321–330 of 615 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> This is a core tenet of the Rawlsian religion, of which you are a (probably unwitting) fanatic. Ouch. How warped does one's thinking have to be to call " A theory of justice " (1971) for pluralistic, democratic societies, a "religion"? It seems to me that right-wingers love hyperbole and rhetoric, without addressing the meat of the matter. Your post is no different, being entirely free of reason. A good day to you,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is a core tenet of the Rawlsian religion, of which you are a (probably unwitting) fanatic. Ouch. How warped does one's thinking have to be to call " A theory of justice " (1971) for pluralistic, democratic societies, a "religion"? It seems to me that right-wingers love hyperbole and rhetoric, without addressing the meat of the matter. Your post is no different, being entirely free of reason. A good day to you,…
[flagged]
The point is not just that he's blinded by the flag: He's boldly marching into the void, confident. "wrapped in the flag" is a great saying.
I think it's a reasonable statue. But does anyone else think it's a bit obvious, more so than his other work? Like there is no doubt on the meaning at all, it's all right there on the surface level.
There's nothing about subtly in that claim, and all forms of art are equally valid, if not the same quality.
Bansky's art has always been blunt and whimsical, probably because he makes popular street art. It's meant to be "accessible" for your average passerby who might only engage with it for a fraction of a second, but maybe get a little surprise when they do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the fact that the flag is unadorned (which/whose flag is it?), and the man is unknown, makes me think this statue could be the ultimate Rorschach test This is part of what's obvious. The whole thing, including this oooh aahh Rorschach part, is obvious. It's thoughts that we all had in high school, and it is hack.
And yet here here we all are taking about it. Art is about inciting a response, and he’s done it. Whether we think he’s a hack or not is irrelevant - he has the world’s attention.
You said, "Whether we think he's a hack", which fundamentally changes what is being discussed.
The only reason we're talking about this is because of Banksy. Not because it is a clever or "deep" piece. It's disappointingly surface level, and the fact that we're talking about that doesn't suggest otherwise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> This is a core tenet of the Rawlsian religion, of which you are a (probably unwitting) fanatic. Ouch. How warped does one's thinking have to be to call " A theory of justice " (1971) for pluralistic, democratic societies, a "religion"? It seems to me that right-wingers love hyperbole and rhetoric, without addressing the meat of the matter. Your post is no different, being entirely free of reason. A good day to you,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want to make a political message it often helps to be obvious. This way the meaning of your message will not be misinterpreted either intentionally or un-intentionally.
His messages were always the same politically. He was always snubbing his nose at the crown, at the art world and other rich folks who would pay millions of pounds for his art. Back in the day when I discovered him, he came off as a rebel, as most graffiti writers do. Now? He makes millions off his work while still thumbing his nose at capitalism? Doesn't ring the same any more. You can't claim to be fighting against…
Being cynical that all effort is wasted is played out at this point. Fight for something real. Name what you're against. It should be easy in the UK.