[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.3809

Interesting video to discuss.

 No.3814

>>3809
I'd be curious to see what the author of the video thinks of things like the new joker movie, or other art that expresses non-mainstream ideas that don't line up with his brand of liberalism. Personally, i'm generally for the idea of absolute artistic freedom. No work should be censored no matter how many people it offends, how bizarre it is, how subversive, or "problematic" it is. Doesn't mean i think i'll enjoy all of it, but simply that it has a right to exist. I do worry tho, that as this author very much seems like a card-carrying liberal... well... it wouldn't surprise me at all if all that talk of freedom of artistic expression all disappears with things like the new joker movie, fight club, or other media deemed "problematic".

 No.3815

>>3814
>Personally, i'm generally for the idea of absolute artistic freedom.
I tend to agree, although I don't have a problem with most existing First Amendment exceptions (e.g., libel, incitement, CP) other than the "obscenity" exception, which is already mostly defanged in practice but should get tossed into the dustbin wholesale IMHO.

 No.3818

One of this guys favourite paintings is piss christ? This is why people hate the middle class.

 No.3819

>>3815
I can get behind that, though:

-I do feel like libel/defamation is too often used as a bludgeon by giant corporations against critics or consumers, so i could see being less gung-ho about that particular exemption than we are now.

-I agree 100% with "obscenity" though. Not only is it so subjective as to be a joke, but it's a relic of puratanist ideology that we don't really need or want anymore.

-CP, yea, we don't really need freedom for that, although i'd be careful about how much we make that terminology encompass. The UN is trying to stretch the definition of CP pretty far right now, way farther than is reasonable or practical. For me, unless an actual child has been violated in the process, it's not CP. So while distasteful, i don't find loli/shota/fiction to be a necessary exemption to free speech.

-incitement, Yea, though i'd only say that applies to actual incitement, and to be careful with how it applies to states with different laws and people in different states talking with each other.

 No.3820

File: 1571862974364.jpg (58.85 KB, 640x538, 320:269, WKLKI_2MAPJopMoPzlDKewrGSd….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

It's a bit of a weird message, like he seems to just be telling us not to listen to nazis, which is a weird warning, like I don't think people are accidentally listening to nazis.  I believe him when he tells me that some nazis don't like certain forms of art because it either directly criticizes nazis, and also just because it goes against the norm, which nazis are generally terrified of.  A guy I know on Facebook posted a news article about how awful it was that a father lost the court battle to keep his seemingly mental and abusive wife from forcing his son through a gender transition.  Which read that way would be horrifying even to trans people.  But more important than the event itself, or even its coverage, was the line the poster added: "This is what happens when you legalize gay marriage."

No one involved in that case was gay, the couple was firmly straight and I think at least at one point married.  Taking it at face value, the mother was just some lunatic who had tricked the courts into capitulating to her whims and desire for a daughter.  But the nazi equated this not to someone being a lunatic or even just an insufficiently rigorous court system, but to the general movement away from the strict values upheld by nazis.

And yes, that very same day he posted an article complaining about how superhero films aren't actually art.  It's possibly a coincidence that this coincides with the shift of the genre towards being more inclusive of non-white-male characters, but I'm not sure even he could really answer whether that was a factor.

--------------------------

All that said, I think some people, whether the author intended it or not, could view this video and come to the conclusion that all people who are critical of art are fascist, or that all criticism of any art is harmful because no art has objective standards.  And I don't think that could be further from the truth.

He brought up video games, it was right in the title.  Depression Quest is a very contested game for a lot of reasons.  I think there's a lot of things you could present valid criticism of, including just that you didn't like playing it.  However, there are also things you could say that were rather novel, perhaps that it simulated actual depression in an interesting way.  So surely whether or not you appreciate Depression Quest must be rather subjective, it's difficult to agree.  Can this example be used to show that all video games, or even all art in general, can only be evaluated subjectively?

How about a different example:  Sonic '06.  Sonic '06 is not contested at all.  Most people will say it's unbelievably awful, in fact.  The idea that so many people seemed to try to create something and all that came out of their efforts was this is one of the biggest video game related failures of the century.  I have seen no one submit a reasonable defense to this game.  Are we to not say that the game is objectively bad?  Like surely objective failures must exist, this isn't even the only example that could be brought up.  There are whole YouTube channels devoted purely to showing off the worst examples of games.  None of it "challenged the medium" or something, they just sucked.  Video games can be objectively bad, and given that saying something is possible is just a lot easier than saying it's impossible, I think it's fair to say that this may extend to all art.

"Art" that's just red paint with a blue stripe on it?  That's garbage.  If that's supposed to challenge the medium, it's not doing a very good job.  This is something that should be as ubiquitously hated as Sonic '06.  It has nothing to do with people being nazis, or hating change, or trying to say that art can only be an already defined thing.  It just has no redeeming qualities, and we should all admit it and move on.

 No.3821

>>3814

Personally, I think the new Joker movie is a random assortment of intertextual references to older movies and as such is a perfect case study in the entirely subjective qualities of theme. People read what they want into Joker, which comes off as if it didn't have any intended meaning in the first place.

And well, I don't know what specifically you mean by liberal as there are differing definitions of the word. And as to your comments, well, they're just suspicions, not really about the idea at hand.

I mean, his ultimate thesis statement was how antithetical to authoritarianism artistic freedom is. His whole point was to basically offer a perspective that could act as an inoculation against authoritarian rhetorical strategies, fascist especially.

>>3818

says middle class people

>>3820

No, he's not telling anyone not to be a nazi, he's assuming no one would want to be a nazi in the first place

This video is about the political implications of certain forms of art critique and how they are and have been used as a sort of trojan horse or foot in the door into a sort of fascist world view. Thus it's meant to serve as a sort of innoculation against being grifted by fascists.

>All that said, I think some people, whether the author intended it or not, could view this video and come to the conclusion that all people who are critical of art are fascist, or that all criticism of any art is harmful because no art has objective standards.  And I don't think that could be further from the truth.

I mean, art kind of only exist in the human mind to begin with. Our perception of the Mona Lisa as a portrait of a woman is dependent on our ability to perceive what is actually pigments caked on canvas as something more than just pigments caked onto a canvas.

Art exist entirely in the realm of subjective experience in the first place, so it would stand to reason that the value of art would be just as subjective.

>So surely whether or not you appreciate Depression Quest must be rather subjective, it's difficult to agree.  Can this example be used to show that all video games, or even all art in general, can only be evaluated subjectively?

All value is subjective and contextual anyway. So something that only exist in human perception could, of course, only be judged in a subjective manner. That's ultimately why in the discipline of art criticism no one school of thought is really treated by professional critics as the one "correct" school of thought but one of multiple perspectives to view a work from. It's basically an exercise in projecting oneself into other perspectives.

>How about a different example:  Sonic '06.  Sonic '06 is not contested at all.

The fact that some experiences of a work are generally universal, that doesn't actually indicate that there is anything objective about art as much as it indicates something universal about human perception.

Plus, in the case of some uncontestedly bad art, there are absolutely people who value such thing with full knowlwdge that it fails by criteria established in one school of thought, and that's the reason they value it. Think of things like high camp and movies that are "so bad they are good". These are movies that are loved because they fail to measure up to certain standards, oftentimes in ways that can be exciting, amusing as hell, and sometimes come of as sincere to the point that it feels good in an entirely unintended way. So, being able to acknowledge that there are standards that most people are familiar with doesn't really make art an objective thing either and knowing those standards has no bearing, ultimately on how any one individual would value the work.

>"Art" that's just red paint with a blue stripe on it?  That's garbage.  If that's supposed to challenge the medium, it's not doing a very good job.  This is something that should be as ubiquitously hated as Sonic '06.  It has nothing to do with people being nazis, or hating change, or trying to say that art can only be an already defined thing.  It just has no redeeming qualities, and we should all admit it and move on.

I mean this kind of does have to do with the authoritarian reflex. I mean, you are asserting what people should value here.

>This is something that should be as ubiquitously hated as Sonic '06.  It has nothing to do with people being nazis, or hating change, or trying to say that art can only be an already defined thing.

On the contrary, you see ...

>It just has no redeeming qualities, and we should all admit it and move on.

When you start dictating what others should value ... that's when the fundamentally ... egocentric way of thinking that so often precedes a sort of receptiveness to authoritarian rhetoric.

 No.3822

>>3821

>Plus, in the case of some uncontestedly bad art, there are absolutely people who value such thing with full knowlwdge that it fails by criteria established in one school of thought, and that's the reason they value it.

I think there's several definitions of value that could be coming into conflict here.  But as long as we're talking art and different schools of thought, film theory becomes pretty relevant to the discussion.  When judging a film, not for quality but for meaning and content, there are a vast array of lenses through which you could view the movie and take away different things.  I think you could ascribe more to certain schools than others, which is a statement of what art you might think is good and the kind of art you would prefer to see more of, while also being open to hearing how other schools interpret art that you might find distasteful or simply uninteresting.

I'd love to hear what people have to say about art, because I'm at a severe loss even comprehending how it reached an art gallery and no one's been able to explain it in any way.  The only things I ever see said about stuff like the art in the video is that we shouldn't brush it off, and then the reasoning is a really generic statement about how all art is actually good, but like...I dunno, I don't get it.

>I mean this kind of does have to do with the authoritarian reflex. I mean, you are asserting what people should value here.

I think (almost) every artist is also asserting what people should value.  Usually they're simply asserting that people should value their art, though plenty of works assert various other values, from the political to the aesthetic.  It's not authoritarian to suggest that those artists are incorrect, nor is it authoritarian to suggest what people value in a more general or direct sense.

 No.3823

>>3822
>I think there's several definitions of value that could be coming into conflict here.

The fact that there are conflicting definitions of value in the first place, in and of itself, is evidence that there is nothing objective about value.

>I think you could ascribe more to certain schools than others, which is a statement of what art you might think is good and the kind of art you would prefer to see more of, while also being open to hearing how other schools interpret art that you might find distasteful or simply uninteresting.

Uh yeah, I kind of made that point. The point in the video is that the line of reasoning that would say that "who's afraid of red yellow and blue #3 is so bad it must be destroyed" in response to people valuing it is a kind of authoritarian foot in the door sort of way of thinking. Which is kind of the opposite of what I described and what you described. And kind of contradictory and incoherent with what you said earlier about people needing to "just admit", that Who's Afraid of Red Yellow and Blue #3 is trash.

>'d love to hear what people have to say about art, because I'm at a severe loss even comprehending how it reached an art gallery and no one's been able to explain it in any way.  The only things I ever see said about stuff like the art in the video is that we shouldn't brush it off, and then the reasoning is a really generic statement about how all art is actually good, but like...I dunno, I don't get it.

well art can have value in far more ways then I suspect you are considering or imagining. That's just part of the subjective nature of it.

And well, what's not to get about the idea that beauty is in the eye of the beholder? Asserting a frustration with the fact that there exist people who value a thing you don't value to the point that you suggest that they shouldn't value it ... yeah that's kind of authoritarian. It's kind of expressing the same sort of frustration with people being different than oneself that informs the reflexive desire for control.

>I think (almost) every artist is also asserting what people should value.

I don't follow, how do you reason this?

>Usually they're simply asserting that people should value their art, though plenty of works assert various other values, from the political to the aesthetic.

I disagree pretty strongly with this assertion, but I want to know your reasoning for this.

>It's not authoritarian to suggest that those artists are incorrect, nor is it authoritarian to suggest what people value in a more general or direct sense.

But is is authoritarian to suggest that people valuing the wrong thing is reason enough for some art to not exist or to be suppressed.

 No.3824

>>3819
>-I do feel like libel/defamation is too often used as a bludgeon by giant corporations against critics or consumers, so i could see being less gung-ho about that particular exemption than we are now.
It is very hard for a plaintiff to win a libel suit if the defendant mounts a good defense.  I'd say the problem is more that sometimes people can only get as much justice as they can pay for.  Maybe a federal anti-SLAPP statute would help, with a winning defendant receiving double reasonable attorney fees, so that lawyers will take a case on a contingency basis.  Or some other procedural safeguards to help prevent harassing people via meritless libel lawsuits.

>For me, unless an actual child has been violated in the process, it's not CP.
Yeah, that's the definition under by the Supreme Court, and the court's reasoning (in New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982)) is premised on the production of CP intrinsically involving exploitation of real children as subjects in sexual performances.
>The UN is trying to stretch the definition of CP pretty far right now, way farther than is reasonable or practical.
Fortunately the UN is rather toothless.  Unfortunately some countries like the UK do criminalize making lewd drawings of fictional characters who look like underage humans.

>>3819
>i'd only say that applies to actual incitement,
Do you agree with the Brandenburg standard ("constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action")?

 No.3825

>>3823
>"who's afraid of red yellow and blue #3 is so bad it must be destroyed"
>But is is authoritarian to suggest that people valuing the wrong thing is reason enough for some art to not exist or to be suppressed.

So that's a good point, and I still wouldn't support destroying or suppressing art.  I do still think people should be allowed to make whatever they want, and if people really legitimately enjoy something then they should continue enjoying it.

I do also think that some of these artists are pulling a fast one on their rich customers, though, or perhaps the other way around.  In terms of artistic value I'm willing to believe that someone really likes a picture of red squares.  Or even a blank canvas!  But when they spend tens of millions of dollars to buy it?

https://nypost.com/2013/05/15/43-8-million-for-this/

That's the part that's really baffling me, more than just people liking it (which I'd still like to hear about, because I want to understand the appeal people are seeing), because I feel like very little art should instantly make someone a multi-millionaire, much less something that's seemingly easily reproducible (the exact mixture of red not withstanding).

But if I was right about this all being some kind of scam, or perhaps a money laundering scheme or something for tax evasion (trading paintings and donating them is a sneaky way to move money around without using actual money), then I'm worried it might have an emperor's new clothes effect on art, where people assume that this art must have value because it sells for so much, so they've invented reasons to like it, and they're encouraged to make more of it because it sells for so much.  And more than saying we should just brush this off, I want to say we shouldn't brush off the idea of brushing it off.  I think this is something worth investigating.  I want to hear what some of these artists think about these paintings they've created, I want to hear why someone spent millions to buy it, because as is I think art might be warped for suspicious reasons more closely tied with money than art.

>>3823
>I don't follow, how do you reason this?  (that artists assert what people should value)

I think most artists make something that they think is good, and if you ask them why it's good they will tell you why it is good.  They will tell it has value and that other people should value their work.  They might not say that you shouldn't value work, though that is likely to come up sometimes as well, but almost all of them create things they believe to have value.  If you're viewing their art in a gallery, just as an example, there's also an inherent assertion that because it is in the gallery and you are attending the work is something you should value.  The placement of "Who's Afraid of Red Yellow and Blue #3" was not innocuous, that it was displayed at all was an assertion that you should value this art at a minimum, and perhaps even the assertion that you're wrong for not valuing it, though that's more of a stretch and probably depends on the gallery itself.

To go a bit less broad, though, plenty of art contains messages about society or politics.  Take the linked video as an example.  A satirical short film that's incredibly critical of many aspects of modern life, much of which we take for granted.  The assertions here are strongly negative and very obvious.

On a bit more positive note, take something like Zootopia, with a very overt message about how you should follow your dreams and open yourself to new experiences, and an only slightly more subtle message about racism and being afraid of people different than you.  But the movie definitely attempts to assert certain values, an in this case they're even asserting those values to impressionable children!  (Not that I disagree with those values, they're quite good values to teach children.)

Now, I've said most a lot because there's also artists that make stuff that's just for themselves.  They make stuff they would like with absolutely not assertion that anyone else should appreciate it, but they still make it open for people who would.  It is not literally all artists.  But many or most either assert that their art is good and should be appreciated (not always at the expense of other art), or are asserting a message about something other than their art, such as society or politics or just personal morals.

 No.3826

>>3825
>
>I do also think that some of these artists are pulling a fast one on their rich customers


Okay, from this point I am pretty familiar with this way of thinking about it, and it amuses me how people on opposite ends of the political spectrum tend to hate the whole art market because it basically proves everyone wrong about how capitalism works. Hardcore socialist and communist used to hate modern art as an "attack by capitalist on rationality" and promoted socialist realism as the "objectively" correct art style. Meanwhile, your fascist and autocratic types blamed it all on the commies and labeled with a number of variations on the Nazi's "Cultural Bolshevism" concept.

If you are thinking of it in this karmic way in which the free market always rewards the objectively best efforts, then of course the success of art you don't like is just going to feel ... unfair, right?

Well, I mean, in the world of art, where you are selling one-of-a-kind unique items, it doesn't matter what "the market" would dictate your art is worth. All that ultimately matters is why it's worth it to the person writing the check.

And well ... that's kind of how most things in life work, and the art world is this grim reminder to these idealogues that they just don't know as much about people than they like to believe they do.

I mean, you literally said:
>because I feel like very little art should instantly make someone a multi-millionaire, much less something that's seemingly easily reproducible (the exact mixture of red not withstanding).

I mean, which I would assume is because such a thing is "unfair"? That such reward should only come from effort and sacrifice, cause that's only fair?

Well, I mean, of course it's not fair, what your efforts are worth are only as much as valuable to a person paying for them. If your efforts go toward something with some clear utility then of course effort translates into reward.

But in the art world, things like ingenuity, creativity, a sense of aesthetic, and all sorts of other things related to your aesthetic judgement is what is valued, far more than the effort you would have had to put into it. Art might take some craftsmenship but what ultimately makes it art is not it's craftsmenship but what end aesthetic effect that craftmanship and effort had.

But above all that, what art that is valued as such is valued for it's final effect on the observer. Whatever subjective effect that may be. Which is inherently unfair cause not all of us can imagine or come up with an idea that can have enough of an effect on a wealthy art collector who wants to own the only copy of one of one of your works.

>But if I was right about this all being some kind of scam, or perhaps a money laundering scheme or something for tax evasion (trading paintings and donating them is a sneaky way to move money around without using actual money), then I'm worried it might have an emperor's new clothes effect on art, where people assume that this art must have value because it sells for so much, so they've invented reasons to like it, and they're encouraged to make more of it because it sells for so much.

Don't kid yourself. I think you're just being incredulous to subjective value in art. Different people have different perspectives that they bring with them when they experience art.

> I want to hear why someone spent millions to buy it, because as is I think art might be warped for suspicious reasons more closely tied with money than art.

Okay dude, this is a ridiculous idea. Occam's razor would suggest that the reason things you think are garbage sell is just that people with the money to pay that much for it value it much more than you.

>I think most artists make something that they think is good, and if you ask them why it's good they will tell you why it is good.

Usually true but not always the case in some notable cases.

> They will tell it has value and that other people should value their work

This is a massive over-generalization. Sure some artist would have a lot of confidence in their work and might express it as such explicity but that is not implicitly suggested by the act of making art.

>probably depends on the gallery itself.

It is absolutely dependent on the gallery, not the artitst. The gallery decides who's works are presented as valuable. Often in accordance to one or more schools of art criticism, but of course, not necessarily, especially if it's a private gallery of some billionaire and all the pieces he owns and not one whose contents are selected by committees of art critics, historians and other artist who might have a painting or two on permanent display.

So yeah, it's a massive stretch.

>To go a bit less broad, though, plenty of art contains messages about society or politics. ....
> ....  But the movie definitely attempts to assert certain values, an in this case they're even asserting those values to impressionable children!

I don't disagree but I can't help but wonder if this is why you don't understand a lot of art, if you think of it as fundamentally having just one point or purpose or function or whatever. Art exist for all sorts of purposes, sometimes for little more than to be an interesting aesthetic experience. Yeah it could be expressing some idea or value judgement on the part of the artist, it could be some form of social commentary, but it doesn't have to be. Self expression is just one of the many functions art can serve.

> But many or most either assert that their art is good and should be appreciated

Where are you getting this "most" from? Is that just some subtext your reading as being their by default or something? You haven't really presented any compelling evidence to justify that "most".

 No.3827

>>3826
>I mean, which I would assume is because such a thing is "unfair"? That such reward should only come from effort and sacrifice, cause that's only fair?

No, not exactly, though I see how my statement could be read that way.  It's more like, compared to other art in our capitalist market, these pieces are significantly more expensive than anything else, by like several zeroes.  I'm very confident that most of this could be reproduced for a cost without so many zeroes.  And yet someone is buying this art, all the zeroes included (even the zero that's on the canvas).  It's kinda like when Kanye sells a ripped t-shirt for like $10k and then people buy that.  I don't think anyone even considers that one art, that's really baffling.  But as baffling as the $10k ripped t-shirt is, that's not enough zeroes for this blank canvas that someone called artwork.

>Occam's razor would suggest that the reason things you think are garbage sell is just that people with the money to pay that much for it value it much more than you.

But...why?  Like there's so many other things that I have no interest in, but ultimately when people tell me why they bought it I understand why they bought it, it's been explained.  I've just never heard any explanation at all for this art, from anyone.  I have only received "Look, you just don't get it."  Which is very easy to say, like of course I don't get it, that's what I keep saying is I don't get it.  Why is no one capable of telling me what I'm not getting?  I feel like it can't really be that hard to at least give some explanation.

>Sure some artist would have a lot of confidence in their work and might express it as such explicity but that is not implicitly suggested by the act of making art.
>Where are you getting this "most" from? Is that just some subtext your reading as being their by default or something? You haven't really presented any compelling evidence to justify that "most".

I mean, I keep saying "most" because I don't think it's implicit, I just think it's common, and this is largely just based on personal experience.  This is my experience with art and artists of all kinds.  Perhaps this stems from my identity as a critic of sorts, and the assertion of the artist that their work is good and valuable is a completely imagined counterpoint to my assertion that maybe it is not.  But just like some of the paintings themselves, it feels weird to me that an artist wouldn't think their art has value unless they're an amateur seeking to improve their craft (or an amateur who just does it for fun and doesn't feel a need to improve).

>The gallery decides who's works are presented as valuable.

That is my point, though, the gallery has decided that something is valuable, that something is worth seeing, and it is telling other people that this is valuable.  That is an assertion, and in many cases it is very debatable.  Exactly what value they think it has, or how valuable they believe it to be, that is variable.  The fact that they consider it valuable and want to inform other people of this is not variable, that is static.

>Yeah it could be expressing some idea or value judgement on the part of the artist, it could be some form of social commentary, but it doesn't have to be.

But we could at least agree that those pieces that are laden with social commentary are presenting an assertion?  That subset, however large or small it may be, is asserting something?

 No.3828

>>3824
>Do you agree with the Brandenburg standard ("constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action")?

Yea, i think that's reasonable enough. Though even then, i wouldn't say it applies to talk of actions that are, say, illegal in one state and legal in others, say, smoking pot, if talking about the state where it would not be a crime. E.G. "hey, you should come visit colorado and try smoking a bowl with us!", would not count to me, since in colorado it's not a crime, even if the receiver of the message currently lived in texas, where it is a crime.  

 No.3829

I think this video has some good points about how the far-right protests certain kinds of art and why, especially when he contrasted it with the whole "gamegate" thing.

Art is such a subjective thing, that it's hard for two people to even agree what even qualifies as "art". And sometimes it leads to people trying to be art police, as it were. Whether just for personal reasons or because of ulterior motives, people tend to say "this isn't art" just as much as they like to say "this is art".

Where it gets tricky is when money is involved. I would never argue that some modern art pieces "aren't art", but I could argue that they don't have the (monetary) value ascribed to them. But that might be because of my background and relationship with money that differs from someone with an abundance of it.  

I dunno, it's an interesting video. Which aspect of it did you want to discuss. It's nearly half an hour long and covers a lot of things.

 No.3835

>>3827

ok, first let's address this

>But...why?  Like there's so many other things that I have no interest in, but ultimately when people tell me why they bought it I understand why they bought it, it's been explained.  I've just never heard any explanation at all for this art, from anyone.  I have only received "Look, you just don't get it."  Which is very easy to say, like of course I don't get it, that's what I keep saying is I don't get it.  Why is no one capable of telling me what I'm not getting?  I feel like it can't really be that hard to at least give some explanation.

Because you can't really always explain why something makes you feel what you do. It's ridiculously difficult to put an aesthetic experience into words cause it doesn't always happen in a conscious way or nor is it entirely an intellectual process.

Sure, you can recognize some patterns in what is aesthetically desirable to a person, especially one self. But it's not a universal thing. And for literally millenia, thinkers have been trying to figure that out. That literally the origin of aesthetics, not to dictate what is aesthetically valued, but to explain it. And so far, well, no philosopher has come up with a definite answer to the question of "what is beauty" they can just come up with various schools of thought regarding art criticisms.


> I'm very confident that most of this could be reproduced for a cost without so many zeroes.

I think you're still assuming that it's judged as a craft when it's not the craftmanship that makes it valuable. It's the final effect of the work of the observer that is valued. That's just how it works.

>Why is no one capable of telling me what I'm not getting?  I feel like it can't really be that hard to at least give some explanation.

Because telepathy doesn't exist. Psychic empathy doesn't exist. You can't really share what effect a piece of art has with you in that way, you can only try to put it into words, to explain what it is you perceive as having aesthetic value and can identify the pattern of what is aesthetically valuable to them or why it fulfills certain criteria that certain schools of thought, but ultimately, no one has ever been able to prove that there own experience, or which ever school of thought is the objectively "correct" one.

>I mean, I keep saying "most" because I don't think it's implicit, I just think it's common, and this is largely just based on personal experience.  This is my experience with art and artists of all kinds.  Perhaps this stems from my identity as a critic of sorts, and the assertion of the artist that their work is good and valuable is a completely imagined counterpoint to my assertion that maybe it is not.

Well, I mean, if you assume that motivation, then of course you'd have a bias to see confirmation of that motivation everywhere. It's a very biased version

 No.3849

>>3829
>I think this video has some good points about how the far-right protests certain kinds of art and why, especially when he contrasted it with the whole "gamegate" thing.

Protesting art isn't a right-wing thing. GTA got pulled from target by liberal moral panic. Cancel culture is a markedly liberal thing. Hell, gamergate was largely fueled by  frustration at leftist cancel culture starting to throw moral panic towards video games through journalists that should have been more focused on distributing information about the games rather than fear-mongering and moral panicking.

 No.3852

>>3849
That was Target's decision as a business not to carry the game. I don't really consider that "censorship". GTA V is still widely available and is one of the best selling games of all time. Also, it was only certain Targets in Australia, not Target in general. I feel that's important to point out.

If you want to discuss GamerGate, I'd be happy to weigh in if you make a thread on it. But from what I saw, in my opinion, GamerGate was a way for anti-feminists to harass a game developer they didn't like while pretending it was about game's journalism.

 No.3853

>>3852
People harass people for no reason all the time. Why would they hide their intentions? People who harass strangers over the internet never seemed to need pretense before.

I also think it's absurdly misleading to claim that's just target choosing to not carry a game. It's target choosing to do that because they were economically threatened by a bunch of bleeding heart liberals. Saying target made a decision is like saying the people harassed by gamergate made the decision to go on the internet and get harassed. Don't pretend like somehow conservatives who push censorship have agency, but liberals who do don't.

 No.3856

>>3853
>Why would they hide their intentions?

To get more people on their side. Most people would have rejected the idea of harassing someone over a game they didn't like, or because they hate women. But tell them it's about games journalism, and suddenly your side seems bigger than it is. It also causes a great distraction. People who legitimately thought it was about Games Journalism will be out there defending the harassers and covering up what they are doing for them.

Again, it wasn't "Target", it was some Targets in Australia. One chain, in one country, chose not to carry the game. A concern no other stores in any other places had. How much pressure did these "liberals" really have when GTA V still sold millions of copies and is still widely available?

 No.3857

>>3856
>Again, it wasn't "Target", it was some Targets in Australia. One chain, in one country, chose not to carry the game. A concern no other stores in any other places had. How much pressure did these "liberals" really have when GTA V still sold millions of copies and is still widely available?

So what have conservatives successful censored, hmm? One asshole slashed a painting, and that's terrible, and people are criticizing modern art for being hollow shows of pretention, which i think is fair in some cases and not in others. That's far more toothless than the left. We're seeing huge waves of censorship coming from the UN (aka europe) these days regarding even portrayal of underage sex, and while on paper that sounds reasonable, when you think of all the high school sex comedies, coming of age stories, and medieval history lessons, and how they would all technically fall under it, well, that's a lot more potent a censoring of art than a handful of asshole vandals.

 No.3859

>>3857
Well, the video goes over the history of it, showing how the Nazis really did censor and destroy art. But it is the rationale they used to justify it that's being compared to conservatives, not the actual acts.

That one painting was completely destroyed, it can't be enjoyed like it was before it was vandalized. GTA V, however, was not destroyed by one chain in one part of the world choosing not to sell it. People in Australia just had to go to another store and buy it there.

 No.3860

Look, if you're not going to argue in good faith and be vague on what exactly the definition of "censorship" is and engage in this childish whataboutism then I am just going to delete this thread.

 No.3861

>>3835

So a bit of a tangent here, but what's your opinion on something like essential oils?  Almost no confirmed benefits of using them, but they are widely sold, including some methods that are definitely scams or pyramid schemes.  Their users will claim that they absolutely work and continue wasting hundreds or thousands of dollars on them, sometimes even pulled into an almost cult-like lifestyle of using nothing but a single company's essential oil products.  Is it wrong to attempt to convince these people that the product doesn't do anything and they're wasting their money?

>>3859
>That one painting was completely destroyed, it can't be enjoyed like it was before it was vandalized. GTA V, however, was not destroyed by one chain in one part of the world choosing not to sell it. People in Australia just had to go to another store and buy it there.

Is the success of censorship the important part?  Or the attempt and intention?  A portion of people still decided that people shouldn't have access to GTA V.  The fact that more than one copy existed and they couldn't catch them all doesn't seem to change that.

 No.3862

>>3861
>>3861
>So a bit of a tangent here, but what's your opinion on something like essential oils?  Almost no confirmed benefits of using them, but they are widely sold, including some methods that are definitely scams or pyramid schemes.  Their users will claim that they absolutely work and continue wasting hundreds or thousands of dollars on them, sometimes even pulled into an almost cult-like lifestyle of using nothing but a single company's essential oil products.  Is it wrong to attempt to convince these people that the product doesn't do anything and they're wasting their money?


No?

This isn't really comparable though, not an equivalent situation. Art's value is not utilitarian like that. It's function to whomever is purchasing it is immediately apparent to whomever purchases it, what you see is literally all you get. So it's not like there's some sort of false advertising involved in selling art (well except maybe for some long forms of art like film), it's just an art piece, you don't have to own it to experience all you can get out of it.

>>3861

Choosing not to buy an item to sell in your store is not censorship. No business can be compelled to carry any non-essential items, nor should they.

If a store chooses not to carry a non-essential product because of someone's else's objections or protest, that's still on the store and not the protesters or complainers because the later two have no actual political power they can use to compell the business to comply.

And as I already mentioned I will delete this thread if I see any more of this disengenous conflation of what censorship actually is.

 No.3863

>>3861
It's not "censorship" for the reasons >>3862 described.

 No.3864

>>3862
>It's function to whomever is purchasing it is immediately apparent to whomever purchases it, what you see is literally all you get. So it's not like there's some sort of false advertising involved in selling art

I think I disagree, because I think the subjective opinion of art can be molded and manipulated.  Diamonds also have no utilitarian value and for a long time they didn't have subjective asethetic value, either.  It was only recently when someone used manipulative marketing and sometimes outright fabrications in order to increase the subjective value of diamonds in order to become rich.  No one saw value in diamonds until he told them there was value there, which is impressive in a sense, but it seems like exactly the sort of situation where something's value could be debated.

>>3862
>disengenous conflation of what censorship actually is.

Well what is actually censorship?  I don't think anyone's really defined it within the thread, even though people seem to have different opinions about it.

 No.3865

>>3862
> that's still on the store and not the protesters or complainers because the later two have no actual political power they can use to compell the business to comply.

They have economic power. A bad story getting attention can be very bad for business. It's absurdly disingenuous to pretend like consumer spending habits don't count for some reason.

 No.3866

File: 1572207497865.jpg (155.06 KB, 850x1180, 85:118, 1475113845104.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3865
>It's absurdly disingenuous to pretend like consumer spending habits don't count for some reason.
I recommend refraining from using phrases such as "absurdly disingenuous" on this board in any way that could be interpreted as referring to another poster.  It doesn't foster productive discussion.  Someone can simply be mistaken without being disingenuous.

 No.3867

>>3866

I really don't think that's the case here... I mean, the end result is suppression of art because someone didn't like it, even though it may have an audience or otherwise be worth hearing, yea. But i guess for some reason liberal hate mobs who deliver ultimatums don't count, but one asshole vandal does? Some people have this way of deflecting things like that. Same way they use the concept of privileged to justify all kinds of clearly awful, clearly prejudicial things.

 No.3869

File: 1572208891922.jpg (138.14 KB, 1000x1000, 1:1, 1474078637019.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3867
I mean, I largely agree with what you said on the topic of discussion.  I just don't think that saying "absurdly disingenuous" (in a way that could be interpreted as referring to another poster) fosters productive discussion.  "Disingenuous" means not being sincere.  How do you expect someone to react to something that they interpret as accusation of not being sincere?  

And if you think someone is too smart to sincerely make a dumb argument, remember that cognitive dissonance is a very real thing and quite distinct from insincerity.

 No.3873

>>3865
>>3865

If were going to accuse each other of absurd disengenuous then its absurdly disengenuous to completely ignore the rights of a business owner to make business decisions they want to make or how that action technically also counts as a form of free expression.

Like, if your a capitalist/libertarian of any bent, then you have to acknowledge that fact and stop disengenuously acting like somehow a group of consumers excersizing there right to spend their own rights to chose where they spend money where they wish for any reason, even as a form of free expression of a political and/or ethical principle is somehow oppression.

>>3867

God damn Noonim you are so full of shit.

You bitch and moan about people making broad sweeping about the moral integrity of anyone who doesn't have your political affiliations and suggests all sorts of dishonest motives ... yet throw a goddamn temper tantrum if someone says something bad about a group you may be associated with.

You have no clothes.

 No.3874

>>3873
I'm fairly certain Noonim is still banned from /townhall/. Let's all just take a step back and chill out.

 No.3878

>>3874

Well, whatever, it's still skeevy as fuck

 No.3879

>>3878
That it may be, but we should attempt to keep cool heads about this.

For the record, I agree with your stance on stores removing a game from sale not being censorship.

 No.3881

>>3873
>to completely ignore the rights of a business owner to make business decisions they want to make or how that action technically also counts as a form of free expression.

The business owner isn't the problem here. The extortionist mob that chooses to send ultimatums rather than simply not shop at the place is the issue. I didn't say it was oppression, my claim is that it ultimately has the effect of censorship. Just because it's not a government body or done through violence, ultimately the end result is suppression and censorship. Also i'm not noomin, but we're given automatic pseudonyms here for a reason.

>>3879

I didn't say it was oppression. I said it was censorship. Let's look at the definitions, based on dictionary.com:

The definition of censor: examine (a book, movie, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it.

The definition of censorship: the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

This is effectively the result of left-wing moralizing and political activity. They examine a surface-level image of something, say, GTA or the joker movie, and then take action to suppress it, say, boycotts, sending instructions to others not to consume, using the media, sending ultimatums, ect. Why does the vector by which they go about doing this make it not censorship? It's the suppression of a piece of media that is considered politically unacceptable, or at least the attempt. If you're telling, say, a friend not to watch a movie because you personally thought it was bad, or thought they would not enjoy it, that's one thing, but telling people far and wide not to consume media, when you haven't even seen it, because it has a political message you think is "problematic"... Well, that sounds a lot like an attempt to censor. Sure, it may be free-market censorship, if you will, but it's still censorship. It's still an attempt at media suppression.

 No.3882

>>3881
Choosing not to shop at a store because you don't like what it sells is an expression of free speech. Likewise, choosing to stop selling something because your customers don't like it is also free speech. It's not censorship. No one forced Target not to sell it. Target could have easily said "We are going to continue selling GTA V, go to Hell." If you have the ability to choose whether or not you want to keep doing it, then it's not censorship.

Censorship means "the suppression or media", but you also need to look at the definition of "suppression". To "forcibly put an end to" There was no force. Nothing was made to happen against one's will and wishes. Target CHOSE not to sell the game. And again, not all Targets.

 No.3883

File: 1572228571642.jpg (271.65 KB, 1200x1300, 12:13, 1472007106532.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>3882
Isn't it a bad thing though that stores stop selling things merely because a certain segment of the population considers it politically incorrect?  The political polarization is already quite bad in America, but if Hillary supporters literally can't stand to the shop in the same store as Trump supporters, then something is deeply wrong.

 No.3884

>>3882
There was economic force, was there not? This is consumers exerting economic force. While i understand that everyone has the right to shop based on whatever they want, and i certainly wouldn't begrudge someone for not buying something they don't want, or even for choosing personally not to shop at a certain store because it stocks something, E.G. if an individual chose to personally not shop at target because they were that upset at GTA, i'd think that would be a rather unagreeable position to take, but i don't begrudge their choice. Now, if they start sitting outside the store telling people not to buy it based on their personal political opinion, and then tell the store they won't go away unless they stop stocking GTA or whatnot. Well, that's starting to look a lot like exerting force to me. Target choose not to sell a game because a large group of left-wing political activists exerted economic and social force upon that target. Is this really how you think society should function? What if you got counter-protesters saying they won't shop unless target supports GTA? You're forcing corporations to become political entities when it's entirely unnecessary. In this kind of environment, every corporation will have to choose to be a blizzard or a chic-fil-a. If you don't like something don't shop there, but once you start being a pest and forming petitions with people who never actually shopped there who just want to quash media they don't like, the effect is pretty similar.

 No.3885

>>3883
What? It wasn't a political protest. It was feminists protesting the fact you could commit acts of violence against women in GTA V. And all the did was say they didn't want to game to be sold. And Target chose not to sell it. Most other retailers in Austrialia continued to sell it and still sell it.

>>3884
Not really? It was three women who started a petition. That's all. Target still chose not to sell the game when they could have just ignored the protests, like every other retailer in Australia has done.

>>Now, if they start sitting outside the store telling people not to buy it based on their personal political opinion, and then tell the store they won't go away unless they stop stocking GTA or whatnot. Well, that's starting to look a lot like exerting force to me.

No, that's called protesting, and it's something people are allowed to do. It's also NOT what happened.

Either way, it's not censorship, which is the real argument. Call it uncalled for, call it unagreeable, but don't call it censorship. It's an expression of free speech to protest things you don't like, and it's an expression of free speech for outlets to ignore protests or listen to them.

Why are you so invested in calling this one particular case censorship, anyway? If censorship of games was such a wide-spread problem, could you not point to some other, less debatable instance of it as evidence? Or is this the only one you have?

 No.3887

>>3885

>And all the did was say they didn't want to game to be sold.

Ah man, a game not being sold anywhere? You're right! That's not a game being suppressed at all! Being cut out of any and all markets is just freedom, right? Give me a break. If games don't have anywhere they can be sold, then the game industry dries up except for a very small handful of developers who have the time, passion, and extra resources to make it as a passion project using their own funds. That sounds a whole lot like suppression to me. I will not tolerate artistic authoritarianism. I absolutely will not. Not from you, or the vile women who started that petition, or the people like them.

>Why are you so invested in calling this one particular case censorship, anyway? If censorship of games was such a wide-spread problem, could you not point to some other, less debatable instance of it as evidence? Or is this the only one you have?

This frog is going to try turning off the fire on this slowly-burning pot as soon as it starts. That's how this sort of stuff works. Get people use to something through sheer perseverance and it becomes the new normal. Then you push the boundaries again, rinse and repeat. I'll make a fuss about it now before i'm not allowed to anymore. Hell, not like gamers haven't see this before with Clinton and Thomson. Just because people have pushed back and ultimately succeeded for now doesn't mean it's not a problem. It means we'll probably have to be on the front lines in the battle for freedom of artistic expression so long as gaming is the least accepted of artistic medium, and thus an easy target for weak-minded moralizers and authoritarians who know how to recognize an easy target. I'll push back forever. Because i don't want to let some shit-eating housewives, authoritarian megalomaniacs, censor-happy feminists, or anyone else stop a meaningful experience from being created into this world and letting people see and judge it for themselves.

 No.3888

>>3887
I don't like gay porn. I don't think it should be made or sold.

Did my saying that just now "suppress" gay porn? Does my refusal to buy it hurt the gay porn industry?

>If games don't have anywhere they can be sold...

Literally anywhere else but Targets in Australia are still selling the game. It's one of the best selling video games of all time.

Also, it's pretty inconsiderate to call these women "vile" when you don't know their motivations for protesting the game (something they have a right to do) or the circumstances surrounding it.

>>That's how this sort of stuff works...

All of this is quite literally a slippery slope fallacy. You cannot know that anything like what you are assuming can or will ever happen. The game industry is still a multi-billion dollar industry with no signs of ever slowing down, except possibly from it's own ineptitude.

 No.3890

>>3888
>Did my saying that just now "suppress" gay porn? Does my refusal to buy it hurt the gay porn industry?

If you went to porn shops and told them you wouldn't go there if they sold gay porn, or harassed customers of it, then yea, you'd be being a nuance to that shop and hurting the industry in a small way. If you don't like something just don't buy it. You shouldn't mess with other peoples' ability to purchase and enjoy it. That's such a megalomaniacal attitude to have. Who cares if you don't like it if it makes other people happy? You're free to ignore it and move on with your life. I think that your attitude the because you don't like something, you don't think it should exist, well, that reveals a lot about you. I don't like a lot of things, but i don't begrudge their existence. There's of course times when i think something could have been done better, or where the circumstances of it's creation don't end up being worth the end result, but i would never say a piece of media shouldn't exist. And for personal distaste to be the reason? That's not even a decent excuse.

>Literally anywhere else but Targets in Australia are still selling the game. It's one of the best selling video games of all time.

In spite of the women. Not because of. They failed on a grander scale only due to a lack of power. Power fluctuates. You think they wouldn't wipe the game from existence if they could? If it was easy for them?

>Also, it's pretty inconsiderate to call these women "vile" when you don't know their motivations for protesting the game (something they have a right to do) or the circumstances surrounding it.

Yea, well, it wasn't very considerate for them to prevent people who wanted to buy a game to not be able to do so as conveniently because they personally didn't like something. They have the right to do it, sure, but that doesn't stop them from being vile. Their actions speak loudly enough. I have no sympathy for wannabe censors.

>All of this is quite literally a slippery slope fallacy. You cannot know that anything like what you are assuming can or will ever happen.

You're right. My lack of psycic ability means i can't make any deductive reasoning or follow basic logic. If there are people out there who want something gone, and they have enough power, then it will be gone. As power fluctuates, it's important to keep an eye on the motivations of your enemies. You can't know what will happen either, so your claim that it won't happen is as baseless as my claim that it very well might.

>The game industry is still a multi-billion dollar industry with no signs of ever slowing down, except possibly from it's own ineptitude.

Blockbuster was a multi-billion dollar company, too. Look at it now. Things change, power fluctuates, the landscape shifts. Size can slow things, buy you time, it can't save you forever on it's own.

 No.3893

>>3885
> It wasn't a political protest. It was feminists protesting the fact you could commit acts of violence against women in GTA V.
That seems awfully political to me.  I don't think any Trump supporters would be part of that protest.  And as a side note, I'm pretty sure you could commit violence against both men and women in that game.

 No.3894

>>3890
>>If you went to porn shops and told them you wouldn't go there if they sold gay porn

I wouldn't. Because I don't go to gay porn shops. Gay porn shops are already living in the reality I would threaten them with, one where I don't shop at their stores.

>>or harassed customers of it,
As far as I can tell from the news articles, there were no in-store or in-person protests. It was online petitions and email complaints to the corporate offices, not any of Target's other customers.

>>You shouldn't mess with other peoples' ability to purchase and enjoy it.

I actually agree. That's why I personally do not protest gay porn. But people have the right to protest whatever they want and stores have the right to pick and choose whatever they want to sell. For all you know, Target didn't stop selling GTA V because of "pressure" against their will, but because someone high up was actually swayed by an argument they made. It's not impossible.

>>You think they wouldn't wipe the game from existence if they could? If it was easy for them?

I don't know these women, so I couldn't say that. For all I know they love lots of video games and just don't care for this one. Also, that's another slippery slope fallacy. Please stop doing that.

>it wasn't very considerate for them to prevent people who wanted to buy a game to not be able to do so as conveniently because they personally didn't like something.

They didn't do that. Target did. This group probably made the same complaints to all the other retailers in Australia. So all those people need to do is go to another store. Target willingly chose to limit it's sales in a way no one else was, and you can't prove this was because they were pressured to do so and not because they chose it.


>>As power fluctuates, it's important to keep an eye on the motivations of your enemies.

Please stop acting like gamers are some put-upon underclass and that everyone outside that in-group is out to destroy games. It's a ridiculous notion. Gamers come from all walks of life. Men, women, young, old. And all those people are going to have differences of opinion. An us vs them mentality is only going to divide us.

>>Blockbuster was a multi-billion dollar company, too.

Blockbuster was put out of business by a more convenient and cheaper alternative (Netflix), not because of protests. It's not really a fair comparison.

>>3893
Violence against women is not an inherently "political" issue. It has nothing to do with the Government of the United States.

And yes, you can commit violence against both men and women in GTA. That IS part of the counter-argument, and possibly why most retailers in most places chose to keep selling the games and disagree with the protests, as that is their right to do so.

 No.4154

Funny thing.
Just this morning, I saw there's commotion in the news and social media.

Leading rightwinged party decided to make budget cuts in the funding of artworks. Party member in a debate on telivision defends this stating that modern art is bullshit anyway and does not appeal to beauty anymore as classic works do. Oddly very relevant. And people are eating it up and applauding.

Also, they want to take action against the obvious  leftwing bias in the media.

There's a good reason why I'm not stoked to vote right in this country.

 No.4197

>>4154

Are you implying that you are going to vote right anyway?

 No.4207

>>4154
>Leading rightwinged party decided to make budget cuts in the funding of artworks.

We were funding artwork?  Plenty of people make art for free in their spare time, why would it need government funding?  And it's it somehow invalid for people to start funding something but then decide the output isn't worth it?

 No.4209

>>4154

Hell, i'm moderate and i don't really see those as bad ideas.

>Leading rightwinged party decided to make budget cuts in the funding of artworks. Party member in a debate on telivision defends this stating that modern art is bullshit anyway and does not appeal to beauty anymore as classic works do. Oddly very relevant. And people are eating it up and applauding.


Funding for art is a weird one, since it's naturally going to stifle art i think. Art should expand in all kinds of different directions, and i think funding for the arts could actually restrict art by encouraging artists to stay within convention in order to be considered art/artists and receive funding. It encourages stagnation in artistic expression, and i don't really see a way around that. If you start giving money to any passion project, you'll be run dry in a heartbeat, and art quality is hugely subjective, so it's just not a super workable situation imho. It requires a flexibility that a government grant just doesn't have.

>Also, they want to take action against the obvious  leftwing bias in the media.

I do think the media generally has  a pretty large leftist slant. Not that there aren't right-wing or moderate news sources, but i do think they're far outweighed by leftist ones. Not sure what you'd do about that exactly, what actions would you want to take? So long as they don't misreport facts, what would you do about people interpreting the facts through the haze of their own heavy bias? Journalism and TV tend to be more attractive to liberals than conservatives anyway, so even from ground-level, we'd expect there to be some bias just based on that. What exactly is there to be done about it? Reminds me a bit of when people complain about there not being enough women in engineering. If women aren't interested in engineering, if they don't sign up for engineering courses and apply for engineering jobs due to lack of interest, what's there to be done about it? You can't force people to do something they don't want to do.

 No.4210

>>4209
>Funding for art is a weird one, since it's naturally going to stifle art i think. Art should expand in all kinds of different directions, and i think funding for the arts could actually restrict art by encouraging artists to stay within convention in order to be considered art/artists and receive funding.

This depends on who is making ghe judgement call on what gets funded.

Ultimately, the point behind funding of the arts is the recognition that market forces can be just as constraining on artist and creativity as the need to appeal to the market discourages risk taking.

Thus, funding for arts that would be more expensive than just like, painting (such as film for instance) is there as a relief from this fundamental creativity stifling pressure that comes from the market itself.

Take for instance a movie like Paris is Burning. A documentary about late 1980s ballroom culture. It was a documentary funded by a government endowment for the arts about the LGBT competitive fashion competitions that were particularly popular with LGBT kids of color. Many of whom were deeply impoverished.

That documentary would go on to have a permanent place in the national film registry 25 years later, but in 1987, who would have funded that privately? Who exactly was the documentary for ? Who would have been the key demographic for that?

It's considered an important and influential documentary that chronicled an underground culture in America at the time and exposed an important perspective. And at the time no investors would have been interested in the project because the (assumed) audience for it would be too small for any private investors to care. The film didn't have any audience until it hot critically praised and won some film festival awards, and that was when it found a consumer base, after the film was already made, the audience that wanted to see it were not largely LGBT, but people interested in an interesting and well made documentary about LGBT culture amongst young LGBT people of color. Plus, it made the topic more commercially viable amongst documentary consumers.

That's essentially what government funding of the arts is supposed to do. It encourages innovation in a market where the interest and pressure for consistent product discourages risk taking on the part of investors and/or patrons.

 No.4213

>>4210
I certainly like the idea, the market certainly doesn't always reward art or creativity, the prevalence and of the isekai genera in anime is a pretty good case study for that idea, but the details of it are somewhat baffling to me. Who decides who gets funding and who doesn't? Untimately there's some sort of authority deciding who to fund, right? They're deciding what counts. Seems odd to me that there should be an authority like that for art.

 No.4235

>>4213

I think it would be a matter of whether or not the artist can successfully argue to a committee about their application for a grant that they would not, realistically, receive funding from an investor or private patron.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]