The Hater's Thread

[bruno]

does it really help?

no

Is this going to improve the prospects for humanity, for the millions of people who literally starve ot death every year.

no. why would you want art to do that? it can cheer them up while they die, i don't know if that counts as useful to you.

really, i can't think of a duller destiny for art than to be useful.

the point is that artists aren't there to fix potholes and so on, there are other people who do this sort of thing (and very well, too). and humanity will keep its course regardless of what anyone does, so good that someone is dedicating a bit of energy to beauty and other 'useless shite'.

if you want a good cause i say look to improve nature's prospects, all this attention to humanity has made a mess of it.

 

[bruno]

that's heroin int it, people will do anything once that shit takes over.
'you are now property of an opiate'

sounds like fun!

 

[Eric]

People seriously loving to hate around here, this thread is now 3rd in terms of number of posts ... Agree with Sizzle though, it's not that cool to hate on peoples parenting in a forum like this.

 

[zhao]

People seriously loving to hate around here, this thread is now 3rd in terms of number of posts

well there ARE quite a few of us black-metal enthusiasts here... hmmm... but I'm sure we all listen to Jonathan Richman as well.

it's not healthy to truly hate anything or anyone for a long time; forgiveness being the best course of action for one's own well-being. but the hate here is perhaps more detest or despise or loathe... with admittedly some animosity and outright malice.

 

[SIZZLE]

this blanket generalisation is entirely inadequate and is indicative of a naive fantasy which omits many factors in the business of art, music, film, etc.

how can you say that when so many talentless morons with connections and a knack at shameless self promotion "make it" and even ensure their place in history, while innovators who refine and polish their art with blood and tears for years are sometimes left to die penniless and alone (just look at some of the greatest jazz musicians of last century - Charlie Parker, Eric Dolphy, Nina Simone, the list goes on and on)?

and to this you respond that even though they didn't get the recognition they deserved during their life time, people did realize that their art was great afterward. but the truth is that what "society" considers great art is not always on top for its artistic merits alone, but involves a lot of politics.

Picasso was more flamboyant, and thus is remembered much more than his partner Braque, who some say was the true innovator behind cubism.

the classic "master" paintings from Renaissance may be the best pieces from that time, or may have arisen through the ranks because of other reasons - the right family, the right lover, the right patron, the right church, etc, etc.

OK... (hitches up pants and wades in)

First of all, the person who I am quoting is an author and historian who is looking at at least the last 500 years, not just the last 50, and this is what I am talking about as well. Certainly in the short term a lot of garbage can be buttressed by many factors like money, stupid press, deception, ignorance etc. However, even when faced with this, think of your favorite music journalist, should they spend their column inches attacking (insert current hate fad here) or describing and advocating the far superior less known artists in their shadows. There was a little hate fad against lady sovereign on here a while back, is our time better spent dissing her or talking up all the excellent less organized, well promoted underground artists? I just don't think negative press is that effective. If I read someone really savaging something in the press usually it gets me interested to see what could inspire someone to spend their time ranting against it. I almost never say 'oh good, I'll avoid that now that some journalist thinks it's bad'. Andy Warhol used to simply weigh his clippings, good and bad. No such thing as bad press etc. In a way by attacking things in print you are giving them additional footholds in written history. In many situations simply repeating someones name is a way to empower them.

Next, How many people producing stuff that is truly insignificant remain in discussion/relevance 50 years later? Picasso, love or hate him made a contribution that was relevant to the development of western art (using a lot of un-credited ideas from african art). He also introduced compelling intellectual structures to justify his formal 'innovation' (the idea that we are seeing a subject from multiple perspectives simultaneously). Braque is not forgotten or lost, his works are there and perhaps are more available BECAUSE of his association with Picasso. Very few people get into the history books by doing things that are truly irrelevant and worthless, and of course pop culture is almost the opposite, but that's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about posterity.

Please cite a talentless moron from 50 or more years ago that many consider to be relevant or historically important. Saying 'so many' without one example is not convincing.

And of course I realize that brilliant people are MOSTLY dying penniless and un-recognized but as you pre-emptively suggest, I'm talking about the longer view. Since I'm being accused of being broad here maybe let me fine tune by saying whether or not the good will rise, the mediocre, by it's very nature, will not hold people's interest, especially when the things holding it up (promotion budgets etc) are no longer there. And Picasso and the Renaissance masters are not, imho, powerful examples of mediocre work standing the test of time. Whether you like them or not you would have to come up with some major rhetorical fireworks to convince anyone that they are truly irrelevant and not worthy of interest or discussion. And saying that there 'may have been' other better artists and works that were eclipsed due to politics is imminently possible but with no evidence to support it is not a strong position.

 

[john]

Sorry

I took off those hate posts, sorry, I thought 'hating' was supposed to be funny and I guess I just have a bad sense of humor, you know, like the famous joke: why do the Red Hot Chilli Peppers like to go 'Under the Bridge?' Because there is a plate of shit there that they can beat-off into! Making fun, in the worst possible, lowliest, and tasteless of ways doesn't even begin to approach what I understand by 'hate,' it was my mistake to assume the kind of awful jokes I was telling about Nico would be understood as that: bad, imbecilic, jokes.

Soooo... If I say something like 'Paul McCartney should be put in a dark box full of scorpions while Temporary Secretary plays on repeat' or, even worse, I make a joke about Eric Clapton's baby jumping out the window, its because I find that very amusing. Not nearly as amusing as writing 'Tears From Heaven' for the baby, but amusing nonetheless.

 

[bruno]

I took off those hate posts, sorry, I thought 'hating' was supposed to be funny and I guess I just have a bad sense of humor, you know, like the famous joke: why do the Red Hot Chilli Peppers like to go 'Under the Bridge?' Because there is a plate of shit there that they can beat-off into! Making fun, in the worst possible, lowliest, and tasteless of ways doesn't even begin to approach what I understand by 'hate,' it was my mistake to assume the kind of awful jokes I was telling about Nico would be understood as that: bad, imbecilic, jokes.

like i said, that humour is lost on the delicate souls of dissensus. anyway, it's a shame you deleted everything as you've just destroyed the continuity of this thread (i thought only mods had the right to delete posts?).

 

[droid]

Anyone can delete their own posts.

Mods can delete anyones posts - but it usually only happens to spam.

 

[corneilius]

no

no. why would you want art to do that? it can cheer them up while they die, i don't know if that counts as useful to you.

really, i can't think of a duller destiny for art than to be useful.

the point is that artists aren't there to fix potholes and so on, there are other people who do this sort of thing (and very well, too). and humanity will keep its course regardless of what anyone does, so good that someone is dedicating a bit of energy to beauty and other 'useless shite'.

if you want a good cause i say look to improve nature's prospects, all this attention to humanity has made a mess of it.

As I said, after the 'artist' has done something genuinely usefull (like fix a pothole, or tend to food growing or making hay, whatever) for the community, he or she is welcome, IMO, to create whatever they like. But creating art is not in of itself implicitly usefull to the community. Whereas certain activities are, and those are the activites we all need to be engaged in if we are to be of value to our communities.

There are those who would like to hang on to their precious ideas about the sanctity of art, and not get too involved in the nitty gritty of the well-being of the community - well as I see it they have just swallowed the 'program' and are therefore a usefull as a fart in a lift.

Creativity is not about the product, it is about the attitude you bring to whatever you are doing. Most so-called artists are slackers. Most people are creative. But you wouldn't know it from the high-falutin' mindless babble of the 'artists' and their patrons, and the feeble-minded media hacks that write about them.

Is a Da Vinci worth 20 million Euros? Not in a world where millions of people starve, where children die for want of resources.

Wakey Wakey!

You call yourselves dissenters? RAOTFL

 

[corneilius]

patrons or not, the process of creativity is inherently anti-establishment and anti-fascist, because it involves imagination and improvisation with no regard to boundaries, borders, and rules.

it is the only act which completely affirms our humanity, it is the only place where we can experience true "freedom", our only weapon against omnipresent, invisible power, and thus, in the face of global oppression, disasters, starvation, unrest and chaos, art-making is one of, if not THE most important activity we can engage in.

Really?

<b>Empathy</b> is the only act which completely affirms our humanity. Great art <i>can</i> come from empathy, the only genuine source of all beneficient actions. Empathy reaches out and offers a helping hand when the shit hits the fan. Empathy is the recognition that we are in it together, that we are in many senses, one.

Everything we do can be creative if that empathy is there. Without it we are shells, sheeple, fearfull and timorous mewlers.

 

[bruno]

As I said, after the 'artist' has done something genuinely usefull (like fix a pothole, or tend to food growing or making hay, whatever) for the community, he or she is welcome, IMO, to create whatever they like. But creating art is not in of itself implicitly usefull to the community. Whereas certain activities are, and those are the activites we all need to be engaged in if we are to be of value to our communities.

pol pot would be proud!

 

[SIZZLE]

As I said, after the 'artist' has done something genuinely usefull (like fix a pothole, or tend to food growing or making hay, whatever) for the community, he or she is welcome, IMO, to create whatever they like. But creating art is not in of itself implicitly usefull to the community. Whereas certain activities are, and those are the activites we all need to be engaged in if we are to be of value to our communities.

There are those who would like to hang on to their precious ideas about the sanctity of art, and not get too involved in the nitty gritty of the well-being of the community - well as I see it they have just swallowed the 'program' and are therefore a usefull as a fart in a lift.

Creativity is not about the product, it is about the attitude you bring to whatever you are doing. Most so-called artists are slackers. Most people are creative. But you wouldn't know it from the high-falutin' mindless babble of the 'artists' and their patrons, and the feeble-minded media hacks that write about them.

Is a Da Vinci worth 20 million Euros? Not in a world where millions of people starve, where children die for want of resources.

Wakey Wakey!

You call yourselves dissenters? RAOTFL

Who would you hold up in this case then as a worthy example? One of the things I enjoy about modern specialized society is that we don't all have to be hunter gatherers. If people were left to produce their art only after working in the fields or 'helping the community' I think the levels of quality, involved detail and the scale of works achieved would plummet.

I for one believe that art should be allowed to exist for it's own purposes, to help us understand our reality, enjoy it and to provide us with emotional sustenance. Why are the sanctity of art and the nitty gritty of the community at odds? I make music, and my sister does community organizing. Should we both be doing organizing? Should everyone be a social worker? If you started a 'community' based on these principles you would see me running at top speed away from it. Sounds like a very not-fun place to live.

If people are unable to dream for prolonged periods it can lead to serious mental health consequences, and some have argued that humans need stories as a part of our cognitive daily working. In the Soviet Union (surprised it didn't rear it's head earlier in this discussion) art was yoked to the political goals of the community, Socialist Realism anyone? I can count on the fingers of no hands the number of great works that approach produced, and I'd say one of the major wounds of that era was a loss of creativity and the life energy that generates. All work and no play...

Also, invoking 'the average native' is a bit funny. The average native new yorker? Native amazonian rainforest dweller? The term native is a product of the colonialization process, usually used to mean 'the people we are fucking over', it's a term used to de-humanize and probably isn't serving your goals that well.

I can't believe I'm spending minutes and minutes typing all this out, I guess I like arguing

 

[polystyle]

Back in the fields again

Welly well
Thread seemed to right itself ,
John had some good second thoughts , and I hear you Sizzle .

Corneilius , I had to rd again
'After the artist has done something genuinely useful ... like making hay'

Yea, I think Dissensus has lots of humor , of quite a few sorts

Everytime I rd this thread I think too bad more people are not creators , then maybe they would not be so mad ...
Coming home tired after doing for the 'community' and THEN one can 'play' -
are we talking agrarian society here or shame based ?

 

[corneilius]

Yikes!

I made the point to indicate that we are all in this together, and when we work together, we share the results of the work. It doesn't have to be all day, every day. And the work for adults is making sure the world of the children is safe, thus nurturing our sustainablity as a species.

Given that we are in it together, and that there is tons of shit hitting the fan for many, many millions of people and that we are part of that (it is our 'civilisation' that is destroying ther planet and murdreing each other) and that the denial of awareness of that situation is one of the greatest barriers to any possible change, it is incumbent on those who have an oppurtunity, an audience to alert their fellow humans to action.

It is like we are in a house, there's a party on and I discover theres a fire, one I cannot handle by myself, in the basement. What's my responsibilty?

If I am going to run from the building, before that I must go back to the party to warn my fellow party-goers too, I must also call the fire brigade.

Art is fine as far as it goes, but if I went instead into the party to play some tunes or to look at some pictures, or to chat with someone, you know ... to be entertained ... then you would be correct in saying that I was insane.

And if I left without telling anyone, you would call me negligent in the extreme.

In the same way, musicians, artists communicators who know that the fire is happening and who do not now address our issues are either leaving the building without telling anyone or returning to the party.

This is not really the time for art for arts sake, apart from being a way to relax, and enjoy onself, for the revolution will not be effective if attempted by by neurotically unhappy people. You know the people I mean, the suffering artist types, the celebrities and the stars..... lol!

 

[soundslike1981]

Cornelius,

Art, for me especially music, is one of the few things that continually makes me feel humankind is worth the trouble of worrying about. "Political" art rarely gives me that feeling--usually it seems tacky, ill-informed, often embarrassing, usually weak, and almost always unmoving. That's by no means an absolute--but art that forgets the purposes it serves beyond "the struggle" usually struggles to be art--and therefore to connect in any lasting way. The "political" art that has the most lasting effect--'Guernica,' Fela Kuti, Dr. Strangelove--is rarely shrill, rarely the equivalent of yelling "fire" in a dark theatre (to modify your metaphor).

Art can seek to inform, it can seek to move--and it usually achieves either best when it achieves both. Art that strives merely to be "political" is, to my eyes/ears/mind/gut, more akin to "art" that exists solely as decoration avoiding beauty: essentially empty, and hardly inspiring of any great push to keep working hard to save us from ourselves.

I say all this as someone deeply concerned with a sense of urgency about my work: I am an architect in the field of preservation, adaptive reuse and green building, with the aim of helping in maintaining/revitalising a more sustainable, less wastefull, more coherent urban fabric, attempting to counteract the fraudulent half century that's got us to where we are. I work hard every day as much as I can to do good work. When I come home, I don't want an opiate, something to simply turn off my brain--which you seem to think is anything that doesn't continue to directly address the things I think about all day at work. True, I often read books relative to my concerns and work. But I can think of fairly little music that does--or that I think should. It's not really the right medium--although if somebody could address urban issues and preservation in a way that didn't seem silly, polemical (maybe the Talking Heads have done. . .) then I'd give it a shot. I want, rather, art that reminds me of the possibilities of humanity, the reasons that I love civilisation and aspirations to do something more than merely survive.

The fire is indeed burning, but I think most human beings who try to live and breath and sleep and "relax" with the Struggle always at the fore are likely to burn out or physically reach a point where they're not worth much---and possibly to become rather cynical and forget what exactly was worth fighting for besides survival.


I'm curious--what music (popular or otherwise) do you think fits the form/function you're advocating?

 

[soundslike1981]

Ah--your own, perhaps? Attempting to check it out on your website. . .

 

[corneilius]

The first impetus of music, in it's natural state is to express spirit, life-force, a thing of great beauty. So yes, you are right to assert that essence of it. The shrill sound of purely political music brings to mind communist songs about the virtues of building tractors or martial music. lol!

Well .... Ani Di Franco's another good example of someone who fits my ideal! Damien Dempsey is another. There are quite a few I am in frequent contact, whom might fit the bill of dealing with urban renewal and recyling (most of them have come through squat projects) with such as I Fly, Gravy Train, The Rub, Bones of Contention, Martha Tilston, The YAP, Paradox, Ted Humphries (all of these from my local london psychedelic underground scene, and linked on my site - do take a look at them) and further afield there's the likes of http://www.riotfolk.org and I am sure there are many out there, more than I could be aware of. I certainly hope so.

I do agree that the music, if it is 'political', if it is to inspire activism then it must also be joyful and beautiful, and full of heart, to refect that first impetus as in a lot of the music that was created in South Africa or Brasil and other places for their communities during their struggles.

With regard to the burn-out possibilty, that lies in the sphere of how I take care of myself, to what extent I project myself or hold onto over-blown expectations of 'success' in my venture, both as a musician and as an activist. These things take time.

Let me know how you find the music and the website, please use the forum to leave your comments as it is a bit, well, empty! lol!

My main impetus is to share knowledge that empowers us as communities and people, I really have no need of 'fans' (which is short for fanatic). The idea of someone obsessing over me is abhorrent to me. I certainly would not see that as a compliment, not that i reject compliments when they are genuine.

 

[corneilius]

hate or love?????

Just a thought that occurred to me, that we are now talking about what we love, rather than what we hate.

 

[soundslike1981]

Hope to respond to your specific points tomorrow, Cornelius.

In the meantime--a sub-question: you bring up Ani Difranco, whom I've always generally respected for her get-up-and-do-it attitude towards the means of production and distribution, but who has never really been my cup of tea, sonically (despite attempts--dating a couple girls who were fans, being a big Joni Mitchell fan myself). She happens to be, from my limited exposure of a few albums, an artist who is both materially political (ie production/distribution) and thematically political (whether Political or smaller, interpersonal-sexual-emotional-as-political). But what is your opinion of artists who may be materially political--attempting to control their own economic destinies and to contribute only to agencies whose "(material) politics" they share--but who are not expressely interested in "saying something" political? Likewise, what is your take on music that talks a good game but ultimately benefits/benefits from the existing material systems (ie U2, Radiohead, et al). Is it better to go through the system to subvert it; or to languish in martyred, puritanical obscurity?

While I'm no fan of typical rock music lyrical obtuseness per se, I generally find "content" overrated (in the sense of "the message," not in terms of the [sub]cultural/historical significance of the work)--besides which, so much of the music I enjoy is or might as well be instrumental. Musicians concerned with a "message" are frequently forced into the realm of toothless platitudes which end up sounding more obtuse than songs "about" teenage sexual urges or "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds," or at best sort of pleasant but inconsequential. There are of course exceptions (I find This Heat's "New Water" reasonably adroit, and I can enjoy a good Crass-style feminist exposition like "Oh Bondage, Up Yours" or a Last Poets-style treatise on Honkey Man; and I think The Ex (a 20-year-standing band of art-punks) have had a thing or two to say about politics, though I've mostly been listening to the sounds they make). But I tend to think if pop music has had any positive political significance, it's more frequently done so through its material form (a la early Rough Trade, or the current accidental-uprising-against-inferior-product/reactivation-of-disused-quality-product of illegal downloading).

 

[corneilius]

Use the system or not?

Hope to respond to your specific points tomorrow, Cornelius.

what is your opinion of artists who may be materially political--attempting to control their own economic destinies and to contribute only to agencies whose "(material) politics" they share--but who are not expressely interested in "saying something" political? Likewise, what is your take on music that talks a good game but ultimately benefits/benefits from the existing material systems (ie U2, Radiohead, et al). Is it better to go through the system to subvert it; or to languish in martyred, puritanical obscurity?

If I was given the chance to 'go through the system' as you put it, I would most certainly abuse the oppurtunity (in terms of those who provided that oppurtunity) and the limitations placed upon me by those who seek to profit from it, by telling the truth, by speaking truth to power, by exposing the PR process for what it really is. Mass Hypnosis for profit or power.

I am sure that will never happen. That would be my own choice. It is why I have been turning down offers to distribute my music, and why some distributers/labels have turned me down over the years ..... they know where I stand.

As Chomsky says "if you are not upsetting people who deserve to be upset, you are doing something wrong"!

It's not enough to say something political, one has to be seen to walk the talk and for myself that means I must be congruent within myself - therefore I cannot and will not use the mainstream (which re-inforces the programming) unless I can see a powerful strategic use for it that doesn't undermine, in any way, my ultimate intentions. I also know that the mainstream is very, very good at raising someone up, and then knocking them down. And added to that is the awareness that this process of change is a long-term project, extending way beyond my own life-time, and I am but one teensy contributer to the process. I trust that process implicitly. So there is no need for me to panic, to 'achieve' anything, other than be truthfully real and tell it like I see it.

My opinion of other artists is less important than the reality of the effects of my or any other artists actions. Follow the money is the old adage.

With regard to artists who play for the beauty, the joy, the feeling and the emotion, and try to control their own destinies, I say yeah! Go for it. It's not like we don't need the wide ranging beauty of humanity and it replicates the same quality in nature - diversity!

It's not for everyone to be an activist, it's a seriously deep committment,it is a lifetimes work, not to be entered into lightly .. if one is not fully prepared for it, one can actually do more damage than good, and if an artist is genuinely playing their soul, sharing their beauty and taking responsible steps to retain control of the financial side of it then I have no problem with it.

I would love for more people to take on the activist role, yet it is a personal choice, a very serious choice and who am I to judge anyone over that?

And with regards to The Beatles, U2, Radio Head etc, their main aim appears to be to make lots of cash playing music - the cash is the main reason they, for example, play gigs where expensive tickets are sold preferentially to American Express Card Holders under agreements between the Bands and AE whereby AE paid the bands a fee or percentage of those sales - and it is cash they do NOT need!

Just look at Bono's "hard commerce" statement in regard to GAP, ARMANI and American Express 'RED' label (see the 'bob/geldof' discussion on this elsewhere on dissensus).

Arrogant, stupid and possible mendacious in that I find it hard to believe he does not understand or know that it is the historical and current western demands that Africans live like us, that they grow cash crops and produce cheap raw materials for our industries, a process which destroy their eco-systems, instead of growing their own food, drawing their own water and building their own shelter and living as they have done successfully for millenia - even as I write Indigenous Peoples are today being forcibly removed from their lands, their forests, so that those forests can be stripped of lumber for Europen furniture.

That is disgusting, greedy and murderous and yet I have never heard either Bob or Bono refer to it as such. I can only conclude that Bono and Bob are fully complicit or willfully ignorant. Eithyer way they are part of the problem!

And at the same time there are many, many fine musicians who live and have lived lives of relative poverty at the same time as the Beatles, Stones and U2s. They are and were all equally as valid as the ones that became famous, many of them much finer musicians and performers. They did not flood the papers with tales of their exploits with groupies, Hotel rooms and drug use to sell their 'product'! They live good lives most of them, played to many people and shared much beauty. You makes your choices ......

I have made mine and am happy with it - though come to me again when I am 60 or 70 and ask me again .... lol! It is a lifetimes process.