Adam Curtis on the dangers of self-expression (2017) • Hacker News Board

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

#71

Post by glitchc » Sat, May 11, 2024, 7:46 PM UTC

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #70

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…

The “art world” is wildly divorced from the tastes of the majority of people in society - one could uncharitably but not inaccurately characterise the modern art world as a means to arrange for low cost materials to be purchased for vast sums in tax advantageous ways. If we look at an art form where there is a lot of validation by the majority of people, tv and films, we see people “painting the same thing” all the t…

This. The modern art world is predominantly a tax evasion and racketeering scheme, designed to transfer assets outside the influence of national and international law.

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

#72

Post by verisimi » Sat, May 11, 2024, 7:47 PM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #69

verisimi wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn't have cameras, either, back then...

They did have camera obscura and other optical devices to assist with the realization of perspective.

Right - but the point of the portraits was for rich people to have their likeness captured. Nowadays, this is simple with cameras - a big driver of the market disappeared.

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

#73

Post by 65 » Sat, May 11, 2024, 7:52 PM UTC

bjornsing wrote: post #26

Curtis expresses disdain for our generation’s reluctance to form groups and struggle for power. But I’m more inclined to think this is a good thing. Power struggle between groups is a zero sum game, while individual freedom is not. It’s true that individual freedom also leads to power structures, and that those can be oppressive to certain groups. But I think that problem is better addressed with individual and unive…

When everyone is individualized and alienated from each other, you wind up with a deep emptiness in a population looking for community and organization to fill the void. This is exactly the methodology Stalin and Hitler took to get people on board with totalitarianism. People are fundamentally social animals who need community and social structures, and making everyone into an individual creates instability and allows for sociopaths to rise to power to fill those gaps.

I suggest reading the book The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt.

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

#74

Post by mymythisisthis » Sat, May 11, 2024, 7:53 PM UTC

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #70

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…

The “art world” is wildly divorced from the tastes of the majority of people in society - one could uncharitably but not inaccurately characterise the modern art world as a means to arrange for low cost materials to be purchased for vast sums in tax advantageous ways. If we look at an art form where there is a lot of validation by the majority of people, tv and films, we see people “painting the same thing” all the t…

If feel that with Youtube you get a touch of the Zeitgeist. There are some milquetoast channels like 'Hoovie's Garage', 'Rich Rebuilds', that tap into what average people are interested in watching.

You can also see the small changes in the medium; everybody at once adopting click-bait titles once one person was successful with it. As soon as a channel gets some success like 'Hand Tool Restoration' then everyone starts doing the same thing.

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

#75

Post by mymythisisthis » Sat, May 11, 2024, 7:56 PM UTC

keiferski wrote: post #17

squigz wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you had a much narrower focus of acceptable work and topics, with the result that artists were all engaged with basically the same art forms and the same topics, across the entirety of the artistic community. For example, both da Vinci and Raphael were painting Madonnas Mightn't this have to do with the fact that most paintings back then were commissioned by rich clients, who were probably competing with each other…

That might have been a part, but it's more that the idea of self-expression as the prime value in art is mostly a 20th century thing. The falling off of skill, realism, and other similar metrics is also a 20th century thing and largely came from photography and mass manufacturing. There's probably an essay or book out there covering the two intertwining topics, but I can't think of any offhand. It's also worth noting…

I think that there is something else happening. We as a society don't really recognize industrial design. Some Youtube channels like 'Technology Connections' does.

Perhaps in the future we'll spend more time recognizing the mastery of craft that industrial designers put into creating household lamps and such. Especially since the history is pilling up and ready to be mined for interesting content.

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

#76

Post by badpun » Sat, May 11, 2024, 9:00 PM UTC

smokel wrote: post #19

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…

I'm not sure if this trend will continue for as long as you fear. Individual expression had had some boosts during the Renaissance, during Romanticism (perhaps due to atheism, as a first response to globalism, and due to scientific discoveries regarding the mind) and again after World War II (perhaps due to the "American Dream" propaganda, and perhaps even as a way to fight communism?). A strange culture developed wh…

> Individual expression had had some boosts during the Renaissance, during Romanticism (perhaps due to atheism, as a first response to globalism, and due to scientific discoveries regarding the mind) and again after World War II (perhaps due to the "American Dream" propaganda, and perhaps even as a way to fight communism?).

My understanding is that "individual expression" has been with us firmly since Romanticism (it was Beethoven who first promoted the idea that great artists are above kings). The whole "art for art's sake", artist as a high priest of culture etc. - these were all ideas that dominated the XIX century. They kind of withered in XX century after WW1, WW2 and Holocaust, and were replaced by post-modern modes of expression (i.e. we abandon search of the truth via art, because there is no "the" truth).

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

#77

Post by badpun » Sat, May 11, 2024, 9:06 PM UTC

bjornsing wrote: post #26

Curtis expresses disdain for our generation’s reluctance to form groups and struggle for power. But I’m more inclined to think this is a good thing. Power struggle between groups is a zero sum game, while individual freedom is not. It’s true that individual freedom also leads to power structures, and that those can be oppressive to certain groups. But I think that problem is better addressed with individual and unive…

Power struggle is always there, the question is only if your group pushes back. If it largely doesn't for a couple decades, you eventually get results like young families cannot afford a basic place to live in 2024 in some of the wealthiest societies in the history of the planet.

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

#78

Post by ChrisMarshallNY » Sat, May 11, 2024, 9:14 PM UTC

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…

Cab Calloway was a pretty radical dude, in his day.

The Beats were proto-hippies. Many Hippies arose from the Beat movement.

The Hell's Angels were a bunch of pissed-off military veterans. They were into their own brand of self-expression.

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

#79

Post by munchler » Sat, May 11, 2024, 9:35 PM UTC

Karellen wrote: post #33

> There is another definition of freedom which simply says, “In whose service is perfect freedom.” By giving yourself up to the Lord, you free yourself of the narrow cage of your own desires and your own selfishness. ...and that's where they lost me.

[flagged]

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

#80

Post by xboxnolifes » Sat, May 11, 2024, 9:43 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #56

andybak wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this your first day on planet Adam Curtis? ;) I love his stuff but you really need to treat it as "thought provoking but utterly lacking in rigour". Treat it as a jumping off point for topics that might be new to you and as a nudge to view things from a different angle.

In the post-LLM era, that just isn't good enough. Now that we have well-written automated probabilistic meandering text generation, "thought provoking but utterly lacking in rigour" copy is everywhere. Usually followed by a clickbait link. It's the end of a whole second-tier literary genre.

Llm output is not thought provoking.