Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Adam Curtis on the dangers of self-expression (2017)

thecreativeindependent.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 188 posts

Re: Adam Curtis on the dangers of self-expression (2017)

#31

Post by Daub »

keiferski wrote: post #12

I follow the contemporary art world pretty closely, and a feeling I often get is that it's merely a giant collection of individuals expressing themselves in a way that fits into the market system of galleries, museums, auctions, etc. There are of course artists focused on political causes, but for the most part it is entirely devoid of any centralized ethos or ideal. While this situation is freeing for the individual…

We can probably travel the first clear instance of such self expression to the romantic era. Probably Goya who was the Spanish court painter but whose uncomissined black paintings were uniquely personal.

Re: Adam Curtis on the dangers of self-expression (2017)

#32

Post by keiferski »

Daub wrote: post #31
keiferski wrote: post #12

I follow the contemporary art world pretty closely, and a feeling I often get is that it's merely a giant collection of individuals expressing themselves in a way that fits into the market system of galleries, museums, auctions, etc. There are of course artists focused on political causes, but for the most part it is entirely devoid of any centralized ethos or ideal. While this situation is freeing for the individual…

We can probably travel the first clear instance of such self expression to the romantic era. Probably Goya who was the Spanish court painter but whose uncomissined black paintings were uniquely personal.

No I'm sure you can find clear examples of painting purely for self-expression much earlier than Goya. What's new-ish is that the structure of the art world/market is set up to incentivize self-expression.

Re: Adam Curtis on the dangers of self-expression (2017)

#34

Post by borgdefense »

chefandy wrote: post #15
Animats wrote: post #7

Huh. "Computers can see us as large groups, but they’re glum and only aggregate us to sell us stuff. In reality, the computers give great insight into the power of common identity between groups. No one’s using that." That's from 2017. Unfortunately, that's no longer the case. From ISIL to Q-Anon to MAGA to LGBTxx, finding dispersed but like-minded people and using them to build a political movement is now common. Wo…

That wasn't true in 2017, either. Though the author makes some interesting points, he conflates catalysts, causes, and cultural movements and just calls it all self-expression, and casually makes some rather eyebrow-raising assertions in the process. This reads more like an idea he was trying to hash it for himself rather than a well-considered piece.

That pretty much sums up Adam Curtis to me and I would say I am quite a fan.

He is an amazing propaganda film maker but have to take him with a huge grain of salt.

Re: Adam Curtis on the dangers of self-expression (2017)

#35

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

keiferski wrote: post #12

I follow the contemporary art world pretty closely, and a feeling I often get is that it's merely a giant collection of individuals expressing themselves in a way that fits into the market system of galleries, museums, auctions, etc. There are of course artists focused on political causes, but for the most part it is entirely devoid of any centralized ethos or ideal. While this situation is freeing for the individual…

Ironically the "individual self expression" is uniform - a certain kind of tame depoliticised artistic creativity marketed as a hustle. It's there all the way down from Gagosian to Etsy.

And there are good reasons for it, and also good reasons why you'll find ab ex in bank foyers and very expensive homes.

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/artcurious-cia-art-excerpt...

There's always been a tight and complex relationship between art, money, and power, and there's always been a propaganda angle, or at least a statement of public values, to public imagery.

But so far as I know the 20th century was the first time state agencies began inventing new aesthetic traditions for political ends (socialist realism in the USSR, ab ex in the US).

Re: Adam Curtis on the dangers of self-expression (2017)

#36

Post by mhh__ »

myrloc wrote: post #2

Great read. Thanks for sharing. I am not familiar with Adam Curtis' work but will be looking for more!

I'd go as far as saying that he's the only genuinely serious person in his domain (on TV at least) at this point .

Others have recommended "the century of self" for example which is great but I highly recommend his earlier stuff like "Pandora's box" and "The Mayfair set"

Re: Adam Curtis on the dangers of self-expression (2017)

#37

Post by borgdefense »

smokel wrote: post #25
keiferski wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your video game comment made me think: maybe the modern equivalent of the art scenario I mentioned is in commercial art like video games or movies, both of which still have genres and are often directly compared to each other – "Call of Duty is a better FPS than Medal of Honor," and so on.

It makes a lot more sense to consider Hollywood and video games as the proper successors to classical art, and to see contemporary art as only a small strand in the evolution of art. Somehow someone managed to convince the world that Hollywood is not real art, but some other arbitrary weird stuff is. (To avoid confusion, I personally love the arbitrary weird stuff.)

Youtube and tiktok also.

The world knows this is art but some bullshit artists, pun intended, in New York pretend like it is not. Then other bullshit artists in other cities follow what the bullshit artists in New York are doing because most aren't creative or free thinkers at all.

I love galleries personally but it is a class of non-creative, closed minded, bullshit artists at this point.

Re: Adam Curtis on the dangers of self-expression (2017)

#38

Post by mhh__ »

000ooo000 wrote: post #3
myrloc wrote: post #2

Great read. Thanks for sharing. I am not familiar with Adam Curtis' work but will be looking for more!

His 4-part Century of the Self series is on Youtube, IIRC. Interesting watch. Hypernormalisation didn't grab me as much.

Hypernormalisation is kind of a miss.

It might be true, but it doesn't work because Curtis himself is hypernormalising — he isn't a journalist, he tells stories and emotions rather than a left-brained truth.

Re: Adam Curtis on the dangers of self-expression (2017)

#39

Post by barrysteve »

keiferski wrote: post #12

I follow the contemporary art world pretty closely, and a feeling I often get is that it's merely a giant collection of individuals expressing themselves in a way that fits into the market system of galleries, museums, auctions, etc. There are of course artists focused on political causes, but for the most part it is entirely devoid of any centralized ethos or ideal. While this situation is freeing for the individual…

[dead]

Re: Adam Curtis on the dangers of self-expression (2017)

#40

Post by itsoktocry »

myrloc wrote: post #2

Great read. Thanks for sharing. I am not familiar with Adam Curtis' work but will be looking for more!

>I am not familiar with Adam Curtis' work but will be looking for more!

You're in for a treat, then. He has hours of wonderful documentaries.

https://watchdocumentaries.com/tag/adam-curtis/

Post reply on HN