This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Two possibilities come to mind for a shift in power towards artists:
Artistic defectors have been shunned for hundreds of years. Off the top of my head, the Vienna Secession and the Exhibit of Rejects both consisted of artists with heterodox styles that couldn't find a place in the academy and had to strike out on their own.
Those are 1897 and 1863. Going purely by the links provided, the Vienna case is angry modernists splitting off from what they considered to be a defunct institution; the Paris case was similar and they got a special exhibit put on for them by the emperor.
Especially in Vienna, this doesn’t look like the academy shunning defectors so much as defectors coordinating to shun the traditional academy. Being less tolerant, they won and took over.
The emperor himself didn't like any of their works and only acquiesced to let them be exhibited during the Paris Salon over the objections of the Salon's jury (rather different from putting on a special exhibit for them) due to the weight of public opinion.
It's a case of defectors being told they have no place in the academy, and leaving to start their own thing. Same as it ever was.
You are avoiding the question of why this is no longer an option. How much harder can defectors be shunned than when they had to leave the mainstream artistic edifice entirely to follow their vision?
I might be being influenced by hindsight here, but this seems like thinking that e.g. the anti-Covid-lockdown protests and the anti white-on-black police brutality protests were the same, just because the outward forms look similar. The genuinely disapproved-of Covid protests were punished with huge (10,000gbp in the UK) fines while the BLM protests had open sympathisers in high positions.
My model is that if your movement is genuinely shunned, it disappears. People who leave to start their own thing and follow their vision are getting backing from somewhere. Or to put it another way, if you see a little guy speaking truth to power, he's already on the way up; if he weren't, he'd be silent. You know someone's a real defector because people laugh at them, they can't get commissions, and anyone who tries to publish them follows the same path.
It disappears if everyone shuns it, sometimes. Sometimes you become Vincent van Gough, shunned during your life and a darling afterwards. If you're only shunned by the academy, though, you can still get ahead by striking out for yourself - most people are not as doctrinaire as old academic artists, and wealthy patrons are free to fund the things they like even if the professors tut-tut at them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link