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

141–150 of 188 posts

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

#141

Post by kazinator »

rfrey wrote: post #139
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…

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 conver…

In music, the pitch-and-harmony-related content matters---that stuff we can capture in traditional sheet music---but it isn't everything, by a long shot.

You might think some pop song is hogwash, until you hear cover after cover that cannot nail it.

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

#142

Post by inbetween »

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…

Beautifully said! However, in my experience, finding your own virtue requires interacting with others, and adjusting our view depending on how it went. Ie it takes both the grouping with others, and the inner quest.

And once you're grouped with others, why not interact also group to group, rather than just individual to individual, and profit from both higher order learning and influencing the world -- which I think is similar to what you describe as "power seeking aspects".

That said, the piece about finding "like-minded individuals" remains elusive, if one is serious about pursuing one's own values and way of being in the world.

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

#143

Post by lukeasrodgers »

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.

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

#144

Post by thfuran »

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?

US citizens owe the US government taxes on their income regardless where it was earned, barring some specific exclusions. At any rate, where a company is registered or where an asset is held doesn't necessarily have much bearing on where work is done or what infrastructure is used and to what extent.

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

#145

Post by adolph »

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…

>> 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?

Are you disagreeing with the comment’s view of the contemporary art world’s POSIWID? The initial question seemed to disagree but the stawman you constructed concords with the parent’s pov, albeit focused on the decoration instead of the tax benefit.

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

#146

Post by keiferski »

rfrey wrote: post #139
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…

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 conver…

There is plenty of music which is entirely incomprehensible to the uneducated listener. This isn’t a good example.

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

#147

Post by coldtea »

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…

>because their value is determined by their individuality and self-expression

Rather by their conformity and tame-expression

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

#148

Post by Analemma_ »

antonvs wrote: post #134
habitue wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is almost certainly never going to actually exist, so this is all idle speculation, but if it was real I don't think it would necessarily play out as you describe. The wealthy would be paying way more in tax than they are now (they have to, or their own assets would be sold as well), which would result in a much more generous system of income redistribution. They'd also need to generate constant cash flow to prevent that property from being sold, so I think you'd have fewer "idle rich" on passive income.

I suspect the stable equilibrium would be a lot more renting rather than property ownership, but also a much more generous welfare state such that this was not a problem, since few people would want/need to keep a house as a store of value.

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

#149

Post by coldtea »

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…

>Is this supposed to be a bad thing?

Yes.

>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?

Let's start with making a space more beautiful, and see where it takes us from here.

Definition could also include connecting with us (difficult if "divorced" from our tastes), enriching the culture, and serving a higher purpose...

>Would you like if all music was something designed to be played on the radio or in malls to decorate musically the environment?

You got it backwards. That's what modern art is currently. Only that the environment isn't a mall but a gallery or some rich person's wall.

That's why its "wildly divorced from the tastes of the majority of people in society".

Because it's either banal or high concept wankery. So like music being either musack or some avant guarde exercize for other academics to applaud. In the art world we could use some Beatles or Animal Collective or Aphex Twin or Aurora or Tame Impala or even some Taylor Swift and Luis Fonzi.

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

#150

Post by arduanika »

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…

Adam Curtis? Commoditized?? You clearly haven't seen this short clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1bX3F7uTrg

encapsulating his work.

Post reply on HN