How The World Works

[Jim Naseum]

 

 

 

You're getting a window into her life like reading a book.

Definately part of the equation. Also like visiting with the artist.

When you visit, are you having feelings of admiration? Pity? Scorn? What?

i have spoken with Brian May multiple times. I admire him having earned a Doctorate in Astrophysics, for achieving a high level of skill on the guitar, creativity writing music, and his self-proclaimed greatest passion animal rights activism. He is also a very decent gentlemam. Brian claims that some songs are just made up stories, some are things that either he or someone he's known has encountered. I've heard him caution others to avoid thinking that every song is autobiographical.

It's embarrassing for me to hear a lyric and be disappointed with the artist, until I find out the person in the story wasn't them at all, just something the artist had observed.

Go ask Alice Cooper...he said that many of his songs have a biblical theme to them ... I think his words were "there is a God and there is a devil...don't choose the devil." There a some songs that he says he can't sing anymore.

Being a writer, I don't want to state things plainly--I want the reader or listener to get the theme; but, I want it to also to be vague enough that others can relate it to their lives.

 

 

I'm not judging based on the lyrics or notes in a song. My judgment is about actual life events of the artist. If the artist is a rapist, drug pusher, and child molester, for example, I really don't care how creative they are, or how talented on an instrument. In my writing here, I am more concerned with the artist's real life. 

 

As to song lyrics and the intent of works of art, yes, that's important too. A piece of anti-establishment art I might find very appealing, where I might have no interest at all in (subject that can't be mentioned here) works, or works glorifying the state and so on. INTENT is important too. But no, I don't assume songs are real life, unless I know differently through some other expert.

Edited January 20, 2016 by jo56steph74

[Mallette]

My judgment is about actual life events of the artist.

 

If that is how you handle things, you should interview those who make your hamburgers before eating them.

 

Dave

[dtel's wife]

If that is the case, then you must make a lot of totally ignorant assessments based on bullshit. I leave it to the others here to judge. I am satisfied with that statement and I'd make it in the workplace, to my wife, or to the Dalai Lama if they pulled a reductio ad absurdum like that in an otherwise intelligent discussion. -Dave

 

Oh yeah?  Well, I find you in compos mentis!!! 

Well now...that could be questionable...at times!

Guess I should have added, "just kidding"!

[JL Sargent]

Where is this Utopia?

 

Central Alabama. We have almost everything you listed right here.

Edited January 20, 2016 by JL Sargent

[dtel's wife]

Where is this Utopia?

 

Central Alabama. We have everything you listed right here.

South Mississippi, we have everything you listed right here too!

[garyrc]

That no one can see a contradiction of authoritarians embracing anti-establishment art is not an indictment, it's just a point of interest to me.

 

The (few??) authoritarians who embrace anti-establishment art (including R & R) may be doing so because they wish they could relax and be a little less authoritarian.  But they are so stuck on authoritarian submission to a rigid, top-down set of values they have introjected they can't help themselves.  In most of each of their lives they may attempt to employ authoritarian dominance over others, particularly those in whom they see aspects of themselves that they abhor and reject.  Adorno, et al. suggested that a primary mechanism of authoritarian is projection.  But R & R may have entered their lives when they were young enough so that it was appreciated before the steel trap snapped shut.  

Edited January 20, 2016 by garyrc

[Wolfbane]

 

 

 

You're getting a window into her life like reading a book.

Definately part of the equation. Also like visiting with the artist.

When you visit, are you having feelings of admiration? Pity? Scorn? What?

i have spoken with Brian May multiple times. I admire him having earned a Doctorate in Astrophysics, for achieving a high level of skill on the guitar, creativity writing music, and his self-proclaimed greatest passion animal rights activism. He is also a very decent gentlemam. Brian claims that some songs are just made up stories, some are things that either he or someone he's known has encountered. I've heard him caution others to avoid thinking that every song is autobiographical.

It's embarrassing for me to hear a lyric and be disappointed with the artist, until I find out the person in the story wasn't them at all, just something the artist had observed.

Go ask Alice Cooper...he said that many of his songs have a biblical theme to them ... I think his words were "there is a God and there is a devil...don't choose the devil." There a some songs that he says he can't sing anymore.

Being a writer, I don't want to state things plainly--I want the reader or listener to get the theme; but, I want it to also to be vague enough that others can relate it to their lives.

 

 

Here's an Youtube example of a song that Alice certainly 'can't sing'. Well anymore:

 

 

[Jim Naseum]

 

 

 

 

Everyone is flawed.  Where do you draw the line?

 

 

Explained clearly and explicitly in the 3rd paragraph above your post. 

 

 

 

Where do you draw the line?  How flawed is too flawed for you?  What specifically is acceptable?  What specifically is not?  Do you research character flaws of a particular artist prior to listening?  If you hear something you like and find out that person is below your character threshold, do you not like it any more?  If you like it and refuse to continue to enable them, do you feel bad for liking it?

 

 

There are no lines in love, art, psychology, philosophy, politics and the other unmentionable subject here. "Lines" to the extent they exist are a feature of science. 

 

When does an artist's beliefs and behavior cross my lines of acceptable? When I get that gnawing disturbing feeling in my gut by trying to understand the artist and their motivations for their art.  I would never, ever have the expectation that any kind of artist is without flaws, even deep ones. Sometimes the flaw is incidental to their art, sometimes it is integral to their art, and sometimes it is just more than I can justify giving my support. 

 

I might be willing to accept people who are "merely" self destructive, but I would rarely accept someone who aids in the destruction of others as a part of their own flaw. And of course, someone will demand an example. The "rock stars" dragging tweens and early teens into their lair for "g^ng b^ngs" with heroin and cocaine will lie well outside my "line" of what is excusable behavior. I don't care how good his musicianship is. A mere "drunk" may well lie inside the line. I'm just being general. 

 

It's by no means foolproof or precise. But, I can do it consciously and avoid in some cases supporting utter degenerates. 

 

 

So, you have stated that you like Brian Eno. How do you feel about him being an addicted "aficionado" of rather extreme pornography? Or, about his participation in daisy-chain orgies and how he lauds the excretory infatuations in Mexican pornography? Interesting "art dollar" decision on your part.

 

 

I've never come across that information about Eno. I'll check it out. If that's true to some extent, I'll modify and adjust my assessment according to what I discover. I've done it before when new information is made available to me. No big deal.

[Jim Naseum]

 

So, "lines" have nothing to do with the premise. The rock and roll ethos I have already described and of course it is a generality. This isn't science, it is art, a branch of philosophy. So no lines are needed, wanted or accepted. 

 

What I have seen so far is that no one here ever considered the ethos of art forms and they can't see how it could possibly matter. R&R is apparently the same as C&W, which I suppose is then the same as Baroque, or Jazz or Swing or Opera, and all that matters is the "sound coming into the ear." I accept that as the basic consensus at this "dinner party."  That no one can see a contradiction of authoritarians embracing anti-establishment art is not an indictment, it's just a point of interest to me. 

 

 

That's not to suggest that artists are not flawed, because they are some of the most flawed people in society. But there must be an offset to the flaws, that makes a person "admirable" - in which case their art takes on more human value to me. So, in the case of a Winehouse kind of character, I may pity them, have sympathy for their tragic life, but remain unwilling to contribute to the enabling of them. 

People are incredibly varied and different.  Behavior that one person finds distasteful, may be written off by another as someone just being "human" or "young".  Taking strictly rock and roll as an example (since it's the one being used), there are a lot of bands/individuals that go through the "sex drugs and rock and roll" lifestyle only to come out the other side with their act cleaned up.  I wonder what type of person I would've been if my 17-22 year old self had been surrounded by "yes" men, all the money that I could spend, and access to anything I wanted.  I'd hope that the strong values my parents instilled would've prevailed but I'm not naïve as to the pressure and temptation that would've been out there also. 

 

For me, I try hard not to judge folks (and maybe that's a cop-out), but I figure if I'm not anywhere near perfect, it's hard to hold someone else to that standard.  So, I guess I'm one of those that listens to music because I enjoy it, I feel an emotional connection to it, and I don't need the artist to mimic my beliefs/values at all times.  That's not to say that I won't make exceptions and not listen to certain artists due to one reason or another.  It also doesn't mean that I don't consider the "ethos" that you're describing, I just weight it differently.

 

 

First, I never implied my standards had to be yours. Of course you can do what you like. I just asked the general question of everyone to see if they had ANY conflict regarding rock and roll. 

 

Second, as to the excuses people use for chasing depravity, "yes men" and all that - it means nothing to me. I can't see it as a cop out at all. But if you do, then use it. This is a discussion, so if that's your input then fine. I will say this though, a million yes men around me would not turn me into a child rapist and G^ang B^anger of boys and girls in a room full of heroin. 

 

As to the rest of your comment - - great! Finally, someone has answered the question specifically. Now I know how YOU feel about it and how you judge those things. That we do it differently is interesting and that's all.

[Jim Naseum]

 

That no one can see a contradiction of authoritarians embracing anti-establishment art is not an indictment, it's just a point of interest to me.

 

The (few??) authoritarians who embrace anti-establishment art (including R & R) may be doing so because they wish they could relax and be a little less authoritarian.  But they are so stuck on authoritarian submission to a rigid, top-down set of values they have introjected they can't help themselves.  In most of each of their lives they may attempt to employ authoritarian dominance over others, particularly those in whom they see aspects of themselves that they abhor and reject.  Adorno, et al. suggested that a primary mechanism of authoritarian is projection.  But R & R may have entered their lives when they were young enough so that it was appreciated before the steel trap snapped shut.  

 

 

That's very plausible. I have always assumed that most of the Boomer aged authoritarians I meet, were probably cool young kids that dug rock and roll and were anti-war and hated racism, and loved sticking it to the man. They grow up and become part of that Establishment and then perhaps over correct, or simply like to relive the past, or imbibe in some guilty pleasure. 

 

It does however, reveal a kind of deep hypocrisy to read how Jones insists we round up all the laggards and toss them in jails, or kick them off welfare, or fire them from jobs for being too lazy, or drop bombs on XYZ, and simultaneously giving high fives to notorious rock and rollers who embrace none of those authoritarian values. 

[Jim Naseum]

 

My judgment is about actual life events of the artist.

 

If that is how you handle things, you should interview those who make your hamburgers before eating them.

 

Dave

 

 

I don't know a thing about hamburger art or artists, nor do I care to, nor do I even eat hamburgers. The discussion is about interests in art and artists. And the importance that the ethos of any art movement has to the art produced, and the further enjoyment of that art knowing something, and appreciating, the ethos which drives that art movement and those artists. 

 

Why then would I care about a hamburger maker? 

[Arrow#422]

OP's statement regarding chapter 7 (and the initial reference to R&R) was WAY back in post #51.

Here we are at post 190, seeming stuck in muddied waters.

Can you effectively dig us out and get us back on track "discussing" your initial premise.

BTW, wtf was that, now, anyway?

 

I'm pretty sure it had nothing to do with art when this thread was first started.

Circles I say, it's all dizzying circles.   

Edited January 20, 2016 by Arrow#422

[Mallette]

I don't know a thing about hamburger art or artists, nor do I care to, nor do I even eat hamburgers. The discussion is about interests in art and artists. And the importance that the ethos of any art movement has to the art produced, and the further enjoyment of that art knowing something, and appreciating, the ethos which drives that art movement and those artists. Why then would I care about a hamburger maker?

 

And what would I care about the personal life of an artist if I found the art pleasing?  I don't make it a habit of hanging artists on my walls.

 

Dave

[dtel's wife]

OP's statement regarding chapter 7 (and the initial reference to R&R) was WAY back in post #51.

Here we are at post 190, seeming stuck in muddied waters.

Can you effectively dig us out and get us back on track "discussing" your initial premise.

BTW, wtf was that, now, anyway?

 

I'm pretty sure it had nothing to do with art when this thread was first started.

That has always been the OPs MO! Building "content" that amounts to nothing.

[Jim Naseum]

 

 

Chapter 1

 

"In a famous 1951 experiment led by Swarthmore's Solomon Asch, 76% of people conformed at least once to what they heard other people arguing was the correct length of a line on a scale right in front of their face, even though it was plainly wrong. The people arguing for the incorrect measurement were all plants, but overall, 33% of participants went along with the group, even though they were spouting nonsense. A follow-up study in a 1955Journal of Abnormal Psychology report found even under anonymous conditions, about 23% of people preferred to believe what people were saying about the line rather than the evidence in front of their own eyes."

How many of the 33% in the 1951 experiment, and how many of the 23% in the 1955 follow-up study did so for the sake of avoiding a confrontation?

Special interest individuals & groups have always been spinning propaganda messages through media since their inception.  On the lowest level think advertising for product that stimulates a buying instinct.  On a larger scale, it could include news media supporting economic, foreign policy, etc.  The masses either blindly accept was is being feed to them and get on that bandwagon, or rise above the BS by means of diversity in their informational sources.  It has been said that If one could control ALL media, they theoretically could then control the entire world.

 

 

Is OP just conducting another "experiment" ?

 

I am now diversifying my informational intake by choosing to follow other, more interesting, threads. 

 

That says it all, no? 

 

One thing I have learned here is that there is no value to had by circling back for those who aren't interested. I refer to them as the "Peanut Gallery". They have nothing useful to say, but insist on saying something just to show their disdain for the idea that others have "engaged in a controversial topic" and must fart and crap their guts out to make their presence known. 

 

If anyone is interested, it doesn't take long to read and catch up. 

[CECAA850]

They have nothing useful to say, but insist on saying something 

 

That could be said about many threads.

[dtel's wife]

They have nothing useful to say, but insist on saying something

That could be said about many threads.

Especially this one....building "content" and post count! Edited January 20, 2016 by dtel's wife

[Arrow#422]

No disdain at all, just way too many tangents thus far to ever hope to get back on topic.

Could've been a constructive & intellectual discussion, too bad.

Edited January 20, 2016 by Arrow#422

[Jim Naseum]

 

I don't know a thing about hamburger art or artists, nor do I care to, nor do I even eat hamburgers. The discussion is about interests in art and artists. And the importance that the ethos of any art movement has to the art produced, and the further enjoyment of that art knowing something, and appreciating, the ethos which drives that art movement and those artists. Why then would I care about a hamburger maker?

 

And what would I care about the personal life of an artist if I found the art pleasing?  I don't make it a habit of hanging artists on my walls.

 

Dave

 

 

It's preposterous to ask me about YOUR preferences in anything. 

 

As to myself, my enjoyment of art comes through understanding it, to the degree it takes to appreciate it. In nearly all cases, you can't come to this understanding by the superficial means of simply "viewing" it or "hearing" it. That would be the most superficial appreciation I can imagine, and it's not my interest. 

 

When I understand the movement, the ethos, the artists creating it, I can then decide if it is for me or not. A great deal of art is political by intention. Obviously if that doesn't comport with my politics, I'll be less interested. The purpose of art is to MOVE ONE in some way. I won't be moved by art that I disagree with. Hard to understand?

 

If others want to maintain a superficial appreciation of an art, good for them! That's one of the choices I hope people will express. 

[Jim Naseum]

No disdain at all, just way too many tangents thus far to ever hope to get back on topic.

Could've been a constructive & intellectual discussion, too bad.

 

It is, but just not for you. 

 

I have no trouble keeping up.