21–30 of 53 posts
Which means its probably not an actual problem but was good subterfuge to get more attention
So, well done kayfabe and that got a follow on life for something (At least I) had no idea existed let alone had a problem with.
Good exercise in not blindly accepting things, which is arguably more valuable than a cute Netflix homage
End result looked good, but lying for clickbait isn't cool even if you admit it in a blog post way after the fact.
My gut tells me lying for clicks “isn’t cool” because I might feel bad if I was one of the clickers. But is it formally unethical? Lying for profit seems obviously unethical because there’s an exchange of currency for a service. So if I contracted you to make a stop motion thing and you faked it with animation I’d be rightfully pissed. But lying for entertainment? Haven’t we been doing that for millennia? Pro Wrestli…
End result looked good, but lying for clickbait isn't cool even if you admit it in a blog post way after the fact.
Which is the lie? Can art lie? Spinal Tap is not a documentary...
He actively worked hard to hide that it is not real. He gave no subtle clues. The work's lie does not make a commentary on Netflix, craft art, or anything. The only thing the lie does is make you think he is a really skilled craft worker. That's why the video spread, and so that's why there is such outrage at the lie. It wouldn't have gone viral if he admitted it was CGI.
The Spinal Tap version of this would be like the same TikTok style DIY videos, where it is common to show some steps and the jump to the finished product, but where it would be obvious that he had not DIYed it. Like if he took $30 of yarn and used camera tricks to "build" a fully working computer to watch Netflix. That would be a parody commenting on the same thing as the "draw the rest of the fucking owl" meme [1]
End result looked good, but lying for clickbait isn't cool even if you admit it in a blog post way after the fact.
My gut tells me lying for clicks “isn’t cool” because I might feel bad if I was one of the clickers. But is it formally unethical? Lying for profit seems obviously unethical because there’s an exchange of currency for a service. So if I contracted you to make a stop motion thing and you faked it with animation I’d be rightfully pissed. But lying for entertainment? Haven’t we been doing that for millennia? Pro Wrestli…
and anyways, now I have to be a little more sceptical watching fun handmade things online, which is a shame
End result looked good, but lying for clickbait isn't cool even if you admit it in a blog post way after the fact.
Fargo opens with "This is a true story. The events depicted in this film took place in Minnesota in 1987. At the request of the survivors, the names have been changed. Out of respect for the dead, the rest has been told exactly as it occurred." The disclaimer that this is not, in fact, the case, is in small print in the closing credits. What's the difference?
Fargo is a fictional "movie adaptation of a real events."
As the mantra went in film school, a zillion years ago, before we had clicks to fake things for: The most creative people do the best job of hiding the source of their creativity. Like it or not, stuff like this has been the norm in the art world since forever.
This doesn't feel like hiding anything, it is about openly lying.