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

161–170 of 188 posts

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

#161

Post by [deleted] »

prewett wrote: post #140
throwup238 wrote: post #102

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. 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.

[deleted]

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

#162

Post by brandall10 »

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…

While I feel in general most modern art is BS (ie. I went to a Mark Rothko exhibition in Paris recently and still don't 'get' it, that godly color theory application or whatnot) I do feel some of the turn of the 20th century stuff fascinating and highly creative - folks like Klimt for instance.

The way I think of it is taking the neurosis of the human mind and putting it out on a medium in all its glory. I don't have a deep knowledge of art history though so I'm not sure if there is much of a prior, I just am aware of the bigger movements.

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

#163

Post by zoogeny »

rexpop wrote: post #156
zoogeny wrote: post #99

I want to disagree with him and I want to agree with him in almost equal measure, I think that is ambivalence. My cynicism says that people like him, people who create psychologically dense pieces for the BBC, are actually on the side of conformity. I've felt since I was young that we are being sold our revolutions. They've firmly commoditized the opposition. I'm tired of the politicization of everything. Even in thi…

Yes, yes, and it was Marx himself who said the following in his 1852 "Eighteenth Brumaire": > Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. I think it's an inarguable fact t…

> you've been subject to too much anti-collective propaganda and are locked inside your conservative ideology

I'm not so sure about that. In fact, most recently I've been consuming a lot of Walter Benjamín and Hannah Arendt - and if they aren't considered progressive then I'm not sure what could be. I've also been trying to catch up on American Pragmatism from the likes of Peirce, James and Dewey (and a bit of Rorty too I suppose) - again, about as progressive a bunch as I think you could reasonably ask for. I would also argue that both Žižek and Sartre fit into the progressive.

But it is fair to say that I'm balancing that out nowadays with the likes of Kierkegaard and even Spinoza. My actual opinion is that an atheistic existentialism (in the form of guys like Sartre and Foucault) went too far. Exactly as Curtis laments in this post, I feel that we've lost some of the enchantment that we used to have. If a yearning for the re-introduction of that enchantment, and perhaps letting go a little of the seeking of political power, is being "locked inside [...]conservative ideology", then I will accept that charge.

I believe we can desire a kind of collectivism that is separate from the desire to wield political power. It just so happens that almost all modern collectivist philosophical theory (that I am familiar with) is centered around the desire to affect social change through political power.

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

#164

Post by kelseyfrog »

zmgsabst wrote: post #106
kelseyfrog wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree, but post-modernism's anti-meta-narrative and anti-institution sensibilities are a response to the failings of meta-narratives and institutions as they exist within modernism. Specifically the gaps in meta-narratives and institutions in terms of what and who they don't apply to are self-evident and their mere existence is a powerful critique of modernism. Post-modernism too can't escape critique embo…

> Specifically the gaps in meta-narratives and institutions in terms of what and who they don't apply to are self-evident and their mere existence is a powerful critique of [post]modernism. Postmodernism is precisely as guilty of this — so framing it as a rejection of that concept from modernism seems wrong. Rather, they just shallowly applied the same failings to different groups and patted themselves on the back fo…

I'm still trying to figure out of this critique of postmodernism is coming from modernism or from beyond postmodernism. Any help?

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

#165

Post by zoogeny »

lukeasrodgers wrote: post #143
zoogeny wrote: post #99

I want to disagree with him and I want to agree with him in almost equal measure, I think that is ambivalence. My cynicism says that people like him, people who create psychologically dense pieces for the BBC, are actually on the side of conformity. I've felt since I was young that we are being sold our revolutions. They've firmly commoditized the opposition. I'm tired of the politicization of everything. Even in thi…

You may enjoy CS Lewis’ Abolition of Man, and Alisdair MacIntyre’s After Virtue. Nietzsche too but I reckon you are familiar with his work. Not necessarily endorsing these books fully, just sharing some things that bounce around in my head alongside some of the ideas you mention.

I've heard of "After Virtue" but I wasn't familiar with its argument. From a brief skim of the Wikipedia article, it appears aligned in the direction I've been meandering for the last couple of years (in subject and reference at least, perhaps not its conclusions). Specifically, Aristotelian virtue ethics is a subject that is high on my list to more deeply investigate. I got about half way through Nicomachean Ethics a couple of years ago before setting it aside and moving on to other subjects. Even the sketch of his critique of Nietzsche seems to resonate with my own recent thoughts.

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

#166

Post by Almondsetat »

adolph wrote: post #145
Almondsetat wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

>> 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. > 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…

the art world is not the art mainstream market

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

#167

Post by Kamq »

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…

> what is your idea of "art"?

Something designed to elicit an emotional reaction from human beings. It doesn't have to be a pleasant emotional reaction, but there should be one. On that metric the modern art world has with their art, generally speaking, failed. You can't be completely divorced from people and still elicit emotional reactions. Your swings just miss.

Hilariously enough, the art world itself, continues to elicit quite strong emotional reactions, even if the art itself does not. It's possible the entirety of the art scene is actually wildly successful performance art that went entirely over my head.

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

#168

Post by rexpop »

zoogeny wrote: post #163
rexpop wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, yes, and it was Marx himself who said the following in his 1852 "Eighteenth Brumaire": > Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. I think it's an inarguable fact t…

> you've been subject to too much anti-collective propaganda and are locked inside your conservative ideology I'm not so sure about that. In fact, most recently I've been consuming a lot of Walter Benjamín and Hannah Arendt - and if they aren't considered progressive then I'm not sure what could be. I've also been trying to catch up on American Pragmatism from the likes of Peirce, James and Dewey (and a bit of Rorty…

Firstly, thanks for engaging in earnest with my response.

> Walter Benjamín and Hannah Arendt - and if they aren't considered progressive then I'm not sure what could be.

This reads almost like a joke to me, because neither of these thinkers are radical any longer. "American Pragmatism" is "about as progressive a bunch as I think you could reasonably ask for?"

It was my mistake to use a meaningless word like "conservative," whose antithesis in my mind would be Galeano, Fanon, Federici, or Freire.

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

#169

Post by orwin »

zmgsabst wrote: post #106
kelseyfrog wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree, but post-modernism's anti-meta-narrative and anti-institution sensibilities are a response to the failings of meta-narratives and institutions as they exist within modernism. Specifically the gaps in meta-narratives and institutions in terms of what and who they don't apply to are self-evident and their mere existence is a powerful critique of modernism. Post-modernism too can't escape critique embo…

> Specifically the gaps in meta-narratives and institutions in terms of what and who they don't apply to are self-evident and their mere existence is a powerful critique of [post]modernism. Postmodernism is precisely as guilty of this — so framing it as a rejection of that concept from modernism seems wrong. Rather, they just shallowly applied the same failings to different groups and patted themselves on the back fo…

I have trouble not being harsh here. I will state that your understanding seems common in the Anglo world, for whatever reasons.

Even Britannica's dictionary editor don't seem to have read either Lyotard or Deleuze, and base its definition of a misreading (or mistranslation most likely, but I don't have proofs) of Derrida. Derrida later denied this reading, quite directly in "Twentieth-Century Literary Theory: An Introductory Anthologie", quite early (within the first 80 pages).

Anyway, this 'Rather, they just shallowly applied the same failings to different groups' is nonsensical when talking about postmodernism. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by 'failings', but the idea of using 'groups' to describe anything is quite ant-postmodernist. To be pedantic, a key idea is that any binary distinction is sustained by its negation, and groups are typical binary distinction.

Honestly I will say it: I didn't read a lot about consciousness, so I tend to ask questions rather than give my uninformed opinion on a thread about Chalmers' last book. I would like that people giving their opinion about postmodernism read a bit before, even if it's only baudrillard (I will still hurt, but at least I won't feel like I have to explain basics I'm not sure I totally master).

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

#170

Post by orwin »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #164
zmgsabst wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Specifically the gaps in meta-narratives and institutions in terms of what and who they don't apply to are self-evident and their mere existence is a powerful critique of [post]modernism. Postmodernism is precisely as guilty of this — so framing it as a rejection of that concept from modernism seems wrong. Rather, they just shallowly applied the same failings to different groups and patted themselves on the back fo…

I'm still trying to figure out of this critique of postmodernism is coming from modernism or from beyond postmodernism. Any help?

I think it's beyond postmodernism, it's not only performative but uneducated :)
Post reply on HN