Honestly, I feel that provocation in art is extremely important. I can’t stand it when moralizers try to step in and say “no, that’s too provocative”. I don’t think there should be any limits in art, I think art should be a medium in which anyone can express the most vile things, and the most immoral and questionable or outright shocking. It’s just art, and art is the place for that in a society which limits people’s expression in their every day action through law. If you want to limit people’s every day actions through law, then limiting their art too is just an attempt at total subversion of the human will to that of the group. You can control people’s actions, but you can’t control people’s minds. Nothing in art is off limits, art is supposed to be and should be as provocative as possible.

I also think that one of the ways that people try to moralize society, is through moral dogmas, creating things that are socially taboo. This idea seems to trace back to plato, where in he described his utopia as one where he’d ban all play writes and poets, because they could corrupt the minds of the citizens. Authoritarianism, and I believe to a large extent Christian dogma, going back all the way to the time of Plato, is responsible for the trend of moralizing that we see in society these days. I believe everyone should read the 120 days of sodom, everyone should watch john waters movies,  everyone should listen to throbbing gristle, I believe everyone should subvert culturally accepted norms. A society which accepts human nature is one which is better for everyone, fuck law and order.

I have a problem with the idea of “law and order”. It seems that the idea of subverting the human will to an established idea of rules and norms; in itself, aside from the idea of making certain things off limits because they feel it will corrupt people; is problematic. The idea of creating laws and having people follow them presupposes that the person making the laws is the ultimate authority on what is good and what is bad. But who can be the ultimate ruler, who can be the ultimate arbitrator of what is good and what is bad? Plato himself saw this as a problem, what is justice, what is good, can you find a truly wise person to lead a society? His solution to it was total subversion of the will, authoritarianism, a society completely under control.

That is where the idea becomes troublesome, because this subversion of people leads to the authoritarian dogma of plato. A dogma is something which is arbitrarily stated can’t be said or done. But the human mind can’t be subverted by laws, there’s no ultimately cohesive law which can bind all of society together. Because no one operates on any fundamental laws; and if there were any ultimately cohesive laws, society would already be functioning under them; no one can really be expected to follow an arbitrary law, outside of even provocative art. Not to mention, art without provocation is nothing but insipid, bland, moralizing pap. You might as well just watch veggie tales or christian cartoons, because there’s no good art which isn’t provocative in some way.

I'm not reading this.  Make what you want, don't expect people to like it, and it shouldn't be publicly funded
Also, making fun of Christianity in art isn't "daring", it's so overdone that it's just kicking someone while their down. How about making something that criticizes Islam or depicts Muhammed, see what happens then

I'm not reading this.  Make what you want, don't expect people to like it, and it shouldn't be publicly funded
Also, making fun of Christianity in art isn't "daring", it's so overdone that it's just kicking someone while their down. How about making something that criticizes Islam or depicts Muhammed, see what happens then

How about, instead of kicking christianity while it's down, you curb stomp it in the face until it's brains splatter on the concrete? And I wasn't really even talking about christianity, I was talking about it's ingrained effect on the cultural attitude of our society.

Quote from: Casper on February 14, 2017, 07:49:54 AM

I'm not reading this.  Make what you want, don't expect people to like it, and it shouldn't be publicly funded
Also, making fun of Christianity in art isn't "daring", it's so overdone that it's just kicking someone while their down. How about making something that criticizes Islam or depicts Muhammed, see what happens then

How about, instead of kicking christianity while it's down, you curb stomp it in the face until it's brains splatter on the concrete? And I wasn't really even talking about christianity, I was talking about it's ingrained effect on the cultural attitude of our society.

I was ranting.  But if you wanna make art about that, go ahead, but it's nothing new, nothing special.  I'm mostly tired with the art community, or at least modern art, and Trump can't cut funding soon enough.

Honestly, I feel that provocation in basketball is extremely important. I can’t stand it when moralizer refs try to step in and say “no, that’s a foul”. I don’t think there should be any limits in basketball, I think basketball should be a medium in which anyone can express the most vile things, and the most immoral and questionable or outright shocking. It’s just basketball, and basketball is the place for that in a society which limits people’s expression in their every day action through law. If you want to limit people’s every day actions through law, then limiting their basketball too is just an attempt at total subversion of the human will to that of the group. You can control people’s actions, but you can’t control people’s sports. Nothing in basketball is off limits, basketball is supposed to be and should be as provocative as possible.

I also think that one of the ways that people try to moralize hockey, is through moral dogmas, creating rules that are game taboo. This idea seems to trace back to J O H N M A D D E N, where in he described his utopia as one where he’d ban all judges and refs, because they could corrupt the minds of the fans. Basketballianism, and I believe to a large extent Football dogma, going back all the way to the time of J O H N M A D D E N, is responsible for the trend of reffing that we see in society these days. I believe everyone should read the 12,000,0 days of sodom, everyone should watch john wayne movies,  everyone should listen to teletubbies, I believe everyone should subvert culturally accepted rules. A society which accepts basketball nature is one which is better for everyone, fuck refs and order.

I have a problem with the idea of “refs and order”. It seems that the idea of subverting the human will to an established idea of rules and norms; in itself, aside from the idea of making certain things off limits because they feel it will corrupt fans; is problematic. The idea of creating rules and having people follow them presupposes that the person making the rules is the ultimate authority on what is good and what is bad. But who can be the ultimate ruler, who can be the ultimate arbitrator of what is good and what is bad? J O H N M A D D E N himself saw this as a problem, what is justice, what is good, can you find a truly wise person to lead a game? His solution to it was total subversion of the will, authoritarianism, a game completely under control.

That is where the idea becomes troublesome, because this subversion of people leads to the Basketballitarian dogma of  J O H N M A D D E N. A dogma is a rule which is arbitrarily stated can’t be said or done. But the human mind can’t be subverted by fouls, there’s no ultimately cohesive rule which can bind all of fans together. Because no one operates on any fundamental rules; and if there were any ultimately cohesive rules, fans would already be functioning under them; no one can really be expected to follow an arbitrary foul, outside of even provocative basketball. Not to mention, basketball without provocation is nothing but insipid, bland, moralizing pap. You might as well just watch baseball or golf, because there’s no good basketball which isn’t provocative in some way.

Loaf back at it again with that no one gives a shit.

Marilyn Manson is garbage. Just shock value with no artistic merit.

shocking people has artistic value.

Quote from: Antinatalist Superstar on February 14, 2017, 07:30:13 PM

Quote from: Loaf on February 14, 2017, 07:26:26 PM

Marilyn Manson is garbage. Just shock value with no artistic merit.

shocking people has artistic value.

I can't have an objective discussion about what is artistic value. I will say I respect Manson, I just don't like his music.

how do you call his music garbage but then say you respect him?

Quote from: Antinatalist Superstar on February 14, 2017, 08:28:46 PM

Quote from: Loaf on February 14, 2017, 08:22:23 PM

Quote from: Antinatalist Superstar on February 14, 2017, 07:30:13 PM

Quote from: Loaf on February 14, 2017, 07:26:26 PM

Marilyn Manson is garbage. Just shock value with no artistic merit.

shocking people has artistic value.

I can't have an objective discussion about what is artistic value. I will say I respect Manson, I just don't like his music.

how do you call his music garbage but then say you respect him?

Think about it, just take a minute to ponder the question you just asked.

so you dont have an answer? gotcha

Quote from: Antinatalist Superstar on February 15, 2017, 09:57:20 AM

Quote from: Loaf on February 15, 2017, 08:02:46 AM

Quote from: Antinatalist Superstar on February 14, 2017, 08:28:46 PM

Quote from: Loaf on February 14, 2017, 08:22:23 PM

Quote from: Antinatalist Superstar on February 14, 2017, 07:30:13 PM

Quote from: Loaf on February 14, 2017, 07:26:26 PM

Marilyn Manson is garbage. Just shock value with no artistic merit.

shocking people has artistic value.

I can't have an objective discussion about what is artistic value. I will say I respect Manson, I just don't like his music.

how do you call his music garbage but then say you respect him?

Think about it, just take a minute to ponder the question you just asked.

so you dont have an answer? gotcha

It's called separating art from artist.

yeah, sure. but you straight up called manson's work garbage. you can't respect an artist who creates art you think is trash.

its one thing to respect an artist for making art you dont particularly enjoy. thats how i feel about david bowie. but no, you said it was garbage and had no artistic value. so.

3) Also, making fun of Christianity in art isn't "daring", it's so overdone that it's just kicking someone while their down.

pretty true nowadays

but when it was done 20 years ago, it was daring.

Quote from: Antinatalist Superstar on February 15, 2017, 12:48:59 PM

Quote from: XSEAN on February 15, 2017, 12:37:44 PM

3) Also, making fun of Christianity in art isn't "daring", it's so overdone that it's just kicking someone while their down.

pretty true nowadays

but when it was done 20 years ago, it was daring.

I bet if OP tried to make art insulting Muslims there would be rioting in the street.

no

You can call it my philosophy 101 paper, implying my opinions are sophomoric

That'd be philosophy 202.