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.
You may have noticed that I don’t have an equipment list anywhere on this page. This is not without good reason:
-The Yashica LM’s shutter broke.
-The Nikkormat’s film winder snapped off
-The Ricoh’s main lens threw all of its bearings and refuses to focus
-The Nikon’s SD card door snapped off and one of the rubber buttons on the outside of the external flash fell off
Despite this, the Nikon and its flash still work, the Nikkormat still works (rewinding the film is a little tedious) and the Ricoh’s body still works– but the only lens I have for it is an ungainly, baseball bat-sized telephoto. The Yashica is probably going to be junked, and I’ll probably keep the D40 around for a backup.
So, I’m going to bite the bullet and get a Canon EOS5D Mk2. I know, everyone keeps saying to wait until the Mk3 comes out, but there are two problems with this:
Newer models don’t necessarily make the older models go down in price
The Mk3 has been promised to come out for TWO BLOODY YEARS and it hasn’t. Everyone who’s waiting for a Mk3 can thank me, then– because I’m positive the very picosecond I press the “buy” button, Canon will announce the arrival of the Mk3.
Once I get the Mk2, though… I’m gonna need some folks to pose for me. Heh.
Oh dear. A frightening mix of the common misconception “NAZIS WERE SOCIALISTS SO ALL SOCIALISTS ARE NAZIS” and blistering ignorance of the intricacies of populism, right/left politics and fringe politics.
I’ll try and break this down:
-Nazism is not socialism. I don’t care if it has “social” or “socialist” in the name– philosophies aren’t solely defined by their names, they are defined by their actions and their makeup. As a poignant example, one of the policies of “national socialism” was to imprison and execute “socialists.” Furthermore, the NSDAP adopted the “socialist” moniker in the early thirties as a way of blending in with the majority of leftist/marxist revolutionary groups operating in Germany at the time. Furthermore, modern day “neo-nazis” bear little resemblance to the political philosophy that birthed them– neo nazis do not have any practical philosophy outside of extreme anti-semitism.
-Yes, nazis are attracted to the OWS movement because the OWS movement is going after bankers. In the narrow, stunted mind of the typical neo-nazi, “jew” and “banker” are interchangeable, but this article clearly eschews any cursory examination of the OWS movement to determine whether any part of it is inherently anti-semitic (it isn’t) for the sake of a cheap partisan attack that only serves to pander to a slack-jawed audience that only wants to hear the same thing repeated from different mouths. The end result is that the article winds up adopting and parroting the exact same philosophy as the nazis: “bankers are synonymous with jews.” Nice work.
-Populist politics is a free for all. Politicians and political movements frequently adopt populist monikers, popular struggles and all trappings of being “for the people” when they attempt to use the success of said elements to bolster their own flagging movements. The barnacle is not an intrinsic part of the ship, even though both move to the same place at the same speed.
Repeating obvious falsehoods and shameless propaganda only underscores the frantic dishonesty and intellectual weakness of the apologists for the 1%.
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?
death in june is terrible, irrelevant, and hasn’t done anything even listenable in almost twenty years.
douglas pearce is a cryptofascist piece of shit.
“I’m not a fascist because I have Israeli and Rainbow flags on my website! Nazis can’t be gay so I’m not a nazi. Now let’s take my band that’s named after a nazi event, dress in wehrmacht uniforms, sing songs about how great German culture is, nazi events and nazi people that’ll later appear on nazi-themed compilations. Then let’s go on tour with other bands who like to sing about the same stuff we sing about. Gosh, sure are a lot of white people with shaved heads in the audience at our shows!”
The first time I listened to them, I really did wonder what all the fuss was about. It’s sub-par folk warbling that wouldn’t last at an open mic night at the coffee shop.
Maybe DiJ is just one big joke on people who don’t like music, because he’s been speak-singing and atonally thrumming his acoustic guitar to the same song for years now, and the sheer volume of absurd EXTREMELY LIMITED EDITIONS of the same songs in a different order is pretty much the same strategy of a car manufacturer taking last year’s model and putting go-faster stripes on it. It’s also incredibly insulting to state that because someone doesn’t like DiJ, they don’t “get” it. What’s to get? Douglas thought up the lyrics, wrote the music entirely separately and then sloppily bolted them together in an ungainly, amelodic and tedious blob of sound.
Out of, what, 40+ albums(?) I think can find six tunes that don’t make me want to fill my ears with cement– and I don’t think it’s any surprise that they’re drone tracks that don’t feature douglas’ voice OR his fucking guitar.