Human consciousness has evolved along survival lines. Our senses exist primarily to warn us of imminent danger, and our brain is primarily wired to process this sensory input in a manner that prioritizes threats. Humor, beauty, sensuality, pleasure and even raw emotion are learned, imprinted on us after birth. They certainly do exist, but they are far outside the “natural” blank slate state we’re born with. They’re all matters of perception.
When we re-wire our brains, whether its through the introduction of entheogenic substances (drugs) or guided self examination (meditation), we radically alter the way in which perceive the universe around us. When we become bogged down in endlessly striving for that which is “real,” we’re simply trying to go back to that emotionless, survivalist form of our newly-born mind. We can’t go back. We can’t kill off our hunger for beauty, wonder and magic. When we force our minds to stop working in the threat assessment mode and similarly force it to rewire itself, we are perceiving reality in a new manner. Sounds may indeed have “tastes” in this new perception of reality because we’ve forced our brain to process the signals in a manner in which they are not traditionally routed.
Venetian Snares and Aphex Twin have already demonstrated this.
Art is context and intent. Art exists to evoke an emotion. If we can assume that the intent of the artist is to evoke a specific emotion in the viewer, a work of art can be considered effective if the evoked emotions roughly match with those intended by the artist. Even if the artist’s intent is simply to createsome thingthat only satisfies a deep, as yet unidentified urge within the artist, the work still has an intent, a context and set of emotional responses it is expected to invoke.
From this, we can indeed infer that art iseverywhere— and the act of creating a work of art does not necessarily require a skill set like those possessed by skilled laborers, outside of those skills necessary to achieve the vision of the creator. The primary job of the artist is not to know how to operate a bead-blasting machine or to finish a block of wood– but to assign meaning, purpose and life to aspects of our physical reality. Whether this is done by the skilled act of blending various objects together in a smooth, seamless, well-crafted object or by invoking an emotion in a large group of people, “art” is being created. Even if we took the post modern route– that is, attempting to create a work of art that lacks context, intent and emotion– we’d still have a work of art that had context (why it is being shown, why people are aware of it, the background of the artist), intent (the intent being to create a work of art without intent) and whatever emotional (or lack thereof) response on the part of the viewer. Indeed, in this scenario, the most effective way of creating art that has no context, intent or emotion would be to not create anything at all, and instead use the money to be spent on procuring materials on food, rent or taxes.
Art fails when its intent, context and desired emotional response are gone or forgotten; it is important to point out that “failed art” also possesses the potential for the reassignment of context, intent and emotion. Thus, the cycle of art continues on.
Browsing tumblr for all of thirty seconds netted me a moderately re-posted diatribe aimed at a positively ancient joke, wherein the author of the diatribe either doesn’t understand that said joke is not actually utilized as a serious philosophical attack on body modification, body image politics or gender oriented philosophy. Or they may be operating under the delusion that an amateur “postmodern critique” of a crusty “old people making fun of young people” type joke has any merit outside of facile external validation from an insular peer group.
If you have to ask “Does this make me a bad person?” or “Am I wrong for thinking…?”, it probably does. If your intent is to offer a serious critique and/or condemnation of a particular aspect of social conservatism, the energy expended on your “heroic defense of freedom of choice” would be better utilized if it were not directed at a soft, easy target like an unfunny, widely forwarded joke about a punk rocker and a parrot. The audience for this joke consists of aging social conservatives who have interacted and are uncomfortable with young people who are comfortable with their body image to openly express themselves. It is not being distributed as a part of a larger intimidation and propaganda campaign.
Wasting your time on bad jokes only paints you as an unfunny, touchy, tedious cretin who cannot comprehend the concept of “humor” outside of all jokes being a form of rape or physical assault– and as one who finds critique of more worthy items too challenging.
No, I’m not linking to it or reblogging it.
IF YOU DON’T HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOR, DON’T TRY TO BE FUNNY.
FUCK ‘EM IF THEY CAN’T TAKE A JOKE.
Muddying the definition of “states rights”: How Ron Paul exploits potheads to advocate for segregation
When did people forget that “states rights” was the battle cry used in the 1950s and 1960s in the fight against integration, the equal rights amendment and being federally prohibited from abusing people based on their skin color?
When did “states rights” change into a byline for slack-jawed advocacy for cannabis legalization?
Maybe they didn’t forget. Maybe they’re exploiting the fact that younger persons of voting age never had to live through any of the battles and bloodshed around civil rights– and instead realize that the way to having th’ gummit stop enforcing labor laws, reproductive freedom laws and anti-discrimination laws is through a bunch of kind-hearted but naive stoners.
The irony of the fight for cannabis legalization through states rights is ironic, considering that cannabis will never be legalized unless it is dealt with on a federal level. The placement of cannabis on Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act is at the behest of congress. This means that actions that sound as simple as “abolishing the controlled substances act” or “rescheduling cannabis” require the full approval of congress– the president can not do this act alone, nor can the president issue a decree ordering congress to repeal a law. For all of their moping about “restoring the constitution,” paultards seem to be blissfully unaware of the separation of powers– no one branch of the government makes the laws; they are created in concert with all three branches of government, and unless a majority of the 535 members of congress are all progressive-minded enough to support a liberalization of existing drug laws, nothing will happen.
Working around the controlled substances act and reclassifying cannabis as a prescription medicine is the most effective way to achieve partial legalization, and to reduce the social stigma of cannabis– which certainly does still exist in many sectors of society.
The other side of the coin is one that advocates for cannabis legalization seem to overlook: are the 535 members of congress sufficiently conservative enough to support legislation that repeals federal regulations on racial discrimination, child labor, abortion rights, gender discrimination, labor rights and prison terms? My point being, of course, that states will see abortion, homosexuality, unions and race-mixing outlawed and criminalized well before cannabis legalization is ever considered.
Members of the nationalist American Third Position Party (A3P), whose website was defaced by Anonymous, organised Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul’s meetings and campaigns, according emails hacked by the collective.
Chairman of the British National Party (BNP) Nick Griffin also took part in meetings with Paul and other representatives of A3P.
“According to these messages, Ron Paul has regularly met with many A3P members, even engaging in conference calls with their board of directors,” read a statement from Anonymous.
It also claims that Paul received financial support from other white power groups, such as the online hate forum Stormfront, founded by Don Black, a white supremacist. There is even a photograph of Paul with Black, a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and a current member of the American Nazi Party. Paul allegedly refused to return donations from Black and Stormfront. Black told The New York Times that Paul’s newsletter had inspired him to become a supporter.
The sheer amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth from paultards about this is absolutely stunning. Every single possible conspiracy theory has been thrown out in an effort to see what sticks– the FBI did it, the CIA did it, the Mossad did it, Anonymous didn’t do it, Obama did it, the GOP did it, you name it.
The most ridiculous conspiracy theory is the one claiming Anonymous didn’t execute this hack– and TEH PROOFE offered is the page nazi-leaks.info, where, the erstwhile kool-aid drinkers claim, these emails do not exist. EXCEPT THEY DO. FOUR TIMES.And, I should point out, if anyone bothered to actually go to whitenewsnow, you’d see all of them wailing and gnashing their teeth over THE EVIL COMMIE JEW RATS who hacked them!
Why does it seem like half of the people who proclaim themselves to be pro-Palestinian do so not because they actually care about Palestinians, but because they want an excuse to hate Jews? If I stumble upon another site that consists entirely of “ALL JEWS ARE EVIL DEMON BANKERS AND HERE IS THE PROTOCOLS OF ELDERS OF ZION TO PROVE IT” with a little “I support Palestine!” button at the bottom, I’ll scream. I also find it ironic that Nazis use that Israeli flag with the swastika in it as some sort of insult– don’t you assholes like that symbol and what it represents? I mean, if Israel really is a fascist state that practices ethnic cleansing, shouldn’t you be supporting it?
I tend to perceive noise music much in the same vein as abstract impressionist painting. Noise presents the listener with an imposing, seemingly impenetrable wall of chaos, but like any Jackson Pollack or Franz Kline, these pieces aren’t meant to be immediately consumed, digested and understood by a casual audience. Instead, they utilize the intimidating power of their cursory uniformity as a lens to discover intricacies within the piece.
Consider the use of samples in noise works much in the same way an artist would use magazine cut-outs or shredded photographs in their art. Also, consider what separates noise artists from people who make rote, unimaginative copies of pre-existing works in a vain attempt to score a quick buck or further a political cause.
You know, how every other nazi skinhead with an amp, a distortion pedal and a shitty tape recorder thinks they’re the next Masami Akita?