Author Topic: Fearless Girl  (Read 3570 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Redamare

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3318
Re: Fearless Girl
« Reply #120 on: April 18, 2017, 06:31:25 PM »
Right, but we don't award a mugger, even if hospitalization for injuries he inflicts reveals cancer in time for treatment.

Not saying it's the same, just the same logic.
"redamare has kicked this thread's ass" -champagnej

Certainty is the enemy of wisdom.

--RED-uh-MAR-ay--

Offline The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *****
  • Posts: 4149
Re: Fearless Girl
« Reply #121 on: April 18, 2017, 07:19:44 PM »
Okay, fine. Explain to me where "Death of the Author", to pick one specific item, as such, ever became relevant to anything that was under dispute in this thread.

It is relevant because the reason that you feel the way you do about this is because you believe that even after an artist has placed his artwork in the public domain his intent still matters.  You are taking about his intent and his meaning being erased or deleted, neither of which those of us who hold a different philosophy of authorship believe are true.  If one believes that a work, once completed, exists in its own right and the author's intent is utterly severed from it, then nothing that is done to that work of art can change or alter or erase the author's intent or his message because the author's intent and message no longer are in any way tied to that piece of art.
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline Redamare

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3318
Re: Fearless Girl
« Reply #122 on: April 18, 2017, 07:38:21 PM »
My statements in this thread only require that his intent matter to him.

This is not about people seeing his Bull in its original composition and "missing the point" or "not getting it". This is about another artist changing the composition of a singular, original piece.

And again, his Bull is stupid and fuck him. I'm not shedding any tears. But of course he's not going to be happy about it. I just want to shake my head at people wanting to begrudge him his frustration.
"redamare has kicked this thread's ass" -champagnej

Certainty is the enemy of wisdom.

--RED-uh-MAR-ay--

Offline SkeptiQueer

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5580
  • DEEZ NUTZ
Re: Fearless Girl
« Reply #123 on: April 18, 2017, 07:49:41 PM »
The artist is welcome to be mad all they want, but that's the extent of it. The folks over at PureFlix Entertainment certainly didn't intend for Eli Bosnick to make a series dog entirely unrepeatable jokes about their movies and exposing them to a wide array of people laughing at them, but nonetheless it's happened, and they are entitled to be as angry as they want about it. It just won't matter at all.

I think you're confusing the dismissal of the artist's feelings as irrelevant with some sort of proclamation that the artist is not allowed to feel that way.
HIISSSSSSSS

Offline Redamare

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3318
Re: Fearless Girl
« Reply #124 on: April 18, 2017, 08:32:13 PM »
Well, what's the point of going out of your way to dismiss his feelings as irrelevant once we've already established that no one thinks he does or should have legal recourse?
"redamare has kicked this thread's ass" -champagnej

Certainty is the enemy of wisdom.

--RED-uh-MAR-ay--

Offline SkeptiQueer

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5580
  • DEEZ NUTZ
Re: Fearless Girl
« Reply #125 on: April 18, 2017, 08:35:42 PM »
Well, what's the point of going out of your way to dismiss his feelings as irrelevant once we've already established that no one thinks he does or should have legal recourse?
Because it happened in reverse order, and it's a part of the discussion on the nature of art and whether an artist has any expectation that a statue they place without permission should remain as it is because of some strange notion of art being sacred.
HIISSSSSSSS

Offline Redamare

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3318
Re: Fearless Girl
« Reply #126 on: April 18, 2017, 08:45:19 PM »
Well, I wouldn't go that far.

I wouldn't personally fuck up someone else's composition, and I don't think much of an artist who would, but I don't feel anything needs to be done about it.
"redamare has kicked this thread's ass" -champagnej

Certainty is the enemy of wisdom.

--RED-uh-MAR-ay--

Offline The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *****
  • Posts: 4149
Re: Fearless Girl
« Reply #127 on: April 18, 2017, 09:19:19 PM »
It's interesting to me that you are making this argument in this thread, in light of the positions you have expressed in the Cultural Appropriation thread.  For some reason, you have no problem empathizing with this artist and proclaiming not only that his feelings matter, but that they are not subject to examination of their validity and that others should consider them when deciding what to do or risk being jerks; but when it comes to the appropriation of culture you do not afford those who express their displeasure at the appropriation of their culture the same courtesy: you demand that they justify their feelings to your satisfaction, and you reject the idea that refusing to alter your behavior based on their feelings makes you a jerk if you are not satisfied that their feelings are justified.  What do you think the source of this different response on your part is?
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline Redamare

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3318
Re: Fearless Girl
« Reply #128 on: April 18, 2017, 10:01:19 PM »
You are conflating two different things: my own behavior and general principles.

I made a point of saying that I am much more willing to indulge an individual's irrational feelings than I am to validate a general principle based on similar irrational feelings. Personally, my taste in fashion is very conservative. I wear white people clothes, I speak like a white person, and I am generally attracted to Western aesthetic sensibilities. So I am unlikely ever to be told that I am appropriating someone's culture.

If someone tried to say that one of the painfully white things I like is actually their thing, my first step, assuming that I know enough to debate the point, would be to politely suggest that they may be confused about the history of whatever it is. If they aren't having it, sure, I would probably decide it's much easier just not to, say, wear neckties around that person.

But if a movement rises up saying neckties are appropriated from, I don't know, let's say Native culture, I will debate it's proponents on the Internet, and I will generally oppose efforts to mainstream the idea.

And that's exactly what I was/am doing in the CA thread with respect to hoops. Which, by the way, was brought up by someone on the pro side of the discussion, if I'm not mistaken. I didn't bring it up in order to discredit CA, I argued against it on its own terms because it's stupid.
"redamare has kicked this thread's ass" -champagnej

Certainty is the enemy of wisdom.

--RED-uh-MAR-ay--

Offline The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *****
  • Posts: 4149
Re: Fearless Girl
« Reply #129 on: April 18, 2017, 10:21:45 PM »
You are not talking only about your own behavior in this thread: you have clearly stated that you do not think others should engage in this behavior as a general principle, and you justify it based on this artist's and your own subjective feelings.  I don't think there's any difference between my saying "people should not adopt cultural practices of minority populations because it causes those populations distress" and you saying "people should not place their own artwork in close proximity to other artists' work in such a way that it alters the meaning of the work because it causes the artist's distress."  In both cases we're talking about general principles justified by the subjective experiences of individuals affected by an action, but in one case you think that it is acceptible to examine the validity of those feelings while in the other you do not.  Why can't I question the validity of this artist's subjective feelings if you can question the validity of the feelings of those saying white people shouldn't wear hoop earrings?
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline Redamare

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3318
Re: Fearless Girl
« Reply #130 on: April 18, 2017, 10:38:54 PM »
Specific false claims were made to support the notion that white girls shouldn't wear hoop earrings. I opposed the general principle that white girls shouldn't wear hoops because it was based on patently false claims. That doesn't mean that I don't sympathize with people who see changes in fashion as capricious and even hostile towards the poor.

With respect to art, it's not quite correct that I take the position I take because of the feelings of the artist. It has more to do with my feelings about the integrity of art, although naturally I would sympathize to some degree with any artist whose work is affected in such a way. It just so happens that his feelings were brought up and remained central to the discussion, and actually I'm not especially sympathetic in his particular case.
"redamare has kicked this thread's ass" -champagnej

Certainty is the enemy of wisdom.

--RED-uh-MAR-ay--

Offline D4M10N

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 448
Fearless Girl
« Reply #131 on: May 30, 2017, 09:37:32 AM »
Did you guys see the new addition to the statuary collection on Wall Street?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Offline Nemmzy

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 356
Re: Fearless Girl
« Reply #132 on: May 30, 2017, 11:17:00 AM »
Lol Artists.

Anyone want to take bets on if people in this guys personal life would use the term asshole as an adjective to describe him?
« Last Edit: May 30, 2017, 11:20:21 AM by Nemmzy »

Offline Redamare

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3318
Re: Fearless Girl
« Reply #133 on: May 30, 2017, 02:38:11 PM »
Everybody has people who think they're an asshole.

Even the act of being a loyal, caring friend to someone will alienate someone else.
"redamare has kicked this thread's ass" -champagnej

Certainty is the enemy of wisdom.

--RED-uh-MAR-ay--

Offline PANTS!

  • One leg at a time.
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9284
  • What seals? I auditioned for this job.
Re: Fearless Girl
« Reply #134 on: May 30, 2017, 03:12:46 PM »
Did you guys see the new addition to the statuary collection on Wall Street?

Fair enough.  I now wonder what is next?
Now where I come from
We don't let society tell us how it's supposed to be
-Uptown, Prince 👉

We cross our bridges when we come to them and burn them behind us, with nothing to show for our progress except a memory of the smell of smoke, and a presumption that once our eyes watered.

 

personate-rain