site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31654 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 9, 2023

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.

14
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Unfortunately, the modernist ugliness you are right to complain about is Western, or at least it came from the West originally, and has now been embraced by decision makers globally.

Traditional architecture, sculpture and painting are beautiful everywhere, regardless of the geographic background. The modernist equivalents are ugly regardless of background.

Compare two recent statues in London. The first is a pile of whipped cream, with a drone, fly and cherry sitting on top. It is designed by a British woman and is an example of contemporary western art.

https://news.sky.com/story/fourth-plinth-whipped-cream-and-fly-sculpture-unveiled-at-trafalgar-square-12038929

The second is a recreation of the ancient Winged Bull statue from Iraq, which was destroyed by ISIS. It was designed by an Iraqi Jew and is a literal recreation of ancient middle eastern art.

https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2018/03/28/londons-fourth-plinth-unveiled-michael-rakowitzs-winged-bull-sculpture-made-from-date-syrup-cans

The Winged Bull statue is self-evidently far superior, it is also not western. It is superior because it is traditionalist and not modernist.

The whipped cream statue is not modernist, either. Modernist art is this stuff. And it is worth noting that some people then made the same criticism of that art that you are making re contemporary art, and, as you do, said that this was "real art).

I guess the mods don't have a problem with you darkly hinting that anyone who doesn't like modernism is a nazi, but I think it is weak and lazy and I know you can do better G. At least build up to it or something.

I didn't hint that at all. The point was simply that "modernism bad, traditional good" does not have a great pedigree, and so a convincing argument re the merits of modernism needs a lot more than that bald claim. And, anyone who thinks that "Nazis didn't like modernism" implies "all who dislike modernism are Nazis" needs 1) a refresher course on basic logic; and 2) a refresher on history, since Stalin was not a fan, either.

Your point was that "modernism bad, traditional good" does not have a great pedigree, and so to get that across you told Crowstep that the whipped cream statue isn't modernist and then implied you would give an example of modernist art, but instead of linking an art gallery, or GIS for modernism, or even just the Wikipedia page, you linked a page about an exhibition the nazis held to "inflame public opinion against modernism". So you weren't darkly hinting, you just lost all ability to communicate normally?

And, anyone who thinks that "Nazis didn't like modernism" implies "all who dislike modernism are Nazis" needs 1) a refresher course on basic logic; and 2) a refresher on history, since Stalin was not a fan, either.

Nobody thinks "Nazis didn't like thing" implies "all who dislike thing are Nazis", but plenty of people pretend to for political gain as you know, which is why you can get side eyed for buying a tiki torch. To me it looks like it is also why you claimed it was "worth noting" that the nazis made "the same criticism" Crowstep did when he said he preferred soup can lamassu. Especially since you apparently do have non-nazi links, you just didn't use them.

As it happens, the Degenerate Art exhibit is the most complete survey of modernist art that I know of personally and, given that the OP was essentially arguing, as others have here repeatedly, that contemporary art is degenerate, and/or that the creators thereof are intentionality trying to destroy all that is True and Good, a link to the Degenerate Art exhibit was too hard to pass up.

The whipped cream statue is very technically competent. It is also ugly, and meant in a spirit of ugliness. The lamassu statue out of syrup tins may be gaudier and cheekier, and even tackier, but I prefer it. First, I like lamassu. Second, it is colourful and hopeful. There's enough ugliness and rubbing our faces in despair and cultish nihilism. Third, it really does represent something more rooted in the common people. If we're going to be all democratic about our public art, then there are a lot worse out there.

I sincerely doubt that the whipped cream statue was "meant in a spirit of ugliness," whatever that means. It was probably supposed to be some sort of political commentary, or perhaps meant in a spirit of whimsy, or in the spirit of the type of art school sophistry that is so common to artists' statements. You have no actual evidence that it was "meant in a spirit of ugliness" (again, whatever that means), as opposed to simply being, in your view, ugly? And it isn't even that ugly; there are plenty of great works of art that are uglier than that and plenty that depict ugliness, and plenty that are both. Are those "meant in a spirit of ugliness"? And, if so, perhaps that is not a bad thing.

From your first link (emphasis added):

When asked why he was compelled to revisit Velázquez's Portrait again and again, Bacon replied that he had nothing against popes, but merely sought "an excuse to use these colours, and you can't give ordinary clothes that purple colour without getting into a sort of false fauve manner".[24] At the time Bacon was coming to terms with the death of a cold, disciplinarian father, his early, illicit sexual encounters, and a very destructive sadomasochistic approach to sex.[25]

Almost all of the popes are shown within cage-like structures and screaming or about to scream. Bacon identified as a Nietzschean and atheist, and some contemporary critics saw the series as symbolic execution scenes, as if Bacon sought to enact Nietzsche's declaration that "God is dead" by killing his representative on Earth. Other critics see the series as symbolizing the killing of a father figure.[26] However Bacon balked at such literal translations, and later said that it was Velázquez himself he sought to "triumph over." He said that in the same way that Velázquez cooled Titian, he sought to "cool" Velázquez.[26]

Yes, I think that is the very definition of "a spirit of ugliness".

Then I really have no idea what "meant in a spirit of ugliness" means. All art that is produced by the stereotypical "tortured artist"? All art that some Freudian can impose the standard Freudian interpretation on? That is pretty much all art.

And, btw, the key phrase in OP's claim is not "spirit of ugliness" but rather "meant."

it is worth noting

Please speak directly. Why is it worth noting?

Unfortunately, the modernist ugliness you are right to complain about is Western, or at least it came from the West originally, and has now been embraced by decision makers globally.

A host / parasite distinction needs to be made here, I think.

If course, the original host / parasite diatinction that Scott made about the West was that authentic Western culture involves Odin and daubing yourself in blue woad. Anything after 1492 is a globohomo skinwalker ghoulishly possessing Europe's animated corpse.

daubing yourself in blue woad.

SMH modern westerners probably think Alizarin is a spell from Harry Potter... When will this age of ignorance end...

Anything after 1492 is a globohomo skinwalker ghoulishly possessing Europe's animated corpse.

What, you mean you'd count stuff AFTER Western civilization was corrupted by Arabs like Avicenna and his minions like Aquinas in the High Middle Ages?!

The 13th century was the high water mark of European culture. Fight me.

Certainly not the worst claim...

But seriously, you'd count Western civilization AFTER the Romans conquered the Greeks? Everything else was basically corrupt.

But would we say the Chinese cultural revolution was Chinese in culture? I would say it was Marxist-globalist, and I would say the same about Soviet art. These nations have since tossed aside their Marxist-globalist chains and have put on their authentic culture once again. We should do the same. Perhaps the seed of Global Man art (globo-homo) did originate in the West, in the form of capitalism or Bolshevism, but its adherents consciously place their works outside the tradition of their ancestors. They themselves see it as global, and not Western.

What's wrong with Soviet art? I would expect the kind of people who complain about "modern art" to be delighted by socialist realism.

The realism is fine, the futurism is where it's at. I fucking WANT to be flying superman style with nuclear power in my hand.

The difference is in the intent of the author. They didn't actively hate the people, they weren't miserable piles of neurosis taking it out on you the observer.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats