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

81–90 of 188 posts

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

#81

Post by kelseyfrog »

orwin wrote: post #50
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…

Agree, but i don't think postmodernism can go away. One thing i find fascinating about postmodernism is how antagonistic it is. As it core, it's deeply anti-metanarrative, and i think that it's main structural characteristic. Which is, in a way, a bit anti-intuition, as we like to understand the world with meta-narratives. I won't go into politics (basically, all parties create metanarrative, all use postmodernist ar…

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 embodied today in the constellation of meta-modernism's ideas.

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

#82

Post by code_biologist »

mymythisisthis wrote: post #74
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…

If feel that with Youtube you get a touch of the Zeitgeist. There are some milquetoast channels like 'Hoovie's Garage', 'Rich Rebuilds', that tap into what average people are interested in watching. You can also see the small changes in the medium; everybody at once adopting click-bait titles once one person was successful with it. As soon as a channel gets some success like 'Hand Tool Restoration' then everyone star…

If anyone reading this likes handtool restoration but has not come across the "my mechanics" channel, you have to check it out!

I agree with your assessment, but would add that sometimes fads popularize people with such skill and attention to detail that their success is well deserved. My Mechanics is one of those cases.

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

#84

Post by untwerp »

mhh__ wrote: post #36
myrloc wrote: post #2

Great read. Thanks for sharing. I am not familiar with Adam Curtis' work but will be looking for more!

I'd go as far as saying that he's the only genuinely serious person in his domain (on TV at least) at this point . Others have recommended "the century of self" for example which is great but I highly recommend his earlier stuff like "Pandora's box" and "The Mayfair set"

+1 for Pandora's Box. The conclusion sums it up nicely https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FDrA7yUdFc&t=2466s

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

#86

Post by dr_dshiv »

keiferski wrote: post #17
squigz wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you had a much narrower focus of acceptable work and topics, with the result that artists were all engaged with basically the same art forms and the same topics, across the entirety of the artistic community. For example, both da Vinci and Raphael were painting Madonnas Mightn't this have to do with the fact that most paintings back then were commissioned by rich clients, who were probably competing with each other…

That might have been a part, but it's more that the idea of self-expression as the prime value in art is mostly a 20th century thing. The falling off of skill, realism, and other similar metrics is also a 20th century thing and largely came from photography and mass manufacturing. There's probably an essay or book out there covering the two intertwining topics, but I can't think of any offhand. It's also worth noting…

Those are not good sources. Anything more reliable on this?

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

#87

Post by philosopher1234 »

glitchc wrote: post #71
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…

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.

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

#88

Post by jongjong »

Our system is characterized by increasingly divergent experiences due to fundamental problems in its design. Self-expression is how we can fix that. Unfortunately many parts of the system are working to suppress self-expression and hence prevent the fix.

Self-expression is only dangerous for the individual who possesses it. For society, it is always a positive. Contrarians are the heroes of free society, this is true regardless of how vile their views are. They are essential for maintaining the right level of chaos to have a free, functioning society. Extreme contrarians define the boundary for freedom within which everyone else can roam without fear. Contrarians are a minority by definition so they are not a threat to a functioning society.

Self-expression and individualism are critical because it's the best mechanism that humans have to prevent their political systems from declining into totalitarianism and poverty. Without self-expression, we get total compliance, an entire society fully compliant to all the whims of the elite; if the elites are good, then lucky for you, until the next regime change. If the elites are bad, then you're in for a miserable time. Not to mention that the people who seek power and who are willing to take irrational risks to attain it aren't usually the friendliest bunch on average.

With self-expression and individualism, society can protect itself against idol worship. The intentions of the elite doesn't matter as much because they can be easily replaced.

Without self-expression, society will fall into one delusion after another... By the time it wakes up from its current delusion, it will be too late, the backlash will be so sudden and massive that it will guarantee that it will fall victim to yet another delusion in the opposite extreme.

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

#89

Post by BriggyDwiggs42 »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #35
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…

Ironically the "individual self expression" is uniform - a certain kind of tame depoliticised artistic creativity marketed as a hustle. It's there all the way down from Gagosian to Etsy. And there are good reasons for it, and also good reasons why you'll find ab ex in bank foyers and very expensive homes. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/artcurious-cia-art-excerpt... There's always been a tight and complex relations…

Is it really depoliticized? Much of modern art has a leftist bent and art by oppressed groups is particularly celebrated.

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

#90

Post by card_zero »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #86
keiferski wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That might have been a part, but it's more that the idea of self-expression as the prime value in art is mostly a 20th century thing. The falling off of skill, realism, and other similar metrics is also a 20th century thing and largely came from photography and mass manufacturing. There's probably an essay or book out there covering the two intertwining topics, but I can't think of any offhand. It's also worth noting…

Those are not good sources. Anything more reliable on this?

Perhaps a book on the topic?

https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780307594754/page/26/mode/...

The lost battles : Leonardo, Michelangelo, and the artistic duel that defined the Renaissance

Post reply on HN