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

131–140 of 188 posts

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

#131

Post by creer »

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…

Why / how do you admire this lack of self-expression? What's so interesting about that specifically?

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

#132

Post by dr_dshiv »

card_zero wrote: post #90
dr_dshiv wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are not good sources. Anything more reliable on this?

Perhaps a book on the topic? https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780307594754/page/26/mode/... The lost battles : Leonardo, Michelangelo, and the artistic duel that defined the Renaissance

Much better! Quotes and sources…

Fun fact: Michelangelo was hired after a heavy snow storm in 1494 to build snow sculptures around the city of Florence — just before the Medici were exiled.

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

#133

Post by holoduke »

philosopher1234 wrote: post #87
glitchc wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How does it work? And what’s the evidence that this is true? People love to say this but I’ve never seen anyone go beyond the surface on the took. The impression I get is it’s mostly people who don’t know what they’re talking about repeating a pleasing idea.

Of course it is. In many countries there is tax on liquid assets. Thats why these people buy art, cars etc. Things the tax authority cannot easily identify. Its also easy to transport these goods to another country. Its easy to change the value temporarily so you can move funds arround very easily. I know some people doing it and storing their stuff in Dubai. Tax evasion is number one reason.

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

#134

Post by antonvs »

habitue wrote: post #128
perfmode wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

clever. how’d you come up with that?

It's called a harberger tax: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harberger_Tax

As written on that wiki page it’s completely impractical:

> Others are able to purchase the property from the owner at the taxed price at any time, forcing a sale.

The idea is apparently supposed to “improve societal welfare”, but the reality is it would favor the wealthiest who could afford to have and hold property, while everyone else would be at the mercy of those richer than them.

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

#136

Post by portaouflop »

aspenmayer wrote: post #68
borgdefense wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> He is an amazing propaganda film maker What would you say he is advocating for that you call propagandizing? Not that I disagree, per se, just curious how you’d articulate it.

I would say he massages his facts until they fit the narrative. Not saying he misrepresents things but he often comes to conclusions that are not based on the data IMO

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

#137

Post by aspenmayer »

portaouflop wrote: post #136
aspenmayer wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He is an amazing propaganda film maker What would you say he is advocating for that you call propagandizing? Not that I disagree, per se, just curious how you’d articulate it.

I would say he massages his facts until they fit the narrative. Not saying he misrepresents things but he often comes to conclusions that are not based on the data IMO

> I would say he massages his facts until they fit the narrative. Not saying he misrepresents things but he often comes to conclusions that are not based on the data IMO

This is a great answer, and is a very good definition of propaganda, especially in this context - his propaganda, if defined as such, is good/effective, because his motivated reasoning just so stories are broken clocks that are coincidentally right because he is a master of set and setting, cleverly telling stories at precisely the time and place of his choosing and in such a situated context/Situationist (International) way that they are not even wrong, and may even be correct, but not for the reasons he claims, or even for any reason at all.

I was hoping to draw out an explanation of what his narrative(s) seek to be an explication of, and in light of what I’ve written above, maybe he’s an author of selective revisionist history? Aspects of his oeuvre remind me of Fukuyama’s end of history, possibly the way that Curtis’ archival crate digging pastiche, his overarching yet hopscotching mode of storytelling, seeks to overwhelm the viewer with Gish galloping shaggy dog stories that are almost immune to shallow dismissal.

Curtis, like Daedalus and his son Icarus, constructs a garden path (sentence) through a Minotaur’s Labyrinth of meaning; like the maze’s solver Theseus, Curtis’ ball of thread weaves a tangled web of meaning through a hedgerow inherently devoid of meaning, and like Theseus, he accidentally/purposefully neglects to raise a black flag of ambiguity announcing his return to Athens/to meaning, instead hoisting the traditional white flag of discursive arrival at certainty, resulting in Theseus/Curtis securing the throne of power/discourse for himself, indirectly crowning himself king of the hill in terms of (a)historical victors.

I always was a sucker for mixed metaphors, though, and I might be wrong or perhaps biased. I always found Fukuyama’s end of history narrative subconsciously off-putting for some reason, while being drawn all the same to Curtis’ clarion call, but perhaps Curtis’ is a siren song sung by a wolf in sheep’s clothing?

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

#138

Post by lordfrito »

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 think the best art is done within constraints -- namely because it forces the artists to be creative within those constraints. Their creativity is what is inspiring.

When anything goes, you get splatters of paint on a canvas, which is much less interesting as it's much less creative. That, and the market forces as you said -- it's not creative, it's just signaling and marketing.

It's not high art, but what I admire about the original Star Wars film is that it was so difficult getting it made -- it took passion, talent, and craftsmanship to make a movie like that possible -- they had to literally invent new ways of doing things for that to be possible. Seeing the same kinds of movies today, where it's all done on computer -- requires less craft, less creativity -- and that's why these modern movies all feel uninspired.

Creativity within limits is where it is at.

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

#139

Post by rfrey »

Almondsetat wrote: post #129
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>The “art world” is wildly divorced from the tastes of the majority of people in society Is this supposed to be a bad thing? Because, if that's what you're saying, then what is your idea of "art"? Something that you can buy, have promptly delivered and hanged on a wall to decorate a space and get compliments from passers-by? Would you like if all music was something designed to be played on the radio or in malls to d…

In music, there are a wide variety of genres with a wide variety of sophistication. And for the most part, there are serious artists doing serious work in all genres, including pop, c&w, hiphop, etc. The most esoteric Jazz musician will have pop artists she admires.

The art world seems to be divided into impenetrable pieces that you need 10 years of education before you can understand how they "engage with the conversation", and dross that is supposedly only suitable for motel 6 bathroom walls.

Most of the art economy is money laundering with a defensive wall of sophistication put up around it. Most people know the emperor has no body paint, but it's not worth having a bunch of sophisticates sneer at you to bother voicing an opinion.

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

#140

Post by prewett »

throwup238 wrote: post #102
brandall10 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way I think about it is high art is considered innovative for its time. By the time of the advent of photography, the skills of realistic painting had been fully fleshed out. Aside from the ultra-realism movement, there was no where left to go, hence turning inward w/ impressionism forward. As modernism progressed, the avenues left to explore seem to get increasingly wild and crude in an effort to say something d…

> The way I think about it is high art is considered innovative for its time. > By the time of the advent of photography, the skills of realistic painting had been fully fleshed out. Aside from the ultra-realism movement, there was no where left to go, hence turning inward w/ impressionism forward. IMO instead of innovating, painters gave up when photography hit the scene. Just completely threw in the towel. To this…

Artists in the art world seem to have bought in to a nihilistic worldview, too. My impression of the NYC artistic world (literary and visual) of the early 20th century is a bunch of people having parties and trying unsuccessfully to find meaning in life.
Post reply on HN