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

111–120 of 188 posts

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

#111

Post by janandonly »

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.

Under Dutch tax law: if you have a gold coin you need to pay “box 3” meaning wealth tax on it.

But if you have a bunch of gold coins you can call them “an art collection” and now you don’t pay any wealthy tax on them at al.

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

#112

Post by perfmode »

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…

i wholeheartedly resonate with that quest for inner origination.

thanks for sharing

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

#113

Post by justanotherjoe »

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.

Yeah, that is literally doublethink passage. I get the appeal though. Real freedom is hard cause you can make mistakes. There is no guarantee of anything. Being dictated feels safe cause you never have to make your own choices. That's the appeal of things like fascism and why it's really filled with weak men, despite posturing strength. Weak men beg for their freedom to be taken away.

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

#114

Post by whilenot-dev »

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…

Additional to this, there's also the industrialization making tools more affordable, the globalization questioning the hetero-/homogeneous structure of the "zeitgeist", and an exploration into the unlimited possibilities of what an artistic medium could be.

I would say it's even more fascinating that despite the richness in today's world that we can still find some common ground at all.

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

#115

Post by AnthonyMouse »

janandonly wrote: post #111
philosopher1234 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Under Dutch tax law: if you have a gold coin you need to pay “box 3” meaning wealth tax on it. But if you have a bunch of gold coins you can call them “an art collection” and now you don’t pay any wealthy tax on them at al.

This is one of the main reasons that wealth taxes are bad policy. There are many assets that could have significant value, but the value is highly subjective. Since an accurate valuation is impossible and the range of plausible valuations is wide, it inherently becomes a system for arbitrage and distorts investment into whatever assets minimize the tax.

Overestimating the value of hard-to-price assets is massively destructive (people get rid of and make no attempt to acquire those assets because the tax exceeds their value; no more art), but setting their value to zero or otherwise underestimating their value does exactly as you're seeing.

Nearly all other taxes solve this by applying the tax when a transaction occurs and the current value is known in the form of the price being paid by the buyer to the seller.

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

#116

Post by pydry »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #115
janandonly wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under Dutch tax law: if you have a gold coin you need to pay “box 3” meaning wealth tax on it. But if you have a bunch of gold coins you can call them “an art collection” and now you don’t pay any wealthy tax on them at al.

This is one of the main reasons that wealth taxes are bad policy. There are many assets that could have significant value, but the value is highly subjective. Since an accurate valuation is impossible and the range of plausible valuations is wide, it inherently becomes a system for arbitrage and distorts investment into whatever assets minimize the tax. Overestimating the value of hard-to-price assets is massively de…

There's an easy fix for that. You tell the government how much it is worth for tax purposes. If the government thinks you have underestimated it they reserve the right to buy it at that price.

It would make tax evasion risky and expensive.

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

#117

Post by e4325f »

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.

It doesn't have to be "the Lord". Replace that with running for example and it reflects a quote from the greatest marathon runner of all time Eliud Kipchoge - "Only the disciplined ones in life are free. If you are undisciplined, you are a slave to your moods and your passions."

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

#118

Post by e4325f »

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.

It doesn't have to be "the Lord", that's just an example, albeit a poor one. Replace that with running and it reflects a quote from the greatest marathon runner of all time Eliud Kipchoge - "Only the disciplined ones in life are free. If you are undisciplined, you are a slave to your moods and your passions."

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

#119

Post by keiferski »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #110
keiferski wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Art is definitely used as a tax dodge by the wealthy, but to suggest that the entire ecosystem is nothing but that is not correct. People that say this usually lack a deeper understanding of contemporary art.

I'm still not clear how this is even supposed to be tax evasion. If you're not operating in a jurisdiction then you shouldn't owe them any taxes. Which jurisdiction is even alleged to be owed the money, and on what basis?

Well, presumably the whole concept of a Freeport is kind of a “hack” against the tax system. These items are treated as if they’re in transit, but they are stored indefinitely.

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

#120

Post by kbelder »

kingkawn wrote: post #103
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 reductionist and incurious about what art can be

He didn't criticize art. He criticized the "art world".

They're very different things. They're perhaps opposing.

Post reply on HN