demagogue on 22/3/2024 at 00:03
Quote Posted by Qooper
It's very easy to get them mixed up, but here's some actual whitespace:
and
and of course the charming .
Tell me you're not using Nameless Voice's Dark Theme without telling me.
Cipheron on 22/3/2024 at 04:05
thecollegefix.com is a nonsense rag, Azaran. You don't do enough lateral reading Azaran, just blindly posting this outrage-bait.
Scan the front page of their website, see what topics they're obsessed with. Then click on the tags below some articles, see what their overall "take" on any topic is.
Like the tag "healthcare" should be about general healthcare topics on campus, right? A lot of different things you could write about for college kids, right? No, it's mostly stuff to mock DEI.
(
https://www.thecollegefix.com/subject/healthcare-2/)
They're also climate deniers:
(
https://www.thecollegefix.com/university-of-california-system-rolls-out-group-therapy-climate-anxiety-course/)
And give positive coverage to Covid vaccine skeptics:
(
https://www.thecollegefix.com/new-mit-free-speech-group-hosts-covid-vaccine-critic-scientist-steve-kirsch/)
--------------------------------------------
And those labels in the museum are about the historical context of the pieces. The
history behind those pieces is 100% meshed with stuff the British Empire was doing. not nice stuff.
Those labels explaining what the context of the pieces is, those are important for people to understand how and why those pieces exist and were promoted.
EDITED for brevity.
First, this artwork didn't exist before the Industrial Revolution:
(
https://westernarthistorybysuzy.wordpress.com/2017/04/09/landscape-and-the-industrial-revolution/)
Quote:
Prior to the Industrial Revolution, the landscape genre was the lowest of the low. Landscape was included in art as background at best.
Second, it came about because of the rise of the "class system", and the new affluent classes who exploited the labor of the working classes.
Quote:
During the Industrial Revolution, a new class system emerged where middle and upper classes became richer and had more leisure time. Advancement in train transport allowed for day trips out of the city into the country to enjoy the fresh air. John Constable responded to this change with his huge six-foot paintings, remembering and mourning the loss of simpler times.
It wasn't for the poor sods who were dying down mines or rotting in factory conditions. It was for the new rising class of people getting rich from exploiting them and starting to pollute the planet. They got to go on the nice trips to the countryside and to look at paintings showing idealized views of a fantasy Britain before *they* started to fuck it up.
Now's the point where you can quip "and they probably had slaves in India as the source of the pigments needed for the paint" - because that's exactly what you should expect the British Empire to be doing at this point in history. And, sure enough, they did:
(
https://history.howstuffworks.com/world-history/indigo.htm)
Quote:
For its part, England turned its attention to India for its indigo needs, where British colonists forced sharecroppers to grow indigo for hardly any money.
So no, the placard wasn't even telling you a fraction of the fucked up shit that those paintings whitewash over.
Azaran on 22/3/2024 at 14:41
Quote Posted by Cipheron
And those labels in the museum are about the historical context of the pieces. The
history behind those pieces is 100% meshed with stuff the British Empire was doing. not nice stuff.
Those labels explaining what the context of the pieces is, those are important for people to understand how and why those pieces exist and were promoted.
EDITED for brevity.
First, this artwork didn't exist before the Industrial Revolution:
(
https://westernarthistorybysuzy.wordpress.com/2017/04/09/landscape-and-the-industrial-revolution/)
Second, it came about because of the rise of the "class system", and the new affluent classes who exploited the labor of the working classes.
It wasn't for the poor sods who were dying down mines or rotting in factory conditions. It was for the new rising class of people getting rich from exploiting them and starting to pollute the planet. They got to go on the nice trips to the countryside and to look at paintings showing idealized views of a fantasy Britain before *they* started to fuck it up.
Now's the point where you can quip "and they probably had slaves in India as the source of the pigments needed for the paint" - because that's exactly what you should expect the British Empire to be doing at this point in history. And, sure enough, they did:
(
https://history.howstuffworks.com/world-history/indigo.htm)
So no, the placard wasn't even telling you a fraction of the fucked up shit that those paintings whitewash over.
Well then, I say let's put disclaimers on every pre-1960's piece of art and human invention. I'm sure we can dig up dirt on absolutely everything done prior to that time.
The issue is not about understanding context. Those labels (and so much else nowadays) come with the implicit message that viewers can't enjoy the art for its own sake (on its beauty / aesthetic value), and must be made to feel ashamed for liking it.
Also:
“Paintings showing rolling English hills or lush French fields reinforced loyalty and pride towards a homeland.
“The darker side of evoking this nationalist feeling is the implication that only those with a historical tie to the land have a right to belong.”Seems like inferring a whole lot of stuff that was not necessarily intended by the artist.
Starker on 22/3/2024 at 21:25
I don't really see any problems with the sign nor do I get a sense it's trying to guilt-trip anyone. Maybe certain museum visitors (though I suspect many of the people outraged by this hardly ever set a foot in an art museum) should just stop being such snowflakes and stop taking information about the era and the situation the art was produced in so personally.
An exhibition is more than just a showing of pretty pictures. It can be centered around a certain theme or explore a particular topic. And the juxtaposition of industrialism with peaceful pastoral landscapes is more than fitting subject to explore, especially if you consider that this was going on at the same time: (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_Riots).
Furthermore, if there's anything that bothers me, it's rather the insistence of reactionaries that art (or any media really) should be consumed uncritically and never examined in a wider context (AKA the "Robocop isn't political" crowd).
Nicker on 23/3/2024 at 00:54
Where I live is a middle school (junior high) named in honour of a family who amassed their enormous wealth owning coalmines, where boys barely old enough to attend said school, were put to work, and frequently died on the job.
There is a movement afoot to remove the family name from the school and replace it with a better role model. A common objection is, "you are trying to erase/change history." To which I say, fark orf!!
The events of the past may have objective, immutable characteristics but history isn't fixed because history is the story we construct about those events. What people mean by this objection is you must not mess with my choice of how to remember those events and, more importantly, don't make me remember the parts I want to forget.
The fact that the namesake of this school violated every single human value, aspired to in the school's motto, aught to be reason enough to replace them. Besides, part of the plan is to permanently commemorate the change and the reasons for making it. That's not erasing history, that's enhancing it.
As for art, learning about the context of its creation, always enhances my enjoyment and appreciation. I cannot think of a single instance when a work was diminished by learning more about the person and time which created it. If there is no meaning in a work other than the strict intentions of the artist, then it is piss poor art, IMHO.
DuatDweller on 24/3/2024 at 04:58
And what would you expect from a world that makes you think that making a 5 year old child a trans is right when he/she doesn't even know what they want at age.
Hell we don't know what we want at 60-70 years old, see Jenner.
uncadonego on 24/3/2024 at 13:51
Another perfect non sequitur from someone getting paid a ruble per word.
Nicker on 24/3/2024 at 23:39
DuatDweller. Go easy on that shoe-horn. You are going to break it.
Besides the fact that being forced to be a child meat-slave has nothing to do with personal gender identity, I knew exactly what I was and what I liked, before age 5. So did everyone I know; straight, gay and all the other colours of the rainbow. Nobody "teaches' kids what they are born as.
The only difference today is that kids know they can talk about it, be accepted for it and they have a better language pallet to understand with.
PigLick on 25/3/2024 at 12:55
I don't agree with Duat, but no way in hell when I was 5 did I know exactly what I was and what I liked.
