?
Don't answer. I won't read your response, you sick talentless fuck.
Paula
<brookwo...@lineone.net> wrote:
>You reminded me in October of last year that you had offered me, in a
>"playfully flirtatious" manner, oral sex many months previously, an offer
>you rescinded in the October post.
Uh ... yeah. I believe the word here is SARCASM, dc, honey. You had
just called me a "stupid bitch" and implied that because I disagreed
with you I must be a "shit" lesbian. You're just the sweetest of the
sweet. With sugar on top! Rescinded? Pish-tosh. You've got an open
invitation for that blow-job ANY ol' time, dc. Bring your punch card.
Fill up the card, win a toaster.
In that post I also refer to Cyndi. How IS she these days? Give her
my best.
I'm so flattered you save and archive my posts! Who knew? I have a
fan.
... O, for the halcyon days of Jay Wagner....
Paula
douglas...@hotmailnospammy.com
Ok... so I'm thinkin'... This probably *isn't* art...
But then again, art is different things to different people.